[A-List] The war's implications for Israel - Ha'aretz April 11, 2003

["Ralph Johansen" <michele@xxxxxxxx>]

<the invasion of Iraq dramatically lowers Israel's stock as a strategic
asset....The United States does the dirty work itself.>

The war's implications for Israel
By Aviad Kleinberg
Ha'aretz
April 11, 2003

The war in Iraq was more than the first expression of the United States'
readiness to go to war as an empire. It was also a conceptual experiment
that bears profound implications. What the United States learned from this
test - as had already been hinted in the smaller war fought in Afghanistan -
is that it is the master of the world and can make use of its force almost
without interference and without it exacting a true price, neither in
casualties nor in economic or strategic assets.

The choice of Iraq was no accident. Iraq was not selected because it posed a
strategic threat. Even if it had stocks of chemical weapons, it is hard to
view these as a global danger. There are countries that are far more
dangerous. The reason Iraq was chosen is that it was relatively weak,
because the possibility of getting mired there was small. Hence, it was
ideal for a demonstration of the new Clausewitzian concept of war as the
continuation of diplomacy.

The Americans went into this war without having concrete support. England is
an ally of largely-symbolic significance. The Americans could have got by
without the British. The Russians, the European Union and the United Nations
were all against the war. It turned out that they were not needed, that
their protests were irrelevant, and that their tails were already wagging,
instinctively, to greet the victors.

The threats about the awakening strength of the Muslim world also turned out
to be empty. The Americans had already discovered this in Afghanistan: You
can fight with impunity during the holy month of Ramadan and without a
Muslim coalition. There is no "Muslim world." The war of civilizations was
decided long ago by Coca-Cola and McDonald's - the John the Baptists of
capitalism - and by the savior himself - Microsoft and the Internet.

The American hesitancy was less of a realistic perception than it was a late
manifestation of the trauma of Vietnam. Not only the Arab regimes refrained
from reacting to the conquest of Baghdad and Karbala, but the
supposedly-fanatic Arab masses also stayed home.

The world has a new sheriff who does not hesitate to use his pistol, with or
without partners, with or without sanction, with or without justification.
The rules have changed. What are the new rules? Well, this question reminds
me of the first time I rented a car. I started to look over the leasing
contract. "Let me save you the time," the clerk said. "We're always right
and you're always wrong."

There is only one country in the world that has not yet fully grasped the
implications of the American invasion of Iraq, and that country is Israel.
>From certain points of view, the invasion worked in Israel's favor. The work
of the just is always done by others. Iraq, despite all the bombastic
pronouncements by President Bush, is not a strategic threat to the United
States or to the free world, but it is definitely a threat to Israel. That
threat has been removed, more or less.

However, the invasion of Iraq dramatically lowers Israel's stock as a
strategic asset. And not because Israel is not loyal to Uncle Sam; on the
contrary, it is a most obedient and faithful vassal.

It's just that Israel is not really needed. Israel's great strategic weight
stemmed from its ability to act - or to constitute a potential threat - in a
region in which the United States did not want to intervene directly. Israel
was a regional mini-power through which it was possible to threaten the
Soviet bloc and its satellites, or the Arab world. Israel preserved American
interests.

If American involvement becomes direct, there is no further need for
mediators. The United States does the dirty work itself. Moreover, as I have
argued, American intervention in the Middle East was chosen less for any
salient interest (that is, an economic-strategic interest) and more because
it is easy to carry out.

In the new world, Arab oil is not insignificant, but its significance is far
less than it used to be. From other aspects, the Middle East has mainly
nuisance value.

What will be the significance of the structural reduction in Israel's
status? It will mean that American readiness to go on paying so as to
extricate us from the morass in which we are mired will be diminished. It is
unlikely that the United States will exert increasing pressure on Israel in
order to achieve durable political solutions. The United States will make do
with bad solutions, based on the long-standing American principle of forging
poor settlements the consequences of which will be paid by others in the
future.

Donald Rumsfeld has no inclination to give prizes to Arafat and his
successors. He even likes Ariel Sharon. But the whole thing is starting to
cost too much money. American support will be reduced. The economic crisis
will deepen. Israeli democracy will continue to be eroded. It won't take
much for Israel to become just another Third World country that solicits
help from those willing to be generous.

What conclusion should Israel draw from the war? That it should hurry on its
own to achieve a good settlement that will make it possible to rehabilitate
the economy and start rehabilitating the society and the state of democracy
in the country. In the new world, Israel's major asset is not military might
but genuine membership in the club of the advanced countries.


This e-mail was scanned by RAV Antivirus. (www.ravantivirus.com)