Last night, my friend walked into the room and said: “They’re starting World War III in Gaza.” I think he may be right.
Al Qaeda likely expected America to attack Afghanistan, but couldn’t have hoped for the boon of Iraq. In Iraq there have been over 90,000 documented civilians killed, and in Afghanistan, estimates range from 10,000 to 25,000. What could be greater for turning Al Qaeda from a bunch of fringe lunatics who speciously claimed that America was out to persecute Arabs and take their resources, than America invading and occupying Iraq on faulty motives, culminating with Abu Ghraib, and nearly 100,000 dead civilians?
This is a storyline we borrowed from Israel, and now they seem to have taken it back. Indeed, Hamas’ endstate- its key to success and survival- is to keep the casualty rates of innocent Palestinians high, as this adds a veneer of circumstantial credibility to their activities, and increases international hatred of Israel and the countries who support Israel among Muslims worldwide.
ROE
In the military, on the tactical level, we have “Rules of Engagement” (ROE). ROE are criteria for engaging targets during war, usually in the form of orders which detail restrictions or requirements for what, when, and how to shoot. For example, ROE may prohibit shooting at mosques, or require non-lethal deterrents be used on approaching cars before shooting bullets. Usually, ROE are contentious because tactical commanders rightly want as much latitude as possible to protect their troops and accomplish their missions. But the ROE are put in place to preserve the political or strategic intent of military action by preventing violence that would actually undermine these broader objectives. In most wars, ROE are quickly modified to increase freedom to engage the enemy, but this can have an indirect effect on higher-level strategy.
This is why fighting insurgencies is such exhaustive and expensive work that requires total commitment and a long-term vision. If Afghan villagers are told by the Taliban that they will be killed for betraying them and protected for supporting them, and if the Afghani military or US forces cannot offer credible alternatives, the village will choose to support the Taliban. Any indecision over this dilemma will end rapidly if the US bombs a suspected Taliban meeting and in doing so kills 90 local villagers- as actually happened this summer. Then, that village will not be won; the counterinsurgency will have failed there, by uniting the villagers with the Taliban in common grievance, and validating the Taliban propaganda.
To what end?
Hamas is not an insurgency inside Israel, but in a way, Israel is battling for hearts and minds- both those of Gazans to convince them not to support Hamas, and of the international community, to help bring Hamas to its knees and build support for Israeli policy. But in both of these goals, Israel is failing.
What has been Israel’s objective in Gaza this week? I would submit that a smart objective would have been to subvert the rocket and mortar attacks against its own citizens while preventing any action that might engender additional support for Hamas.
Militarily, I would develop a long-term infiltration program, insert commando teams in disguise to raid Hamas, and use unmanned surveillance drones and satellite observation to locate rockets, launch sites, and Hamas teams in action. Then I would kill those guys with as little peripheral damage or threat to civilian life as possible; I would develop and enforce strict ROE to meet these requirements, accepting any resulting degradation in the lethality of my military program.
I would restrict aerial bombardment except in the protection of troops on the ground or against geographically isolated and hardened targets, and I would never target universities or apartment buildings a priori. Because to do so, as this week has shown, is to kill hundreds of civilians without remorse, drastically disrupting the equality of grievance.
However, Israel’s objective seems, to this outsider, to be internal political gains. Put succinctly by Pennsylvania senator William Maclay in 1794: “War is often entered into to answer domestic, not foreign purposes.” What does Israel gain from this gory attack on Gaza? Domestically, perhaps it gets kudos from right-wingers. Internationally, it suffers huge losses, as America did in Iraq.
WWIII
Unfortunately, as I have written before in 2 Dinar, Israel’s problems are our problems as well, because American politicians have decided to play to, and cultivate further, the lobby for the defense and ideological support of Israel at all costs. The official response from Washington? Rice said that the US holds Hamas responsible for the violence in Gaza.
But back to World War III: The aggression and violence wrought on Gaza this weekend by Israel has a distinct feeling of an action without restraint. I have no trouble imagining an Arab nation stepping into the conflict and being followed by others perhaps emboldened by the US’ overextension of military power in Iraq and Afghanistan, eventually lighting off an international spate of violence over anti-Israel sentiment that has been bubbling at the surface from Damascus to Paris.
Israel is taking cues from the US, but could stand to take a lesson instead. Shun the short term domestic gains that attacking your rivals can bring at the polls and consider the long term losses that result when you destroy your reputation and isolate yourself from moderates. As Steven Erlanger of the NY Times put it succinctly: "Damage to the popular perception of Israel may be more lasting than any strategic gains or losses."
Warfighting is best done without restraint against military targets. But Israel doesn’t need a war in Gaza; it needs a joint Arab-American intervention that compels, not requests, the killing to stop. Hamas: Israel will never be destroyed. Israel: Bombs will empower, not destroy Hamas.
[Edits made 17 Jan]
Further Reading: NY Times Washington Post Al Jazeera Economist interview with Rami Khouri Economist interview with Yossi Mekelberg
NY Times Video (Gaza)