The Need for Nuance

Criticizing both the Bush and Kerry plans for Iraq, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinksi suggests a new way to approach the challenge we face. He suggests that we form a "Grand Alliance" with the European Union and focus on the Middle East's three most inflammatory problems together: "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the mess in Iraq, and the challenge of a restless and potentially dangerous Iran."

His "Grand Alliance" is offered in direct opposition to the "anti-Islamic alliance" he suggests we're being led into, and somewhat against our best interests, inadvertently by the alienation Bush's lack of diplomacy has brought us and perhaps intentionally by those with competing interests:

The notion of a new Holy Alliance is already being promoted by those with a special interest in entangling the United States in a prolonged conflict with Islam. Vladimir Putin's endorsement of Mr. Bush immediately comes to mind; it also attracts some anti-Islamic Indian leaders hoping to prevent Pakistan from dominating Afghanistan; the Likud in Israel is also understandably tempted; even China might play along.

In particular, Brzezinski argues we're faced with a civil war within Islam, pitting extremists against somewhat cowered moderates, but he warns against staying the course we're on now, which increasingly sounds like a holy war:

The undiscriminating American rhetoric and actions increase the likelihood that the moderates will eventually unite with the jihadists in outraged anger and unite the world of Islam in a head-on collision with America.

I've been arguing this for months now. Laziness and/or sloppy rhetoric (such as arguing that radical Islamism be viewed as "the new Communism") will harm us. The rhetoric must remain detailed and distinct. Nuance is our friend here. Moderates will join the extremists if they're not given a discriminating tool/vocabulary through which to separate themselves from those we're trying to eliminate. A war on "Islam" will benefit the terrorists; don't doubt it. It is crucial that moderates be reassured continuously that their religion is not being threatened.

But it's not just the rhetoric Brzezinski is worried about, it's what's viewed as undiscriminating actions, as well:

The situation is not going to get any easier. If President Bush is re-elected, our allies will not be providing more money or troops for the American occupation. Mr. Bush has lost credibility among other nations, which distrust his overall approach. Moreover, the British have been drawing down their troop strength in Iraq, the Poles will do the same, and the Pakistanis recently made it quite plain that they will not support a policy in the Middle East that they view as self-defeating.

In fact, in the Islamic world at large as well as in Europe, Mr. Bush's policy is becoming conflated in the public mind with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's policy in Gaza and the West Bank. Fueled by anti-American resentments, that policy is widely caricatured as a crude reliance on power, semicolonial in its attitude, and driven by prejudice toward the Islamic world. The likely effect is that staying on course under Mr. Bush will remain a largely solitary American adventure. (emphasis mine)

Thomas Friedman also wrote about this recently:

I was speaking the other day with Scott Pelley of CBS News's "60 Minutes" about the mood in Iraq. He had just returned from filming a piece there and he told me something disturbing. Scott had gone around and asked Iraqis on the streets what they called American troops - wondering if they had nicknames for us in the way we used to call the Nazis "Krauts" or the Vietcong "Charlie." And what did he find? "Many Iraqis have so much distrust for U.S. forces we found they've come up with a nickname for our troops," Scott said. "They call American soldiers 'The Jews,' as in, 'Don't go down that street, the Jews set up a roadblock.' "

Friedman argues, as does Brzezinksi, that the Israel/Palestinian conflict continues to complicate US efforts in Iraq, that the two are inseparable now. Friedman suggests it's been made more problematic due to

Bush team's failed approach to the Arab-Israel problem, which is to tell the truth only to Yasir Arafat, while embracing Ariel Sharon so tightly that it's impossible to know anymore where U.S. policy stops and Mr. Sharon's begins.

Here again, nuance is our friend. It's increasingly obvious that it will be impossible to win the "war on terror" with slogans and sound bites. Binary declarations, even those with "clarity of vision," alone won't cut it. We must communicate the rather complicated idea to the Arab world that we don't trust Arafat, but we do wish the average Palestinians well. Not just that we wish them no harm, but we want to work toward a place where we support them and count them among our allies. We must communicate that our goal here, however, will never lead us to not support Israel. Those Arabs who want to eliminate Israel will remain our enemies. Those who want to co-exist peacefully will gain our friendship, and all the advantages that carries. The "advantages that carries" however is totally dependent on our being crystal clear that we are not at war with Islam.

Comments

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"We must communicate the rather complicated idea to the Arab world that we don't trust Arafat, but we do wish the average Palestinians well. Not just that we wish them no harm, but we want to work toward a place where we support them and count them among our allies. We must communicate that our goal here, however, will never lead us to not support Israel. Those Arabs who want to eliminate Israel will remain our enemies. Those who want to co-exist peacefully will gain our friendship, and all the advantages that carries. The "advantages that carries" however is totally dependent on our being crystal clear that we are not at war with Islam."

This would be an excellent message to have received, but it has already been sent and it has not been accepted. All through the Carter years, through many of the Bush I years and throughout the entire Clinton presidency, we tried to send the message that we wanted to have both have fair treatment of the Palestinians and continue to support the existance of Israel.

That is seen supporting Israel too much.

It is seen as such because much of the Arab world would like to see Israel destroyed and the Jews scattered. The moderate position is that Israel should be destroyed eventually. That isn't negotiable. The message you want us to send is not acceptable to the parties you wish to have receive it.

[Edward]

I recognize the truth in what you're saying Sebastian, but not it's conclusion. Are you arguing that because Arabs so far have not welcomed the message that we should change messages?

And what about Friedman's charge that Bush is "embracing Ariel Sharon so tightly that it's impossible to know anymore where U.S. policy stops and Mr. Sharon's begins."?

Clearly we can magnify some part of either Sharon's plan or where we disagree with it that shows the respect for Palestinians we wish to be our first and foremost message, no?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Are you arguing that because Arabs so far have not welcomed the message that we should change messages?"

I'm suggesting that while making plans for how to conduct our diplomacy in the Middle East, we shouldn't count on that message being received. A plan that starts, "first we convince them that we want a fair settlement for the Palestinians AND a fair settlement for Israel" isn't a good plan because the two are contradictory ideas in the Middle East. In much of the Arab world, the only fair settlement involves Jews leaving Israel forever--by boat or box. It is not quite as bad, but in the same league as a plan that begins "First we invent anti-gravity".

"And what about Friedman's charge that Bush is "embracing Ariel Sharon so tightly that it's impossible to know anymore where U.S. policy stops and Mr. Sharon's begins."?"

I find this utterly unconvincing as a reason for Arab anger because the exact same anger was cherished by them throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s--when Sharon was not in power.

[praktike]

Sebastian, do you believe that Israel is justified in taking Palestinian land?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I believe that Israel was justified in taking territory from Jordan and Egypt when the two countries were massing troops to attack them, and I know that the land in your question is the same land.

I know that the Arab desire for the destruction of Israel predates the Palestinian conflict because the very same war where Egypt and Jordan decided to try to destroy Israel predates the Palestinian conflict.

Which is presicely why I find it hard to believe that the desire to exterminate Israel is due to the Palestinian conflict.

[Jesurgislac]

The US has never succeeded in being non-partisan in the Israel/Palestine conflict. It has seldom, however, been as publicly anti-Palestinian as George W. Bush has successfully made it appear.