« The Revolution of the Sphere | Home | The Mine Canary Croaks »

Green Lantern in the Levant

user-pic

Charles Krauthammer offers up a great example of Green Lantern geopolitics in the Post: "The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese." Now, obviously, liberating south Lebanon and giving it back to the Lebanese so we can all live happily ever after would be a great solution to the current crisis. But will it happen? Can it work?

Only two questions remain: Israel's will and America's wisdom. Does Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have the courage to do what is so obviously necessary? And will Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's upcoming peace trip to the Middle East force a premature cease-fire that spares her the humiliation of coming home empty-handed but prevents precisely the kind of decisive military outcome that would secure the interests of Israel, Lebanon, the moderate Arabs and the West?
That's moronic. To think that the only thing standing between the current situation and the demolition of Hezbollah is "Israel's will" and America's forebearance in allowing for liberal application of willpower is seriously foolish.

As David Ignatius explains on the same op-ed page:

Bush's slow-motion diplomacy is partly an effort to allow Israel time to destroy as much of Hezbollah's arsenal of missiles as it can. But what comes next? Israeli officials talk of accomplishing what the Lebanese government would do itself if it had the power: break the Shiite militia. That's a worthy goal -- Hezbollah has it coming -- but one that is almost certain to fail. Lebanon is as thankless a battlefield as Iraq, as the Israelis well remember. They were initially welcomed as liberators by the Shiites when they invaded in 1982 -- only to be pinned down by Hezbollah's resistance movement and forced to retreat. Only a compulsive gambler would think the odds are any better this time.

Even better, Ignatius even constructs a more highbrow version of my own Green Lantern analogy:

There is an attitude among policymakers in the United States and Israel that I would call "Prospero's temptation," after the wizard of Shakespeare's "The Tempest." Prospero thinks that with his magic powers he can do anything -- subdue the wild Caliban and the other denizens of his haunted island and bend them to his purposes. This temptation was evident in Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982; it was clear in America's 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Perhaps if I spent more time reading Shakespeare and less time reading comic books, I, too, would be a prominent op-ed columnist. My colleague Harold Meyerson, also in the Post, is also good on this today.


52 Comments

| Leave a comment

I don't know, "Prospero's temptation" isn't nearly as good as "and a pony" in my book!

"Green Lantern" is much better than Prospero's blah blah blah, because it shows the sub-Stan Lee quality of thought of the foreign policy establishment we've managed to elect. Twice.

Max Boot, who admittedly everyone knows is a tosser, is similarly nutso on the pages of the LA Times: Why hasn't Israel taken the gloves off yet? Good hire, there, Dean Baquet!

To think that the only thing standing between the current situation and the demolition of Hezbollah is "Israel's will" and America's forebearance in allowing for liberal application of willpower is seriously foolish.

No more foolish than the idea that a bunch of blue helmeted soldiers from Latvia and Honduras are going to roll in in their APCs and politely ask Hezbollah to hand over their rockets.

Totally off topic but seeing Ariel Sharon's name so close to Prospero's was kind of funny... I never thought of Sharon as "spritely" before.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

The President appears to be the most fervent believer in the power of will (he appears to believe it is the only ingredient in triumphing, if you will).
And I honestly think that he believes he is demonstrating great resolve and will as he complains about the travel his job demands of him in his own private 747. Astonishing, really.
There seem to be people who support him that also believe he is taking on danger as the most protected man in the entire world sends the sons and daughters of people he generally does not associate with off to war. Sending people off to war is sadly a necessary part of his very important job, but it is obscene to conflate the danger he is sending others into with his own, or to imagine that it takes some impressive will or resolve on his part to do so.

Israel Lobby Watch
The Israelis have just bombed St. Theresa Hospital and the Israel Lobby is about to deliver a blank check to Olmert

Juan Cole: WRITE CONGRESS!

It is Summer 1914 all over again. Every nation on the planet other than the USA appears quite capbable of rudimentary calculations of its national interest.

If you don't think that the Arabs, moderate and otherwise, know who is responsible for atrocities like these, you have no business claiming to be sentient. You can almost feel the powerful blowback from Iraq. Israel's realm is not ours to secure - it is now among the nations a useless vessel

I find it rather amusing that we've got a new Middle East crisis and Neocon cheerleaders like Krauthammer still think their suggestions can be taken seriously.

If nothing else, given they were wrong about basically everything in Iraq, our misadventure there has surely proven that these dopes are singularly incapable of asking the right questions, and yet they remain assured that they have solutions to the world's great geopolitical problems. Someone needs to put them out of their misery; someone needs to laugh in their faces.

Keep it up, Mr Yglesias.

True, but if country X's soldiers are hurt or killed in the course of their duties, it will be easier to persuade country X to provide more serious assets to the glorious cause of Operation Elimination of Evil Everywhere on Earth.

Israel Lobby Watch

UN sounds alarm as killing threatens Iraq govt (Reuters)  

And Krauthammer and his Lobby want us to start another two wars. Make no mistake Israel is scared to death not of Hamas or Hizbollah, not scared of Iran's nukes....The Shiite Cresent..that is what terrifies Israel...all that S. Iraq Oil..70 bucks a barrel pure profit flowing into a newly radicalized Shiite Crescent..all those Shia working the rigs in Bahrain, and the wells in the oil rich provinces of Saudi Arabia.

The Necons and the Lobby who gave us the Greatest Strategic Disaster in our history is desperate, armed, delusional and ncredibly dangerous

Only two questions remain: Israel's will and America's wisdom. Does Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have the courage to do what is so obviously necessary? And will Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's upcoming peace trip to the Middle East force a premature cease-fire that spares her the humiliation of coming home empty-handed but prevents precisely the kind of decisive military outcome that would secure the interests of Israel, Lebanon, the moderate Arabs and the West?

DOH!!!  It is sooooo obvious.  Why didn't anybody think of this sooner?  I guess a person has to live in their own Private Idaho to have seen this.  Beam me up Scotty no intelligent life here...

For their next superhero trick the neocons will bend a spoon with the power of their minds.  Stay tuned...same Bat Time, same Bat Channel.

Gregg Palast:

Did the Jews do it? I mean, after killing Jesus, did the Elders of Zion manipulate the government of the United States into invading Babylon as part of a scheme to abet the expansion of Greater Israel?

Yeah, "courage" is always defined as the willingness to slaughter civilians without remorse to force capitulation. If you are a soulless wanker chickenhawk, that is.

"What makes the elephant charge his tusk in the misty mist or the dusky dusk?
What makes the muskrat guard his musk? Courage!"

I do have to admit that the "Ariel" part fits.

Israel Lobby Watch

 

I suppose the meeting is stil on. Am speaking of Maliki's visit to Versailles on the Potomac. Maliki of course is a member of the Dawa Party, a founder of Hizbollah, and with his country nearly a footnote to history, maybe Bush will invite his buddy Krauthammer to join them for dinner

 

What a sorry pass we all have come to with the Bush-Olmoert Show

 

 

I have never read Green Lantern (or any comic books really) but it seemed that in your description, the Green Lantern's ring was limited to producing green stuff. So if the solution to some problem was, say, a pepperoni pizza, then Green Lantern would be out of luck no matter how strong his will. He could make some green energy thingy that looked a little like a pepperoni pizza--he could make it really big or make it spin really fast--but it would not have any of the pertinent properties that would make a pepperoni pizza the solution to the problem. I think that this is at least as big a problem as the fact (also true) that our powers are limited by things other than our strength of will.

But I agree with the main point as I understand it. There is just way too much magical thinking going on among the punditry.

That is why you do not use soldiers from Latvia. The problem Israel has in taking down Hezbollah is that they lack the two things needed to break Hezbollah:

1. the political legitimacy/support in Lebanon to conduct an effective disarmament campaign.

2. The required number of troops for the mission.

The Lebanese army has #1 but not #2. A UN force drawn from those nations with real militaries (The Western powers and Russia for example) could assemble #2 if #1 was present. What having the UN involved gets you is that they can piggyback on any legitimacy the Lebanese government might lend such an endeavor and launch a joint international/Lebanese intervention that has both the liegitmacy and the power to crush Hezbollah's military wing. It is for these reasons that the British/UN plan to resolve this crisis is the only one that has a realistic chance of working

I realize that things will always get heated when the Middle East comes up, but it is not appropriate to describe a group of people one disagrees with as being non-sentient even when the majority of us agree they are wrong.

Israel Lobby Watch

 

The Israeliets have long had problems with Prophets. Indeed it practically defines them.

Time to call murderers muderers. Time to call Israel to account for its crimes

 

8Israel is swallowed up;
now they are among the nations
as a useless vessel.
9For they have gone up to Assyria,
a wild ass wandering alone  - Hosea Prophet


 


At risk of being branded a geek, Matt is partially wrong: the power ring, with enough willpower, can create things that are not green (the only problem being the color yellow as he mentioned). The green stuff also can have properties that would normally go with a different color (the pepperoni might be green but would have all the other charcteristics of pepperoni). The power rings truly are quite worthy of being the weapons for the Green Lanterns who are supposed to be "utterly honest and born with fear."

I also think that the idea that Hezbollah does not represent the interests of some Lebanese, as Krauthammer suggests, is incorrect.  What the issue is is getting a diffrent Lebanese faction to control southern Lebanon.  The idea that that anyone in Lebanon who doesn't behave as we want them to is not really Lebanese is problematic.

Joseph Farah previously used this concept to justify ethnically cleansing Lebanon of all Shiites who were not ion agreement with his plans for the region.

<>

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

"launch a joint international/Lebanese intervention that has both the liegitmacy and the power to crush Hezbollah's military wing."

Ah, hold on there, cowboy!

It would be an interesting but bloody exercise to see just how MANY UN/Lebanese troops you would need to "crush Hizballah's military wing."

First, Hizballah has the support of the majority Shia in Lebanon.

Second, quite a few Lebanese Army members are Shia (I don't know the exact percentage.)

Third, Hizballah is a very deep cover insurgency and guerrilla movement with quite a few weapons and access to more.

The most likely result of ANY attempt to "crush Hizballah" by ANYBODY - Israelis, Lebanese, US, OR UN - will be:

1) Resumption of the Lebanese civil war (which means everybody gets embroiled in that - we are afraid of that in Iraq, why do we risk it in Lebanon?)

2) At the very least, a guerrilla war by Hizballah against the other forces which may well last years, plunge the country into more violence, and result in even more civilian casualties.

3) Even if Hizballah lost all its rockets and heavy weapons, they will still exist as a group in some strength, probably still have the support of many Lebanese Shia - as well as the support of Syria and/or Iran - and would simply go underground and wait out the resulting occupation and resurface later.

Just as in Irag, it is my opinion that THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION to Hizballah.

I await criticism from competent military or counterinsurgency experts saying I'm wrong.


Jexter, when you link to an article, please link to the original, not to another TPM Cafe node with a link to that article.

Thank you.


Not that I ever agree with Zionista, but the point of the link to Greg Palast's article (yes, Zionista, I've read it on his site before) was that the Israelis aren't responsible for everything - such as Iraq - compared to the oil companies and the like.

And I agree with that, for the most part. I generally agree with Palast's arguments when he produces his reasons.

Where I might part company is whether the Israelis reasons for supporting something like the invasion of Iraq OVERLAP those of the oil companies - and the possibly separate reasons of the neocons - if not being the same reasons.

In other words, if three different parties want to attack Iraq - or Iran or Lebanon - for three different sets of reasons, that doesn't make any of the three "correct". Neither does it absolve them from being "conspirators" in making it happen.

"Perhaps if I spent more time reading Shakespeare and less time reading comic books, I, too, would be a prominent op-ed columnist."

Heh, you're better off reading comic books.

First, why would anybody want to be a "prominent op-ed columnist?"

Second, you're more likely to get there reading comics than Shakespeare. At least you'll have an easier time grasping the issues from comics, and you'll be able to speak closer to the language of the street than you will quoting Shakespeare.

In high school, we were required to read one of Shakespeare's stories in English class. A more boring assignment I never had. It turned me off the "classics" for the rest of my life.

However, I had no trouble reading Conan Doyle, "Last of the Mohicans", and numerous other "classics" that were more in comparatively modern English and also had stories of interest that one could learn from.

As for Krauthammer's suggestion:

Does Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have the courage to do what is so obviously necessary?

Clearly he does. Israel just killed another few score Lebanese civilians today.

Israel Lobby Watch

 

Do I understand you correctly then? It is your position that the Arabs do not hold the US responsible for Israel's actions and that there will be no appreiciable blowback from Iraq.

Since I have no reason to believe you to be other than fully sentient, I assume that the answer to those questions is NO.

In Break With Bush, Iraqi Leader Assails Israel 

Brief snip:

From a former US ambassador to an Arab country writing to Ray Close, the former CIA bureau chief in Saudi Arabia, who kindly sent this to me.

First, the US is in a weaker position to influence the outcome of this crisis than any time in the last three decades. Our influence in the region couldn't be lower. Our identification with Israel couldn't be higher. And our ability to work with Arab moderates and have them defuse the situation seems nonexistent. Does anyone really believe that Hezbullah or Hamas are going to listen to the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia

You're welcome!
Think nothing of it TH

Call Congress!

Israel Lobby Watch

 

On reconsideration, Charles Krauthammer is sentient.  He is as Matt Yglesias put it, "moronic", but he isn't a pet rock.

 I stand corrected again

I'm ashamed to be in this part of the discussion, but the power ring was limited to creating only green things.

That said, the ring could create a green pepperoni pizza which would have all the qualities of the real pizza, save colour, but which would fade into nothingness once will power ceased to focus on it.

Or the ring could create a literal bakery, oven and all, through which all the elements of a pepperoni pizza were assembled by green wraiths and greenly cooked into an honest to god real full colour pepperoni pizza. All the green lantern would need would be his will power and the necessary real ingredients.

Or the ring could create a literal bakery, oven and all, through which all the elements of a pepperoni pizza were assembled by green wraiths and greenly cooked into an honest to god real full colour pepperoni pizza. All the green lantern would need would be his will power and the necessary real ingredients.

Now I feel like an idiot. That's a great point and I'm embarrassed for not thinking of it. At the risk of sounding like a geek... oh wait I am a geek... it reminds me of the standard trick for creating a new compiler that does not require proprietary code. Say it's a C compiler. You write your new compiler in C and compile it in the old compiler. But that executable still has proprietary code from the old compiler's code generator. So you use that compiler to compile your code again. Now you have an executable with no proprietary code. GNU has this in its C compiler make file for instance.

So, yeah, provided you can develop the green manufacturing process for your non-green item, you can get it. I suppose you can call up the green plans and team of engineers for anything even if you don't know how it works ahead of time.

Note: US and Israeli foreign policy bears little resemblance to this process.

Not that I would waste my time "calling Congress" as Juan suggests, but while there, I noticed this bit:

"Israel's attacks on innocent civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza and Lebanon are a violation of U.S. law, specifically the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act. The U.S. Arms Export Control Act restricts the use of U.S. weapons to legitimate self-defense and internal policing; U.S. weapons cannot be used to attack civilians in offensive operations. The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act prohibits U.S. aid of any kind to a country with a pattern of gross human rights violations."

I've seen this noted before, but not around here, so I thought I'd reference it as a point to be considered.

Not that Bush or the US Congress cares about this point of law, but it's interesting. One wonders if those clauses in the law are sort of "CYA" to cover up the fact that we ship weapons all over the bloody - and I do mean bloody - place.

“…the most protected man in the entire world sends the sons and daughters of people he generally does not associate with off to war…but it is obscene to conflate the danger he is sending others into with his own…” – theCoach

I will neither forgive nor forget that he said: “bring ‘em on”, knowing he would not be around when they showed up!

He had his own chance to show some will and some spine, but he passed on that opportunity many years ago. It’s not the “will” of anyone but himself which is suspect. He has shown, throughout his entire life, a lack of determination, discipline, and resolve to complete anything successfully – the very essence of being a willful person. What he does is wishful thinking, which requires no effort, and he calls it will, of which he is not capable.

If I follow correctly, the bootstrapped compiler may be a superclass of pizza. With the original compiler and an appropriate ring powering the color in which compiler is written, you generate crust. Next, use a red ring to drive the GPL-compiler to produce tomato sauce...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I don't think the Shia are a majority of the Lebanese population. A very large minority (40%?) aren't even Muslims.


I checked with Wikipedia - you're right. Muslims as a whole are about 60%, Shia are about 35-50% depending on whose figures you accept. Christians used to outnumber Muslims, but Muslims apparently are assumed to outnumber Christians at this point due to higher birthrates and emigration of Christians. Christians are about 40%.

I stand corrected.

The problem with defeating the Iraqi insurgency is that the government there does not have legitimacy and the Iraqi population as a whole never has supported the U.S. invasion and occupation. This would not be a problem in Lebanon if the Lebanese government assembles sufficent support from the non-Hezbollah factions in Lebanon for this exercise. Annan and Blair are right that you can put down a group like Hezbollah with a peacekeeping force once the requisite legitimacy in the country is secured. I admit that securing this legitmiacy will not be easy but that is what diplomacy is for.

There can be no political solution while Hezbollah can defy the political process in Lebanon.

My point is that rational discussion is impossible if we start running around saying that people who disagree with us are not sentient and that we should therefore not make such statements regardless of the merits of our cause. This is without even considering the lack of politeness that we demonstrate when we make such remarks about other people.

I happen to agree with you that the Arabs blame the West for a lot of things that Israel does. There are sentient people who disagree with that proposition and to pretend otherwise is not acceptable.

"This would not be a problem in Lebanon if the Lebanese government assembles sufficent support from the non-Hezbollah factions in Lebanon for this exercise."

This is where the theory founders.

Because assembling that support from everybody but the Shia puts the Shia on the defensive, since they have the most to lose from trying to disarm or "crush" Hizballah.

All that does is restart the Lebanese civil war.

And a "peace keeping force" would have to be overwhelming to put down a Hizballah supported by the Shia. At the usual 10-to-1 ration, it would require a minimum of 50,000 troops to do that - probably more. I don't think the UN can come up with that - and the Israelis and the US would not be accepted as part of the force by anybody in Lebanon - not after the last civil war and the US participation.

So unless somebody can come up with 50-100,000 troops willing to come into the middle of a probable civil war, any military solution is a nonstarter.

Finally, even if you do get Hizballah to disarm, they can just go underground and wait for any peacekeeping force to leave, then resurface.

The only political solution which can be long-lasting is to remove the motivations for Hizballah to exist - which means no Lebanese prisoners in Israel, and serious progress in resolving the Palestinian issue.

And neither of those is likely to happen as long as Israel has no pressure on them from the international community to do so.

Again, not to be a complete geek, but the complexity of the Green Lantern's constructs depended on the imagination and creativity of the particular Lantern. Thus some of them were confined to simple geometric solids and manipulators, some of them reproduced commonplace objects, some created highly complex machines.

The Europeans are talking about 80,000 troops even if the Russians do not help. If the Russians provide 10,000 troops (with the West footing the bill) and the Lebanese army provides 10,000 (which the world powers can arm) we will have a 20-1 ratio which should be able to manage the situation provided the non-Hezbollah factions go along with it (a difficult diplomatic task I know).

We have kept tens of thousands of troops in the Balkans since the late 1990's and we can keep them in Lebanon until a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East has delivered the results required. We do not have to destory Hezbollah for all time. We need to credibly establish that Israel can make the required without worrying that some faction will decide that it is not good enough even if the agreement says it is.

The Israelis will not buy a peace deal unless we can credibly deliver peace (nor should they). That means that we must be able to destroy Hezbollah's ability to operate independently of the Lebanese government. Since an intervention is the only thing that will do that (aside from $15/bbl oil bankrupting their supporters which I wish we could do but is unlikely given Chinese industrialization) it is the only meaningful option.

How do you negotiate a peace deal if the other side cannot control its own actions?