Kimball: Historical Analogies, the Middle East, and World War

Jeffrey Kimball (from HNN):

Polls indicate, for example, that 60 percent of Americans, as well as many editorialists across the political spectrum, believe that the fighting in Lebanon could or might lead to a larger war in a manner similar to the onset of World War I, when the assassination of one high official and his consort escalated into a global war. ...

[T]here was at least one element in the lead-up to World War I that to my mind serves as a useful analogy in the Middle East imbroglio. In 1914, the status-quo government of Austria-Hungary foolishly decided, with the support of imperial aspirant Germany, to militarily punish Serbia for having supported the nationalist assassins of the Austrian archduke. Austria-Hungary cared little about the assassination compared to its larger purpose: by seizing upon the event to teach the Serbs a lesson, pan-Slavism might be contained and the old order preserved. In our day, the status-quo government of Israel, supported by hegemonic America, decided to punish Hamas and Hezbollah, and collaterally Lebanon—not for the kidnapping of a few soldiers but to teach them a lesson in military power and perhaps even to "root out" Hamas and Hezbollah. Both Austria-Hungary/Germany and Israel/United States chose military force over real diplomacy; that is, they chose the sword over a political solution to a deeply-rooted struggle between status-quo governments and the tide of nationalistic/religious/ideological rebellion.

No, I don't think that the current conflict in the Middle East will lead to a world war, though it might lead to a larger regional conflict. Even if no wider war comes about, we should nonetheless remember one of the lessons of the onset of World War I: explosive political issues cannot be solved with brute force in an age of "people's war," or weapon-rich guerrilla war. Political problems mainly require political solutions. Conventional military responses alone produce conventional failures.