[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.