Other fronts

Other fronts
We're winning in Afghanistan, but it's violence as usual elsewhere

December 4, 2001

The United States is winning, slowly but surely, in Afghanistan. We have allies willing to commit military power and bases, intelligence and rhetoric. The only allies Al Qaeda had were those with nothing much to lose, and even they are able to see which way the wind is blowing.

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat did have quite a lot to lose, perhaps even more after Sept. 11. The United States had showed willingness to reconsider its stance on the Palestinian cause, which has long been a festering resentment throughout the Muslim world. In return, though, Washington wanted peace and quiet in Israel and the Palestinian territories while we dealt with Afghanistan.

Instead, we’ve seen more violence, vicious attacks against children and teens. Perhaps the message is that until Palestinians are assured of a homeland, there can be no peace in the Middle East. Perhaps the latest eruptions of violence have been a way of saying, "Hey, don’t forget about us." Perhaps, though, the killing goes on because no one can even envision a different relationship, or even a compromise, between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Arafat has long been portrayed as a victim of forces he cannot control. He’d like the world to believe that he’s doing the best he can to keep peace in a volatile region. If Hamas eludes his control, he can shrug and claim to have tried.

Besides, the Palestinians say, Israeli retaliation to such attacks undermines their capability to stop militant violence. The Palestinians are trying to bring calm, Cabinet minister Nabil Shaath said, "but the Israelis are not helping us, they are always destroying our efforts."

For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says that in the interests of peace, the Israelis have not always acted as decisively as they should have; now they would. On Monday, they did.

And so the violence goes on. No one wants peace without victory. There is little doubt that Israel has the military strength to win a full-out war against Arafat’s forces, should one erupt. Then, of course, other Arab nations would likely weigh in on the side of the Palestinians, which would force the United States to decide how strongly we really desire peace in the Middle East.

Eventually, our policy of extinguishing spot fires must be developed into a more comprehensive plan that balances world security and national autonomy. Some Americans might have thought that a show of overwhelming force in Afghanistan would send a message to other trouble spots, and it would, if we added some language to the visuals. The trouble remains that we don’t know what to say.

Is violence between Palestine and Israel our business or not? The current policy of dabbling has served no one well. "Make us mad enough and we’ll thump you," we say, but the level of provocation required to exceed our tolerance varies from day to day, government to government. Bombing an American target qualifies. Continued intransigence, as in the case of Iraq, may also qualify. Harassing one of our friends may as well, but how do we choose our friends and our targets, especially when the warring parties are howling, "Uncle Saaaam! He hit me first!"?

Who hit whom first in the Holy Land goes back to tribal warfare lost to the mists of prehistory. There was war before Jews and Muslims, long before the existence of the United States. That’s a reality in Afghanistan, in the Balkans, in many places where we must decide whether our concerns really can be considered overriding interests.

Life goes on, with its violence and its joys. Afghanistan is but a small corner of the world, and it’s becoming clear that combatants elsewhere do not consider it, or the United States, the center of attention. We may be winning in Afghanistan, but we do not control the rest of the world. That’s a sobering thought.