Navigation:
Reporting on the Middle East, Science, and Education for September 3, 2006 - י' אלול תשס"ו
Pages
Archives
Toward a better future through tolerance and mutualism
Sponsored By:
By Andrew J. Bacevich | August 27, 2006, Boston Globe
Excerpts
Despite a massive American and Israeli technological edge, including nuclear arsenals, mounting evidence suggests that the age of Western military ascendancy is coming to an end. Muslim radicals have evolved an Islamist way of war that is as complex as it is cunning. As a consequence, in and around the Persian Gulf the military balance is shifting. The failures suffered by the United States in Iraq and by Israel in southern Lebanon may well signify a turning point in modern military history, comparable in significance to the development of blitzkrieg in the 1930s or of the atomic bomb a decade later. Although the full implications of this shift are not clear, they promise to be huge, calling into question basic strategic assumptions that have held sway in the United States and Israel.
If the “global war on terror” is unwinnable as currenty conceived, what is to be done? For the United States, here’s a five-point alternative strategy. First, terminate actions that are self-evidently counterproductive, above all by extricating ourselves in an orderly way from Iraq. Second, revive in modified form the Cold War principles of containment and deterrence, incorporating explicit security guarantees for Israel, much as the United States has long guaranteed the security of Europe, Japan, and South Korea. Third, initiate a new Manhattan Project to develop alternative sources of energy, thereby increasing US freedom of action and reducing the flow of wealth to the Persian Gulf, wealth that ends up subsidizing the Islamist cause. Fourth, through police action, in collaboration with our allies, redouble efforts to dismantle the organizations comprising the radical Islamist network. Fifth, patiently nurture liberalizing tendencies within the Islamic world, not by preaching or threats of regime change, but by demonstrating at home and inviting Muslims abroad to witness, the manifest advantages of freedom and democracy.
This alternative strategy will also entail costly exertions over a long period of time. Unlike the current “war on terror,” however, it promises to be affordable and sustainable, while holding out the prospect of delivering success in the long run.
For Israel, the risks posed by such a shift in strategy are considerable and very much at odds with the self-reliant strategic traditions of the Jewish state. A US strategy of containment places Israelis in the position in which West Berliners found themselves throughout the Cold War: a democratic island in a hostile sea, their survival dependent on the good faith of the United States. An Israeli government might well judge those risks unacceptable. Rather than relying on Washington, it may count instead on the IDF to hold the Islamists at bay.
What makes sense for the United States does not necessarily make sense for Israel. Israel must do whatever best serves its own interests; so, too, must the United States. We are two nations. Our circumstances differ. At some point Israeli policies and US policies for dealing with the Islamist threat may diverge. This pivotal juncture in modern military history may bring us to that moment.
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book, “The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War” (Oxford), has just come out in paperback. 
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
Source: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/?page=full
