Henry KissingerHenry Kissinger has published an editorial suggesting that the war we’ve just seen represents a shift in the challenges facing the West. He comments that Hizbullah is similar to Sadr’s forces in Iraq (not to mention what Hamas was before the last Palestinian election), essentially a state within a state and yet more powerful than the forces of the government of the state. As such, these groups can operate against nations as armies with a strong support system but outside the confines of normative international relations. Thus in Lebanon, the war against Hizbullah could not be dealt with by the UN with mediation between Hizbullah and Israel but rather between Lebanon and Israel. This, of course, took place while the weepy Saniora had no prior knowledge or input about the Hizbullah attacks and their potential outcomes.

Kissinger discusses the puppeteer behind these non-state states, Iran, and speaks of a significant global conflict which is here to some degree but its more significant battles – battles of two key civilizations – are still pending. He suggests that the US and European nations will have to work together to battle the forces of the opposing civilization and will have to do so by working together, much like they came together on the issue of resolving the Hizbullah-Israel war.

We are witnessing a carefully conceived assault, not isolated terrorist attacks, on the international system of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. The creation of organizations like Hezbollah and al-Qaida symbolizes that transnational loyalties are replacing national ones. The driving force behind this challenge is the jihadist conviction that it is the existing order that is illegitimate, not the Hezbollah and jihad method of fighting it. For the jihad’s adherents, the battlefield cannot be defined by frontiers based on principles of world order they reject; what we call terror is, to the jihadists, an act of war to undermine illegitimate regimes.

A ceasefire does not end this war; it inaugurates a new phase in it. This twin assault on the global order, by the combination of radical states with transnational non-state groups sometimes organized as militias, is a particular challenge in the Middle East, where frontiers denote few national traditions and are not yet a century old. But it could spread to wherever militant, radical Islamic groups exist. Leaders therefore are torn between following the principles of the existing international order on which their economy may depend, or yielding (if not joining) the transnational movement on which their political survival may depend.

The real goals of the Lebanese war were transnational and not Lebanese: to overcome the millennia-old split between Sunnis and Shia on the basis of hatred for Israel and America; to relieve diplomatic pressure on Iran’s nuclear program; to demonstrate that Israel would be held hostage if pressure became too acute; to establish Iran as a major factor in any negotiation; to scuttle the Palestinian peace process; to show that Syria – the second major sponsor of Hezbollah – remained in a position to pursue its ambitions in Lebanon.

The war in Lebanon has transformed the position of Israel dramatically. Heretofore the Palestinian issue has for all its intensity been about the traditional principles of the state system: the legitimacy of Israel; the creation of a Palestinian state; the drawing of borders between these entities; the security arrangement and rules for peaceful coexistence. From Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s “land for peace” formula, to Saudi Arabia’s offer of peace and mutual recognition, to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s concept of unilateral withdrawal from occupied territories, the so-called peace process was conceived as culminating in an internationally accepted peace between internationally recognized states.

Hezbollah and other rejectionist groups are determined to prevent precisely this evolution. Hezbollah, which took over southern Lebanon, and Hamas and various jihadist groups, which marginalized the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, disdain the schemes of moderate Arab and Israeli leaders. They reject the very existence of Israel, not any particular set of borders.

One of the consequences is that the traditional peace process is now in shambles. After being attacked with missiles from both Gaza and Lebanon launched by non-state jihadists, Israel will find it difficult to view unilateral withdrawal as a road to peace, nor will it be able under current conditions to find a partner to guarantee security. Finally, in the aftermath of Lebanon, the current Israeli government lacks the authority or public support to withdraw even the 80,000 settlers from the West Bank envisaged in the Sharon plan.

At the same time, an indefinite continuation of the status quo is not sustainable. Some new road map must emerge to underpin the comprehensive Mideast policy that must follow the Lebanon war. To deal with the crisis produced by the combination of non-state fanaticism and state power politics, a joint project among America, Europe, and the moderate Arab states is needed to work out a common approach. Only in this manner can a leadership accepting peaceful coexistence emerge in the occupied territories.

Everything returns to the challenge of Iran. It trains, finances, and equips Hezbollah, the state within a state in Lebanon. It finances and supports the Sadr militia, the state within a state in Iraq. It works on a nuclear weapons program, which would drive nuclear proliferation out of control and provide a safety net for the systematic destruction of at least the regional order. The challenge is now about world order more than about adjustments within an accepted framework.

Note that this article is coming out a couple of days after British PM Blair said pretty much the same thing while visiting Israel. He spoke about the leadership of the West recognizing that we are in a war of civilizations that has at its heart a war of differing ideologies but that this message has not yet filtered down to the broader populations of Western countries.

…There is one major strategic question that has changed in the whole of the international community. People everywhere now see this global movement of extremism, they see Iran putting itself at the head of it, and there is a huge strategic interest that includes America, Europe, Israel and any Arab and Muslim countries that want a modern future – there is a huge strategic interest in making sure that that extremism doesn’t succeed.

Did the Lebanon war sharpen this consciousness?

Yes, I think it did, and though obviously, for obvious reasons because many innocent people died – many innocent Israelis, many innocent Lebanese – and the destruction of so much in Lebanon is terrible, of course. And so while the conflict was going on, it was very difficult for people to think in terms of anything other than stopping the conflict. But I think that there emerged from that a clearer notion of how this came about and how Iran and to an extent Syria are pulling the strings and ensuring that there is such conflict. And so I think there has been that greater clarity.

… greater clarity in your mind. But what makes you think in the minds of other European leaders?

Because I think amongst the leaders in Europe I think it is clear. Amongst the people in Europe and Western opinion there is a big battle to be won. I mean, I’m being just honest about this. And I think there is a desire not to face the fact that we are fighting a global struggle. There are all sorts of issues to do with America and whether people want to be associated with America. And I think there is sometimes a naivete about organizations like Hezbollah and the activities of Iran. I’m just being frank. I think there is a battle, and it is important that we take our case out and win that battle.

…Western opinion always wants to believe that it’s our fault and these people want to have a sort of, you know, grievance culture that they visit upon us and say it’s our fault. And so we have a young British- born man of Pakistani origin sitting in front of a television screen saying I will go and kill innocent people because of the oppression of Muslims, when he has been brought up in a country that has given him complete religious freedom and full democratic rights and actually a very good job and standard of living. Now, that warped mind has grown out of a global movement based on a perversion of Islam which we have to confront, and we have to confront it globally.

And as I said recently in my L.A. speech, the first way to win a battle is to realize you’re in a battle. That’s part of the trouble: We don’t yet really understand this is a global movement and it requires a global strategy to beat it.

One other point – you can’t beat it simply by security or military means. This is an ideological battle. It’s got to be taken out to the enemy. And that’s why I say it’s important for us always to be the ones who have got a political strategy running alongside the military strategy. We should never, ever, whatever the technical difficulties, let the political strategy fall away.

About the author

themiddle

37 Comments

  • Great analysis from Kissinger. And I felt sadness reading Blair’s comments, given his impending replacement by Mr. Brown. As leader of a left party in Europe, Blair has a special credibility on these issues that will be greatly missed.

  • Kissinger has been gravely injured by the Left’s ongoing attempt to turn him into a monster of war and killing, but he always was and remains a sharp analyst of international politics and diplomacy.

    I agree about Blair, although I always despised his former Foreign Minister, Straw, with his never-ending criticisms of Israel. I do feel, as we’ve discussed, that Blair and Bush got the “war on terror” wrong and have wasted/are wasting incredible resources on the deeply flawed and ultimately unprovoked war in Iraq. As such, despite their early recognition of the problem, they have placed us at a greater distance from a solution. On the other hand, if Blair is a lame duck, which he may already be, whether he departs or not is immaterial since he cannot take a strong hand with respect to Iran or any other part of this civilizational battle. In any case, I don’t think the leadership is in place to tackle what needs to be tackled in Europe and also very possibly in the US. For that matter, Israel proved it wasn’t up to it either. If we are dealing with a foe who uses international conventions against us while flaunting them, and if they have shown the capacity to fight effectively and dangerously, the solution lies in creative warfare, changing of the paradigm of how one fights wars, and a significant global diplomatic thrust to ensure that the people on the street agree with what their leaders and armies are doing. Integrity, by the way, needs to be a prime component in all of this.

  • “Kissinger has been gravely injured by the Left’s ongoing attempt to turn him into a monster of war and killing, but he always was and remains a sharp analyst of international politics and diplomacy.”

    These are not mutually exclusive positions. I would agree with much of the Left’s depiction, and still grant that he is a “sharp analyst of international politics and diplomacy.”

    Allowing for both would be — oh, I dont know, the realpolitik position, perhaps?

  • Blair and Bush are, or are about to become, lame ducks, and their power to shape events going forward will sharply diminish. But at least Blair articulates the stakes better than any other European leader I can think of (though I hold out hope for Angela Merkel).

    As for the US– whether it’s this year or 2008, I suspect Democrats will get their chance to take different approaches. You may be right that a paradigm shift is in order. The alternative to Bush/Blair very much remains to be seen, however. The Democrats have yet to favor us with one.

  • Agreed. Then again, part of the problem will be that any “plan” they present will become the object of ridicule. It’s better for them to wait until the next presidential elections.

  • . . . Or ’til the end of this one. The presidential campaign will start in earnest right after the ’06 elections, and Hillary et al. will likely have to stake out positions on Iraq, terrorism, Iran etc.

    I hope the issues as you frame them will be addressed– they transcend what to do next in Iraq– but the quality of our political discourse has been pretty abysmal, so I’m not hopeful. And we’ve such a need for fresh thinking.

  • Cactus, peace or the Sinai was a great exchange. Its too bad Kissinger couldn’t have ‘forced Begin’ to give away the West Bank and Gaza Strip too. Shit might be a little more peaceful.

    Nice picture The Middle

  • Jon C. that movie by Begin led to his downfall and Israel’s as well. Read some Israel history then come back and we can talk.

  • which movie are you talking about? Kippur? Operation Thunderbolt? How has giving up the Sinai contributed to Israel’s downfall? There is no threat from Egypt anymore is there? If you think back to 1973, Egypt crossed the Suez easily and could have continued if they didn’t stop to regroup. Explain to me how Israel would be better off right now if they were still at war w/ Egypt and Jordan? Maybe use some of the Israeli history facts which I am lacking to come up with a real argument. Not some off the wall comment about Begin being a movie producer or whatever the hell you were trying to say.

  • sorry, there was a typo. MOVE = MOVIE.

    You dont give into Arabs, you dont give up land of Israel. Arabs think they can get stuff now with your liberal non Jewish way of thinking now. Come on son, use your jewish thinking cap.

  • Ramabam, the greatest posk and Jewish philiosopher of all time, says you must not give up any part of Eretz Yisrael to heathens. Thus, until the Muslims get their act together (which will be never), there can be no comprimise. Remember who it was given to, read your Tanachim

  • Also, tht ruling only applies to endangered or weaken nations who are ‘gerim toshavim’ that need Israeli protection. Thus, the Arabs are not, THEY HAVE 22 STATES. Therfore, the ruling cannot apply in this case

  • Your momma Cactus. But seriously I don’t think one can ‘learn’ Torah. We can only strive to become more enlightened by Torah each day. And what exactly does that have to do with Kissinger?

  • Why the Lashan Hara? You need to start learning some ye ol Torah to understand. Elidabomb apparently has. Maybe you guys can be hevrutas?

  • As one of those who believes that getting rid of the Sinai – for nothing, much less for a cessation of hostilities with Israel’s most powerful enemy in the Arab world – was one hell of a deal, I’ve always wondered what delusion leads Jews like CactusJack to think we’re afflicted with self-loathing. Far from loathing, I’d say I tend to regard myself with downright adoration. I do, on the other hand, have a copious supply of loathing for idol-worshipping Jews like CactusJack.

  • Smith doesn’t sound very Jewish. your mother knock up a goy somewhere along the line?

  • TM let Tom Morrissey know that if we were going to be toast that would have happened a long time ago. Yes our collective bell was rung hard sixty years ago and our heads are still ringing, boing boing. But we aren’t going anywhere. We have a promis from Upstairs. Nobody should get pessimistic because it is not an effective life plan.

    Love,
    Mom

  • (Who is Anita Ward? Since Michael is singing, it must be a singer. The list of pop culture references I don’t get is very long. This calls for ice cream.)

  • Anita Ward is a singer whose most famous song – in fact, her only famous song – is “Ring My Bell,” from the fading days of the disco era. Ringing one’s bell in the context of the song, however, refers to something altogether different than what you were referring to. The song was also given a notable makeover by famed reggae producers Sly and Robbie in tandem with the Blood Sisters, and the resulting product was an essentially note-for-note cover of the original, only made much more ominous and better thanks to Sly and Robbie’s trademark spare dub production. There, all you ever need to know about Ring My Bell. What flavor of ice cream?

  • Thank you. Vanilla with chocolate on the outside, and little nut jammies all over it. It’s the only kosher thing in the machine. I find it very good for me.

  • thanks, michael! i kind of love it, it’s so unexpected. how i envy the ability to see (hear?) that potential. who doesn’t have a soft spot for disco, though? so campy!

  • I am unashamed of my affection for disco. I have enough credibility garnered by my love for Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Al Green, Curtis Mayfield, Donny Hathaway and the other gods of ’70s R&B to be able to like disco, which is basically ’70s R&B for coke-addled white people anyway. And there’s nothing wrong with that. God knows I’m not the only one who secretly sings along with “Got To Be Real.” And of course, they can give it all the new names they want, but “house” is, as far as I’m concerned, French for “disco.”

    As far as Sly-and-Robbie-do-Anita-Ward, it’s interesting that the vocal line is literally 100% the same, but the addition of the standard Sly and Robbie riddim completely changes the character of the song, even before it starts getting all dubby. And of course, it features Sly and Robbie’s trademark: the weird synthesizer that goes “bwoo!”, as featured in probably every single song Black Uhuru ever recorded (and also in the original “Ring My Bell,” come to think of it). And that alone makes it worth listening to, and it undeniably kicks the ass of the original. But honestly, I kind of think that most things are better when turned into dub…

  • You’re not even a litle ashamed? It’s part of the fun. I definitely categorize a sober sing-along to “Got to Be Real” as a guilty pleasure. Although I am fond of the song, if only for its association with Paris is Burning.

    Actually, I was kind of wishing they hadn’t sung it exactly like Anita Ward, but the Blood Sisters sound better to me anyway. None of that contrived whispery shit.

Leave a Comment