The State of Israel has much to teach America in its tactical and geopolitical approach in Iraq. Israel understands, with the caliber of knowledge that can only be achieved under the duress of an internecine war, the critical elements in achieving military goals to secure its nation's safety and freedom. Those elements include securing its borders from hostile forces; having the capacity to root out terrorist threats from within its borders; having the singleness of purpose that permits action in the face of international pressure and diplomatic muddling; facing the fact that civil rights suffer when a nation's citizens are imperiled; and being able to read between the lines when faced with evidence that, while not complete, is telling.
The global war paradigm is shifting from one of defined nation states with geographic borders to nation states that are held together by a set of beliefs that defy borders. Our war with al Qaeda, similar to Israel's war within its borders, exemplifies this new paradigm. Within our country, and especially as we barrel toward the presidential election, the temptation toward partisan posturing, at the expense of genuine problem solving during this dangerous period of international tumult, will be a serious, self-imposed threat.
When Iraq, a country with long-held hostilities toward Israel and a hotbed for fomenting attacks on Israel, built a nuclear reactor (with the assistance of France), Israel didn't seek international permission or approval for mediating this threat. They bombed the reactor in 1981. They understand, with moral certainty, the importance of self-preservation. They were roundly condemned as having committed an act of international aggression. They are committed to self-determination, first and foremost.
Our relationship with Saudi Arabia, important to the American economy and world stability, cannot be regarded as monolithic or categorical. Within the controlling royal families, there are serious divides among the family factions. And as King Fahd ages and is in increasingly ill health, one has to be concerned about the destabilizing potential his death will bring. Further, it has not gone unnoticed that 17 of the 19 terrorists that attacked our country on Sept. 11 were largely America-based, al Qaeda-connected Saudi Arabian Muslims.
When the first report on the events of 9/11 was released, the last chapter of that report, which focused on Saudi Arabia, was heavily redacted. The parts that did become public alleged that a Saudi princess provided aid and comfort in the form of substantial financial assistance to al Qaeda-run entities. And the successful recent uprisings in Saudi Arabia within the gated American garrisons and elite Saudi neighborhoods must be regarded as harbingers of future conflict and the foundations of a possible coup.
The Israelis read between the lines of the construction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor. We need to read between the lines on the role that some elements of the Saudi government may have played in the events of 9/11. If our government is doing that, they must adopt (and perhaps already have adopted) a strategy to secure American interests and the interests of our allies.
That must include building a reliable base in the Middle East that permits America to achieve strategic position in the event that pro-American elements of the Saudi government are overtaken by the radical terrorist element. This is essential to the protection of our Middle East allies in Kuwait, Israel and beyond. It also ensures that we are not in a petitioner posture to secure access and supply lines in the event of a full-scale conflict, as we were during our invasion of Afghanistan.
Were Saudi Arabia to collapse, it would be necessary to have a base of American operations in a free Iraq, since the northern border of Saudi Arabia is more than 200 miles long, abutting the southern border of Iraq. Were the Saudis to destabilize politically, the geopolitics of these two countries, without U.S. intervention in Iraq, would create a significant terroristic critical mass in the region.
We also cannot lull ourselves into the misguided notion that if we could only engage the United Nations and NATO in the stabilization of Iraq, we could gain worldwide legitimacy. We forget, at our peril, that in the early days of the Iraqi invasion, the United Nations resisted protection of American forces. When the U.N. headquarters in Iraq was bombed, the U.N. withdrew. Nothing has happened since then to offer us any assurance that the U.N. would do much better in coping with the military and political complexity of the region.
Yes, Iraq is a hardship. Yes, it seems to be a morass. Yes, we are losing Americans every day in escalating conflicts. No one wants the loss of American or peace-seeking Iraqi lives. But we must face the world as we find it, as Israel has, and does.
We live in a new world, with shadow enemies and artificial boundaries. Terrorists live in anticipation that we will revert to our hopes and dreams instead of the cold realities of their brutality.
Israel has much to teach us. We have much to learn.
Donna Gentile O’Donnell is a Ph.D. candidate in health policy history from Philadelphia, Pa. vox populi... appears on alternate fridays.
