I believe something could be learned in comparing Nasrallah and Gerry Adams.

Certainly something could be learned from comparing their respective movements. As someone who wishes Isreal well I also expect that - as with the IRA - the Palestinians are engaged in what will become a permanent-and understandable- resistance and that to the extent democracy has any effect it will be to ensure that their movement is led by
those most committed to that resistance.

Have the earlier comments on this post been deleted?

Condi Rice still holds the crazy belief that Lebanon's Army, which is 50% Shia, will magically deploy and confront Hezbollah.  She also deluded herself into believing that the radical groups, like Hezbollah and the insurgents in Iraq, are stirring up trouble because the US mission of spreading democracy is actually working. 

I don't think that she believes this.  It is all a mater of politics.  Israel seems to have decided that it needs to take on Hezbollah right now and do it in a way likely to destroy the existing government in Lebanon.  Our government right now is not in a very strong position to prevent Israel from once again rolling the dice in Lebanon. Not only that, but that roll of the dice is probably a good thing for Republican prospects in November.  Even if things turn out very badly by any  objective measure,  if in the next few months this triggers some other big crisis  (or some terror attacks on the US)  that might well be enough to get Americans marching to the polls to support our "resolute" leaders. We would need to vote in a way that would "send a message" to the terrorists and Syria and Iran.

And what choice do the Republicans have given that the Democrats falling all over themselves to try to be more supportive of Israel than the Republicans?  I think that perhaps a part of the reason that Israel has decided to play its hand in Lebanon at this moment is that its leaders correctly see that right now the political situation in the US assures that they well get whatever support they need from the US.  If they don't act now when when all American politicians want to be hawks, then if in November the  failure of the Iraq war results in the Republicans losing control of one or both houses of Congress  it could be much harder to get the US to support a new military adventure by Israel.

Fred in Vermont

Nasrallah is not Palestinian.

I haven't seen a poll yet. But my guess is that Bush's popularity has gone up.

Well, Bush's popularity is so low these days, that he's baselining around the proportion of Americans who are actively delusional. Basically, he's got the Klan, the Nazi's, the Multinationals, various brands of racists, fruit loops, fruitcakes, chickenhawks etc. Most of these people would support him if they watched him rape a nun in public. Like I said, tis hard for him to drop further.

So inevitably, his polls are more likely to go up. Basically, having a successful bowel movement is now a demonstration of ability and confidence.

But by all means, ROTFL, take heart from that.

I was unable to post last night at all.

At one point, I got a red message at the top that said, "You are not authorized to post messages" or some such.

I assumed Josh had lowered the boom on me because of something I said.

I'm still not sure what went on. Some posts of mine appear to have disappeared from other threads, as have some posts of others that were responding to mine. Because of the ridiculous ability to disappear low-rated messages, I can't tell if they were deleted or merely disappeared or if there was a technical glitch.

Larry's article was linked at HuffPo but nobody could access it from that end initially.

Be nice if somebody would tell us what the hell is going on.

I'll give Josh the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but last night it sure looked like the "new rules" were being ruthlessly enforced.

It may be worth remembering that Irish politics have gone through several variants of single-state proposals (e.g., Eamon de Valera's anti-Treaty faction in the South vs. Michael Collins' Treaty group), as well as the many variants of North and South, and possible partitions of the North. Ironically, the Israeli guerilla officer, Yitzhak Shamir, used Michael Collins as his code name.

I don't think it's unfair to say that the more recent progress was more grass-roots and by peace movements, as recognized by the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize to Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan. One cannot help but think of Tom Clancy's fictional use of nonviolent resistance, and if any such movement will arise in the very different culture of the Middle East.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yesterday, the US Secretary of State, in a news conference, open to the press from all over the world, stated that we are on the side of Israel in this.  No other interpretation is possible for her statement that we are opposed to a cease fire until Israel can destroy the arms held by Hezbollah in Lebanon.  This is a blunt statement that we support Israel's attacks on southern Lebanon for that purpose, and will not support stopping those attacks until Israel decides that they have eliminated much of the threat to it.

No rational government anywhere in the world would believe that the US is a neutral country, able to be a neutral broker for  peace in that region of the world.  I'm not saying the the US should not be supporting Israels raids, because Israel clearly cannot ignore the threat of never ending rocket attacks across their northern border, and the government of Lebanon is incapable of even trying to disarm Hezbollah.  But, to even dream that we are a neutral nation, which should be trusted by all of the Middle Eastern nations to negotiate a just peace is utterly laughable.  In fact, I'm not sure just what country could be trusted to do that.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I think it is pretty obvious that too many of the comments were borderline unacceptable, if not outright unacceptable to Josh.  This is his "home" so when we visit his "home" his rules are what we follow, whether we agree with them or not.  

Never in my memory has it been so difficult to debate national issues.  We are now so polarized on almost every issue, that rational debate quickly becomes just repetitions of dogmatic extreme statements.  And, anything involving the Middle East situation seems to be the most polarized of all.

As I have posted before, I believe the root cause of this is that none of us really has a clue about how to settle the festering issues in that region of the world.  This may have to await the invention of a time machine, allowing someone to travel back to the early 1900's or sooner and change a few things. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

That's easy - they're defending themselves from criticism.

I'm sure Israel is searching Lebanon for the Internet backbone connection so they can sever that soon since too many pictures of bombed out apartment buildings and dead Lebanese children are showing up on the Net.

Someone pointed out that the Lebanese aren't the Palestinians or the Iraqis - they've had Net access and are cosmopolitan enough to use it to get the word out as to what is going on.

What is that "embedded" media the US loves so much? I guess Israel can't count on that in Lebanon, can they?

Since my question to Larry from yesterday disappeared I will post again.

What role is intelligence playing in on-the-ground operations as well as decision making by US and ME countries involved? 

The intelligence question/issue so prevalent in the public discussion of Iraq is invisible in the case of Lebanon.  Lebanon has been an open country so I have to assume that everyone has quite a bit of insight, correct?

As for Israel why should they be failing since they have clearly, at least in what I read, prepared and planned for militarily dealing with Lebanon. Why should they be surprised by how built into the landscape and the populace Hezbollah is??

You have a point there Dan K. The Bush administration is committed to its path, and has embraced the policies that are making America a world pariah.

Your point is that if Bush had any international cred, he would have gone and blown it by acting like a thug.

That's self evident. You used to have international cred. You have blown it by acting like a thug.

The illusion that Liberals have is that once Bush is gone, it will all go back to the way it was, America will be the leader of the free world, its word will be respected, people will see it as an honest broker.

Sorry to crap on the cherished dreams and delusions of the Liberal wing of America, but those days are gone.

America's name is mud, and if you ever have credibility again, you're going to have to work hard for a good long time to get it back.

George W. Bush has thrown away whatever integrity America earned in fifty years. You don't get a 'do over.'

Particularly not with the consent and compliance offered by most Democrats. The world correctly perceives that as bad as Bush is, the American political class does not differ significantly on his policies.

The following is approximately my post to this thread that was deleted.

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 militarily, economically, diplomatically, and otherwise. To some it is serious and to some it is just a game, and to some just a cynical power play, but you can bet that nobody involved on a serious level wants to lose. We don’t know who will win, but there are some things that we can predict with some confidence.

How about a sports metaphor?

It is the big game, 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. [ It could happen] What in the world can they do. What do you think? What would you do? 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. It is desperation time. Since they are MY TEAM and I have bet the farm on them I want them to win, I have got to hope it works.

Here it comes. Hail Mary, Mother of God, they are going to throw THE BOMB.

Who would have guessed?

What happened to the comments that were here yesterday? Were they removed on purpose or was there a software glitch

I think it is clear that the entire thread was deleted. I find this ominous, particularly after the screed by MJRosenberg was given front page prominence and he was not ever taken to task for his reprehensible attacks on this entire community of posters. That to me was blatantly biased.

Did you have to verify your account this morning, too? I also noticed the "moderation" button disappeard. Does this mean I used to be a trusted user but now am not? Did I say something unacceptable?

This  experience is not unique to you. Whatever was the problem has not at all been explained, discussed or clarified. I think most of us remain clueless and can only speculate as to what happened other than the clear evidence of the entire thread being banned.

What is so upsetting to me is that this is the type of thing that Limbaugh and Fox news do. They only want a certain perspective to dominant on an issue and they will not allow strong counter arguments to any position they choose or deem as the 'correct' posture.

What are we as members of this community to make of commentors being allowed to express vehemently extreme views and posters to the discussion not being able to have equally strong counterviews? 

For whatever reason I feel attacked and defenseless. It is like being robbed by a thief and then having your house condemned rather than the thief being caught and penalized...you lose your house instead.

In life, it is only when the envelope is pushed that progress is made. Many times people have said that MLK was successful because Malcolm X was so radical, that making concessions to MLK was far more desirable. It was only via two extremes that a compromise was even considered.

This is a sad day for TPM cafe. The expression of ideas has been curtailed and effectively muted. This just emphasizes how much Walt and Mershiemer were on target.

Didn't England solve the IRA problem by invading Northern Ireland and dropping bunker buster bombs around Dublin and pulvurizing the countryside?

Didn't think so but it would have been 'her right,' to do so, eh?

Well, it takes a lot of political courage to allow free debate on this issue. Josh has his name out there. I don't. But I sure do wish we could find someone in this party to move us from Joe McCarthyism to Eugene McCarthyism. When you've got a Congress that can't even muster 10 votes for a ceasefire, you know we've gone war mad and if we have even ONE Democrat who has courage to speak out against WWIII, I haven't been able to hear him above the war.

Unfortunately, I think this is correct. I still had hope prior to 2004, that if the US tossed Bush out in that year's election, a new President could come in and say, in effect, "Sorry, world, those policies were an aberration, and we're ready to rejoin the world." It would have been tough, and tough for a president to balance courting world opinion again with the need to look tough for the domestic audience -- but I think it would have been doable. Once, however, we (or, rather, 51% of us) endorsed Bush again, I think we were permanently scarred. Whereas the world up to that point still had some hopes that the US could lead the world again, now I'm convinced that most of the world just wants to see us taken down several pegs, and won't be satisfied until that's happened. And maybe that's exactly what needs to happen -- a little humility would do our country a world of good.

There's been an intense discussion on this thread about why a number of comments were deleted last night.

Let me explain.

There was a very good conversation going on on this thread last night. However, mid- late-evening, it was inundated by a number of comments that were vitriolic, violent, eliminationist, etc. We started deleting only the offending comments. But they continued to proliferate. To get a handle on the situation, we took down the entire thread.

Unfortunately that led to a lot of completely acceptable comments coming down. I regret this but it was the only way to get a handle on the situation. (Remember, we don't have an army of technies. Last night I was the only one manning the shop.)

Several users were permanently banned from the site. If you're account is working fine but a comment of yours from last night disappeared, please accept my apologies for the inconvenience. Pulling down the thread was just the only thing we could think of to get a hold of the situation. As you can see, we've now put Larry's post back up fresh.

Over the weekend, we're going to post some notices over at Cafe Management table explaining some changes we're going to make which will hopefully allow site moderators to help us prevent thread from spiraling out of control. Best, Josh

Well, it takes a lot of political courage to allow free debate on this issue

Why? Is AIPAC a major contributor to this site?

Josh has his name out there.

I can appreciate that in terms of his blogger page. Perhaps, I may be in the minority but I associate Josh Marshall's views with TPM not the cafe. The cafe is a forum with divergent views by all who choose to participate, not a reflection of Josh's views.

This whole thing is chilling to me. It reminds me of how they called people unpatriotic and undemocratic who were opposed to Bush's war policies. This is deeply disturbing.

if we have even ONE Democrat who has courage to speak out against WWIII, I haven't been able to hear him above the war.

Maybe, they are subjected to the same censorship as members of the TPMcafe have been recently. If AIPAC wants WWIII who is going to have the temerity to speak out?

Not one commentor or special persons who get posted on the discussion boards is even discussing how Bush would not allow the justice department to investigate the illegality of wiretapping.

If the ME is not a topic that can be discussed openly any longer, then stop putting up commentor posts on it....BAN the TOPIC completely.

Let's talk about American issues and what is going on with our troops in Iraq and the rise in insurgency.

It is wrong to attempt to SHAPE the ME perspective which will be viewed like Fox does with O'Reielly and Hannity and Colmes...and Talk Radio does with all it's talking heads like that Laura and Coulter and Limbaugh.

I suppose I should have known when they cut off Colin Powell's mike on Meet the Press when he expressed a view supportive of the Palestinians that nowhere in America is it safe to discuss anything that is not pro-Israel.

Thanks, Josh. Explanation is much appreciated. I think that was a valuable discussion for many of us and it's too bad it got zapped. I'm glad Larry is intact and that the great people who were contributing are showing up again today, albeit a bit puzzled and paranoid! I'm glad you survived the night, too!

my question is the same as Kitfield's:  How is it that we did not attack Iran instead of Iraq?

Because China is backing Iran like the USA is backing Israel. 

Just as Irael's enemies know that attacking it is like attacking America so too, is attacking Iran at this juncture, like attacking China. China needs the ME oil and USA wants to control of the ME oil. Both China and USA have nukes, both have veto power in the UN.  China has invested 100B in Irans energy and oil industry. China also holds 200B of USA debt.

Israel reminds me of a shop owner at a suburban mall who is plagued by gang violence. A gang banger comes in, shoots a customer with a hand gun and the shop owner reacts by chasing the gang banger out of the shop with a machine gun spraying the food court with bullets. The US, acting as the police, evacuates the customers from Neiman Marcus and leaves the rampaging shop owner to charge through the rest of the shops chasing gang members and shooting anyone still in the way.

But yes, the shop owner does have the right of self-defense and his shop does have the right to exist.

That's actually a pretty good way to put it.

I believe you are right. I sincerely hope that this decline in American influence and prestige will help Americans finally accept an alternative vision of the United States as an equal member of a world community, and stop torturing themselves with forlorn and nostalgic visions of America as global hegemon, global quarterback, global conductor, global manager, global superhero, global sherriff, global overlord or any of the other obsolete role models promulgated by American exceptionalists.

Nah, one thing about Empires is that they seldom go down gracefully. The dismantling of European colonialism in the post-WWII era is a noteable exception.

And come to think of it, not that much of an exception. France ripped telephones out of the wall in Ghana, and fought protracted and ugly wars in both Indochina and Algerial. The British turned Kenya into a slaughterhouse in their campaign against the Mau Mau. The Dutch were kicked out of Indonesia. The Belgians and Portugese left their former colonies to civil war.

In their imperial declines, the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Spain and Imperial Russia proved to be vicious, irrational and spastic.

I suspect that America, with its penchant for endless self deception, self promotion and holding a grudge for all eternity, will not accept the passing of its imperial pretensions gracefully, or at all.

Actually, I see you guys making a spectacular mess of things, and racking up genocidal body counts as you rail against the passing of your dream of world domination.

See below. Actually, Hezbollah was a resistance organization founded by Lebanese Shiites after Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon in 1982. The poor Shiites bore the brunt of Israel's military barrage, and the chief objective of Hezbollah was solely and simply-- to drive the Israelis out of Lebanon and prevent them from invading in the future. They succeeded in doing just that by 2000, and in response, propagandists among the neocons love to ascribe much darker motives to them, including the wholesale "destruction of Israel."

While Hezbollah does sympathize with the Palestinians including with the undeniably terroristic Hamas (whose objective really is the destruction of Israel-- at least until recently, perhaps), Hezbollah's fundamental objective is pretty basic-- get Israeli troops out of Lebanon (including the buffer zone where the clash and the kidnappings of the soldiers took place) and keep them out. It's only because history is so often distorted or utterly misreported that this fundamental aspect of Hezbollah's history is merely omitted.

And somebody can remind me how Rice expects the Lebanese Army to confront and destroy Hezbollah when the Israelis are bombing the Army's military installations. (I heard it this morning on CNN) Rice is a disaster as Sec. of State just like she was a disaster in her former government job. Diplomacy is slog work - I remember that it took six months to reach an agreement on the SHAPE of the negotiating table everyone was to sit around during Korean War talks held in Paris. Rice would demand a rectangular table with her at the head and if refused would shut down negotiations, get on a plane to New York and go shoe shopping.

The Lebanese-Israeli border is internationally recognized. Hezbollah crossed that to ambush an Israeli patrol, killing and kidnapping. By your account, Hezbollah has not had a reason for being since Israel left Lebanon six years ago. Yet they chose to provoke conflict, and then declare all-out war including extensive rocket barrages. This was for the fundamental objective of keeping Israel out of Lebanon?! Right, if you want to keep someone who's bigger and stronger than you from entering your house, go out and beat his wife and kid with a baseball bat while they're walking by in the street, then retreat to your living room and yell out the window about how the wife is a whore who deserved it, and the kid isn't his anyway. Sure. That'll work.

May I ask how you define "extensive rocket barrages", just to establish some context? Area affected? Types of target hit?

To me, "extensive" is a battalion (or even battery) fire from the US M270 MLRS, or Russian GRAD 122mm.

How would you compare the Hezbollah fires with individual Israeli F-16 sorties, assuming they carry four Mk. 84 bombs? Any idea on the number of sorties?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Boy, I tell ya, HCB, I really appreciate your posts for the facts, particularly in connection with matters military which are way beyond my ken. Thanks for that, and also thanks to those who've posted the useful background on Hezbollah which also, as I understand it, provides social services. It was interesting to hear two Lebanese students, studying here in the US, being interviewed on NPR this afternoon. Recommended. Two young Israelis will be interviewed tomorrow.

Valdron- Actually, I see you guys making a spectacular mess of things, and racking up genocidal body counts as you rail against the passing of your dream of world domination.

I appreciate hearing the perspective of those outside the U.S. (and without an agenda) on our stomping around the world. I think you were right when you said that the political class has damaged our standing. I don’t know how permanent the damage is, though. Politicians, pundits and the media sell this neocon nightmare to the American public. The public hasn’t bought into this great Crusade as such, but so far, the current ruling class has managed to scare and con the public into acquiescence. Most working stiffs here, as in the rest of the world, don’t have a lot of time and energy to follow the micro details of foreign policy, read white papers or search out alternative news.

Once the true picture of what we’re doing in places like Iraq becomes clear, the public turns against it. IMO, unless the influence of the neocons and the Israeli lobby carries us into war with Iran, America will begin to right itself after this crisis has passed (optimistic, perhaps). The American system did not work this time because our President and Congressional cronies usurped power and crushed the checks and balances that would have tempered their actions. Over time, I think we will gain our balance and at least be given the benefit of the doubt globally.

Our current foreign policy can hardly be called colonialism. But it is a strange kind of imperialism (In my mind I substitute the word “superiority” for “exceptionalism” when it is attached to “American”). The only thing that I think one can definitely attribute as a motive for invading Iraq is to change the balance of power in the M.E. (permanent bases and all). All of our hated policy is centered in the M.E. No. Korea is lumped into the axis of evil and everyone’s appalled that they’re building nukes and testing missiles, but nothing will be done there. No will be action taken as it is not a threat to Israel and our new vision of the M.E.

With this latest fiasco, I think the neocons are closing the circle and getting closer to conflating the War on Global Terrorism that they were given carte blanche to fight after 9/11 with the renamed Global War on Terrorism. The former, WOGT, concerned al Qaeda who was carrying out a Jihad against America and attacked us directly, while the latter, GWOT, will soon include Hamas and Hezbollah (and by extension Iran and Syria).

Well, actually Whit, not quite true. As I understand it, there was a provocation. The month before the cross border incursion, Israel crossed the border to assassinate someone or other, some Lebanese official, perhaps someone from Hezbollah.

Would you like me to go look it up for you?

The trouble with this stuff, is that there isn't quite a black and white situation. There's a long history of border clashes back and forth between Israel and Hezbollah, and Israel is, at least some of the time, initiating and provoking.

There's such a pathological history to it, that after a while, you sort of get tired. It's all kindergarden stuff "WELL... HE STARTED IT!!! WAHHH!!!!"

Y'know what? It don't matter who started it. What matters is that each piece of conduct should be condemned as wrongful.

I had no problem condemning Hezbollah for crossing the border, killing soldiers and kidnapping other soldiers.

On the other hand, some people seem to have a great deal of problem condemning Israel crossing the border, inflicting half a billion dollars worth of damage, displacing half a million refugees and killing 300 innocent people.

So I guess, some people feel entitled to play favourites. I think those people are part of the problem.

Actually, I think Larry has got it backwards. Hezbollah's initiative - if you can call it that - will fail. Not that Israel will be safe, just safer than they've been in a long while. It won't last certainly. But somewhere sometime somebody had to draw the line. Who but Israel?? The nihilist belief in jihad as massacre and destruction has to be met with fierce determination. Otherwise it will sweep up the Islamic world - not to mention extreme fundamentalist Christians - and there'll be a hurricane that will make Katrina a trifle, 9/11 a kids game. Better now than when the storm makes landfall on everybody's shores.

No, China is not backing Iran the way the US is backing Israel, certainly not in remotely the same fashion. China undoubtedly has a lot invested in Iran and is loath to support a US invasion of that country, but China is not an Iranian ally or backer. The US is a full-fledged supporter of Israel in every way. We give Israel well over $4 billion of direct aid and billions more in indirect aid every single year, actively take Israel's side and veto even modest UN resolutions with our vote alone

China has invested 100Billion in Iran's energy/oil industry and while they are not out in front like America is with Israel, they will have no problem supplying Iran with weapons if it comes down to a fight for control of the ME oil. China also has veto power in the UN and is not supporting resolutions to sanction Iran.

China does not do anything remotely similar with respect to Iran. China is more like an interested business partner that probably does have some sympathy for Iran and the way it stands its ground, but does not have anything remotely approaching the alliance of the US with Israel and Israeli objectives. There is certainly no analogy to the neocons there, who remotely push the Israeli Likudnik agenda in the halls of US power centers.

China has not had the need to go as far as the USA has with Israel, yet. However, the fact that China depends far more heavily on ME oil than the US does means that they are building strong partners with regimes like Iran and Syria as well as with the Saudi's.

You are merely quibbling about the degree of backing that China has so far demonstrated...I am simply noting that China is backing Iran just as America supports Israel...that China is not as consistent and long term backer of Iran as America is of Israel does not change the power dynamic when it comes to controlling ME oil.

Several users were permanently banned from the site.

I want to know what part of my post offended you so much that you decided to ban me. What I stated in the previous thread - and I stand by it - is that Israel lost its moral right to exist when its citizenry rewarded the murder of Yitzhak Rabin by electing his arch-rival Netanyahu to torpedo the peace process. It's as if Lincoln had been shot before the 1864 elections by a Confederate sympathiser and the American people reacted by electing Clement Vallandigham in his place.

I specifically stated that this only extended to the Israeli state, and not to the Jewish people, who still have the same inherent rights as anyone else. But no doubt any questioning of Israel's existence is now considered "anti-Semitic". Is it considered bigoted to say that the Cuban lobby has far too much influence over U.S. foreign policy? Is it bigoted to say Iraq should not exist in its present form but should be broken up into three states to more closely reflect ethnic divisions? If this is not bigoted, why is Israel and Israeli lobbyists alone above criticism?

History of western civilization is replete with massacre and destruction.  Consider the fate of indigenous peoples in Dutch, French, English and Spanish colonies in the "new world".  A graphic example of massacre and destruction in western civilization found expression in the beheadings of the French Revolution.  

Some of the most hypocritical expressions of massacre and destruction were produced by Christians during the "reign" of terror during the Inquisition.  Earlier still, recall the sack of Aghia Sophia the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Constantinople by Christian soldiers who marched onward as to war.

American "exceptionalism or superiority" or what I call looking for new trading markets - oil in this particular instance - includes establishing our presence in the Middle East by means of waging war in Iraq.  Without a doubt the U.S. will continue to do 'whatever it takes' to accomplish whatever this administration has decided is required.  As the Bushies are fond of repeating, if you want to change things then get elected.

Israel's leaders are politically trapped and have to respond strongly, because thay lack the stature of former military commanders. It would take some courage to ask for outside help but that is what's needed.

Currently, Israel will have to repeat the earlier invasion and hold territory.

I don't know if any of you saw this item, but at the same time that Israel goes it "alone" (with obvious US support) and the US still fights its unprovoked war in Iaq, The US Ambassador to Turkey warned the Turkish government against pursuing PKK across the border into Iraq because a nation's military should never cross borders without a broad international consensus.

He said it with a straight face, too.

Iran looks on course to be the new Parthian local superpower in the ME. Joint US/Israeli airstrikes will do little to stop that, and will be politically disastrous for this country.

With the economic and military fiascos they have bequeathed to this country, the neocons may ironically have sown the seeds of the destruction of Israel.

When the US disintegrates into economic irrelevance and probably bitter internal political strife (thank you, Karl), the Israelis will be left alone to confront enraged and radicalized Arab and Persian neighbors, now allied with the new Chinese superpower.

...The neocons may ironically have sown the seeds of the destruction of Israel.

That's right on target. And they have done so on two fronts, the other being here at home where lobbyists and shouts of anti-semitism and rigid ideological demands have turned Israel's plight into something that those who have been sympathetic to Israel find almost impossible to touch or defend. Polarization (Karlation, Rushization) has created wastelands no one wants to enter, perhaps not even to rescue those left stranded by their thoughtless egocentric leaders.

You encapsulated the events in the Middle East when you said:

The question, I guess, is how to maintain the peace when the state loses its defining monopoly of the means of war.

I worry that all the participants including U.S. do not appreciate the historic implications of your statement.  And I grieve for all of us.

Oh, it's even worse than that! The new Republican mantra straight from Mehlman and confirmed by Bush's Chief of Staff on Meet the Press is: "We are all Israelis" and I guarantee you after listening to Bill Richardson make sure he told us about 50 times that we support Israel that the Democratic Party is going to fall right in line with the "We are all Israelis" chorus.

But of course, we are NOT all Israelis. What are we doing to us by all this? Do you see any way that debate outside of blogs is in any way not totally foreclosed? We're sending the bombs. "Israel's war is our war". Does anyone think "Israel's war" is going to end within the next 100 years. Democrats and Republicans are united as one on a policy that is going to keep us in a perpetual state of war and I do not believe I will see the end of it in my lifetime.

Anyone else believe that's not an appropriate or maybe relevant question here? Perhaps better asked in a personal message if at all?

Old enough to have voted for George McGovern but if I were too young to have voted for George Bush, I wouldn't change my post. This is the 100 Year War. I don't see it ending until we've felt enough war ourselves either by bankrupting the treasury, killing off a generation of soldiers, or generating more attacks on our territory to make Americans wake up to the fact that war is not a video game. War is much too easy for Washington's ruling class. "We are all Israelis" because no one at a Washington cocktail party has to fight or face an attack.

Genocide might be an outcome, but hardly a solution. Nicholas Kristof actually has a good piece in the NYT today (behind the firewall, alas), arguing that Israel should deal with Hezbollah and Hamas the way that Britain and Spain dealt with the IRA and the ETA: "the softer approach gave London and Madrid the moral high ground and slowly — far too slowly — isolated terrorists and made a negotiated outcome more feasible." That's not a sufficient strategy, but it seems necessary. In addition, Israel would have to be prepared to meet the Saudi plan part way, the international "community" would have to commit real capital, monetary and political, to building up relevant states . . . . Do I think all this will happen? Do pigs have wings?

I apologize for posing a seemingly provocative question. I didn't intend it so. I hate provocative behavior, and I take responsibility for my own when it's pointed out.

I am grateful, though, for the responses in this thread. I have been thinking along many of the lines posed here, with like intensity of feeling and conviction. More recently my thinking and reflection have turned toward a longer perspective.

The prospects of war, short or long term, are dreadful no matter how you view it, regardless whatever "side" you choose to take. The two great wars of the last century are overwhelming evidence for the futility of fighting to the death.

Sometimes it can't be avoided, however. I think this is one of those times. I think you are right in saying that this conflict will likely persist for decades, in one form or other.

What I've been considering is perspective, the wiser long view. I believe that the environmental adversities human beings will face in the coming century, at the least, portend truly apocalyptic consequences, that will by comparison make this or any war a minor matter. That's why I think that now is time to act to contain and hopefully end these fratricidal bloodlettings in the Middle East. I think that what is most dangerous in that region and beyond right now is the irreligious nihilisms that are rending the Islamic world to shreds. Just as with Fascisms of the Right and Left, this "ism" is insidious, morally corrupt and monstrously homicidal.

One of these insidious threats is to our civil democratic life. The longer we tolerate the real insanity of nihilism in religious guise, the more vulnerable we will be to our own potentially fascistic politics. The super-secretiveness and arbitrary action of this Administration is very disturbing. It needs to be contained and ended, the sooner the better.

Anyway, this is what I've been reflecting on, and my intention to learn about not so much your age, but your perspective. It is a cliche to say young people are idealistic and therefore unrealistic, and I think in fact that's largely untrue. Mostly, young people think much more rationally and disinterestedly than ourselves (I am 57), who are understandably worried about their lives and futures. It helps for me to take time to listen to young people to recover our own ideals and passion. Another thing that young folks can see in their elders is hysteria, and they don't like it, it's scary. I just hope in these intensely felt days that I and you and everybody take care just to calm down a bit and think more clearly and soberly about what's at stake and what needs to be done about it.

Funny how often Israel's "defending itself" consists of attacking other people. FYI Israel went into Lebanon to remove the PLO -- and the PLO was there becasue Israel ethnically-cleansed Palestinians from their homes and lands to create the "Jewish State"

Islamists active in CHina and Central Asia are of the Taliban variety and despise Iran. If anything, Iran is China's ally on that point.

I share your hunch (even without your sources) that there are Gerry Adams types in both Hezbollah and Hamas, but they do need to be engaged. If Kristof is to be believed, even Margaret Thatcher deserves some credit for helping wind down the violence in NI: "Likewise, Britain endured constant bombings by the I.R.A., which enjoyed support in both Ireland and the U.S. and obtained weapons and Semtex plastic explosive from Libya.

Yet Margaret Thatcher didn’t bomb Dublin (or Boston), nor even the offices of the I.R.A.’s political wing in Northern Ireland. When she saw that Britain’s harsh tactics were strengthening support for the I.R.A., the Iron Lady moderated her approach and negotiated the landmark Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985. At the time, that agreement was widely denounced as rewarding terrorists and showing weakness." And without the agreement of 1985, John Hume's five-year negotiation with Sinn Fein probably couldn't have happened.

Who in the Israeli or US leadership is willing to be accused of "rewarding terror"?

Fair enough. Thanks for your stand.

War, as fought in WWII, remains a monopoly of states.  No other grouping of people have the resources to arm to that extent, nor to recruit and train that many fighters.  But, guerilla warfare has been around for centuries, and that has never been the monopoly of states.  Hezbollah is fighting a guerilla war, using some modern munitions they obtained from outside sources.  The insurgency in Iraq is fighting a guerilla war, using mostly the munitions our troops in Iraq failed to secure before they were raided.  I can think of very few times when a traditional army has been able to defeat a guerilla movement, so that hasn't changed either. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I agree about the irresponsibility of the Dems in Congress. For all the obvious reasons plus what it said about their distance from and demonstrated scorn for their constituents, so many of whom had serious doubts about invading Iraq. Actually, that's putting it mildly.

The Congressional Dems seemed to be oblivious to the fact that they were actively disenfranchising a significant number of Democrats many of whom are now lost to them and will not support their reelection.

The thing about age is that we all start at some point in history and think that's the beginning of "relevant" history! We learn but don't experience earlier events. Our take on earlier events is largely theoretical with an overlay of our parents' and teachers' influence, not to mention the appalling biases and dumbing down of history texts used in many states.

For example, what Joe McCarthy was engaged in during the early '50's was just about as gut-wrenching and scary to adults living through it as Bush's warmongering, secrecy, and authoritarianism is now. It's hard for those who experienced that era to tolerate those who come along and say, Aw, he wasn't so bad!

As for the Democrats, there are some good candidates out there. I'm influenced, in my pessimism, by a description Joe Biden gave in an interview on "Fresh Air" a few months ago of how both Houses are operating under Republican leadership. He describes what the authoritarian nature of that leadership has done to queer the legislative process. Really, there is no genuine legislative process. It's going to be hard, and particularly hard for newly elected Dems, to haul that entire body -- which will continue to contain movement conservatives even if the Dems take control -- back to normal. And that's assuming a fair and open election in November....

Howard,

What about religious sects apart from ethnicity. Another possibility is ethnocentric churches (organized faith)?  I am trying to get at the notion of faith-based groups that may be 'non-state entities' that act apart from any government to which they are proximate?

Good point. Some religious separatists may be politically active, but shun the use of force. While it was nationalist as well as significantly Hindu, think the nonviolent Indian resistance under Gandhi.

Thanks! I'm starting to get the sense that there is a significant white paper or book here. I wonder if there is a framework for doing that under TPMetc.?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The previous Israeli invasion of Lebanon wasn't intended to get rid of Hezbollah, they went in to fight the Palestinians there. Israel thought that if they left Lebanon that Lebanon would leave Israel alone. They were almost right. Hezbollah isn't really Lebanese, it represents Syria and Iran.

Johnson is arguing that you shouldn't shoot at warmongers because they will shoot back. This is essentially arguing that Israel should just sit there and take it. This is not a serious position.

Johnson may be right that a ground invasion will be required to really vanquish Hezbollah. It might be, however, that the ground invasion will be made by the Lebanese regular Army. Johnson's position is that the Israeli military is so silly that it is trying to use air power where "Everybody knows" ground power is required. The Israeli military is not silly and does not have silly military doctrines.

Those who cry for "Proportionality" are espousing a silly military doctrine. Every principle of warfare supports the method of Overwhelming Force, where you can reduce your casualties and increase your probability of success by having much greater force than your enemy.

P.S. I think you could save space by combining multinational corporations and pirates.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I think you're treading on dangerously thin ice, DirtyMac. But I've had some fun poking at conservatives that they are being mislead by Trotskyites - but don't really believe it for a moment.

Here's a backgrounder on Trotsky vis a via what was once called "the Jewish Question." If you read it you can see that it's a complex history, but what stands out is Trotsky's prophecy for "the end and ultimate defeat of Zionism." It would be pretty hard to simply substitute terms to make that sound like part of the Neoconservative political agenda.

I think what's generally misunderstood in the current discourse is the impact on the Jewish left in the US of the Stalin v. Trotsky debate. Many of the Jewish left supported Trotsky because the "internationality" of his revolutionary rhetoric, which seemed more valuable to the international Jewish community which was scattered about all over the globe. I suppose you could say that this faction were opposed to some degree to the Zionist movement, prefering to conceptualize "home" as the Ukraine, Poland, Germany etc., depending of their family's origin.

The ideological split between Stalin and Trotsky was horrible, insofar as it affected the American left, and certainly the Jewish American left. It split families apart, created enemies, all sorts of accusations and so on. Bad blood, you might say. And when Stalin's brutality was finally exposed after his death, there was a huge disillusionment - and I think that it was this disillusionment that began to cultivate the drift to the political right. It's very unlikely that any of the old ideologies, which were appropriate at their time in history, hitched a ride across that political boundary.

But I use the word "dangerous" for a specific purpose. Once one begins throwing out loaded language like "Marxist" and/or "Trotskyites" one inadvertently apes and to some degree supports the claims made by genuine racists who do in fact hate Jews. Look at a web page like this- Bolshivism is Jewish - to see what I'm talking about. There are many others...trust Google.

Neoboho

Warren - I assume if the shoe were on the other foot and it was Israel being hammered you would have no objections. After all, it's just war.

"The worst result here would be a partial solution that returns us to this kind of problem again in a matter of weeks or months. We've got to think of the longer term here. There may be an opportunity. We need to go about it in a sustained fashion," Bolton added.

Love him or hate him it is hard to disagree at this stage.

Even for those who are of the persuasion that Israel is using unjust force against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the argument can scarcely be denied that peace is not incumbent only upon Israel.

Today Syria pressed for a cease-fire yet offered nothing substantive regarding the situation of Hezbollah.

Israel wisely welcomed the idea of NATO forces securing and maintaining the combat zone near the Israeli/Lebanese border. This is a worthy concession on their part.

If Iran and Syria do not offer anything with regard to reigning in Hezbollah then any talk of a cease-fire is utterly worthless; much as Ambassador Bolton and Secretary of State Rice have said repeatedly throughout the weekend.

My fellow Catholics, it's time to start voting on issues besides abortion (not that the Democratic Party represents us on these issues either): 

 LES COMBES, Italy (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday renewed his appeal for an immediate cease-fire in the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah guerillas in Lebanon and encouraged all sides to start negotiations. 

He reiterated his recent statements in support of Lebanese sovereignty and of Israel's right to live in peace. "I renew with vigor my appeal to all sides in the conflict, so that they immediately cease fighting and allow the delivery of humanitarian aid, and so, with the help of the international community, they search for ways to begin negotiations," Benedict said. "I take the occasion to reaffirm the right of Lebanese to the wholeness and sovereignty of the country, the right of the Israelis to live in peace in their state and the right of the Palestinians to have a free and sovereign country," the pope said.

The pontiff expressed special closeness to the "defenseless civilian populations, unjustly hit in a conflict in which there are only victims."