[Do] the hawks in this country see that? Probably.

Will they admit it was bad for Israel? No.

I was in Israel in April and met with top government, academic and journalist types. Right, left and center. The only consensus on anything was about what a disaster the Iraq war has been for Israel.

As one Hebrew University prof put it: "You have to hand it to George Bush. He ended a thousand years of Sunni hegemony in the Muslim world by handing Iraq to the Shiites. This could be the end of us."

He was slightly joking. That was before the recent Lebanon war.

American Jews have opposed the Iraq war from the get go. Opposition to the war (according to the AJ Committee and internal Democratic polls in 2004) was the main reason Jews voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

The Jews who support the war are essentially those whose names you see signing pro-war op-eds (to this day) or who work in the administration, related think-tanks, etc.

These are obviously a tiny minority of Jews.

There is, for them, no reason to admit the war was bad for Israel because -- contrary to popular opinion -- they are not Zionists. They don't "love" Israel because they are Jewish, because they derive pleasure from little Jewish kids eating ice cream in Tel Aviv or because they see the IDF as somehow the extension of the Warsaw Ghetto fighters(that is how I see the IDF, I have to admit).

These neocons once cared about Israel. But that attachment evolved first into disdain for those elements of the left that opposed Israel, then into hatred for the liberals who agreed with the left on Vietnam (although not Israel), and then finally into an embrace of the Right in general.

By the time of the Iraq war, most of these types
had become so inextricably a part of the Right that they barely remembered that it was their attachment to Israel that first brought them there. Besides, they hated Rabin, Oslo, and Israel's continuing social liberalism.

They no longer heard the siren call of Israel but of the GOP, and especially Bush 43. These are the people they wanted to hang with. Yes, Israel had brought them to the dance (or so they thought) but now they had a new partner.

Israel was transformed for them from a central issue to a pretext. Driving them now was hatred for liberals and a passion to stand with White Christian Conservative America. Their Israel is not Tel Aviv but Right America's fighting machine.

The war was their big moment. We are even more American than the Americans!

Bottom line. Why would they care that the war has been a disaster for Israel when they clearly do not care that it has been a disaster for America?

That is why they shed no tears over the American GI's killed in Iraq or the Israelis killed in Lebanon (they actually criticize the military in both places, double chickenhawks that they are).

They will never admit this war was bad for Israel because, for them, it wasn't. Their only worry is that we might not fight Iran and, maybe, that every historian of the Iraq war has confirmed that what Tommy Franks said about Doug Feith was dead on.

Do they even care?  I don't see it.  They didn't care when David Kay concluded there was no Iraqi threat from WMD.  They didn't care when there was found to be no Saddam-al Qaida link.  The only thing they cared about when Joe Wilson busted the president's State of the Union Nigerian uranium assertions was slamming Joe Wilson.

Josh, two articles that may be of interest to this discussion. They tell why I think that yes, Israel is in line for benefits from the Iraq war AND gives a good motive for this latest phase with Lebanon.

A 4-pipeline deal with Turkey is in the works. Pipelines for Oil, Natural Gas, Electricity and WATER.

Excerpts:

The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil

Water for Israel

Also involved in this project is a pipeline to bring water to Israel, pumping water from upstream resources of the Tigris and Euphrates river system in Anatolia. This has been a long-run strategic objective of Israel to the detriment of Syria and Iraq. Israel's agenda with regard to water is supported by the military cooperation agreement between Tel Aviv and Ankara.

The Re-routing of Central Asian Oil

Diverting Central Asian oil and gas to the Eastern Mediterranean (under Israeli military protection), for re-export to Asia, serves to undermine the inter-Asian energy market, which is based on the development of direct pipeline corridors linking Central Asia and Russia to South Asia, China and the Far East.

Ultimately, this design is intended to weaken Russia's role in Central Asia and cut off China from Central Asian oil resources. It is also intended to isolate Iran.

Meanwhile, Israel has emerged as a new powerful player in the global energy market.

War and Oil Pipelines

Prior to the bombing of Lebanon, Israel and Turkey had announced the underwater pipeline routes, which bypassed Syria and Lebanon. These underwater pipeline routes did not overtly encroach on the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria. {from CIA Factbook: Lebanon Maritime claims: territorial sea: 12 nm)

On the other hand, the development of alternative land based corridors (for oil and water) through Lebanon and Syria would require Israeli-Turkish territorial control over the Eastern Mediterranean coastline through Lebanon and Syria.

The implementation of this project requires the militarisation of the East Mediterranean coastline, sea ways and land routes, extending from the port of Ceyhan across Syria and Lebanon to the Lebanese-Israeli border.

Is this not one of the hidden objectives of the war on Lebanon? Open up a space which enables Israel to control a vast territory extending from the Lebanese border through Syria to Turkey.

"Israel has emerged as a new powerful player in the global energy market." By setting up as the middleman and passing it off as an 'engine of peace'? Shades of Enron, anyone? Sunni or Shiite, they can't figure this out?

May. 11, 2006 Israel and Turkey plan energy pipeline

"We are talking about a global energy project, which would be a very important engine of peace in the region," Turel said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.

Where's that peace again?

If I hadn't seen other press suggesting that Turkey is very unhappy right now, I might be inclined to agree.

But there are other frictions not being reported in western media, like this:

US Opposes to Unilateral Turkish Action in North Iraq While Iran Supports Turks [sic]

Maybe there are potential benefits to Israel, but they don't appear to be helping matters between the U.S. and their long-time ally Turkey. What's bad for the U.S. is going to be bad for Israel, ultimately.

Well, well!

Israel was a big supporter of the Iraq adventure. The Likudniks and neo-cons were indistinguishable in their promotion of the Iraq invasion with whatever propaganda they could muster. And those that predicted the current outcome (including Bush Sr.) were ridiculed for their wimpishness and attacked for their lack of patriotism. The Iraq debacle is as much Israel's as it is for the US. I guess we reap what we sow. If now it is recognized in Israel that the Iraq invasion was bad, are they chastened or is more military action the result?

As an American, the relevant question is how has the US benefited from its absolute and total support (political, military and financial) of Israel for over 3 decades?

Oh yes, let Iran handle the rebellious Kurds and do the dirty work--brilliant. Those northern valleys are where the water will be coming from.

And why would the Americans care about a civil war in Iraq? Let Baghdad decimate themselves. When the water gets diverted it's going to dry up and blow away anyhow, the less population to deal with then--to these killers--the better.

All that will be left is the oil.

-

American Jews have opposed the Iraq war from the get go. Opposition to the war (according to the AJ Committee and internal Democratic polls in 2004) was the main reason Jews voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

The Iraq invasion was being promoted as to make Israel safer (after all Saddam had fired scuds at Israel).

I think many politicians with substantial Jewish support (e.g. Ms. Clinton) based part of their invasion support on this (i.e. don't piss off the Jews).

The main question is where the "pro invasion = pro Israel" message came from. My guess is that it came from the Jewish/Israel lobbyists not from the Jewish constituents.

This disconnect between these lobbyists and the people they supposedly represent needs to be documented and addressed.

Dear Ken,

Never underestimate the power of MAD.

Perhaps the bomb shipments from the US were made as a deliberate statement of who has what arms? It was certainly no secret. Anything the mainstream media reports is suspect to motive.

imho,
Psyops

I think it is probably too early to say whether the Iraq war will prove, in the long run, to be a net benefit or net loss for Israel.

Certainly many of the initial consequences look bad for Israel. But perhaps one possibility is that these intial consequences of the war, including the rise of Iranian/Shiite power, will have a bracing, transforming effect on Israel's political culture and its understanding of its long-term strategic position.

Perhaps Israel will finally realize that it cannot sustain its posture of Middle East lone wolf and pariah state indefinitely. It cannot count on its own strength, a lasting US hegemony, and an indefinite future of Arab and Muslim weakness and ineptitude. To secure a future worth having, Israel needs a long-term strategy based on building a genuine coalition of partners in the region. This transformation will be a painful and difficult process, and will require that Israel sacrifice a great deal, accept the need to finally implement UN 242, permit the formation of a robust Palestinian state with which it shares Jerusalem, and decisivley defeat its own large internal party of aggressive maximalists. But the only alternative is what will become an increasingly desperate Alamo/Masada strategy.

More important than the question of the impact of the Iraq war on Israel, however, given that Israel is just one relatively small country in this world, is the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was good for the rest of us. It certainly doesn't appear so. We presently have a rather large, deadly and dangerous mess on our hands in the heart of the Middle East - a mess people around the world will be cleaning up for decades.

Here's something interesting:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/09/f4c46732-8f80-46a0-8c74-afdeecc3b794.html

Source Of Tension

Experts worry that dwindling water supplies could likely result in regional conflicts in the future. Water has become a major source of tension between Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. Turkey, located upstream of the Tigris and Euphrates river systems, began the Southeast Anatolia (GAP) Project in 1990, which will give it extensive control over the flow of Euphrates water and is expected to double Turkey's irrigated farmland. The project is expected to be completed by 2010. In an article, "The New Water Politics Of The Middle East" ("Strategic Review," Summer 1999), the authors explain that: "Despite the signing of a protocol ensuring Syrian access to Euphrates water in 1987, Turkish development efforts have increasingly threatened to marginalize and even eliminate Syrian access to water."

"In the future," the article continues, "Turkish-Syrian disputes over water could escalate into regional conflict.... Once fully operational, the GAP Project may reduce Euphrates water to Syria by 40 percent and Iraq by up to 80 percent. Such activity, critical for Syria, will also be significant enough to substantially affect Iraq."

The issue is between Turkey and Syria and Iraq. No sign of Israel in this one. But given the issues, we could see a catalyst for a major three way war.

But there's also this:

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/006-304/006-304.html

In 2003, only two countries in the world were enthusiastic about attacking Iraq. That was us and Israel, where polls showed over 76 percent of the population in support of the war (in a country where, for every two people, you find three opinions).

Which shows that Israel's body politic is pretty much as clueless and delusional as ours.

And that's cause for worry. Israel is completely stuck now, with an enemy, Hezbollah, that they can't defeat, and a "government," Hamas, that they won't talk to.

The lesson from Iraq and Lebanon is that, for the first time in ages, Arabs have defeated two Western powers: a global superpower and a regional one.

Make no mistake: there's Shiamentum in the region. It's URGENT for Israel to do a 180 and vie for comprehensive peace now! There's a window of opportunity. Take it!

Skeptics will say, "Even if you give the Palestinians the pre'67 border, they'll never be happy and ask for more."

I disagree but that's irrelevant. There was a time when such a discussion was valid. That time has passed. Israel has a stark choice: talk to your neighbors now and get a deal now; or... become a theme park for Jewish and Christian religious nut jobs that the rest of us will watch from afar, like we watch exotic animals at the zoo.

Israelis have missed every opportunity given to them in the last 40 years. (Abba Eban's quote about Palestinians just proves that it takes one to spot one.)

They have 10 years to fix the mess. If they don't, Israel will have proven to be a failed experiment.

PS Note there's not a single moral argument here. Who is right and who is wrong is now pretty much irrelevant to the future.

Disaster for everyone. Israel, being in the front lines, will feel it sooner, but we'll all be bearing the cost of aggressive stupidity at this critical time. And I don't just mean aggressive stupidity on the part of Israel, US, Hezbollah, or Saddam Hussein. I mean also the Europeans and Arab states for acting as enablers of the stupidity, in their own varied ways and for their own varied reasons. I mean also Iran for egging antagonists on with every deep and subtle strategy the inventors of chess could think of. The region, hell, the whole world, seems to full of brilliant boneheads.

http://acid-test.blogspot.com/

One thing that interested me was an article by Seymore Hersh in the New Yorker in which he said that Israel had already decided that the Iraq war was a lost cause, and was trying to plan for the aftermath by building relations with the Kurds. If that is true - even if the specific plans Hersh talked about don't work- it puts Israel in a position to be less worse off than the US (I don't know about better).

At least they see it coming.

I would argue that nothing the Bush administration has done from January 20th, 2001 on has been good for Israel.

From Day One, the anti-Clinton approach has yielded how many foreign policy successes in the Middle East (cue the crickets)?

If you look at where Cheney comes from, the whole approach seems to be: start all the wars and see who comes out clean on the other side. When you couple that with no understanding of the region whatsoever, then we're only right in the middle of this conflict. This Israel/Lebonan war is just a small blip in the "long war" Cheney keeps talking about.

I think it's pretty obvious where they think the end-game is, and that will only come with the resolution of many conflicts to come.

Isn't painfully obvious by now that it's war after war after war for this troupe, no matter how long it takes, and then things will magically shake out in America's favor? I can't discern any other way of thinking for this gang. And given that, isn't Israel's security just an afterthought?

We already know Cheney is contemplating air strikes on Iran. For me, hope of all hopes, that never comes to be. But if it does, do you think Cheney has Israel's security in mind? Or even the region's long-term stability?

When we all come to terms with the fact that when Cheney says he wants stability in the region, he actually means the opposite?

I've read all the hee-hee's and ha-ha's, and all the Orweillian comparisons, and guess what? I'm not fucking laughing anymore. Are you?

Each spring the Chicago Cubs, on paper, appear to be a World Series contender. It is not until 100 to 120 games are played that people realize they are not only not a contender, but are not even a .500 team.

The build-up to the Iraq War was our proverbial "Spring Training." On paper it looked good for us. We would have little trouble in toppling Saddam and the Iraqi people would throw flowers on us for liberating them.

Well the game has been played and we seem to have lost. Now we know what not to do.

The point, though, is that it took this dismal failure to teach us the lesson. We cannot forget that in March of 2003 a clear majority of Americans favored the invasion of Iraq. The ALLUSION of American might was still very much intact.

And it was a strong and very convincing mirage. So convincing, in fact, that most of the world believed it.

Most people tend to forget that international outrage at the U.S. for invading Iraq had nothing to do with the idea that things would go horribly and Iraq would become a hotbed for extremism.

No.

The outrage was directed at the U.S. because many believed the U.S. would have an easy time in conquering Iraq and would commandeer the oil there.

The only way this allusion could be broken is by experiencing failure and seeing it firsthand.

A powerful mirage indeed. Akin, in fact, to the contention in 1861 (by many northerers AND southerners) that the Rebellion might be put down in one battle.

Thank you.
I agree with your point.

I agree.  Opposition was based on moral grounds (the anticipated harm from the air war campaign), on formal IR and international law grounds (Bush's preemptive war doctrine), and on a general distaste for being lied to (if we're really concerned with WMD, we'd give Blix and El Baradei an opportunity to complete the inspections).

That Iraq would, for whatever reason, fall apart completely was not a significant part (or perhaps, any part) of the discussion. 

You put your finger on a key point: electoral politics in the US contributes to making the public debate about Israel arguably the dumbest one can find anywhere in the English-speaking world.

I am not talking about agreeing or disagreeing. I might agree with dumbly articulated points and disagree with intelligent arguments.

Whoever saw the sad spectacle of Clinton/Schumer demonstrating for Israel a few weeks ago couldn't help but be struck by how just imbecillic their talking points were.

True friends of Israel ought to be horrified.

But many so-called friends of Israel, and that includes Jews, are mostly "friends of themselves" for whom the Israel friendship is a winning narrative. But it's bigtime BS!

When I see Kristol, Krauthammer, and their ilk not give a flying crap about the death of Uri Grossman (which did more to give Israeli kids nightmare than any Hezbollah rockets -- Uri was a children's story's hero) not to mention those of the Lebanese civilians, I know there's only one tribe they love: it's a tribe of 1; it's called "themselves."

The die-hard pro-Israeli evangelical Christians are die-hard antisemites, and that's the little secret we all like to sweep under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist: because, remember, there's no antisemitism in America.

Hillary, the woman who was in love with Suha Arafat, now has only love for Jews and hatred for Arabs. Yeah, sure...

With friends like these, Israel needs no enemies.

Politicians are very Pavlovian creatures. Hillary was civil to Suha Arafat and got a huge flack for it when she was running for Senate, and I do not recall any media raising noise that these attacks are ridiculous. Granted, I did not pay that much attention.

Howard Dean was pretty roundly attack for saying that we should be "evenhanded". At that occasion, he got a friendly editorial in NYT. Which is nice, but not enough.

I am encouraged by the tone I find in places like tpmcafe and dailykos. Of course, there is a case of usual suspect that either goes for "Israel is always right" or "Existence of Israel is a mistake", but most see a need of abandoning Hobbesian zero-sum game approach, dreams of New Sparta etc. Things should be better for Palestinians, Lebanese etc. because it would be better for Israel too.

The most helpful codeword I have heard is "we need to return to the policy of negotiations". Some Democrats say it --- to the chagrin to the most die-hard AIPAC-ers, but no one else. And the likes of Clinton and Schumer do not clamor that this is treason. I think that effectively, if not rhetorically, Democrats are more flexible (in spite of appearances, of which there is many). But the only hope is an enlightened and creative president.

Bush is bad for Israel and other living things. I have been telling some pro Bush members of my Jewish family for some time now that Bush and the neocons are not Israel's friend. They did not believe me until now.

Bush does not look at Israel as an ally, he looks at it as a pawn. That's about the same way he looks at everything.

You're ignoring the hundreds of thousands of American Jews who have residency (and usually dual nationality) in Israel. I've never seen any statistics on how many of them voted in the 2004 presidential election, but I'm absolutely certain that an overwhelming majority of those who did cast their votes for Bush, and they did so solely out of gratitude for his invading Iraq. I personally had several dozen arguments with American expats in which I made exactly the same arguments you're positing here -- to no avail. Back in 2004 at least, American-Israelis were the reddest of the red neocons, and non-American Israelis were even redder!

So it's wonderful that at least some of the "top government, academic and journalistic types" are now seeing the light. But that doesn't make them any less culpable for Bush's victory in 2004 -- or, for that matter, America's defeat in Iraq.

Poster Ellen earlier quoted Secretary of State James Baker's 1989 speech to AIPAC (!) in which he called for an end to the Greater Israel fantasy, a Palestinian state, full implementation of UN Res. 242, etc. He was, of course, roundly booed. He was, and is, very proud of that speech. He deserves to be.
It should be noted that in the 17 years since, every speaker at AIPAC conferences (with the exception of Yitzhak Rabin, of course) has told AIPAC precisely what it wants to hear.

Here is one of the most typical examples of a major American politician's AIPAC keynote. The hallmark of a "great" AIPAC speech is that it demands Palestinians to do everything except turn Palestine into Vermont while it calls on Israel to do nothing. This is truly a classic of the genre.

Remarks by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to the 2005 American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference

As Delivered

"Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Lonny.

Welcome to Washington for this extraordinary AIPAC conference. I'm told that the attendance far surpasses any other conference, and it's always been one of the biggest gatherings that Washington hosts every year. So I congratulate you for being here in these numbers with this energy and enthusiasm.

I also thank my friend Bernice, who has served so well on behalf of AIPAC, and congratulate Howard Friedman, the incoming president. I thank Howard Kohr, your executive director; Amy Friedkin; and everyone who works so hard for AIPAC not just when there is a great gathering, like this conference, but every single day, working with us in the Congress working here in Washington.

I want to take just a few minutes to discuss some of the significant challenges facing the United States, Israel and our world today. As you know better than most, events in the Middle East are absolutely critical to our hope for a safer, more secure world, a world in which every nation is free from the threat of global terrorism. And a strong, lasting relationship between the United States and Israel is essential to our efforts to build that world of peace and security.

As all of us know, our future here in this country is intertwined with the future of Israel and the Middle East. Now there is a lot that we could talk about, and obviously much has been discussed. But in the short period that I have been given the honor of addressing you, I want to start by focusing on our deep and lasting bond between the United States and Israel.

Now, these are bonds that are more than shared interests. These are bonds forged in a common struggle for human rights, for democracy, for freedom. These are bonds that predate the creation of the state of Israel, that really predate the creation of the United States because they are rooted in fundamental beliefs and values about the dignity and rights of men and women to live in freedom, free from fear, free from oppression. And there is no doubt that these incredibly strong bonds and values will remain as the lodestar of our relationship with our democratic friend and ally, Israel.

Now, Israel is not only, however, a friend and ally for us, it is a beacon of what democracy can and should mean. It is, after all, a pluralistic democracy. It is, as many of us know from personal experiences, a very dynamic democracy with many points of view, and those are expressed with great frequency and vigor. So if people in the Middle East are not sure what democracy means, let them look to Israel, which has been and remains a true, faithful democracy.

But we know that the goal, the important, essential goal of a democratizing Middle East is complex, and it is not without risks. A few months ago, I went for the second time to Iraq and Kuwait and Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I returned home with hopefulness about what I had seen and learned, but also with a sense of caution about how we should proceed. In Iraq I saw firsthand the daily challenges confronting the Iraqi people. I met with a number of our troops, the brave young men and women who are on freedom's frontlines in Iraq. I met with our civilian representatives in the embassy and other agencies who are also risking their lives to help the Iraqi people.

And I met with representatives of the former interim Iraqi government and the newly elected Iraqi government, as well as private Iraqi citizens.

Now I came away with several overwhelming impressions. First, no matter what one thinks about events that have unfolded in Iraq, there is no doubt that the American military has performed admirably, with professionalism, and that every young man and woman who wears the uniform of our country deserves our support, whether they be active duty, guard, or reserve troop.

You know, it is on trips like that -- despite the often dangerous circumstances, I wish I could bring every one of my constituents -- all 19 million of them and any others who could come -- to see firsthand. I flew from Baghdad to Fallujah in a Blackhawk helicopter; met with the Marines who had liberated Fallujah from the insurgents and terrorists.

I met with many others of our Marines and soldiers who are committed to their mission to try to bring freedom to the people of Iraq. They, as well as the troops I saw in Kuwait and in Afghanistan, are committed to this fundamental belief that people deserve the right to be free, deserve the right to select their own government, deserve the right to plot and plan for a better future for themselves and their children.

I hope that each of you, as you travel through your states and communities, will make it a point to thank these young people, because they're paying a very high price: 1,600-plus lost their lives; thousands and thousands have returned home grievously injured. Because of the advances in battlefield medicine and the new body armor that our troops wear, many are surviving injuries that would have left previous generations of young men and women dead.

So there is no doubt that America has started down a path, with blood and treasure, to try to create the condition for democracy and freedom in the Middle East -- which has consequences for the entire region, for our security, and certainly for Israel's.

At this critical time in this complicated situation we find ourselves in, I think it's important to recognize the extraordinary stand that Prime Minister Sharon and the democratically elected government of Israel have taken as they face the risks and challenges of disengagement and as they try to deal with the newly elected Palestinian leadership.

The prime minister -- whom I am pleased to note will follow me to this stage -- and the state of Israel that he has devoted his entire life to serving are taking a tremendous risk.

I believe it is our obligation as friends and supporters and allies of Israel to support Israel's efforts for peace, stability and security. Now, this means doing more than providing Israel with economic aid so that it can remain strong in the face of ongoing threats. We must also demand that President Abbas dismantle the structures of terror that the Palestinian leadership has employed for so long.

You know, in a democracy, even a fledgling democracy, leaders must be held accountable. And President Abbas must be held accountable for the actions taking place under his leadership. I know that you are asking your senators and representatives to sign on to a letter to President Bush about this, and I'm proud to support these efforts because there can be no doubt that as Israel and its democratic government take these steps and we support them, there has to be reciprocity on the other side as well.

And making progress toward peace and security also requires the end of the barrage of hate and incitement that is still officially sanctioned by the Palestinian Authority. Now, I was relieved to learn this week that the Palestinian Authority removed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion from its website. Reportedly, it had been included on the website under the heading "history of Zionism," but what was it doing there in the first place even though we are relieved that it is no longer there?

We must continue to be vigilant about monitoring hate and incitement and anti-Semitism, not only by the Palestinian Authority but throughout the Arab world. Saudi textbooks characterize Jews as wicked. Iranian news reports, obviously representing the opinion of their government, have lent credence to Holocaust deniers. This is an issue that all of us need to be concerned about.

And five years ago, I stood with my friend, Elie Wiesel, to denounce this incitement, this violence, this anti-Semitism in Palestinian textbooks. And I've been working on this issue because to me it is one of those basic issues that -- how do we expect to have a democratically elected Palestinian government if their textbooks are still preaching such hatred, and if we allow this if we allow this dehumanizing rhetoric to go unchallenged. Because what is happening is young minds are being infected with this anti-Semitism, and that is going to run counter to what we hope can happen over the next years as we do work for peace and stability.

So we must continue to shine a bright spotlight on these messages of hatred and these enticements for martyrdom in these textbooks and on the media that take young minds and twist and pervert them and create a new generation of terrorists and insurgents.

About a year and a half ago, I held a hearing with Senator Specter on the Palestinian media, and I confronted the Palestinian Authority representative about this issue, whom we had invited to come and address the Senate committee. I urged him to acknowledge that when it comes to children, whoever those children are, shielding them from hate and violence should be the number one priority of their families and their governments and the entire global community to prevent this hatred from festering.

Using children as pawns in a political process is tantamount to child abuse, and we must say it has to end now!

And, of course, that infection is contagious, and it can spread beyond the Palestinian territories. It can spread into other parts of the Arab world, and it can impact what goes on there.

And of course, one of the areas I am deeply concerned about is Iran, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, because a nuclear-armed Iran would shake the foundation of global security to its very core. Israel would be most immediately and profoundly threatened by this development, but Israel would not be alone. Knowing of Iran's historic and present ties to terrorist networks, how would we feel, here in America, if the Iranians could start producing nuclear weapons at will? How would the Europeans feel if Iran could start nuclear weapons at will?

So let us be unequivocally clear. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, but it is not just unacceptable to Israel and to the United States. It must be unacceptable to the entire world, starting with the European governments and people.

I know that during your conference and in the lobbying that you will be doing on Capitol Hill, you're trying to draw attention to the threat that is posed by a nuclear Iran. And I commend you for these efforts; this is one of our most serious security and foreign policy priorities. And we need to make working with our allies to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon a top priority.

Now one of the terrorist groups that Iran supports is Hezbollah. And we know that Hezbollah poses a direct and dire risk to the stability of the Middle East. Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon -- which is very good news for the Lebanese people -- also creates an opportunity for Hezbollah to wreak havoc.

So we need to remain vigilant about the terrorist threat and work to stop the flow of support to Hezbollah from Syria and Iran. And we need to convince our European allies of Hezbollah's threat to order in the region and to the civilized world, and convince them to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

And the Europeans must do more to cut off the funding and the fund-raising that goes on in Europe for Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad as soon as possible.

Now, there are many other important and pressing issues that must be on our agenda, but I know that as you travel to the Hill to meet with your representatives and senators, you will be presenting a very thoughtful and compelling analysis of these and other challenges we face. I thank you for not only being willing to stand up for our values and our relationship with Israel, but also to take your responsibilities as citizens seriously, to lobby and to advocate, to persuade and to dissuade, to discuss these critical issues with all who will listen.

We are living at an extraordinary moment in history. There are some days when I am very optimistic, and there are other days, I have to confess, when I'm pessimistic. I guess that just goes with the territory. But what I am absolutely convinced of is that our common values, values shared and exemplified by our country and by Israel, are the right values, the values that everyone should have an opportunity to be exposed to and to understand and, hopefully, to emulate.

There is no other option in the world that, as Tom Friedman said, has been flattened. We can communicate with each other, we can be transported over long distances quickly, we can follow events in other places far away. And therefore, we need to recognize that our struggle, our ongoing struggle for freedom and democracy is the only way that we can ensure that in this shrinking, flattened world, our children will have a chance for peace and security.

We cannot shrink from the duty that this time has imposed upon us. We can have great -- and we should -- great debates and discussions about what are the best ways to proceed and to pursue these common objectives. We need that. We need that debate and discussion because we are in uncharted territory. No one has all the answers, and we need the combined intelligence and good ideas of as many people as possible.

So what you are doing today is not only on behalf of AIPAC, not only on behalf of Israel, not only on behalf of the strong and enduring relationship between the United States and Israel; it is truly on behalf of the kind of world we want for our children and, for those lucky enough, grandchildren.

And we cannot grow weary. This is a long, arduous path. Israel, Israelis, the American Jewish community and the broader diaspora know about this struggle and this path better than most.

So if we resolve not to grow weary, but to pursue these values together, I am ultimately not only optimistic, but confident that the world will see a better and brighter day, and our children will thank us for making it possible.

Thank you all very much. God bless you." Click here to watch Senator Clinton's
speech at AIPAC's Policy Conference

Well in that case, you'd better hope that no one becomes interested in kicking America's ass in that 10 to 20 years.

But why are we worried. Look at all the friends and allies the Bush administration has cultivated in the last six years.

Corvid

The dimensions of our problems in Iraq and the Middle East are so vast only because of our oil consumption, which ties us directly to the ills of the region and which directly funds the worst elements there--and, incidentally, justifies some of their anger. I think the admission ticket to any discussion like this should be an iron-clad commitment to immediately reduce your personal oil consumption by at least 50 percent. For the vast majority of us, this is doable.

Permit me to disagree. The prospect of a guerilla war by fundamentalists Shiites backed by Iran, by funamentalists Sunni supported by Al Quaeda, by Baathist remnants and other nationalists was obvious and inescapable. There were a lot of discussions that began "... and what then, after we take over..."

There were simply too many and too obvious precedents, starting with the Russian failure in Afghanistan and Hezbollahs campaign against the occupation of Lebanon.

As noted, concerns about an Iraqi civil war were so common, and such a concern, that Wolfowitz was forced to discuss the matter with congress. Certainly the Yugoslavia examples in Bosnia and Kosovo were on display at the time.

Finally, the risk of turning out a failed state was also in mind, and backed by a great many examples, including particularly Somalia where the US had within the decade encountered disaster (a disaster that was made into a very recent movie), but also touching on Lebanon, Liberia, etc.

General Shinseki sounded the warning bell when he advised that the occupation would require far more troops than the U.S. could actually muster.

The only thing that I will agree with is that no one predicted the absolute incompetence, the corruption and the disastrous handling of Iraq.

It used to be that foreign policy in Congress was the stuff of absurd posturing and the executive would mind the store. On rare occasions, it was the other way around.

While I think the rest of your post is somewhat hyperbolic, this is a pretty key starting point:

The lesson from Iraq and Lebanon is that, for the first time in ages, Arabs have defeated two Western powers: a global superpower and a regional one.

It was always clear that even with the best-managed invasion, and a relatively peaceful transition to a stable state (I know, a lot of if's) invading Iraq would vastly upset the balance of power in the region. And that was part of the crazy idea of the invasion - to replace a dangerous dictator with a US-friendly democracy, and demonstrate that the Attaturk effect could work in Arabia proper. But even had we succeeded in some sort of grand democratic experiment, the fundamental balance of power issues were never addressed:
Iran put up with Saddam's oppression of the Shia to avoid restarting a messy war. They were obvious going to be looking at things differently post-Saddam. Turkey benefitted from Saddam's oppression of the Kurds to avoid Kurdish nationalism domestically. With any participation by the Kurds, Turkey was going to have to address its own Kurdish population head-on. The ascendence of the Shia in general - another inexorable consequence of removing Saddam - would doubtless invigorate the Shia in Lebanon. And Israel was to continue to be US proxy and bad cop in the region. There are a huge number of downsides to having that balance shift rapidly, and Israel is feeling a lot of those downsides now.

I really think this war was hatched in the early 90's, when we were just reckoning with unmatched American military power, and (still) nobody had thought hard about how effective asymmetric warfare can be (whether as an anti-occupation insurgency or a client army based on community grievances). If you look through the "Clean Break" document PNAC and Netanyahu hatched prior to 1996, it's all about balance of state power and rolling back state threats (mainly Syria, whose importance is profoundly overstated). There is absolutely no mention of asymmetric threats, or the participation and interests of Shia communities in future states. And the role of Syria is so profoundly overstated that it's almost laughable.

This link:
http://www.irmep.org/Policy_Briefs/3_27_2003_Clean_Break_or_Dirty_War.html
does a decent job of connecting the points in the document to recent events. Given the organization's clear pro-Palestinian leanings, it's probably wise to take their assessments with a grain of salt.

I'd say the chief damage is happening now. There is a balance of power negotiation happening or about to happen between the Shia and Kurds as emerging political entities, and the remaining state actors. The US and Israel need to secure themselves a seat at that table - a seat which clearly cannot be bought merely with military force. Imagine the threat from a Hezbollah supported by Iraq's (Shiite) government as Iran's. Kinda takes Turkey, Jordan and Syria out of the picture vis-a-vis Southern Lebanon. The strategic restraint Kevin Drum mentions does help buy that seat - let people know you've got power, but exercise it judiciously to keep em guessing. But we have relatively little time and a lot of fences to mend.

I wouldn't call it a small window. Rabid nationalism seems a staple of American life. But I'll agree it went particularly virulent.

As for John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, I think it tells us more about who they were and how they responded to White House and media hysteria.

But yeah, there was definitely a real push for war fever.

The question is, was it live, or was it memorex.

Was it something people actually would have gone for on their own, or was it all manufactured hysteria.

People certainly wanted action following the 9/11 attacks. The Iraq War was a perfectly manufactured and beautifully packaged offer which a lot of folks couldn't resist opening.

But getting back to my original point, I think an enormous positive can be taken away from the Bush years. The allusion (or as Piotr opined, ILLUSION) of universal American military dominance was very strong and even those who opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning could have had no way of understanding the extent of this straw man.

In other words, as long as U.S. foreign policy was dictated under the auspices of this allusion (or illusion) there was always the possibility of disaster. We have perhaps seen that with the Iraq War.

Now that the blindfold has been removed, policy can take a more substantive step forward. Surprisingly, even Bush himself seems to have acknowledged this. If the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict had occurred during his first term (assuming, of course, that it wasn't COMPLETELY fabricated) I find it hard to believe the U.S. would so willingly have stayed on the sidelines.

Though I don't buy the argument that the international community fears the American military any less. Even if this were true, it is still a mighty military in certain regards and any brazen underestimation on the part of others (presumably enemies) could work very well for the U.S. if the right policy were being implimented.

Very interesting stuff, Howard.

I've been trying hard to locate a passage in Tolstoy's "War and Peace" that seems particularly apt in this current situation here in the United States.

It takes place in Book II, Part II, Chapter 11.

In it, Pierre, an illegitimate child of his famous father (Count Bezukhov)surprisingly inherits his father's enormous estate: serfs, money, etc. After being "born again" through the Masonic Brotherhood, Pierre not only acknowledges God but decides to take a trip throughout Russia and visit all of his estates.

He intends to spend vast amounts of his fortune in improving the lives of his downtrodden serfs. Assylums, schools, and hospitals are to be built on ever estate and serfs are to be hired labor as opposed to indentured servants.

Once these steps had been taken, Pierre felt as if he had done much good. Nevermind the fact that his bookeeper imbezzeled much of the money and did almost nothing to actually carry out Pierre'e orders.

Returning from his long sojourn, Pierre visited his friend, Prince Bolkonsky, who, after being severely wounded against Napoleon's forces at the Battle of Austerlitz, decided to live a life of solemnity.

The following is a passage from this chapter. I will let you interpret its contemporary meaning and who seems to be playing who in our country today. It is long but well worth the read.

Pierre: "What error or evil can there be in my wishing to do good-though I did very little and did it very badly-still I wanted to do good, and accomplished a little something. What possible harm can there be if unfortunate people, our serfs-people just like ourselves-were growing up and dying with no idea of God and truth beyond ceremonies and meaningless prayers, and are now instructed in the comforting belief in a future life, retribution, recompense, and consolation?

"What evil and error can there be if people were dying of disease without any help when material assistance could so easily be rendered, and I supplied them with a doctor, a hospital, an assylum for the aged? And is it not a palpable, incontestable good if a peasant or a woman with an infant has no respite day or night, and I give them rest and leisure?

"And that is what I have done, though badly and to a very small extent, but I have made a start, and you cannot persuade me that it was not good."

Prince Andrei: "Come, let's argue the matter. You talk of schools, instruction, and so forth; that is, you want to raise him" (he pointed to a peasant who passed by them, taking off his cap)"from his animal condition and endow him with moral needs.

"It seems to me that animal happiness is the only happiness possible, and that is just what you want to deprive him of. I envy him, but you want to make him what I am, without providing him with my intelligence, my feelings, or my means.

"Another thing, you want to lighten his toil. But as I see it, physical labor is an essential to him, as much a condition of his existance as mental activity is to you and me. You can't help thinking. I go to bed after two in the morning, thoughts come to my mind, I can't sleep and toss about till dawn, because I think, and can't help thinking, just as he can't help plowing and mowing; if he didn't he would go to the tavern, or fall ill. Just as I could not stand his terrible physical labor but should die within a week, so he could not stand my physical inactivity, but would grow fat and die.

"The third thing, what was it you said? Oh yes, hospitals and medicine. Our peasant has a stroke, he's dying; you have him bled and he recovers, but he's a cripple, he'll drag about for ten years, a burden to everyone. It would have been far easier and simpler for him to die. Others are being born, there are plenty of them as it is."

Pierre: "Oh, that is awful! Awful!"

Prince Bolkonsky: "Look here, you want to liberate your serfs and that is a very good thing, but not for you-I'm sure you never had anyone flogged or sent to Siberia-and still less for your peasants. If they are beaten, flogged, or sent to Siberia, I don't suppose they are any worse the worse for it. In Siberia, they can lead the same brutish life; the stripes on the body heal and they are just as happy as before. The men it would be good for are those morally ravaged serf-owners who bring remorse upon themselves, stifle that remorse, and grow callous as a result of being able to inflict punishment justly and unjustly.

"It is those people I pity, and for their sakes I should like to see to see the serfs liberated. You may not have come across it, but I have seen how good men brought up in these traditions of unlimited power, in time, as they grow more irascible, become cruel and obdurate, and though they are aware of it, are nable to restrain themselves, and grow more and more miserable.

"So you see, that is who and what I am sorry for-human dignity, peace of mind, purity, and not backs and heads, which, however you beat and shave them, remain the same backs and heads."

I don't think it was an illusion of American might. The Iraqi army was destroyed in no time at all. It was never a question of "can America occupy Iraq" but rather "after America occupies Iraq, what next?" Apparently the administration never thought that far forward.

And from the excerpt you posted, funny as hell. The essence of humour is cognitive dissonance. Insight is always a bonus.

The Democrats did not approve the war. They approved a resolution which was necessary to secure the intrusive UN inspection to determine whether WMDs existed within Iraq. Dubya and the posse had guaranteed that they would secure a second UN resolution before actually starting hostilities. They lied to the US Congress. No proof of WMDs was ever provided. No second UN resolution was ever even voted on.

Why else did Dubya demand haste in starting the war? Just remember all of the calls for immeidate action. He and his minions knew that if the inspections were to be allowed to run their course that the hyped rationale for the war would be revealed. No, Dubya deliberately started the Iraq War, Bush's Great Mespotamian Misadventure. He and the rest of the posse are both criminals and war criminals.

The inference is that only Chomsky and the 'usual suspects' a 'regular cast of ultra liberals' opposed the war.

Umm, what proportion of the US public do you think opposed the war? It wasn't more than 50% like now.

I opposed the war.  I was part of a helpless minority watching the rest of the United States charge at full steam.

I opposed the war because it would increase the victimization of the Iraqi people, who had been hurt by over ten years of sanctions at that point.

The US increasing the victimization of the Iraqi people to advance what it perceived as its interests is what I meant by "an easy win for imperialism"

In essence, people of conscience were well aware of and many predicted many of the outcomes which have occurred.

Let's see a link to back this up.  J.M.Marshall's essay said things may go badly and that may be what Bush wants.  It also said it may go well, which is what he hoped.  I'm not aware of Marshall expressing opposition to the war before hand.  Howard Dean said things may go badly.  May.

Nobody said it is more likely to go badly than well.  Nobody said the reason I oppose the war is because it will go badly US interests as the US perceives them.

One link is enough to prove me wrong. 

One wonders at how startlingly narrow Mr. Evans circles are.

Personal attacks.  This is the internet.  Just point to a link.

It is obvious now.  Nobody said it or put it in writing at the time.

Even when you say nobody predicted the incompetence.  What do you tnink would have been different had the invasion been competent?  If the invasion had been done competently do you believe the situation would be better for Israel than before the invasion?

Didn't you believe in 2003 that the invasion would be done competently? 

Number One - I'm not your monkey. You posted a number of unsubstantiated allegations and I disagreed. I have the right to disagree. If you want to support your allegations *you* post your own damned links to prove your case. You do *not* challenge me to post links simply for disagreeing with you.

Number Two - I may not be a 'Chomskyite Ultra-Liberal' but I can tell you I personally argued that the matter would end in disaster, and I recall I wasn't the only one. I don't need to post a link.

Number Three - I note your careful use of the word 'may', which suggests to me that you are well aware that your position is untenable and you're engaging in semantic hair splitting to support your thesis. Sorry, but that kind of thing may go over well with 'Chomskyite Ultra-Liberals' but my own view is that its a particularly tedious form of gamesmanship and I'm not going to cater to it.

Number Four - There was no personal attack and you know it. Either this is an evasive tactic on your part, or you are unable to distinguish 'gentle funnin' from personal attacks. Either situation is irrelevant to me. The use of the term 'Chomskyite Ultra-Liberal' is not pejorative in this post, but is merely a rendition the term you have used to refer to your peer group. This is the internet, which means people are allowed to disagree with you.

You may find this rude on my part, but frankly, if this is to be your overall approach - semantic quibbling, passive/aggressive challenges, and bruised fluttering - then I don't see any value to engaging in a discussion. This is most explicitly not a judgement or an insult on you personally, nor on your beliefs, nor on your peers. I simply have better uses for my time.

I would certainly count Juan Cole's remarks as a prediction of failure, despite the mealy mouthed "may".

What he was predicting was that the US would ("may") face a Shia insurrection against an American mandated regime.

That is exactly what WOULD have happened if the US had followed the course most "experts" assumed and implicitly predicted - of maintaining the existing sunni dominated social order with a "moderate" autocracy replacing Sadaam.

Instead the US committed what the foreign policy experts regarded as an enormous blunder by suppressing the Baath party and dispersing the officer corps leaving no option but to hold free elections which would inevitably result in a Shia majority government.

Consequently Juan Cole's prediction was falsified by events There is no Shia insurrection against an American mandated government. There is a Shia dominated government which can ask its American allies to leave any time it wants to (in which case the US would have no option but to leave at once).

There were many such predictions. Chomsky insisted that the US could never hold free elections because it could not stomache the Shia islamist parties who would win. He also predicted that the Kurds would be betrayed because Turkey would insist on their suppression. There were numerous predictions of a street by street battle for Baghdad, use of WMDs by Sadaam, destruction of the oil fields, a massive refugee crisis, humanitarian disaster etc etc and, from the Arab League, an opening of the gates of hell throughout the region.

Naturally all these predictions were qualified with "may" - just like Juan Cole's. That doesn't change the fact that they were wrong - just like Juan Cole's.

So far none of this stuff has happened - the war has just taken longer and cost more blood and treasure than optimistic estimates.

Now people are confidently predicting a quite different failure - namely that Iraq will disintegrate in civil war. Indeed people are so confident about this that the common sense precaution of saying "may" is being neglected.

The fact that all these other predictions of failure, including Juan Cole's, have proved false is hardly an argument in support of the latest prediction of doom.

In amongst the many predictions of failure I'm sure somebody can be found who predicted failure through civil war. That is what should be cited by people who believe it is already happening or certain to happen.

The fact that a prediction by Juan Cole that was so obviously false is being cited as evidence for predicted failure instead of actually digging up an early prediction of civil war confirms only one thing. It shows that the feeling of certain failure is quite independent of the arguments in support of that feeling. (It does not prove that there will be a failure, or that there will be a success, but it does prove the level of analysis and argument on these questions is absolutely abysmal).

What the doomsayers miss is that there is no alternative to victory for the overwhelming majority of Iraqis nor for the US. Neither Iraqis nor Americans could accept what would result from failure. Consequently both will continue fighting until success, despite the fact that doomsayers will continue predicting failure until success.

That is not an irrefutable argument. It appears completely circular and flimsy. But its worth thinking about more deeply by people advocating withdrawal here. Just how willing are you to accept the consequences of failure? That is the question voters will be asking themselves if it is a live issues in the next Presidential election. It is also the question Iraqis will be asking themselves.

If the situation gets worse, as it may, the incentive for fighting harder to win will only grow stronger, because failure simply isn't an option. This point should be obvious. The reason it isn't is simply that people here are thinking in terms of "failure for Bush and the Republicans" and see that as a good in itself. Its worth remembering that simply isn't the way most people look at things.

I award your rating, not because I agree with anything you've said, but rather, because you've argued it eloquently and with conviction.

My best guess was that the original planning was, indeed, to have 4ID as a northern pincer. It isn't clear to me at what point CENTCOM or NCA decided Turkey wasn't going to allow it, which might even have been after the southern forces crossed the border.

What did seem deliberate deception was to start ground operations without as full an air preparation as in 1991, and this did seem to take the Iraqis by surprise. Overall, this was a reasonable risk, for two reasons. The Iraqis certainly weren't as strong as they were in 1991, and the US-UK ground forces had a fair bit of improved equipment, plus actual on-the-ground experience in Iraq. It helps when some of your colonels fought over the same terrain, against the same forces, as captains.

The nastiest surprise during the high-intensity phase was finding out that Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters were not as invulnerable as had been thought. They attempted one deep raid, and took much more damage and didn't accomplish as much as expected.

A few things were simply bizarre. Before the insurgents got organized, some Iraqis, with more bravery than brains, decided to make independent attacks on tanks with Toyota pickups equipped with a machine gun in the truck bed. Machine guns affect tank frontal armor about as much as a small flea affects an elephant. There were a couple of incidents where tank crews simply watched with disbelief until the truck bent its fenders against the tank.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

.  .  .  all the precedents which I have cited.  .  .  . 

I must have missed them.  Could you give us a do-over? 

Historical precedents with respect to foreign occupations meeting indigenous resistence:

Spain by Bonapart France (1800), Liberated Haiti by Bonaparte France (1805), Mexico by France (1860), Phillipines by US (1905), Yugoslavia by Nazi Germany (1940's), Kenya by England (Mau Mau, 1950's), Algeria by France (1960) Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and South Africa. This is simply a scattering. The point is that local insurgency movements in response to violent external conquest tend to be the rule rather than the exception.

Most recent and significant? Israel in Lebanon. Russia in Chechnya. Russia in Afghanistan. US Peacekeeping in Somalia. In all situations, Western foreign/interloper states occupying Muslim states or territories and encountering intensive degrees of indigenous resistance which made the occupations non-viable over time.

Political Dislocation or Breakdown of Central Authority in Multi-Ethnic or Federal states leading to civil war: The American Civil war, Yugoslavia Break Up, the Nigerian Civil War, Lebanese Civil war, Somali Civil war, Congolese Civil war, Afghan Civil War, Algerian Civil War.

Again, the Algerian, Lebanese, Afghan and Somali situations are most instructive as they all involved Muslim countries in the greater middle east within recent memory.

The bottom line is that we have a very pronounced historical record going back roughly two centuries of certain sorts of conditions producing raging bonfires. We have several regional precedents in the immediate area and in very recent memory of several countries burned down to matchsticks by such raging bonfires.

It does not take any prescience to simply be aware of Lebanon or Afghanistan and think... "Hmmm, America has bought itself an aggressive insurgency movement there."

All it takes is a middling knowledge of history, or even as little as regularly reading a newspaper once in a while.

That a bitter insurgency would emerge was my prediction at the time of the fall of Iraq, and I was making it to anyone and everyone who would listen.

I will concede that there was a possibility that through careful management and wise planning, the US might have avoided an insurgency.

But lets make no mistake here. The Insurgency was the natural default outcome. All else being equal, or under most conditions, you get an insurgency. Only with considerable luck and skill ... ie, bucking the odds, do you avoid it.

The same thing with an Iraqi civil war. That risk was obvious from the start, and there were ample regional precedents.

In 2003, if I had given you even odds for whether the war would improve or harm Israel's strategic position by 2006 - 50/50 choose the strategy that will do most to help Israel's strategic position: invade or do not invade - would you have chosen "do not invade"

Would Sharon have chosen "do not invade"?

Did you or anyone you are aware of believe that by invading Iraq, the US was harming Israel?

This brings another interesting point.  Israel is today worse off than in 2003.  Everyone agrees with this.  Nobody predicted it in 2003.

But is Israel worse off than if the US had not invaded?

When Hamas won its election, the US organized a boycott of the Palestinian Authority - would that have happened with Saddam around?  Saddam would have been funding some radical Palestinian group and supportive of Hamas.  Would Hamas have won by more?

Egypt and Saudi Arabia made weak coded attacks on Hezbollah.  How would Saddam have reacted?  Remember Saddam sent his jets to Iran in 1991.  Would he have offered to strengthen Hezbollah?  Would he be supporting Hezbollah today and using any influence he has to strengthen Syria and orient Lebanons Sunnis towards Hezbollah?

I have two points 1- Nobody thought the invasion was more likely to harm both US and Israeli interests than help them.  Not Bush, not the anti-war movement. 2- The invasion has not really harmed Israeli interests relative to the probable alternative 2006, even though it has harmed Israeli interests relative to 2003. 

Of course "failure simply isn't an option" has no meaning whatsoever - even if you state it eloquently and with conviction.

.

Tom

I'm afraid you are asking me about an answer I did not give. In 2003, I was looking at the US interest in an invasion, not Israel's. One of the relatively low-level justifications was that removing Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorism might reduce tensions between Israel and Palestine, and thus tend to reduce one of the rallying points for jihadism. So, there are some that thought invading Iraq would help Israel.

From my perspective, there were so many other reasons not to attack Iraq at that specific time, and with the resources and grand strategy prescribed by civilian policymakers, what it did for Israel wasn't particularly on my radar. There were other strategies that might have helped Israel, which would have been much more indirect, such as strengthening Turkey and the northern arc Turkey-fUSSR Central Asian Republics-Afghanistan.

Now, even if there were stronger evidence that Saddam had deliverable WMD, no military authority I know ever considered them to be other than a regional threat. They would bring status to Saddam as threatening Israel. There was, however, sufficient doubt that Saddam actually had deliverable WMD that, again, this wasn't other than a PR issue.

As far as 2006, Israel appears to be its own worst enemy. I never thought I would be seeing what apparently was widespread incompetence in the IDF.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Did you or anyone you are aware of believe that by invading Iraq, the US was harming Israel?

Here's a link from November 2002.

Note that this was long before Bush started talking publicly about 60 years of support for tyranny in the name of security and stability having bought neither and at a time when the public debate was about WMDs and "disarming Sadaam".

This was of course from a left supporter of the war, who also argued that it was in US interests.

An elaboration of that pro-war anti-zionist left position can be found in this attempted debate with Chomsky a few months later (May 2003)..

There are obvious reasons why the pro-war right did not mention that the war would be damaging to "Greater Israel".

As for opponents of the war, the dominant theme was that it would lead to "instability". One doesn't need to spell out that "Greater Israel" requires the "stability" of stagnant autocracies surrounding it.

The alliance of uber-liberals, paleo-conservatives and zionists in defence of stability was quite bizarre. Naturally if you only read the uber-liberal opponents you aren't going to be aware of what was said in opposition by paleo-conservatives and zionists. But it really is up to you to do your own research and find some links for what was in fact the dominant position of the US foreign policy establishment - that invading Iraq would be damaging to both Israeli and US interests. Naturally you won't find that argument from uber-liberal pseudo-leftists who have far more faith in the invincibility of the system they claim to oppose than people who actually have a stake in it and understand its decline.

You cannot sustain weak backward autocracies in Egypt, Jordan and Syria or rule by semi-feudal clan leaders in Lebanon together with a modern democratic secular Iraq. Even with Iraq still in a mess the whole region is stirring under the impact of open political debate in Baghdad conducted in the same language as is spoken in other countries where all the parties engaged in that debate are suppressed in the name of "national unity".

You cannot sustain military occupation of a hostile people by "Greater Israel" surrounded by modern democratic states in which millions who share the same language and culture as those people subjected to denial of all national and democratic rights have the power to organize themselves to actually do something about it rather than just being manipulated by autocratic demagoguges shouting about it.

This is so obvious that one doesn't need to state it explicitly. Most conservative and pro-Israel opponents of the war simply speak of "instability". Every "right thinking" person understands that "instability" is bad for both cheap oil and "Greater Israel" and that consequently it has been traditional US policy to defend autocratic rule in that region.

Pseudo-leftists also ranting against "instability" are " right thinking" in the sense of advocating a conservative defence of the status quo, but very screwed up in their thinking in pretending to be any kind of leftist.

Same species. I prefer the term pseudo-leftist myself as it better expresses the idea of a conservative position congenial to the tradiaional US foreign policy establishment's world view being presented with "leftist" sounding rhetoric.

Both islamists, secularists and christians are all opposed to Israeli oppression of the islamic and christian and secular palestinians. Fateh, which is secularist is still the dominant force among Palestinians fighting against israeli occupation although currently deservedly in opposition. Even Hamas and Hezbollah which are strongly islamist in orientation have opened towards Christians and secularists.

Arab liberals are pretty insipid and have often collaborated with the secular autocracies from fear of the islamist alternative but they are sharpening up too.

This is particularly acute in Egypt where the secular Mubarek dictatorship justifies not holding free elections using fear of the Muslim Brotherhood winning.

There's now a pretty solid united front that includes both liberals and islamists insisting the autocracies must go. This united front is saying "enough" and even the liberals are no longer prepared to tolerate the autocracies from fear of the islamists.

In Iraq the united front, led by islamist parties holds power in a secular state and the US is backing it with troops while at the same time the current Prime Minister, from the Dawaa ("Islamic call") party rather similar to Lebanon's Hezbollah is openly supporting Lebanon and Hezbollah against Israel. In Syria the united front is still in opposition but already includes prominent Baathists as well as the Communist Party and the Muslim Brotherhood and the regime is resorting to the most pathetic demagoguery of claiming credit for Hezbollah's victories which is easily seen through by people in the region while looking impressive in the West.

In Palestine national reconciliation between secularists and islamists is being established based on the "prisoners agreement".

As you are aware US declaratory policy is sharply constrained by domestic considerations (Israel lobby).

For a better understanding of actual as opposed to declaratory US policy concerning islamists in government it should be noted that the US has supported free elections that have brought islamists into office in Iraq, Lebanon and the occupied Palestinian territories.

A neocon writer who explains the thinking behind this fairly well is Gerecht

.There's no way to understand what's actually going on by just reading the propaganda and moral posturing.

Just your own words.

You seem angry that you wrote them.