A couple of questions for you:

1)Why are you so upset that the United States did not provide Israel with an "opt out" clause just after the start of the invasion? Have you forgotten that Israel only exists because of the United States? Moreover, has it never occurred to you that most of the Arab world's hatred for the U.S. comes not necessarily because of its coercive oil policies but because of its undying support of Israel? Expecting, as you do, the United States to solve all of Israel's problems (i.e. negotiating a peace on its behalf) is akin to a 50 year old millionaire asking his 230 year old grandmother to wipe his ass.

2)Why are you so convinced that diplomatic negotiations will work with Iran, Syria, Hamas, and even Hezbollah? You cannot provide one single instance where anything truly substantive with regard to lasting peace has occurred between Israel and any of its neighbors. Unless, of course, you mention the brief periods of 'low hostility' that typically follow military clashes. Indeed, when this current situation ends in Lebanon it is likely that there will be some months of low hostility to follow.

And then there will be another war. Just like there is EVERY time. History neither lies nor fails to repeat itself.

In my opinion, Neocons in the Bush administration are trying to widen the Middle East conflict to Iran and Syria, not stop it. The Bush administration is laying the conditions for regional conflagration so we will be “in wartime” during the November Congressional elections. Consider this speculation on the Internet a couple of months ago: Karl Rove’s agenda is to keep the Republicans in power in Congress and thus assure no significant action is instituted against President Bush for his past or present actions or policies by having an “October Surprise.” Karl Rove needs some real meat to work with, considering Bush’s very low approval rating, so at the least we will see some dangerous saber rattling against Iran and Syria for political purposes. We should expect plenty of time-tested fear-mongering from Rove. I fear it may go beyond just rattling the sabers. Will Congress block any Administration move to go to war ?

Have you forgotten that Israel only exists because of the United States?

I'm not sure this statement can be justified. As I understand it, America had no role in Israel's early formation, circa 1920 - 1948. Thereafter, Israel's principal western sponsor was France until around 1967.

By the time the United States became Israel's patron, it had already won its critical wars. In the early 70's prior to the Yom Kippur war, it was believed to have developed its own nuclear deterrent.

In short, Israel does not owe its existence to the United States.

True, America has provided massive amounts of aid and financing to Israel, and without that aid and financing, Israel would likely have to (a) Accept a reduced standard of living; (b) Find some other western patron, either France or the USSR/Russia; (c) Perhaps stop oppressing the Palestinians and be more motivated to make peace with its opponents on more even terms.

But existence? Nah.

You cannot provide one single instance where anything truly substantive with regard to lasting peace has occurred between Israel and any of its neighbors.

Hmmm well, Jordan and Israel have not had military conflict for almost 40 years and have signed a peace treaty. That's actually pretty good.

And Egypt, Israel's largest and most powerful neighbor (and lets be serious, the only real threat on its immediate borders) signed a peace treaty and has been on good relations with Israel for thirty years.

You have to admit, that's not bad.

An I right in deducing you believe that , to some extent , Olmert attacked Lebanon to store up credit with the Israeli public which he could later employ to sell them on a substantial withdrawal from the West Bank ?

Do you think we Israelis enjoy being the cannon-fodder for the Cheney-neocon-Christian Right concoction of regional make-over with a touch of Rapture readiness.

I suspect not. De you think we Americans enjoy being the targets of terror attacks launched against us by Arabs who are angry over our decades of unflinching military and diplomatic support for Israel?

Mr. Levy, I read your earlier attack when it appeared in Ha'aretz and strongly agree. I have been trying to make the same arguments (through the prism of my own political optic) here as well. First, I think the dimensions of the problems created by the neocons tactic both here (US-Iraq) and in Israel-Lebanon are much greater and deeper than we can presently foresee. I do not know how to tiptoe around the assessment that the Israeli response has been nearly a total failure. Not as bad as Iraq, certainly, but horrific. And the military problems of an unrealistic cease-fire resolution such as the one Bush has "generously" given Israel, will be less effective in the end than a less friendly one, that is more rooted in the geo-political reality and less on the fantasies in the Bush-neocon brain. There has been a shift in the Arab world since 1967 and 1973. The newer lightweight long distance rocketry puts a very potent weapon in the hands of a rag-tag Army. This problem (for Israel) will get worse, not better, as time progresses and no overall peace agreement is signed. I remember Arab (PLA) negotiators regretting the missed opportunity of leaving the Clinton-brokered agreement on the table; I think the Israeli side will now regret their deliberate embrace of an exclusively military attempt to impose its will on the key problems in the Middle East.
If there is a strong anti-neocon counterweight both here and in Israel we may have a political way out. But it really seems to require more visible opposition in Israel to the neocon ideas that are so self-destructive; this would help provide some ability here to question the present mindless support (of both political parties)for neocon Middle East politics regarding Israel. A refashioned politics here and in Israel might have some hope of actually negotiating a broad peace agreement.

The Administration’s 3-week unwillingness to back a ceasefire removed Israel’s only real exit strategy.

I don't understand this. Israel is not exactly tied down to an occupation in Lebanon. So far, it has only launched air strikes and incursions. It can announce a cessation of its military operations at any time. There is every reason to believe that when it does, Hizbollah will stop firing rockets. So far, Nasrallah has done exactly what he has said he would do.

Your whole essay is based on the premise that Israel is not responsible for its own actions.

You seem to hypothesize (a) that Israeli leaders and military planners "gamed out" this war with an expectation that they would be permitted to degrade Hizbollah for a few days, and "knock them off balance," until the US fairly rapidly stepped step in to force a cease-fire, (b) that this exit strategy was developed without consultation and coordination with US leaders and planners, who apparently had other plans (c) that when Israeli leaders asked for more time to smash Hezbollah, this was only "an understandable part of their sales pitch for domestic consumption and of their military psych-ops", and (d) that American leaders should have grasped this reality and are "AWOL" for failing to provide a ladder for Israel to climb down from its own bloody military campaign, and its "understandable" psy-ops and domestic propaganda needs!

Aside from the fact that I think your theory rests on the assumption of a level of miscommunication and misinterpretation of intentions between the incestuous American and Israeli leadership that is laughably implausible, I am also struck by the breathtaking, spoiled arrogance of the suggestion that it is Israel's role to act out with whatever ruthlessness and misinformation it chooses, and America's role to force them to stop.

You sound like a teenager who says, "it is my role as rebellious adolescent to get drunk at parties and then race cars at 120 MPH down Main Street. It is your job as responsible dad to call me on my cell phone and force me to come home, and give me a face-saving way out of the life-threatening situation I have put myself in. And when I swear and scream at you to let me stay, your job is to grasp that the screaming is all an act designed to impress my friends, and is quite understandable after all."

Well, as a matter of fact, I do have several bones to pick with the neocon jackasses who are running ny country. But I also have a suggestion. Why don't you let us Americans take care of changing our own stupid leadership, while you pay attention to your own country and your own leadership. And instead of passing the buck, and whining about the negligent failure of Americans to bail you out of your reckless adventures, why don't you take responsibility for your own damn country and its actions.

You may have noticed that there is a sizeable contingent of American soldiers in Iraq, who were most likely sent there as part of a grand plan to remake the Middle East into a more Israel-friendly place. I am sure they will be delighted to learn that well-placed Israelies think America is "AWOL".

So Olmert launched the war to undermine the chances for the sort of peace he had just campaigned for in his election and also left the Likud for? That makes a lot of sense.

And then there will be another war. Just like there is EVERY time. History neither lies nor fails to repeat itself.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

More than that. Maintaining a tough image as credit to sell a substantial withdrawal could have been achieved by a short sharp collective punishment campaign followed by prisoner exchange as usual.

Instead Israel has now committed itself to keeping thousands of troops in south Lebanon until replaced by an international force.

That's exactly where most Israelis don't want to be after defeat in a similar occupation for 18 years.

There won't be an international force without a comprehensive settlement and the Israeli government has just made Israel hostage to achieving a comprehensive settlement.

Introducing an international force implies much more than a "substantial" withdrawal from the West Bank.

The fact that Israel is in a strategic impasse that cannot be resolved without making real peace with its neighbours, including the Palestinians, is being driven home to every Israeli simultaneously with demonstrating that real peace is achievable when arrogant demands like holding prisoners, and keeping territorial conquests like the Chebaa farms in Lebanon and the settlements on the West Bank are abandoned and replaced with more reasonable demands like "please stop bombarding us when we stop bombarding you".

The Iranians are the guys with the cunning plans.

I agree.  Iran is already bankrolling Shi'a militia (Mahdi ) in Iraq, just waiting for this administration to look cross-eyed at them. Things could get even worse in Iraq for the U.S. military not to mention the region. It's not that Bush lacks cunning; it's just that his vision is clouded by his Call to Greatness in Israel - So sayeth the Lord.

As I understand it, America had no role in Israel's early formation, circa 1920 - 1948. Thereafter, Israel's principal western sponsor was France until around 1967.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yep, it's a typo. But in this case, perhaps there was a subconscious neural transfer, since there might have been a root reference to 'machismo' and/or 'masochism', given the heroic Bush regime's obsessions with manliness and pain and suffering (by other people).

Mayberry Machists denying an objective reality behind complexes of sensations?

Al Rashid made an observation about the Taliban which was striking. He noted how shockingly ignorant they were. Not necessarily stupid, but ignorant and ill informed. They knew nothing of governing, they knew nothing of the world beyond them, they knew nothing of culture, art, literature, agriculture, economics, mechanics, etc. They were even ignorant of the Koran and of Islamic faith, though they professed otherwise.

All they really knew was their own prejudices, though they knew those very well. The Taliban had the belief that this was all they needed to know to run a country.

When we come to George W. Bush and his key braintrust, Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice et al... we come to an American Taliban.

And what is remarkable about them is their shocking ignorance. They are not stupid men, necessarily (actually... yes, they are stupid). They are not necessarily poorly informed.

But like the Taliban, this is a group of men who have fallen in love with their own prejudices, and have concluded that all they need to know to rule the world is their own prejudices.

They are not sophisticated maneuverers on the international scene. Rather, they're brutal, petty, narrowminded thugs who concoct vast master plans, and who are so offended when reality does not cater to these plans, that they simply blot it out.

Oh I get it, the typo refers to the Italian cousin of Gomer Pyle's smart uncle Leo (Strauss).

The most damning indictment of Strauss is this: "He was an amoral elitist, cynical and arrogant, and when he looked at the classics, he found... his own reflection."

The man was a minor footnote in scholarship, at best.

Of course some of you believe that you are really clever and your opponents are blundering incompetents. No way smart fellows like you could misunderestimate anybody.

For the record, I really am clever. I am as smart as six cats and two german shepherds, one of whom had border collie ancestry. That's very smart indeed.

George W. Bush, in comparison, is as smart as a gerbil's anal cyst. Not extremely clever, but they both drool in similar ways.

Sadly, Bush is not my opponent, though he is a blundering incompetent. I'm just a regular Canadian, looking after my little corner of the world.

Bush's opponents are in Tehran, and Moscow, and Beijing, among other places.

That's why you'll all just wait and see while others decide and rule.

Nice one, I can imagine maniacal cackles and a bolt of thunder as you type that.

Of course, those who ultimately will decide and rule will be in China, in India, in Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo and even Tehran.

Washington, sadly, will sink beneath the waves of its own incompetence. America, once the paragon of the world, will join the long list of empires... Britain, Austria, Ottoman, Imperial China, sinking slowly into irrelevance, stumbling in economic doldrums, out of date, out of touch, its possessions slowly escaping or wrested from its grasp.

And those left behind in the wreckage will spend a large part of their lives, or perhaps their childrens and grandchildrens lives, trying to undo the damage.

But lissen up, Arthur, I think we've got what they call a fundamental disagreement here.

You feel that your boys are a bunch of sophisticated Machiavellians inspired by the non-ideals of Richard Strauss, cooly manipulating an essentially unconscious world by virtue of their deeper understandings of reality, and moving us all towards a stable resolution.

I think your boys don't have the sense to take down their pants when they decide to have a shit, and whose mean and stupid biootry and a few historical accidents have propelled them into rule of the most powerful nation on the planet, from which they are inevitably pissing away their every advantage.

I see my view as being rooted in hard edged assessment of their actual history and actions. I see your view as being based in desperate wishful thinking and utter terror of the consequences of my being correct.

Now, I think our respective views have received a full and frank airing. I'm content with that. I don't expect to change your mind, such as it is, and I don't think you've got any expectation that you'll get anywhere with me. At this point, we can play to the audience, but I think they've heard enough to form their own opinions.

All I've got to say is, let's sit back, open up a cool one, and we'll find out.

Worth reiterating is that no one claims Israel should not defend itself; it is the matter of how that is contentious.

IDF members are getting cold feet over targeting data, according to the Guardian.

At least two pilots have deliberately missed targets, the article says.

Gwynne Dyer, who is a seriously underrated thinker, notes that every few decades, there is usually a 'world war'.

The notion is that the geopolitical balance is a sort of snapshot of nations and states at a particular nexus point. The arrangement of borders and relationships reflects the balances of power existing at a particular point of time.

The reality is, however, that although borders and relationships often freeze into place, the world doesn't stop moving. Rather, some economies rise, other economies decline, some populations increase while others hold steady, some populations age demographically, while others are youthful, new technologies supplant old ones, trade and trading arrangements, internal politics, all of these cause the frozen world map to become more and more distorted.

Tensions in the distortions of the map arise, as declining powers try to hold on to their map, and new powers try to adjust it. Eventually, the distortions grow so powerful or massive that the map is forced to be rewritten, usually by a world-spanning conflict which involves most of the great powers.

So, working our way backwards, the world we live in was produced in 1945. It in turn arose out of the gathering pressures in response to a rewriting of the map in 1918. In turn, that map represented stresses which had accumulated from the period 1860-1870, and the series of small worlds that resulted in the unifications of Italy and Germany and Germany's supplanting of France as the principal European power. Which takes us back to the Napoleanic wars. And before that, to the series of wars in the 18th century largely between Britan and France, and then the series of wars in the 17th century between Britain and France against Spain.

The corollary to Dwyer's thesis is that the world is about to be reshaped yet again, peacefully or otherwise. The United States, one of the two victors from WWII, is due for a marked reduction in influence as other actors take their place on a world stage.

The question for the United States is can it hold back the forces of change and remain the sole hyperpower indefinitely?

Or should it adapt to change and concentrate on being the first among equals in helping to reshape this newer world.

The option chosen by the Bush administration is to strive for world domination. That's what Project For A New American Century is all about.

Unfortunately, the game is already decided. Demographics and economics have already made the outcome clear.

The only question is how messy it is going to be.

Mr. Levy, you see from Dan K's response what the political problem is. You write convincingly of how the Bush neocons are not the friends of Israel. OK. Maybe that is an argument that ISRAELI'S, who have wanted an American Presidential green light for whatever they wish for militarily, need to hear. What WE here in the US need to hear is a full-throated denunciation of AIPAC, of their very dangerous (for Israel, for US, for the Arab world, for the world) policies coming from an identifiable ISRAELI faction. We need to have an analysis of who they are, what they want and how inimical their vision is to Israel. We know about the brain-dead, morally-impaired, fascist-leaning direction of the American neocons; why don't you give us some serious information about the Israeli neocons?

Well this is good and thoughtful but I hardly thinks it's a massive revelation. At least, nothing you said in that post is surprising and wasn't anything I hadn't already thought about. Moreover if you've actually looked at history in terms of the dynamics between politics and commerce you can spot this trend pretty easily. A more interesting question is: Does it have to occur each time? And also the one you ask: Could it be put off for a time starting in 2000?

I think the answers to those questions are Yes and Yes.

I think the perception and resources of America Nov 1, 2000 were such that it could have remained the hyperpower for at least a decade, perhaps more. Now? Well I think the rest of world has realized that we are on the wrong side of the hill.

The current leadership bought into (the dark side of) American exceptionlism largely through the consequences of their being staggeringly wealthy. If they could have that kind of power in America then surely the US could have that kind of power over the rest of the world. They could not accept first among equals. This strikes me as being similar to many of the historical parallels you mention.

Even if US had remained first among equals, the perception would have been that it was greater. That it was first among equals by choice. This would have been excellent in terms of national interset as long as the leadership realized that it was only a perception and were mindful to avoid things that would shake it.

They will be remembered as the people who pissed it all away and the rest of us (even if we fought them) as the people who let them do it.

I agree that the answers were yes and yes. And I'll even concede that it might be possible for a 'hyperpower' to maintain its status indefinitely.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. The true measures that would have been required to perpetuate American dominance, even in a crowded field, were deemed unacceptable.

The truth is that your leaders, starting with Reagan, chose deindustrialization, job exports, deficit financing, tax cuts, and massive transfers of wealth to elites instead. For the last thirty years, America has been transforming itself into a latin American banana republic.

Well, good for the elites. It's great that the rich got richer and more entrenched. On the world scene though, it meant you got backwards and slower and more incapable of dealing with reality... Just like the Ottoman Empire, slowly losing ground year by year until it was the perrenial sick man of Europe.

The Ottomans were great too, once upon a time. Someting to ponder.

"A culture that values martydom and death over life" sounds to me too dangerously close to "they {the enemy} don't love their children as much as we love ours". That is demonizing the enemy to help justify hostilities.

a good life that everyone wants for their children

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It bothers me that this discussion seems detached from what's happening in Isreal , Gaza and the Lebanon. I get the sense- I hope wrongly- that if we turn a good phrase we feel pleased with ourselves , get up from the key board and pour a Zinfandel.

While real people , people just like us ,on all of those sides , are dying.

Tonight's news carried Condi's remark , from one of those face cracking Sunday morning shows ,that
" no one ever expected that Hezbollah would be disarmed before the (multi national )force moved in". Like many of us, I'm afraid , my knee jerk response was mild pleasure that she'd been forced so publicly to swallow her words of a couple of weeks ago. Only after that indulgence did I think
: great ,good for you Condi , some sort of process is under way and maybe there will be fewer children killed this week than last.

It doesn't matter at all who makes the best
debating point here on TPM. And maybe not very much what are the supposed long term implications of whatever comes out of the Security Council.(Come to that , the Status Quo Ante has been looking better and better as this week dragged on.)Implicate, implicate ,implicate drags at this petty pace from day to day.

What does matter enormously is that fewer Isrealis, Palestinians and Lebanese die tomorrow than did today. And it that means that Condi , or me , or Arthur Dent is made to look foolish , that's a price well worth paying .

Yet there is no country more on edge than Iran. They have the most to lose; even more than Israel, who will always have the support of Western powers.

Iran's day is coming and they know it. Bush's policy of coersive confrontation likely will not have much effect, yet the fact remains that the United States, whether under Bush or whomever wins in 2008, will never allow Tehran to posess a nuclear weapon. Pure and simple.

There will be a definitive confrontation over the issue. Whether this means war or Iranian submission on nukes remains to be seen yet common sense indicates it would be the latter. The clerics will not wage an all-out war and risk losing their government. They know they cannot win on the nuclear issue alone, that is why they are trying to gain the support of other Middle Eastern nations.

Purple State, the reason the leaders of both parties are not, and will not, oppose the policies of the the Government of Israel is that they--and three quarters of the American people-- agree Israel should knock the living shit out of thugs who deliberately target Israeli civilians, and the only thing Americans care about is that no U.S. troops get involved.

VIVA THE LOBBY! AM YISROAEL CHAI!

The hype about a hyperpower was popular for a while because people who saw the world as being still run by two superpowers now saw it only being run by one superpower.

Arthur, this is precisely right.

And yet I fear the the myth of the hyperpower is dying almost everywhere except in the conference rooms and salons of the foreign policy establishment. Americans are still suffering the baleful consequences of the incompetence of a foreign policy elite that is entranced by the illusions projected out of their own vanity.

They long to believe in the myth of the American "hyperpower" or "hegemon", because if that mighty America of their dreams still exists, than that means they, themselves, are masters of the universe. They will be the last to let go of the mirage.

Since its effect is exactly opposite to world domination you conclude, not that your description is faulty, but that US policy makers are incompetent.

Well I personally opt for the incompetence interpretation, Arthur. I have to say that your confidence in the preternatural foresight and Olympian cleverness of US policy-makers startles me. Why not just accept the more natural and common-place explanation, the historical pattern that has accompanied the decline of any number of earlier world powers: the elites in charge of a country's fortunes, desperate to shore up their own positions and nostalgic over their country's vanishing glories, refuse to adapt to change, but engage in increasingly desperate and counterproductive acts of aggression that only accelerate and hasten the decline?

This is a lot easier to believe than the hypothesis that a cabal of superhuman political wizards have conspired to diminish their country's position through a series of magnificently planned and executed tactical failures.

As you pointed out earlier, people like Daniel Levy are still entranced by the mirage. They believe the US is supposed to be running the world (and should do so on their behalf).

Its worth remembering that Daniel Levy's description of the previous relationship between US and Israeli policy is reasonably accurate. The "honest broker" stuff coming out of past administrations (especially Democrats) helped Israel maintain the status quo.

But his anxious appeal for support here reflects the fact that the world view of the old foreign policy establishment has far more support among liberal Democrats (who still look back to the halcyon years in which the US-Israeli alliance was unproblematic) than it does among current policy makers.

Americans are still entranced by illusions about American hyperpower. Hence the rhetoric adopted by the Bushies.

But the reality the Bushies actually face is very different. While the conference rooms and salons of the foreign policy establishment prescribe the sort of policies Daniel Levy is begging for, the Bush administration is "incomprehensibly" (and therefore "incompetently") refusing to deliver them.

All previous administrations have "modestly" ensured that Israeli settlements on the West Bank would continue to expand while glibly talking peace.

The Bush administration is ensuring that the Israelis recognize themselves that their position is untenable, by enthusiastically backing them in whatever stupidities they wish to engage in to demonstrate their strategic impasse to their own public opinion.

Daniel Levy has clearly explained that this is against Israeli interests and therefore against previous US policy.

Why not accept that US policy makers no longer consider Israeli interests to be a top priority after September 11?

Why assume that the policy makers of a declining empire that found itself under attack even in New York dream of being masters of the universe?

If Israel is being backed into a corner with no way out except withdrawal from the West Bank, why not recognize that this was a deliberate result of a US policy intended to achieve that result?

Pretty well everyone is now screaming for Israeli withdrawal and a Palestinian State whereas under previous administrations it was so controversial that Clinton could not even use Palestinian and State in the same sentence.

If that is the result of incomptence and blundering they are miraculously blundering in precisely the direction that they need to go, and in the opposite direction from that which a very influential lobby that has previously been able to paralyse US policy making in the Middle East has been wanting them to go.

Lincoln was the last to let go of the mirage of restoring the union status quo when he finally issued the emancipation proclamation. But by then he had demonstrated its absolute necessity in order to preserve the union at all, and there was no way the powerful pro-slavery forces still dominant in the Supreme Court and Congress could mobilize for merely defeating secession without abolishing slavery.

The Bush administration is faced with an entrenched foreign policy establishment gripped by the mirage you speak of. Hence the yawning gap between the actual results of US policy and its aggressive rhetoric.

Ignore the rhetoric and look at what is actually happening. Is the US helping Israel to dominate its neighbours. Or is the US helping Israel to prove that it cannot?

"So Olmert launched the war to undermine the chances for the sort of peace he had just campaigned for in his election and also left the Likud for? That makes a lot of sense." -joshtpm

From reading about Olmert in Harretz since he took over, it seems to me he went to war to strengthen himself as political leader of Israel. This would seem to track with the mistake of proportionality in pursuing the conflict, he is looking at his political future being destroyed and losing all judgment.

I seem (can't rember where) that the size of Hezbollah's ground troops is around 2,000 to 3,000. It would seem a doable fight to Olmert and the puppet masters win eather way the fight goes by the blowback.

The plan has been formed for over a year so I’m sure in this case there might not have been much arm-twisting. If you try and search this number out it is non-existent for me using google, maybe some of you can find it.

Eather way, it must concern Olmert, the IDF, Bush, and the American public if they knew!

Valdron’s post for the largest part are very insightful and on point. (conceivably all, but we will never know)
The players in this administration have been around for al long time (before “Tricky Dick”) and to have survived, improved their black arts and are not dumb.
I’m sure they grin when we say they are dumb, and hope we never say anything else. Would dumb equate to mentally deficient at Nuremberg?

We (on the plantation) are never told the true agenda for any thing this crew is doing.

Remember Israel told them that Hamas would be victorious in the elections, but “neck deep in the big dunes, the dammed fools said to press on”.

Robert Fisk talks about what we fear, our October surprise.

“You know, I’ve been watching this now for more than two weeks, and there's going to be another 9/11.” There’s going to be another 9/11, and then we’re going to hear all the usual claptrap about how it’s good versus evil, and they hate us because we’re good and democratic, and they hate our values, and all the other material that comes out of the rear end of a bull that your president and my prime minister talk.

-Robert Fisk, speaking to us from Beirut, Lebanon. Monday, July 31st, 2006
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/31/1435219

Krauthammer recently posed this question in an op-ed in WaPo:

What is Israel's strategic value to the US?

I'd like to pose another question in the same vein:

Does US national interests in the Middle East intersect completely with Israel? Are there any areas where they diverge?

It's worse than that. Leveling villages as a retaliation for "terrorist" attacks is exactly what Nazis did. Look up the assassination of Reichsprotektor Reinhard Heydrich and Lidice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice

Note: This was in no way ethnic cleansing, and had nothing to do with the Holocaust. It was simply a way to terrorize the populace into submission.

If Israelis are seriously suggesting to do the same thing, they must have completely lost their marbles.

Ok, with very differnt views of US policy makers intentions, neither of us believe the currently proposed UN resolution will lead to a ceasefire (I believe it may save some lives by reducing Israeli attacks on Lebanese civil infrastructure and retaliatory rocket attacks on Israel but agree the clear US intention is for the ground war to continue).

I would expect (and I suspect Daniel Levy might agree though with much less enthusiasm) that this will damage Israel by bogging them down in a strategically unviable position with opposition growing worldwide and internally. They cannot mobilize support for occupying south Lebanon long term again. They cannot force the Lebanese to fight Hezbollah or invite the Syrians to come back in and they already proved 6 years ago that they could not sustain a war of attrition with Hezbollah that lasted 18 years.

So I would expect that there will end up being national unity in Israel around the proposition that they have to get out and have to reach a political settlement acceptable to Hezbollah to do so. Meanwhile a similar problem exists in Gaza, and a clear linkage between that problem and the Lebanese problem and the West Bank problem.

Involving an international force in their exit has major implications for Israeli divisions about getting out of the West Bank. The world is already starting to demand that a comprehensive settlement should also address the real root cause which is the Palestine question, not Hezbollah.

American public opinion would be very supportive if an intransigently pro-Israeli President like Bush was able to protect Israel from rocket attacks from Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank by standing up to the Iranians said to be behind it all, and frustrate their evil schemes by imposing a comprehensive Middle East settlement in which the Palestinians get their state and everyone agrees not to attack Israel, with international forces supervising this.

This may not happen immediately and a settlement could be be reached separately for Lebanon alone. But either way, I agree with Daniel Levy that Israel is being weakened and its enemies are being strengthened, as a direct result of the policy the Bush administration is currently following.

If I understand correctly, you on the other hand expect that the war will expand into Syria and involve the US directly with both US Liberals and Conservatives supporting "World War III".

To borrow an expression from codegen86 "that is a most interesting hypothesis".

Basically you are saying that a course which you recognize would be disasterous and is also seen that way by most people around the world is being blundered into by ruling class policy makers too stupid to share your understanding that it would be disasterous.

There is no contradiction between believing that the US is still a dominant power under threat (ie the last superpower) and believing that it is in decline and simply cannot afford to continue upholding autocratic stagnation in the Middle East after 60 years of that policy blew up in its face with September 11.

But there is a huge contradiction between a "New American Century", let alone World War III and holding free elections in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. In a region where the US is deeply resented for its past and present policies, tyranny is the only way to secure governments friendly to the USA.

It takes more than mere incompetence to commit 130,000 troops to the defense of a freely elected Iraqi government led by parties fairly similar to Hezbollah, which openly side with Lebanon against Israel as a preliminary to going to war on Israel's behalf.

When one is reduced to explaining the actions of policy makers as being completely clueless in the light of their declared intentions, one has to have very deep faith in their declarations in order to take them at their word.

Most people I know take it for granted that politicians generally do the opposite of what they say and should never be trusted not to stab someone in the back just because they have pledged unlimited support.

I would certainly not characterize the leadership of either US party, let alone both, as "almost uncannily well-coordinated and well-disciplined". I just have less faith in their declarations than you do, and judge their intentions by the effect of their actions.

And yet, Hizbollah never seems to get cold feet when they "target" their missiles. Or maybe we just don't know about it when they do.

Actually, when Israel declared its 48 hour moratorium on air attacks, Hezbollah curtailed its missile attacks dramatically. Israel's 48 hour moratorium lasted only a few hours.

When the moratorium was announced Hezbollah immediately ceased missile attacks. The only cross border munitions from Hezbollah were a couple of mortar rounds. The next day, despite continuing Israeli airstrikes, Hezbollah fired only 10.

Hezbollah since then has shown undiminished capacities, launching up to 200 missiles in a day.

So the dramatic lull we saw during the moratorium must have been a conscious Hezbollah decision. Whether for propaganda or humanitarian purposes, or an attempt to demonstrate good faith to ground a peace process.

Also, we'll note that Hezbollah has an indefinite number of longer range missiles capable of hitting Haifa, or even Tel Aviv. Are they showing restraint? Possible.

The reason I don't go for the more common explanation is that I don't share the perception of tactical failure, nor do I believe that grasping that the previous 60 years of US foreign policy in the Middle East had imploded and were untenable after September 11 required preternatural foresight or supernatural cleverness.

It just strikes me as blindingly obvious that the old policies of "stability" could not continue and the "realism" of "strategists" like Brezinski who funded Al Queda to fight the Soviets would be discredited.

In particular any US administration, however incompetent was bound to seek expert advice as to why their previous policies had blown back so spectacularly, why the US was so widely hated and what could be done about it.

In particular I cannot imagine any expert advising that continuing to support "Greater Israel" expansion into the West Bank was a viable policy.

On the other hand, having observed the process by which Kennedy got into Vietnam and Nixon got out, I do not find it at all surprising that US declaratory policies differ sharply from actual policies and have always found it natural to read between the lines.

I don't regard the Bush administration's policies as hastening America's decline but as gracefully accepting it.

eg A democratically elected Iraqi government led by Shia islamist parties assisted by the US is not going to be subservient to US interests or forget what the US did in backing Sadaam, encouraging war with Iran, imposing murderous sanctions etc etc but neither is it going to be as rabidly hostile as whatever regime would have resulted from civil war after the Baath fascists eventually collapsed without US intervention.

Likewise no Palestinian State will forget how the US assisted Israel to maintain a state of "no war, no peace", but by finally getting around to resolving the main problem, there will be less festering rage breeding jihadis in Saudi Arabia and Egypt etc.

On tactical failure I do not see how it would have been possible to overcome the natural inclination towards isolationism and nativism characterisistic of empires in decline without the strident breast beating patriotism that has disoriented the conservative opposition that would have perpetuated the old foreign policy by the sort of bureaucratic inertia you have referred to (and which still motivates most of the critiques).

Achieving that disorientation necessarily required alienating any possibility of liberal, let alone left support. Since liberals and leftists cannot actually mobilize effectively to stop democratic revolution in the Middle East (while conservatives could have) I would say that showed sound tactical judgment.

As to the numerous stuff ups in Iraq etc I would compare reversing the traditional US policies with executing a triple backwards somersault while walking a tightrope. Rather than carp at the inelegance one should be impressed. It simply isn't easy for an imperialist superpower to orient its foreign service and military staff towards revolutionary rather than counter revolutionary warfare.