When I post entries here, I categorize them: culture, current events, politics, motorcycling, flying, war, etc. Usually it’s a no-brainer. But sometimes I drift into areas that are more difficult to pin down.
Example: suppose I write about the terrorist bombings in Mumbai and the frightening events in Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon. How do I file my entry? Under war? Current events?
So the first thing I do is to review what’s already filed under those categories. Speaking for myself only – and this was news to me – if it’s about our wars in Iraq or Afghanistan it’s war. If it’s about someone else’s war, it’s current events. Except when it’s the opposite.
Now, I’m thinking about adding a new, more inclusive category.
If you were hoping for useful insights into the latest horrors, you won’t find them here. I just don’t know enough about India and its enemies, or about Israel and its enemies (other than that Israel’s enemies are legion).
I can’t imagine what kind of beef Al Qaeda would have with India, and suspect the bombings were carried out by an internal terror organization copying Al Qaeda tactics, notably the Madrid train bombings. What worked in Madrid, and now Mumbai, will no doubt be copied again and again, all around the world.
Honestly, my heart’s with Israel, as vicious and heavy-handed as they’ve been in their response. And at least they’re going after Hamas and Hezbollah, the groups that attacked and kidnapped their soldiers, not invading some poor schmuck of a country that had nothing to do with those attacks and kidnappings. The trouble is that Hamas is embedded in Palestine and Gaza, as Hezbollah is embedded in Lebanon. Thousands of innocent bystanders will be devastated, wounded, and killed . . . check that, are being devastated, wounded, and killed.
But I’ve always wondered how things might have turned out if Jimmy Carter had responded differently – say, in a vicious and heavy-handed way – when the Iranians seized our embassy in Tehran. If, for example, he’d promptly threatened Iran with a massive attack unless the hostages were immediately released, and made it perfectly clear he was prepared to carry it out. Probably things would have turned out disastrously – almost certainly they would have – but I’ll always wonder.
I mentioned the copying of successful tactics, and I suspose kidnappings are the coming thing. To be sure, Hamas and Hezbollah are getting a lot of mileage out of it, and they’ll certainly try it again. We’re starting to see kidnappings of American soldiers in Iraq, probably soon in Afghanistan. How long do you supposed it’ll be that instead of just killing them, the kidnappers start sending us videos of US soldiers begging for their lives?
Back to categories: what to call this new one? “Oh My God” sounds about right.
Dick 07/16/06 6:38 AM
“Oh My God” is good. Paul, what we are seeing is “asymmetric warfare.” The fundamentalist Muslims are practicing it and they are good at it. Basically, the idea is to take away an address that can be targeted. The best way to do this is to organize on an international basis but stay subnational, i.e. no recognized national government that can be held accountable. Unfortunately, Islam has offered the Arabs the vehicle to do this.
Israel got something very valuable when they gave up Gaza. Hamas and Hezbollah now have an address! Standby, Hamas. Do something stupid and a missile is on the way. Ain’t governing and taking care of your people fun?
Here’s what I think is going on in Lebanon. The Israelis are simply saying “Hey, you’re the government so control your crazies or we will punish you.” I doubt it will work. But they are certainly stirring up Syria, which is to our benefit in Iraq.
For better or worse, we are not going to get out of the Middle East. The reason is simple: oil. The modern, western, industrialized world needs it and Europe expects us to take the lead in securing it.
It’s called “Realpolitik,” one of the dirtiest words in our vocabulary.
One last thought. When I first started flying in the pit of F-4s, my squadron commander had a saying, “Always honor the threat.” Maybe it’s time we apply that principle to the crazies of the world. Eventually, they will get the idea that “Hey, that’s not a good idea.”
Paul Woodford 07/17/06 4:22 PM
Dick, I agree: like it or not, we can’t disengage from the Middle East, at least until they run out of oil. But is what we’re doing realpolitik? If invading Iraq were an act of realpolitik, we’d be swimming in oil.
Yes, we have to be an actor in the Middle East. But there must be another way. An intelligent administration would be looking for that way.