Viewing some video clips of the so-called “smart bombs” or pinpoint strikes, one can easily stepped into the memory of the Gulf War. In 1990 and 1991, national broadcasts in the US aired the battle scene day-by-day. The picture of the US missiles flew into the dark sky over the Gulf to defeat “evil” Saddam Hussein called for American patriotism and provided high degree of dignity and legitimacy of the mission. If Israel could obtain such legitimacy on her operation in Gaza, she would gather supports and sympathy regardless of the reality on the ground (amorally speaking). Further strengthening this argument, the Israeli spokesperson appeared on the video emphasizing that Israel is not targeting the Palestinian people but the Hamas terrorists.

On one hand, it could be seen as propaganda, but on the other hand, it could be seen as Israel’s demand and necessity of supports from international community more than the US backup in the UN Security Council. While the Arab countries are obviously not in favor of this operation, Egypt, for example, is not yet willing to commit anti-Israel campaign led by Hamas. Rather, some Arab elites seem to worry about the Hamas-Syria-Iran axis being strengthened if Israel retreats early. If Israel could obtain some degree of dignity described above, it would be easier for non-pro-Iran Arab leaders to be silent to observe Hamas getting weakened.

In 2006, Israel attacked Hezbollah bases in Lebanon. This ground operation caused serious damages on local infrastructure, and thus Israel paid some moderate sum of money to Lebanese government.. However, before Lebanese government’s aid reached to the local community, Hezbollah, allegedly supported by Iran, distributed considerable amount of cash directly to the local people in exchange with the support for Hezbollah. This was a catastrophic PR failure for Israel, and hence, this mistake led her to consider more populist PR campaign such as the YouTube channel.

YouTube is, after all, utilized in the political scenes in the US even during the presidential election of 2008. Speeches of Obama, Clinton, McCain, and others (and parody of them) frequently appeared on it, and millions of Americans obtained political information from it. Particularly, young generations who strongly supported Obama are the core of the YouTube users. Israel, who already has a strong political lobby in Washington, may dream to strengthen her influence on the next US administration by establishing positive relationship with such young Obama supporters.

After all, uploading video clips on YouTube does not cost anything. So, one may easily ignore the possible effects on inter-state or international affairs (the so-called “high politics”). Yet, this PR campaign of Israel, probably targeting young Americans, could result in the shift of the US public opinion of the young generations from anti-war liberal to more center neutral. Although it is almost impossible to predict exact consequences, this PR campaign is worth to try for Israel.

The leaders of Europe and the US must be careful because any pro-Hamas organizations can successfully provoke such shift in public opinion. Of course, we cannot regulate YouTube and other Internet directory due to the freedom of expression. Nonetheless, we need to obtain/provide unbiased information regarding the conflict before the coincide Israeli-Hamas PR war stirs up the mind of our voters.

1. Missile Defense (MD).

Russia seems to worry about the MD deployment in Eastern and Central Europe for both practical and theoretical reasons. First, the equipment deployed in the region is the “eye,” “ear,” and probably “brain” of the greater aerial (and outer-space) defense system in Europe. As Russia will not share the system, the deployment will cause destabilization of defense equilibrium in the Greater Europe (from the Atlantic to the Urals). Such imbalance, from Moscow’s point of view, redraws political picture between Russia and the US in Europe and the Middle East. Of course, NATO is already superior to Russia in many dimensions of military aspects. However, missile defense (if works) is the Shield of Aegis which comprehensively protects the already-mighty Athena. If Athena becomes unjustly mad, how will we stop her?

Second, the deployment is treated in both Poland and the Czech Republic as a symbol of special trans-Atlantic relationship. Some political analysts claim that such Atlanticism divides Europe into two and the coordination between NATO and the EU will be more difficult.. Some extremists further claim that this division of Europe is the overachieving strategic goal for the United States. While I personally disagree with both statements, I see the political implementation of the deployment in the region. After all, the missile defense system has not yet worked out. Political will from both Poland (or the Czech Republic) and the US seems to drive this deployment. From Moscow’s point view, it can have a domino effect towards Ukraine.

Obama has made clear that he has not yet given a “go” sign to the MD deployment. Many speculates that the motive of this cautiousness comes from his new policy towards Russia, and others claim that he simply does not want to spend unnecessary money.

2. Nuclear Arsenals.

Obama envisions to drastically reduce the US nuclear arsenals to promote peace in the world. While such action can strengthen the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) implementation, Obama’s stance on willingness to talk with Iran may be viewed as compromise in front of such unilateral reduction. As being a Japanese, I never disagree such promising non-nuclear world. However, multilateral reduction including Russia, if possible, is the best case scenario without doubt.

Further, the exception was made for India regarding (civil) nuclear technology transfer at the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Is this exception applicable to, say, Nepal? If we trust India, but not Nepal, we must have legal reason for such distinction. So far, the IAEA decision seems to be political and economical rather than moral or legal. If this all nuclear policy is based on power politics, can we legitimize the nuclear control by the IAEA or other organizations? Obama has been criticizing the Bush administration taking the path of power politics, and talks about “change.” Then, Obama and his administration must present tougher (or at least standardized) criteria on nuclear regulation, in order to obtain maximum effect from nuclear force reduction.

Regarding the US-Russian relationship, there are several unsolved issues on oil trade, Georgia, free market, WTO membership, human rights for journalists, the CFE (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) Treaty, and so on. We continue to observe what agreements those two young leaders will reach.

Allegedly, religious extremists and terrorists nesting in Pakistan conducted the strike, according to government officials, scholars, and journalists. Regardless of Pakistani position of the so-called “war on terrorism,” its unstable domestic security is enough to make the world horrified because of possible nuclear proliferation.

What I would like to call attention in THIS article is, however, neither on terrorist groups in Pakistan nor nuclear proliferation; it is on “post hoc ergo propter hoc (after that, therefore because of that).” This phrase is often referred by scholars in political
science and economics, and highlights the difference between correlation and causation. In order to give the readers some idea, I would like to bring an example from a TV drama “the West Wing,” a fictional story of the US administration.

At the premier of the second season, President Bartlet and his staff are shot, and National Security Advisor Dr. McNally recommends the soldier deployment into Kuwait and the Persian Gulf on the ground of possible involvement of Iraq in the attack. President did not take the recommendation. Later in the series, it is revealed that the attack was intended on President’s African-American Personal Aid conducted by a White supremacist group.

Of course, it is a fictional story, and hence, it cannot be compared with the real life situation. Yet, the message “correlation does not mean causation” still holds water. A happens after B does not mean A causes B. Likewise, doing C to stop A does not necessarily stop B. In the story above, Dr. McNally’s recommendation regarding Iraq is ineffective towards the White supremacists, as the gun shot was not fired by anti-American terrorists.

In the next few weeks, Pakistani government led by new leadership is most likely to tighten the security and may arrest several anti-Western activists in Pakistan. However, if (I emphasize this “if”) the bombing was conducted by political opponents in Pakistan who are not satisfied by the new leadership, such arrest mentioned above is off-focus.

In conclusion, tighten the security in order to prevent a further bomb attack is undoubtedly necessary. Yet, the Pakistani authority must be careful to speculate motives of the attack and pre-emptively arrest the possible suspects. If the arrest was mistake, it encourages the further hostility and thus the second strike.

First of all, I give my sincere sympathy toward those who lost family, friends, and houses. Regardless of their nationality, we need to help those victims of power politics. Moreover, I pray for those who lost their lives in the madness of humankind – war. Today, the way to the heaven is clouded by the Georgians, Ossetians, and even Russians who believed their leaders were doing the right thing. Those who lost lives are not guilty of this chaos: let us forgive them.

Second aspect I would like to point out is that “right” or “wrong” means little in a war. Even if the Georgian act of “retaking” South Ossetia is “right,” this “rightness” diminishes in front of the massive casualty. Given the fact Russia has more tanks, ships, airplanes, and soldiers than Georgia, this operation in South Ossetia was a tactical and strategic mistake (even immoral, I think). Moreover, Tbilisi, hours before the attack, declared the cease fire unilaterally and broke it in the morning of 8th August. There are some reports that the Russian Air Force bombed small villages before the Georgian attack took place (and thus, implying legitimate retaliation). Yet, the remaining fact is that Tbilisi committed military actions hours AFTER the cease fire declaration (which was not officially accepted by South Ossetia) and the operation was conducted without prior diplomatic efforts with the United Nations.

Third, Russia has the right to intervene as there are many Russian citizens in South Ossetia. I am not going to legitimize the Russian position on the “peacekeeping” role: that is a different issue. But, one thing for sure is that as Russian citizens in South Ossetia were attacked by Georgia, Russia has the right to protect them. Once again, there is possibility that Russia provoked Georgia. Even so, Georgia should have considered that Russia would attack once Georgia launched offensive operations.

Lastly, some assume that Tbilisi was expecting stronger international support, possibly military intervention by NATO. However, as all political leaders were in Beijing attending the Olympic ceremony, such assumption seems fragile. On the contrary, Tbilisi might have assumed that Russia would react slowly given the Olympic condition. Prime Minister Putin, however, was in Moscow.

At last, Russia does not have the right to overthrow the Georgian government. As Russia had been the one who accused the American approach in Iraq, Russia should know at least on the rhetoric. That said, the fact Georgia attacked South Ossetia without prior diplomatic consensus with the United Nations puts Georgia in a weak position. This was NOT a unilateral invasion by Russia into Georgia as anti-Russian media reports. It was a military conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia in which Russian citizens were involved. It looks like an invasion because the Russian Army and Air Force were overwhelming. Russia even moved the Black Sea Fleet for economic sanction against Georgia. As Georgia ceased fire, such aggressive actions by Russia are no longer necessary. Thus, it is high time to negotiate and to start the reconstruction of the “society of the people” – not the “territory of (some) nationals.”