Editing Martin van Creveld (section)

==Views on current affairs==
In addition to writing on military history, van Creveld also comments on contemporary politics.

=== Israeli military operations ===
In a TV interview in 2002, he expressed doubts as to the ability of the Israeli army to defeat the Palestinians during the [[Second Intifada]]:

<blockquote>They [Israeli soldiers] are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose-lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.<ref>Jennifer Byrne, [http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s511530.htm "Interview with Martin van Creveld"] 20 March, [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]], 2002</ref></blockquote>Van Creveld viewed the [[Second Lebanon War]] as a strategic success for Israel and a Hezbollah defeat. He was also highly critical of the [[Winograd Commission]]'s report for its failure to note the many successes brought about by Israel's military campaign. He noted that Hezbollah "had the fight knocked out of it," lost hundreds of its members and that the organization was "thrown out of South Lebanon," replaced by "a fairly robust United Nations peacekeeping force." He also noted that as a result of the war, Israel is experiencing a level of calm on its Lebanon border not seen since the mid-1960s.<ref>{{cite web |date=31 January 2008 |title=Israel's War With Hezbollah Was Not A Failure |url=http://www.forward.com/articles/12579/ |access-date=2012-02-17 |publisher=Forward.com}}</ref> More recently, in an article published in ''[[Infinity Journal]]'' in June 2011, titled "The Second Lebanon War: A Reassessment", Martin van Creveld argued that contrary to the common view, and despite "clumsy, heavy-handed, and slow" ground operations, the Second Lebanon War was a great victory for Israel. He states that as a result of the war, "since the middle of August 2006, all over southern Lebanon hardly a shot has been fired."<ref>[http://www.infinityjournal.com/article/18/The_Second_Lebanon_War_A_Reassessment "The Second Lebanon War: A Reassessment"], June 2011, ''[[Infinity Journal]]'', 2011</ref>

In an opinion piece published in ''[[The Jewish Daily Forward]]'' in 2010, van Creveld argued that the [[West Bank]], far from being vital to Israel's security, is a territory "that Israel can easily afford to give up." Van Creveld contended that the West Bank offers no defense against ballistic missiles from Israel's two chief enemies, Iran and Syria. Furthermore, provided that it would be demilitarized in any future peace settlement with the Palestinians, the West Bank would act as a natural barrier impeding the advance of any army endeavoring to invade Israel by land from the east. Lastly, Israel could defend itself against terrorism from the West Bank by means of a wall coupled with offensive campaigns the likes of [[Gaza War (2008–09)|Operation Cast Lead]] and [[2006 Lebanon War|the Second Lebanon War]], which successfully restored Israel's [[Deterrence theory|deterrence factor]] when the level of terrorism exceeded what Israel was willing to tolerate.<ref>{{cite news |last=van Creveld |first=Martin |date=15 December 2010 |title=Israel Doesn't Need the West Bank To Be Secure |url=http://www.forward.com/articles/133961/ |access-date=25 February 2011 |publisher=[[The Jewish Daily Forward]]}}</ref>

=== Iraq and Iran ===
In 2005, van Creveld made headlines when he said in an interview that the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] was "the most foolish war since Emperor [[Augustus]] in 9 {{sic|BC<!-- should be AD 9-->}} sent his legions into [[Germania|Germany]] and lost them", a reference to the [[Battle of the Teutoburg Forest]]. His analysis included harsh criticism of the [[George W. Bush administration|Bush administration]], comparing the war to the Vietnam war. Moreover, he said that "[[George W. Bush|Bush]] deserves to be [[Federal impeachment in the United States|impeached]] and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial."<ref name="guardian2005" />

In 2007, van Creveld commented that

<blockquote>Iran is the real victor in Iraq, and the world must now learn to live with a nuclear Iran the way we learned to live with the nuclear Soviet Union and a nuclear China.... We Israelis have what it takes to deter an Iranian attack. We are in no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us.... thanks to the Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from the U.S. and Germany.<ref>[http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/2007/05/21/commentary_islamic_deja_vu/2407/ UPI, COMMENTARY: ISLAMIC DEJA VU] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071023033631/http://upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/2007/05/21/commentary_islamic_deja_vu/2407/|date=23 October 2007}} analysis of Islam in the Middle East 21 May 2007</ref></blockquote>In a September 2003 interview in ''Elsevier'', a Dutch weekly, on [[Israel]] and the dangers it faces from [[Iran]], the Palestinians and world opinion van Creveld stated, referring to the [[Samson Option]]:

<blockquote>We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at [[Rome]]. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.<ref>Quoted in [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1046411,00.html The Observer Guardian, The War Game], a controversial view of the current crisis in the Middle East, 21 September 2003; the original interview appeared in the Dutch weekly magazine ''Elsevier'', 2002, no. 17, pp. 52–53 (27 April 2002).</ref></blockquote>

On 21 August 2004 edition of the ''[[International Herald Tribune]]'' van Creveld wrote, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."<ref>Martin van Creveld writes in the ''[[International Herald Tribune]]'', [http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/08/21/edcreveld_ed3_.php "Sharon on the Warpath: Is Israel planning to attack Iran?"]</ref>

Van Creveld has stated that the Israeli government has "vastly exaggerated the threat that a nuclear Iran poses to its security, as well as Israel's capacity to halt it."<ref name="MvC 14Mar2012">{{cite web |author1=Martin van Creveld |author2=Jason Pack |date=14 March 2012 |title=Hands on Syria, Hands Off Iran |url=http://beta.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/hands-on-syria--hands-off-iran |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20131121112245/http://beta.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/hands-on-syria--hands-off-iran |archive-date=21 November 2013 |access-date=15 March 2012 |publisher=Project Syndicate}}</ref>

=== Arab Spring ===
In an article co-authored with a [[University of Cambridge|Cambridge]] researcher of Middle Eastern history,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20141203063716/http://tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/religion-geopolitics/contributors/jason-pack "Jason Pack: Cambridge University, Researcher of Middle Eastern History and Libya-Analysis.com, President"] on the [[Tony Blair Faith Foundation]] website</ref> [[Jason Pack]], addressing the [[2011 Libyan civil war]], van Creveld challenged the media's tendency to portray the circumstances in Libya as being largely equivalent to those that formed the backdrop to the overthrow of [[Zine El Abidine Ben Ali|ben-Ali]] in Tunisia and [[Hosni Mubarak|Mubarak]] in Egypt earlier in the year. "The remarkable spread of the 2011 Arab revolts across the face of North Africa causes many journalists to portray the current Libyan uprising as fueled by similar factors to those at play in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt. There are more differences than similarities." Van Creveld noted that Tunisia and Egypt "have been coherent nation-states for well over a century," while Libyan society is still pervasively [[Tribalism|tribalist]]. He also observed that whereas the armies of Tunisia and Egypt could mediate the transitions between the old regimes and the new, "Libya lacks a professional, non-tribal army" that could function in such a role. Van Creveld blamed Gaddafi's son [[Saif al-Islam Gaddafi]] for squandering a crucial opportunity to restore order to the country and confidence – both domestic and international – in the Gaddafi regime.<ref>{{cite news |title=Upheaval in Qaddafi's Libya isn't just another Arab uprising |first1=Martin |last1=van Creveld |first2=Jason |last2=Pack|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2011/0223/Upheaval-in-Qaddafi-s-Libya-isn-t-just-another-Arab-uprising |newspaper=[[The Christian Science Monitor]]|date=23 February 2011 |access-date=25 February 2011 |quote=Arguably, the decisive event that forever modified the dynamics was a speech by Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, broadcast late on Feb. 21 on Libyan national TV. Mr. Islam might have rolled out new reforms, blamed the reactionary conservatives like Prime Minister Baghdadi al-Mahmudi for the situation in the country, and promised that he would use his weight with his father to stop the violence against the protesters. Instead, he played the Mubarak card – if you don’t stick with me, you'll get Islamism, separatism, Western intervention, and total chaos.}}</ref>

In 2016, in a commentary for the German magazine ''Focus'', Creveld advocated an alliance with the Assad regime. "If the West wants to win the war against the caliphate of terror, they cannot be picky about their allies". The regional conflict was not about a despot, but about a novel form of terrorism aiming at the dissolution of all state order and territorial boundaries in the whole region. Only the Alawite soldiers of the Assad regime were willing to die fighting the terrorists, whereas the European and American attempts to avoid bloodshed concentrating on airstrikes, were useless against Guerrilla troops as history had shown. Losing the war against IS and Al Nusra would have incalculable consequences for the Middle East and for Europe. In comparison, Assad would appear as the "lesser devil".<ref>{{citation|surname1=FOCUS Online|periodical=FOCUS Online|title=Es geht nur mit Assad!|language=de|url=http://www.focus.de/magazin/archiv/ein-aufruf-von-martin-van-creveld-es-geht-nur-mit-assad_id_5180796.html}}</ref>

As early as 2013, again in the magazine ''Focus'', he regarded support for Assad as important to avoid the destabilization of the Middle East as a whole. Assad would continue the war only to prevent a still larger carnage, the annihilation of the 1.2 million [[Alawites]]. "Instead of complaining about humanitarian concerns and arguing about arms deliveries to the rebels, the West should join Russia and press for a negotiation solution. If necessary, the West should help the rebels and allow Assad to stay on his post: he is the only person who can hold the country together." Van Creveld quoted Bismarck: "Politics is the choice between the bad and the worse."<ref>{{citation|surname1=FOCUS Online|periodical=FOCUS Online|title=Das Schlimme und das Schlimmere|language=de|url=http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/krise-in-der-arabischen-welt/syrien/politik-das-schlimme-und-das-schlimmere_aid_986760.html}}</ref> In a lecture at the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Brandenburg he pleaded to follow a "pragmatic path" in Syria.<ref>{{citation|periodical=Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung|title=Sollte der Westen auf Assad setzen?, Publikationen, Politisches Bildungsforum Brandenburg|language=de|url=http://www.kas.de/brandenburg/de/publications/34653/}}</ref>

In 2011, looking back at Bashar's father, he analyzed the strategy of Hafez Al-Assad against the town of Hama in 1982, then the center of the [[Muslim Brothers]]. Without this action, seen as extremely brutal and as a war crime by Creveld, Assad's regime would probably have been overthrown. Assad himself and many members of the Alawite community would have been killed. After Assad's removal, perhaps a stable regime would have been established by non-Alawite Muslims, or – the more likely variant in Martin van Creveld's view  – there would have been no stable government at all. In this case, there would have been a war of everyone against everyone. "Judging from the experience in neighboring Beirut, such a civil war could have cost hundreds of thousands of people. And, according to what happened in Lebanon and Afghanistan, Syria could have developed into a place teeming with international terrorists of every direction."<ref>{{citation|surname1=Thomas Speckmann|periodical=Die Zeit|title=Machthaber Syriens: Hafis und Baschar|date=22 June 2011 |location=Hamburg|issn=0044-2070|language=de|url=http://www.zeit.de/2011/26/Syrien-Hama}}</ref>