The term "fog of war"
expresses the acute uncertainty regarding one's own capability and an
adversary's capability and intent during a military operation. Usually,
neither side can claim any advantage in such situations, but in some
instances, the fog is somehow unilateral. This is what the past few days
have felt like.
The terrorists who
abducted Eyal Yifrach, Gil-ad Shaer and Naftali Frenkel know exactly
what they are doing and that their next move is likely to be, while the
families are plagued by the fog of war. The terrorists' leaders have a
clear goal in mind, while the Israeli leadership is forced to act as if
its hands are tied, or as if, at the very least, the actions it can take
to counter this crisis are very limited.
Why is this happening?
Why was it so obvious that the world would tolerate the abduction of
Jewish Israelis, and that the terrorists' position was justified? A
partial answer to this question can be found in the recent conduct of
the United States and western Europe: if U.S. President Barack Obama
still needs a few more days to decide whether or not his country should
assist Iraq in its fight against insurgents, and if he has already
negated the possibility of putting boots on the ground, then he too is
in the grips of a unilateral fog of war.
Some say this was a
conscious decision -- that this is just Obama's way, while others
believe his policies endanger the entire world. If the information
suggesting insurgents have executed 1,700 Iraqi soldiers over the past
few days (and these are just the numbers we know of) evokes such an
anemic reaction from Obama, the situation is worse than we thought.
The United States under
Obama has somehow bolstered terrorist organizations -- although it is
unfair to place the blame solely with one man. This has been a
fundamental policy of the State Department for years, and it has
affected the entire world. For example, the U.S.'s eagerness, under the
direction of Henry Kissinger, to broker peace between North and South
Vietnam might have won him the Nobel Peace Prize, but a million refugees
plunged into the depths of despair following that so-called "peace."
In 1976, Israel proved
to the world that it would not cower before terrorism. Operation Entebbe
was a clear statement that terrorism must be fought even when the
stakes are high. Unfortunately, the motivation to fight terror has been
steadily decreasing ever since, right down to the recognition of the
Palestinian Liberation Organization, whose aspirations to liberate
Palestine go beyond the 1967 lines.
The U.S. fosters
moderate policies when dealing with terror states, while its rigid
policies toward Israel raise serious questions about placing the
murderer and the victim to the same level.
This atmosphere has limited the
Israeli leadership's ability to seek a fundamental solution to the
threat of terror; making even the simple act of counter abductions
(kidnapping the relatives of those who abducted the teens), which could
have a curtailing effect on terrorism, utterly impossible. This might be
the greatest sin of those who bolster terrorism rather than quash it.
No comments:
Post a Comment