August 17, 2006--Winning the Peace

We won the war in Iraq but appear to be losing the peace. What are some of the lessons that might be extracted from that experience that could prove helpful in the current situation in Lebanon? So we don’t make the same mistakes twice or three times or indefinitely? It feels as if we had better figure this out. Unless we do, it is all too obvious what awaits us and the rest of the world.

Militarily it is clear that we in Iraq and the Israelis in Lebanon fought this time using “last war” strategies and tactics, thinking shock-and-awe bombing would so defeat and demoralize the “enemy” that it would be a “piece of cake,” to quote Paul Wolfowitz, to waltz in with a handful of ground troops and be welcomed as liberators.

That didn’t work in either situation—the “defeated” armies wound up the victors. Previously, I described this as geopolitical jujitsu, where the opposite of what you think you are achieving through the use of your strength gets turned against you and defeats you. So there should be lessons to be learned about how in the future we can be more effective in fighting “insurgents” or other groups that are imbedded in communities and receive local support.

In regard to the peace, after winning in Iraq, in order to rebuild the infrastructure that we destroyed and build institutions, including a new government, we did what other global enterprises do—we outsourced the work. Primarily, we turned to the private sector, awarding “no-bid” contracts to Halliburton and others. And what has been the result? Iraq is still an infrastructural shambles and the government and security forces there have thus far failed to protect their people. 3,500 Iraqi civilians were killed during the month of July while Halliburton made hundreds of millions of dollars.

And what are we seeing in Lebanon just three days after the cease fire took effect? Significant evidence on the ground of rebuilding and the restoration of services. And how is this happening? Rather than Halliburton, Hezbollah is getting the job done!

Turn on CNN and you will see Hezbollah bulldozer drivers clearing the rubble; Hezbollah EMS personnel tending to the sick and wounded; Hezbollah recruits bringing in food and water; Hezbollah rescue workers extracting the dead from among the ruins; and as reported in the NY Times in yesterday’s lead story, “Hezbollah Leads Work to Rebuild, Gaining Stature” (linked below) they are on the ground even giving displaced Lebanese money to pay their rent!

Cynics here are saying, “Sure, they are doing all of this because Iran is providing the money.” I say, “What’s wrong with that?” It certainly is a brilliant strategy. And by the way, who is providing all the billions that are being wasted and ripped off in Iraq? Isn’t it clear that Iran is getting a better bang for their bucks than we are?

Which leads me to a few heretical thoughts—I know we are not supposed to talk with our “enemies,” the Iranians and Syrians, etc.—but what would happen if instead of pledging a puny $50 million is relief aid for Lebanon, to be laundered through who knows which NGOs, what if our government and private foundation funders were to approach Hezbollah to see if they would be open to receiving our support for this humanitarian effort? In effect, rather than hiring Halliburton, which has a record of corruption and failure, we turned to the group that is proving to know what to do?

Of course the Israelis would, to say the least, object. But if we want to help calm that region we had better come up with some bold and effective strategies.

We might even remind Israel that after the Second World War we led efforts to rebuild and reconstitute the nation that had put six million Jews in gas chambers. And it worked.