What role are the intelligence agencies of the US and ME counties playing in identifying targets, providing information and analysis to decision makers?

"Israel's latest offensive to root out and destroy Hezbollah probably will fail and in the process will ignite a new round of international terrorist attacks that will put the United State squarely in the crosshairs."

Israel's policies produce adverse externalities for the US, which is why we must control Israel's behaviour to prevent costs being imposed on the US for which the US receives no gains.

"The ceasefire must be accompanied by the insertion of an international peacekeeping force with the muscle to shutdown rocket launches from Lebanon and an exchange of prisoners between Israel and Hezbollah."

Exactly what do you mean by shutdown?  Say this force is attacked by missiles from further north, or worse, from Syria.  What do propose the IPF do exactly?  Bomb Syrian launch positions? Invade northern Lebanon?

I don't think you have thought this through.

Israel's strategy might make sense for Israel (though I'm skeptical), but Larry is absolutely right that it makes no sense for the US. So why are we supporting it so staunchly (witness the resolutions supporting Israel passed in the House and Senate this week, as well as the administration's statements of support)? Is this evidence that Walt and Mearsheimer have a point?

Just to clarify my first sentence. Israel's strategy makes sense for Israel if Israel truly believes that peace with its Arab neighbors is impossible and that the current low-grade war will continue no matter what. In this case, creating more anger in Lebanon really doesn't matter all that much, since the inevitable future attacks that will result from that anger are coming any way. Israel may then be best served by eliminating the threat as much as possible in the short term and girding for the future attacks that it believes are coming regardless of what it does.

The US, however, currently faces a serious, but still modest, threat from groups like Hezbollah. The more anger at the US grows, however, the larger that threat becomes and the more likely other countries in the Middle East will be drawn into the conflict, potentially even threatening our access to Middle Eastern oil. Israel's attacks (as much as we are perceived as supporting them) create a higher risk for terrorism in the US, threaten to undermine our efforts to promote more moderate and more democratic governments in the region, potentially affect our ability to access Middle Eastern oil, and may give both Russia and China greater leverage with Arab countries, negatively altering the balance of power in the Middle East. All of these things are bad for us and suggest we should be vigorously trying to restrain Israel for our own self-interest. But instead we are standing firmly behind Israel. This is absurd, but given the domestic political situation, apparently unstoppable.

As for Lebanon helping the Israelis, today the President of Lebanon said that if Israel invades Lebanon, the Army will be directed to "defend Lebanon."

While acknowledging that there is nothing the Lebanese Army - a tiny force of 64,000 with virtually no air force and APCs with wooden doors (although they do have a couple hundred tanks) - can do against the Israeli Army "on the frontier", he said they can "do a lot" in the interior.

In other words, the Lebanese Army, which as Larry points out is 50% Shia, is going to join Hibzallah as an insurgency force against the Israelis.

I'd say Rice's mission just went down the tubes and Israel just lost the war.

Because Hizballah's five thousand fighters just got 64,000 - or some fraction of that, more likely - more.

thanks for your sobering analysis, Larry--it's the kind of understanding and nuance that has been swept aside amongst all of the saber-rattling and pipe dreams of the ruling class here. I have relatives in Lebanon via marriage, and have been fortunate enough to spend a lot of time there in the past 3 years--it is/was a beautiful and cosmopolitan city, easily the most westernized in the ME. The population are well educated, and despite sectarian tensions, they have managed recently to rebuild their country after years of being ground zero in the region.

It's important to note that the Shia make up 30% of the population, with appx 30% Sunni, 30% Maronite Christian and 10% of other religions (off the top of my head). My family are Sunni, and were supportors of Rafiq Hariri, the businessman turned Prime Minister who led the reconstruction of Beirut, before he was murdered.

The Shia are at the bottom of the rung socially and economically, and do not partake significantly in the economy of 'modern' Lebanon--they had no hand in the rebuilding, and thus, it is of no consequence to them if Beirut is bombed back to the Stone Age. They have nothing, and thus, nothing to lose.

Hizbullah are essentially the bastard children left over from Israel's last incursion into Lebanon. They have been the protectors and benefactors of the Shia, and at this point should be considered a popular movement, instead of a terrorist army to be destroyed.

A potential political solution may have been possible, but i'm afraid that at this point, it's too far gone for the political arm of Hizbullah to control the Hizb military arm, if indeed, that was ever possible. Also, while I don't doubt that they are in league with Syria and Iran, I believe they are mostly autonomous actors who are engaging in regional terrorism with the help of their 'friends.' I think it's impossible to estimate how much they are receiving, but it's safe to say that it's considerably less than $3 billion a year.

To a man whose only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and that is how Hizbullah is being approached. Unfortunately, human nature is such that they will keep coming back, madder and badder! And, once again we are seeing terror tactics that are working, because the opposing leadership is choosing to pursue the most simpleminded of plans, to the detriment of all sides, except the ones whose goal is bloodlust and terror.

ps. I saw a figure that estimated that there were only appx. 4,000 HIzbullah soldiers--can anybody verify this, or give me the real numbers?

So, my question: Has an African American female member of the US government ever been hanged for war crimes? Hard question, huh?

 A more appropriate question is has an American Secretary of State ever been hanged for war crimes?

One of my big issues with this all along has been how in the world can ANY female negotiate with countries who do not even allow women to speak to men or attend funerals?

Condi has not shown competence in any cabinet level position she has held..so why would we even expect her to now? She is waaaaaay out of her league.

Not to mention that Israel and the complicit American government have made a total mockery of their premise for war in the Mideast. They are obliterating the very democracy they only a few months ago took credit for creating.

"Israel's last invasion of Lebanon did not vanquish Hezbollah."

I believe Israel's last invasion of Lebanon (1982) in fact created Hezbollah. (Source here).

America the Impotent

The last superpower is impotent in this war because we have allowed Israel to dictate to whom we may and may not talk

Although Hezbollah uses terrorism as a tactic, it is not primarily a terrorist organization. It has evolved over the years into a genuine political movement and conventional military force. This is a reality we can ignore at our peril. If we choose to view Hezbollah strictly as a terrorist threat then we convince ourselves that we have only one option--fight

 

And what do you get in the US media? Israeli propaganda masquerading as "intelligence"

American intelligence on Hizbullah is weak. Much of it comes from Israel. Anthony Cordesman says, "I'll be perfectly blunt: Israeli intelligence is political, and you can't trust it." With this warning, US papers then explain that Israel claims Hizbullah is really a Syrian and Iranian operation and not Lebanese at all

via Josh Landis

I think the US does have a role. I'd go so far as to say the US is right in there hoping it can smoke out Iran. But aside from that, we are engaged at another level:

...You have this real disconnect between an overemphasis on the supply by Iran and Syria of Hezbollah's weapons and no discussion of the fact that all of the Israeli arsenal is from the United States, and that that is in contravention to U.S. law. to the Arms Export Control Act, which says that U.S.-origin weapons are only to be used for self-defense and for internal security... We’re looking at incredible increases in U.S. military aid and weapons sales to Israel. Military aid stands at about $3 billion a year. That’s about $500 for every Israeli citizen that the United States provides on an annual basis. And then, weapons sales, most recently, since the Bush administration came into power, we’re looking at $6.3 billion worth of weaponry sold to Israel.

That's from Frida Berrigan of the World Policy Institute, interviewed today on Democracy Now! I've been quoting it a lot today because I think it's important for us to see, understand, and feel the connection we have to what's happening in Lebanon. And now Condi comes along and says, in effect, let 'em finish it out rather than go back to a less dangerous situation which Israel doesn't like. "Status quo ante" was in fact a situation in which Israeli and to a much larger extent Lebanese civilians weren't getting massacred -- while we stand on the sidelines waiting for someone to scream "uncle." Charging Condi with war crimes won't satisfy the people involved. There's gonna be blowback -- which we will then call terrorist aggression...

Gonna lay down my sword and shield, Down by the riverside, down by the riverside...

Condi has not shown competence in any cabinet level position she has held..so why would we even expect her to now? She is waaaaaay out of her league.

That depends on how you look at it.  She's shown competence in doing what she was expected to do by the Administration that appointed her.  She was very competent in mushroom-clouding up the invasion of Iraq, for example.

Neoboho

What I don't quite understand and I would be interested in hearing from some foreign policy experts, is why was Isreal holding on to Hizbullah prisoners?

What was the international relations strategy behind that?

I had thought that once Isreal withdrew form Southern Lebannon in May 2000, a strategy of non-interaction would mean not holding prisoners.

If someone can give a technical rather than polemical response I would appreciate it.

China is a growing threat, they have built up militarily and are now the largest force behind Russia and the USA...they also own 200Billion dollars of America debt, and have invested $100Billion in the Iran's oil and energy industry. They also will not vote against Korea and their nukes.  Yet, the DECIDER chose to snub Hu...Here is an interesting excerpt. 

But perhaps the most significant factor behind the general rise in oil prices is increasing demand from Asia—primarily China.

In February, China’s net oil imports soared 28 percent. In March, Chinese crude oil imports were up a comparatively smaller, but still huge 10.9 percent year over year. China has become the world’s second-largest oil consumer, after the United States. Its increasing appetite for oil has ignited a global resource race with America to secure sources of supply, and this is causing tension between the two.

As Asian demand for oil has increased, Middle Eastern reliance on American oil consumption has fallen. Consequently, America’s influence within the Middle East and Saudi Arabia in particular has been eroding. If these trends continue, America will reach the point where it needs Middle Eastern oil more than the Middle East needs U.S. money.

Perhaps nothing illustrates the growing tensions over oil between China and America better than the less-than-open-armed reception Chinese President Hu Jintao was given on his April visit to the United States—in comparison to his royal treatment on visits to Saudi Arabia and Nigeria the same month.

President Hu’s recent visits to Saudi Arabia—China’s second-largest supplier of crude oil—and Nigeria—the top African oil producer—underscored China’s increasing demand for oil and its growing relationships with oil-exporting countries. Also, Saudi Arabia’s tense attitude toward the United States was clear.

In a speech before Saudi Arabia’s legislature on April 23, President Hu—only the second foreign leader ever invited to address the Saudi assembly—pledged to help stabilize the Middle East, saying that “China is ready to work with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to support peace and growth in the Middle East and build a harmonious world that enjoys constant peace and prosperity.”

According to Times Online, “Mr. Hu’s remarks were seen as a direct challenge to the United States, which for the past half century has dominated security and diplomacy in the region” (April 24).
China and Saudi Arabia have found the basis for a friendship in their shared disdain for Western meddling in their internal affairs. China resents American criticism over its human rights record; for Saudi Arabia, both human rights and Islamism issues are cooling its relationship with the U.S.

If nothing can ever be resolved diplomatically then you have no country.

Your words, not mine, and you did not qualify that those words referred only to the situation in Lebanon. I used the examples of Egypt and Jordan to show that Israel is capable of resolving things diplomatically.

But you also claim that by these actions, Israel is losing its "legitimate right to exist." I find it interesting that you did not respond to my question, so I'll ask it again. Is the USA also losing its legitimate right to exist? After all, we weren't even attacked by Iraq and here we are, destroying that country.

I don't have any answers to how to solve this problem. I think Larry is whistling in the wind to think that somehow a UN peace force "with muscle" is going to be put in place -- not just because we have a lousy Administration who does not know how to negotiate, but because there was a UN force there, and they were not able to contain Hezbollah.

It's all fine and well to say "stop the violence!" But I haven't seen any real plan to do so, just a lot of condemnation, depending on what side you are on.

And how is that different than what Bush is doing with our troops in Iraq?

It is in America's intersest to have a war with Iraq, we want control of the oil.

  Given your reasoning America is also losing its "legitimate right to exist."

Well, wasn't  Israel's 'right to exist' established by immoral means? America was not created by an arbitrary fiat of two powerful allies. I think that is the difference when the 'right to exist' issue is raised. How can   Americans continue to morally support that which was achieved by immoral means and is being preserved by immoral means, and is not in the best interests of America?.

Your moral judgment of an entire country is pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black, in my opinion.

True. And in that sense...Americans do not morally support the war with Iraq either...but we understand it is in American's strategic interest. Continued support of Israel's 'right to exist' does not appear to be in the best interest of the USA, stategically.