Of course, engaging in a war that had the effect of reducing oil supplies and driving up the risk premium in oil prices has only made it easier for Iran to engage in reconstruction and humanitarian aid to Lebanon, through Hezbollah.

Where are the charity organizations from other countries in the region besides Iran?

When will bin Laden "show up" with money?

From today's Ha'aretz:

Hezbollah torpedoed a cabinet meeting earlier this week when it informed the government that it was not willing to discuss its disarmament.

Hezbollah's top official in south Lebanon, Sheik Nabil Kaouk, told reporters in Tyre that the group welcomes the Lebanese army's additional deployment in the south.

"Just like in the past, Hezbollah had no visible military presence and there will not be any visible presence now," he said.

How does anybody -- Israel, Lebanon, anyone -- trust Hizbollah?

Michael Young in the "Sunday New York Times Magazine" suggested that if Hezbollah retains its weapons it won't be long before the other factions of Lebanon rearm. Thus there will be Christian, Sunni and Druze armed militias opposing Hezbollah. Do you agree with that?

Also in regard to the rebuilding of Lebanon do we know yet what is really involved? CNN's pictures made it fairly clear that in most regions, especially Beirut, Shiia areas were totally destroyed, but those of other groups were often untouched. Might this fact further the divide that already exists between the downtrodden Lebanese Shiia and the better off other groups?

Perhaps there is a lot of wishful thinking going on about Lebanon. Young's piece seemed to such that Lebanon is waking up from lots of wishing.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Meanwhile, interesting conflicting messages being sent out by Iran right now, tailored to the audience:

Al Jazeera: Iran defiant over nuclear standoff Ahmadinejad said Iran has lost confidence in the UN 16 August 2006 Iran's president said again on Tuesday that his country would not bow to Western pressure to give up its home-grown nuclear technology.

In a televised speech to a vast crowd in the northwest province of Ardebil, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, rejected a UN security council resolution that demands Tehran halt sensitive nuclear work, and called for a Middle East free from the presence of the United States and Israel.

He said: "If they think they can use a resolution as a stick against us, they should know that Iranian people do not bend to language of force."....

Tehran Times: Larijani: pressure will not resolve nuclear dispute Political Desk, August 17 TEHRAN -- Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Ali Larijani said on Tuesday that Western threats and pressure would not resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

"If they want to deprive the Iranian nation of its right, we will review our policy," he said after a meeting with visiting Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai....

BBC News, UK: Iran 'will discuss nuclear halt' 10 hours ago Iran is ready to discuss the suspension of its uranium enrichment programme as demanded by Western powers, the country's foreign minister has said....

Reuters: Iran says can discuss atomic work suspension in talks
11 hours ago
TEHRAN (Reuters) - The Iranian foreign minister said on Wednesday Iran was ready to discuss the issue of suspending uranium enrichment in talks with the West...

Jerusalem Post, Israel: China urges Iran to return to nuclear talks
16 hours ago
China's top envoy in charge of nonproliferation issues has urged Iran to accept an incentives package offered by China and five other countries in exchange for....

That's actually quite a good question, and I don't know the answer to it.

I suppose its possible. Certainly the game is Hezbollahs to lose. If it plays wrong, almost certainly the other ethnic groups will rearm to defend themselves.

Does Hezbollah have the resources or ability to conquer all of Lebanon and hold it? Nope. They don't even have enough to make the attempt.

So let's see how they play their political capital.

I'm not sure that damage was strictly confined to the Shiites. Certainly the casualties were not. Certain forms of infrastructure damage, roads, bridges, hospitals, televion stations, power generating stations, are universal to the country. That giant oil slick Israel created has no ethnicity.

Michael Young is closely connected with Reason magazine , a libertarian i.e. conservative publication. That's no reason to doubt his integrity and competence but does mean we should be aware he comes
to all issues with a particular world view
which has to be taken into account when
reading his material.

Cathy Young , I suppose no relative , is also closely connected with Reason and her
op eds in the Boston Globe are pretty far right. In particular she infuriated Eric Alterman last year by labelling him
a self hating Jew.

Don't mean to drag in guilt by association ,
just a comment that it's not unreasonable when reading an author to be aware of the people with whom he hangs out.

Two questions: How deep are Iran's pockets for something like this? and How much can the Iranian government give to Hezbollah before Iranians start thinking it might be spent better closer to home? I know Iran isn't exactly a democracy, but they do seem concerned about the popularity of the regime on the street.

I also think you've probably captured the Iranian position, though they may be quite mistaken as to their take on the American's being mostly bluff.

Indeed Valdron. That's the danger inherent in this situation that we all have to worry about - that neither side, nor both together, will manage a graceful climb down. I agree that there are influential forces within the administration who favor attack. I suspect they don't just favor attack, but view the military take-down of the Iranian regime as the very raison d'être of the last four plus years of gradual encirclement of Iran by US forces. The same people who are now pulling their hair out over the Israeli failure to crush Hizbollah will be doing the same, and worse, if the US settles for negotiations with Iran.

And of course there were many reports during the war that the Bush administration was encouraging the Israelis to go for the kill. Perhaps that gives some sense of where the Bush administration will be when the Iran situation comes to ahead, and it is Bush's turn at bat, so to speak.

What worries me is that if the Bush administration ever does pursue the sensible and less catastrophic course, a whole bunch of Democratic hawks will sense a political opportunity, leap up on their desks, and start attacking from the right decrying the craven "appeasement monkeys" in the White House.

Good question. Obviously, I suspect that they're deeper than the 50 million that the US has put on the table. Compared to the military aid provided to Israel that's something of a cold joke.

I'm very much afraid that US 'aid' will simply funnel back into the pockets of Halliburton or the Carlyle group, or some similar bit of corruption, perhaps a 'buy American' requirement tied to the aid (perhaps even very specific 'buy this stuff from these Americans' requirements).

Even if the American aid is tendered honestly, the US has no real presence or infrastructure in Iraq, and no particular connections to any social or political networks. So its quite likely that the money may not wind up being used very effectively.

American aid might best be deployed piggybacking along with whatever the French are doing. The French actually have history and connections in Lebanon, so they might be able to use aid money visibly and effectively. Of course, the United States might bet very little public credit from it.

Apart from that I can't think of any other party. Anyone else they hook up with is luck of the draw, basically.

You know, come to think of it, this might explain the paucity of American aid to Lebanon. It's very likely that they won't get all that much credit for the dollars they put in, so why put dollars in?

On the other hand, Hezbollah is intimately connected to communities and social services, so if Iran pushes its money through that, they'll probably get good credit and maximum bang for the buck.

That is may be true about Young but he is also a columnist and opinion editor for the Daily Star one of Beirut's English language papers. So whatever his ideological bent he has the advantage of knowing what is going on in Lebanon unlike most people here.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Who do these groups need to defend themselves from, Hez?

I do not see Hez attacking them, there is no reason.

Regs, Shaggy

deleted

that rating is totally uncalled for

If the vast majority of Lebanese identify with Hezbollah, then I don't see any reason why the U.S. should give them anything.

Yeppers, there's that good ole American spirit of compassion and generosity that saved New Orleans from the flood, rescued all those people trapped at the Convention center and rebuilt the city just like *that* (finger snap).

Of course, one might offer up 'humanitarian' considerations, but that cuts no ice.

And the notion that the US might try to save some face in the Arab world or restore its bruised image with redemptive aid is simply laughable.

The United States isn't even pretending to be nice to Arabs any more.

Furthermore, if Hezbollah has aims of becoming Lebanon's sovereign, perhaps that would benefit the American military/industrial complex.

After all, our military tactics are obviously meant to deal with foreign governments. If Hezbollah became the ruling party perhaps Israel and the U.S. would have a much easier time in dealing with them.

Well, actually, that has been discussed elsewhere. The theory is that Hezbollah found the 'sweet spot' in that it managed to become a viable political and military force, but did not assume the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of a state.

It seems like a fairly logical progression that Hezbollah might expand its influence to a dominant role in the Lebanese government, or even become the Lebanese government.

At which point, they would begin to assume the vulnerabilities of a state.

In practical terms, it doesn't really make a difference that I can see. Israel and the United States have amply demonstrated their contempt for Lebanese lives and civilian infrastructure. I can't imagine that whether Hezbollah is the government or remains in its current form, that Israel won't attack the population and the infrastructure. Not with the current tactical frameworks. (This might change, Israel on review may decide that there is no merit to punishing civilians.)

And I would assume that Hezbollahs warfighting tactics will try to build on or elaborate on their successes. They've found something that works, they'll keep on doing it.

What there might be is more opportunity for political pressure and diplomatic relations. The more Hezbollah is tied down to the concerns of a state, the less attractive reckless or radical behaviour is. The more appealing non-conflict modes become.

Of course, the United States refuses to have any diplomatic relations with countries it dislikes. So that opportunity doesn't arise, largely because of the refusal to exploit it.

c'est la vieux

I think it's possible that anger and resentment toward Hezbollah may build up over time as the Lebanese people come to realize how much unnecessary destruction and pain resulted from Hezbollah's Islamofacist agenda.

That would be an example of being sidetracked, because the only reason that Israeli weapons were used is that Israel was attacked by Hezbollah. But for that attack, no damage, no weapons.

To make matters worse, Hezbollah hides among civilians, thereby increasing innocent casualties.

Maybe the Lebanese people will come to that realization in time as well.

Afterall, reality demands it.

Human nature suggests that when you are looking for someone to blame, you blame the remote distant impersonal guy far off in the distance.

You don't blame the next door guy who is helping you rebuild your house, particularly if that next door guy has guns.

This is a universal thing. Look at how conservative Americans in red states like to blame the Federal Government for everything. Arguably the Federal government has done a lot more to improve their lives than local county governments. But they know the county sheriff, and they don't know the bureaucrat in Washington.

Many muslims blame the United States for the problems of their nations... with more than a little justification. But they don't blame the state governments themselves, which are the author of 90% of their real problems. For one thing, they could get shot doing that. But the other is that they know Achmed, the local constable, they know the bureaucrats and leaders, no matter how corrupt. They don't know anyone in Washington.

So, given that aspect of human nature, I doubt that the Lebanese will ever blame Hezbollah, but I'm pretty sure that they will blame America.

Whether its right or wrong, just or unjust, I won't get into.

It's just human nature.

Maybe I am engaging in wishful thinking, but in my experience, over time reality has a way of overwhelming self-delusion.

Even if Lebanese public opinion doesn't evolve, I still believe we as Americans have a duty to continue to present the facts.

One of the reasons I am so outraged at the media outlets that have confused balance with objectivity in their coverage of the crisis is that they fail to adequately report on the manifest evil of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, and its sponsor, Iran. If they did report the facts more accurately, perhaps the Lebanese, and others, would be better equipped to see through the propaganda they are fed.

The United States, even under the abominable GWB, still bears far less responsibility for the plight of the people of the Middle East than the indigenous governments.

I would like to see the peace process revived v/v the Palestinians. Few things would do more to vitiate the appeal of the Islamofacists (who, historically, have done almost nothing to further that cause) than the fruition of a two state solution.

Oh, right, they're humanitarian pacifists.

Please tell me you're joking.

fascism

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

On point.

As I said, reality matters.

Rated a 2, numbertwopencil.

You're pathetic.

I was half joking. You had written "facist", not "fascist".

At any rate, I don't think "Islamic fascists" makes any sense. They are driven by religion, not race or nationality. Sure they are totalitarian, but so were the commies -- and no one calls these guys "Islamic communists". Fascism is not religiously oriented. If reality really matters, then "Islamic fascism" doesn't make any sense.

"Islamic fascism" is a product of a desperate speech writer who will chose buzzwords over factual accuracy ten times out of ten.

I don't think the jihadists are nice people. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country run by them. But "Islamofacist" suggests that the term was coined by people who don't know much about fascism, including how to spell the word properly.

This is strictly OT but I have to wonder, are you really in NJ? It's nearly 2am PDT which means 5am on the East Coast...

I'm very sorry to hear that. And I thank you for solving that minor mystery for me.

I'm up myself because I'm finishing The One Percent Doctrine. Very worthwhile book. Bit of a horror though.

Three complaints about ratings in the same thread??

Take it out to the parking lot, please.

While we are talking about wishful thinking Haaretz, admiittedly an Israeli paper, is reporting statements by Saad Hariri which after attacking Israel proceeds to attack Syria as the cause of Lebanon's problems.

n his speech, Assad attacked Israel and the United States, and said U.S. plans for a new Middle East have become an illusion following what he described as a victory by the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hezbollah against Israel in the month-long fighting.

Hariri, a strong backer of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's government, called on Lebanese to rally behind the government of Lebanon.

He went on to attack Syria's domestic and regional policies. "The Syrian regime is exploiting the blood of Qana and Gaza and Baghdad to bring sedition to Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq so that the Muhajereen Palace now deserves to be called the 'Mutajereen' palace," he said playing on words.

Muhajereen is the presidential palace in Damascus, while Mutajereen means exploiters."
[Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/751774.html]
Jamblatt head of the Druze faction has stated that Syria is planning on a campaign of assinations in Lebanon and that his forces are getting ready to deal with that.

This is going on even as a Haaretz editorial is calling for Israel to open negotiations with Syria. They just do not just Bashir Assad to keep his word.

Syria is also apparently making it difficult for the Palestinians to work out their differences with each other and ulitmately with Israel. Abbas and Haniyeh seem to be trying to create a unity govermnet. But Hamas leaders in Damascus keep undermining those efforts.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Dan ...great analysis...

one question...what is China's view of the stituation?

Given that China wants the Iranian oil as much as America does and has used it's veto power to prohibit sanctions against Iran as a coercion to stop the uranium enrichment.

A summary:

1. Most of destruction and killing by Israel in this conflict had no military value.

2. One proof of that is that their purely military effort was much less spectacular then the war on civilians. If any military utility was perceived, it was a delusion.

3. Another delusion was that this destruction will lead to political gains like "isolating Hezbollah".

Metaforically, you are in a subway car and some young hudlum armed with screwdrivers attempt to mug you. Even though objectively speaking you are far from mortal danger , you pull a gun --- and now we will deviate from an actual subway story --- you shoot for several minutes and many passangers are killed and wounded. Miraculously, hoodlums end up unscathed (barring, say, two superficial wounds), they take your wallet and depart. I must add that you are an outstanding citizen and you have a concealed weapon permit.

Afterward you give a press conference and explain that passangers were passive accomplices of the hoodlums and legitimate targets. You know for a fact that they were from the same ethnic group (you do not go into fine distinctions between, say, American Blacks, Carrabean Blacks and Somalis), same part of town, they were tolerating the hoodlums presence and they did not try to help you.

Granted, the hudlums are not positive heroes in that story, but how about you?

True enough. But this is the Bush administration. What else is new?

DanK, you wrote: "What worries me is that if the Bush administration ever does pursue the sensible and less catastrophic course, a whole bunch of Democratic hawks will sense a political opportunity, leap up on their desks, and start attacking from the right decrying the craven "appeasement monkeys" in the White House."

Who knows, but that doesn't strike me as likely. What seems more possible is some Dems especially concerned with how the national security is cutting in their race criticizing the Administration for belated attention to the Iranian nuclear issue on account of the misguided obsession with Iraq, kind of a "Who lost Iran (to the nuclear club)?"/"Asleep at the switch" stance.

If the Cheney faction wins again and the Administration does decide to attack Iran, do you and others think they'll wait until after the election or find a pretext and do it, not 3 days before (too obvious), say, but a few weeks before? I'm guessing the former. It's getting too close to the election.

"The Bush Administration, the Israelis and Tom Friedman have all made the prediction that once the Lebanese returned to their devestated country, that they would be mad as hell and that that anger would focus on Hezbollah."

They DO have a terrific record on their predictions don't they?

That seems to be a lovely piece of fiction. I appreciate that this site does not put a high premium on facts but you do not seem to know what you are talking about.

You grossly underestimate the military gains made by Israel. You also understate what is a military asset.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

So, Valdron, you've decided to zero-rate my posts regardless of their merit. You join hcberbowitz in the pathetic, mean-spirited, pretentious, small-minded, little-boy class.

The big difference of course, is that the Italian fascists proudly called themselves Fascists. The Nazi's were pretty up front about being Nazi's. The other fascist groups, the Falangists etc., were all pretty much saying "Yes, we're fascists, see we have the T-shirts and posters and everything."

There is no Islamic movement, secular or fundamentalist, which calls itself 'fascist.'

In this context, its merely a pejorative term applied by outsiders, largely for the effect of 'shock and awe', or to couple these Islamic movements to other disreputable movements as a propaganda trick.

In a sense, the word Islamo-Fascist to describe a set of groups or movements is about as accurate and realistic as calling them Islamo-Republicans, Islamo-Communists, Islamo-Klansmen, Islamo-Rednecks.

Propaganda is propaganda. It doesn't help us understand the enemy, it merely helps to demonize him.

Well, for my purposes, Islamic fundamentalism is already demonic enough.

What I want to do is understand it, so as to combat it more effectively.

So I really don't have much patience for propaganda. Sorry.

Even hearing it from a Lebanese Christian, like one of Thomas Friedman's infamous cab drivers, isn't enough.

What we need are polls.  This is the 21st century we don't have to make up what people think.

Fortunately, polling data is becoming more available and the middlemen who tell us what 'everybody knows' are becoming superfluous.

Hopefully in a short amount of time it will be just as inexpensive and customary for a media source to commission an actual poll as it is to fly Friedman out to make up some cab drivers who agree with Friedman.

We have polling results that Lebanese Christian support for Hezbollah surged after the bombings began and that support became near unanimous among Lebanese Muslims - Sunnis and Shiites.

Another issue: 

There are just as many Shiites in Lebanon as Christians, but Christians are allocated more than twice the amount of seats in Parliament.  I wonder how, in the context of stripping Hezbollah of the unique privilege of being armed, the desire of Shiites to be fully enfranchised will be addressed. 

Two things:

I really don't see much desire on the part of the Arabs/Muslims to drive the Jews from the land if they get an Arab/Muslim state.

My sense is that there is a negotiable amount of dhimmitude that they would impose on Jews but physically kill or drive off the land - I don't see the angle in it for them.

Today I would expect them to gladly accept a South Africa solution - full political rights and security for individual lives and property.

My evidence of this is that an Egyptian muslim brotherhood spokesperson said it outright, Ahmadinejad's call for a referendum is close and I figure the rest of the distance would be accepted and other Iranian figures have also said outright that ending Zionism does not require killing Jews or forcing them to leave.

A Jewish one-state solution requires ethnic cleansing of course.  But if non-Jews are driven out of the West Bank and Gaza that will turn other states more fervently against Israel right when the West and even the US are getting less patient with supporting pro-Israel tyrannies.  Between opposition from the rest of the world and the fact that the neighbors would increase their desire to end Jewish statehood in that case, I don't see a Jewish one-state solution as practicable.

A two state solution could work if, as a poster a few weeks ago said, it makes the Arabs feel as if they had won the lottery.  I don't see where the money for that would come from or that such a proposal would be accepted by Israel. 

A two state solution that makes 40% of Arabs think they got screwed and betrayed again - which every proposal I've seen would - would just be a step in the direction of a one state Arab/Muslim solution. The Arab states would either remain tyrannies that meekly and quietly support the 40% or democracies that fully and openly support the 40%.

I agree.  The way I look at it is that ad hominem attacks in response to someone who abuses the ratings system is no different than the ratings abuse itself and should be just as discouraged.  And while I disagreed with selfinterest's comment I rated it a 3 because ratings shouldn't be made based solely on whether I disgree with the point being made or not...

You have a funny way of ignoring my comments, whiterosebuddy.

So few here have commented on the 1% Doctrine, I am interested to hear more about your reaction.

To me it created a logical explanation that hangs together all sorts of threads of news stories and commentaries during the last 6 years.  My phrasing is awkward, hard to describe.

I am now part way through the next one Fiasco by Tom Ricks. It is way more than the military story of Gordon and Trainor in CobraII. Again I get more of the why, the strategic analysis is good. Another scary story.

One more look into the why and wherefore of the Administration from Andrew Sullivan this morning.  Have to love conservatives and Republicans who are taking on the Bush Adminsitration.

If you don't like one person's ratings, add your own rating and encourage others to do the same so as to correct the bias. But please - save the lectures. Everybody here knows how ratings work and what they are (or aren't) worth. I say this without any particular concern for specifics - I'm just tired of hearing people complain about ratings.

When you post on controvercial subjects, particularly if you have a history of trolling, you're probably going to get some unfair ratings. C'est la vie.

Selfinterest has on other threads called for the mass execution or lethal purge of those he deems liberals. Given his advocacy of the mass murder of many of the people here, I would describe him as something worse than a troll.

He has made a history of unprovoked personal attacks. In my recent observation, he called 'lally' a "total idiot" and "defeatist" repeatedly. On this particular rating thread, in the middle of a rant on me he attacked 'hcberkowitz.'

So... a person on this board trolls incessantly, gratuitously attacks and insults other posters, and advocates the murder of people he dislikes, as well as entire classes of people whose politics offend him... and every once in a while this person turns in a post which, startlingly, lacks objectionable content... in the manner of taking a breath before going on the offensiveness again... and the question is, how should that be rated?

I have to say, I'm pretty comfortable with awarding a zero.

Is that ratings abuse? I don't know. What's the policy on rating posts by mass murder advocates?

Do we only zero rate the 'advocating mass murder' posts? Or can we simply assume that these views remain even when not explicitly stated?

Is there something written down that you can show me?

I would be delighted to have hard information on the military gains made by Israel, and more context on what you mean by military assets. Compared to the restrictions by the US on embedded journalists, as well as the existence of non-embedded journalists, the US is a paragon of transparency compared to Israel.

With the absence of any substantive bomb damage assessments, correlation of forces, or other announcements at a sufficient level of detail for independent observers to validate claims, I am forced to speculate knowing the characteristics of the weapons involved. Recently, I have been beginning to get informal reports from the field, which help both in understanding what was done, and being utterly puzzled why some of it was done.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I've not read CobraII or Fiasco. But Steve Coll's Ghost Wars and Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine are IMO a great combination: the former documents the rise of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and America's fight against it right up to 9/11, which is where the latter book picks up.

I think I understand your phrasing very well. The One Percent Doctrine provides an excellent background for what we see happening around us. It illustrates the thinking and internal operation of the Bush administration, which has an internal logic (illogic?), even when from the outside it may appear completely unfathomable.

The book also seemed to be very well sourced, with lots of input from people who were (or still are) there when it happened.

The most worrying aspect of the book for me was the (unintentional?) destruction of US Government by the Bushies, the exodus of professionals from many agencies simply because they found it impossible to do their job. That's going to have far-reaching consequences.

What I also found illuminating was the depiction of high-level al-Qaeda figures more as campaigning politicians than madmen, people with strategic objectives, lots of patience, and willingnes to use brutal methods.

Was that a smile I detected?

Okay, what do I call it when the world body imposes a ceasefire that essentially allows a private army to run a small but not insignificant part of a nation in a highly volatile part of the world?

Reality?

I dunno. Look, its sort of an ugly thing, but originally, the government of Israel started off as a militia with nominal control of some (but not all) territory. The government of Ireland started off the same way. As did the current Nicaraguan state.

Afghanistan, as far as I can tell, is nothing but private militias. Pakistan is very close to being nothing but an army pretending to run a state. Africa, oh god, let's not go there.

The thing about Hezbollah that really makes it different from Abu Nidal or Islamic Jihad or any of these other wack jobs is that they actually provide social services.

Now, maybe that's a public relations dodge, maybe it isn't. Maybe its a cheap scheme to keep their base intact and raise a new generation of Hezbollah, maybe its bona fide.

But you know what? My attitude is... so what? It's necessary, its vital, and someone is doing it.

In my experience, insurgent movements, guerilla armies, when they succeed seem to fall into two categories.

One category seems to be the sorts that turned into Israel and Ireland, Nicaragua, even the United States. They win their war, they're committed to their populations, they do stuff, they act like a sane state.

Then there's the other category, like Rober Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or any number of central american douchebags, like Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor in Liberia. They get into power, and all they understand is guns, so they just start shooting and looting the shit out of everything in sight.

Now, I think that Hezbollah has already made its choice, and thats an interesting thing.

In a sense, they've gone out and made a deliberate choice to be or become the first kind of organization, the one that is as committed to building as it was to destruction.

We can argue that both Fatah and Hamas have made that choice, but I think the reality is that they were pushed into or forced to the choice that Hezbollah embraced freely.

So, it seems to me that Israel has more and better options than you are willing to acknowledge with Hezbollah. I believe that it is possible that they can be reasoned with, that they can be tamed.

I don't see Shiite antipathy to Israel to be natural or ingrained. When the Lebanese civil war was going on, the Shiites were everyones dogs, and they suffered. When Israeli tanks rolled in, the Shiites were cheering, they threw flowers and candy at Israeli tanks.

Imagine that. Israel invaded a muslim country and those muslims responded with flowers and candy!!!

Israel started out with a ton of goodwill and blew it. One of histories little tragedies.

But the thing that this shows us is that its not inevitable. None of it is inevitable. They aren't born hating each other.

So, if I was Israel, I'd do everything I could to turn Hezbollah into a real civil state or civil society.

Here's what I would do (and I'd appreciate you not mocking or being insulting) if I was Israel.

First off, I'd recognize that there's all sorts of legitimate grievances, like 400,000 active land mines in unmapped mine fields, and lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails, Shabaa farms and whatnot.

Y'know what this is really? These are not grievances against me. This is my leverage.

So, I'd go to Hezbollah, sit em down in a concrete bunker somewhere and say - "Okay, these are your problems with us, let's work them all out. But there's a problem, we've got a lot of bad history between us, neither of us trusts or likes the other, so we're not going to bust our ass doing you a bunch of favours just so you can bad mouth us next week and fire a bunch of missiles. We're going to deal with it all, but we'll deal with it slow and careful, and if you try and screw us over, it will be back to the bad old days."

Then I'd start with the minefields, and I'd say, "Okay, we gotta get rid of these things, but we don't want to just be handing them over to you so you can re-lay them somewhere else. We'll take them out completely, which means that we'll send people over, they'll work with your people, it'll take a few years, and when we're done, there won't be a live mine left in southern lebanon."

Sounds like a positive thing? There's a chance they'll go for it.

And there's a collateral benefit to Israel. Because we'll be sending people peacefully across the border, which means we'll have the chance to gather direct human intelligence from observations and conversations, and brother, that stuff is like gold. And it will put Israeli's in regular contact with front line Hezbollahs, so that allows us to assess what these people are really like and how professional they are. And of course, more contacts like that allow Israel a greater chance to actually 'turn' some of these Hezbollah.

Now, if Israel had had that kind of intelligence and intelligence opportunities working for it when it started this stupid little war, it would have known exactly what to expect, it would have known exactly how tough the enemy was and it would have known a lot more about Hezbollahs abilities and tactics. It might have had better reads on locations of assets. That would have worked. It would have made the goddammed difference.

Now, Hezbollah will know that Israel's doing intelligence on the side. But fair's fair, as long as you aren't obvious or obnoxious about it, they can't do much. They'll figure they've got their own intelligence opportunities. And most of all, they'll be getting rid of all those f*cking land mines! Imagine being Nasrullah and walking into a southern village and telling them all they'll never have to worry about one of their children having a leg blown off again. Hell, they'll throw him a parade right there. They have motivation to take the risk.

Now, I'm not saying that they'll bite or not. But if we put it on the table, they're strongly motivated to come and sit at that table and start talking.

So, assuming we can get some stuff going there, we start talking about the prisoners.

And as Israel, I say "Okay, first things first, some of these people we got are stone cold sumbitches, and they deserve to be in the ground, not locked up, so we're not going to be happy about letting them go. But we're gonna sit down with you, and we're going to start going through case by case, and if between us, we can justify letting this one or that one go home to his family, then we'll do it."

Start that process up, and we drag it out. Not stalling, but just doing it at a reasonable pace. It'll take a few years, but so what, no one is going anywhere.

And in the meantime, the advantages are with us. We've got these sumbitches in jail. So we can start talking to them and seeing which ones are the hard core crazy ass mofos that we can never let out, and which ones outgrew their crazy days and just want to see their kids, which ones ain't ever going to trouble us, which ones we can reason with, and even which ones we can turn and send back into Hezbollah as a mole or two.

And there's a real chance of turning some moles, because we'll say 'this ain't about us bombing you or vice versa, this is the friendly kind of mole we want you to be, because we want it all to work out peaceful so that everyones happy.' If you're trying to convince someone to spy for you for reasons they can justify, as opposed to letting you bomb their relatives, the chances are a lot better.

We can even sweeten the deal some more and still keep control. We can allow visitors. Wives, children, family members can come in and spend time, we can allow communication, cards, envelopes, gifts. All of which we monitor. And we can identify and track the visitors, and watch to see who they connect with.

Which gives us better and deeper long term intelligence.

Shabaa farms, "Okay, fine. You want it? The Syrians don't object? We don't want it. You can have it. But we're not just going to hand it over, it'll be a gradual process. We'll phase it in over ten years or so."

And the condition? "No more shots across the border, cut down on the crazy talk at least a little bit (at first, less and less as it goes on), no more screwing around. You got crazies, fine, they're your issue. You keep em under wraps. Once in a while, one might get out and do some harm, that's understandable but it is not tolerable, if that happens we expect you to put a lid on him fast and we expect you to make it right with us. If not, we'll solve the problem ourselves, and you know we can. If it happens too much, we'll just shut it all down and go home, and you can keep the minefields and the wives and children, we'll keep the prisoners and Shabaa farms, and we'll all just go back to shooting at each other."

The point is that good behaviour is insisted upon, honourable self policing is insisted upon, good behaviour and self policing is rewarded, and so good behaviour is motivated. There's enough in it for Hezbollah, at least in the short term, that they want you at the table.

And the longer it goes on, the better our intelligence gets, and the more effectively we can arrange surgical strikes by air or ground attack against key Hezbollah positions and personnel. Because Brother, the intelligence this time out was for crap.

Hezbollah already knows Israel is tough. They've got a thousand dead Lebanese to show for it. Sitting back in a tavern or a chatroom mouthing off is one thing, but real soldiers know what war really is. Hezbollah soldiers know exactly how deadly a machine gun is, they know what a helicopter gunship or a fighter jet can do, and while they're prepared to go up against it... let's just say its not on the top of the 'to do' list, generally speaking.

So, given real opportunities to get results otherwise, they'll go that way.

Okay, now, phase II - Hezbollah runs schools, it runs orphanages, clinics. As Israel, I would say "These are very good and worthwhile things, and we'd like to help you with them. But we're not stupid. We're not going to give you money and have you buy missiles with it. We're not going to give you money for hospitals and schools, and let you free up other money to buy missiles with. So here's the conditions... pick some worthy projects, and we'll contribute 'topping up' money, so you can make it bigger and better. You still have to put your own money in. And we want the right to make inspections and audit the books so we know you're not screwing us around. We'll start small, if it works, we'll expand it, and look for other ways to help. It's not for forever, but if we work together, we might be able to get you up to a level where you can sustain it on your own."

Why on earth should we do this? Because it gentles people. Y'see, there's an old saying that young men are radical and old men are conservative.

The reality is that when you are paying a mortgage, farming your fields, raising your kids, you don't want to change the world. Making sure your son has a good education is more important than destroying Israel. That's just human nature.

So, the more people in Hezbollah who are involved in these things, who are committed to these things, the more people there are to restrain the crazies. The more it seems that the real opportunities are in improving education or health care or running a business, the less influence the crazies have.

Because lets face it. There you are, a good and loyal Mujahedeen fighter, and you are sitting on the local Hezbollah school board late in the night trying to work out the five year budget for the school and thinking about sports uniforms and classroom renovation, textbooks and teachers contracts... the last thing you want to hear is some righteous dickhead interrupting a very important discussion about maintenance costs for the soccer field with some long winded rant about how Israel must be driven into the sea. And worse, crazy talk about launching rockets on a school night? That crap just won't fly.

Finally, I'd say "y'know, we've got stuff you might like to buy, you've got stuff we might buy. Maybe we can loosen up a bit. We're not letting suicide bombers in, but maybe we can have some mutual trading posts along the border. Might be good for both of us."

Get to be customers, get to be suppliers, get some relationships going. It gets harder to be antagonistic. Revive the local Shiite economies, get them connected to and dependent upon Israel, at least in small ways, and "Hey don't fire that rocket at Israel, if you do, who is going to buy my apples? You, dog of a baboon, you don't even like apples!" or "Hey, don't bomb Israel, my stereo deck is from Haifa and the warranty is still good."

If things go bad, punish. But never punish so hard that they don't want to come back to the table. If things go really bad, then destroy without mercy. They know that Israel has it in itself to go all the way, and then some, so its a serious threat... but destroy with good effective intelligence, and destroy where they've got something real to lose.

Look at Afghanistan, there's no point in bombing Afghanistan. All you'll ever do is stir the rubble around.

But the more Hezbollah is committed to schools and hospitals, clinics, day cares, orphanages, businesses, old peoples homes... well, the less and less willing they are to risk all that.

Okay, Zionista, if you've made it this far, you've probably fallen off your chair laughing a dozen times. That's cool. Let me go on a little longer, and then I'll have had my say.

You have this idea that Israel's situation is special and unique, and there's some special, transcendent, implacable, 'otherwordly', hatred between Israel and Arabs.

That's just not true.

It's just run of the mill stuff, actually. Look at history: Carthage vs Rome, Persia vs Greece, Athens vs Sparta, the Union vs the Confederacy, France vs Germany, France vs England, England vs Spain, on and on and on...

You think you've got a grudge? The Germans wiped out 70% of their population fighting each other in the 30 years war. The English and the French had a single war that lasted a hundred years. History is full of grudge matches, its overflowing. And a lot of them have been bigger and nastier and featured way more hatred than you guys got going. "Carthage delendo est", remember that?

So, Carthage was destroyed? Sewed the ground with salt? That was it forever. Good for the Romans, where are they now?

Did Rome really win. Obviously yes. But what did they lose in winning. The Romans benefitted from Greek culture, from the Egyptian economy... what did the Romans lose from not having Phoenician Carthage as one of their great cities. The Carthaginians were sailors, would the Romans have explored further, explored more boldly. They were traders and industrialists, would the Roman economy have been more vibrant? The population more robust? There's no answer to these questions, but some questions are just there for the asking.

It doesn't have to be Rome and Carthage. France and Germany learned to live with each other. The United States and Japan became allies. Hell, even two societies as violently opposed as the US and USSR managed to have hockey games together.

Israel and Hezbollah, Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Israel and Arabs don't have to play out these stupid pointless games over and over. Carthage isn't fate, Carthage was just a blunder, one more bloody screw up in a history full of bloody screw ups, none of it necessary.

We can break the cycle. We can get off the damned treadmill. Israel has the power to change things.

No

I'm afraid your view is not "nuanced" enough.

Throughout history nations have taken great trouble to assure public support during wartime, to prevent treason, sedition, defeatism, dissension. Can they all have been wrong?

For the last 500 years English speaking societies, Western societies (and others too perhaps) have tried to allow freer and freer speach, recognizing the downside of forced conformity. It's an experiment. Free speech has its downsides as well.

I was surprised to learn that Vo Nguyen Giap listed "influencing American public opinion" as one the the principal reasons for launching the TET offensive and rated it a success precisely because it was effective in this way. Was he wrong? Was he unique? Hardly and no.

Shall we conduct wars based on fickle public attitudes as revealed in polls and the griping of the troops? I for one say no. It's a sure way to lose. Are you contending that public support, or lack of, has no effect on the morale of the troops? Ridiculous. I suggest you take to reading the posts over at Free Republic on a regular basis.

I see it as "pushing for accountability".

Clearly, there must be accountability.

But "a great many of them have themselves concluded there is no reason for them being there that justifies what they are being put through." is a recipe for disaster. You can't have an army if each soldier is free to decide policy. Nor is it clear in the present situation how many is a great many. If I listen to Robert D. Kaplan in "Imperial Grunts" or the servicemen and their relatives who post to Free Republic I find a great many is very few...and if it is very few, those who say a great many are indeed traitorous defeatists.

Valdron, 

You have this idea that Israel's situation is special and unique, and there's some special, transcendent, implacable, 'otherwordly', hatred between Israel and Arabs.

That's just not true.

And that's where you've got me all wrong.  But that's not entirely your fault.  I often feel compelled to prioritize my comments to respond to those who tend to believe that Israel's existance is somehow more suspect, if not downright illegitimate, than any other nation with borders and armies defending them.  I find such notions extreme, take the appropriate offense, and tend to want to right the wrong, one comment at a time.  As a result, I'm fairly sure that there are much more of those hobbyhorses of mine kicking around these archives than just about any of my others.

But I otherwise like to chant that Jewish and Arab national rights are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and that a Jewish state, Arab states, a Jewish diaspora and an Arab diaspora can all benefit tremendously from mutual commercial and cultural interests, once we find the way to stop blowing each other to bits.

We can break the cycle. We can get off the damned treadmill. Israel has the power to change things.

And that's where we essentially disagree.  Israel cannot do it alone.  Israel needs partners as much as anyone else.  It's not unlike normal business economics, where the main ingredients are producers, consumers and lots and lots of happy repeat customers.  No nation can entirely control its circumstances anymore than a man can be an island. 

Once upon a time, not that long ago, the Arab League had an opportunity -- in Beirut, as irony would have it -- to implement a decent proposal by then-Saudi crown prince Abdullah.  But the Arab League debated, adapted and adopted it into a useless ultimatum.  I submit that "Do everything we say, then maybe we'll talk," is no way to open diplomatic channels with any adversary.  Exchanging diplomats does it.  Israelis at the time and at the highest levels articulated desires of further negotiations to anyone who would listen (I've posted these elsewhere in other comments to other postings, and if you skipped them or want me to repeat them, let me know).  However, it is the leaders and nations of the Arab establishment that, for the most part, do not recognize Israel's legitimacy, not the other way around. Surely the despots high atop the regimes of Arab League member nations could afford to put some suits on a plane for Ben Gurion.

In your view, has there ever been, or could there ever be, a situation in which the best course of action would be to pull back and cease a war effort?

You wrote: "Clearly, there must be accountability."

How do you propose that accountability be brought to bear in the context of the war in Iraq? Is it somehow supposed to appear out of thin air?

You wrote: "...You can't have an army if each soldier is free to decide policy. Nor is it clear in the present situation how many is a great many. If I listen to Robert D. Kaplan in 'Imperial Grunts' or the servicemen and their relatives who post to Free Republic I find a great many is very few..."

I am not suggesting 'having an army where each soldier is free to decide policy.' That obviously cannot work.

What I am suggesting is that, if the war effort were being run passably well with clear aims, there would not be problematic morale among the troops. The troops are responding primarily to what they are experiencing, which is a poorly planned and executed effort in the service of fuzzy and shifting aims.

At what point, in your view of matters, is it appropriate for the public to send a clear message to the politicians that the current course is no longer acceptable?
In your view, is the public in a democracy supposed to support any and all wars ad infinitum, no matter their consequences, no matter how well or poorly they are being conducted, and no matter whether their leaders appear capable of learning and making adjustments along the way? In a dictatorship, publics have little say in such matters. In a functioning democracy, I had thought it is otherwise.

You wrote: "Throughout history nations have taken great trouble to assure public support during wartime, to prevent treason, sedition, defeatism, dissension. Can they all have been wrong?"

If you believe this American public is quick to buy into fairy tails of doom and gloom spun out of whole cloth from a tiny but noisy minority of a minority (initially) of outspoken war opponents, absent any facts on the ground which would justify criticism and skepticism, then you would have this worry. I don't share that belief.

By the way, do you group dissent in with "treason, sedition, defeatism, dissension"?

In the masterful analysis here, Dan K says:

Bush administration view of the situation: Iran is an outlaw, terrorist nation. It must be forced to comply with international demands. We will not negotiate with Iran because one does not negotiate with terrorists - one compels them. We will engage in discussions, but only to make our position crystal clear, and only if Iran first meets the precondition of suspending enrichment.

To what extent are our interests really served by a policy of indirect rather than direct discussions?  I've never quite understood this, which seems to stretch back to the late 1950s, in this country but doesn't seem to have much place in the history of European Diplomacy. 

The countries to which we give the diplomatic cold shoulder seem to go their merry ways quite unbothered by the snubs...the one possible counter-example being Libya.  The Swiss are very nice people, and it is nice of them to represent our interests in Tehran.  I'd like to think we could represent our own interests a bit more and not make so much extra work for them.  Diplomats can't be that expensive.  how much do pairs of striped pants cost?   

The point behind the frivolity is that we've extended ourselves to countries with which we've been in disagreement before...informally (Louis Armstrong, ping-pong diplomacy) and had reciprocal extensions in return whole ballet troops of Bolshoivik (sic) good will ambassadors in the 1950s and 1960s.  I wonder if the Iranians play ping-pong?

aMike