Divide and Rule

Reacting to the news that the U.S. government has been supplying arms to the Palestinian Authority (so they can fight Hamas), the Armchair Generalist wonders "why is it that the Bush administration's first answer to every regional conflict is to throw more weapons into the mix? You'd think that, by now, they'd have figured out that hard power doesn't solve these long-term conflicts."

I think they actually do understand this pretty well. After all, if the conflicts were "solved" that would reduce the need for American weapons, and htus reduce the opportunities for American influence. The essence of the approach is to create a series of standoffs where our proxies have the bulk of the guns, but their enemies of the bulk of the legitimacy (in part because they're not serving as our proxy), and thus the guns-without-legitimacy side is able to maintain a permanently tenuous grasp on power that leaves them ever-more-dependent on external American support. The identity or background of the proxy doesn't really matter, and can include ex-insurgents in Iraq, the same Fatah groups we were trying to freeze out of Palestinian politics a few years ago, Iranian-backed Shiite parties in Basra, sundry Somali factions, whatever.

Comments

Great post, great idea. A bit similar to the synopses of the Brzezinski books I just ordered.

Posted by Dan | March 4, 2008 2:44 PM

In addition to "power" the habit of supplying arms is reinforced because it continues to support our principal industry for export: arms.

Posted by Footloose | March 4, 2008 2:47 PM

I very seriously doubt that the administration has thought it through that carefully. In the case of the Palestinians, I'm sure that Bush and company would *rather* that the guns and legitimacy were all centered around the (ostensibly) two-state-solution-moderate Fatah, with a weak one-state-solution-radical Hamas unable to assert itself, thus leading to Abbas/Fatah negotiations with Israel and a resolution of the conflict. The staggeringly unrealistic nature of this plan is not something Bush will let stand in the way of sticking to what he sees as the right principle; in his world, he's just standing by the moderates while shunning the radicals.

Posted by Haggai | March 4, 2008 2:48 PM

I am not sure that there was any general policy behind the decision to arm the PA other than simply to make sure the Palestians are even more fucked than they already werre.

Posted by blah | March 4, 2008 2:48 PM

I think they actually do understand this pretty well. After all, if the conflicts were "solved" that would reduce the need for American weapons, and htus reduce the opportunities for American influence. The essence of the approach is to create a series of standoffs where our proxies have the bulk of the guns, but their enemies of the bulk of the legitimacy (in part because they're not serving as our proxy), and thus the guns-without-legitimacy side is able to maintain a permanently tenuous grasp on power that leaves them ever-more-dependent on external American support.

You give them way, way too much credit. Does the idea that they're just stupid frighten you too much to contemplate it?

Posted by Brad | March 4, 2008 2:51 PM

Brad - but "they are stupid" has very little explanatory value. There's actually a fair amount of consistency in Bush administration strategy, as Matt points out - the pattern is not pure random flailing. Feeding sectarianism works in Iraq if the goal is to keep an American presence & control without having to do too much of the fighting. Backing a coup works in Palestine if the goal is to preserve Israel (& therefore US) control of the territories rather than come to a peace settlement with some kind of representative force. Understanding that Bush Middle East strategy - while not always smart - makes sense under the assumption that the primary goal is regional hegemony for the US and its allies, not democracy or nonproliferation, makes US actions much more predictable.

Posted by Kalkin | March 4, 2008 2:58 PM

I dunno ... Bush & CO may be stupid, but part of the reason they are stupid then is because they have no incentive to be smart and every incentive to be stupid. There is an old saying (I forget the exact saying or who said it) to the effect of "if your livelihood is dependent on your being dumb, you won't get smart".

And their livelihood is dependent on a certain sort of stupidity, c.f. what some Republican dude once said.

I'm surprised the free-market booster types haven't picked up on the problem of why our governance (and punditry) is so bad and the incentives for it, and what we can do to turn those incentives around. Of course, maybe free-market booster types themselves have incentives to support bad governance and stupid punditry? At the very least, part of the problem is that making a political stink, which is supposed to result in political rewards and "ambition being made to counteract ambition", now results in you getting dismissed for "playing politics". Looks like the torque generated by Madison spinning in his grave is gonna solve our energy problems -- is that the idea?

Anyway, our system will be broke so long as the Madisonian incentives aren't there, and so long as people are blithely cynical because our system is broke, there can't be those Madisonian incentives. Instead, all their is are incentives to be stupid and do things that benefit the military-industrial complex.

In short, the answer to "is Bush & CO evil or stupid?" is "why does it have to be one or the other?" ...

Posted by DAS | March 4, 2008 3:02 PM

At last someone recognizes this!! The key factor that drives this behavior is that foreign regimes in are only considered "friendly" if they do whatever the USA wants them to do. But no regime is going to be THAT accomodating if it has the monopoly of force and the political legitimacy ¿Why would they? So, the inevitable fact is that the "friendly" regimes are "guns but no legitimacy" guys.

Posted by Carlos | March 4, 2008 3:03 PM

Yeah, throw me in for the retardo crew to the rescue idea. Their version of crisis management is basically "Duh, I don't know" *craps own pants* + do whatever a 1980's movie version of Reagan and Rambo's love child would do. We aren't exactly talking about Disraeli and Lord Balfour here, more like Oliver Cromwell with brain damage. The "Vulcans," after all, have all pretty much left the building.

Posted by Reality Man | March 4, 2008 3:05 PM

All right! Great short explanation of imperialist proxy rule.

I very seriously doubt that the administration has thought it through that carefully.

You don't need to. It's the position that you inevitably back into when you try to rule native populations that don't want you there. Your native allies don't have legitimacy, people emerge with popular support who want you out. Then you make yourself indispensable to your native allies by keeping them from getting hanged from the lampposts by people who want you out. Now you have an ally you can trust.

Posted by mq | March 4, 2008 3:07 PM

When examining Bush's MidEast policy, there's usually a case for both world-class stupidity and Machiavellian anti-humanism.

The best case for the latter is made by Bush's assertions that the invasion of Iraq results in fighting "over there" instead of on US territory. It's both a false dichotomy and a statement of ruthless aplomb about killing lots of people.

The case for monumental stupidity also gets a lot of support from the fact that Bush's invasion single-handedly removed the greatest obstacle to Iranian power, if not dominance, in the region, i.e. Saddam. All subsequent complaints about Iranian assertiveness would be funny, if there weren't so much blood spilled.

Of course, brutality, indifference to the lives of others and reliance on force IS a kind of stupidity. Maybe that's how to synthesize the administration's willingness to pump arms into a dangerously violent situation in the bifurcated Palestinian territories in the (apparent) hope that the people it wants dead will be killed. As with the senseless bombing of Lebanon, the stupid brutality is most likely to produce negative and unforeseen consequences.

Posted by denis | March 4, 2008 3:07 PM

When examining Bush's MidEast policy, there's usually a case for both world-class stupidity and Machiavellian anti-humanism.

The best case for the latter is made by Bush's assertions that the invasion of Iraq results in fighting "over there" instead of on US territory. It's both a false dichotomy and a statement of ruthless aplomb about killing lots of people.

The case for monumental stupidity also gets a lot of support from the fact that Bush's invasion single-handedly removed the greatest obstacle to Iranian power, if not dominance, in the region, i.e. Saddam. All subsequent complaints about Iranian assertiveness would be funny, if there weren't so much blood spilled.

Of course, brutality, indifference to the lives of others and reliance on force IS a kind of stupidity. Maybe that's how to synthesize the administration's willingness to pump arms into a dangerously violent situation in the bifurcated Palestinian territories in the (apparent) hope that the people it wants dead will be killed. As with the senseless bombing of Lebanon, the stupid brutality is most likely to produce negative and unforeseen consequences.

Posted by denis | March 4, 2008 3:07 PM

When examining Bush's MidEast policy, there's usually a case for both world-class stupidity and Machiavellian anti-humanism.

The best case for the latter is made by Bush's assertions that the invasion of Iraq results in fighting "over there" instead of on US territory. It's both a false dichotomy and a statement of ruthless aplomb about killing lots of people.

The case for monumental stupidity also gets a lot of support from the fact that Bush's invasion single-handedly removed the greatest obstacle to Iranian power, if not dominance, in the region, i.e. Saddam. All subsequent complaints about Iranian assertiveness would be funny, if there weren't so much blood spilled.

Of course, brutality, indifference to the lives of others and reliance on force IS a kind of stupidity. Maybe that's how to synthesize the administration's willingness to pump arms into a dangerously violent situation in the bifurcated Palestinian territories in the (apparent) hope that the people it wants dead will be killed. As with the senseless bombing of Lebanon, the stupid brutality is most likely to produce negative and unforeseen consequences.

Posted by denis | March 4, 2008 3:08 PM

When examining Bush's MidEast policy, there's usually a case for both world-class stupidity and Machiavellian anti-humanism.

The best case for the latter is made by Bush's assertions that the invasion of Iraq results in fighting "over there" instead of on US territory. It's both a false dichotomy and a statement of ruthless aplomb about killing lots of people.

The case for monumental stupidity also gets a lot of support from the fact that Bush's invasion single-handedly removed the greatest obstacle to Iranian power, if not dominance, in the region, i.e. Saddam. All subsequent complaints about Iranian assertiveness would be funny, if there weren't so much blood spilled.

Of course, brutality, indifference to the lives of others and reliance on force IS a kind of stupidity. Maybe that's how to synthesize the administration's willingness to pump arms into a dangerously violent situation in the bifurcated Palestinian territories in the (apparent) hope that the people it wants dead will be killed. As with the senseless bombing of Lebanon, the stupid brutality is most likely to produce negative and unforeseen consequences.

Posted by denis | March 4, 2008 3:08 PM

When examining Bush's MidEast policy, there's usually a case for both world-class stupidity and Machiavellian anti-humanism.

The best case for the latter is made by Bush's assertions that the invasion of Iraq results in fighting "over there" instead of on US territory. It's both a false dichotomy and a statement of ruthless aplomb about killing lots of people.

The case for monumental stupidity also gets a lot of support from the fact that Bush's invasion single-handedly removed the greatest obstacle to Iranian power, if not dominance, in the region, i.e. Saddam. All subsequent complaints about Iranian assertiveness would be funny, if there weren't so much blood spilled.

Of course, brutality, indifference to the lives of others and reliance on force IS a kind of stupidity. Maybe that's how to synthesize the administration's willingness to pump arms into a dangerously violent situation in the bifurcated Palestinian territories in the (apparent) hope that the people it wants dead will be killed. As with the senseless bombing of Lebanon, the stupid brutality is most likely to produce negative and unforeseen consequences.

Posted by denis | March 4, 2008 3:08 PM

Mr. Yglesias, in his usual manner fails to see what is really going on here. What's happening is that the US and Israel are trying to prop up the PA West Bank "government" to prevent a Hamas takeover. If those props were removed, Hamas would extend their control to the West Bank within a few months. The incursion of the IDF in the Gaza Strip in the past few days is part of this strategy, focussed on weakening Hamas. What the mental midgets in Washington and Jerusalem are missing is that the only way to get rid of Hamas is thru the application of Hama rules in the Gaza Strip. It worked for Hafaz Assad and it can work for Bush/Olmert, except that they are too timid to carry it out.

Posted by SLC | March 4, 2008 3:31 PM

Must be a Republican thing, like how all those people who have been gunned down in schools, malls, restaurants would have been a lot safer if they were carrying guns themselves.

Posted by Jamey | March 4, 2008 3:43 PM

Shorter SLC: Fuck "Never again."

Posted by daveNYC | March 4, 2008 3:44 PM

Glad to see SLC coming out directly for the Palestinian genocide he's been hinting at all these years.

And wow, Denis, you're weakening your credentials for making a stupidity criticism.

Posted by mq | March 4, 2008 3:50 PM

Re mq and DaveNYC

Unfortunately, in the Middle East, it's kill or be killed. The Israeli position should be, better them then us.

Posted by SLC | March 4, 2008 3:58 PM

SLC makes a point, that even the most dedicated opponent can be brought to heel by wholesale decimation of their society, ie. the Syrian city of Hama in 1982, or Iran and Iraq at the hands of the Mongols in the 1200s. Once you go down that path, you're stuck with the consequences, known, known unknowns, unknown unknowns, and all.

Now that Meir Kahane is safely in the grave, I don't think there's a significant bloc within the Israeli government that thinks the consequences are worth bulldozing Gaza.

Posted by cmholm | March 4, 2008 4:08 PM

Matt is often silly, but this is a simply appalling post. I'm pretty sure Fatah requested the guns rather than, what, Michael Jackson CD's? If we only used more soft power, then Hamas wouldn't be cutting Fatah throats, and everybody would live happily ever after. Anyway, they're the real "legitimate" ones, so maybe Matt thinks we should be arming Hamas instead. But wait, they don't need us, they've got Iran!

Posted by Robert Powell | March 4, 2008 4:12 PM

Wow, how did Noam Chomsky get a job blogging for the Atlantic? I mean, it's good to see real left wing opinions expressed and I mostly agree with you, but I don't usually think of you as that jaded.

Posted by Andy | March 4, 2008 4:20 PM

A good point using a bad example. Using soft power with Hamas is like using soft power with al-qaida. Nihilistic death worshipers can't be reasoned with.

Posted by Dave | March 4, 2008 4:32 PM

"I share with these two leaders the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security."

-- President Bush, January 10, 2008

Posted by croatoan | March 4, 2008 4:43 PM

Dave writes:

A good point using a bad example. Using soft power with Hamas is like using soft power with al-qaida.

Dave is disingenuous to claim a parallel between al-qaida and Hamas. Hamas is a political movement that won the most recent Palestinian elections. al-qaida is a terrorist movement that has never won election anywhere. There is a world of difference between Hamas and al-qaida.

If anything shows the failure of soft power to end this conflict it is the failure of four decades of our touchy-feely support of Israel.

I have never seen the Israeli settlers described as nihilistic death worshipers before but the phrase has some merit. They are certainly nihilistic because they have no real desire to see a positive outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is certainly no way to reason with these nihilistic death worshipers or their supporters.

Posted by ndm | March 4, 2008 5:14 PM

Re ndm

Mr. ndm, as usual, fails to take what Hamas says seriously. Unlike him, I consider the Hamas folks to be serious people with a serious agenda. Their position is that the State of Israel must go out of business, either by agreement or by force. Since the Government of Israel has no intention of going out of business, there would seem very little to negotiate about here. We do the Palestinians no favor by assuming that the Hamas folks are just posturing children who can be somehow bought off.

Posted by SLC | March 4, 2008 5:20 PM

SLC complains that I don't take what Hamas says seriously.

I quite correctly take the words of Hamas less seriously than I take the actions of Israel. Actions always trump words.

Zionist Irridentism is a reality on the ground today. Palestinian Irridentism is a fantasy of some percentage of the Palestinian people - but it is currently nothing more than a fantasy and it will remain nothing more than a fantasy. The core issue that ensures the continuation of this dreadful conflict is the ACTUALITY of Zionist Irridentism today.

Posted by ndm | March 4, 2008 5:46 PM

Hamas kept a unilateral ceasefire from 2005 through mid-2007, and since then has kept an open offer of a mutual ceasefire which the Israeli government, for all its claimed concern about Sderot, has spurned. Doesn't seem like the behavior of nihilistic death worshippers to me. (But I forget: they're Muslim Arabs, and as any good secular "liberal" hawk knows, these people are nihilistic death worshipers by default, thus Hamas' election by a majority of Palestinians.)

SLC must be glad Metan Vilnai has finally had the courage to come out and say what needs to be done: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1

Posted by Kalkin | March 4, 2008 5:51 PM

Hamas is a radical but recognizable political party, with an agenda and everything. Even if the hardcore Hamas types can never be reconciled, political parties move in response to their constituency. If the Hamas constituency sees Israel as unable to be reasoned with or compromised with, then naturally they will move toward the hardcore radical position. It's human nature and actually makes sense.

Posted by mq | March 4, 2008 6:14 PM

Re ndm

Unfortunately, the Palestinians have used cease fires in the past to regroup and rearm for the next phase of fighting. The time for cease fires is long past. The only option on the Israeli side which will settle the issue is the application of Hama rules.

Re Kalkin

Mr. Vilnai is just another loudmouth who has no intention of applying Hama rules. The recent incursion by the IDF apparently killed a total of 100 Palestinian terrorists in 72 hours. Hafaz Assad killed that many terrorists in Hama in 20 minutes.

Posted by SLC | March 4, 2008 6:21 PM

With his ardent desire to use "Hama Rules," i.e. genocide, SLC is one of these "nihilistic death worshipers" Dave was warning us about.

Posted by ndm | March 4, 2008 6:35 PM

I think other equally cynical motives are in play but why quibble? My take is that they love death. Love inflicting it. Love moving the chess pieces to make it possible. It's the ultimate power, the power to take life and Abrahm's and the rest just love it. It's their reason to be.

Posted by rapier | March 4, 2008 6:38 PM

SLC-

It's not that we're not taking Hamas's claims seriously, it's that we're sensitive to both Hamas's rhetoric and to the political situation it finds itself in. Had we engaged the approachable wing of Hamas after Jan. 2006, we might have had an opportunity to let the domesticating effects of wielding actual political power take root in the movement. Of course there were always going to be implacable Drive Israel Into The Sea! militants. But they might slowly have been marginalized simply because the business of running a government doesn't lend itself to that kind of radicalism in the long term. Case in point... Fatah.

And before you argue that Hamas couldn't be trusted because it rejected the Quartet's demand to renounce violence, consider the position Hamas was in. Having just won an election on a platform of violent-if-necessary rebellion against the Israelis, how could they have backtracked and still remained legitimate in the eyes of the electorate? How would the ultra-radicals have responded to that?

We do the Palestinian people no favors, incidentally, by pretending Hamas is composed of militant robots who are immune to the political pressures every other mass movement in the world is subject to.

Posted by Kaasa | March 4, 2008 7:05 PM

Re Kaasa

The difficulty with Mr. Kassas' analysis is the assumption that there are "moderates in Hamas who actually want to negotiate a settlement with Israel. It is, of course, possible that such "moderates" exist; however, the problem is that the shots aren't being called from Gaza City but from Damascus vis Khalad Maashal. Mr Maashal has a hard on against the Government of Israel which tried to cancel his ticket some 12 years ago when he was based in Amman. As long as he's calling the shots, the "moderates" will keep a very low profile to the point of invisibility.

Posted by SLC | March 4, 2008 7:59 PM

Here's a link to an article indicating yet another Bush administration screwup to go along with all their other screwups in the Middle East. The incompetence of this administration defies the imagination. Bush is even more incompetent then Olmert and Abbas, a consummation I would have thought impossible.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546391346&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | March 4, 2008 8:04 PM

The only problem I have with Hamas and Hizballah is their inability to discern that since the Zionists are
in on the "targeted assassination", "kill-or-be-killed" philosophy, why they don't adopt the same attitude?

Instead, they waste efforts throwing lame rockets on civilians or occasionally blowing up civilians in suicide attacks.

Nobody's security is that great. They should be killing Olmert, Netanyahu, and any other prominent Zionist they can get within sniper or IED range of. It's not easy, but it's not rocket science.

It boggles my mind that they haven't expended any effort or money hiring somebody who can accomplish that if they can't. I mean, they do get millions of dollars in revenue into Gaza one way or the other, and they do manage to smuggle weapons, etc. Why can't they hire a handful of competent terrorists to take out half of Israel's ruling elite?

Rule one of terrorism: only kill people who matter. That's how the original Russian terrorists "The People's Will" operated and it's how any competent terrorist should operate.

If your enemies are targeting you with Predators, target them - the REAL "them" - with snipers, IEDs and whatever.

Granted, Hamas has a problem, unlike Al Qaeda in general or Hizballah. They're limited to a small area known as Gaza, and if they ever really got effective at killing the Israeli elite, the Israelis probably would apply "Hama Rules" to Gaza. But the Israelis are going to do it anyway, sooner or later, and Hamas should realize that, and take the initiative.

Yo, Hamas! Hizballah! Read my lips! Kill Olmert! Kill Netanyahu! Get a clue!

Chimpanzees.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 4, 2008 11:23 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Oh what a great favor Hamas would do the State of Israel by giving Olmert the bump.

Posted by SLC | March 5, 2008 8:03 AM

I'm a supporter of Israel who believes the evidence shows "Palestinians" have been primarily oppressed (not to say manipulated, warehoused like livestock, exploited as bargaining chips, cheap labor, and terrorist recruits), by their Arab brothers.

Moreover, I believe that this conflict would have been over long ago if Arab irredentism (and money) hadn't preferred to create a Frankenstein monster. Wars end when there's a clear winner, and Israel's big mistake was mistaking itself for one in 1967. The Arab states knew better.

While I believe Israel needs to win, I do not believe that adopting the tactics of Hafez al Assad and Saddam Hussein will do the job. Advocating for this kind of stuff is bad for Israel, and clearly off the table as far as the Israeli people are concerned. Full stop. It is a democracy, after all.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 5, 2008 11:05 AM