The Art of War

Really, all I am interested in is truth. My meditation practice may be described in very soft and gooey terms when I am in the middle of it, but as I am not right now, I can safely say it is about truth. "Seeing clearly." I don't really know why I'm so interested in truth, but it feels right.

Just back from "The Fog of War," the McNamara documentary. I feel like the Right understands war at least as well as the Left does. Not the far right, which thinks with their dicks and thus doesn't see clearly. But the basic tactical right, for whom war is about achieving objectives and advancing the national interest. It is totally naive to do anything else.

Here is the reasoning. If there are two (or more) parties involved in a conflict, it is irrational to think of the other side except insofar as doing so helps you achieve your objectives. The objectives must first be clearly defined. Then - and this is where the far right is as wrong as the left - any skillful means must be used in order to achieve them. The best means are sometimes negotiation, sometimes war.

In this view, I am not really so against the Iraq war. The objectives of that war were to shift the geopolitical balance in the Middle East by installing the region's first pro-American administration. It was judged before the Bush administration even began that the American public - let alone the UN - would never support a war on these grounds. Therefore other grounds were cooked up, grounds which are now revealed to be quite dubious.

Personally, I don't care about these other grounds. They are clearly lies, and anyone who actually believes WMD's were ever the issue is simply a dupe. They are the customers of the political system, not actors in it. Democracy is, in large part, a charade, and I don't really care about that either. It's not a value of mine. Compassion, not destroying the earth, yes. Democracy - only if it's the best means to those ends.

There are several factors to weigh in evaluating military force in a strategic war such as Iraq. First, will the costs of military action be too heavy for us? Jury is still out on that one. Second, is Iraq in fact an enemy, such that the costs imposed upon them are justified? Admittedly this second question is not one of national security. I am not sure, therefore, how it factors in. Morally, it is a very clear and important question: are our geopolitical interests worth hundreds, thousands, or even a dozen dead Iraqi civilians?

The conservative answer to that question is yes, because we are all self-interested actors, and it is unreasonable to be a lamb surrounded by wolves. However, that rationale works better in a conflict in which real survival is at stake -- not one in which survival is only at stake through a very attenuated series of possibilities. "If there is no American outpost in the Arab world, then the Arab world will get the bomb, then we will be destabilized, then there is a security risk to Americans." Plausible, but arguably not compelling to justify killing civilians.

In the case of Israel, however, I am realizing that I am for any action that advances Israeli interests, bar none. I am convinced that the vast majority of the Arab world truly hates Israel, not because of some kind of Arab antisemitism, but because Israel is perceived as a brutal, colonial occupier of Arab land. Given that animosity, I have no interest in Palestinian interests whatsoever -- none at all. If it were skillful to transfer mass Palestinian populations to Jordan, I would support such a move, because even ethically evil and humanitarianally horrible actions are justified in a strategic war in which survival is at stake, as I believe it is for Israel. I do not support such actions because they would not, in fact, be in Israel's best interests. Those who believe it would be, I think, are not seeing clearly.

Sharon's strategy appears to be delay, build the wall, and alter the calculations of the conflict. Assume his general goal is to deny the Palestinians as much as possible. Why is it difficult to do so? Because of the costs borne by Israelis. How are those costs imposed? Primarily through terrorism. Therefore, if it is possible to stop terrorism, it might be possible to reduce the costs on Israelis and conceivably deny the Palestinians more and more, creating more facts on the ground, annexing more territory, etc.

Truthfully I do not understand the long-term strategy here. The Palestinians will grow in number and anger, the world community will intensify its marginalization of Israel (causing massive economic costs), and it is highly dubious that when a negotiated settlement is eventually reached, it will really be significantly better for Israel. Moreover, the fence cannot work entirely as hoped. There will always be Arabs in Israel willing to carry out attacks.

To be clear, I am both very sympathetic to the hardships the Wall causes on Palestinians, and totally uninterested in factoring those hardships into my (irrelevant and powerless) calculation as to what is best for Israel. The reason for this is that I want what is best for everyone. The Palestinians are looking out for their own interests, and I am looking out for my own. Not to do so, or for one side to attempt to "balance" the equation while the other does not, will lead to an unbalanced outcome.

It seems to me that most on the Israeli Right are unable to be aware of the suffering the Wall causes. They deny it, or say everyone is guilty, or something like that. No - the Wall is horrible. But if it stops even a single suicide bombing, I support it, just as I would support even more drastic measures if they would be skillful - which they would not.

In contrast to my befuddlement in the face of Sharon's policies, it seems like a reasonable two-state solution charts a good course for Israel. I must say that, in the face of Oslo-period violence, a two-state solution should also be accompanied by a fence. Maybe this is Sharon's true plan. It would be impossible to build the fence in the middle of a negotiated truce -- it would kill the negotiations. So, build the fence now, and negotiate later, with the fence already a fact on the ground. Yield on certain parts of the fence - as Israel has recently been doing in the face of pressure - but maintain the fence in place.

That, at least, makes sense. It's a risky maneuver, since the entire world except the US is outraged. I think it may be a miscalculation to thread the fence through the West Bank as they have been doing. But I do actually think that there is strategic thinking going on within the Israeli cabinet. What will be the consequences of The Hague's decision? Would the decision be different if the Wall hewed closer to the 67 boundaries? Clearly, Israel's strategy is to ignore the court.

This kind of statecraft is like piloting a boat and continually lying to every passenger as to how and why the vessel is being steered.

The only personal consequence I see of all this is, what are the effects of all this marinating in strategic, cold, adversarial thought? Those are costs too. Most military men erect strong barriers between themselves and the objects of their calculation. These are necessary to do the calculations effectively and maximize objectives. It is impossible to conduct the best war possible when you let in the pain you are causing. Yet the erection of the walls does lead to some personal costs. At the moment, I am quite enjoying thinking strategically - especially since my decisions are completely unimportant, harmless, and irrelevant. Yet I wonder how much of it I could take.

Lately, I've been thinking about how harmless and irrelevant I am. It doesn't make me happy. Part of me wants to return in some way to the business world and gain the kind of unambiguous success that would satisfy these small doubts. I really believe that if Wasabi were sold at an acceptable price, I would feel a sense of accomplishment that would translate into less neediness in other areas of my life. I feel like I've already compromised myself so much that it will be near-impossible to have a public face that is not marginal. I don't know if that's even true -- i.e., if I am seeing clearly. But it is a sense I get.