The last week I've been thinking about unintended consequences of strategic errors. Can one ever come back from a failed strategy?
Of course, I am talking about the USA in Iraq and Israel in Lebanon.
a flawed strategy
Right from the beginning, I had serious doubts that Israel could "defeat" Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a militia but they are also a strong political party within Lebanon; they arent a state or a traditional army. Looking at our own experience in Iraq, the USA has not been able to disarm a single militia in Iraq and we have completely p0wned the country for years. I just didnt see how destroying roads and bridges throughout the country of Lebanon (not just the southern border) was going to do anything positive.
I guess the strategy was to get the Lebanese people to turn on Hezbollah. The argument the Israeli's were trying to make to the Lebanese people was that Hezbollah was the one that was really killing them because they started it. (As tenuous as it seems to me, this is exactly what the Israeli ambassador said in interviews.)
Our President and public opinion seemed squarely behind Israel's invasion but their strategy was doomed from the start because it was too complex. When someone is dropping Israeli and US bombs on your house, your first reaction is to blame the US and Israel not to search for a deeper cause. (It's hard to blame the Lebanese for this since it is exactly what the USA did after 9/11 - circle the wagons and look for an easy scapegoat.)
Much of Lebanon is a now pile of rubble yet Hezbollah is claiming victory and the political analysts largely agree. As do many Israeli's it seems as some of the harshest critics of Israel's president and military leaders are Israeli voters. I didnt see that coming.
winning hearts and minds - with a positive message
As I have said before, I dont think you can win hearts and minds with violence. The cycle of violence only creates more anger and more violence. Past deaths give people justification for future deaths, on both sides of the issue. Fear might prevent large-scale attacks but it doesnt provide the motivation for long-term peace.
Israel always seems to be fighting with someone and in fear of future attacks. The policy of massive retaliation, air strikes and invasions just isn't working to provide Israel with the kind of economic stability that we take for granted every day in the USA.
What other policy could there be? Is it possible to create a middle eastern economy where different peoples depend on each other for trade (as opposed to the present situation where all sides depend on foreign aid)?
One of the sad ironies here is that Hezbollah get's it. Even thought their actions provoked the Israeli invasion, their first action after the cease fire began was to promise to feed and house every family that was displaced by the Israeli bombs. They were also the first ones into the war zone with bulldozers trying to clean things up and rebuild. More than that, they are loudly telling anyone and everyone how much they are helping the poor and wounded of Lebanon.
marketing isnt just for products
Irregardless of any facts, Hezbollah is establishing themselves in people's minds as the solution not the problem. This is a branding situation, much like Volvo did with the concept of safety. Do you know for a fact that other cars are less safe than Volvo? Odds are you have no idea what the facts really are but you believe Volvo's are safe.
Another branding lesson here is that people struggle to hold mutually exclusive idea's in their head. They know that if people perceive them as doing good deeds and helping people, it will be hard for anyone to present evidence to the contrary. Even if Hezbollah are clearly instigating trouble, a strong brand message about their good deeds will allow them to push their political agenda and will also cause many people to forget that they provoked the war to begin with.
Instead of playing into the stereotype that they are paranoid war-mongers, Israel could try a radical new strategy: Get out there and very publically help the poor and needy of the region. Given the high emotions and past feelings, this may seem impossible but what other choice is there?
To reshape the Middle East, one needs a radical new approach and that does not mean even bigger guns and more bombs. Besides, wouldnt it feel better to see images of an Israeli "Habitat for Humanity" building houses for the poor on the news than to see tanks shooting at kids with rocks?
US strategy doomed from the start
The same kind of strategic positioning error happened to the US in Iraq and we are still struggling with the consequences. (Heck, we are still struggling to admit we made mistakes.) Whatever our intentions for starting this war really were, we are not perceived as the solution nor are we acting like a solution.
Over 3,000 Iraqis were killed in July 2006 alone! Imagine 3,000 murders in California or Texas in one month and then tell me how much you would want "American-style freedom and democracy"? I'd rather know that my daughter was safe to go to school. And if all our superpowers cannot keep the streets safe or keep the electricity working after several YEARS, why should anyone there trust what we say?
Our occupation of Iraq was doomed right at the start of the war because we failed to establish ourselves as the solution not the problem. First off, we didnt stop the looting and violence. To make things worse, the only things we did protect were the oil fields, not the museums or the people. This was a big giant sign telling the world that the only thing we cared about was the oil - not the Iraqi people. Unfair of not, this blunder was all our enemies needed to portray us as greedy outsiders and get people to see us as the problem not "liberators".
Our second mistake was our failure to give people an incentive to work together, ie oil. The oil represents a huge amount of money that all Iraqi's could share as a way to pay for housing and schools and a better Iraq. The oil could have been a reason to get regular Iraqi's to work with us and not with Al Qaeda. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
Instead of copying Venezuela and giving the oil to the people of Iraq, we tried to be Texas oilmen and keep the oil for private ownership and big corporations. Instead of giving Iraqi's a financial reason to work together, we gave the insurgents a way to fight back against the American invaders - bomb the oil pipelines. And everything else.
doing more of the same thing and expecting a different result
Striking back at Americans is a stronger message today than building a new Iraq and things wont improve until that perception changes. At this point, I doubt that perception will change without a drastic repositioning of our strategy. "Stay the course" just isnt going to work because we are on the wrong course.
We lack credibility (the infrastructure is just as bad as before the war, the list of corrupt US contractors continues to grow, soldiers in the Green Zone have been unable to keep the peace).
We lack trust (remember those Abu Ghraib photos and the soldier rape/murder cases).
Overall we arent instilling the vision of a brighter future for Iraqi's. As things get worse, the nihilism that fuels the suicide bombers will only get stronger (much the same as we saw in our own drive-by shooting culture of the inner cities). Another thing that will get stronger is idea of safety at any price, which is the message of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the militias in Iraq.
The real question now is whether the Bush White House will acknowledge their failed policy or if it will take another election and a new President. If it does come down to a new President, will our political process lead to a sound new strategy or will the superficial arguments from both sides rule the day?
the future?
The biggest irony here is that only the Bush administration would have been foolish enough to invade Iraq but no one in the Bush administration was capable of doing it right. We could have done some good in the region, but that opportunity seems to be lost for now, if not forever.
Overall I have serious doubts that either the US or Israel are willing to take the kind of bold steps to really create a new system in the Middle East. The kind of steps a Martin Luther King, a Ghandi or a Nelson Mandela would take. Instead I expect more of the same until global warming raises the oceans high enough to REALLY change the balance of power in the region.
