EXPERT ANALYSIS: Charles Peña on Lebanon
03 August 2006 5:11 am by Taylor Marsh
EXPERT ANALYSIS: Charles Peña on Lebanon
The following is a guest post from Chuck Peña, whom I
heard speak at Steve Clemons' New America
Foundation in Washington, D.C. not too long ago. I was struck by Pena's
amazing candor, his blunt analysis and his unemotional clarity on the issues.
At the time he
was discussing Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Darfur. He was joined by
Peter Bergen and Christopher Preble. Preble and Peña are both involved
with the Coalition for a Realistic
Foreign Policy.
Well, one thing led to another, because of new friends, which led to Chuck
agreeing to lend his expertise in guest blog posts when his time permits. One
post you may have seen recently was for Steve
Clemons regarding Why Liberals (like Peter Beinart) Can't Win the War
on Terror. Seriously, it's a must read.
Oh, but one thing you need to know. Mr. Pena is a libertarian. (NOTE: That's a small “l,” because Chuck is not a member of the party.) That should
set your brain afire. I hope you enjoy Chuck's first blog post, which is clear,
blunt and unequivocal. He's a former Director of Defense Policy Studies
for the Cato Institute, and is currently, well, you'll see. He's like a splash
of cold water in the face on a sleepy morning; an awakening in a world gone
dumb on political correctness and tired, outworn political conveniences.
“Un-war” is right and many others feel the same way too.
Coming from me this will probably come as a surprise to Taylor, but it is impossible
for the United States to adopt a do-nothing approach to the conflict in Lebanon.
On the one hand, the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah does not directly
threaten U.S. national security. Strictly speaking, it is an Israeli security
issue. Unfortunately, because successive U.S. administrations have needlessly
made Israeli security a component of U.S. security policy, what Israel does
has ripple effects all the way back to our shores. The fact that so many innocent
civilians – many of them Muslims – are being killed or displaced
affects Muslim opinion of the United States (which was already well below sea
level), which in turn affects U.S. security in the post-9/11 world. The growing
anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world (driven largely by opposition to
U.S. policies) is the foundation for hatred which is the steppingstone to violence
and the basis for a vast recruiting pool of would-be terrorists.
Because the Bush Administration is not advocating an immediate cease fire and
instead repeats the standard refrain (with many Democrats joining the chorus)
that Israel has the right to defend itself, many Muslims believe that the United
States does not care about the lives of innocent Muslims being killed as a result
of Israeli military operations. This impression is further reinforced by the
fact that the United States provides over $2 billion in military grants to Israel,
including a recent shipment of precision-guided bombs. Thus, the United States
is seen as complicit in the deaths resulting from Israeli military action –-
such as the attack on Qana. And it does not help when President Bush says, “We
care deeply about the people whose lives have been affected in Lebanon… And,
yes, we want to help people rebuild their lives” — implying that the United
States cares less about stopping the destruction, which is not lost on Muslims
around the world.
Although the United States may not be able to stop the conflict, it must take
steps that are in America's strategic interests. First and foremost, this means
recognizing that Israeli security is not a U.S. strategic interest — it is
a parochial interest not worth risking American security. Second, the United
States should support an immediate cease-fire rather than a conditional cease-fire
based on achieving broader Middle East goals, which will be more difficult (if
not impossible) and take longer to achieve. Third, the United States should
stop supplying the Israeli military with the precision weapons being used against
targets in Lebanon, which makes America an accomplice in the deaths of innocent
civilians. Fourth, U.S. rhetoric must stop holding Hezbollah responsible for
Israeli military action resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians — the last thing the United States needs to do is make Hezbollah a direct terrorist
threat. Finally, the United States cannot afford to use the conflict in Lebanon
as an excuse to take action against other targets unrelated to the al-Qaeda
terrorist threat, such as Iran and Syria (recently advocated by former CIA
director and neoconservative luminary James Woolsey).
Via WashingtonNote:
Charles V. Peña is an adviser on the Straus Military Reform Project,
senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, senior fellow
with the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute, and
analyst for MSNBC television. He is the author of Winning the Un-War: A New
Strategy for the War on Terrorism (Potomac Books, 2006), co-author of The Search
for WMD: Non-Proliferation, Intelligence and Pre-emption in the New Security
Environment (Dalhousie University, 2006), and co-author of Exiting Iraq: Why
the U.S. Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War against al Qaeda
(Cato Institute, 2004).
