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."

I don't believe the chief danger here is that there is a bottomless well of Arab-Muslim hatred for Israel that will continually replenish the ranks of Hezbollah and continue the proverbial cycle of violence - the "Munich" scenario - but
the Iraq scenario.

From a strategic (as opposed to humanitarian) point of view, the real threat I think is that the Israeli incursions into Lebanon re-open the country's sectarian divisions, leading to a new phase in the Lebanese civil war, possibly drawing in other players in the region, and leading to a humanitarian catastrophe on a far greater scale, as well as the ultimate partition of the country. In a worst case scenario, you can imagine scenarios in which this conflict explodes into a region-wide civil war between Sunnis and Shiites ending in the partition of other states.

No one will thank Mr. Bush for that.

As we are finding out in Iraq, anarchy is the friend of non-state guerrilla and terrorist networks - especially when cornered. Hezbollah may decide, like the Sunni insurgents of Iraq (and their moneyed masters who are looting the country's oil sector under cover of chaos), that the best hope it has for survival is to provoke Lebanon's other players into civil war, and begin targeting Sunnis and Christians. Remember: this isn't just about Islamism and anti-Zionism (although no one should underestimate the extent to which maintaining male supremacy in the Arab-Muslim world is an unconscious motivation); it is about money and power.

If Israel had limited itself to attacking the areas in Lebanon controlled by Hezbullah, the argument that Israel has a right to defend itself would have credibility. But Israel is brutally bombing many areas of Lebanon that are not controlled by Hezbullah, including the North, which is predominently Christian. It is killing many civilians, including women and children, and totally devestating the infrastructure of a country with a freely elected, democratic government.

Lebanon as a country has done no harm to Israel. The reason it has not disarmed Hezbullah in the south is that it is unable to. Any attempt to do so by force would have led to the resumption of the civil war.

There can be no moral justification for these actions by Israel, which clearly fall under the definition of war crimes.

I guess Glenn would have opposed FDR sending weapons to England during the blitz in 1940, even though thousand of times as many German civilians died from the RAF's bombing raids over Berlin and Dresden as Lebanese have died from Israel's. Somewhere Hitler is smiling at how just how stupidly naive people can be.

THIS WAR STARTED BECAUSE HAMAS AND HEZBOILLAH ATTACKED ISRAELIS ACROSS A BORDER THAT THE UN RECOGNIZED AND AFTER ISRAEL HAD LEFT GAZA AND LEBANON. AM YISROAEL CHAI! VIVA THE LOBBY!

G-d??? What does G-d have to do with it?
Perhaps you are thinking of B-sh? Or H-tl-r? Perhaps Fr-d?

Israel is n-t actually much of a d-m-cr-cy. It rules over m-llions of people in the occupied territories, and its never given them the right to v-te.

St-ll, you are right about the f-ct th-t m-st Am-r-c-ns are pretty obl-vious t- anything th-t doesn't concern th-m directly.

To understand the situation Israel finds itself in, one has to look at the history of the Crusder Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was set up as a result of the First Crusade.

In this case also, westeners, who the Muslim world considered to be Infidels, set up a political entity by force. The Muslim world never accepted this intrusion into what they considered their territory. For a time they were forced to live with this, because the Kingdom of Jerusalem had military superiority and support from the West. But eventually this support waned. Saladin came along and the rest is history.

Israel should not assume that because at the present time it has overwhelming superiority and unqualified U.S. support, it will always have this. And when it loses this, unless Israel acts wisely now, another Saladin will come along. What Israel must do is stop being short-sighted and think strategically. The time to make peace with the Muslim world is now, when it has the upper hand. And that does not mean making peace on Israel's terms. That means making real concession to the Palestinians, such as retreating to the pre-1967 borders and dividing Jerusalem with the Palestinians. The great majority of Palestinans would support such a settlement, and, as a result, the radical hard liners would have the rug pulled out from under them.

You sound as if you have become unhinged, bluebell. There won't be WW III because not a single enemy of the U.S. has either the will or the capability to stop Israel from doing what it has to do to stop terror, and even if Israel tuns the lights out in Damascus and Tehran, as I hope it does, that won't lead to WW III. I can assure you Putin may fight to the last Palestinian, but he won't sacrifice a single Russian to aid Hamas or Hezbollah.

I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. It's a half baked, half assed moronic statement delivered with conviction. But sincerity does not redeem stupidity. Its' the dumbest thing I've heard all week. It may be the single dumbest thing I've heard in a month, and I've sat through some doozies.

By that sort of logic, Bolton would deny treatment to a person suffering arterial bleeding because they'd just start bleeding as soon as you took the bandage off. He'd let them bleed out while waiting to get to a hospital which offered a 'more permanent' solution.

In the real world, when you have a crisis arising from deep rooted causes, you deal with the crisis and once the situation is stabilized, then you work on the causes. That applies to wars, houses on fire and medical triage.

Here's the worthwhile parts of a cease fire:

PEOPLE STOP DYING.

I think that's worthy, in and of itself.

Now perhaps, in the future, the whole thing starts up again, and we've got people dying in greater or lesser numbers down the road.

Two responses: First, they're not dying now, which is a net advantage. Ask any terminally ill patient if he'd like to postpone things for a few months or years.
Second, if you can stabilize the situation, so that people aren't dying, you might be able to put in place negotiations or solutions which will prevent the future imminent crisis.

Frankly, Bolton's moronic approach is to let the house fire run wild down, to let the triage patient spurt blood all over the ambulance... while he pontificates and meanders towards a bigger solution.

Well gosh. Out here in the real world, that means the house burns down to the foundation, it means the patient doesn't make it to the hospital.

And in the case of Lebanon, it may mean the collapse of the Lebanese government, the resumption of the Lebanese civil war, the strengthening of Hezbollah, hundreds or thousands more fatalities, hundreds of thousands of refugees, and many more attacks on Israel.

It may result in the extension of the war to Syria and/or Iran, and in the event of such an extension to Syria and Iran, the potential invasion of Iraq, possible loss of tens or hundreds of thousands of American troops, hundreds or millions of civilian lives, the closing of the straight of Hormuz, deployment of nuclear weapons, worldwide economic collapse and possible worldwide nuclear war.

Why? Because war is always and inherently unpredictable. It is particularly ugly and unpredictable in a situation like this.

Now, I don't know who John Bolton is, don't really care very much. But if he's walking around throwing out bon mots like this then he's in the running for stupidist git on the face of the planet.

Honestly, this reminds me of the time the cat dragged in some stinking half decayed rodent and sat there looking at us like we should be pleased while the thing leaked ooze into the carpet.

You really don't seem to know what you're talking about, Valdron. These bombings have caused lots of civilian casualties. But they're not unrelated to Hizbullah. If you look a little closer you'll see that most of these facilities are transhipment points for missile resupply, which is what Israel is trying to deal with. I take it you've now uncovered evidence that Israel is intentionally bombing UN compounds and refugee convoys. Please do enlighten us.

Finally, don't call people morons here.

Valdron

I like the arterial bleeding analogy but would point out that whereas the individual would indeed bleed to death in a matter of minutes, an entire region can last indefinitely.

As I mentioned, the onus of peace is certainly not exclusively on Israel's shoulders. Olmert today said he would welcome a NATO force to guard the Lebanese border region where Hezbollah has been firing missiles.

This is a concession on Israel's part. What we need now is a similar concession by either Tehran or Damascus.

We can sit here and discuss Israeli/U.S. motives until we are blue in the face but in the end it does not stop people from dying. Even with Israel's ulterior motives in this case, Hezbollah cannot in any circumstances be seen as the victim or as being in the right.

Diplomacy requires negotiation and compromise from both sides of a dispute. I am not convinced that the "Axis" powers are any more willing to negotiate than are the "Allied" powers.

Therein lies the problem.

Purple State

Undoubtedly the exact role of the NATO force would have to be specified well before that organization agrees to take the reigns.

It would work, though, to dispel the notion of a full-scale Israeli invasion. Certainly a NATO mobilization and deployment would only act as a buffer between sides at the Israeli/Lebanese border; not as a force which would maintain a military offensive. That in and of itself should provide some degree of relief to innocent Lebanese civilians.

Of course, Tehran and Damascus would proceed with their propoganda campaigns equally as sinister and deceptive as the efforts of their western counterparts.

I wonder if this is shaking out to be another of the "lesser of two evil's" dichotomies.

For the record, I'm still not happy that you dragged a smelly stinking half eaten rodent in to bleed all over the carpet. Don't do it again.

I like the arterial bleeding analogy but would point out that whereas the individual would indeed bleed to death in a matter of minutes, an entire region can last indefinitely.

No, not really. I'm not looking at places like Somalia or the Congo or Afghanistan with any degree of sanguinity. In any event, we can argue back and forth over your notion of whether a region could last 'indefinitely.' But the lives of those living in that region are hardly 'indefinite.'

Olmert today said he would welcome a NATO force to guard the Lebanese border region where Hezbollah has been firing missiles. This is a concession on Israel's part.

And how is this a concession? It amounts to resolving Israel's security concerns in a manner wholely satisfactory to it. Better than satisfactory. Someone else gets to occupy the country and take the slings and arrows. Is Israel going to pay for third parties to occupy the Lebanese border region?

But still, I'll acknowledge this is a positive step. Certainly it gives Israel what it wants from Lebanon.

I would assume that if Lebanon and Hezbollah are in agreement with this, it would be a significant concession on their part, since it is Lebanese territory that will be occupied and policed by NATO or Third parties.

Indeed, given that it is their territory, it may well be that Lebanon and Hezbollah are making the larger concession. In which case, what else is Israel supposed to offer.

However, I fail to see what Syria and Iran have to do with it. They provide funding and materials to Hezbollah which support both legitimate and illegitimate activities. On the other hand, while they have some influence with Hezbollah, they cannot be said to be in control of it.

They are bystanders at least on the level of the United States, and in all probability, are more neutral than the United States. After all, neither Iran nor Syria are vetoing security council votes, or shipping precision missiles during the middle of combat.

What concessions do you think that Iran or Syria should be obliged to make?

This is a concession on Israel's part. What we need now is a similar concession by either Tehran or Damascus.

I'm struck by the inadvertently humourous phrasing here. So... A similar concession?

Well, perhaps Tehran and Damascus can 'concede' that NATO should occupy the West Bank, East Jerusalem of Gaza? Was that what you were thinking?

Or perhaps Syria should forego its claim on the Golan heights? Iran dismantles its civilian nuclear program. Hmmm.

Perhaps Iran can pay reparations to Lebanon for Israel's bombing? I know, perhaps we can get NATO to park in Tehran and Damascus.

Really now. Tsk, tsk.

Diplomacy requires negotiation and compromise. This is both true and trite.

I'm not going to get into freighted terms like axis and allies.

My own view is that both Hezbollah and Israel for their own reasons sought this war, always a bad thing. I'm perfectly happy to blame both sides. On the other hand, I don't see your construction of the matter as all that helpful.

Valdron

Perhaps my construction of the matter is not all that helpful, but we are talking about war here.

The U.S. and Israel will never simply end the war, admit defeat, and disclose their true ulterior motives. It almost sounds as if that is the end which you seek.

A NATO force at the Israeli/Lebanese border seems, right now, to be the best possible option. It will be, as you say, a third party occupier with no intention of sustaining or waging a military offensive.

It would seem as if this would finally allow for some kind of a diplomatic solution. Though I firmly hold to the tenet that neither side will negotiate unless on their own terms.

Well, at this point, I don't see NATO volunteering.

And, for the record, I'm not sure that a NATO force would be acceptable or would not provoke hostilities. The perception might well be that it is an American or American- proxy force.

But I don't know that an Arab League force would be acceptable to Israel, or the Shiites.

Certainly an Iranian peacekeeping force would be unacceptable to Israel.

A Russian or Chinese peacekeeping force would be unacceptable to America.

So what does that leave? Indians and Latin Americans? I don't think they'd volunteer without UN auspices. Israel doesn't much like the UN, but maybe.

At this point, I'm not particularly concerned with motivations. But I am glad to see some evolution in your position.

idlex

An interesting post. I've mentioned it before but it seems curious that "new" Israel's existence has coincided almost perfectly with the West's addiction to oil. Perhaps "new" Israel will die when the world moves on from crude; and the region.

jdledell, re: morons, I wasn't replying to you but to Valdron. If I did, it was accidental. On the other points I have no doubt horrible things are done in anger, because of quick triggers, etc. Nothing you're saying here I disagree with. Every army is subject to this sort of thing. And it's horrible. What I react strongly to are people here who argue quite self-righteously and with no evidence that Israel is targeting civilians as a matter of policy. I have seen here in the last few days numerous examples of the Israelis being held to a standard I don't see applied anywhere else. Does anyone here remember Fallujah? Or how about Grozny? I think that if you read through what I've written I am very far from calling Israel blameless. But I have seen numerous commenters here painting a very black and white picture from the other perspective.

For the record, I didn't call anyone a moron.

What I said was that John Bolton had made a moronic statement. I'll say it again. John Bolton made a statement that was absolutely without redeeming features and was so absolutely wrongheaded as to be moronic.

What to hear me say it yet again? Go back and read carefully the post in which I originally said it. I didn't call Gettysberg a moron. I didn't even call Bolton a moron.

We were presented with a dangerously stupid quote and I was blunt about calling it stupid. So get over it.

My policy is not to attack the person, but merely the idea. If you can't make that distinction, perhaps you shouldn't be in a debate. You might also want to read a bit more carefully.

Secondly, Fallujah is a goddammed war crime from start to finish, in which the US military targeted ambulances and civilians and an American soldier is on videotape executing a wounded prisoner of war. Grosny is a frikking holocaust. The double standard exists only in your mind.

Your argument that Israel's attacks on ports is merely taking out shipping facilities which are transshipment points for missiles is dishonest nonsense and I presume that you know it.

Some of the ports which have been attacked are in Christian or Sunni areas, which Hezbollah does not and cannot use for transshipment. It's not welcome in these areas, it cannot control shipment through these areas, and there are hostile factions prepared to confiscate.

As for standards of proof, I will assign Israel's actual actions as an adequate standard of proof. Attacking civilian targets with no utility may be either an accident or a deliberate policy. If it happens repeatedly, then you have to put it down to policy. A claim of mere recklessness in killing civilians near hypothetical pseudo-military targets is not a meaningful defense.

It would take a lot of room but many current Arab complaints are also in the UN proceedings, of which I have read some, but not all.

Believing in the rightness of the founding precludes further discussion. No nation has an angelic early history.

Low rating for snide "beloved ancestors".

It seems to me, Gettysburg, to be an historical accident that the land of Israel is adjacent to the most oil-rich region on the planet. I don't think that the founders of Isael were thinking about oil too much.

That said, maybe US support for Israel is in part due to this happy accident, and when the oil is gone, maybe the support will go too.

I'm not sure exactly when the US stepped up behind Israel. I read somewhere yesterday that the French supplied arms to Israel in the 1950s. And Israel wasn't a regional superpower in the 1960s Six Day war like it is now. In some ways, US support for Israel might even be said to have exacerbated the situation, because currently Israel knows that it has powerful foreign support in just about whatever it does, which isn't true of any other state in the region. It's a bit like a rich uncle (Uncle Sam in this case) showing up and paying all your bills for you - you get sloppy and careless and spoilt.

If Israel ever lost Uncle Sam's support, it would have to learn how to be an independent plucky little Israel all over again. I can't see it happening, somehow.

I'm afraid I'm hearing a certain amount of wishful thinking about Iranian capabilities. Specifically, in the Iran-Iraq war, neither side had particularly effective air forces. While they might have gotten standalone missiles, they certainly have not gotten a significant number of aircraft, and, more importantly, given pilots and ground crews extensive training time. If they had, that would be visible to US sensors, and not ultrasecret ones. AWACS would tell a great deal.

That's one of those things we really don't want to find out. But check out any geography map. Mesopotamia is a frikking flood plain. It's flat table-lands. That's why it's been invaded over and over by every two bit steppe nomad for the last 6000 years.

The Americans have air superiority, so the logical strategy would be airstrip denial.

There's no geographical barriers to a land invasion

Iran wouldn't even need a land invasion, a sufficiently thorough missile barrage or a set of special ops missions and that takes the ports out of commission. All you have to do to cripple the ports would be to take out the cranes and derricks that load and unload. Alternately, flood the harbours with mines, firebomb the wharfs...

set of special ops missions

All you have to do to cripple the ports would be to take out the cranes and derricks that load and unload. Alternately, flood the harbours with mines, firebomb the wharfs...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

At the risk of being banned:

1) I didn't call anyone on this thread a moron, and we both know it.

2) I described a Bolton quote (and not Bolton himself) as moronic, and made it a point to explain why it was a stupid statement. I didn't dismiss it without explaining my position. I think that a dangerously stupid argument needs to be exposed as dangerously stupid and called for what it is, or there's a risk people will endorse its apparent reasonability and it'll eventually get people killed. So, I'm perhaps unpleasantly blunt. I think that's fair.

3) As far as whether Israel is deliberately targetting civilian populations, that's a matter for legitimate disagreement. We are within our rights to examine Israel's conduct and statements and come to differing conclusions.

4) "Valdron, you don't know what you're talking about." Sound familiar? On this or other threads, I've heard poster call another deranged, and on other threads I've seen 'anti-semite' used as a whip. It's always a tricky thing to determine the appropriate level of civil discourse, particularly in a heated discussion. I appreciate that you are trying to set and maintain a civil tone. I've always tried to focus on the argument, not the arguer. If I'm challenged, I'll respond. If I'm persuaded I'm wrong, I'll concede. If someone feels I've gone over the edge on them, I'll apologize to them. I'm happy to be intense, I prefer not to be hurtful. I admit that if it gets mean, I tend to get meaner and that's a character flaw, and I acknowledge that its something I should watch. I'm also inclined to use humour and off the wall metaphors, to write informally and convivially. Good writing should entertain and surprise, it should want to keep us reading simply from the pleasure of words dancing one after the other. So, I'm probably not going to give up on occasionally outrageous metaphors and off the wall turns of phrase. But I think it's fair dinkum.

So, here's the thing, Boyo. I'll do my best to be civil as I judge proper civility and respect. And I'll do my best to be thoughtful, on point, perceptive and entertaining. But I won't spend my time looking over my shoulder. I'll tell ya in advance, no hard feelings, its your playground. So, Josh, if you feel like bouncing me, do it now.

Valdron, As you said, I'm trying to set a minimum level that can work for all of us. I'm not threatening to ban you. I am trying, however, to go to extra lengths to ask people to be civil after the events of recent days. Because I think it's important to right the ship, as it were. No one who's been banned from the site has been removed for calling anyone a moron. And you know from my site that I'm not above snark or humor. You don't need to be looking over your shoulder. I'm just asking for some assistance righting the ship. Josh

Be careful about how you use Snark. The US Air Force would like to forget against the SM-62 Snark missile, which was operational for about one month. It may well have been the most inaccurate missile ever built, which is scary when it had a nuclear warhead.

The United States does not confirm or deny that one Snark, fired from Cape Canaveral at Ascension Island in the South Atlantic, was found several years later in the Amazon Delta, with natives praying to it.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Still beats the Russian Snark missile, which was bolted to a tractor and launched back in 1993. We estimate in two more years it will reach Baffin Island.

Not Newfie political commentary? Where's the salmon?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You're mixing and matching your fish species. For the Newfies, its cod. For us Maritimers its salmon.

I'm a New Brunswick boy, for sure. I'll have nothing said against the Newfoundlanders, you'll never meet sweeter, kinder, more decent people this side of heaven.

As for my own people, let's just say we was the ones who thought a thigh bone was just peachy back in that Space Odyssey, and when they perfected the lead pipe, we figured that no more evolving would be necessary.

Gettysburg actually made me think a bit, Josh - and that is very, very difficult to do. All praise to Gettysburg.

And he got me thinking that an Israel which lives off Uncle Sam has become a playboy Israel, strutting its pseudo-stuff.

In many ways, this assault on Lebanon follows the BushCo 'Shock and Awe' playbook: pick on a weak enemy, and blow him away, and call it a victory. I'm pretty sure Olmert will be gloatingly announcing "Mission Accomplished" next week.

But it won't be. It's an utter disaster for Israel. It's a catastrophe that I for one have not wanted.

Stunning. A straight face, huh? I guess if you practice hypocrisy long enough you get good at it.

Most people are taught to look at the big picture.

The point is, the Israeli's and the Muslims will never peacefully co-exist. Even if the West has propped Israel up as a proxy in the desert protecting the oil interests, the Jews themselves have an agenda which is likely more steadfast than our own; namely, to regain ALL of the ground which they believe God granted them(including, it seems, some land which He did NOT grant them).

You are correct that there are a few contemporary ceasefire examples which resulted in a cessation of hostilities if not peace. The Israeli/Middle East issue, however, has never had anything close to a longstanding peace.

You mention the past wars between these two sides yet fail to mention the even more numerous diplomatic accords which have failed over the years. President Clinton worked admirably for eight years trying to be reasonable with both sides and even his efforts proved to be futile.

Every instance of deflated hostilities in the region has been preceeded by war. This is likely no different. The war will continue right now as a relatively minor military engagement until a cease-fire is agreed upon either by the conflicting parties or through the mediating international community.

I believe you will get your wish granted. There will be a cease-fire but nothing will be solved. History will more than likely show that this was simply another in a string of many violent clashes over the years in which thousands of innocent civilians died.

If you have enough cash to buy a new car, don't elect periodic financing.

It'll cost you more in the long term.

I have to agree with Dan K. Whether or not one wants to get into the complicated business of deciding if an attack on civilians is a "war crime," it seems increasingly hard to deny that Israel is (with some selectivity, perhaps) targeting "villages" as well as infrastructure, and is in general seeking to make the Shiite population regret its support for Hezbollah. Indeed, I've seen arguments to the effect that Christian sites have been targeted as an object-lesson. Nothing surprising about this behavior: it's one version of the effort to dry up the sea in which guerillas live. But like most such efforts in the modern era, this one seems doomed to failure (just as the bombing of Dresden didn't turn the civilian population against the German regime).

Whether Olmert is out of his depth, I don't know, but if press reports are to be believed, this operation has been well-planned, outlined to the Pentagon at least a year ago, and just waiting for a pretext. See Matthew Kalman in the SF Gate (ref via Laura Rozen).

What Israel is doing here may be more nuanced than what the US did in Fallujah or Putin in Grozny. But I don't think it's different in kind.

Newsflash for you guy's! As we all dig deeply for the truth here on TPMCafe the rumors fly in the Islamic communities around the world!

The big one is that the 2 soldiers were captured on Lebanese soil not kidnapped within Israel. "What the hellll? they can't say that! it's a dammmn lie I tell you!" At this point it does not matter if it's true or not. It makes very good spin and leaves Hezballah blameless and about every Muslim in the world is going to believe it. Why would they believe it? Need you ask? There have been so many lies told to the world since 2001 the Islamic communitiy refuses to believe anything America say's or any news agency say's in English. No credability, that's right 0 credability in the Middle East and the entire Muslim World. How could they believe America is fair anymore when you have Bolton and Condi laughing and smiling on Fox and CNN all the while 1 Million people are being diplaced and thousands of Lebanese children scream in fear and hundreds scream in pain. The news currently is showing people on the beach in Tel Aviv and one man in Haifa who will have to move out of his home because it has a hole in the wall and in Lebanon they are showing hundreds of collapsed buildings some with legs and arms sticking out of the rubble, sustained bombardment from the ground and air along with mass graves being dug and filled with bodies and parts of bodies.

"Bury my heart in Beirut!" Good thing the Indians did'nt have the Internet at Sand Creek! Bryan Lee

How many Americans have been kidnapped and murdered in Mexico? If we were to attack Mexico next at least the guy's could come home for the weekends. While of course this is a terrible and illconcieved idea in reality, If we used Israels kind of thinking and George Bush really was a Cowboy with a real Cowboy Hat we could easily justify the sustained bombing and ethnic cleansing it would take to create a Mexican buffer zone like what we are currently undertaking by proxy in Lebanon. Why would we do such a thing? How many American children have died from drugs that came through Mexico? Look back on the justifications used to attack Panama and give it a thought. Now why do we not attack Mexico? Because for the most part Americans are decent people who give a damn about their fellow man and Mexico is seen as a Christian Nation. The Middle East is just the oppisite, Churches throughout the Bible Belt of America preach every sunday that Muslims are going straight to hell and that the young boys in the church should go to the Military then the Middle East to fight a justified fight against the heathen godless animals who beat and enslave women, rape whoever they can catch and want to take over the world and charge them a tax for being Christian. Need I say more? Nobody on this forum or the western world would allow the kinds of hate speech directed at Muslims to be directed at any other group yet it continues.

While its true that there are a few soft balls being pitched in the Cafe, and its also true some Democrats who are anti-War high five every time Israel drops a bomb on anyone, To the credit of Josh I have never seen anything on TPM and its sister sites that I would consider hate speech directed at Muslims, Thanx Josh.

As far as anyone thinking Im a racist or anyone else is for speaking out against this current action they should spend a little time thinking about it before pointing fingers.

The trick with big pictures is not to lose sight of the details, otherwise that big picture does no god at all.

I don't propose to continue this line of discussion interminably. But I will make a series of observations.

I don't see how Israel acts as a proxy to protect oil interests. If anything they're an irritant in the smooth running of those interests.

Second, your thesis that 'there will always be war' in the middle east, is both fashionably cynical and undermines Rice and Bolton's argument that root causes should be addressed instead of pursuing a ceasefire... In your rendition, the root causes are insoluble. The solution which follows from that is to simply let Israel bomb away.

Besides which, I question your statement. Both Jordan and Egypt have signed peace treaties with Israel. Jordan has not had hostilities with Israel for 39 years. Egypt for 33 years. Even Syria has not had a significant military conflict with Israel in 23 years. It's worth noting that Syria has made peace initiatives with Israel which have been rebuffed.

The point is that for state actors, peace with Israel is both possible, and has been achieved formally or informally.

Israel's main military problem these days is terrorism, and this terrorism arises mostly from illegal occupations and border incidents in which it is an instigator as often as it is a victim.

True, Clinton did work for eight years to try and bring the parties together. That wasn't futile. The PLO did make concessions. Hamas in the last year signalled a willingness to make concessions. But the peace process failed at Oslo, at least in part because Israel insisted on conditons that would have made the occupied territories a stateless Indian reservation.

It's all very nice to generalize and be apocalyptic and all that. But even your big picture isn't terribly reflective of facts or internally logical.

Larry

Your what to do really did not say too much. What would you propose doing? It would seem obvious that an immediate reduction of oil use would be a good it so as to reduce the cash flowing to the Middle East. It would also seem to be a good idea for the United States to have conduits to all parties so as to find out what deals might be reached. Beyond that what are you actually proposing?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Let me preface my suggestions to say that I am definitely confused on what is going on with Syria. On one hand, I understand they are providing refuge for US nationals in Syria. There was mention that Israel wanted a most-wanted-Hamas from Syria to give to Lebanon. Meanwhile, there are rumors of both US and Israeli action against Syria. I don't doubt that the Ophthalmologist Leader may need glasses, but I have yet to see a self-consistent summary.

As far as actions, I would like to know that the House/Senate intelligence committees review, in executive session, that US human intelligence (still mostly, IIRC, in CIA) has deniable contacts with various actors within Hezbollah, Hamas, and probably area. The public report should not have any details, since those can get people killed.

Nevertheless, one of the traditional deniable functions of a national intelligence agency is to have communications channels with the enemy. To have a safe metaphor, it would be having ways to talk to both Michael Collins and Eamon de Valera in Ireland after the Home Rule Act.

To get into murky ground, are there "moderates" in any of these organizations?

The legislation banning contact with freely elected Hamas is a parody of the democratic process. Repeal it.

Have Congress, or, failing that, an independent foundation-supported group, do a detailed bomb damage assessment of Lebanon, and publish a report of what Israel is doing based on their actual actions. If it appears that Israel is violating Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which makes collective punishment a war crime, the US should send a formal diplomatic protest to Israel (i.e., a demarche), coupled with conditional ultimatums (plural) to cut off various resupply, intelligence support, etc. unless actions are brought under control.

I remind all that the basic arms control philosophy that worked with the Soviets was "trust, but verify." The Administration, Israel, and the Congress must understand that no nation -- if anyone does, it's the UK -- gets a blank check and free pass.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The above sentiment is not shared by James Kitfield in his foreign affairs piece in this week's National Journal.

I'm not familiar with the Kitfield piece. Can you lay out his thinking or his evidence?

Ambassador Khalilzad, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington: "Iran sees itself as the natural hegemon, entitled to regional domination,

With approximately half the population and territory in the region, and the rest of the region divided up into twelve states, some of them quite tiny, I wonder why?

Realistically, Iran's size, resources and population, in comparison to the region's other states, does tend to make it the natural top dog. The situation is roughly equivalent to Germany in Europe. Inevitably, Iran will be a dominant force in the region unless artificially suppressed.

Indeed, this was the role groomed for Iran by the United States in the era of the Shah. So arguably, Iran has simply absorbed its tutoring.

... it doesn't want Iraq to reemerge to play that role."

And Iraq plays France to Iran's Germany, they even have their Alsace-Lorraine in the form of overlapping Shiite and Sunni populations.

Initially, the Soviets groomed Iraq to challenge US domination through Iran. Then when Iran had its revolution, the US switched sides to Saddam Hussein, who threw the Soviets out. So, for a period of twelve years, Iraq could play America's proxy and regional hegemon. That lasted right up until the Gulf war.

Of course, any talk of Iraq's re-emergence as a regional power in its own right is rather mischievous, considering that the American occupation seems bent on dismantling the country in every particular. Iraq is headed for the stone age and civil war, not regional hegemony.

"Tehran clearly believes that Bush's warnings of "regime change," which appeared very serious just three years ago, now amount to empty threats."

I think its a 'worst of both worlds' situation. The Iranians believe the threats are genuine, but ineffectual. That is, the United States really does want regime change, is working covertly and overtly to implement regime change, and would use military means if it could. However, circumstances render the enemy impotent.

It does not make for good relations when your neighbor is trying to kill you. And it doesn't excuse the intention to say that he is incompetent or impotent. Sooner or later, he may get something right.

The sane response on the part of the Iranians would be hostility and proactive self defense.

" In fact, Iranian efforts to arm and train al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army" disturbingly resemble the blueprint Iran followed with Hezbollah [sic] in Lebanon and Palestinian terror groups in Gaza and the West Bank. ..."

I really had to question this one. The Mahdi Army is anti-Iranian nationalists with no discernible ties to Iran. In fact, one of Sadr's criticisms of Sistani is the cleric's Iranian connections. There is no evidence that the Iranians are arming and training the Mahdi Army who still appear to be a somewhat disorganized (though enthusiastic) rabble. Whatever improvements we see in that militia are better attributed to incorporating discharged Saddam era officers and sargeants.

I suspect that Khalilzad may really be referring to the Badr Brigades, which genuinely are backed by Iran and connected to Iran supported political groups. Still, this is the sort of blunder that really undermines the credibility of Khalilzad.

In any event, the fact that the Badr organize along Hezbollahs lines only suggest that people observe something works and then they go with and copy that. I assume that Hezbollahs structure and organization is hardly a huge secret.

I also have to question that Iran followed a secret blueprint to create Hezbollah. Looking at the history of the organization in the context of the Lebanese civil war, it appears very much an organic growth. That is, it seems to have evolved and developed naturally through local initiatives and trial and error in response to local conditions. There was no 'blueprint', and it certainly wasn't an Iranian 'blueprint.'

The only force that can challenge them in the region is the U.S. military, which I believe is helping generate Iran's push to acquire nuclear weapons in order to deter us."

Well, as it turns out, there isn't actually any evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. All the evidence so far is that Iran's nuclear program is civilian and aimed at civilian purposes. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and its conduct has remained within the terms of that treaty.

The issue is whether certain nuclear technologies, specifically, the 'fuel enrichment' cycle are potentially 'dual use.' That is, developing a civilian fuel enrichment cycle would be a key step, and would give Iran the ability to convert this civilian technology to military applications relatively quickly, within a year or two.

The best estimates are that Iran is approximately 10 years from a nuclear weapon. One nuclear weapon sans delivery system gives you nothing, so we add two to five years to generate a sufficient stockpile of nuclear weapons and effective delivery systems to be pose a credible threat. So, we're looking at as much as fifteen years.

The most hysterical semi-credible assumptions place an Iranian nuclear weapon at three to five years. Factor in time for stockpile and delivery systems, that's five to ten years.

Bottom line, that doesn't sound like a 'push.' to me.

Iran perceives itself to be stronger than the U.S. in the Middle East at this time. Iran has the second largest oil deposits in the world but no means by which to refine it. Iran has a lot of cash. Is this enough for Iran to take on the U.S.?

I doubt that they would want to do that. The Iranians last taste of war was far from pleasant for them. And in terms of American military might, they can count fighter jets and aircraft carriers as well as the next person. I would not believe that they are itching for a military confrontation, though they will probably fight if forced to.

But why should they want to fight. They see that the United States is losing and losing badly in Iraq and will eventually be driven out. The political forces that are ascendent in Iraq are their natural allies and friends.

The Iranians see a future where the Americans are driven in disgrace from Iraq, with a consequent loss of face and support throughout the region. Iran moves in with trade, reconstruction and political and military alliances to support and rebuild the prostrate Iraqi's.

The result is an Iraq/Iran axis which amounts to the middle eastern equivalent of the Franco/German economic/political bloc. To this bloc they add Syria, which gives them access to the Meditteranean and from there Europe. The three nation coalition boasts 120 million people and a large chunk of the worlds oil and gas reserves.

From there, the smaller Persian Gulf states, like Kuwait, Quatar, Oman, the UAE, many with Shiite majorities or large Shiite minorities, fall into line as Satellite economies.

This leaves only Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, though large, is mostly desert, though populous will have less than a fifth of the population of the new Iranian axis, and its economy is, apart from oil, underdeveloped. Saudi Arabia too has a large Shiite minority.

The United States is a spent force in the region. The Saudi's can still play the Americans for what they're worth. But they'll have to deal with the Iran/Iraq/Syria alliance. The reality will be that they're England in the new Europe. Standoffish but increasingly irrelevant.

This is how the Iranians see it all playing out. And the Iranians do not see that they need to fire a single bullet to accomplish it.

I don't see how Israel acts as a proxy to protect oil interests. If anything they're an irritant in the smooth running of those interests.

I don't know what Gettysburg meant by that, but when Israel defeated Egypt in 1967, they put an end to Nasser's Pan-Arab movement, and the oppressive authoritarian Arab regimes were made more secure. That could suggest that Israel made our oil supply safer, at least until the Yom Kippur war.

I think I understand what has happened now. And it's that the Israeli military didn't just buy US hardware, but also the military doctrine that came with it - the doctrines of 'invincible force' and of 'shock and awe'. For something like a generation, the Israeli miltary have been studying in US military colleges where the header you write on your class notebook is 'Invincible Force'.

The old Israeli military, generals like Moshe Dayan, didn't do things by the rule books. They broke all the rules. They did the unexpected. They fooled their enemies. But they're all gone now, and they've been replaced by military-college-graduate generals. Did Hannibal attend military college? Did Julius Caesar? Did Alexander?

And the military doctrine of 'invincible force' is a doctrine devoid of imagination. It boils down to getting yourself a very big stick, and giving your enemy such a whack with it that you bowl him straight over. The 1991 Gulf war was the showpiece example of 'invincible force'. And in some ways the Iraq war up to "Mission Accomplished" was another demonstration.

And all these college-educated Israeli generals have been just dying to show that they can do it too. And last week they got their opportunity, and launched 'Shock and Awe' upon Lebanon. We've been treated to footage of bombs landing with pinpoint accuracy on Beirut airport, and on viaducts and bridges. See! We can do it too!

The only slight problem was that they launched this assault on the wrong enemy. They should have been attacking Hezbollah, but instead they attacked Lebanon. It's an easy mistake to make, particularly if you've always been taught that wars are fought between states, with big armies and lots of airplanes and bombs. When Israeli generals looked north, all they could see was Lebanon. So they hit Lebanon. And Hezbollah is probably almost entirely intact. In fact, for sure it is: they're still firing rockets into Israel.

Israel has lost this war. If you attack the wrong enemy, it's all over. You demonstrate to your enemy, and to the world, that you are a fool. Hezbollah generals (if they have generals) must have nearly died laughing this past week. They're probably still bursting into fits of giggles even now, when a bit late in the day, the Israeli army is largely unsuccessfully trying to oust Hezbollah from one or two villages in southern Lebanon.

If I'm right, and the generation of cunning, quick-thinking Israeli generals has been replaced by a bunch of dickwads out of military college, then Israel really is facing defeat. Not just defeat in Lebanon, but defeat in every battle it fights.

What happens when Israelis find out that they've got a no-hope army defending them?

For something like a generation, the Israeli miltary have been studying in US military colleges where the header you write on your class notebook is 'Invincible Force'.

' If I'm right, and the generation of cunning, quick-thinking Israeli generals has been replaced by a bunch of dickwads out of military college, then Israel really is facing defeat.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

One needs to look very carefully at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the observers who may become full members. Incidentally, if there is a shift in power to the SCO, US-Indian relations probably get much more important.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Who was it who wrote a couple of years ago the "neocons are the only people who use the term hegemon".  Was it Sy Hersh?  I can't remember.  At any rate, I'd be very careful about accepting truth from Khalizad - at least run his words through my truth-test wringer 4 or 5 times. 

Iran is doing something much more substantial than building A-bombs to deter the US, it's making lucrative bidness deals with Russia, China, India, Pakistan and so on, indeed under the umbrella of the SCO.  Many analysts I've read can't quite decide if it is credible to call the SCO a new Warsaw Pact - so at least you can be assured the potential to be that is there.

Neoboho

It's impossible to sort out what's going on without taking into account the extraordinary levels of censorship being applied to news coverage from the Israeli front. It would behoove the tv news providers to let their viewers know that they are being served up information that has already been sliced, diced and cooked up by Israeli censors.Fat chance.

The new rules:
Following are the main censorship guidelines regarding the continuation of military operations in the north, with emphasis on ground warfare on the northern border.
The guidelines in this document are comprehensive and refer to the option of large-scale military activity. The relevant guidelines should also be applied to the current ground operations.

Please brief editors, producers, broadcasters, correspondents with emphasis on field correspondents and other network employees on these guidelines in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
Due to the frequent broadcasts and the many live updates considerable attention should be given to what is said by the correspondents in the field. Please make sure that any correspondent/analyst in the field knows the censorship guidelines. The potential error during a live update is very high and you are held responsible for everything broadcast during a live update.
This document has been sent to local news agencies as well.
This document is the follow-up to the former document "The Fighting In The Northern Arena".

Sincerely,
Col. Sima Vaknin-Gil
Chief Censor

The Censorship Guidelines Regarding Ground Operations In The North For Reports And Live Updates.

General:
1. This document will detail the main guidelines regarding operations
on the northern border by the Censor.
2. This document contains three main topics: general guidelines for
news coverage, coverage of activity leading to the ground operation and the coverage of the combat itself.
3. Any news item that is not within these boundaries must be submitted to the Censorship before it is published.

General guidelines:
4. Coverage of any kind, that states intent, specific/general abilities
and/or any operational activity (in a live broadcast) is not authorized by the Censorship. In principle, analysis based on matters that were approved for publication is allowed.
5. In a case where a news item is not within the boundaries given by
the Chief Censor, the issue should be dealt with by the two censorship bases either in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
6. There is a special emphasis on matters regarding the activity of
special forces and the use of unique kinds of ammunition and weaponry.
7. In principle, news items on the intelligence abilities / lack of
abilities during the operation will not be authorized.

Coverage of activity leading to ground operation:
The censorship does not approve any verbal information or visual photography that attest to:
8. The military order-of-battle.
9. The type of force, the forces' special abilities and warfare
equipment.
10. Movement routes.
11. Assembly areas and deployments.
12. Information on forces transferring from one area to another (thinning of forces).
13. Locations of command posts.
14. It is strictly forbidden to mention the time and location in which the army forces might enter the enemy's territory.
15. The codename of the operation will be approved for publication only from the moment it begins.
16. Pictures of the army forces will be approved as long as the location in which they were taken is not disclosed.

The live coverage of the combat itself:
17. It is strictly forbidden to show a picture of the full battle coverage,
with an emphasis of identifying the location (long shot pictures).
18. It is strictly forbidden to mention military targets while these
targets are being pursued.
19. It is strictly forbidden, until the information is cleared by the
censorship, to publish information concerning missing personnel and captives (from both sides).
20. Coverage of aerial accidents in Israeli territory can only be approved by the censor. In hostile territory, this information will not be approved until the evacuation of the staff and equipment from that area is completed.
21. It is strictly forbidden to conduct real time coverage on visits of
officials. Interviews and photography will be approved later, after the end of the visit.
22. During an incident - authorization for coverage of the reasons for the incident will be given as long as there is no breach of Israeli security concerns (thus personal opinions and analyses for the reasons of the incident are allowed).
23. Coverage of an incident with casualties - as always, must be submitted to the censorship.

To China and Russia, Washington's "democratic reform program" is a thinly disguised method for the US to militarily dispose of unfriendly regimes in order to ensure the country's primacy as the world's sole superpower. The China-Iran-Russia alliance can be considered as Beijing's and Moscow's counterpunch to Washington's global ambitions. From this perspective, Iran is integral to thwarting the Bush administration's foreign policy goals. This is precisely why Beijing and Moscow have strengthened their economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran. It is also why Beijing and Moscow are providing Tehran with increasingly sophisticated weapons.

dupe

Another response to the criticism of Israel that is driving me nuts is the oft repeated spin that everything is OK because Israel told the population to leave. How'd they like it if someone re-wrote Fiddler on the Roof with a Lebanese theme? My criticism extends to virtually every Democrat in Congress. What is it about the Lebanese that makes them exempt from the human attachment to hearth and home? What is it about the age old "A man's home is his castle" building block of liberty that doesn't apply?

There is no question that religious fundamentalists have great power, the democratic model isn't what we'd like it to be, and there is anti-Americanism in Iran. At the same time, Iran, or perhaps more correctly, Persia, has a long, long historic record of forming alliances. Even when it was invaded and conquered, more than almost any culture, it tended to assimilate the conqueror (brief sigh as I think of assorted Persian-American women I have known. Unfortunately, it never worked out that we were both single at the time).

The culture supports communication. Look at Afghanistan, and the ease that they went into a council of warlords -- the language already had the concept of the loya jirga. Anyone that mutters about warlords might give some thought to what came out of a council of warlords at Runnymede.

*rolls eyes at axis of evil* Other than political positions, there really aren't obstacles to some limited concessions to Iran, to get a line of communications. It's more important than their becoming a full member of SCO, or, if they do, they talk to us.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I wasn't thinking of any particular military colleges. I was thinking of On the Psychology of Military Incompetence by Norman F Dixon, in which he pointed out the characteristic traits:

A conservative and traditional attitude, often marked by the misuse or rejection of newer technology and the inability to learn from experience.

Rejection of information which challenges preconceptions.

Overestimating the abilities of one's own side and underestimating those of the enemy.

Indecisiveness and the inability to consider swift action, marked by a failure to exploit battlefield gains.

Over-persistence.

Frontal assaults and brute force over surprise, deception and/or tactical skill.

In defeat, the search for scapegoats and the suppression of information.

A belief in fate or luck rather than a rational assessment.

In fact, one does not need to consider psychology, or even the military. All one need consider is the difference between college learning and practical experience in any walk of life.

In colleges of every sort, one is almost invariably taught how to do things in an approved traditional manner. It is only when you start living real life that you find that much of what you have been taught is outdated, redundant, and in some cases plain wrong. The real innovative thinking largely goes on outside colleges, and it's done by people with hands-on practical experience. Only then does it get included in a college curriculum. And so colleges (of any sort) are invariably a step or two behind the latest thinking. In military colleges, you usually learn how to fight the last war. This may actually be useful in fighting the next war, or it may be an obstruction.

What is quite clear about the Israeli military is that they're all geared up to fight the last war, and they've got all the heavy tanks and F-16s and laser-guided bombs to fight it, and the military doctrines that accompany it. Unfortunately, they don't have an enemy like Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard to fight any more. Instead they have, in Hezbollah and Hamas, an innovative enemy who has thrown away the old rule book, and started doing things differently. And the Israeli army doesn't know what to do about it. And it has absurdly lashed out at a state, Lebanon, because it only knows how to fight states.

In time, faced with the real life practical problem of fighting Hezbollah and Hamas, some Israeli general will think of some way to do it. But he hasn't showed up yet.

In the meantime, the Israeli military would do no better than to invite a Hezbollah general to teach them the Hezbollan art of war. Or perhaps, better still, they might even manage to get Osama bin Laden to give them a talk.

I'm so sorry I misunderstood your reference to "dickwads" at American military colleges not actually referring to any American military colleges, and your presumably neutral reference being a work titled On the Psychology of Military Incompetence. Have you also read studies such as The Professional Soldier by Morris Janowitz, or The Soldier and the State by Samuel Huntington?

OK. So, you have condemned military colleges based on a text on military incompetence. Since, by your own admission, you weren't speaking of any specific military college, you don't actually know what is taught at the Army War College, the National Defense University, the Command and General Staff College, or the School of Advanced Military Studies? Is that a correct statement? You have no facts, only secondary interpretations?

Is your idea of a "military college" an entry-level school such as West Point, as opposed to the midcareer and senior colleges I mentioned, most of which are accredited to issue graduate degrees?

Do understand that I believe the Israeli strategy, as best we can see it, to be incompetent at best. Nevertheless, the responsibility is Israeli, not American doctrinal institutions.

In military colleges, you usually learn how to fight the last war.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

And by the way, Human Rights Watch is suggesting exactly that Israel is not differentiating between military and civilian targets (from the guardian) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1827926,00.html):

While Israeli missiles continue to strike vehicles full of desperate refugees fleeing their villages in south Lebanon, Israel is also accused of targeting a large number of homes and office buildings used only by civilians.

Researchers for Human Rights Watch, the New York-based non-governmental organisation, say they have compiled details on the deaths of more than a quarter of the roughly 400 Lebanese killed by the air strikes Israel launched a fortnight ago. "We've investigated the results of air campaigns in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the pattern here is different. They're hitting civilians time and time again," Peter Bouckaert, a long-serving Human Rights Watch investigator, said.

"Just because the Israelis are using smart weapons doesn't mean they're hitting military targets," he added. "The Israelis seem to make no discrimination between military and civilian targets."

[...]
The Human Rights Watch researchers are convinced from Ahmed Ali's description that the family was injured by at least two cluster bomblets, which entered the basement, releasing metal fragments. The weapons are a standard part of Israel's arsenal and were used by them in Lebanon in the 1980s.

A separate team of Human Rights Watch investigators photographed cluster munitions with Israeli forces near the Lebanese border in recent days. The photographs show M483A1 "dual purpose improved conventional munitions", which are produced in the United States.

"Our prior research in Iraq and Kosovo clearly shows that cluster munitions cannot be used in populated areas without huge loss of civilian life. Human Rights Watch calls upon the Israeli military to immediately cease the use of indiscriminate weapons like cluster munitions in Lebanon," Mr Bouckaert said.

For example, we might be better-off wooing Iran than threatening it.

They offered us their help after 9/11.

God, the possibilities that the world offered on September 12, 2001.....

I've always been of the opinion that Persians cook rice better than anyone else in the world**. Hot Potato just doesn't fit.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

** OK, Dari-speaking Afghans too.

Yes, I have a pretty decent idea of current thinking, since, silly me, I actually read the documents out of the military colleges and research institutes. After you disclaim any actual knowledge, and are rather proud of it, (hint: the US political leadership isn't allowing a lot of military thinking to be applied), we have

And there's nothing wrong in thinking in generalisations. or, for that matter, Newspeak

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You clearly don't want to discuss, but simply to be right.

I have never been right about anything in my life. And I don't intend to start now.

It's subtle, but I have to defend my choice of worn-out phrases.  If it were not for the patato, we wouldn't be in this mess today.  

But rice is good too.  Remember that war between China and India that was called-off because neither army could cook rice at the altitude of the battlefield? 

Neoboho

Mao Tse Singh?

Neoboho

Please learn how to read, Taylor. I said if you as an American were to oppose the U.S. doing what Israel is doing in the hypothetical situation of Detroit being hit with rockets launched from Windsor by a bunch of thugs who were part of the Canadian government, then that opposition woiuld be treasonous.

Horatio

I wrote that statement because I find the timing of Israel's newfound existence (the Zionist movement of the mid 20th century) to be strangely parallel to the West's interests in Middle Eastern oil.

Perhaps it is a coincidence. Perhaps it isn't.

if you as an American were to oppose the U.S. doing what Israel is doing in the hypothetical situation of Detroit being hit with rockets launched from Windsor by a bunch of thugs who were part of the Canadian government, then that opposition woiuld be treasonous.

So if in that situation, someone were to suggest sending in special ops to target and assassinate the leadership, before invading; or if someone were to argue against the necessity of bombing the airport for example, such a person would be treasonous and deserving of execution.

That may not be a very popular opinion, but if you're looking for someone to agree with you, Ann Coulter is probably a safe bet.

I regret that I am single, so I cannot have either started or stopped beating my wife. There is no way to reply to such sweeping generalizations about the relevance of military forces, in a world in which a significant number of people find it much easier to kill than negotiate.

I see no evidence that your mind is open to any discussion of actual modern military thinking. Supporting this position is your dismissal of any reason for you to actually read any military doctrinal publications.

I have other things to do with my time than serve as straight man for your prejudices.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Both. To dismiss military capability as inherently evil, however, is rather like smart gamblers watching the lion lie down with the lamb. The house bets that the lion will be the one to rise.

Did you have a specific observation or question, or was that another generalization?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*