You may have noticed that John Kerry’s peace process, by excluding Hamas among other measures, is aimed at managing the conflict. Not resolving the basic justice issues, because they seem too overwhelming, but putting the conflict on the back burner so it doesn’t boil up. Trying to sustain the unsustainable status quo by making it more sustainable.
In the New York Times, Edward N. Luttwak has the very same prescription for Syria. “In Syria, America loses if either side wins.” Luttwak wants endless bloodshed– “four of Washington’s enemies” tied down in neverending war. It seems like these include Israel’s enemies, Hezbollah and Iran.
His chief concern seems to be Syria’s troubles pouring into Israel:
At this point, a prolonged stalemate is the only outcome that would not be damaging to American interests.”
…Mr. Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy — posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel….
Israel could not expect tranquillity on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria…
By tying down Mr. Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America’s allies.
That this is now the best option is unfortunate, indeed tragic, but favoring it is not a cruel imposition on the people of Syria, because a great majority of them are facing exactly the same predicament.
Luttwak wants unending war:
Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning.
This reminds me of the vision laid out to me when I first visited Israel: They don’t want us here so there must be one war after another after another till they accept us. It in turn reminds me that many years ago the “Arabists” in the State Department warned the White House that Israel could only be established by force, and preserved by force.
That is how things have worked out. Now that force seems to include Managed Conflict in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon too.
Speaking of a lack of vision, here is Luttwak on Gaza back in early 2009, during Cast Lead. “Yes, Israel can win in Gaza.” More justification of conflict management, forever. And treating a slaughter as a victory.
Consider: According to Gaza sources, until the ground fighting started some 25% of the 500 dead were innocent civilians. The Israelis claimed that 20% of the casualties from the aerial attack were civilians. Either way, this was an extremely accurate bombing campaign….
So how did Israel do it? The only possible explanation is that people in Gaza have been informing the Israelis exactly where Hamas fighters and leaders are hiding, and where weapons are stored. No doubt some informers are merely corrupt, paid agents earning a living. But others must choose to provide intelligence because they oppose Hamas… Hamas completely disregards the day-to-day welfare of all Gazans in order to pursue its millenarian vision of an Islamic Palestine.
Some in Gaza must also resent Iran’s role in instigating the barrage of rockets fired on Israel. And all must know that the longer-range rockets are supplied by Iran along with money for Hamas leaders, while ordinary Palestinians languish in poverty….
Update: I added a key excerpt from Luttwak to this piece — his arming the rebels argument — after commenters pointed it out.
Israel started off with material manpower advantages over the Palestinians – WW2 veterans with battle experience. 1948 was a walkover. Israel then developed material weapon advantages – Egypt gets F x and Israel gets F x+1 fighters.
The danger of permanent war in Syria is that the Arabs develop fighters to beat the crap out of Israeli occupation managers. 2006 gave a foretaste.
And it’s just not Jewish.
And it’s really stupid.
Note this well:
Israelis and pro-Israel activists (like Edward Luttwak) are urging Americans to provide support to al-Qaeda — the very same group which they also assert was responsible for 9/11 — the worst terrorist event in American history.
At some point they are going to be undone by their bizarre self-contradictions — and much too much cleverness and selfish scheming. And all the parties that they have attempted to tie up in bloody wars may turn their full, undivided and unified attention to those who have attempted to manipulate them. Luttwak is playing a dangerous game.
Among the many parties that have been manipulated: Americans themselves.
Edward N. Luttwak’s best option for Israel/US in Syria is continued conflict,very cynical, but unfortunately for them Assad appears to be winning which would strengthen the arc of resistance Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, if Assad were to fall Hezbollah would be exposed and Iran would be confronted with a united Sunni front, something Iran nor Hezbollah will allow to happen, these wars are existential for all participants, the US would like a puppet in Syria but ultimately regime change in Iran is the prize.
The late lamented Richard Ben Cramer in his book ‘How Israel Lost’ of a few years ago based his analysis on the idea that the preferred option is ‘living without a solution’. This seems to be another variation on the same theme.
Managed (i.e. intentional) suffering is a better capture of the overall practice, internal and external. It really is a malignancy (abomination, sickness, pick a word).
I understand what you are saying and sorry to be so angry on this all the time. This conflict has to be solved. Too high a cost for it to continue.
The US is heading down the same road of managed conflict. We have about 50 years to go in our GWOT to match Israel’s mindset today (though as you show, the batsh*t crazy Luttwaks of the US policy establishment are merging the two). I’d like to think we come to our senses before that. At least we have Israel as a model/predictor/outcome, though it’s unclear whether the policy crosstalk/pro-Israel embeds/lack of “Arabists” will steer us away from seeing where we/US are going before something serious happens to us and the world.