alecgraham
先輩
- 29 Nov 2012
- 285
- 59
- 43
I spend a lot of time thinking about what the world would be like if the power of the U.S. wanes significantly. Terrible beauty and fearsome killing machine though it is, it is also my home, most of the time; it's my birthplace and I remain completely loyal to it. It's the country I love the most, even though I realize it is far from perfect. Perhaps I think of it as a lesser evil on my more cynical days.
Mikawa Ossan, you've got me thinking about the outcome of your suggestion that the U.S. withraw aid from Israel. I won't argue whether it's a good idea or not. Certainly, the aid is not popular with a significant portion (a majority, perhaps?) of the American people. I'm an American and I guess you could call me a Zionist, but even to me the figures seem a big high. As I've written in the past, when all the lobbying is done, I obviously don't know how the U.S. decides how much to give and when to give it.
Instead, I'm trying to think like Israel, trying to figure out how they would react, and how their neighbors would react to an abrupt end to U.S. aid to Israel. I guess the latter part is more significant: If I were Syria, Lebanon and Iran (but not Jordan), I would do some serious thinking about wiping out Israel once and for all. Just laying the place to waste.
If I were Israel, I'd be thinking that Syria, Lebanon and Iran, or at least some combination of nearby nations is colluding to destroy me. That puts me in a tough spot. I could promise to be good, adhere more to, say, John Kerry's and Zbigniew Brzinkski's (sp?) guidelines on what I should be doing, but with my armaments falling into disrepair and perhaps my fuel running out, I'm feeling kind of vulnerable. What is the timetable? That is, if I behave myself, how quickly can I get the American gravy train flowing again so that I can train my troops, replenish my fuel, repair my armor and get my weapons up to speed? Can I do it before I'm wiped out?
The U.S. has promised to protect me even though it has cut off aid. (I can overlook the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do hypocrisy of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, sans Qassam rockets, if the U.S. will be my protector). How close are the nearest American bases? Can they get here in time? Should the U.S. maintain their own bases right here (at their own expense, of course). This last idea, while also expensive, might not be so bad. If the military might of the United States is not enough to deter a rash decision by Israel's enemies, perhaps actually having Americans stationed on bases right in Israel might do it?
Maybe not, but maybe so. I'm tempted to think everyone would get something out of this. Let's say it stops Hamas from firing rockets into Israel and from digging tunnels that end well across the border. Security for Israel. Meanwhile, Israel no longer has the need (or ability or pretext, if you like), to conduct campaigns in the Palestinian territories, so there's less civilian death.
Well, maybe I'm being naive. Maybe the American public doesn't want more young U.S. serviceman stationed in and responsible for such a dangerous place. After all, we've had it with Iraq and Afghanistan. The Israelis have mandatory service, can't we let them fend for themselves?
And finally, I'm thinking about Israel being forced into or even frightened into the so-called Samson option, in which they nuke everyone who is in the process of bringing out her imminent destruction. It's tempting for Westerners to say, "Let them blow each other up. Fine. I'm tired of them not getting along in that part of the world" as if lives don't matter, and as if the whole thing is merely a bad reality tv show that Americans have to watch year after year. But of course, we don't encourage things like that, in the U.S. We're not trying to bring about Armageddon, just easing our financial burden to Israel.
Well, I'm just thinking out loud. Any thoughts on potential outcomes?
Mikawa Ossan, you've got me thinking about the outcome of your suggestion that the U.S. withraw aid from Israel. I won't argue whether it's a good idea or not. Certainly, the aid is not popular with a significant portion (a majority, perhaps?) of the American people. I'm an American and I guess you could call me a Zionist, but even to me the figures seem a big high. As I've written in the past, when all the lobbying is done, I obviously don't know how the U.S. decides how much to give and when to give it.
Instead, I'm trying to think like Israel, trying to figure out how they would react, and how their neighbors would react to an abrupt end to U.S. aid to Israel. I guess the latter part is more significant: If I were Syria, Lebanon and Iran (but not Jordan), I would do some serious thinking about wiping out Israel once and for all. Just laying the place to waste.
If I were Israel, I'd be thinking that Syria, Lebanon and Iran, or at least some combination of nearby nations is colluding to destroy me. That puts me in a tough spot. I could promise to be good, adhere more to, say, John Kerry's and Zbigniew Brzinkski's (sp?) guidelines on what I should be doing, but with my armaments falling into disrepair and perhaps my fuel running out, I'm feeling kind of vulnerable. What is the timetable? That is, if I behave myself, how quickly can I get the American gravy train flowing again so that I can train my troops, replenish my fuel, repair my armor and get my weapons up to speed? Can I do it before I'm wiped out?
The U.S. has promised to protect me even though it has cut off aid. (I can overlook the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do hypocrisy of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, sans Qassam rockets, if the U.S. will be my protector). How close are the nearest American bases? Can they get here in time? Should the U.S. maintain their own bases right here (at their own expense, of course). This last idea, while also expensive, might not be so bad. If the military might of the United States is not enough to deter a rash decision by Israel's enemies, perhaps actually having Americans stationed on bases right in Israel might do it?
Maybe not, but maybe so. I'm tempted to think everyone would get something out of this. Let's say it stops Hamas from firing rockets into Israel and from digging tunnels that end well across the border. Security for Israel. Meanwhile, Israel no longer has the need (or ability or pretext, if you like), to conduct campaigns in the Palestinian territories, so there's less civilian death.
Well, maybe I'm being naive. Maybe the American public doesn't want more young U.S. serviceman stationed in and responsible for such a dangerous place. After all, we've had it with Iraq and Afghanistan. The Israelis have mandatory service, can't we let them fend for themselves?
And finally, I'm thinking about Israel being forced into or even frightened into the so-called Samson option, in which they nuke everyone who is in the process of bringing out her imminent destruction. It's tempting for Westerners to say, "Let them blow each other up. Fine. I'm tired of them not getting along in that part of the world" as if lives don't matter, and as if the whole thing is merely a bad reality tv show that Americans have to watch year after year. But of course, we don't encourage things like that, in the U.S. We're not trying to bring about Armageddon, just easing our financial burden to Israel.
Well, I'm just thinking out loud. Any thoughts on potential outcomes?