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.

A nice quote from a reader at Juan's blog:

"Given the 15 or so deaths of Turkish soldiers and police at the hands of Kurd "terrorists" over the past few weeks - and the inability of the Government of Iraq to control these "terrorists" - I wonder if U.S. officials believe that Turkey has the right to defend itself by bombing the Baghdad airport, destroying bridges and roads in Iraq, and generally smashing the hell out of Kurdish territory. Probably not."

Given that the Turks are indeed massing troops on the Iraqi border and are now warning the US that if the US does not control the Kurds, Turkey will invade northern Iraq, I'd say this is not a hypothetical, either.

If anyone has missed this development, better pay attention.

"I'd say this notion is a non-starter - especially if the government of Lebanon decides to switch sides and join Hizballah against Israel, as seems to be developing."

Therefore, then what?

Look, the trick here is to keep thinking through the implication.

Why in the world is a serious group think being trotted out that envisages an internation peacekeeping force being placed directly in the line of missile fire from either northern Lebanon and/or Syria? And remember that many journalists, Larry Johnson not withstanding, are getting the message that this is going to happen.

Today we have Rice telling us that anything that leads to the status quo anti is unacceptable. Really? Anything? That's an interesting assertion.

Where can that reasonably be expected to lead?

What happens when this international protection force is attacked? Lay it out in as much detail as you can reasonably imagine.

In the mean time, and I emphasize the word time, while waiting for this force to be agreed upon and constitued by the UN I guess, Israel clearly intends to turn the south 20 into a no mans land while it has almost completely destroyed the infrastructure of refugee stop number 1 (Beirut) that would appear to have days of fuel and fresh water left. Think Jordan, 1972 I think it was.

You really have keep asking the question, what should the facts on the ground as of today reasonably lead to next? And if the next episode occurs, what should that reasonably lead to?

See, this is like what happens when you get into an argument in a bar where you don't belong. The non-players clear out and one of the guys who will be staying goes and locks the back door first and then the front door. Now, if you don't see what's coming next, some would say you deserve whatever it is, no matter who started it.

Oh, this is going to get resolved all right.

"Is this really the goal behind the neocon agenda? To keep the Arabs perpetually weakened by a state of war and chaos? Could they really be that cynical? Is Iraq really a stunning success for the neocons?"

Yup - for the Zionists and the neocons - two groups who are NOT identical, but whose interests clearly overlap considerably - the reduction of the ME to chaos, terrorism and civil war is "a consummation devoutly to be wished."

That is clear from the rhetoric and the actions.

The Israelis benefit by weakening their enemies. This is HOW they intend to achieve their "secure homeland" - by literally reducing the rest of the ME to chaos, believing that with their military superiority, their nuclear arsenal and their support by the US that they will be invulnerable to that chaos (wrongly, as they will undoubtedly discover one of these days.)

The neocons want this for the purpose of "American Empire".

The oil companies want this because it jacks up the price of oil.

The military-industrial complex and the bankers who fund them want this because they make money.

The politicians of both the Democratic and Republican Parties get their bribes and their "campaign contributions" (was that a redundancy?) from these same people.

The only losers are the US soldiers who die, the US taxpayer who pays for it, and civilians everywhere who die in the wars.

Face it, the US hasn't been run by its citizenry for most of the last century, if not beyond.

And the "progressives" think that the Democrats getting back the House or Senate this fall are going to CHANGE this state of affairs?

Pardon me while I chortle heartily.

I wish someone would try to explain what they expect to happen when whoever it happens to be, Israel or an IPF, occupies the south 20 in Lebanon and is then attacked from missiles from further north or from Syria. Remember, the Beirut infrastructure will shortly be a memory. I hear today that there are days, not weeks, of water and fuel remaining. The tens of thousand of refugees are heading there.

What if missiles are fired from Beirut on whoever occupies the south?

What if missiles are fired from Syria on whoever occupies the south?

Where are these refugees from the south going? Beirut? Anyone want to lay that scenario out over the rest of the summer?

Does anyone doubt that this is going to happen by August?

Doesn't anyone remember the story of Jordan and the Palestinians?

Yes, and we certainly are getting a lot of oil out of Iraq now, aren't we?

We want CONTROL of the oil. America does not need  the oil from the ME as much as China and Japan do. America's goal is to gain geopolitical control of the oil to use as leverage against China and Japan.

 I see virtually nothing that helps America's interests in going to war with Iraq

Yes, it requires focusing on what America's  national interests  truly are in the ME beyond Israel's 'right to exist' as America's 60 year old failed foreign policy position.

Suffice to say there were people living on this land before the Europeans came over -- not so many of them now.

Yes, and we fought the Indians and took the land. Unlike how Israel was 'created' by resolution against the Arab nations vehemence objection.  America definitely killed the Indians and drove them onto the reservations after breaking treaty after treaty. 

What country was our permanent ally in doing this and provided us with military weapons for over 5 decades?

Israel's 'right to exist' was obtained by immoral means and nothing about America's history alters that fact.

Indeed! What am I to call it "The Jewish State", "The Zionist Entity"? What I am not going to call it is my ally.

Neither Silent Nor Silenced

Voters for Peace

http://www.votersforpeace.us/

Thanks for the "shape of conflict" link - I downloaded the PowerPoints and the PDF there, will check them out later.

Should be very interesting.

As Josh Bolton, the President's Chief of Staff said, "The Dems will lose over Iran."

Since this war is about Iran, even if Bush doesn't directly attack Iran by election time, Bolton will pretty much have been correct.

(via Cole) 

More horrible, horrible pictures of the Israeli carnage against Lebanese civilians. I advise you not to click, but if you do, you are on your own.

As we saw briefly here with Ryan's appearance from Beruit, the Lebanese are doing a super job of getting the truth out. Unlike in Israel and the US, the press is truly free and thus far the internet is wide open to the truth.

 Josh Landis prepared this chilling summary. (5 pages) 

So yes. There is ample if not systematic documentation.

Juan Cole's theory is that Israel wants to clean out Southern Lebanon of the Shia, not just Hizballah, and send them north to Beirut, where this will create a humanitarian crisis and weaken the central government, as well as removing Hizballah's base of support in Southern Lebanon.

In other words, by attacking the whole of Lebanon, especially the Shia in Southern Lebanon, Israel thinks it can weaken Hizballah's support base.

This of course qualifies as a war crime on the face of it.

It's the same tactic Israel used to get rid of Arafat from Lebanon decades ago.

The suggestion has also been made that Israel may have to attack Syria to some degree to protect its "right flank" as it moves into Southern Lebanon to conduct this operation.

There is also allegedly evidence that many of the weapons coming into Lebanon for Hizballah are being stockpiled on the Syrian side of the border for later transport into Lebanon. This will motivate Israel - or give them an excuse, whichever you prefer - to launch attacks on the Syrian side of the border.

Since it has been reported that Iran can replenish Hizballah's 12,000 rockets within four months, clearly merely destroying the present rocket arsenal is not sufficient to resolve the issue from Israel's point of view.

More importantly, Israel KNOWS this. Therefore this is not the purpose of the exercise.

Therefore it is apparent that the wider scheme of essentially destroying the Lebanese Shia and the Lebanese central government appears to be the proximate goal of the operation.

The wider goals, not yet proven, are probably to induce Syria into the war so Israel can prevent them from supporting Hizballah, and to get the US to attack Iran to prevent them from supporting Hiaballah - and of course to destroy two of Israel's primary enemies in the region.

This may be the calculation, and I have no doubt the Dems could lose the 2006 elections by being too spineless to confront the GOP on its foreign policy.

But if this is the calculation, I would say the proper analogy is a nasty little kid who has doused himself with gasoline and is now playing with matches.

Thank you.

Is there really any other conceivable objective here?

Now, tie this to the CW on the Rove/Cheney November political strategy. I believe Cheney already got the ball rolling today in a speech in Florida.

Folks, this is gonna happen.

Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of all this madness will be the change for petro dollars to petro euros, with all that this implies.

I wonder what the plan is for that eventuality.

Yes, the US GOVERNMENT (not the PEOPLE) is losing its "right to exist".

Happy now?

Actually, as an anarchist, I'd say the US GOVERNMENT (not the PEOPLE) lost its right to exist at about the time the Constitution was signed.

"It's all fine and well to say "stop the violence!" But I haven't seen any real plan to do so."

Not from Israel or the US government, you haven't, that's for sure.

How about this? Release all prisoners (both sides). Don't take any more (both sides). Don't shoot anybody or launch any missiles (both sides.) Pull out of Gaza, Shebaa Farms, the West Bank, etc. (Israel) Stop being military bullies (Israel). Allow the Palestinians to form an economically and geopolitically viable state (Israel) Comply with UN Resolutions (Israel). Stop requiring capitulation to negotiation demands before the negotiations even start (all sides including the US.)

That should start as a peace plan.

Of course, your rejoinder will be: what happens when SOME Arabs violate these terms?

My answer: ignore them and keep to the program.

Building on your post, one could argue with some justification that, given the rhetoric against terrorism by the US government, the fact that the Zionist movement in the 1940's was a terrorist movement by any definition of the term, then it had absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever, and in fact the support by the UN and other countries, including the US, in its creation is justification for the US invading those countries and then committing suicide for "supporting terrorism."

Ironic, but the logic is absolutely firm if you buy the basic notion that terrorism is always wrong and any nation that supports it is a "rogue state."

The point of the Iraq war, for the oil companies at least, if Greg Palast is correct, was to REMOVE Iraqi oil and its influence on the OPEC oil prices from the market.

For the neocons and the Zionists, the point of the war was to reduce the first state of many in the ME to chaos, terrorism, and civil war in order to remove an enemy of israel and establish a beachhead for "American Empire" to justify the existence and policies of the US and Zionist states.

As for the behavior of the original settlers and subsequently the US state against the Native Americans, while true, it is not a justification for more recent implementations of the same policies.

UPDATE: Hmmm, I think I meant this as a response to Kitty, but somehow it ended up responding to the upper level post. Apologies, all.

You gotta read this part:

"My husband and I have been housing foreign "refugees", helping them to find their way out of the country. Two managed to leave this morning, a German and a Swiss. The other two are British and American. The craziest thing is that out of all people, the American embassy has been the least helpful to its citizens here. The phone line to the embassy has been practically out of service. My American friend, Amanda, had to hire a cab to take her to the embassy, which is a ride out of Beirut, and all they could tell her was to keep checking the website. And the only thing she has got from the website is that if there is an evacuation, then she is going to have to pay for it."

With the evidence rising that Bush knew about the Israeli intent to invade Lebanon in advance, and absolutely NO EFFORT was made to alert the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon of the possibility and get them out because it would have alerted the Lebanese government - and by extension, Hizballah - to the attack, here we see that Bush DELIBERATELY put 25,000 AMERICANS in harms way for the benefit of the ISRAELI ARMY.

This is mind boggling TREASON!

Many of us are considering the possibility that the U.S. and Israel are getting into situations that they cannot control and which might put them at serious risk of losing big time. We have some very knowledgeable people saying we are handling the world situation in a stupid and unsustainable way. Unsustainable militarily,economically, or with the continued support of an American electorate that still has the self image of being fair, honest, just, and humane. To some it is serious and to some it is just a game while to some it is probably just a cynical power play but you can bet that nobody involved on a serious level wants to lose.

How about a sports metaphor?

It is the Super Bowl. America’s Team is down 21 to 27, fourth and fifteen on their own 25 yard line. There is eight seconds left on the clock They have no time outs left. They MIGHT lose.[These things happen] What in the world can they do. What do you think? I’m gonna bet they go long. I’m gonna bet that they take a long shot even if there is very little chance that it works. [Since they are MY TEAM and I want them to win because I like them, but also because I bet the farm on them, I am going to hope it works.] Hail Mary, Mother of God, they are going to throw THE BOMB.

If the US were to replaced by China as the monarchies (and Iran's) primary supporter, the US and Israel would be in deep, deep doo-doo.

The motivation of the monarchies to continue to ally with the US and Israel against Hamas, Hizballah, the Palestinians and Iran would be removed.

The entire balance of power in the ME would change, with severe consequences for the region as Israel would have to resort to explicit nuclear war threats to keep from having to resolve the Palestinian issue.

Yes, I find it all quite intriquing and manchurian...China is doing precisely what America did in the ME...backing Iran...vs. how we backed Israel. China has invested in Iran just as the USA invested in Israel. China has nukes to give Iran just as the USA gave nukes to Israel. O and let's nof forget China also has veto power in the UN, just like the USA.  China also has  good relations  with Kim in Korea....Sounds like a Chinese chest match to me. The question is who is going to blink first.

If I am really cynical I note, that China has spent the last 60 years excercising a strategy to conquer the USA militarily and financially while America was preocuppied with maintaining Israel's 'right to exist'.

The problem is that mr. decider, swashbuckling cowboy that he is, has already announced he sees Iran as a threat and is willing to attack them. The rhetoric is thick and heavy about Hezbollah and Iran and Syria.Whereas, Mr Hu, is a man of action and few words he just makes allies with Nigeria, Saudi and Iran while holding all of America's debt. Sounds like a man with a plan to me. Just where is our leverage against this powerful adversary?!

And such threats would threaten China's oil supply - and China is a nuclear power as well. The possibility of a nuclear ME war would become a dangerous possibility.

Ahhh yes, the Nukes, the nukes...America has Nukes, Iran can obtain China nukes, Korea has nukes, Russia has nukes (and needs the oil as bad as China) and Israel has nukes. And let's not forget about India and Pakistan. Sooo, does America have the troops to occupy China, like China has to occupy America? Just who can win the battle on the ground if we are sensible enough not to nuke anyone?  Who will ally with America this time around? hahahaha...that was a horrifying laugh not one of gleee since we are in deep deeeeep deeeeeep do-do.

 ENTIRELY speculative, at this point, of course. Just an interesting speculation

O yes, the spiralling dimensions of Israel's 'right to exist' threatens the entire globe...how prophetic is that?

Yes I saw the pictures -- at my wife's insistence. But Israel needs to be confronted with the raw and systematic evidence that it itself has learned to use, wisely, in its own defense against those that have attacked the Israeli state in the past and those that have murdered and persecuted the Jewish people before the existence of Israel. This evidence should say unequivocally: "Israel, here are the neighborhoods in Beirut that you have destroyed; Israel this is specifically damage you have inflicted on these neighborhoods. Israel, by virtue of these actions you have ghettoized at least half a million people who are now homeless." Beyond that, we would not need to add anything. The statement "Israel, shame on you, Israel, you have lost your way" would be a logical corollary.

"Bush DELIBERATELY put 25,000 AMERICANS in harms way for the benefit of the ISRAELI ARMY."

This is, indeed, mind boggling. George Bush, by not supporting any cease fire, is implicitly endorsing the deaths of civilians including, possibly, Americans.

What would the reaction be if an American were to die? How would he be able to explain it away? He'd would have to argue that the life of an Israeli is worth more than the life of a US citizen. What would people say then?

From the face of it terrorism employs a style of guerrila warfare that the Western powers have not figured out how to win militarily.

The Bush administration perhaps does not necessarily care about winning any such war as long as their economic interests are achieved. Yet it stands to reason that even when Bush leaves office and someone new steps in to "fix the problems," there is no certainty that they will have any better chance of succeeding than Bush.

We know unilateralism, brute force, and cherry-picked diplomacy will not work. But is it guaranteed that all inclusive negotiations with terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda will yield fruit?

We don't have the answer to that question, of course, but if that were to fail then what?

I think it could be a huge mistake to think that the US is 'blundering' or 'ineffective' in all this. Cast your eyes at Iran. One of the standard reasons for why an invasion of Iran would be a bad idea is that "Hizbollah would be unleased." So, maybe degrading Hizbollah now is a precursor to making an invasion (or an attack) on Iran possible.

A smaller version of this theory is that it is just sending a message to Iran to be carfull about their nuclear program.

I think the start to a comprehensive and lasting peace is the fair settlement of the Palestinian issue. That has been the primary genesis of the violence in and around Israel, and the longer that situation is allowed to fester, the longer the violence will continue. The world community should make achieving this settlement a top priority, to be completed within one to two years. And the world community should also enforce the settlement with a series of carrots and sticks to reward compliance on both sides and punish non-compliance.