Why Woodward and America Need To Listen to Kissinger
Given the rising sectarian violence and the inability of either US or local forces to create stability in Iraq, it’s easy to be a critic of the US strategy in the Middle East. You don’t need to read the National Intelligence Estimate to know that victory looks less likely with each passing day.
So when Bob Woodward writes that Henry Kissinger is telling the President that “victory is the only meaningful exit strategy” in Iraq, most readers will agree with Woodward’s assessment that Kissinger is mired in the past and “fighting the Vietnam war again.”
And Kissinger might be, but that doesn’t mean that he’s wrong.
To some extent, Woodward mocks Kissinger for contending that “the problem in Vietnam was that we lost our will.” Whether or not this was true for Vietnam, it must not be true for the Middle East.
Today, most critics of the administration’s policy in Iraq suggest that US forces should withdraw from the region as soon as possible. This would be disastrous for the US because it would further embolden and empower anti-Western forces in the Middle East.
Our leaders need to reassess their strategy and develop a more effective, comprehensive approach to the challenges we face, but the citizens of Western nations must do their part as well
Citizens must leave no doubt in the minds of our enemies that we will do whatever it takes to make sure that the Iraqi people live under a free and stable government and that we are as committed to defending our own open culture as Islamic fascists are to spreading their repressive one.
Critics suggesting that US troops should leave Iraq need to take a close look at what happened after Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. Even though Hezbollah was on the defensive due to the success of Israeli military operations led by Egoz and despite the fact that the withdrawal was actually part of a comprehensive political process that included a peace treaty with Jordan and the implementation of the Oslo Accords, Syria and Iran celebrated Israel’s withdrawal as if they had achieved a strategic victory. Some analysts even contend that the failure of the Camp David talks – that took place just two months after the Israeli withdrawal – resulted from a reviving of Arafat’s belief that he could extract more concessions through violence than negotiations.
Within just a few months of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah was taking up positions several yards from the border with Israel, Syria was tightening its grip on Lebanon, Iran extended its reach by supplying Hezbollah with hundreds of millions of dollars as well as sophisticated weapons, and Palestinian terrorists launched almost daily attacks against Israeli citizens.
The surge in activity by extremists did not the result from a change in perception regarding Israeli military capabilities. Rather, there was a belief that the Israeli public had lost the will to fight and, out of fear for casualties, would restrain the military.
Ironically, recent events in Lebanon demonstrate that a country can achieve its strategic objectives even when its military fails in its mission. But this can only happen when the public exhibits a clear willingness to endure attacks and keep fighting.
While Hizbollah celebrated its ability to keep firing rockets and the mere fact of its survival, the Lebanese people were crying out for the fighting to stop. By contrast, the Israeli military and political establishment made a litany of mistakes that hindered success on the ground, but the Israeli public – especially those who were at the most risk – demonstrated that they would endure whatever was thrown at them and urged their leaders to continue fighting for as long as it took.
In the aftermath of the war, the Lebanese people are questioning the actions that brought about the conflict and are concerned about the consequences of renewed fighting. The Israeli people are asking why their military wasn’t empowered to do more and are mainly making sure their leaders do a better job next time.
As a result of the Israeli public’s clear expression – during and after the conflict – of their willingness to endure any attack and continue fighting for as long as necessary, the Lebanese people, Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran know that the full power of the Israeli military will be unleashed in response to another attack and that any new attack will not bring them any political advantage.
For this reason, despite the critical errors made by the Israeli political and military leadership in July, Hizbollah’s forces are no longer arrayed yards from the Israeli border, there is worldwide recognition that the regional instability caused by the Iranian-Syrian-Hizbollah alliance must be put to an end, and an increasing number of Lebanese groups are calling for the dismantling of Hizbollah as a separate military force. Israel has wanted this since 2000.
The Israeli experience should demonstrate that gaining public support for the ongoing clash between the West and Islamic fascists can’t just be about internal politics because our enemies are mostly listening to what is said by average citizens, not our leaders.
And for this reason, the citizens of the West must make clear that their demands for a better strategy and a more effective management of the war should not be misconstrued to mean that they are not resolved to fight until victory is achieved.
It might seem that the West is engaged in a war of choice, but the war will not end by bringing our soldiers home. The battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan are of our own making, but the only way out is for the citizens of Western countries to make clear that they are willing to endure any difficulty and make any sacrifice in order to ensure victory.
This is a war of wills and we are standing eyeball to eyeball with an intractable enemy who understands how we think and how our political systems work. We must not blink.
Given the rising sectarian violence and the inability of either US or local forces to create stability in Iraq, it’s easy to be a critic of the US strategy in the Middle East. You don’t need to read the National Intelligence Estimate to know that victory looks less likely with each passing day.
So when Bob Woodward writes that Henry Kissinger is telling the President that “victory is the only meaningful exit strategy” in Iraq, most readers will agree with Woodward’s assessment that Kissinger is mired in the past and “fighting the Vietnam war again.”
And Kissinger might be, but that doesn’t mean that he’s wrong.
To some extent, Woodward mocks Kissinger for contending that “the problem in Vietnam was that we lost our will.” Whether or not this was true for Vietnam, it must not be true for the Middle East.
Today, most critics of the administration’s policy in Iraq suggest that US forces should withdraw from the region as soon as possible. This would be disastrous for the US because it would further embolden and empower anti-Western forces in the Middle East.
Our leaders need to reassess their strategy and develop a more effective, comprehensive approach to the challenges we face, but the citizens of Western nations must do their part as well
Citizens must leave no doubt in the minds of our enemies that we will do whatever it takes to make sure that the Iraqi people live under a free and stable government and that we are as committed to defending our own open culture as Islamic fascists are to spreading their repressive one.
Critics suggesting that US troops should leave Iraq need to take a close look at what happened after Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. Even though Hezbollah was on the defensive due to the success of Israeli military operations led by Egoz and despite the fact that the withdrawal was actually part of a comprehensive political process that included a peace treaty with Jordan and the implementation of the Oslo Accords, Syria and Iran celebrated Israel’s withdrawal as if they had achieved a strategic victory. Some analysts even contend that the failure of the Camp David talks – that took place just two months after the Israeli withdrawal – resulted from a reviving of Arafat’s belief that he could extract more concessions through violence than negotiations.
Within just a few months of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah was taking up positions several yards from the border with Israel, Syria was tightening its grip on Lebanon, Iran extended its reach by supplying Hezbollah with hundreds of millions of dollars as well as sophisticated weapons, and Palestinian terrorists launched almost daily attacks against Israeli citizens.
The surge in activity by extremists did not the result from a change in perception regarding Israeli military capabilities. Rather, there was a belief that the Israeli public had lost the will to fight and, out of fear for casualties, would restrain the military.
Ironically, recent events in Lebanon demonstrate that a country can achieve its strategic objectives even when its military fails in its mission. But this can only happen when the public exhibits a clear willingness to endure attacks and keep fighting.
While Hizbollah celebrated its ability to keep firing rockets and the mere fact of its survival, the Lebanese people were crying out for the fighting to stop. By contrast, the Israeli military and political establishment made a litany of mistakes that hindered success on the ground, but the Israeli public – especially those who were at the most risk – demonstrated that they would endure whatever was thrown at them and urged their leaders to continue fighting for as long as it took.
In the aftermath of the war, the Lebanese people are questioning the actions that brought about the conflict and are concerned about the consequences of renewed fighting. The Israeli people are asking why their military wasn’t empowered to do more and are mainly making sure their leaders do a better job next time.
As a result of the Israeli public’s clear expression – during and after the conflict – of their willingness to endure any attack and continue fighting for as long as necessary, the Lebanese people, Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran know that the full power of the Israeli military will be unleashed in response to another attack and that any new attack will not bring them any political advantage.
For this reason, despite the critical errors made by the Israeli political and military leadership in July, Hizbollah’s forces are no longer arrayed yards from the Israeli border, there is worldwide recognition that the regional instability caused by the Iranian-Syrian-Hizbollah alliance must be put to an end, and an increasing number of Lebanese groups are calling for the dismantling of Hizbollah as a separate military force. Israel has wanted this since 2000.
The Israeli experience should demonstrate that gaining public support for the ongoing clash between the West and Islamic fascists can’t just be about internal politics because our enemies are mostly listening to what is said by average citizens, not our leaders.
And for this reason, the citizens of the West must make clear that their demands for a better strategy and a more effective management of the war should not be misconstrued to mean that they are not resolved to fight until victory is achieved.
It might seem that the West is engaged in a war of choice, but the war will not end by bringing our soldiers home. The battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan are of our own making, but the only way out is for the citizens of Western countries to make clear that they are willing to endure any difficulty and make any sacrifice in order to ensure victory.
This is a war of wills and we are standing eyeball to eyeball with an intractable enemy who understands how we think and how our political systems work. We must not blink.
posted by Adam Harmon at
12:21 AM
0 Comments
