The current struggle, led by the United States and England, against the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan has, as yet, produced few visible results. It is true that parts of Kabul have been reduced to ruin and that the terrorists in that country have scattered to hide in their caves and warrens. However, the overall strategy of the United States - coalition-building with the very states that are the cause of the terrorist plague, long-range bombing and cruise missile attacks, working already and very prematurely on a post-Taliban government when the Taliban are effectively eliminating any possible successors to themselves - eerily reminds one of the Gulf War political and military policy of the United States. The West won that battlefield but Saddam Hussein, ten years after his military defeat, remains in power, with terrible unconventional weapons at his disposal, as great a threat to the civilized world as he ever was. America apparently has only old, tired ideas to employ in the pursuit of this new war.
It is well known that there is a tendency amongst military leaders to fight the last war all over again in the new current war. That was the cause of France's downfall in 1940, when it refought World War I against Hitler's generals who were fighting a newer, different war. In 1941, Hitler made the mistake of fighting World War I again against Russia, who now also fought a different struggle. The United States refought the Korean War in Vietnam and was defeated. It is therefore disheartening to see the West make the same Gulf War mistakes that it made in dealing with Iraq once again in its current war against the Taliban.
Tired ideas do not easily go to sleep. The main reason why tired ideas continue to resurface is the commitment of those who had those ideas originally to their perpetuation, in spite of the clear evidence of the failure of those ideas. The American State Department has followed a policy of appeasement of the Arab states vis-a-vis Israel for over half a century. It has always fostered plans that endanger Israel's security, while at the same time, mouthing pious platitudes about its commitment to Israel. John Foster Dulles convinced President Eisenhower that Israel was not a viable entity on its own and therefore supplying Israel with arms was worthless. When America at last did become Israel's main arms supplier, it also became the supplier of arms to Arab countries. It always wanted to pursue an "even-handed" policy in the Middle East and this was the basis of its constant advocacy of the disastrous "land for peace " fallacy. From the Rogers Plan of the 1960's through Clinton's Camp David fiasco, this tired, old, unworkable and failed scheme has constantly been pushed as the solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Yet all evidence on the ground shows that the idea is impractical and in fact counterproductive under the present circumstances of Arab leadership and the ideas and mood current and popular in the broader Moslem world. The Mitchell Plan is just the old Rogers Plan refitted in a new bookbinder. What makes one think that it will work now after thirty years of failure?
Old ideas are still being floated here in Israel, as well. Both the Right and the Left have doggedly retained their preconceptions and notions of solutions for the past thirty years. It should be clear to all that neither building new settlements nor abandoning old ones will bring about a solution to our present situation. The idea to retake Gaza, Jericho and Area A, also an old idea of the opponents of Oslo, is also impractical and no longer useful. The Oslo/CampDavid/ Taba group continues to see a pot of gold at the end of its maximum concessions to Arafat rainbow. It still thinks that somehow, some way, a deal can be struck with Arafat that he will honor and have the will and power to enforce. This tired idea has been proven wrong over and over again during the past seven years. Yet, it constantly refloats itself, based on the broad, untested philosophy that "there is no alternative."
Yet, so much human effort has been invested in these ideas that, tired and shopworn as they may be, these plans are nevertheless presented as being somehow the only possible solution to our difficulties. What we need are fresh ideas, a fresh approach, new leaders that will learn from the past, but not doggedly hold on to its failed ideas. Even if there are no "good alternatives," it is wrong to follow and attempt to implement old ideas that have not worked in the past and will not now work. Tired ideas should be allowed to hibernate and slip away. Once they are discarded, new and perhaps better ideas will yet emerge.
Shabbat Shalom.
--------------------
Rabbi Wein, noted author and lecturer, is founder of the Destiny Foundation, dedicated to educating Jews about their historical and ethical heritage (JewishDestiny.com ).
It is well known that there is a tendency amongst military leaders to fight the last war all over again in the new current war. That was the cause of France's downfall in 1940, when it refought World War I against Hitler's generals who were fighting a newer, different war. In 1941, Hitler made the mistake of fighting World War I again against Russia, who now also fought a different struggle. The United States refought the Korean War in Vietnam and was defeated. It is therefore disheartening to see the West make the same Gulf War mistakes that it made in dealing with Iraq once again in its current war against the Taliban.
Tired ideas do not easily go to sleep. The main reason why tired ideas continue to resurface is the commitment of those who had those ideas originally to their perpetuation, in spite of the clear evidence of the failure of those ideas. The American State Department has followed a policy of appeasement of the Arab states vis-a-vis Israel for over half a century. It has always fostered plans that endanger Israel's security, while at the same time, mouthing pious platitudes about its commitment to Israel. John Foster Dulles convinced President Eisenhower that Israel was not a viable entity on its own and therefore supplying Israel with arms was worthless. When America at last did become Israel's main arms supplier, it also became the supplier of arms to Arab countries. It always wanted to pursue an "even-handed" policy in the Middle East and this was the basis of its constant advocacy of the disastrous "land for peace " fallacy. From the Rogers Plan of the 1960's through Clinton's Camp David fiasco, this tired, old, unworkable and failed scheme has constantly been pushed as the solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Yet all evidence on the ground shows that the idea is impractical and in fact counterproductive under the present circumstances of Arab leadership and the ideas and mood current and popular in the broader Moslem world. The Mitchell Plan is just the old Rogers Plan refitted in a new bookbinder. What makes one think that it will work now after thirty years of failure?
Old ideas are still being floated here in Israel, as well. Both the Right and the Left have doggedly retained their preconceptions and notions of solutions for the past thirty years. It should be clear to all that neither building new settlements nor abandoning old ones will bring about a solution to our present situation. The idea to retake Gaza, Jericho and Area A, also an old idea of the opponents of Oslo, is also impractical and no longer useful. The Oslo/CampDavid/ Taba group continues to see a pot of gold at the end of its maximum concessions to Arafat rainbow. It still thinks that somehow, some way, a deal can be struck with Arafat that he will honor and have the will and power to enforce. This tired idea has been proven wrong over and over again during the past seven years. Yet, it constantly refloats itself, based on the broad, untested philosophy that "there is no alternative."
Yet, so much human effort has been invested in these ideas that, tired and shopworn as they may be, these plans are nevertheless presented as being somehow the only possible solution to our difficulties. What we need are fresh ideas, a fresh approach, new leaders that will learn from the past, but not doggedly hold on to its failed ideas. Even if there are no "good alternatives," it is wrong to follow and attempt to implement old ideas that have not worked in the past and will not now work. Tired ideas should be allowed to hibernate and slip away. Once they are discarded, new and perhaps better ideas will yet emerge.
Shabbat Shalom.
--------------------
Rabbi Wein, noted author and lecturer, is founder of the Destiny Foundation, dedicated to educating Jews about their historical and ethical heritage (JewishDestiny.com ).