The Redhunter

Earlier this week I wrote about Moral Clarity as it relates to how we look at foreign policy questions. In his column yesterday Morton Kondracke gave us two perfect examples of a lack of moral clarity in regards to thinking on the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

First up is former General Brent Scowcroft, longtime Washington policy advisor. Kondracke says that in a November op-ed in the Washington Post, Scowcroft advised that the United States

"should insist that Israel stop construction of its wall on the West Bank" and not only to withdraw from Gaza, as it plans to do, but also to "evacuate" the West Bank.

Scowcroft argued that the security Israel currently derives from the fence it has built -- a barrier that has largely stopped suicide bombings in Israel proper -- should be replaced by international peacekeepers from Europe. It's an idea that Israel will never accept.

Note that nothing is demanded of the Palestinians. They need not reform their authoritarian government; much less take any measures to stop terrorism. Further, as Kondracke points out, Israel is simply not going to completely pull out of the West Bank. So Scowcroft is either not within the bounds of reality, in which case we can dismiss him entirely, or he would force Israel to take suicidal steps, in which case he sufferes from a severe lack of moral clarity.

Next is Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration.

Brzezinski puts the matter in even starker terms, declaring that, in the minds of the world's Muslims, the United States has joined Israel in a "war against Islam" and that the way out is to join Europe in pressing Israel for a peace deal with Palestinians and with Iran, whose nuclear program Israel deems a threat to its existence.

There is a certain point where no matter what you do people will believe what they are going to believe. We have fought perhaps the most politically correct war in history, going out of our way on numerous occasions to say that we are not at war with Islam but with "terror" (yes I know, you can't be a war with a tactic, and the war is really against radical Islam, but that's a subject for another day). Perhaps we could do better at getting or message out, or doing this or that better. Those are legitimate subjects. But we are at the point were we must press on no matter what some other people think.

Bush's "global war on terror," Brzezinski said at the luncheon, "lumps all terrorists together and all Islamic terrorists together. Wise strategy lies not in uniting your enemies, but dividing them." When I asked Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, whether he meant that the United States should take a benign attitude toward anti-Israeli terrorists like Hamas, he said, "I don't mean that we shouldn't condemn terrorism," but "let's not universalize Islamic terrorism. ... Let's recognize there are varieties of Islamic terrorism."

Uh...what difference does that make? Murderers are murderers no matter what their excuse. Brzezinski, too, suffers from a lack of moral clarity when he says that we should "take a benign attitude" toward some terrorists. Kondracke demolishes this kind of thinking:

If "realism" in foreign policy means selling out an ally like Israel to curry favor with inconstant friends in Europe and the Arab world, it can't be good. In fact, it would send a message to militant Islam: "Aha, the leader of Western civilization has lost its nerve. Terrorism pays. We're on the march.

Predictably, both Scowcroft and Brzezinski are pessimistic about what will happen in Iraq. They both want us to let Europe and the UN to take over management of Iraq. Neither seems to care much about what type of government the Iraqi people will live under. Neither seems to care as to whether they will live in freedom or tyranny.

Their mantra is "stablity uber alles". Their primary mistake is in equating Israel with the Palestinian Authority. To them everyone is just a piece on a chessboard. Not only do they not care much about the Israelis, they don't care about the Palestinian people either. If "strengthening Arafat" was what they told us during the '90s, we can be sure that democracy in a Palestinian state is not on their agenda either.

Thirty years ago the United States had an ally in South Vietnam. The latter was a flawed partner, but one that had potential for progress towards democracy. At the time South Korea and Taiwan were under the rule of authoritarian regimes, and today both are fairly stable democracies. Natan Sharansky has argued that we must not underestimate the potential for democracy anywhere, even in the most "unlikely" places. I believe him to be correct.

We abandoned South Vietnam to the wolves, which devoured her quickly. The people of that country, however, did not go quietly. Tens of thousands attempted to flee, many on small, overcrowded boats into the open ocean. Thousands died, and some were rescued. They became known as the "boat people", and you may have met some of them but just not know it.

Will Scowcroft or Brzezinski be there to pick up Iraqi boat people if the nation collapses? Don't count on it.
|