Hezbollah's Victory, the Fall of ISIS and Principles of Historical Interpretation

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-Threat/Hezbollah-leader-boasts-We-defeated-ISIS-in-Syria-504896

This story has received almost no coverage in the West but it's significant. And though it undoubtedly vexes a good number of people in both Israel and America, it is nevertheless true.

Hezbollah, born of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, shocked everyone in 2006 by presenting a serious challenge to Israel on the battlefield. Since then it has grown even stronger and has recently scored significant victories in Syria. Hezbollah, a Shiite paramilitary organisation allied with Iran, waged a fierce war against the Sunni extremists of ISIS.

Israel which has all but openly supported ISIS was undoubtedly looking forward to its expansion into Lebanon and the grief it would generate for Hezbollah. This was all but underway until the apocalyptic Islamic cult began to suffer some serious setbacks due in large part to the Russian intervention. This coupled with Hezbollah's campaign and the stepped up attacks in Iraq has within a relatively short time reduced their fighting capability. At this point ISIS is certainly in retreat and their caliphate is in doubt.

While ISIS will hang on for awhile, already the post-ISIS and post-Syrian War period are being considered. For Tel-Aviv and Washington the Syrian victory and the fall of ISIS mark a defeat. While Washington never wanted to see ISIS become dominant in Northern Iraq and indeed that episode has generated other problems between the Kurds and NATO member Turkey, the real purpose of Israeli support for ISIS as well as American and Gulf state support for both ISIS and al-Nusra was to see the overthrow of Assad in Syria and to diminish Iranian influence in the region. The removal of Assad and the eventual crippling and isolation of Hezbollah have long been objectives that have been quietly held by the Saudi-Israeli-American alliance.

The project has all but failed and one has to wonder if a new Israel-Hezbollah war isn't on the horizon. Will it be sparked by a new Gaza bombing campaign or perhaps a new chapter of Palestinian intifada? It isn't too hard to imagine several scenarios that could lead to such a conflict.

While on the one hand the winding down of the Syrian War must be reckoned a good thing... whether one likes Assad or not... there's a real possibility that after a brief pause we may see a new phase in the now seemingly endless series of Middle Eastern Wars.

Status quo ante bellum is not likely. There's really no going back.

Many openly attack the notion that Israel would give aid to ISIS or al-Nusra fighters and yet those that argue against this need to brush up on their military history. Realpolitik all too often rules the day and in recent years even figures as 'esteemed' as Petraeus have suggested the US back al-Nusra fighters. The media failed to explain to the public that one of the top US military figures was openly calling for the US to support a branch of al-Qaeda.

But then the entirety of the War on Terror has largely been reduced to not only fiction but it has been exposed as a farce. For those who drink deep the propaganda of the Establishment they will be all but unable to grasp the big picture let alone the nuance.

These same people would be just as flabbergasted at the Israeli alliance with Apartheid South Africa in the 1970s and 80s. History is all too often stranger than fiction. I think part of the reason so many Americans (in particular) fail to grasp these historical realities is due to the fact that they have generally speaking been brainwashed into thinking in terms of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in the realm of geopolitics. In almost every case this is misguided and mistaken. Nations act on the basis of interests.

Additionally Americans tend to think in terms of ideals. The media and education system pushes this aggressively. The reality is something very different. Strategists don't think that way and many argue aggressively against it. There are concrete historical examples that can be pointed to in which such thinking completely backfired and in the end generated more harm than good.

Gladstone is a prime example of this. As British prime minister his idealistic geopolitics regarding Ottoman treatment of Armenians in the 19^th century may have led to the Baghdad-Berlin axis and the Ottomans siding with Germany during WWI. Hitherto they had been allies of the British and the French, especially during the Crimean War. Gladstone tried to function in terms of ideal and a generation later the pure ideal led to Gallipoli and an even worse episode of Armenian massacres... the episode now known as the genocide during the reign of The Young Turks.

This is not to defend Realpolitik, nor is it an attempt to discount ideological principle. As a Christian I tend toward the latter which is (in part) why I believe Christians cannot serve honestly or effectively in government. But all of this is to say, that the narratives surrounding ideal in terms of history and present day policy are often little more than fodder for the public and the many pseudo-intellectuals who inhabit academia. They kick around these ideas and write books that make everyone feel good about the system they're defending. One thinks of the recent attention given to Ken Burns. The honest players and interpreters are not as respected and face a withering criticism if not a blacklist. As a Christian it must also be pointed out that all too often these same rogue anti-establishment figures are not Christians and may indeed (with cause) be critical of the Church, its leaders and ideals. Now whether those ideals actually have anything to do with Biblical Christianity is of course another story.

But if you want to understand the world in which we live, the nature of relationships between powers... and this is true of nations, corporations and even in many cases of individuals... then one must look to interests and realism... not ideals. We can use ideals to interpret and comment but for our perception to generate anything like wisdom or for it to maintain any level of integrity than we must be divorced from having interests. We cannot be players in the game. If we are, the first casualties will most certainly be honesty and truth.

Not a few Christians are also hostile to this way of thinking because it challenges the metanarrative glosses they have imposed on Church history. Reformation history in particular has been subject to this. While it must be admitted that many secular historians have downplayed and even discounted the ideal as a source of motivation, Church affiliated historians have often all but ignored the social and political interests that led to the embrace of Reformation doctrine. It's subsequent collapse and overt politicisation so evident in the 17^th century presents historical problems and difficulties they would rather not entertain. The superficial treatment of these conflicts that seems to be the norm in most standard and certainly most endorsed histories becomes painfully evident.

One needs only to consider the series of Anglo-Dutch Wars in the 17^th century to understand that Protestantism was not the 'ideal' guiding these states. The Thirty Years War is most instructive as we consider Bourbon France run by Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin fighting internal wars against Protestant Huguenots while at the same time supporting Central and Northern European Protestants in their war against the Catholic Habsburgs.

Closer to our own day one need only to consider the Allied relationship with Stalin and the propaganda campaign that resulted from it. Was Uncle Joe any better than the Nazis? Of course not. The question was interests and immediate concern... not ideology.

The Cold War is riddled with strange alliances and an endless game of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Ideological purists will find history to be an empty well.

The notion that Israel would provide logistical and tactical support to ISIS whether directly or through proxies is hardly shocking. Only the ignorant would find it so.