Military force alone is not enough to secure a realm, writes Amin Howeidi* The common assumption is that military security is the mainstay of national security. Having served as this country's defence minister many years ago, perhaps I am qualified to challenge such assumption. Military strength is crucial, but national security is much more complex. National security is the sum total of a country's power. An old parable tells us that if someone is hungry, it is better to give him a fishing rod than a fish. National security is the allegorical fishing rod. A country's comprehensive power is what protects it. No country can survive unless it develops a measure of self-reliance, for only then it may be able to negotiate the dark tunnels of politics. People often wonder if politics is the product of power or vice versa. Suffice it to say that the two go together. History is full of lessons on how multi- layered and multi-faceted the question of power is. Let's take the Soviet Union for example. A great superpower until the very last, the Soviet Union could deliver its nuclear warheads to any part of the globe at a moment's notice, and yet it is no more. What brought this once great empire down? The answer is simple. The rouble wasn't worth much, the general population was impoverished, and store shelves were empty. That's what brought the Soviet Union down. Mikhail Gorbachev and later Boris Yeltsin identified these problems, but by then it was too late to do anything about them. The regime failed to meet the needs of the people. Its economic policy and institutions were too rigid to change. Bribery, corruption and red tape finally stifled the economy. The military power of the Soviet Union was immense. Under Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union could take on the West anytime in military terms, but the country's agricultural production was inadequate. When Ronald Reagan announced his Star Wars programme, the Soviets began spending more on their military, and this only made things worse. When Jimmy Carter banned wheat exports to the Soviet Union after the Afghanistan invasion, the noose tightened. Later on, Gorbachev would try to cut back military spending and improve living conditions for the general public, but by then the damage was done. An army marches on its belly, goes the saying. Countries are like armies in a way. No country can have an effective foreign policy unless it has multi-faceted defences. One type of defence is not enough. And if one has to choose, I believe that economic strength and the solidarity of the home front are the first lines of defence. If you have these, the rest is easy. Napoleon Bonaparte took Egypt and Acre and then tried to bring Europe under his control. But his hopes were dashed in the freezing Russian winter. The reason Napoleon had to call off the Russian offensive is that his supply lines faltered, and the reason the supply lines faltered was that the home front was falling apart. Armies often lose battles at home before they do so on the battlefield. Another example: the Germans failed to take Egypt in World War II because they ran out of fuel. Following WWII, both Germany and Japan were forced to surrender. The two countries lost their armies, but look where they are now. This is what economic power is about. I once visited a car factory in Japan. I saw robots making car parts and sending a stream of vehicles to freight ships anchored off the coast. "Why don't you run the factory in two or three shifts?" I asked my Japanese host. He whispered back, "because this would start a third world war. America wouldn't accept it, and we haven't yet forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Countries need to be strong as an elephant, smart as a fox, smooth as a serpent and adaptive like a chameleon. This is why it is a heavy responsibility to be at the helm. In this country we're going to have multi-candidate presidential elections soon. I only wish that the individuals who will run for this post are aware of what it takes to be a leader. What I have just said is relevant to the future of Israel. Here is a country that relies solely on its military power and long arm. And yet military advantages don't last forever. Israel's future is in question not just because it has planted itself in the wrong place, but because none of its leaders has been capable of making it act as a good neighbour. * The writer is former minister of defence and former chief of general intelligence.
