The Blue Lobster
One of the more piquant news stories of the last few days reports the capture of a rare blue lobster off the north shore of Canada’s Prince Edward Island. In the maritime world this is an almost unprecedented find, a crustacean with a genetic disorder, destined not for the table but the aquarium. In the political and intellectual worlds, however, blue lobsters abound. They surface everywhere one gazes, swarming into the nets of history, clambering among the reefs of contemporary events, brandishing their pincers, drawing attention to the extravagant pigmentation of which they are inordinately proud. Despite its electric sheen, the ventings of this arthropod sensibility, so oddly articulated and living within its impermeable shell, should by this time no longer provoke wonderment.
One of these more notable blue lobsters is George Friedman, a prime representative of his class. Founder and editor of the increasingly influential intelligence corporation Stratfor, Friedman has begun to weigh in on global affairs with a veritable plethora of articles, digests, summaries, and evaluations. To be sure, at times he can make reasonably good sense; but all too often, as with many of his pixilated species, his analyses are so bizarre as to put one off one’s appetite for research into public affairs entirely.
For example, his suggestion that a way out of the Iranian morass would be for the U.S. to pursue an alliance with Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “From the American standpoint, an understanding with Iran would have the advantage of solving an increasingly knotty problem,” he opines. Just as Stalin and Mao were not really “crazy,” as popular wisdom had it, and therefore could be engaged by Roosevelt and Nixon respectively, so Ahmadinejad is to be regarded as more of a rhetorical windbag than a man of action or a man of his word, and can be successfully approached by President Obama with a view to furthering their mutual interests. The sheer unworldliness of his assessment leaves the reader wondering if Friedman is living on the same planet as the rest of us. (Though, on second thought, it must be admitted he does keep company to some extent with the American administration, which has more than its share of blue lobsters.)
The same can be said of his appraisal of the Israeli/Palestinian quandary and the vexed issue of establishing final borders. Friedman allows pro forma that “[t]here is a strong case for not returning to the 1949 lines,” but as Israpundit’s Ted Belman notes, “He doesn’t make the case.” I would hazard that the reason he doesn’t make the case is that there is no case to be made. He is willing to offer a brief gesture of conciliation to those who might disagree with him but, having demonstrated his apparent open-mindedness, retracts his concession almost immediately in order to proceed with his argument.
Like many of his fellow blue lobsters (who for some weird motive tend to be obsessed with Israel), Friedman insists that the country would be best served by retreating to the pre-1967 borders. He furnishes by my count five major reasons for recommending this counter-intuitive strategy.
1. In the 1967 or “Six Day War,” Friedman asserts that “the 1949 borders actually gave Israel a strategic advantage,” namely, the ability to fight from “relatively compact terrain,” which facilitated coordination, “timing and intensity of combat to suit their capabilities.” Israel may have “lacked strategic depth, but it made up for it with compact space and interior lines.”
2. Greater land area means “expanding the scope of the battlefield” and this in turn multiples “opportunities for intelligence failure,” increases the “rate of consumption of supplies” from its allies, and leads to a perilous dependence on the shifting political calculations of foreign powers.
3. Given the menace of both asymmetric and unconventional warfare, the shape of Israel’s borders is moot anyway, since Israel would be no less exposed in its post-1967 borders than it already was in 1949.
4. By insisting on its current borders, Israel alienates its allies. The precise borders should be those that “do not create barriers to aid when that aid is most needed.” The pre-1967 borders provide Israel with a better chance “of maintaining critical alliances” and would also require “a smaller industrial base” for the production of weaponry, thus reducing dependence of foreign supply chains.
5. Generally speaking, “perpetual occupation would seem to place Israel at a perpetual disadvantage.”
Friedman then concludes that Israel must “restructure its geography along the more favorable lines that existed between 1949 and 1967,” when the country was “unambiguously victorious in its wars, rather than the borders and policies after 1967, when Israel has been less successful.”
Let us examine each of these points in turn.
1. In an age of advanced weaponry, rapid military strikes, and blanket rocket fire, especially in more densely populated regions, a smaller Israel is an increasingly vulnerable Israel. A “relatively compact terrain” is a killing field in the making.
2. “Intelligence failure” is always possible irrespective of the size of the battlefield. Foreign chanceries and military headquarters where decisions are made remain where they are in enemy territory and do not necessarily expand or contract to coincide with the borders of the nation at risk. The real question is whether good intelligence, once gathered, can be acted on. For example, American intelligence was aware that the 9/11 attack was brewing, but failed to coordinate its various departments and resources to thwart the impending catastrophe. Moreover, foresight and exigent stockpiling and preparation can overcome foreign dependence in anything but a war of attrition, which is not the nature of the sudden eruptions between Israel and its antagonists.
3. A strong perimeter, such as a state-of-the-art security fence, and unflagging vigilance can frustrate asymmetric warfare, as has already been shown. As for an unconventional or CBRN attack (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear), this is a menace all nations are subject to regardless of land area. At the same time, a more substantial hinterland with forward monitoring sites permits better detection capabilities, since even a matter of minutes can be decisive, and gives the urban heartland the shield of additional distance.
“Just as Stalin and Mao were not really “crazy,” as popular wisdom had it, and therefore could be engaged by Roosevelt and Nixon respectively, so Ahmadinejad is to be regarded as more of a rhetorical windbag than a man of action or a man of his word, and can be successfully approached by President Obama with a view to furthering their mutual interests.”
You know what’s so pathetic about a statement like that? It just goes against everything you generally read about recent history. Sure, treat Ahmadinejad as a”rhetorical windbag.” That is exactly the same thing people said about Hitler in the 1930s. “Oh don’t worry about Hitler. His speeches about German world conquest and the extermination of the Jews are just exagerations. He doesn’t REALLY mean any of it.” Well, we all saw how well THAT turned out, right?
And Stalin was just a good wartime leader, right? He would never try to destroy the same people who helped him defeat the Nazis, correct? Well, I guess that whole Cold War thing never happened then.
And then there’s Mao. You really, really, want more “friends” like Mao??? He was using the United States just as the United States was using him, as a weapon against the Soviety Union. But Mao was never an “ally” of the United States and certainly didn’t trust us. If he had to, Mao would have turned on the United States whenever it was politically advantageous to him, as it was during the war in Vietnam and the Korean War.
When, oh WHEN, are we going to start to believe the threats that crazy dictators make? That’s why they are CRAZY. You have to be a little nuts if you keep saying that you’re going to “Wipe Israel off the map,” as Ahmadinejad keeps on saying, or that his sole goal in life is to bring back the Caliphate. Why don’t we EVER take these people seriously?
It’s because the truth is too hard. Deep down, we DO believe them. It’s just that nobody wants to get stuck with the job of doing anything about it. That would take time, money, and possibly some lives to stop a madman like Ahmadinejad. Then again, you either address a problem in its infancy, or you let it go and end up with something like World War II. The choice really is up to the free world to do something about madmen like this. But does the West have the will to do it? I’m not sure that it does anymore.
A poet completely deconstructs and destroys the opinions of the man who Bill O’Reilly (no genius himself) looks to for guidance on strategic issues. Friedman’s article is so clueless it could have been written by the Daily Kos.
Friedman overlooks one obvious issue. Iran, like most authoritarian regimes, needs an enemy. Corrupt, brutal and ineffective regimes need someone else to blame for their failures. It’s why I suspect most Arab governments don’t really want to get rid of Israel. Food prices going up — it’s the Joooooos. Your son “disappeared” — it’s the Jooooos.
The Iranian regime might actually be nutty enough to want to get rid of Israel, but they’ll never partner with the US (ignoring the morality of us partnering with such a government) because they need the Great Satan to rally the people around them. Even though that strategy is beginning to fall apart.
Over a decade ago, before Stratfor became a paid-subscription site, it often made sense.
No longer.
Nothing sadder than a pundit who gets too big for his britches and thinks he understands more than he does.
What we are remarking here is not responsible tradecraft but a kind of mental aberration at work….
Well stated, indeed. Behold, ye, the effete infantile Fantasyland. I blame
atomic energy, global warming, Sarah Palin, Men, Head Start, hunger, capitalism, wealth, ecological overshoot…cell phones.“…so Ahmadinejad is to be regarded as more of a rhetorical windbag than a man of action or a man of his word, and can be successfully approached by President Obama with a view to furthering their mutual interests.”
Agree with Libertyship 46 above…however, there is no reason why the USA should not make use of the Shia/Sunni hatred for one another. I’d love to see another Iran/Iraq type war, which we may be treated to via the lovely Arab Spring (which locution brings to mind Mel Brooks’ (Springtime For Hitler and Germany…).
I think WWIII is raging. Israel is a front, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan…all fronts in the same war. We will bankrupt ourselves. And like Roosevelt did in the 1940′s, waiting until Stalin and Hitler exhausted one another, China will play both ends against the middle, keep out of it militarily, and in the end inherit what’s left of the world.
Jewish assimilation process that had begun in 19 th century and had finished with Holocaust, can be called permanent spiritual disarmament.Mr Friedman acts in this paradigm of not only spiritual but military disarmament for Israel.This is the voice of the discredited doctrine of the past.
I am always interested in what Friedman has to say. I certainly don’t agree with him all the time. I would agree with David Solway in his criticisms but the best idea is to be sceptical. Friedman thinks he is dealing with a “political science”. What he leaves out is the general nuttiness that pervades our era. It’s a big deficiency especially as it applies to the Middle East, or Europe or China and so on.
From what I read here, George Friedman sounds like a clueless crackpot!
Terry Gain and Mr. Ikar:
You two have stumbled across a truth pile. Bill O’Reilly and George Friedman are clueless crackpots who think they are much smarter than they in fact are, but you must give them credit where due.
They are both world class self-promoters whose life’s work is to herd clueless sheep, and they do it very successfully, sometimes to the extent of indirectly electing senators and selecting presidential candidates.
If there’s a point, I suppose it’s beware of outrageous bloviators.
Why pick on the poor blue lobsters?
They really are not nearly as common as the opinions that are being attacked. I certainly disagree that intuitive opinions have any place in this argument. Stalin, Moa and Hitler were not as crazy as some in the current WH administration. Cold and vicious certainly but irrational? Not as much as Jimmy Carter or the current Senate Majority. The Republican establishment does not appear to be playing with a full deck of 52 either.
There is lots of money in the destruction of Israel right now from energy producing nations and even more money in keeping the production of energy off shore out of the reach of Henry Waxman or Harry Reid. Every step has a biological logic to it that involves not being willing to exterminate parasites.
Identify the parasites which you are willing to exterminate and we will talk about reconfiguring the world situation.