I've been thinking. I've heard it said that this is the age of a different kind of warfare - the remote war, where a country sends it army to fight a war against a country that does not directly threaten its borders; the technology war, where conventional weaponry takes on a bit of a sci-fi angle and can be very specific in how its being targeted; the no-land war, where ground troops are rarely, if ever, involved, and in which the strategic goals are different than taking over a particular location. In many ways, land wars have been more or less settled, even if they do flare up ever so often. Most countries have had their borders established and accepted by the international community - maybe the biggest achievement of the UN - and for the most part, those borders are respected by everyone, even in cases where bordering countries have vastly differing quality of armies.
You know I'm Israeli, and so the obligatory middle-east comment has to be made; I believe that, while the middle-east is a highly volatile area, even those countries who formally and dogmatically still believe in land-war - Iran is a good example - do not truly wish to engage in such a war. Israel certainly has no wishes to add to its existing territory, and the peace with Egypt and Jordan, however cool (especially with the former), appears to be permanent.
But the current battle between Israel and the Hizballah seems to point to a new, and rather different, kind of war. First of all, Lebanon is a side perforce, but it isn't really fighting; the lebanese army has not fired a single shot. So is this a war, even? Isn't a war defined classically as being between two countries? Depending on whose rhethoric you listen to, you can say that Lebanon is at war with Israel because the Hizballah is part of its political establishment, or you might say that Israel is not at war at all but just fighting a terrorist organization, or even that Israel is an aggressor lacking justification that has just crossed the border into a neighboring country that had not attacked it.
However you choose to look at it, the sad truth is that neither Israel nor Lebanon want this war. In fact, both Israel and Lebanon are losing, daily, in this war - one side being harmed more than the other, surely, but both sides hurting and suffering the results of a battle that neither wants to fight.
What's going on, exactly? Well, let's follow the money. Iran is facing economic sanctions related to its nuclear program. I think by now pretty much everyone agrees that it is the main force giving Hizballah its power, supporting it financially and enabling its existence. Syria is also contributing, but they are a minor player, following directions from Tehran as much as Nasrallah does. The latter, of course, holds Lebanon by the proverbial balls, and has dragged it into this war against its wishes. Iran, at least at the outset, would seem to benefit from this war being waged in two ways: deflecting attention from its nuclear program, and reducing the pressure from a potential invasion by the US army, however remote the likelihood of that happening. After all, the US can hardly afford to appear to enter the war between Israel and Lebanon right now, even if by attacking Iran. Again, as crazy as that sounds, think of it as if you were ruling in Tehran; perception is nine tenths of reality.
In this conflict, Lebanon is a proxy for Iran.
Now let's take a look at Israel. Notice how the US have been doing everything it can to back Israel in its attack and letting it have as much time as it needs to do so? I am willing to bet that a deal had already been struck behind the scenes for a temporary increase in funds going to Israel after this war is over, as compensation for damages. We'll see how that plays out. This war serves current american interests; it strengthens the Bush administration going into the novemeber election as it fits perfectly into its doctrine of the war on terror and no compromise. If Nasrallah is caught by Israel, Bush would gain almost as much as he would by catching Bin Laden, and in perfect timing. The war also serves to deflect attention domestically from other wedge issues, such as the very unpopular stem cell research veto, and (I am being cynical here) possibly allow the republicans to keep a hold of the house - and maybe even the senate.
In other words, Israel is a proxy for the US.
And so, we have two countries fighting a war that seems to have no clear strategic goals that would benefit either one: Israel more or less admits it can't entirely route Hizballah - and that's the clearest goal anyone in Israel has stated; Lebanon, of course, has no goal other than to get this thing over with and avoid a civil war. Indeed, both countries are fighting a proxy war - Israel on behalf of the US because it can't afford to do otherwise, Lebanon on behalf of Iran because Hizballah has just enough power to force the issue.
A proxy war.
Is a wonder nobody really understands why this is happening?
