The Israel Analogy

It's easy and, indeed, appropriate to mock Bush for the public diplomacy fiasco involved in saying that his plan is to make Iraq more like Israel but this shouldn't completely obscure the fact that Bush is making a sound analytic point. What he's saying about Iraq is, in essence, what John Kerry was saying about the US when he said he thought we should aim to reduce terrorism to a kind of nuisance. Naturally, Kerry got savagely attacked for saying this, but at some point somebody's going to need to have the courage to make the argument that setting ourselves maximalist goals vis-a-vis terrorism doesn't make sense.

Plenty of countries have long suffered some degree of terrorism -- Spain, Britain, Israel -- while being more-or-less pleasant, economically successful democracies whose citizens enjoy a high standard of living. These countries would, of course, like to completely eliminate their terrorism problems and rightly do make efforts in these regards. But during their better moments, at least, all of these countries recognize that the goal is to reduce the harm caused by terrorism to manageable levels, not to turn everything upside down in pursuit of a possibly chimerical "victory." What we really, really, really need to focus on is making sure no terrorists get nuclear bombs while, beyond that, we keep the risks involved in conventional terrorism (even in Israel you're more likely to die in a car wreck than a suicide bombing) in perspective.

Comments

A sound analytic point on such a subject and a quarter will no longer get you a phone call.

Posted by norbizness | June 29, 2007 10:57 AM

Plenty of countries have long suffered some degree of terrorism -- Spain, Britain, Israel -- while being more-or-less pleasant, economically successful democracies whose citizens enjoy a high standard of living.

Ask yourself why Bush didn't say Spain, Britain, and other countries of Western Europe (France too, I think; they've had problems with Basque separatists too sometimes, haven't they?) should be used as an ideal to aspire to, even for Iraq, and you'll no longer wonder why he said Israel should be.

I kind of imagine some person in the White House who actually means well, despite his surroundings. Maybe even Bush himself, but maybe not; if he's a true believer, the situation for John Doe Staffer who isn't is all the worse. Mr. Doie doesn't or can't actually do the right thing because it would go against precedent and they have so little left but the image they've carefully crafted and half the people up in the White House with them actually believe in the image themselves — they're trapped on the tiger they're riding. if it were happening in someone else's country, it would be a great Shakespearean tragedy.

Posted by Cyrus | June 29, 2007 11:14 AM

Britain, Spain, and Israel are inappropirate models because they have a much higher level of stability than Iraq can achieve in the short term.

If we are looking for outside models, the best we can do are Latin American countries with long-running civil wars like Columbia. The minimum of what we want in Iraq is a central government strong enough to repel Sunni insurgents. That happened in Columbia. The central governments were strong enough to defend themselves against insurgencies but not strong enough to decisively defeat the insurgencies. Guatemala and El Salvador gradually worked their way to fragile accommodations after long insurgencies.

That point has been achieved in Iraq. The central government is strong enough to repel al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents (mostly because of allied Shiite militias). Given that we're not particularly helping things in Iraq and the surge in particular has resulted in a strengthening of Sunni insurgents (because of the standing down of the Shiite militias), it's a good time to withdraw our combat forces.

Posted by Ric Caric | June 29, 2007 11:22 AM

I agree it was not diplomatic, but is it a good thing anyway? I think that prejudices need to be confronted sometimes. I don't think that they are removed by conceding to them. That just gives them more power. If I admire Muhammed Ali, as I don't, then it would be offensive if I went down south and said I'd like my son to grow up like Mu^H^HRocky Marciano. Let the Arab world accept that Israel is not the be-all and end-all of evil. Start with hearing that perhaps there might be some good things about Israel and perhaps that Israel might be a role model. God forbid.

Posted by HeiGou | June 29, 2007 11:22 AM

At this point we might justly be concerned (see Juan Cole) about the public repercussions of Bush's remark.

Some years ago, Kruschev stated that the Soviet Union would bury us economically with an outpouring of goods, a promise they actually made good in Poland, where workers in the early 70s lived at least as well, or better, than American workers in similar jobs. At about the same time, Kruschev, during a UN debate, used his shoe to pound on his desk demanding a point of order.

Naturally, every American today remembers Kruschev pounding on the desk with his shoe as he threatens to kill us all.

Similarly, in the mideast this morning millions of people are hearing that Bush intends Iraq to be another outpost of colonialism, like Israel.

Bush is the Wayne Gretzky of presidential stupidity- he sets new records and then breaks them himself.

Posted by serial catowner | June 29, 2007 11:27 AM

I thought the true believers already felt Iraq was much like Israel in terms of stability. As Laura Bush said, "Many parts of Iraq are stable now, but of course what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everybody."

Iraq is a million miles away from achieving an acceptable level of stability. Pointing out that "stability" is still going to involve a little violence isn't "a sound analytic point" so much as it's completely irrelevant.

Posted by Steve | June 29, 2007 11:30 AM

Even if he'd used the examples of Northern Ireland and the Basque country you could still see a few million Iraqi roll their eyes and say "yeah, thanks a million".

I'm not sure it was a sound analytical point as much as just daft. Besides anything else the issue isn't just the bombings, which are far worse than anything experienced by Israel, Britain or Spain, it's the fact that the country faces the possibility of a horrific civil war.

Posted by Renwick | June 29, 2007 11:51 AM

Britain, Spain, and Israel are inappropirate models because they have a much higher level of stability than Iraq can achieve in the short term.

Well sure, they're inappropriate models because they're unrealistic goals in the short term. But they're also inappropriate models because the American right-wing movement has spent the last few years vilifying them for appeasement or dhimmitudinityism or whatever. I think that reason is the much more important one to Bush and/or his handlers.

Posted by Cyrus | June 29, 2007 11:57 AM

That's true. These comments are probably more for domestic consumption that anything else. Someone might have decided that they'd better start planting the seed of the idea that they might be forced to leave a less than perfect Iraq.

Posted by Renwick | June 29, 2007 12:04 PM

"What we really, really, really need to focus on is making sure no terrorists get nuclear bombs"

agreed.

At the same time, it has to be said that the "keep calm" strategy, i.e. fighting terrorism by refusing to be terrorized, should be applied even here.

Car bombings and suicide bombings are going to happen; the important thing is to try to reduce them while maintaining (or in our case, restoring) traditional civil liberties and a republican form of government. And keeping calm.

Ditto, alas, for nuclear explosions. I don't see any high likelihood of getting through the next twenty years without a nuke being used by terrorists. It is going to be horribly, gut-wrenchingly awful.

And afterwards, the thing to do will be to keep calm, work on risk reduction, and make sure that civil liberties are protected.

What we now know is that hysteria, militarism, authoritarianism, and torture manifestly do not work to combat terrorism. Won't work after the first nuclear terrorism, either. I just hope we remember that then.

Posted by Count Cant | June 29, 2007 12:08 PM

Setting maximalist goals for combatting terrorism makes all kinds of sense, just not for the stated goal of combatting terrorism.

Posted by RLaing | June 29, 2007 1:47 PM

It was an utterly idiotic and really unforgivable comment, and I can't see why people don't see that. When much of the world hears "Israel", they think of millions of suffering Palestinians, not the occasional suicide bombing. Who do you think the ordinary Iraqi identifies with, a Palestinian at an Israeli checkpoint or a middle class Israeli Jew living fairly comfortably in a fortress suburb?

Matt seems to want to convert this statement into a glimmer of sanity on Bush's part about how *America* should react to terrorism. It's clearly not that. The right has been mercilessly going after every Democrat who made the obvious point that we should treat terrorism as a police problem and focus on locking down loose nukes.

Posted by mq | June 29, 2007 2:24 PM

I've been kind of surprised that the Dems haven't been more vocal about pushing a "fighting terrorism through law enforcement" paradigm over the GOP's "fighting terrorism by starting wars" approach. It seems that the Dems would have a huge advantage making this argument in the current climate of disillusionment with the Iraq war. Republicans--especially during the primary campaign--can't make this argument because they're too wedded to militaristic solutions, but a Democrat (especially Obama, who's not weighted down by an Iraq war vote) could easily take up the mantle of "the way to protect ourselves from acts of terrorism is by strengthening our domestic capacity to detect and deter such acts". George Will made a similar point months ago in his "John Kerry was right" column. I was especially surprised when no Democrat brought this up in the last debate when asked about the recent plot to bomb the JFK airport.

Posted by e-dawg | June 29, 2007 2:35 PM

What we really, really, really need to concentrate on is being a better global citizen. If we worked with arab and islamic nations in a fair, even-handed way, not to exploit them but to assist them in modernization, if we quit being such a highly militarized society, if we found a way to support not just the trappings of democracy, but true social justice and the rule of law, there would stop being reasons for terrorists to attack us.

It was none other than bin Laden who said "...ask yourselves why we do not attack Sweden". When we kill their people and wreck their shit, they come to hate us. This creates a cycle of violence that will perpetuate itself until one of the parties decides to break that cycle.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a terrorist. In spite of the ludicrous sums we spend on our military, it is not the only, or even the best solution to every problem. Indeed, it is frequently the WORST "solution" because it is completely counterproductive.

America is perfectly capable of defending herself and her people without making enemies throughout the world. The 21st century is not an action-adventure movie. It could be a time of peace and prosperity, but we have to proactively CHOOSE that course. And that starts with the ability of politicians to get elected without rattling sabers at our artificial "enemies"...

mikey

Posted by mikey | June 29, 2007 2:48 PM

@Serial catowner:

Cite or two for the standard of living in early 70s Poland? A close friend of mine was a pre- to early adolescent living in Hungary (macro numbers grossly similar to Poland from what I've been able to find) then and his description of the era's material and meta-material circumstances, while far from horrible, sure sounds several steps worse the US at the time (which was really before the great decline in the manufacturing sector anyway).

Your point about how phrases are (mis)remembered well taken - the key point being how well the reinterpretation meets the narrative need of the appropriator.

Posted by empiricus | June 29, 2007 3:04 PM

Why let him move the goalposts? The November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as (among other things):

An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.

and

An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.

Since President Bush's recent statement directly contradicts that, he needs to explain what happened to the National Strategy for Victory.

Posted by croatoan | June 29, 2007 3:49 PM

"What we really, really, really need to focus on is making sure no terrorists get nuclear bombs..."

If we all agree about this, why aren't more of us worried about Iran getting nukes? After all, Iran has been a leading state sponsor of terrorists for decades.

Posted by Fred | June 30, 2007 12:40 AM

Posted by mikey | June 29, 2007 2:48 PM:"What we really, really, really need to concentrate on is being a better global citizen."

What on Earth do you think that means? You think that perhaps, Oh I don't know, America ought to end Wars, Diseases and Famine? Perhaps you could tell me who invented the UN and imposes peace on most of the world? Iran? Could you please tell me who funded smallpox vaccinations, who invented the polio vaccination, who is leading the fight against HIV? Saudi Arabia? When famine hits Ethiopia who rushes food aid? Egypt? The fact is the US is the best global citizen there is. What is your objection to what the US does precisely?

Posted by mikey | June 29, 2007 2:48 PM:"If we worked with arab and islamic nations in a fair, even-handed way, not to exploit them but to assist them in modernization"

You mean like if America bought their oil which is worth precisely nothing to them and paid them a fortune for it so they could transform their societies? You mean if America treated them as equals, allies and friends giving thousands of their students places at American Universities, sending young men to defend them and so on? Again what on Earth do you mean? America *does* all those things.

Posted by mikey | June 29, 2007 2:48 PM:"if we quit being such a highly militarized society"

Sorry but WTF? America spends about 5 percent of its GDP on the military. Name me a single Middle Eastern country that spends less as a percentage. American Presidents never speak in public in military uniform. They do not send their sons to command the American air force. By Middle Eastern standards, by any rational standard compared to any other country in the world, exactly how is America a highly militarized society? It doesn't even hold the equivalent of France's July 14 Day.

Posted by mikey | June 29, 2007 2:48 PM:"if we found a way to support not just the trappings of democracy, but true social justice and the rule of law, there would stop being reasons for terrorists to attack us."

Why do you think that? Why do you think anything so utterly irrational? America does enormous good in the world and *that* is one of the reasons America is so hated. Where does this idealized fantasy of social justice bringing peace actually work?

Posted by mikey | June 29, 2007 2:48 PM:"It was none other than bin Laden who said "...ask yourselves why we do not attack Sweden"."

But they do. Sweden is small and far away. They don't have that many attackers. But they attack Swedish people too. They hate the West for what it is, not merely for what it does.

Posted by mikey | June 29, 2007 2:48 PM:"When we kill their people and wreck their shit, they come to hate us. This creates a cycle of violence that will perpetuate itself until one of the parties decides to break that cycle."

Sorry but where and when did America go to the Middle East and "wreck [anyone's] shit"? What is this but more of the same old "Blame America First" nonsense? They hate us for very specific reasons. They also, I notice, hate Thailand. Explain to me why people are being beheaded in Thailand and the Philippines - they went to the Middle East and wrecked someone's sh!t there too?

Posted by mikey | June 29, 2007 2:48 PM:"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a terrorist."

If that were true it would still be asinine as America does not have much in the way of hammers and goes out of its way to consider other people's feelings.

Posted by mikey | June 29, 2007 2:48 PM:"In spite of the ludicrous sums we spend on our military, it is not the only, or even the best solution to every problem. Indeed, it is frequently the WORST "solution" because it is completely counterproductive."

Which is interesting but irrelevant as America spends a fortune on other things and it has not worked. It has sent billions of dollars to the Middle East in exchange for oil they could have just stolen (like every other powerful country in their position would have). But all it has produced is hate. Accept the world as it is and not as you would like it to be. People hate America at least in part for the good it does.

Posted by mikey | June 29, 2007 2:48 PM:"America is perfectly capable of defending herself and her people without making enemies throughout the world."

All the evidence is to the contrary however America tries to do precisely this and in the process has made the world a vastly richer, safer, healthier and more free place. It produced 9-11 anyway.

Soon Bush will be gone. And they will hate President Hillary or President Gore or President Nader all the same. Just as they behead peaceful Thai Buddhists who never hurt anyone. The problem is the hate. Not America.

Posted by HeiGou | June 30, 2007 5:25 AM

Posted by Fred | June 30, 2007 12:40 AM:"If we all agree about this, why aren't more of us worried about Iran getting nukes? After all, Iran has been a leading state sponsor of terrorists for decades."

Or more worrying, it is clearly the fear of nuclear weapons that is driving the Neo-Cons. They seem to think that if the terrorists get one they will use it and it is only a matter of time before they get one. So those people who say that we will never eliminate terrorism are surely defeatist. We may never do so I admit, but the more that we normalize terror and reduce it to one of those things we have to live with like street crime, the more it becomes an acceptable career option for your average young resentful Jihadi, the more of it we will get. Which means that in time they will get nuclear weapons of one sort or another - just as we cannot get every terrorist, we cannot protect every piece of nuclear waste. And they will use it when they get it. This is where the logic of ignoring the terrorists but concentrating on the bombs seems to fall down.

This is a circumstance where a Zero Tolerance policy makes sense to me. New York showed that if we did not accept that we had to live with crime something could be done. The same is true of terror. The less we tolerate it the less there will be. The less there is the less likely they are to do something really nasty.

Posted by HeiGou | June 30, 2007 6:15 AM

My reading of public discourse these days is that analytical points, no matter how valid, take a back seat to emotionalism and name-calling.

Bush should know better, and has a full-time aide, Karen Hughes, to advise him on these things.

During WWII it was said that 'loose lips sink ships'. I wonder how many ships W would have sunk by now?

Posted by Jon Koppenhoefer | July 3, 2007 6:22 PM