The US, in siding so obviously with Israel, is abdicating its greater responsibilities as the guarantor of world order, writes Muqtedar Khan* We are presently witnessing in Lebanon the third humanitarian disaster in which President Bush has had a direct or indirect hand. In Iraq, over 50,000 are dead thanks to President Bush's decision to invade and occupy without the number of troops necessary to secure the country. In New Orleans, the administration's incompetent preparation and slow response exacerbated the humanitarian crisis. And now hundreds of innocent people are dying in a war in Lebanon that could be stopped by the international community if it was not handcuffed by America. President Bush is determined to allow Israel enough time to devastate Lebanon while it moves to destroy Hizbullah. We may recall that Israel failed to undermine a much weaker Hizbullah even after 18 years of warfare and occupation of southern Lebanon (1982-2000). Why do we expect success now? The US has so far achieved only two things in the two weeks since the conflict in Lebanon began, indeed in the month since the capture of an Israeli soldier prompted Israel to unleash its ruthless war machine. One, it has acted to ensure that no effort by the international community would succeed in stopping the mayhem in Lebanon. Three times the US has subverted the processes of peace, at the UN, at the G-8 summit and at the Rome conference, where it was apparent that if it was not for Tony "the poodle" Blair, the US would have been completely isolated from the rest of humanity on this issue. Two, even during the conflict, instead of working towards peace, the US is arming one side with rockets and powerful bombs that, in the words of the Lebanese prime minister, are "cutting [Lebanon] to pieces". We are even smuggling these weapons through Britain, somewhat like Iran smuggling weapons to Hizbullah via Syria. Unlike Syria, however, Britain is protesting. The administration claims that the Rome conference helped build a consensus for an international force to prevent a future crisis. For those of us who are familiar with the history of the conflict, we know that it is only because of Israeli and American opposition that there is no real international force already in the area capable of policing the border and keeping all parties peaceful. What Condoleezza Rice means by consensus is that finally the US has agreed with the rest of the world on one issue involving Israel. This strategy of American foreign policy -- to arm, encourage and support extended and open- ended Israeli military action -- I am convinced will fail miserably in realising its goals. By the time Israel finishes with Lebanon it will be a pile of debris with perhaps nearly a thousand innocent civilians dead and over a million homeless or displaced. All other major US goals in the region -- democracy promotion, support for moderates, winning hearts and minds, undermining support for radicalism -- will also be buried under the debris. Hizbullah fighters are sure to be dispersed all over the region, and will regroup to fight another day with more men, more support -- thanks to elevated levels of anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment across the Middle East -- and perhaps even deadlier weapons. They will also be more confident and experienced after their current showing. From their performance it is apparent that they are the best fighting force the Arabs have produced in decades. Perhaps they will conquer Saudi Arabia and Jordan just for fun, while they regroup. The two monarchies probably fear something of that nature and are therefore huddling so closely with the US since the fight began. I see no light at the end of the tunnel except wishful thinking that Hizbullah will be destroyed and the rest of the world will send their soldiers to defend Israel. It is like the neocon pipedream of Americans being received as liberators by Iraqis. After seeing the current form of Hizbullah, I will be surprised if any country will volunteer its forces. If President Bush decides to send American troops, the party will move from Iraq to Lebanon. For Al-Qaeda and other jihadis it will be a "buy one get one free" kind of deal: the US and Israel together in the same terrain. The US will not talk with Syria or Iran because they are "part of the problem". From the steps taken so far, it is not clear to me if US foreign policy is really part of a solution. Remember the last time when Israel raped Lebanon, Hizbullah was born. It is scary to imagine what the current molestation will yield. American foreign policy is in the wrong hands and is heading in the wrong direction. It is not in the interest of global peace, not good for America's many interests in the Middle East, and will not make Israel safer. What is true for Spiderman is also true for the US -- with great power comes great responsibility. As the sole superpower, it is America's responsibility to maintain the global order and nurture the international system, not become a destabilising force. American foreign policy is, in a way, a global public good and by acting in a highly partisan and short-sighted fashion in the current Arab-Israeli conflict the US is abdicating its status as a global leader. * The writer is assistant professor at The University of Delaware and a non-resident fellow at The Saban Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.
