Democrats and the New War

National Democrats from New York Senator Hillary Clinton to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa have appeared at pro-Israel rallies. Congressional Democrats just voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution supporting Israel in the conflict. Looking at the
situation as the California-based political analyst with experience in Democratic presidential politics, and not the former New Jersey senator, it’s not very surprising to me. Despite some support for the Palestinian cause, support for Israel has been a bedrock position for the Democratic Party for decades.

Non-institutional liberal bloggers and activists have been much more critical than that. But there is nowhere near the scale or intensity as there is with respect to the Iraq War, or George W. Bush in general, or even the Connecticut Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

Still, you could see the sense of unease and misgiving roiling beneath the surface of the Democratic politicians’ support for Israel’s new war in House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s move. 
Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, declined to be the co-sponsor of the resolution with House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio so long as the resolution did not include a call for both sides to minimize civilian casualties. Those behind the resolution would not change the language. They said that Israel is already doing everything it can to minimize “collateral damage.” So Congressman Tom Lantos, who also represents the San Francisco Bay Area and serves as the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee, co-sponsored the measure.

In a sign that private concerns are not simply a matter of left and right, one ranking member of Senator Joe Lieberman’s late presidential campaign expressed misgivings. Not about the right of Israel to take action, to be sure, but about it occurring in an increasingly complex scenario. 

So, too, did a few members of the Bush-Cheney re-election team, even as the Bush Administration gave the green light to Israel to do as much damage as it can to Hezbollah, at least over the short term.

The concern is not so much about Israel pushing back hard against Hezbollah, or even about the damage to Lebanon and the deaths of Lebanese civilians, but about yet another long fuse being lit in a complex tinderbox.

My old friend and boss Gary Hart put it this way, reminding that back in 2002 he had likened a U.S. invasion of Iraq to “kicking open a hornet’s nest.” The hornet’s nest being not only a lengthy and very difficult occupation of Iraq but a likely wider war in the Middle East. “The larger hornet’s nest is now swarming,” says Hart. 

By removing the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq, Hart argues, the U.S. removed major thorns from the side of Iran. Freeing them to intervene in Iraq on behalf of the Shiite majority and to provide more support to Hezbollah in its struggle with Israel. 

The U.S. is now fighting a two-front war against guerillas in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel, backed politically by the U.S., is fighting a two-front war against guerillas in Lebanon and Palestine. Exceptionally well equipped guerillas, And, in the case of the Hezbollah, they are exceptionally well equipped guerillas.

Iran and Syria, barely off-stage backers of Hezbollah, loom in the event of further escalation by Israel. And Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and other architects of the Iraq War  —  well conceived to win the war, but not to secure the peace  —  are remarkably quiet.

If Israel succeeds in shattering Hezbollah without much further complication and without getting bogged down, the support the unique nation-state currently enjoys should continue. If events spiral out of control, that historic support may be challenged as never before.