Iran's race to develop a nuclear bomb, alongside its president's calls for the destruction of Israel, have caught us at one of our worst moments. The public has no confidence in senior government ministers, who proved their lack of wisdom and their haplessness in the Lebanon war. Their lack of seriousness, and especially their lack of responsibility, is also evidenced by the way they have clung to positions that the war, as well as the period that followed it, clearly proved them unfit to hold.

This crisis of civilian leadership is occurring simultaneously with a no less fateful crisis of military leadership. For many years, the public wanted to believe that "the Israel Defense Forces is different" - in other words, that the army was free of the structural and moral ills that plagued civilian systems. But it was not only in terms of their functioning that the war revealed the nakedness of most senior commanders. When it came to setting a personal example, for instance by marching in front of their troops into battle, or drawing personal conclusions, the commanders' norms proved debased, just like those of the politicians.

In both realms, the civilian and the military, those responsible for the failures are refusing to draw conclusions. They have managed to cling to the altar and survive because the public is apathetic, or has despaired, and is not girding itself for a civilian struggle.

	Advertisement

These norms did not develop in a vacuum. A specific worldview nurtured the norms of behavior that led to these days of decline in which the army and the government alike find themselves. Now, when the results of this culture have slapped us in the face and are threatening our existence, there is virtually no prime ministerial candidate in the political system whose norms, or abilities, can be said to differ from those of the leaders of this failed government, and from whom salvation might therefore arise.

Even worse, it is also difficult to point to any suitable candidates for the post of chief of staff among the army's top ranks. Few in these ranks have been blessed not only with professional and command skills, but also with integrity like that of the previous generation of commanders.

Fear should strike us in light of the possibility that those responsible for the inconceivable results in Lebanon, among both the political and the military leadership, will be manning the top civilian and military posts if the worst of all happens, and we are forced to repel an attack by the Iranians, or the Syrians, or a coalition of both (with the possible additions of Hezbollah and an all-out Palestinian offensive).

Indeed, if we do not stir ourselves to prevent this absurdity, those who were unable to defeat even a brigade-sized Hezbollah force will be the ones leading us to war against massive, well-equipped armies whose soldiers, as was demonstrated during the Iran-Iraq war, are driven by deep religious faith and are willing to sacrifice themselves to achieve their goal. And if that was the case when Muslims were fighting Muslims, one can imagine what kind of motivation they would have in a fight against the Zionist Satan, the enemy of Islam.

But instead of the public debate focusing on these fateful issues, it has been focused - despite the fact that it is clear to everyone that it is not his rhetoric that will embroil us with the Iranians - on Avigdor Lieberman. The ideology of destroying Israel - which many Israelis prefer to ignore or to claim is meant solely for "internal" consumption - is completely independent. It is certainly not affected by conciliatory, or appeasing, language from Israel. Moreover, Lieberman could not conduct an adventurous policy against Iran even if he wished to do so.

The job that Olmert is giving him is devoid of executive authority. When it comes to setting overall strategy, a prime minister, even a failed one, cannot concede his supreme authority in either the diplomatic or the operational spheres. In the formal hierarchy, Lieberman is preceded by the defense minister and the foreign minister. There is also a cabinet, an IDF General Staff, a Mossad and additional agencies that are supposed to be losing sleep over Iran's nuclear program.

Lieberman, despite his fighting rhetoric, is not a monster. He is merely a political opportunist, very similar to other politicians who, unlike him, enjoy a halo of legitimacy because they are not alien in appearance, accent and behavior. Like them, he, too, wets his finger, waves it about and points in whichever direction the wind is blowing. His partnership with Ehud Olmert, a case of birds of a feather flocking together, reflects the political predicament in which the heads of Kadima and Labor now find themselves compared to their situations six months ago.

Lieberman's entry into the government will not turn Israel into an adventurer. Perhaps the opposite is true. His influence, which he inflated by raising immature and irresponsible ideas, is greater in the opposition. In order to stop voters from flocking to Lieberman, a government that is defending itself against accusations of hesitancy, and even defeatism, might be tempted into reckless adventures. But once the principal inciter is domesticated, his rhetoric will be domesticated along with him.

Nevertheless, his entry into the government underscores our key governmental problem: For the last half year, the prime minister's chair has been occupied by a man who makes bizarre and even irresponsible decisions, in the political and security realms alike.