StrategyUnit

Summary
While intentional or not, Israel’s incursion into Lebanon (aimed at Hezbollah) is now a proxy war against Iran via Hezbollah and Hamas, a violent mirroring of the US-Iran maneuverings in the UN and in Iraq. The incursion also demonstrates how powerful the Iranian hand is with Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Sadr and others in Iraq and influence in Afghanistan, relative to the U.S. and Israel and even the other Middle Eastern states like Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

Israel’s endgame is not clear, as it cannot militarily defeat Hezbollah unless it shuts down Syria’s border with Lebanon (along with a conventional ground offensive), which would bring Syria into an open conflict with Israel, as well as, Israel incurring the wrath of the region and the world for widening the war.

Being a guerilla force, Hezbollah can take the blows of the IDF very resiliently. Even with infrastructure degraded and supplies gone, Hezbollah can afford to wait and rebuild slowly and even bring Israel into wider protracted war on Lebanese territory. Indeed, as long as the border between Syria and Lebanon remains open, Hezbollah will have a safe-haven for retreat as well an area to gather supplies.

A far worst case scenario is for the Lebanese government and the military to throw its weight behind Hezbollah. This is something it has not clearly done yet, but if the war widens and causalities mount, Israel may find itself in an open war against an Iranian-backed Lebanese-Syrian front on the north and Hamas in the east.

One possible end game is for Israel is to find, rescue and bring home the two IDF soldiers, granting Israel the ability to withdraw while saving face abroad and more importantly at home.

The better solution would be to use the Lebanese incursion as a platform to pressure Lebanon, the U.S. and others to finally act on fulfilling UN Resolution 1559, disarming Hezbollah.

To lay the ground work, Israel must make it explicitly clear that its offensive maneuvering is an attack on Hezbollah, not the Lebanese people, the government - which rules out the bombings in Beirut and other major Lebanese cities. It should attempt to clandestinely reach out to the fragile Lebanese government led by Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, pushing it to deploy its army against Hezbollah in the south in the name of “reasserting” control of the south.

While a realistic assessment of the current situation forbids such an optimistic assessment, there is some truth when Kyle Spector of Foreign Policy declares:

“But some Lebanese and other Arabs around the region (including the Saudis), while obviously not in favor of the Israeli assault, are seeing this crisis as a death knell for Hezbollah and quietly cheering it on”

This is not a guaranteed death kneels for Hezbollah as Spector calls it, but the dislike of Hezbollah in Lebanon and regionally is there – Israel needs to take advantage of it.

At the same time, US and its partners must work via to diplomatic channels - be it public, the UN or other channels - to get Syria and Iran to back-off. How is another question, but it must be done as alternative scenarios are dire.

Perhaps the second option is being carried out by US, Israel and its allies. Time will tell what paths history will take.

Some Suggested Readings

• NYT’s “Israel’s Invasion, Syria’s War” by Michael Young
• “Crisis in the Middle East: Local Bloggers Report” by The Truth Laid Bear

(more…)

Introduction
A few months back, I wrote in “India, the US and the Anglosphere“, that India should be positioned by the US as the next global leader “just as Great Britain gracefully passed its world power status to the United States, the United States must look to do them same with India or else face decline in the face of a raising China”.

The New York Times op-ed, “The Myth of the New India” placed forward many criticism of such a promise for India, such as stating “Recent accounts of the alleged rise of India barely mention the fact that the country’s $728 per capita gross domestic product is just slightly higher than that of sub-Saharan Africa”. Indeed, the July 11th’s Mumbai bombings is a tragic reminder of the instability and security risks facing India.

Admitedly, India is not as glowing as some articles on the July/August edition of Foreign Affairs claim (indeed, some of the articles read like well crafted press releases). And while it does face many challenges in poverty and socio-economic issues, the much talked about “The Myth of the New India” NYT articles ignores three main points: 1) the large progress India has made thus far; 2) how much potential it has already shown; 3) and how much India’s political weight is growing - all this despite the economic underdevelopment that persist through most of India.

India: Not Quite Half Empty

Pankaj Mishra, who wrote “The Myth of the New India”, astutely points to several critical areas that has still dodge India despite its high-tech boom:

• Wealth Distribution - especially in Urban versus Rural (70% of India) populations
• Extensive and Deep Poverty - “nearly 380 million Indians still live on less than a dollar a day”
• Political Instability - Kashmir Issue, Religious Militants and a growing Communist Insurgency

Mishra is correct that these issues are a tremendous obstacle to the great power ambitions many increasingly confident Indians are voicing. There are other issues too, like India’s inefficient bureaucracy and its social economic system, which is considered unfriendly towards the type of more open market that is thought needed for high sustained growth.

Yet somewhere between the hope and ambition for India to become a great power and Mishra’s dire warnings, lies progress and great hope for India. Indeed, we should keep in mind that the progress it has made, in the high-tech and financial industry, despite such underdevelopment is impressive and no small feat.

Keeping Things Within Balance

While socio-economic development should ideally be uniform throughout a nation, it is often not. Issues like Rural v. Urban populations and continuing dire poverty in the face of a small, but growing, wealthy elite are real, but common problems faced buy many developing nations and characterize the struggles of many now developed Western nations.

For example, China is facing similar issues, especially as life-time employment at public factories makes way for layoffs and semi-private ownership. And the Urban versus Rural gap is evident in China, as it is in Paris compared to the surrounding banlieue and America’s urban centers in the coasts with the rural areas in the South.

Geopolitical Considerations

Mishra contends that India will not be considered a loyal ally that the United States hopes for as long as it continues making pragmatic deals with China and Iran. This maybe true, but to take this situation on a different view: Perhaps, India will show that constructive engagement between India and countries like Iran and like China are possible. To be sure, Containment is a valid strategy, but the US needs to be reminded that so is Engagement.

Myth and Promise

The essence of Mishra’s article is this: “Many serious problems confront India. They are unlikely to be solved as long as the wealthy, both inside and outside the country, choose to believe their own complacent myths.”

This is no doubt true. India’s growing elite must be confident, but never arrogant nor ignorant of the tremendous challenges that are clearly ahead of it.

India’s growing high-tech industry demonstrating that India is capable in developing their vast potential, not that they have already acheived it. Indeed, being part of one of the world’s oldest civilizations, Indians should know that the IT boom of the past 20 or so years, is not even a flicker in time.

But while Mishra’s article acts as a warning to those that forget the challenge, we should also take note of the following:

If a government like China’s, an oppressive authoritarian government, is beginning to address environmental concerns and wealth distribution with some postive action (see “China - Environmentalism as a National Security Issue”) - we should hope India, the world’s largest democracy, can do even better.

From Mumbai Metroblogging:

There are injured and dead people lying on the tracks. No police in the picture, no fire brigades. Its the local people, the shopkeepers and the people wo live close to the house who are coming into help. Carrying bodies both alive and dead in bedhseets. Some tiny bundles, perhaps with limbs within, or maybe children.

***

Whom were you trying to target? The working class men who struggle for an inch of space in local trains? The working women who knit and cut vegetables in trains on their way home? Young, dreamy students discussing exams and love? The babies accompanying their mothers, smiling back at the women around them?

Darkness is fast falling. Its raining like it will not stop. Will the rains wash away the blood? Will tomorrow be a new day. Here’s to lost lifes and broken dreams.

Follow these links for updates and analyses:

• Counterterrorism Blog - 7 Bombs detonated on Bombay Rail System
• Pajamas Media - Mumbai Blasts

Introduction
The Economist earlier last month did an update on America’s relationship in Central Europe, the area earlier hailed by Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as part of the “New Europe.” While I applaud his speech as brillent tactical manuverings (Reminding France/Germany that they’re other Europeans beside themselves), it seems like besides building military bases little is changing to reach out the the people themselves:

“America tends to underestimate the political cost of this. One post-communist minister recalls trying vainly to convince his American counterparts that staying in Iraq was rather unpopular at home. American military aid to the new democracies has been stingy. And the cost and hassle of America’s visa policies grate harshly. “Estonians don’t understand why their sons are dying in Iraq for democracy and freedom, and yet their families can’t get visas for the United States,” says Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a former foreign minister.

So far, only Slovenia’s 1.9m people have visa-free travel to America. Poland and the Czech Republic have lobbied hard; so did Mrs Vike-Freiberga on her recent trip. But there is little sign of change. In most post-communist countries, each visa application costs a non-refundable $100—a week’s wages. In Romania, even the appointment costs $11, for seven minutes of telephone time.” (Empahsis Mine)

Comment
To be fair to the Bush Administration, the US has lobbied hard for the “Big Bang” approach that has led many of “New Europe” states to be accepted into the EU and has given Central Europe some voice in the world stage through branding them as part of a “New Europe”.

However, the US must follow though on building a relationship with these states. While sending troops to Iraq has bought countries like Estonia closer ties to the US, simple things like visa-restriction fail to show what clear benefit such sacrifices provide back.

Just like at home, the Bush Administration should pursue a campaign to show the people - of Estonia, Poland etc - the benefits of closer ties with the US. Currently, we’re not doing that (or enough) and worse than that we’re losing our chance to prove these people right the next time around.

Additionally, while countries like Bulgaria and Slovenia are small, they represent members of a growing bloc - the European Union - and a post-nation-state identify of “Europeanness”. The US must reach out - both at government and public level - to those who are receptive to the US.

Indeed, reaching out to the Central Europe region (where in Hungary there is a statue in honor of Ronald Reagan in remembrance of the Cold War), can act as a balance to the German and French states, while the US could also provide security against the fear of a possibly reassertive and aggressive Russia (as long as the EU remains anemic in security terms).

Let’s hope that the Post-Bush Administration, whatever that maybe - will take things into the positive direction, if the current Administration cannot.

Happy July 4th Everyone

Your July 4th History Lesson of the Day: While this picture is often depicted as the signing of the declaration, it actually the drafting of the document. But alas, this picture by Trumbull, as a depicting the declaration, is now a tradition of sorts regardless of what it actually is. Read more here.

Quick Post: Towards a Broader view of Energy Security?

Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post does an excellent job in “What ‘Energy Security’ Really Means” on broadening the general public’s view of energy security. Read on.

What everyone thinks about energy security:

“For many American leaders, energy security means producing energy at home and relying less on foreigners. But the United States imports three-fifths of its oil, and the share is heading up. For the foreseeable future, alternative fuel is unlikely to change that.”

The alternative view:

“Energy interdependence can actually be good for energy security: Just look at natural gas markets. Right now nearly all the natural gas that Americans consume comes from U.S. and Canadian fields; only 3 percent comes into the country by tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas. This renders the United States highly vulnerable to disruptions on its home continent. If terrorists or a hurricane took out a key pipeline, it would be hard to bring in alternative supplies from outside North America, and prices would spike upward. By buying more liquefied natural gas from a diverse range of foreigners, the United States would reduce its energy independence but enhance its energy security.”

Also see Daniel Yergin’s Foreign Affairs article, “Ensuring Energy Security“.