Buffer Zones

Good fences make good neighbors. Thus did that famous American diplomat Robert Frost esoterically communicate to the nations of the world the formula for helping international neighbors who just can't get along (say, Israel and some of its neighbors) to at least avoid open conflict. Alas, something there is that doesn't love a wall.

All things considered, I'd rather be blogging on one of the books I've got queued up. But as I sit here watching Israeli artillery lob shells into southern Lebanon, interspersed with shots of Hezbollah rockets landing in Israeli towns, I just can't quite bracket the real world from my blogging tonight. I'm afraid Robert Frost's buffer zones aren't going to work this time.

Katyusha rockets go about 12 miles. So for Israeli towns to have the sort of security Israel wants, that means a 12-mile buffer zone. What if Hezbollah can launch missiles that go 100 miles? 300 miles? Israel can't really establish a 300-mile buffer zone, so at that point security via a buffer zone is unachievable. To me, it looks like technological sophistication is rendering the buffer zone approach utterly ineffective. Absent an actual defense that can knock down incoming rockets or missles (and I haven't heard the term "Patriot missle" once in the last two weeks), the next strategic fallback position for Israel is a scaled-down version of Mutually Assured Destruction ("MAD"). It's not clear that sort of deterrence with work for all parties this time around. This is not encouraging.

Granted, MAD worked for fifty years during the Cold War. I kind of miss the Soviets -- maybe godless Communism wasn't so bad. At least they were rational, and MAD works to deter rational actors. Unfortunately, the folks running Hamas and Hezbollah don't match up well with the requirements of that model. And the emerging nuclear capability of Iran and North Korea will inevitably present another layer of complication. The world is changed. I feel it in the water; I smell it in the air.

Maybe I'm just exaggerating for effect ... but does anyone else have the impression that the context of the present conflict is qualititatively different from prior conflicts? From where I'm sitting, I see a lot of scenarios under which things will continue to get worse, possibly much worse, and few realistic scenarios where they get better. And that's not even factoring in something like a "sleeper cell" triggering a nuke in Tel Aviv or Tallahassee.

And what's the Mo app? What do Mormons do when contemplating Armageddon? Pull the missionaries (both of them) out of Lebanon and check the food storage. Let's see, 11 gallons of water and a 40-gallon water heater. A cabinet full of canned goods (well, half full). Unread books to last 5 years. I'll get thirsty but I won't get bored.

Comments

[Mogget]

Patriot batteries were deployed the day after the missile barrages began. They aren't useful, however, against the smaller rockets. For that, counter-battery radars and artillery are appropriate. If the larger missiles are launched, the Patriots will get a shot.

But that's all just detail. Yes, I agree that things are qualitatively different. And I think you've hit some valid negative points. But how about some of the more positive indications?

[Paul Mortensen]

For me the real indicator that there is a real qualitative difference in the "Mid-East Conflict" has been the willingness of the other Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) to sit this one out-- even in terms of condemning Israel and inciting their populations. I think the Arabs themselves actually fear the Persians now more than they hate Israel because they know who the second target of any nuclear strike would be. If the Arabs are genuinely concerned about Iran as a threat then I think I should be as well. How do I react as a Mormon? I don't think this is the beginning of Armageddon (I might change my mind if it's discovered that Iran already has nukes and can lob them 15,000+ miles) so my current approach is to advocate electing leaders willing to do whatever it takes to nip the Iran-nuke problem in the bud.

[Ann]

But how about some of the more positive indications?
Jesus will come back?

[Darren]

I have many wandering thoughts about the whole region, but this is one of the reasons that I think the impact of religion in the history of the world has a net negative effect. Granted, some people will find other things to fight about, but my somewhat superficial understanding of the conflict has given me the idea that both sides believe God granted their people the land and that God wants them to be there. Unfortunately, both are willing to put themselves and their children in harms way due to this belief. Until either side can get beyond the belief that God is on their side, then there is little hope for the region.

[Seth R.]

The nation-state is an anachronism. It is a fearful, clumsy, and limited paradigm that is utterly unsuited for the current global reality.

The entire history of the 20th century (and the 21st so far) can be seen as an assault on nationalism and the nation.

Nations hurt trade. Nations limit world crime enforcement. Nations are powerless to stop the flow of information, and therefore powerless to forge their own national character. Nations cannot combat epidemics. Nations cannot successfully conduct unilateral wars (even the US has been unable to do this for the past 50 years). Nations cannot sign trade agreements without the possibility of the agreement being ruined or altered by the actions or status of other peoples elsewhere. Nations run counter to the idea of a unified humanity. Nations cannot independently build roads, airports, and railways.

Nations simply cannot. And eventually, the model will fail. Either the nations will fail, or human progress will fail. They cannot coexist indefinitely and they are hostile toward each other.

I'll leave it to you to decide which failure would be prefereable.

[Mark Butler]

Seth, I think much of what you have said about nations is wrong. The only conceivable alternative is not the elimination of nations, but rather the gradual rise of the one true nation, the kingdom and nation of heaven.

Everything that nations do now is strictly necessary, in one sense or another. Sometimes they just do it less effectively than appropriate, due to the limitations of mortality and mortal morality.

Even the kingdom of heaven has gates, borders, sentries, laws, citizens, standards of behavior, rules of procedure, judges, councils, government, and even a military. The key principle of the kingdom of heaven is to unify all the forces of good in a common civilization, so you do not have the ultimate waste of the good fighting against the good.

However, as long as there is evil in the world, good will have to stand up and fight it, repelling force with force where necessary. cf. Sodom and Gommorrah, the death of the 185,000 Assyrians, fire from heaven, and so on.

If there were not nations inclined to wipe other nations out entirely, or subjugate other by force of arms without provocation, we would not need much of a military.

However, even the Kingdom of Heaven has mortal enemies, and it seems unlikely that the defensive function of righteous government will ever entirely be dispensed with.

[Seth R.]

Mark, I'm not saying the impulse toward nationalism in a mistrustful world environment is not strong and compelling. It certainly is.

In a world not crippled by mistrust and fear (products of the "natural man"), there might indeed be no conflict between "the nation" and "progress."

But with the overarching world paradigm of mistrust, no.

"The nation" and "world progress" are diametrically opposed. And the gains of one will be had at the expense of the other.

[Mark Butler]

Seth, In part I am just quibbling about your implicit definition of what a nation is. I agree that much that goes by the name of nationalism is enormously counterproductive, in the same sense that pride is counterproductive.