Showdown
Since 2001 the region has been turned into an ideological battleground between two rival camps with global ambitions. One camp, led by the United States, claims to represent the modern global system of open markets, free elections, religious freedoms and sexual equality. The other camp is represented by radical Islam, which regards the Western model as not only decadent but dangerous for the future of mankind. It hopes to unite the world under the banner of Islam, which it holds to be “ The Only True Faith”.In the Lebanese conflict, Israel and Hezbollah are the junior proxies for the rival camps. Israel is not fighting to hold or win more land; nor is Hezbollah. But both realise that they cannot live in security and prosper as long as the other is in a position to threaten their existence. A Middle East dominated by Islamism could, in time, spell the death of Israel as a nation-state. A westernised, democratic Lebanon, on the other hand, could become the graveyard of Hezbollah and its messianic ideology. And if the US succeeds in fulfilling George W. Bush’s promise of a “new Middle East” there will be no place for regimes such as the Islamic Republic in Iran and Syria’s Baathist dictatorship.
This is from Amir Taheri, who I have found to be a pretty reliable source of information on the conflicts in the Middle East. He goes on to explain that there is competition for leadership of ‘radical Islam’ between Shia and Sunni forces, and the Shia, led by Ahmadjihad, have been moving into ascendancy since 9/11. The Hezbollah-Israel conflict, if it is anything other than a total defeat for Hezbollah (and maybe even if it is) is probably the final piece that will cement Ahmadjihad as the leader of all radical Islamist movements.
Needless to say, that is probably not a good thing.
One thing that strikes me as sort of interesting, is how similar Taheri’s description of the conflict matches that of Newt Gingerich in his WWIII comments. Obviously Taheri doesn’t use that particular rhetoric, but it is clear that he is talking about a global conflict between Western Liberalism and Islamist Totalitarianism that is, in essence, an existential struggle for both sides. Newt was of course lambasted by many for his comment, but I am far from certain his characterization is inapt.
It does seem difficult to conceive of radical Islam as something that can threaten the very existence of the West. By almost all measures, Western power dwarfs that of Islam, radical and not so radical, to such an extreme that the idea they will be able to destroy us seems laughable. Other civilizations though have had similar huge advantages against the barbarians, and yet still were swept under by a dark tide. I think it hubris to believe that the same fate cannot happen to us.
One thing that is not part of the conventional measurements is will. There are certainly many signs that the West lacks this crucial asset. Over time, and I think it may surprise us how little it can take, this lack can dramatically change the balance of power.
I don’t hold that anything is inevitable, neither the demise of Western civilization or its continuance is written in the stars. The choices we make, and will make in the future will determine our eventual fate. Making the tough but correct choices now is of great importance. The battle between Israel and Hezbollah, and also the battle for the fate of Lebanon itself, is a key hinge upon which a lot of the events of the future will turn. It is a dangerous, messy, and thankless task for us to get involved. Much easier to return things temporalily to the status quo by demanding a cease fire and hoping that the conflict will just go away.
That would be a horrible mistake. It would hand Hezbollah a dramatic victory against the west, allowing it to rebuild and rearm with greater support throughout the middle east. It would doom Lebanon to become a Hezbollah controlled state. It would leave Israel increasingly vulnerable, and set the stage for even worse conflicts in the future.
