A rchive Date
[ 28-07-2006 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Israel ]
|
[http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Harris_Michael/2006/07/28/1706490.html
Fighting wars of choice
By MICHAEL HARRIS
Fri, July 28, 2006
Welcome to the new world: Wars of choice, chocolate and vanilla partisanship, and impotence disguised as diplomacy.
Bitter arguments on both sides abound concerning Israel's full-scale war on Lebanon. But by the doctrine of pre-emptive war given to the world by George W. Bush, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had better reason to invade Lebanon than the American president did to occupy Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but there were kidnappings of Israeli soldiers from guerrilla bases in Lebanon.
Iraq and Lebanon are both wars of choice, not of last resort. In Iraq, for example, United Nations weapons inspectors could have continued their search for WMD, the U.S. could have tightened the screws on economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein, and the U.S. and Britain could have continued their sporadic bombing excursions to enforce the southern no-fly zone.
Instead, President Bush invaded Iraq on trumped-up charges and now the country is engulfed in a civil war that nobody's troops, including America's, can control. American losses alone are approaching 9/11 numbers. The civilian population has suffered stupendous casualties, the country is in ruins, and the strength of the insurgency grows by the day.
Following the Bush Doctrine, Prime Minister Olmert answered the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers with a frontal assault on an entire country. There have already been hundreds of civilian casualties on both sides and a great river of dispossessed humanity now flows through Lebanon, looking for safe haven.
War was clearly Olmert's choice. He could have done what his predecessor, the ailing Ariel Sharon, did in 2004 and traded Israel's security detainees for his kidnapped citizens. He could have sent special forces into southern Lebanon to assassinate members of Hezbollah who were responsible for the criminal actions against Israeli citizens and soldiers. He could have used the outstanding capabilities of Mossad and quietly set up a rescue operation the way Israel did in the raid on Entebbe many years ago. He chose all-out war.
In these days of Orwellian ideology creep, wars of choice reduce bystander countries to fans. Which side do you choose, Israel or Lebanon? Once a leader like Stephen Harper chooses Israel, the search for any kind of justice based on a balanced view is replaced by casting the appropriate lights and shadows over the facts.
The UN asks Israel a dozen times not to fire on its well-known observer post in southern Lebanon, yet it and four soldiers are blown up. Harper says he doubts that Israel deliberately targeted the post. Civilians are being slaughtered in Lebanon, but Harper says now is not the time for a ceasefire. He is resolving all of his doubts in Israel's favour as he once resolved all of his doubts about weapons of mass destruction in America's favour.
In wars of choice, once you have chosen your side, you also choose the facts. Harper is a now useful U.S. ally, but a worthless diplomatic force.
Meanwhile, while the world continues to pick sides in Lebanon's agony, its diplomats continue to play the role of deadbeat sad sacks. They all want peace. They all agree with Winston Churchill that it is better to "jaw-jaw than to war-war." But they have grown so used to failing the people of the Mideast, they can't gather in the safety and splendour of Rome and agree to even call for a ceasefire. A bloody disgrace.
While some of these diplomats have the gall to propose a "new" Mideast, some of the West's staunchest Arab allies are offering a different analysis.
None other than Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah had this to say about the current war of choice, according to Al Ikhbariya television: "Saudi Arabia warns everyone that if the peace option fails because of Israeli arrogance, there will be no other option but war. No one can predict what will happen if things get out of control. The Arabs have declared peace as a strategic choice and put forward a clear and fair proposal of land for peace and have ignored Arab extremist calls opposing the peace proposal. But patience cannot last forever."
Nor can secret ambitions. If Turkey decides to have its own war of choice and invade northern Iraq to deal with the Kurdish insurgency in its own country, the Bush Doctrine provides the justification. If India decides to take Kashmir by force to fend off Muslim extremists from Pakistan, it can cite the Iraq and Lebanese invasions as precedents. Whether it's China and Taiwan or Japan and North Korea, the world abounds with hotspots where choosing the military option is in the interests of those with the means to take what they refuse to negotiate.
It all comes down to choice. God save us all.
Author, broadcaster and investigative journalist Michael Harris can be heard weekdays 1-3 p.m. on 580 CFRA. His e-mail address is mharris@cfra.com
Letters to the editor should be sent to feedback@ott.sunpub.com.
Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|