Soros on terrorism

[spindrifter]

Haaretz.com
Fri., September 01, 2006 Elul 8, 5766

Errors of the war on terror

By George Soros

Israel's failure to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war-on-terror concept. One weakness is that even if the targets are terrorists, the victims are often innocent civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause.

In response to Hezbollah's attacks, Israel was justified in wanting to destroy the movement and to protect itself against the threat of missiles on its border. However, Israel should have taken greater care to minimize collateral damage. The civilian casualties and material damage inflicted on Lebanon inflamed Muslims and world opinion against Israel, and converted Hezbollah from aggressors to heroes of resistance. Weakening Lebanon has also made it more difficult to rein in Hezbollah.

Another weakness of the war-on-terror concept is that it relies on military action and rules out political approaches. Israel withdrew from Lebanon and then from Gaza unilaterally, rather than negotiating political settlements with the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority. The strengthening of Hezbollah and Hamas was a direct consequence of that approach. The war-on-terror concept stands in the way of recognizing this fact because it separates "us" from "them," and denies the fact that our actions may shape their behavior.

A third weakness is that the war-on-terror concept lumps together different political movements that use terrorist tactics. It fails to distinguish between Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida or the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi militia in Iraq. Yet all these terrorist manifestations are different and require different responses. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah can be treated merely as targets in the war on terror because they have deep roots in their societies, yet profound differences exist between them.

<more>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=757655&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0

[Monkeyman]

1. Better be careful here Hastert will call you a drug dealer again

[Phx_Dem]

2. This was posted yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x146866

[eallen]

3. I would k&r this, if not for the forum restriction

[Phx_Dem]

4. war-on-terror

"THE FAILURE OF Israel to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war-on-terror ...."

I don't think Israels approach is the US neo-con "war on terror" though the leadership at times has used that type of language.

Considering that Hisbullah accomplished nothing other than a PR victory and that UN 1701 calls for them to be disarmed I don't see how Soros thinks this was a "failure to subdue hezbullah".

[msmcghee]

5. I basically agree, however . . .

. . Hizbullah is not yet subdued - and has asserted that they will not be.

I think what Israel has settled for is,

a) A state, Lebanon, and its people who now must very realistically consider the consequences of their tacit, if not overt, support of a non-state militia within their borders, and

b) the ability to show once again that Hizbullah is the outlaw here, as they will no doubt refuse to disarm.

This is a better position than Israel was in 2 months ago when neither of those conditions prevailed.

Hizbullah seems to be in a worse position, unless you give great weight to the gushing praise of its anti-Israeli allies. Syria has agreed to halt arms shipments across its borders. Granted that's not necessarily an ironclad assurance - but Syria seems to want to be considered something more than a sponsor of terrorism by the EU and the US. We'll see how serious they are.

Hizbullah certainly has fewer weapons and trained fighters - both defensive and offensive than before - as well as fewer bunkers, command facilities, etc. It is not certain how much of this they lost - but Israel believes they lost at least half of their ability to wage war in the future - without rebuilding.

I suspect that what Nisrallah says is true - that he didn't expect such a violent response from Israel. I also suspect that he said that for Iran's benefit. I think than Iran wanted those rockets that they have been sending to Hizbullah for six years at least - to be available if Israel or the US attacked Iran's nuclear sites.

Now, the relative ineffectiveness of those rockets has been revealed and any counter-attack from Hizbullah using them is much less likely to be successful, anyway. The bunkers that Israel did not destroy are certainly mapped out. I suspect that in the event of any further attacks from Hizbullah that those bunkers will have a short half-life. Iran now must try to smuggle much more expensive and more dangerous missiles into a heavily monitored UN (supposedly demilitarized) zone. That can't be too easy and the consequences of getting caught can be politically expensive.

Israel OTOH has lost almost nothing militarily and Israelis are almost unanimously demanding that their military be greatly improved, strengthened and better managed. I have even read that they are quite aware of Mr. Magistrate's strong belief (in which I concur) that using military forces for police work is a great mistake in many ways. I think we'll now see the formation of an effective and well trained Israeli police force - to compliment its military.

There is a lot of boasting of victory and conquest from the Hizbullah, Almedinijhad and Nisrallah, of course. But I have found that bullies and cowards are loudest when they have lost the most. I think you know where my money is - but the next few months will reveal for sure who were the real winners and losers of this engagement.