TWO PERSPECTIVES ON THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT
By sheer coincidence, over the course of the last week, I was contacted by two former students of mine: Tim F. and Ray N. Both of them were responding to Junichi's "Bombs over Lebanon" post though were addressing different aspects of the conflict, how it's being reported, etc. I thought it'd be interesting to share - with their permission - what each has to say.
I should be clear: these are NOT meant to be two contrasting views on a single issue. Tim is largely discussing the racial politics of how "new" warfare are being thrown around in this current - and similar - conflicts while Ray's is much more of a personal report from inside Israel where he's been studying the last few months. I am not cross-posting these as a debate between the two but their timing seemed serendipitous enough to pair them together.
Neither I - nor Junichi - necessarily endorse the opinions that either author is making. We are putting these out here for consideration and what I expect to be a healthy discussion.
CONTINUE READING...
From Tim F.:
- I had some thoughts for you on how ethnic studies ties in to the counter-terrorism discourse. This is sort of a rough outline, mostly because I'm still figuring it out for myself. I apologize if it is not clearly elucidated.
The thesis of this email to you is that in the rush to figure out the changing nature of conflict, some commentators/strategists have developed a descriptive framework (which they call 4th Generation War--more on that in a minute) that while accurately depicting what we're seeing in Israel/Lebanon/Iraq also begins to draw some extraordinarily misinformed and downright creepy inferences about the nature of identity. More or less they adopt an essentialist/ethnic nationalist viewpoint that western civilization and "Christendom" are under siege from evil non-white/non-Christian hordes. Taken to its logical conclusion in American domestic politics, this discourse will justify a movement to eliminate the culture of everyone who is not a right wing Christian Nationalist, in the name of fighting terrorism.
One of the big discussions right now in the security community is about the changing nature of war. The view by some is that the advantages of Western militaries in terms of bigger guns, planes, tanks etc are mitigated by the rise of non-state actors (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah etc) that are guerrillas and refuse to fight on what we used to call the conventional battlefield, i.e. Saving Private Ryan. The US, Israeli, British etc militaries train and plan to fight on the conventional battlefield. One of the frameworks for understanding unconventional war is called "4th Generation Warfare", and here's a bit from the wikipedia entry: " Fourth Generation wars are characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, soldier and civilian, peace and conflict, battlefield and safety. "
Basically 4GW means fighters without uniforms, refusing to fight pitched battles but instead attacking state militaries through indirect means, such as the infamous IED's, diversionary attacks, attacks on infrastructure targets (power stations, water, financial centers) to destroy a the state's internal cohesiveness. The theory is that small groups are empowered via the internet, powerful laptops etc that allow them to punch above their weight. 4GW fighters will seek to attack their opponent at its weakest points, instead of meeting head on. States can play the 4GW card as well, but that's beyond the scope of this email.
Enough about the theory. Where does it intersect with identity and ethnic studies? The argument is that in the 4GW framework the conflict is between the state and non-state actors trying to undermine social cohesiveness. The giant leap that some influential theorists take is that they argue that the solution to the challenge is to ensure cohesiveness of the state by forcibly solidifying a monoculture. I think you can see exactly why that is troubling. Bill Lind was probably the first guy to coin the term 4GW and you can read one of his screeds against multiculturalism here.
I'm not a big fan of Marxism, but the sheer paranoia displayed in the essay is breathtaking. Lind is good I think on the strategic and tactical level, and dangerously wrong when he veers off to discuss civil society and the role of culture. Lind has some audience in the military-- he helped write the book on armored warfare for the Marine Corps in the 80s.
What's disturbing to me is the level to which Lind and his fellow travelers fail to understand the very real experiences of non-white communities with oppression and domination by the mainstream of American or, "western" culture. It's as if we don't count in their worldview.
It never occurs to Lind and most of the other 4GW theorists I've read, that culture can change, or that Americans could construct our own identity that takes in to account differing views.
It's as if Lind cannot grasp that the effort to create the monoculture in fact creates the climate of pervasive humiliation that leads to exactly the rise of the ethnic nationalist/religious identities which the monoculture proponents want to eliminate. I don't know if you've ever read the bios of Mohammed Atta and the other 9/11 attackers, but what jumps out at me is that they many were well educated guys who had lived in the west. Some conservative commentators have pointed to this as proof that terrorism isn't caused by poverty, but by some kernel of evil within Islam. When I read the bios, however, what came through to me were two things, identity crisis and alienation. Atta unfortunately chose to fill that vacuum with fundamentalist Islam and we know how that turned out. It's all about dealing with perceived humiliation.
In the end I think the solution to the problem of asymetric warfare, etc comes in finding ways for people to reconcile their different identities with one another, in a way that doesn't end in a violence. Thus, scholars like you are actually in an ideal spot to examine these emergent phenomena. The security policy/strategy analysts, are completely out of their depth when it comes to discussions of culture and identity.
From Ray N.:
- Before the soldier kidnappings, I was staunchly Pro-Palestinian. Based on what I had learned in college, I viewed the conflict as that of David and Goliath. In my mind, Palestinians armed with rocks played the part of revolutionaries while Israel, with its tanks and missiles, assumed the role of military behemoth. I assumed that the sole goal of the Palestinians was to be left alone so they could build their own independent state. I figured most Israelis were in support of settlers and wanted nothing more than to extend further into the Palestinian territories.
However, since I got here[Israel] about two months ago, I've come more to the middle. My original conceptions were a little too simple, grounded more in things I heard at college rallies than from talking to people who actually live in the area. Most Israelis I've talked to do not favor expansion or the settlers. All in all, they say they would very much like to lead a quiet life and have things cool off. This has become even more apparent as a number of the scientists I work with are being called up to serve in the military action in Lebanon. These are people who have families and children, who have not been soldiers or had to assume a soldier’s mentality for years. I believe their wish to live their life uninterrupted is sincere and I sympathize with them.
From talking to people I've come to the realization that a lot of what I am used to thinking is somewhat idealistic. The big thing I've come to realize is that it is not everyone's goal to be left alone. Shortly after getting here, I got into a discussion about the first kidnapped soldier with one of my colleagues that had been in the IDF. He told me he was surprised how jaded he had become in so short a time. Regarding Hamas, he said, “You cannot reason with them. They do not fight for reason, they are fighting for God. Before, I was very much for peace. I would have said anyone who wanted to fight the Arabs was ignorant and racist. But after being here so long, after so many attacks and being at war for so long, I changed. I just want peace, but they do not want to just be left alone.”
I think this was my major misconception. Being from the US, I assumed it would be enough for both sides to go tit for tat until deciding they're even, because I thought that everyone’s natural goal is to live and work and be left alone. That is why I have always assumed peace was possible. But that is not the case for everyone here. For Islamic extremists, the goal is to destroy the state of Israel. I used to write this idea off as propaganda spread by Israel to advance their foreign policy, but a lot of what I've heard and seen here suggests it is more true than I previously thought. And the idea of Hamas or other governments actually wanting to destroy Israel (and not just using it as rhetoric to find approval with the masses) is a very scary thing to consider, because it is a goal that cannot end in compromise and a conflict that time cannot resolve. It is a conflict that can only end when one side completely destroys the other.
Beyond the religious basis for the conflict, there also seems to be a strong socio-economic basis for it as well. The Palestinian state seems horribly disorganized, and I can understand how people that are unemployed and living in poverty would not be content to just live their lives. I understand why people living in such these conditions could be swayed by groups like Hamas to want to fight their relatively rich and close neighbors/employers (especially since Israel seems to be at least partially responsible for the economic inequity of the Palestinian state). Given that Hamas has long been a provider of social services to a large portion of the state, it seems all the more reason why they (and their rhetoric) are so popular.
What is perhaps most surprising for me is that I've come to kind of appreciate the IDF more and have found myself agreeing with their actions far more than I ever would have expected. Being that I am staying in Israel, I realize that this is somewhat hypocritical, like hating the police until you become a homeowner in a bad neighborhood and suddenly want cops driving around hassling people. But I am now more appreciative of their position. I had originally thought the invasion into Gaza after the first kidnapping was overly aggressive. I objected to people who said that the IDF needed to react strongly, that only refusing to negotiate and using military force would dissuade future kidnappings. This all sounded remniscient of Republican war-hawk rhetoric to me, and I was firmly against it until the second group of soldiers was kidnapped. At that point, I realized how easy it is to kidnap soldiers (or even citizens) and if it were seen as advantageous at all, there’d be no end to it. This is what war is like.
I also have a newfound and palpable sense of the risk I am in being in Israel, so I appreciate that the IDF is reducing Hezbollah's ability to shell Haifa (I was there about 3 weeks ago). I realize that it's hard for them. Despite their claims of aiming only at military targets, Hezbollah and Hamas have been firing rockets at civilian targets for over a month now. Before the Gaza invasion, the international community was not incensed about this, it's kind of just accepted as what Hamas and Hezbollah do. Conversely, the scrutiny that the IDF has been under has been substantial. Granted, much of this criticism is deserved; the IDF has destroyed a lot of the infrastructure (such as power and water plants) in Lebanon and Gaza, thereby hurting many civilians. Missiles have missed their targets and hit civilians. But sadly, that is the nature of war. And it's still amazing to me that Israel is largely being portrayed in the international community as being overly aggressive when they are essentially responding to kidnappings of its soldiers and attacks on its own civilians. While I can see why critics would favor diplomacy here, I do not think Israel can afford to have a non-forceful response. The failure of diplomacy would lead to more kidnappings and more missiles from Israel’s borders. And for a small and isolated country, that is a failure that they cannot afford.
<< Home