Todd

The partisan nonsense you have been spewing is beginning to get old.

Bush has not been "caught with his pants down."

If you are of the belief that this Israeli offensive was not pre-ordained (and years in the making) then I would argue it is you who has been duped.

Indeed, Bush's disinterested neutrality on the matter indicates, to anyone who has the power of observation, that it was not only not a surprise, but was expected.

The scary part about Bush's comment is that he thinks Syria can snap its fingers and order Hezbollah to cool it.

The guy knows squat about the Middle East! And he's in charge. That's the truly scary part.

The only thing I wonder about here is that the commentary on Bush's "off mike" comments from the right wing are not exclusively negative. On fark.com, a significant number of posters praised Bush for, once again, his plain talk. And his comments reinforce his thesis that Iran and Syria are the true powers behind Hezbollah, and reinforce the idea that there's no difference between Bush the public "diplomat" and Bush the private one.

Am I the only one to suspect that he knew the mike was open?

Kotzwonne?

Pardner, they sure don't understand that lib'rul culture in Austin. Now, they like to say they're workingmen like the wildcatters in Houston, but mebbe more like the money men for the awl bidness in Dallas. Fort Worth is somethin' they'd scrape off their boots, if they knew enough to wear 'em.

They got some value, though, in makin' the Aggies feel int'lectual.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Check today's news -- the "pants down" bit was about the open mic. Bush was indeed caught with his pants down. Unless you agree with ned, below, that it was pre-planned?

PS, what's wrong with partisanship? Is Todd Gitlin, or anyone here, supposed to be non-partisan? 

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

"PS, what's wrong with partisanship? Is Todd Gitlin, or anyone here, supposed to be non-partisan?"

there are many things wrong with it in general but I'll confine myself just to this case. Here we have a major crisis in the M East and Todd's immediate reaction is to recycle the same old tired talking points about how bad Bush is. Everyone chimes in and feels good about themselves-- How lucky we are to have a president who is wrong and the root cause of the problem 100% of the time! I didn't vote for him but I get sick and tired of this. Like others on this site, I have family over there and others I know who may be called up. It was refreshing to hear that Bush is thinking of sending Condi and that he understands the role Syria is likely playing. And the response from my side, same old same old. blah, blah, bush is stupid, blah, blah. get a grip. I worry that we're becoming worse than the Clinton haters.

Israel Lobby Watch

Bush is about to discover - Syria's not a charitable organization

I have no idea how much influence Syria (or Iran) have with Hezbollah, though I'm led to believe it's not insignificant.  On that score, I'm not sure that what Bush said is entirely stupid (and I could care less if he said 'shit' - shit, I did too).  

But my first reaction was that this is another indication that this administration still hasn't lost the old mindset that all significant terrorist organizations must be backed by a state.   

Israel Lobby Watch

Crissie

Iran has not out-maneuvered anyone. Nor have they duped anyone. Does it not seem likely that Bush is stepping aside to see if perhaps Israel can get the job done on their own before any serious action is taken against Tehran?

Any substantive Israeli success is unlikely and Bush certainly knows this but in his mind it is certainly worth a try. If and when the Israeli military campaign winds down then you will see what the U.S. and its allies has in store for Iran.

Israel Lobby Watch

A Window into All Hat No Cattle Diplomatic Farce

Juan ColeBush: Lean on Syria

I cobbled the Bush-Blair exchange on Israel and Lebanon, accidentally caught at the G8 on mike, together fromWaPo and ABC News.

 

BUSH to Blair: "I think Condi is going to go (to the Middle East) pretty soon."

BLAIR: "Right, that's all that matters, it will take some time to get that together . . . See, if she goes out she's got to succeed as it were, where as I can just go out and talk."

BUSH: "See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hizbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over."

BLAIR: "Who, Syria?"

BUSH: "Right . . . What about Kofi? That seems odd. I don't like the sequence of it. His attitude is basically ceasefire and everything else happens."

BLAIR: "I think the thing that is really difficult is you can't stop this unless you get this international presence agreed." . . .

BUSH: "I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen. We're not blaming Israel. We're not blaming the Lebanese government."

So, the whole blow-up is Syria's fault, for putting Hizbullah up to making mischief. No reference to Israeli actions in Gaza. No reference to, like, the wholesale destruction of Lebanon by the Israeli air force. And no blame for the Lebanese government of Fouad Siniora. And Bush thinks that Nasrullah of Hizbullah takes direct orders from Damascus. And he thinks that if Bashar al-Asad orders Hizbullah to stop firing its little katyushas and give back the two Israeli soldiers, everything will suddenly settle down.

It is an astonishingly simple-minded view of the situation, painted in black and white and making assumptions about who is who's puppet and what the Israeli motivations are. Israel doesn't appear as a protagonist. It is purely reactive. Stop provoking it, and it suddenly stops its war.

Since Israel is just being provoked and has no ambitions of its own, in this reading, it is useless to begin with a ceasefire. That treats the two sides as both provoking one another. Here, only Hizbullah matters, so you lean on Syria to lean on it, and, presto, peace breaks out.

It is a little window into the superficial, one-sided mind of the man, who has for six years been way out of his depth.

I come away from it shaken and trembling.

Israel Lobby Watch

Iran is going to have a bomb. Hizbollah, Southern Lebanon. Hamas Palestine. And those southern Iraq oil fields where crude comes out at less than $2/bbl......

A fund for Hamas and Hizbollah..

 And Cowboy George..why he's having PM Maliki over to the WH for some fixins and grazins..

Maliki - Dawa Party - Islamist founders of the Party of God

Wonder if God mentioned that in their last conversation???

The idea of the terrorist organization as a free-floating nation (v. nation-state) is scary to all of us.

To tangent, when I read this, my first thought was that we should take solace in the fact that terrorism fits into categories that aren't new, and have been dealt with.  Specifically, I thought of the words of an American judge, when he allowed a Paraguayan family to take legal action against the official who tortured their boy to death, suing in the U.S. for violating international law:

The torturer, like the pirate and slavetrader before him, has become hostii humani generis - the enemy of all mankind (or something quite like that)

When the oceans were effectively beyond the bounds of law, piracy was a sort of nation unto itself.  When there was no international consensus around slavery, demand would always meet supply.  A major part of the story of the social justice advances made in recent human history has to do with international law, and the diplomatic pressure that groups of nations can exert on others to do the right thing. The point behind hostii humani generis is that certain crimes are so beyond the pale that any nation is obliged to prosecute them - practiced universally, this denies the pirate a port to land, and the slavetrader the profit motive.  The same could happen here, if we were moving in a direction of greater consensus and unity among nations, rather than less.

Ah, shit. 

NO.

I seem to recall this same conversation happening twenty years ago, when another president joked about nuclear conflagration. 

Unfortunately, Bush pretty much is the cause of the problem at the time. (And by "Bush," I mean the Bush Administration.)

I'm not sure how anything Bush says could be categorized as "refreshing."

Hasn't this Administration proven their incompetence and cluelessness enough to you?

You're still willing to give them one more shot?

You think anyone on the Republican side is extending an honest, bipartisan hand?

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

Israel Lobby Watch

A thank you for Todd Gitlin

Cheers!

 

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s London Review of Books essay “The Israel Lobby,” and the heavily footnoted working-paper version posted on the John F. Kennedy School of Government website, have generated a tsunami of commentary. This is not surprising given their thesis: a small group of Israel’s supporters inside and outside of government have a disproportionate influence over American foreign policy toward the Middle East, and this works to the detriment of U.S. security. As with many prophets in their own lands, they have received a much fairer hearing abroad—ironically even in Israel—than they have at home.

...

Finally, there seems to be a sense of guilt among some American Jews living in peace and prosperity in the United States that leads them to believe they owe unstinting support to their co-religionists living in greater peril and less opulence in the Middle East. Rather than make literal aliyah (ascent to the Holy Land), they content themselves with making political aliyah through uncompromising support for the Jewish state. “American (Jews) have this apocalyptic sense of danger in regard to Israel, more than Israeli Jews,” Columbia University professor Todd Giltin told the San Francisco Chronicle. They therefore “feel a certain guilt that they are American. ... They write the checks, but the Israelis have to fight.” One consequence of this, as George Washington University President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg observed, is the “idea, which persists ... that it was better to keep quiet than to criticize Israel. Doing otherwise, the argument went (and still goes in some places) is no less than giving aid and comfort to Israel’s antagonists.”

Groups like the Anti-Defamation League and CAMERA and individuals like Alan Dershowitz promised detailed rebuttals of Mearsheimer and Walt’s logic and evidence. So far, they have failed to identify any significant errors of fact and interpretation. They are left with impugning the integrity of the authors and the legitimacy of the whole line of inquiry. Dershowitz labels Mearsheimer and Walt “bigots.” Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman characterizes the piece as “conspiratorial anti-Semitic analysis.” Congressman Jerrold Nadler, a staunch supporter of Israel, dismisses it as “a repackaging of old conspiracy theories.” New Republic publisher Martin Peretz declares it “the labor of obsessives with dark and conspiratorial minds.” Even as he conceded much of their argument, columnist Christopher Hitchens found it “smelly” with the odor of anti-Semitism.

Despite having no truck with anti-Semitism, Mearsheimer and Walt understood that critics would level that accusation. As Tony Judt recently explained in Ha’aretz, the charge of anti-Semitism is “now the only card left” to the Israel lobby to respond to criticism. But this organized tactic of shutting down serious discussion rather than engaging the argument on its merits is illegitimate. As George Orwell reminds us, “If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”  
_____________________________________

Prophets in Their Own Land

How to go from respected academic to anti-Semite—in one simple step

By Michael C. Desch


Michael C. Desch is Professor and Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security Decision-making at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University.

Come on, Howard, Bush ain't no real Texan. I called the Cowboy Authentication Work-group (COW) in Crawford, and they said as far as they got on authentication was Bush's claim of birthplace: "We sarched and sarched, but couldn't find no Kenny's Bunkhouse in the whole guldern state!" they said.

Neoboho

Israel Lobby Watch

The Force Is Not with Them:

The Middle East Aflame and the Bush Administration Adrift

Let's leave the "caught with his pants down" references to Bill Clinton.

Gettysburg, you betray your small mind.  Would you really rather have a president who is completely faithful to his Stepford (and formerly alcoholic, and murderous) wife (and is a complete nincompoof as the history, and the future of the world is concerned), or would you rather have one who made the world a safer place, reduced our national deficit etcetera, etcetera, etcetera? 

What would you prefer?  World domination? By the US  The most deserving population in the world?  Our president is a pig.  Just watch it on TV!

Jan Knaus

I agree with Gettyburg and Brittney Spears. We should just trust Bush. Gettysburg is right to quote Blair in his remark about how transparent our government is, what could illustrate open gov't better than an open mike?

Somewhere in the future all the tens of thousands of dead from the Bush wars will be 'worth it'. When we don't know. I am counting on Gettysburg to tell us when it has been worth it to him, with the specifics detailed enough to justify thousands of Americans having sacrificed their lives.

If my only choice is between Iran and Syria, I'll have to give the nod to Iran.

There is far more evidence to support that supposition and before this crisis, I don't recall the Israelis making a huge security issue of the linkage between the two entities. Syria was regulary making diplomatic overatures to Sharon and was always rejected. No doubt Sharon had his tactical reasons for refusing to open a dialogue with Syria, but according to The Forward, it was also American policy that he do so.

Why would this administration stymie rather than support a "roadmap" between Israel and Syria? Weakening Syria even further was/is the goal.

Syria's brand spanking new ambassador to the UN, Dr. Jafar Ja'afari, didn't excuse Hezbollah's actions and stated they were no one's mercenaries. But probably because he's a newbie, he let something slip that gives one pause:

"He also insisted that Israel's "nuclear centers" could eventually be targeted by Hezbollah.
"Nobody wants to talk about [Hezbollah] attacks on those nuclear centers do they? They could have radiation fallout all over the region."
It is unclear what nuclear facilities the Syrian was referring to.
Israel's main nuclear installation is outside the city of Dimona in the Negev desert. The facility, several hundred miles south of the Lebanese border, is well defended from potential attacks.

The Syrian insisted that his government knows of "seven such nuclear centers all over the country." He refused to provide any additional details."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/14/62952.shtml

(This is the only source for this story about the extra nuclear facilities, even though the article says that the Dr spoke with reporters, plural.)

Dark actors playing games, indeed.

Sometimes I think the rest of us are all a just a bunch of silly shmucks arguing over who's moving and holding the Monopoly tokens.

Bronto

I have more friends and family members serving in the military (many in Iraq) than most.

Many criticize me for perpetuating the Neocon agenda. I have written serveral times over the past few days how the U.S. will stand to gain enormously from a Middle Eastern war. It would be ideal if Bush was content to let Israel "duke it out" themselves without getting American forces involved in the region further. I think that there is a possibility of that but it's too soon to tell.

The point I wish to make is that the men and women of our armed forces who fight are doing so because they are soldiers. Any soldier who faces an enemy in combat is a hero in my estimation. The black and white ignorance which the Democrats have shown toward the Iraq War (and now the Middle East War) belies the fact that our soldiers are worthy of the same praises as those who fought in any previous war.

In short, even if the war(s) are grounded in economics, that does not mean that our men and women are dying "for no reason." Economics, I'm afraid, is everything these days. We should all get used to that.

Perhaps the current crisis is different because never before has economics been so obviously and patently the true motive of war. That much I grant you. But it is hardly unprecedented. As I have mentioned before, World War I was masked by alliances, Africa, pagentry, and long-standing European rivalries; yet the root cause was economics.

You ask me when I believe these wars will have been "worth it?"

To me, they will have been worth it when the interests of American markets (and those of our allies) are no longer threatened by destabilizing factors such as Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hamas, etc.

The idyllic vision of spreading Democracy to these lands is not something which the United States should concern itself with. Bush has been glaringly wrong for even using such arguments in his daily discourse (whether he is actually serious about spreading democracy or not). Even theocratic governments should not be outwardly judged by the United States so long as they do their part to maintain the essential peace.

Of course, this view implicitly implies that a certain degree of conformity is required by these anti-American nations. Yet since the dawn of man the most powerful civilizations have reserved the right to implement its vision in one degree or another over those less fortunate tribes.

Before blasting me as being immoral please take a moment to acknowledge that this is how things have always been; even well before the Biblical era.

Even still the United States (and the West for that matter) has devised a game in which benefits are easily obtained for those who willingly submit to its bylaws. The United Arab Emirates, for example, plays the West's game and in return is without a doubt the safest country in the entire region, not to mention the wealthiest nation, per capita, in the entire world. Saudi Arabia, India, and Jordan are other success stories. Even Pakistan and Egypt have undergone remarkable reformations in the last five years.

Peace is what everyone wants. I will be satisfied when the scattered elements of dissidence are exterminated.

In a household there are rules governed by the parents and older, more powerful siblings. When one or two "bad seeds" take root and wish to defy the rules of the house, action must be taken to rectify this problem.

PW

It was a values statement but not necessarily a bad one. I am not anti-semitic, anti-Islamic, or anti-Christian. I believe in the Constitution. I also believe every nation has a right to look out for its own best interests so long as they they follow international law. To the letter.

I know Iraq will be used as a reply but technically speaking the war was legal because Saddam Hussein did posess banned weapons, even if they were old.

I have to agree.

I'm agreeing with Gettysburg! Oh, boy...hell has frozen over.

He's absolutely correct - Bush and Olmert planned this offensive along with Cheney and the neocons and the hardliners in the IDF.

There's little doubt.

Justin Raimondo's current column laments how repetitive it is because he's been predicting this sort of thing for the last year or two - see his list of quotes from previous columns doing so.

This part of his column is particularly apt here, given all the Ivo Daalders and the like telling me that Iran was not going to be attacked because Condi Rice was in charge, that Bush had gone the diplomatic route, or that Bush would do nothing, or that the US wouldn't attack because Iran "could cause trouble in Lebanon":

"Another war, a silent war, is going on in the corridors of power, and the fighting in the Middle East, in an important sense, is merely a reflection of a long, bitter internecine struggle in Washington. Those Republican "realists" we hear so much about – holdovers from the Bush I regime, "realist" policy wonks, and those Republicans who look at the polls – have their champion (or best hope, at any rate) in Condoleezza Rice. Her personal relationship with the president and her elevation to head of the State Department have led several commentators to equate this as a victory for the "realists."

The neoconservative ideologues, who have been the radical vanguard of the War Party all along, certainly believe this, which is why Richard Perle recently took her on in the Washington Post. The Condi faction temporarily gained the upper hand when they came out with a policy on Iran that had been worked on in secret and took the road of negotiation rather than outright military confrontation and "regime change."

The Israeli answer: invade Lebanon, force the issue, and go for the throat. With the Israel lobby going full-bore and the propaganda mills churning, the invasion undermines the Rice faction and puts the issue of regime-change back on the administration's agenda. While that change of regime will, initially, be limited to southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah operates a de facto independent state, it will eventually – the neocons hope – extend to the whole of the country, topple Bashar al-Assad in Syria – and, eventually, spill over into Iran.

Dan Rather said on Chris Matthews' Sunday show that the road is littered with the corpses of those who underestimated Dick Cheney, and the reassertion of the neoconservative voice within this administration – a voice that many thought had been nearly stilled by the grotesque failure of our Iraqi disaster – is a testament to the validity of his thesis.

The neocons' comeback is made possible by the Democrats' complete prostration before the Israeli offensive."

And he's right.

Actually, as Justin Raimondo points out in the article I reference above, the only country out-witting everybody else appears to be Israel - for the moment.

At least it's clear that Israel has outwitted Condi Rice - she thought she could persuade Bush to go the diplomatic route on Iran.

Israel, the neocons and Dick Cheney showed her how long that was going to last.

Meanwhile, Iran sits back and waits for Israel to bleed itself against Hizballah in Lebanon, while waiting for the US to attack it so it can bleed the US in a guerrilla war for the next ten years.

While neither Hizballah nor Iran can destroy Israel or the US, they can each bleed Israel and the US to the point where the game is no longer worth it.

Unfortunately the world will not simple walk out of the theater happily musing over the show after this act.

What "world" are you speaking of?  I only know of one and it will do exactly as the United States and Europe tell it to do.

I'm not arguing that as a belief or a wish.  I'm arguing that as a reality.

You know it's funny because I was talking to some politically disinterested friends of mine today and they had no idea there was a war going on in the Middle East.  One of them had heard something about a missile attack "somewhere" but had no idea where or by whom.

Living in Los Angeles I can tell you that mainstream America is not dearly as dour and pessimistic as most at this website.  Indeed, if everyone were to formulate their opinions based on what is written at TPM Cafe they would think that we are on the brink of the Apocalypse.

This "war," like the Iraq War, is a construct.  It has been designed not as a means of delivering peace and democracy to a region but to root out terrorists and radicals that threaten certain financial interests.

I'm not yet particularly concerned about the Middle East conflagration because if it were genuinely a true world threat you would see the U.S., Europe, Russia, Japan, China, India, et al. stepping in.  This is but a neighborhood spat. 

Let me also add that Bush actually something like "I think Condi's going there soon..."

What? You think? Maybe? Are you not sure? HAVE YOU ACTUALLY TRIED TO FORMULATE A PLAN?!

Then we have the madness over forcing Americans to PAY to be evacuated by THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT from a WARZONE. Combined with the thought of this going on for days and no one in charge having the slightest idea how to respond makes me go incandescent with rage.

Since Republicans control this government it makes me want to have rather little to do with them except over the business end of a ballot. When one is drowning one does not add more weight to oneself under the pretext of being fair to the water.

What "world" are you speaking of? I only know of one and it will do exactly as the United States and Europe tell it to do.

I'm not arguing that as a belief or a wish. I'm arguing that as a reality.

You're not arguing at all, you pathetic twink.

Bronto

From what I have gathered in speaking with my friends and family in the military is that the said goals of the U.S. government are not what the average soldier has on his or her mind most of the time.

As we all know the U.S. military is the most nuanced organizational effort in the world. Everyone in it has their specific responsibilities which must be performed under any and all conditions in times of war.

This is important because when attempting to talk policy with my friends who have served (or are serving) in Iraq, they typically raise and eyebrow and shrug as if they've never given it much thought.

I'm relatively certain they're aware of the intense criticism of the conflict throughout the world...and at home. Yet they are all of a specific breed and when in a combat situation their complete, undivided attention is given to performing their duty.

Another interesting aspect is that they all mention how important the camaraderie between soldiers is. In fact, everyone of my acquaintences has, at one point or another, mentioned a "best friend" or "brother" that they met in the service. The sense of community and teamwork provides a physical and emotional means of accomplishing the work.

So to answer your question, everyone that I know personally in the military either does not know or does not care what the Bush administration says or what their motives might be. The best way I can sum it up is to say that for the soldier whose life is in danger everyday, the game of politics is not their concern. They have a mission and they are there to accomplish it.

Valdron

You're argument is weak. You use pure qualitative emotion and tired verbage. What's more, moral arguments have no place in politics.

If it is your belief that every American soldier is a murderer/rapist, fine. You are entitled to your opinion. And it is just that, nothing more.

Is rape and murder tragic? Hell yes it is but it occurs in every war. If you have studied history you will know that the Iraq War is, in the grand scheme of things, a very boring military endeavor. It is a bit unique in that it is one of the few historical examples of a pre-emptive strike gestating into a prolonged affair.

Yet when bloggers come along wearing their emotions on their sleeve, like you do, I cannot help but wonder what it is that goes on in your mind?

Of course people dying is a tragedy. Of course the raping and pillaging of women is atrocious and vile. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. Not by a long shot.

But to participate in a worthy and progressive discussion about the issue you must be able to put those issues aside; especially if it is POLICY being discussed. What's more, you must understand how governments operate and WHY.

I appreciate and even respect the argument you made above. It is perhaps true that the mere notion of the U.S. benefiting from a M.E. war is "beneath contempt."

Yet if you were an elected official, or somebody working in government, you would likely sing a different tune; or at least acknowledge the "game" currently being played has agendas and ulterior motives at every turn.

What I'm saying is that no stimulating discourse can be created unless both sides of the debate can get past issues like "Bush lied," "Bush is Cheney's puppet," "The U.S. is torturing prisoners," "U.S. soldiers are raping Iraqi women," etc. I'm NOT saying these issues are unimportant. What I am saying is that discussions revolving those issues do not belong in policy debate. Furthermore, investigations and judicial oversight will eventually bring resolutions to those cases.

Policy debate revolves around cutting out the bullshit and focusing on who's doing what and who stands to gain. Once those questions are answered then you know the true motives behind the policy and you can put together an effort to change things if you so choose. By continuing the qualitative arguments such as "Bush Lied" or "We're Murdering and Raping innocent people" you are getting caught up in the atrocious details of war and are blinded from the actual policy discussion; which is where the power is at.

Naah...Dr Evil has more class than Gettysburg and more imagination.

I actually think more like Dr. Evil than Gettysburg. Gettysburg is just another amoral American who doesn't care about anybody else in the world except the US.

Neither do I, except I don't care for the US either. I only care about myself.

What distinguishes me from Gettysburg is that I can see that his attitude ends up destroying the US rather than supporting it. And that makes no sense to me from the point of view of correctness, despite any short term gains the rich here might make from such policies.

That comment by Gitlin about American Jews having a greater sense of Israel in peril than Israelis is quite prescient. OK, now for the other shoe to drop. Now some people may be full of it any way you slice it enough to condemn someone for being partisan, or even for having a viewpoint (eg, of an ex-Left anti Leftist, say) that someone disagrees with. But another level of criticism entirely is when someone (a) never seems to deign to address any of their significant left critics, or, say, challenge Chomsky or Arundhati Roy to a debate about "anti-Americanism", and so forth. Then there are issues of substance "Liberals hope & Leftists sneer" (as a 'shorthand simplification' of course ...). Now that goes beyond merely disagreeing, and saying something that many many other liberals, most of whom never were on the Left so have no past to 'live down' or 'feel guilty about' or whatever, wouldn't quite swallow. There are issues like tagging people as antiAmerican (which even with more justification would be a little creepy), or commenting about Abbie Hoffman in the 60s that his unrealistic expression of optimism (both common then about the strength of the 'revolutionary' forces and very much Abbie's political style, while mine, for example, expresses the 'pessimism of the intellect', as it were, con brio) was due to being 'poor manic-depressive Abbie').

Other examples and issues abound, but one thing is that partisanship, even antiLeft can be argued on the substance, or treated wrong by presumption.  The latter is always wrong, no less so when someone does so from a perch of secular advantage, and one should always be open to the former, and to when someone makes an insightful comment even if you criticize them.

I would be interested in a critique of how, in certain circles, the current conflict is treated as if Israel just started an attack out of the blue, while on the other hand, The New York Times and others, even while urging restraint on Israel, suggest that there's something odd about not limiting your targeting to those who did the attacking, and the pattern of retaliating against particular acts and atrocities by going after "them" (the Palestinians or other notions of collective guilt).  It does appear that these retaliations come from off-the-shelf plans that were simply waiting for a pretext to be unleashed.

 The latter is more than merely disturbing, and the silence about it from liberals is as dismaying as the lack of nuanced discussion of the crisis in Left circles.  The latter (eg movement context) have an excuse -- as Gitlin well knows, the thick of a movement is not exactly a great venue for subtle contemplation.  But the columnists and commentariat and political figures like Nadler are another matter.

 Also, what about reports of Israel using depleted uranium and some claims of chemical warfare?  Some would dismiss them out of hand while others assume the claims true. 

Here are two articles I'd like to see some liberals answer:

 on Israel's agenda:

Former MK and semi-official Sharon biographer Uri Avneri discusses Israel's motives in Lebanon


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10584
The Real Aim
by Uri Avnery
July 17, 2006


Gush Shalom
THE REAL aim is to change the regime in Lebanon and to install a puppet government.

That was the aim of Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It failed. But Sharon and his pupils in the military and political leadership have never really given up on it.

As in 1982, the present operation, too, was planned and is being carried out in full coordination with the US.

As then, there is no doubt that it is coordinated with a part of the Lebanese elite.

That's the main thing. Everything else is noise and propaganda.

ON THE eve of the 1982 invasion, Secretary of State Alexander Haig told Ariel Sharon that, before starting it, it was necessary to have a "clear provocation", which would be accepted by the world.

The provocation indeed took place - exactly at the appropriate time - when Abu-Nidal's terror gang tried to assassinate the Israeli ambassador in London. This had no connection with Lebanon, and even less with the PLO (the enemy of Abu-Nidal), but it served its purpose.

This time, the necessary provocation has been provided by the capture of the two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah. Everyone knows that they cannot be freed except through an exchange of prisoners. But the huge military campaign that has been ready to go for months was sold to the Israeli and international public as a rescue operation.

(Strangely enough, the very same thing happened two weeks earlier in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and its partners captured a soldier, which provided the excuse for a massive operation that had been prepared for a long time and whose aim is to destroy the Palestinian government.)

THE DECLARED aim of the Lebanon operation is to push Hizbullah away from the border, so as to make it impossible for them to capture more soldiers and to launch rockets at Israeli towns. The invasion of the Gaza strip is also officially aimed at getting Ashkelon and Sderot out of the range of the Qassams.

That resembles the 1982 "Operation Peace for Gallilee". Then, the public and the Knesset were told that the aim of the war was to "push the Katyushas 40 km away from the border".

That was a deliberate lie. For 11 months before the war, not a single Katyusha rocket (nor a single shot) had been fired over the border. From the beginning, the aim of the operation was to reach Beirut and install a Quisling dictator. As I have recounted more than once, Sharon himself told me so nine months before the war, and I duly published it at the time, with his consent (but unattributed).

Of course, the present operation also has several secondary aims, which do not include the freeing of the prisoners. Everybody understands that that cannot be achieved by military means. But it is probably possible to destroy some of the thousands of missiles that Hizbullah has accumulated over the years. For this end, the army chiefs are ready to endanger the inhabitants of the Israeli towns that are exposed to the rockets. They believe that that is worthwhile, like an exchange of chess figures.

Another secondary aim is to rehabilitate the "deterrent power" of the army. That is a codeword for the restoration of the army's injured pride that has suffered a severe blow from the daring military actions of Hamas in the south and Hizbullah in the north.

OFFICIALLY, THE Israeli government demands that the Government of Lebanon disarm Hizbullah and remove it from the border region.

That is clearly impossible under the present Lebanese regime, a delicate fabric of ethno-religious communities. The slightest shock can bring the whole structure crashing down and throw the state into total anarchy - especially after the Americans succeeded in driving out the Syrian army, the only element that has for years provided some stability.

The idea of installing a Quisling in Lebanon is nothing new. In 1955, David Ben-Gurion proposed taking a "Christian officer" and installing him as dictator. Moshe Sharet showed that this idea was based on complete ignorance of Lebanese affairs and torpedoed it. But 27 years later, Ariel Sharon tried to put it into effect nevertheless. Bashir Gemayel was indeed installed as president, only to be murdered soon afterwards. His brother, Amin, succeeded him and signed a peace agreement with Israel, but was driven out of office. (The same brother is now publicly supporting the Israeli operation.)

The calculation now is that if the Israeli Air Force rains heavy enough blows on the Lebanese population - paralysing the sea- and airports, destroying the infrastructure, bombarding residential neighborhoods, cutting the Beirut-Damascus highroad etc. - the public will get furious with Hizbullah and pressure the Lebanese government into fulfilling Israel's demands. Since the present government cannot even dream of doing so, a dictatorship will be set up with Israel's support.

That is the military logic. I have my doubts. It can be assumed that most Lebanese will react as any other people on earth would: with fury and hatred towards the invader. That happened in 1982, when the Shiites in the south of Lebanon, until then as docile as a doormat, stood up against the Israeli occupiers and created the Hizbullah, which has become the strongest force in the country. If the Lebanese elite now becomes tainted as collaborators with Israel, it will be swept off the map. (By the way, have the Qassams and Katyushas caused the Israeli population to exert pressure on our government to give up? Quite the contrary.)

The American policy is full of contradictions. President Bush wants "regime change" in the Middle East, but the present Lebanese regime has only recently been set up by under American pressure. In the meantime, Bush has succeeded only in breaking up Iraq and causing a civil war (as foretold here). He may get the same in Lebanon, if he does not stop the Israeli army in time. Moreover, a devastating blow against Hizbullah may arouse fury not only in Iran, but also among the Shiites in Iraq, on whose support all of Bush's plans for a pro-American regime are built.

So what's the answer? Not by accident, Hizbullah has carried out its soldier-snatching raid at a time when the Palestinians are crying out for succor. The Palestinian cause is popular all over the Arab word. By showing that they are a friend in need, when all other Arabs are failing dismally, Hizbullah hopes to increase its popularity. If an Israeli-Palestinian agreement had been achieved by now, Hizbullah would be no more than a local Lebanese phenomenon, irrelevant to our situation.

LESS THAN three months after its formation, the Olmert-Peretz government has succeeded in plunging Israel into a two-front war, whose aims are unrealistic and whose results cannot be foreseen.

If Olmert hopes to be seen as Mister Macho-Macho, a Sharon .. 2, he will be disappointed. The same goes for the desperate attempts of Peretz to be taken seriously as an imposing Mister Security. Everybody understands that this campaign - both in Gaza and in Lebanon - has been planned by the army and dictated by the army. The man who makes the decisions in Israel now is Dan Halutz. It is no accident that the job in Lebanon has been turned over to the Air Force.

The public is not enthusiastic about the war. It is resigned to it, in stoic fatalism, because it is being told that there is no alternative. And indeed, who can be against it? Who does not want to liberate the "kidnapped soldiers"? Who does not want to remove the Katyushas and rehabilitate deterrence? No politician dares to criticize the operation (except the Arab MKs, who are ignored by the Jewish public). In the media, the generals reign supreme, and not only those in uniform. There is almost no former general who is not being invited by the media to comment, explain and justify, all speaking in one voice.

(As an illustration: Israel's most popular TV channel invited me to an interview about the war, after hearing that I had taken part in an anti-war demonstration. I was quite surprised. But not for long - an hour before the broadcast, an apologetic talk-show host called and said that there had been a terrible mistake - they really meant to invite Professor Shlomo Avineri, a former Director General of the Foreign Office who can be counted on to justify any act of the government, whatever it may be, in lofty academic language.)

"Inter arma silent Musae" - when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent. Or, rather: when the guns roar, the brain ceases to function.

AND JUST a small thought: when the State of Israel was founded in the middle of a cruel war, a poster was plastered on the walls: "All the country - a front! All the people - an army!"

58 Years have passed, and the same slogan is still as valid as it was then. What does that say about generations of statesmen and generals?

and about WMDs:

At the end of the day, even on issues (Israel is about the worst case) where the Left is most unreasoning in its response across the board (as opposed to singular assholes like Ward Churchill, any way you slice it), the position of the progressive Left much more closely approximates what I would call "moral reality" than the liberal commentariat, and as I said, where the latter really has no excuses.

Okay, I'll bite.

For the record, you used the word 'heroes' to describe American soldiers in Iraq. Heroes is an emotionally charged qualitative term carrying a load of ideological freight that overshadows the fact that the American mission and American soldiers may not be all that heroic.

But I'm also going to take exception to your argument that "Bush lied" is not a relevant consideration.

If you're going to discuss meaningful policy issues, then it strikes me that you have to be able to define the national objectives of the policy or mission.

That is, you have to have some meaningful ways to assess performance. How close is the action coming to the result you want.

To say "technically there were some ancient wmd's in Iraq, so the war was technically legal" is in fact deceptive and dishonest. We can get into that whole front, up and down if you'd like, and canvas the presentation of Iraq as an 'imminent threat', the drumbeating over a nonexistent nuclear program, and various hysterical but false charges ranging from 45 minute launch windows, mobile biological weapons labs, fleets of drone aircraft, aluminum tubes, niger uranium, etc. The point is that when you look at all the allegations made, there were a large number of outright fabrications designed to produce an emotional response. So the shorthand 'Bush lied' is both accurate and important.

Your self serving suggestion that the war was 'technically legal' ignores the actual history leading up to this war, including the refusal of the UN to authorize the use of force in its initial resolution nor in subsequent efforts to obtain a resolution. The 'technically legal' argument is simply evasive nonsense.

Now, let's turn to Iraq as a policy matter. What are the objectives of the United States?

We cannot know for sure, since the original policy objective has been shown to be a misrepresentation. Given that your country has begun with a misrepresentation, then any subsequent stated motive must be viewed skeptically, and with an eye to actual American conduct.

- The stated objective of bringing Democracy to Iraq does not hold up all that well. You will recall that Garner was replaced for wanting to hold elections. Bremer was installed and intended to hold the position for at least seven years. Bremer repealed municipal elections, eliminating a local political class. Bremer only aquiesced to elections as a result of mass public pressure, while attempting to stall these elections with a series of puppet bodies. Finally, the United States aquiesced to elections with poor grace, imposing a 'constitution' or 'Transitional Administrative Law' which the elected body could not alter, and interfering in the content and conduct of the election. In short, bringing Democracy to the Iraqi's does not seem to have been on the Agenda, and the United States has consistently undermined the Iraqi drive for democracy.

By the same token, the atrocities at Abu Ghraib are quantitatively relevant. If the objective was to cease the Saddam Hussein regime's practices of torture and civil rights violations, it must be acknowledged that this has failed. Torture under the American occupation was as widespread as under Saddam's regime, newspapers were shut down, free speech was a discretionary right, and American troops fired into crowds of demonstrators (so much for freedom of association). Notably, the trigger for the degeneration of the Fallujah incident was American troops firing into a crowd demonstrating against the occupation of a children's school as a military command post when the school year was coming up. The allegation made by troops at the time that there were weapons must be regarded as false. The reality is that America brought no liberty, and instances of torture or fatal violence by or under the Americans was far worse than Saddam. So this objective must be regarded as either failed or false. I leave that determination to you.

In another respect, there is a quantitave and qualitative obligation on the part of an occupier to manage their occupation effectively. That is, if you take over a country, you actually have to run it for the benefit of its people and not your own. This is not just a moral obligation, but a principle of international law. The basis of the principle of law is to discourage colonial conquest and the notion of war as a means of enrichment.

Here the American occupation comes under the worst light. Specifically, you come across as incompetent thieves.

Turning to the management of the country, it is worth noting that every measurable quality of life indicator has been disastrous since the American occupation. I will mention only four: Electrical production has for the most part failed to reach the levels seen in the Saddam/Sanctions era, and is dramatically below the countries needs. The health care system is essentially collapsed and remains collapsed. Oil production is consistently below Saddam's levels. Unemployment remains somewhere between 28 and 40%. In short, you've bunged it up completely, and there is a staggering level of incompetence on display.

On the other hand, there is also a staggering level of what may be corruption. Iraqi revenues have been spent wholesale without apparent tracking or auditing, the oil for food monies that the UN handed over to the US are largely unaccounted for. The discrepancies run to the billions of dollars. The notion of untracked, undocumented expenditures in a civil administration as sophisticated as the United States is incredible. One might expect such incompetence out of some third world Banana Republic, from the United States we must assume the possibility of fraud.

More disturbingly, the American administration of Iraq appeared to ideologically be intended to revamp the Iraqi economy, specifically to make it an American colony, and subject to the American market.

This was seen with American political preferences on reconstruction contracts, reserving them not to the most capable party or the lowest bidder, but to politically connected American firms.

This was also seen in TAL provisions directing privatization of state industries, plans to privatize the oil industry, and radical tax and tariff measures. Many of these measures, based in right wing ideology and avarice, have been nothing short of disastrous.

In terms of enhancing America's security, we note that over 2500 American servicemen have died in Iraq. This pales before Iraq casualties of 100,000 to 200,000. Nor is America's security enhanced. Rather, Iraq has become a breeding ground and training ground for terrorism, and more than that, has become a celebrated cause motivating terrorist attacks in other countries.

The destabilization of Iraq continually threatens to spill over into the region, destabilizing other states. Thus the Turks are concerned about Kurdish insurgencies. States like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain which have large Shiite minorities (or majorities) are concerned.

It is difficult to discern the actual objectives of the United States, given the web of dishonesty and lies which began the Iraq adventure and pervades its history. On the other hand, it seems clear that by the standards of just about every objective, the American adventure has been a spectacular failure. In short, I can see no light under which the Iraq campaign is defensible.

To defend it under these circumstances seems ill advised. But if you are minded to do so, have at it. However, you are not entitled to just wave a magic wand and say 'its all good.' You sir, are not Tinkerbelle. You are required to make a case, rather than simply assert the obvious justice of your cause... In no small part because that justice is not at all obvious.

Finally, as to whether all American troops are rapists... We know that one is. We also know that his fellow soldiers aided, abetted and worked to conceal. We have seen videotape taken by American news agencies of soldiers executing wounded prisoners. We've seen the photos from Abu Ghraib. We have a multitude of reports of excessive force and questionable judgement.

The reasonable conclusion from the sheer volume of the incidents is that your troops are not heroes. Your troops are poorly trained, not terribly effective and not terribly competent. There seems to be a consistent lack of discipline, among many other attributes. They rely desperately on highly complex and lethal weapons systems which they employ indiscriminately. In short, there are serious reservations with both the quality, the conduct and the overall configuration of American forces.

This of course leaves aside the moral issue of the deployment of these troops... Which I would argue is relevant.

Serbian soldiers who were conducting ethnic cleansing and rape camps in Bosnia, for instance, were just doing their duty, carrying out their orders. Will you consider them heroes? I will not. By the same token, the soldiers engaged in the occupation of Iraq should not be considered heroes.

The sacrifice of the Lebanese by you and Hezbollah is certainly ennobling.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Bush wasn't bold he was and incurious and foolish. He also did lie to the American people on numerous accounts. Not on the biological and chemical weapons issues. I have no doubt that he believed Iraq had them. So did Saddem's generals.

However, Bush lied about the connection between the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. He also sought to gin up the fear by the phony argument that Iraq had any sort of nuclear program.

Worse given what Bush believed and wanted to accomplished he ignored virtually all of the military commanders and what they thought would be needed for the war. Or rather Bush allowed Rumsfeld and Cheney to do what should have been his job. On this issue Bush was not only criminal but lied constantly to the American people.

Had Bush ever level with the public about the needs of the war as a political matter I think he would still have much more support from the public.

What is increasingly silly about the threads at this site is no one seems to believe that the world operates in shades of gray.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Whether this Middle East uproar was years in the making, pre-ordained or whatever is neither here nor there.  What is significant is that the Iranians have out maneuvered the Bush administration in the Middle East.

Have they? Or did Iran take a page right out of the American foreign policy book, in terms of how America has aided and abetted Israel all these years?

There is no question that Hizbullah is a creature of Iran and that Iran is "The Hand That Feeds the Fire".  Iran is waging a stealthy war on Israel and the United States and the Bush administration made it possible by invading Iraq and removing the strategic balance to Iranian radicals.

Was there ever any question that America was supplying Israel with arms and nuclear weapons or that Israel is a creature of the USA policy of 1948? Iran is no more waging a stealth war on Israel than the United States has waged a stealth war on Iran  and the Palestinians using Israel as their trump card in the ME.  It has been known for decades that America controlled the button on Isreel's warheads and nuclear threat.  Israel said a long time ago when threaten that the rest of the ME might have the fire (oil) but they had the match (nukes). When has America ever NOT backed Israel, no matter how many atrocities Israel committed in the ME? Our standard refrain has been 'israel has the right to defend herself" has it not, since 1948?

So perhaps, what may need to be re-thught here is whether Israel is simply the tactic being used to de-stabilize the ME for the strategic plan of the USA to gain TOTAL control of the ME by using the nukes they gave Israel for just that purpose to begin with.

That is the only thing that makes sense in terms of why we went to war with Iraq rather than Afghanistan to begin with. It also makes sense as to why we never sent enough troops to 'secure the peace'...that was never America's goal. Complete control of the ME and global control of the oil is the goal.

The Bush administration is playing catch-up as fast as they can. 

Nope. America's strategic goals for the ME are moving along right on target...Bush already told us several months ago we were going to attack Iran next. This is nothing but the build-up to us doing precisely that...and Newt Gingrich already said this is WWIII in the ME...Folks need to start listening and understanding the entire ME plan.  Bush also said that this ME war would be going on when he left office and that the next administration would have to 'secure the peace'

When America 'secures the peace' there will not be a "jewish only" state any longer...that has been a ~60 year failed experiement. It is not in the best interest of America to be held hostage to that type of foreign policy ever again. What will occur is that Jews and Palestinians will co-exist and all the countries will be renamed.

Valdron

Much better. I would begin by saying that no large scale refutation of your claims is necessary because most of what you said is true. Even I, who has supported the war since 2003, openly and willingly admits that the management of the conflict has been atrocious.

Initially it was fairly obvious to me that the so-called "Global War on Terror" was little more than a public relations stunt being employed by the White House. Thankfully, most readers here at TPM were able to see through that smoke screen as well (although a few still make comments based on its tangible existence). In addition, when it became obvious that the WMD arguments would not bear fruit, for reasons of fabricated talking points and universally inaccurate intelligence, a more comprehensive analysis was needed.

By 2004 it was fairly obvious that the war was actually a business endeavor. The first rationale explanation was that it was a power grab on the part of the United States to secure oil contracts for American companies. This, in conjuction with China's growing thirst for crude; as well as a general mistrust of anything Chinese at the Pentagon, led me to believe that it was merely a move to ensure American supply.

While this is most likely true it is hardly the extent of the overall aim of the Iraq War. Though I have entertained the notion (as many others here have) that the Iraq War was deliberately constructed as a tripwire by which the entire region would delve into civil war, I do not have any proof of such a plan. Indeed, given the track record of President Bush's failures I cannot help but think such a large-scale clandestine plan is not something his administration could pull off.

Yet aside from countering Chinese influence it is clear that companies such as Halliburton and Bechtel are cashing in handsomely from this affair; as are, no doubt, many individuals who are easily able to steal reconstruction appropriations for their own personal use given the complete absence of oversight.

Another factor however, which did not become ostensibly clear until around 2005, is the growing evidence that the U.S. not only intends to have a military presence in Iraq for several years, but it envisions haveing a footprint in the entire region for the forseeable future. It is hard to argue that one or several "permanent" military bases are not what the U.S. government has in mind with Iraq.

U.S. military bases in Iraq serve several purposes. First, American forces can ensure oil supply for the remainder of its existence. No longer can the oil rich nations blackmail the west; no longer can terrorists sabotage oil fields and cut supply. At the very least they cannot expect to get away with it scott-free. In addition, permanent U.S. bases in Iraq fits very nicely with America's pro-Israel policy. It surely makes Olmert et al. sleep better at night knowing U.S. forces are there to assist in any danger at the drop of a hat.

Of course, certain aspects of the Iraq War are failures pure and simple. As you say, the spreading of Democracy, improving standards of living, and creating modern infrastructure are things which simply will not happen for several years. The haphazard conduct of the administration on this war makes available the argument that even the spreading of democracy talking points was never a true policy aim.

Yet the interesting aspect of this war, despite its atrocities, mismanagement, and corruption, is that in time the true ulterior motives of the Bush administration might (and likely will) be realized.

The U.S. oil companies will have access to Iraqi oil.

American companies like Halliburton and Bechtel will make millions if not billions of dollars on the reconstruction efforts.

Permanent American military bases most likely will become a reality; thus ensuring an American footprint in the region (which, as we all know, already exists and would continue to be the case even without military bases).

Just for the record, my own theory goes well beyond Bush and Cheney. I am of the belief that Bush AND Dick Cheney are both puppets for the boardmembers of Big Oil and energy. In essence, this administration is run, in my estimation, by the oil and energy conglomerates. It is becoming more and more likely that Bush and Cheney are not only their pawns, but also their whipping boys.

Why else, I ask, has there been such blatant disregard for the well-being of the Iraqi population? Why has there been so much corruption in Iraq?

I would argue that the answer is because the powers that be (Big Oil, et al.) are not particularly concerned with the Iraqi people or their plight. As long as the above mentioned goals get accomplished, they will see the war as having been a success. Meanwhile, they will move on and live their happy lives while Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are targeted with the heat. Indeed, history will denounce their legacy, not the oilmen who actually dicate the policy. Ah, but this last bit is just my thoughts.

We could extrapolate this debate to the current Israeli offensive (or defensive) war. After all, it is becoming obvious that it is attached to the hip with the Iraq War but this is far too long already.

A remarkable post.  David Korten author of "When Corporations Rule the World" would find you a kindred spirit. As would Kevin Phillips who having written "American Dynasty", probably has files filled with "military-industrial corporate" information.

For the record, I had considered that George was a "face man" for these corporate types but it hadn't occurred to me that Dick was too, but you could be right.

Crissie

It's pretty overhelming when considering how many business interests and how much money is truly on the line with Iraq and the Middle East.

Perhaps I'm underestimating the role Cheney plays in all of this but it only makes sense that one man can only have so much say in things. Not only is the Middle East a military venture, it is a business venture in which perhaps hundreds of companies all stand to gain.

This "story" it would seem, has many authors.

But again, that's just my take. If Cheney and Rove alone are responsible for orchestrating all of this, then they are evil incarnate yet mind-blowingly intelligent in self-destructive sort of way.

Since everywhere I read, and virtually every show I watch including the Prime Minister says that Hezbollah is controlled, influenced by Syria and Iran on what do you base your opinion?

We only recently have started giving money to Musharref and of course we don't want him overthrown. I do not think either Syria or Iran are worried about Hezbollah being overthrown.

When we gave money to the Feydaeen in Afghanistan they did do what we wanted. They fought the Soviet Union. We then totally ignored the country. That is not the case in Lebanon.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Gettysberg, I don't meen to pry, but if the Thorezine isn't doing the job for you, ask your Doctor about Lithium

EXCELLENT piece by Avneri.

However, despite the theory that all this is merely about Lebanon, it is VERY clear based on the loud accusations being thrown by Israel about Iranian involvement (and to a lesser degree, Syria) and the neocons in the US trumpeting the same concept that the REAL goals of Israel and the US neocons at this time is to get the US to attack Iran.

Of course, should that not happen for some reason, Israel may be satisfied for the moment with destroying Lebanon or starting a war with Syria which Israel can handle by itself - which only means that the attack on Iran is still in the cards for later.

I did give you a link yesterday that paints a different picture about Syrian and Iranian controll of Hezbollah.  Perhaps you didn't read it.

Pakistan: the point was that Musharref often acts outside the US's best interest, regardless of our support of his dictatorship. For example, if we ordered him to crush L.E.T., which is the prime suspect in the recent Mumbai bombings, he would decline.  He doesn't have the power to eradicate L.E.T. for one thing, and another is that L.E.T. is useful to him on projects that the US would never condone.

Again, the essential point is that by virtrue of our support for the Afghan jihadis are we able to control their actions?  The answer is obviously "no." But we were happy when they did the thing we wanted them to do, just as Syria and Iran may be happy about what Hezbollah is doing right now.

And that doesn't translate into any sort of "control" to the degree of telephoning Hezbollah and ordering them to "cease and desist."   

Neoboho

I have to disagree with you here, about the "putting yourself in harm's way for someone else". The thing is, that's a very integral part of group survival strategy, in that some members of the herd, the pack, the clan, the whatever will risk their own lives so that the rest of the social group can profit. Nature has hardwired it into us: it's inescapable.

Your own experiences have proven, though, that a certain amount of trust is required, and that that trust needs to be nurtured. Vietnam and the current occupation of Iraq erode that trust, since the risk the soldiers put themselves in was/is unnecessary, and as we now see is not being rewarded. The shameful way the GOP is shortchanging veterans is the real "spitting on our troops".

Transhuman, before you deride the current crop of soldiers, remember how you yourself were duped. They trusted their command, and that trust has been betrayed.

Gettysburg, You are probably correct when you conflate the Iraq War and America's economic interests, specifically, Big Oil.

However, I believe that Cheney has much more to do with those interests than you give him credit for. For example, there have been allegations that tie Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force to the Iraq war. Specifically, a National Security Council document dated Feb. 3, 2001 that ...directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.” (Empahsis mine)

The construction of permanent bases in Iraq were also geared toward achieving two goals of American interest: A Middle East military presence and access to big oil. "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath .... You can't ask for better than that."

Big Oil's interests in the Middle East were as much about securing access to oil as they were attempts to block the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and/or China/Russia from further gains in its incursions into the worldwide energy sector. A whole other topic can be focused on who really is winning that game.

Click here for the Users Help Forum.