The war in Lebanon was a tragedy. It was a tragedy for the over 1,000 civilians killed, predominantly Shiite Lebanese from lower socioeconomic strata. It was a tragedy for the Israeli soldiers and Hizbullah guerillas who died, apparently in vain for this was a war about nothing. It was a tragedy for the hundreds of thousands of civilians on both sides whose lives were put on hold for weeks, and who had to endure day after day of fear - fear of a bomb or rocket dropping on whatever building they happened to be in. It seems that the only beneficiaries will be the military industrial complex, certain segments of the elite interested in games of power and intrigue, and the occasional general who sold shares just-in-time to make a few thousand bucks. Business as usual, I suppose.
It seems as though militarism has become the ethos of our times. Anytime some ragtag band of hasbeens decides to commit a grotesque act of slaughter, our leaders find themselves obliged to retaliate with even greater slaughter. It is truly sad that in an era where America dominates the world militarily, and Israel the Middle East, these two countries cannot seem to break the habit of fueling the fire of their own demise.
For America, this tale is a new one; for Israel, it has been around somewhat longer. With the emergence of Terror as a real threat (the Reagan era's War on Terror was even more farcical than this one), the American civilian finds himself in the midst of the same ugly escalation that Israeli civilians have been living in for decades. This is not to trivialize those on the other end - it goes without saying that the state actors, in "retaliating" against terrorist violence, usually perpetrate far greater crimes.
But because there is probably very little that should be expected of the Muslim world, in the short term, to curbing this violent cycle, we must convince those at home who are persuaded by this nonsense narrative that it is indeed a fallacy, and emphasizing "our" dead is, to these tribalists, a language they understand. Indeed, it is my contention that the majority of the responsibility lies at the hands of the state actors. The story of Israel funding Hamas as a buffer against the PLO is a well known one; so is the story of America funding Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets. Oh the parallels.
The problem, from the perspective of the citizen, is that the elites benefit from the status quo. The slaughter is an easy vehicle for making money - both Israel and America have enormous military-industrial complexes, and it is probably no coincidence that these two are perpetrators of state terror par excellence. It is also an easy vehicle for maintaining and expanding power. It is disgusting to watch the Republicans try to compare a conflict where thousands have died - the "War on Terror" - to a conflict where millions died - World War II. But look at whose been winning elections; apparently, someone is buying this message.
Of course, it need not be this way. Until recently, Europe was the "proud" champion of exploitation, violence, and death. Japan, pre World War II, undertook a policy of expansion that spilled blood across the Pacific. Today, Japan is the largest contributor to foreign aid. Much more interestingly, Europe has demonstrated that politics of militarism and power can give way to something that is much more logical: the expansion of wealth of less-rich neighbors. The European Union is, in my mind, a severely underrated wonder. It has transformed, or is in the process of transforming, several economic basket cases - Ireland, Greece, Spain, Poland, etc. - into countries with rising standards of living approaching (or even exceeding) those in the US.
I do not wish to pretend Europe is all fluff and wonder. It is a creature with her own problems, and, as Britain and to a lesser degree France illustrate, still wanting to occasionally dabble in the fun game of civilian sacrifice at the altar of war profit and power expansion. But there is a tangible change in the attitude of those countries - countries which only a century ago were champions of belligerence and empire.
Could America and Israel do the same? I don't see why not. Latin America has always been America's "playground". And what have we to show for it? A pauper neighbor Mexico, and a series of countries who are only making improvmenets in standard of living by breaking from the Washington Consensus imposed by the USA. While it is true that France and Germany have not seen growth rates comparable to the American ones as a consequence of EU expansion, the lifestyle there is very comfortable, and by many metrics, better than here. Why can we not emulate the EU in our backyard? Britain, an economy most like our own out of the EU countries, is not doing too badly; I speculate that if we were to invest, say $50 billion - $100 billion a year in Mexican infrastructure, combined with the legal strictures imposed by a EU-like structure, that country would fare much better very quickly. And though we may not boom from it, we would certainly not suffer, and of course we would not have "dem pesky illegals" (presumably because, with freedom of movement, they would just be legals).
That is just an example of what I think would happen if such policies were pursued. What about the Middle East? Recently, Saudi Arabia headed an Arab offer of normalization of relations with Irael. As expected, Israel brushed this aside. But let's take a trip down Idealist Lane. Had Israel accepted the offer, in the mold of the EU model, the obvious first project would be to rapidly develop the Palestinian infrastructure and economy. Perhaps Lebanon would be next (a relatively wealthy country, though far poorer than Israel). I don't doubt for a second that just a few decades of such a policy would see Israel accepted - nay, lauded - as a neighbor.
And what of America's role in the Middle East, the place where we seem now content to pummel people into the stone age? Well, at least at the beginning, we had much more political support and good will in AFghanistan than we probably ever had in Iraq. There are clear neesd in Afghanistan - a transportation network, schools, government infrastructure, etc. - that we could certainly contribute towards. The AFghan government has a very clear agenda of development, but it is sorely undrefunded. Iraq is far more tricky; it is a country where the glue that held it together - the army, the government - have been thrown out and replaced by vacuum. The mistake of Iraq, in this sense, is severely underappreciated. We have created a potential Somalia, with rival militias running about, driven more and more by simple thuggery and less and less by the desire to drive out the occupiers. This is not to say that there is not much resistance to the US - but the groups are very loosely organized, and just as prone to infighting as they are to resisting occupation. One thing is for sure: we have no business there, and if we withdrew, it is much more likely that a force would emerge with authentic backing. Perhaps we could signal that we will withdraw in private, and allow the government of Iraq to demand it, which would give them some face. But I digress.
To some of you, my essay may ring a bit of "White Man's Burden". But that is not at all what I am advocating; the idea is simply to provide requested aid and development on an unprecedented scale. The main point is, of course, that such a policy would be on the order of expense that militarism is, but would be much cheaper in lives, and would probably very quickly serve to develop large portions of the planet. The current policy sees us meddling in the affairs of others constantly, but we are doing it with hammers and sticks. It is very easy to justify militarism - vis a vis other powers, because it advances our interests, because it makes money, etc. But I think the EU does show that we can surely 'notch it down a level', and pursue alternative strategies to making the world a safe place.
This approach is especially crucial now, because there is no way state violence will ever win against terrorism.
The mass violence - nay, genocide - required to "win" is unacceptable even to the power elite (many are not bloodthirsty cynics, but even those who are understand their power would be finished if they tried this). The skirmishes Israel and the US engage in simply fuel the arguments of the rag-tag bands arrayed against them. The administration is absolutely correct that the only way to fight terror is to drain the swamp. But what the US and Israelis are doing is pumping unending volumes of blood into that swamp, rendering its an ever more fertile breeding ground for death and terrorism.
A policy of engagement and economic integration - of the real kind, not the bullshit Washington Consensus which seeks to suck other dry - is a win win for (almost) everyone. True, it is not a glamorous slogan for elections, or an approach which makes one feel great and lets one walk on aircraft carriers like some John Wayne. But while the few in power may not like it, most of us would be far more safe and far more happy were this the policy. Next time someone tells you Israel is justified in what it did to Lebanon because of the solder kidnapping, or that the US can do what it did to Iraq because of 9/11, remember how full of crap they are. Or at least, how devoid of imagination they are.