Playing the tough guy would jeopardize Canada’s international image

After wisely staying out of the Iraq war, Canada is being drawn toward the Middle East quagmire that is its aftermath. One step deeper is the suggestion that NATO troops should be deployed in Lebanon–a bad idea with troubling implications at home as well as abroad. For many Canadians, the suggested Atlantic alliance intervention and its underlying motivation must be as confusing as the other chaotic events of the past two weeks. But once deconstructed, it provides a kind of idiot's guide to what's unfolding in a region that is never easy to understand. First, rewind history not to the distant genesis of the Arab-Israeli conflict but only to George W. Bush's toppling of mad Saddam Hussein. Almost lost in the crudely-manufactured threat of weapons of mass destruction, oil politics and the spectacle of a son determined to finish a father's work, was a risky gamble to rearrange the regional pecking order. Encouraged by Israel–some of its most influential leaders wrote opinion articles in prestigious U.S. newspapers–Washington dreamed of a vibrant Middle East democracy that would undermine radical states and weaken support for Palestinians. If the best-case scenario had become the new reality, a chronically-unstable region would find its equilibrium and Israel would be strengthened militarily as well as at peace talks. That's not what happened. Instead of inching forward, democracy is in shambolic retreat, the region's autocrats are reinforced and the Palestinians have more virulent defenders in Hamas and Hezbollah. What went wrong is this: In breaking Saddam's cruel but cementing grip on a fragmented country, the U.S. finished the process of removing a counterweight to Iran, freeing it to meddle even more aggressively in neighbouring Iraq and as far away as southern Lebanon. That helps explain Israel's furious response to Hezbollah's kidnappings and normally ineffectual rocket attacks. A major contributor to the failure of Israel's 18-year Lebanon incursion, Hezbollah is again a threat significant enough to justify war and perhaps occupation. Reasons for that stretch beyond the accurate, yet still misleading, label of "terrorists." As is often the case with radical Middle East groups, Hezbollah spreads influence by providing two popular things Arab states can't or won't–vital social services and resistance to Israel. Rather than erode that local support by punishing Lebanon for sheltering extremists, Israel risks making martyrs of its enemies. Still, Israel has little choice but to confront Hezbollah even though experience warns there is no military solution to a struggle that only becomes more intractable, complex and bloody. NATO members, including Canada, face a different choice. Intervention would begin a war between proxies, Washington's NATO vs. Iran's Hezbollah. Not surprisingly, Israel's early reaction to NATO deployment is positive while Lebanon's, which wants a ceasefire and Hezbollah brought under control but by the United Nations, is not. In effect, U.S.-dominated NATO would do Israel's grunt work while turning southern Lebanon into a dangerous wasteland. There are obvious military and diplomatic advantages to neutering Hezbollah. Israel could refocus on Gaza, crippled Lebanon would have a chance to regain territorial control, and weakening Iranian influence might tilt pivotal Syria into the moderate Arab camp. It could also go as horribly wrong as Western intervention has in the past. Instead of edging toward peace, more violence could follow in Gaza, Lebanon could be plunged back into civil war, and there is no guarantee the minority Alawite Damascus regime would put itself at risk by being so accommodating. How Stephen Harper reacts will have more impact at home than in the Middle East. Having already polarized Canadians with blanket approval for Israel, the Prime Minister would then face a probing test of the Conservative alignment with the Bush administration. Fortunately for Harper, Canada's consuming commitment to Afghanistan would almost certainly excuse it from meaningful duty in southern Lebanon. But escaping a clear position on Middle East intervention wouldn't be so easy. To shy away now would question the sincerity of Ottawa's support of the U.S. while eroding Harper's cultivated image as a decisive leader. But playing the tough guy would jeopardize Canada's international image as well as the support, particularly in Quebec, the Prime Minister hopes will deliver a majority. Harper originally saw merit and strength in the Iraq blunder. A second chance now looms to make the same chilling mistake. James Travers is a national affairs columnist for The Toronto Star. This column was released on July 25. News@hilltimes.com The Hill Times

Playing the tough guy would jeopardize Canada’s international image

Time for a shift: Canada must treat Alzheimer’s like other progressive diseases

AG says green tech fund documents ‘not my information to hand over’ as House remains at a standstill

Amid growing questions over his leadership, Trudeau looks ahead as PMO, PCO vet some MPs for cabinet and PS positions

Conservative filibuster costing millions of dollars, say NDP and Green MPs

‘Extreme apprehension’: Canada holds its breath as U.S. election enters final stage

‘Each of our voices matter’: disaster survivors call for greater climate action in Ottawa advocacy push

Will he? Won’t he? Netanyahu decides

Netanyahu’s game

Middle East: a bigger war?

Circles of sorrow emerge from the grim arithmetic of war

A week of destruction, carnage, and provocation that lit the Middle East powder keg

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Playing the tough guy would jeopardize Canada’s international image

Become a Political Insider