"I think that pretty much everyone in the world over the age of ten figured this out pretty quickly. It tells you a lot about George Bush's supporters that they so routinely mistake playground-level charades like this for shrewd and visionary geopolitical strategy."

You use geopolitical strategies on your opponents... you destroy your enemies.

Freedom Fighter is clearly under the age of ten.

"You use geopolitical strategies on your opponents... you destroy your enemies."

Very profound, no doubt.

Tell me, though, in which catagory would you place Lebanese civilians?

Keeping in mind that we're Americans, not Israelis . . .

At first, I thought Amy Sullivan had posted this. For those who agree that Hezbollah is terrorist organization here (I'm not talking to you, Watcher), what, again, is so wrong about the Secretary of State's approach?

You use geopolitical strategies on your opponents... you destroy your enemies.

Lebanon is our enemy? Because that's who "our" "stick" is destroying...

Hiz is a proxy to Iran and IS is a proxy to the US. Whats hard to understand is why the US is behind the curve on the diplomacy part of the equation? They clearly where caught off guard by the IS action (although they clearly apporve) and are only now doing some talking. That tells ms Bush doesn't have a clue about what the hell is going on around the world, and doesn't care either. The playground chirads are CYA for lazy fair (sic) FP.

Several rightwing pundits are loudly proclaiming for us to have World War III. Extreme? Maybe - but there are at least honest. Condi wants to pretend she wants a lasing peace, but let's get real. This White House is enjoying the fact that Israel is making a mockery out of the state of Lebanon. From Nixon to Clinton - 27 years of hard work tossed out the window in less than 6 years of neocon nonsense.

Kevin: "It tells you a lot about George Bush's supporters that they so routinely mistake playground-level charades like this for shrewd and visionary geopolitical strategy."

Yep, their playgound-level approach is something that Bush and his administration knew his supporters wanted and he has delivered in spades. That approach may be failing miserably to deliver the results that Instapundit and his ilk wanted but they they are undeterred. They are simply unable to see the connection between cause and effect.

For those who agree that Hezbollah is terrorist organization here (I'm not talking to you, Watcher), what, again, is so wrong about the Secretary of State's approach?

It obstructs progress toward the only thing that can even possibly deal with Hezbollah, and by delaying that progress further destabilizes and radicalizes the region and undermines the viability (already tenuous) of the US position in Iraq.

Reynolds is an embarrassment to the legal profession.

He's not even using that saying correctly. What it means is that diplomacy is the art of buying time until you can bring superior force to bear on a threat. How is that relevant to the US's role in this situation?

It tells you a lot about George Bush's supporters that they so routinely mistake playground-level charades like this for shrewd and visionary geopolitical strategy.

It tells you a lot about liberal Democrats that Bush has to constantly clean up Clinton's foreign policy mistakes like Iraq, North Korea, the Palestinians, and Lebanon. If Clinton had been tougher and had sufficient will like Bush, none of the problems occurring right now would be happening

Reynolds, of course, can't get anything right.

What's absurd about Reynold's analogy is that, quite obviously, it's not the "dog" Condi's trying to fool anyway. Is there even the slightest possibility that Hezbollah, or its allies, let up because Condi came over and said "nice doggie"?

No, the ruse is for the American people and our allies, and no one else. The precise point of her stupid charade was to pretend that we're somehow acting like civilized adults interested in some kind of peace and not callous, amoral barbarians who think that vengeance solves all problems.

Condi's little playacting is nothing but politics, just another spin from a WH whose only pitch is a curve ball.

Historically, most wars have gone on until one side has won a definitive victory. Sometimes victory meant the utter destruction of the other side. Sometimes it meant peace on the victor's terms. Cease fires without victory usually led to continued warfare. with the cease fire helping one side more than the other.

If one thinks that the war between Israel and Hezbollah will go on until one side wins, then any "negotiated settlement" would be a recipe for more war in the future. And, it woould help Hezbollah.

Israel has a better chance of deffeating Hezbollah now than they will in the future. Iran is procuring more and more deadly armaments, some of which they will share with Hezbollah. In a few years, Hezbollah might be able to kill many more Israelis or even to defeat Israel.

What it means is that diplomacy is the art of buying time until you can bring superior force to bear on a threat. How is that relevant to the US's role in this situation?

Well, you could look at the US's pretend engagement in negotiations over how to structure a cease-fire as simply a way of buying time for Israel to destroy more of Lebanon.

In fact, its hard to see it that way. I'd say it arguably fits the model; the problem is that strategy is the art of knowing when the stick is useful, productive, and appropriate, and that's the part the Administration's blown.

Freedom Fries: You use geopolitical strategies on your opponents... you destroy your enemies.

I think we can conclude from this that Bush does not consider Osama bin Laden or Kim Jong-Il to be enemies of the United States....

I think most of us complainers know precisely why Condi is so ostentatiously stalling.

Um... I don't know. I assume it's because the administration's "experts" on the Middle East assured George and Mr. Cheney that the Israelis would be able to achieve all of their objectives in two weeks and return home.

Unfortunately, the administration didn't replace those same "experts" when they proved so incompetent in predicting what would happen in Iraq.

So I'll take a guess why Rice is stalling. Because the administration's incompetent; George Bush can't make a decision under pressure (he chokes - face it.); and so, right now, Rice has no clue what he's eventually going to decide to do? Am I right?

A post like this encapsulates Kevin's weakness on foreign and miliary affairs and his liberal sanctimony. He effectively dismisses all who disagree with him having childlike mental capacity and then the best he can come up with in terms of analysis is that the people dumber than him "mistake playground-level charades like this for shrewd and visionary geopolitical strategy."

I suppose this means Kevin wants our President to follow a "shrewd and visionary geopolitical strategy." Such words are liberal giberish. I cannot remember Kevin every proposing anything that would be considered shrewd in terms of military or foreign policy. His desire for "visionary geopolitical strategy" is mush.

The issue is simple. Should the terrorists be destroyed or negotiated with?

Israel has a better chance of deffeating Hezbollah now than they will in the future.

Israel has zero chance of defeating Hezbollah now, at least not without creating another Hezbollah-clone in the process. This chance will not be reduced in the future.

OTOH, the world may have a chance to contain this crisis, but that is rapidly evaporating as time goes by allowing Israel to continue its counterproductive approach, too.

I gotta step back from this, all the diplotalk and polispeak, and look at what is really happening: Two terrorist entities are killing each others' civilians.

Stalling so they can bomb Lebanon back into the stone age faster, faster, faster? The depressing part of this "geopolitical strategy" is that the US and Israel are always fighting a different war than the one the enemy is waging. This isn't state on state war. It's a state on faction war. If I get this, why don't they? They haven't figured this out yet? God help us.

Should the terrorists be destroyed or negotiated with?

Since GWB did not destroy OBL, I take it that in your opinion he is negotiating with the head of Al Queda.

cmdicely:

Perhaps Bush should have sent his poodle Tony Blair in first to soften up the ground?

Stalling so they can bomb Lebanon back into the stone age faster, faster, faster? The depressing part of this "geopolitical strategy" is that the US and Israel are always fighting a different war than the one the enemy is waging. This isn't state on state war. It's a state on faction war. If I get this, why don't they?

Israel has an army that has proven itself, repeatedly, as very good at state-on-state war. Its been not so good at defeating armed guerrilla movements in Palestine and Lebanon.

So, maybe they've just decided to try to turn their conflicts into state-on-state wars on the premise that those are more winnable for them. Of course, as Don Rumsfeld might say, “You go to war against the enemy you have, not the enemy you wish you had.”

One may disapprove of this strategy, but complaints that Condi isn't accomplishing anything merely indicate that the complainer doesn't know what's going on.

They've learned well from Rumsfeld that no matter how unstable and chaotic things get in the ME, you just act like it's all part of the plan.

Instapuke, like many on the extreme right, despises the entire concept of diplomacy: too much bureaucracy and nuance for the little "them v. us" mindset. These people love the clean moral logic of bullets and war.

Oh and in case I fergit to mention it later: GLENN REYNOLDS IS AN IDIOT.

Sorry Stefan. Didn't read your post above before making the same point.

yeah, let's spread democracy in the ME by destroying one of the few real budding democracies there.

Great strategery!

Actually, Kevin, I think you misunderstand Glenn (and I'm not inclined to be charitable to Glenn, but what he said was more nuanced). He said complaints specifically _that Condi's stalling strategy wasn't accomplishing anything_ were an indication that the criticizer doesn't know what's going on. In effect, Reynolds is conceding that the stalling strategy -- inaction -- is having the effect of "causing" a certain outcome that the Bush administration prefers. That is, not doing anything yields the result that the administration wants -- it accomplishes their aim... Reynolds also concedes that your preferred result may be different than the administration's. But if you share the administration's preferred result (let Israel beat up on its neighbors -- our enemies -- for a while), and you still criticize Condi's approach, then perhaps, as Reynolds suggests, you probably really are clueless.

In Bushistas' opinion, their dear leader shits marbles.

They've learned well from Rumsfeld that no matter how unstable and chaotic things get in the ME, you just act like it's all part of the plan.

How do you know their pretending about that.

I think they're just pretending that the end of the plan has anything to do with peace, democracy, freedom, or stability.

The issue is simple. Should the terrorists be destroyed or negotiated with?

This is a bone headed reduction of complex issues (so annoying to have to deal with complexities after all) into sound bite solutions such as "stay the course" or "cut and run" that is typical of the current administration.

Well, you could look at the US's pretend engagement in negotiations over how to structure a cease-fire as simply a way of buying time for Israel to destroy more of Lebanon.

True...I guess that kinda, sorta fits with the saying.

Off-Topic, but worthy of note: Texas has returned a verdiuct in the Andrea Yates retrial. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and will spent the rest of her life in a mental institution.

"Tell me, though, in which catagory would you place Lebanese civilians?"

Are they being targetted?

Soon everybody'll be doin' it.

*
*
*
*
*

Need any guns?

"Lebanon is our enemy? Because that's who "our" "stick" is destroying..."

If Lebanon took care of the Hezbollah problem, none of this would be necessary.

Yep, their playgound-level approach is something that Bush and his administration knew his supporters wanted and he has delivered in spades. That approach may be failing miserably to deliver the results that Instapundit and his ilk wanted but they they are undeterred. They are simply unable to see the connection between cause and effect.

Actually, I'd argue that what Instapundit and his ilk want, even more than results they claim to want, is the process itself -- that is, they enjoy watching the bullying and petty miserable behavior for its own sake. The cheap thuggish tactics are their own reward, for they produce a frisson of excitement in the more rabid of the wingnuts. That, deep down, is what they want -- the chance to strut and push others around like the biggest kid in kindergarten.

targeted or not, too fucking many of them have died, so take that flippant, jingoistic bullshit that you confuses with partiotism and shove it up your ass.

The issue is simple. Should the terrorists be destroyed or negotiated with?

The issue is simple: should Kim Jong-Il, a nuclear armed madman responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people, be destroyed or negotiated with?

If you have any doubt about the answer, please note that we don't appear to be destroying Kim.

If I were the PM of India, I would immediately start bombing Pakistan just to see how the Bushlickers justify their denunciation of India for following the same strategy that is being actively applauded by the wingnuts.

If Lebanon took care of the Hezbollah problem, none of this would be necessary.

So? Are you saying that Lebanon's lack of capacity to deal with Hezbollah has made it our enemy or not?

"Tell me, though, in which catagory would you place Lebanese civilians?"

Are they being targetted?

Their deaths are the easily predicted, inevitable result of actions being taken by Israel. There is no moral difference between that and "targeting" them.

cmdicely:

Allow me to quote from the Bush Doctrine: "the United States will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them".

GR: but complaints that Condi isn't accomplishing anything merely indicate that the complainer doesn't know what's going on.

KG: I think most of us complainers know precisely why Condi is so ostentatiously stalling

The claim by GR is that complainers do not know what Rice is "accomplishing". You appear to believe that Rice is conducting a "playground charade". You are just plain not serious.

Israel has zero chance of defeating Hezbollah now, at least not without creating another Hezbollah-clone in the process. This chance will not be reduced in the future.

This post encapsulates the difference between liberals like cmdicelly and conservatives like me. Liberals think Islamic terrorists such as Hezbollah are reacting to bad conduct by Israel and the US. From that POV, more bad conduct by the US and Israelwill lead to more hatred and will strengthen Hezbollah.

Conservatives think Islamic terrorists hate the US and Israel because they want power, but these two countries have it. From that POV, negotiation will lead to a stronger Hezbollah abd more attacks, because it will be seen as weakness.

I can't prove that the conservative approach will succeed in bringing peace between Israel and its neighbors. However, the liberal negotiation approach has been tried for decades and has mostly led to more warfare.

""Tell me, though, in which catagory would you place Lebanese civilians?"

Are they being targetted?

Their deaths are the easily predicted, inevitable result of actions being taken by Israel. There is no moral difference between that and "targeting" them."

That's right. As long as Hezbollah deliberately locates their strongholds in the middle of residential areas, they should be left alone to shoot off their rockets at whoever they want.

From that POV, negotiation will lead to a stronger Hezbollah abd more attacks, because it will be seen as weakness.

Much the same way that negotiation with the Soviet Union by Reagan led to a stronger Soviet Union and more attacks, because it was seen as weakness.....

This post encapsulates the difference between liberals like cmdicelly and conservatives like me. Liberals think Islamic terrorists such as Hezbollah are reacting to bad conduct by Israel and the US.

Er, no, wrong. At least as far as "liberals like cmdicely" go.

Liberals like cmdicely think that killing lots of civilians (even if it was within the scope of otherwise justified military action, rather than indiscriminate attacks) and invasion of a country where you are already looked at poorly (whether your conduct was in fact "bad" or not is irrelevant)—especially where you occupied much of the country and killed a bunch of people for almost two decades ending less than a decade previously, and sponsored a brutal faction in the civil war as your proxy—makes people hate you and want to do violence to you as a natural and foreseeable consequence.

Though your post does illustrate a difference between people who think like you and people who think like me: people who think like you think that things like "Islamic terrorism" have single simple causes that are the only thing that contributes to them. People like me don't.

However, the liberal negotiation approach has been tried for decades and has mostly led to more warfare.

When I have recommended (since the difference you suggested was between conservatives like you and "liberals like cmdicely") negotiating with Hezbollah?

As best I can tell, never.

So bobinnv - the corollary, that so long as Israel deliberately keeps their reserve military forces (who keep their duty arms with them) among the civilian population, it makes them legitimate targets also, should hold, no?

That's right. As long as Hezbollah deliberately locates their strongholds in the middle of residential areas, they should be left alone to shoot off their rockets at whoever they want.

I was unaware Hesbollah was hiding their short-range rockets in the middle of Beirut, in the Beirut airport, in the buildings of two non-Hesbollah-affiliated television networks, in tiny vans fleeing north just like they were told to do, and in in UN observation posts. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

This is not an either/or. You can support Israel and at the same time believe there are appropriate gradations of response. That black-and-white false choice shuts out many, many appropriate responses from all parties invoved, including ourselves.

Everyone concedes that the Lebanese government is impotent to carry out the UN resolution mandating the disarmament of Hezbollah, and this would still likely be the case if a certain segment of the Lebanese electorate was to put pressure on their government as a result of the bombardment. In other words, the Israeli bombing of Lebanese infrastructure (not to mention civilians) is at least senseless, and if the conflict continues may turn out to be something worse than senseless.

People shouldn't hit dogs with sticks.

What about terrorist dogs? Or dogs who live NEAR terrorist dogs? What if it's an international stick?

Didn't think about THAT did you, filthy comsymplib anti-semite, DID you?

The only logical explanation for Bush MidEast policy is that they are deliberately trying to provoke another 9/11 attack on the United States so they can then exploit it for their own political purposes.

So bobinnv - the corollary, that so long as Israel deliberately keeps their reserve military forces (who keep their duty arms with them) among the civilian population, it makes them legitimate targets also, should hold, no?

Clearly, Hezbolllah offices, supplies, etc. located in civilian areas are legitimate targets. As is the arport that they use to receive supplies or the banks that finance them. If you think targeting every adult in Israel, all of whom are potential soldiers, is the same, then that is your problem.

That innocent civilians get killed in war is a terrible thing. It appears that Israel has done what it can to avoid civilian casualties, but the nature of war, especially against an enemy that hides among civilians as part of its strategy, means that innocent people will die. Hesbollah of course just fires rockets at Israel, killing jews and arabs randomly.

ex-liberal is very smart. he almost certainly is correct these terrorists arise out of a desire for power, and he is sanguine about the reality that the conservative approach may not work, but the liberal negotiation approach certainly has not worked in terms of Israel achieving peace from terrorists.

jonrog1 - wow! you really added a great amount of incisive thought there. Anti semite is such as easy insult to throw around in this situation. Why dont you actually come up with a reasoned argument you war mongering terrorist sympathiser.

and if you hadnt yet figured it out - yes, israel does carry out acts of terror on civillian populations. Has done for ages and will continue to do so, and always with the handy "self hating jew" and "anti semite" slogans.

one thing i think that we all agree on, hizbollah is a terrorist organisation that has comitted acts of terror against civillian populations. Why then is it so hard for some to accept that israel is guilty of just the same thing. Blowing up vehicles heading north (as per israeli instruction) that have white flags streaming from the windows is a pretty good example.

There is no hope for a morally right and humanitarian solution to this untill BOTH sides are told to pull their F@#$@$ing heads in.

And as for others trying to claim that "liberal answers" have been tried in the ME and failed. I have to ask "what liberal answer?". If you look at the history of how the US and the UK have treated the ME for the last 50 odd years and more, there has been nothing "liberal" about it.
It always was and always will be about control and access to resources (gee, i wonder which resource that could be?). Its been that way since the fall of the otterman empire right thru to clinton and bush. (and no, i dont class clinton as a liberal)

that the conservative approach may not work, but the liberal negotiation approach certainly has not worked in terms of Israel achieving peace from terrorists.

So Israel's 18 year occupation of Lebanon was actually the "liberal approach" to dealing with Hizbollah?

Who knew?

Conservatives will say anything, come up with every bizarre theory imaginable, in order to rationalize Bush's abject failure as a leader and a man.

According to the [latest NBC] poll, 65 percent [of Americans] say they feel less confident that life for their children's generation will be better than it was for them. In December 2001, the last time this question was asked, respondents — by a 49-42 percent margin — said they were confident life would be better for their children.

Bush back down to 37% two days in a row.

Bush = An immoral Jimmy Carter

Bush has become a caricature.

The GOP is dead meat without a miracle, slowly spiraling down the toilet of political infamy.

brian: ex-liberal is very smart. he almost certainly is correct these terrorists arise out of a desire for power, and he is sanguine about the reality that the conservative approach may not work, but the liberal negotiation approach certainly has not worked in terms of Israel achieving peace from terrorists.

ex-liberal is very stupid, and you follow along nicely, brian.

You already have proven that on another thread.

Reluctant as I am to defend Reynolds, it's quite possible that he's defending Rice against complaints from the right; there are a lot of those going around. But given his smug and overly terse style, there's really no telling whether that's what he had in mind.

"However, the liberal negotiation approach has been tried for decades and has mostly led to more warfare."

It's been over a quarter century since an Israeli government was willing to negotiate in good faith with anyone(*). The last time they tried it they ended up with a peace with Eqypt that has lasted nearly 30 years now.

(* = with the possible exception of one brief shining period under Rabin. Who was executed for trying to make peace.)

Stefan wrote: "Actually, I'd argue that what Instapundit and his ilk want, even more than results they claim to want, is the process itself -- that is, they enjoy watching the bullying and petty miserable behavior for its own sake."

I think you're right on that, Stefan. I recall the non-stop orgasms these people were having when they learned about the torture in Abu Ghraib. Heck, some of the trolls lurking around in Kevin's comments probably still get erections just thinking about GIs forcing naked Iraqis into a human pyramid. These people are truly sick.

Speaking of geopolitical strategy...

Obviously Bushco likes what Israel is doing. They must view Israel's attack of Lebanon as comparable to the US invasion of Afghanistan to rid Al Qaeda of its breeding ground. Or our invasion of Iraq to rid the world of Saddam Hussein.

But I keep wondering where all this will end up.

Will Israel be more secure when they have established a DMZ in south Lebanon and wiped out Hezbollah's existing weapons cache? For the short term, maybe, but will what they are doing in Lebanon persuade other Arab states to leave them alone? Will Iran be more positively inclined towards Israel? Will Hamas be intimidated? Will Israel's Muslim neighbors be more likely to tolerate its existence? Will the billions of Muslims shun those in their midst who are so filled with hate for Israel?

I just can't see how, long term, Israel is viable. I can't think of any historical examples of nations that survived very long in active self-defense. You either have to 1) risk all to beat your enemy so thoroughly that your enemy will never rise again; 2) win your enemies over to your side; 3) lose.

Bushco clearly believes that the best strategy for both the US and Israel is 1) and that the US and Israel have the military muscle and manpower to achieve this goal. The problem with this strategy is, of course, that if you are wrong, you might be the one who is beaten--as is happening to the US in Iraq--or you might not be able to beat your enemy so thoroughly that your enemy will never rise again.

So, world Muslims = one billion people. Israel = six million. Conclusion: Israel cannot defeat all those who hate her, so she has to be fighting for time in the hope that eventually 2).

Meanwhile, there sits Iran, getting richer and richer as they collect the world's revenues for oil, hating Israel. So, do the US and Israel go after Iran?

The people you are saying "Nice doggie" to have to believe you mean it, and that you are not see you reaching for the stick for this to be a strategy that actually works

Reading abuaardvark.typepad.com makes it pretty clear that on that measure, Rice is doing a disastrous job.

I wonder who Reynolds is implying the dog is. Rice made her presentations to the Lebanese government, and alot of members of the EU.

Or maybe he is just referring to Condi's conversations with Blair. ;-)

Bushco clearly believes that the best strategy for both the US and Israel is 1) and that the US and Israel have the military muscle and manpower to achieve this goal.

Bushco clearly believes that the Republicans must maintain a majority of both houses of Congress this fall.

All else is secondary.

The issue is simple. Should the terrorists be destroyed or negotiated with?
Posted by: brian on July 26, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Yes. The issue is simple.

Since it's impossible to destroy the terrorists (short of complete and utter genocide) - the options are even simpler.

Or are you proposing killing all arabs till there are none left to kill?

fraser wrote And as for others trying to claim that "liberal answers" have been tried in the ME and failed. I have to ask "what liberal answer?".

chaboard wrote: It's been over a quarter century since an Israeli government was willing to negotiate in good faith with anyone(*). The last time they tried it they ended up with a peace with Eqypt that has lasted nearly 30 years now.

The "Road Map for Peace" brokered by Bill Clinton was a recent effort to end the warfare between Israel and the Palestinians via negotiations. Israel offered generous land area for a Palestinian state. In response, Yasir Arafat began an intifida -- that is, the murder of numous Israeli civilians.

Israel's recent withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon were the proper actions, according to those who believe in negotiaions. These withdrawals were better than good faith words; they were good faith actions.

In both cases, Israel's actions bought them no good will. Quite the reverse. Their enemies used the areas Israeli troops had abandoned as staging grounds for missile attacks on Israel.

That incredible genius George Bush takes a refresher course,

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5/bushingradschoolqw7.jpg

Stalling so they can bomb Lebanon back into the stone age faster, faster, faster? The depressing part of this "geopolitical strategy" is that the US and Israel are always fighting a different war than the one the enemy is waging. This isn't state on state war. It's a state on faction war. If I get this, why don't they? They haven't figured this out yet? God help us.Stalling so they can bomb Lebanon back into the stone age faster, faster, faster? The depressing part of this "geopolitical strategy" is that the US and Israel are always fighting a different war than the one the enemy is waging. This isn't

from NYTimes:

Most of the officials in the room were seeking, at the very least, a phrase that said the group would “work towards an immediate ceasefire,” one of the diplomats said. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused, and won, he said.
...
“She insisted it say ‘work immediately to bring a ceasefire,’ not ‘work to bring an immediate ceasefire,’” the diplomat said. He said that the group argued about that for more than 30 minutes before ceding the point to the United States.
...
The change reflects the Bush administration’s view that the conflict will not be settled in a lasting way unless Israel is given the leeway to diminish Hezbollah’s military capabilities.

agree or disagree, this is no more a charade than the Albright-Clinton affiliations with Arafat.

The UN called on the Lebanese government to disarm Hizbollah. the Lebanese govt declined, and in fact had neither the power nor the desire to comply. So Israel is disarming Hizbollah, and Bush-Rice are working to make sure that the disarmament is completed.

The UN called on the Lebanese government to disarm Hizbollah. the Lebanese govt declined, and in fact had neither the power nor the desire to comply.
Posted by: republicrat on July 26, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Well then - I think the UN should conclude that the Lebanese government is NOT the legitimate government of Southern Lebanon, which has become a de-facto sovereign nation.

(same situation as northwestern Pakistan, where bin Laden is hanging out, and Mushy can't/won't go get him).

I think it's a disservice to the other hundreds of nations in the world (and the civillians who are stuck living in these de-facto sovereign regions) to continue to recognize illegitimate governments who can't or won't' govern their own territory.

The UN needs to do something about this. There should be some legal mechanism for formalizing a legitimate ruler of a territory, so that negotiations can be effectively directed to the folks who can actually change the situation on the ground.

Electricity in Beirut has been off six hours a day for several days, but if they really were trying 'bomb Lebanon into the stone age' do you really think there would be any electricity at all?

FYI: Interesting commentary by Juan Cole -

But I don't deny that Hizbullah went too far when it shelled dozens of civilian towns and cities and killed over a dozen innocent civilians, even in reprisal for the Israeli bombing campaign. (You can't target civilians. That is a prosecutable crime.) That is a clear casus belli, and I'd like to see Nasrallah tried at the Hague for all those civilian deaths he ordered.

So, let it not be said that Juan Cole is on the side of the terrorists.

Bombing civillians is wrong, whether Hezbollah does it, or whether Israel does it.

Accepting that notion doesn't make one a "terrorist sympathizer".

Glenn Reynolds is a fucking idiot if he thinks that's what diplomacy is.

Well he is a fucking idiot, but still.

The "Road Map for Peace" brokered by Bill Clinton was a recent effort to end the warfare between Israel and the Palestinians via negotiations.

There was no "Road Map for Peace" brokered by Bill Clinton; the "Road Map for Peace" was an outline created by the "Quartet" during the Bush Administration.

Israel offered generous land area for a Palestinian state.

"Generous" land area is, of course, infinitely debatable. What is not is that Israel did not offer a viable soveriegn state but a series of discontiguous bantustans which Israel would control via control of both all external borders and internal divisions between the segments, and, as I recall, the fresh water supplies as well; further, the Palestinian "state" would be essentially completely disarmed. It was, IOW, completely a province of Israel, subject to Israeli control of its internal and external trade, commerce, and communication, entirely dependent on Israel's good will for its security, and, in fact, its very survival.

Israel's recent withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon were the proper actions, according to those who believe in negotiaions.

No, they weren't. Particularly, they weren't accompanied with negotiations, which is one of those things "those who believe in negotiations", pretty much by definition, consider to be an essential part of "the proper actions".

They were unilateral withdrawals to simplify Israel's security arrangements. They could have, perhaps, been built upon as the basis for negotiations and implementations of peace plans, had Israel been interested in that, but they weren't.

Some of you guys just reinvent history. Israel not only has negotiated in good faith, they have achieved peace with countries willing to negotiate with them in good faith.

What we are talking about here is negotiating with terrorists. We also are talking about what happened when Israel negotiated and agree to pull out of Lebanon, not what happened during the 18 years they had the security zone in Lebanon

What we are talking about here is negotiating with terrorists.

Really? Who has suggested negotiating with Hezbollah?

What we're talking about enabling Lebanon to do what Israeli supposedly wishes Lebanon would do, rather than destroying its capacity to do so which is simply going to tie Israel down into another counterproductive occupation, which will unfortunately be counterproductive for the US (particularly in Iraq) as well.

But I don't deny that Hizbullah went too far when it shelled dozens of civilian towns and cities and killed over a dozen innocent civilians, even in reprisal for the Israeli bombing campaign. (You can't target civilians. That is a prosecutable crime.) That is a clear casus belli, and I'd like to see Nasrallah tried at the Hague for all those civilian deaths he ordered.

This is the lesser of Hizbollah's war crimes. the greater of its crimes is its willfull intermixing of its military facilities and civilians.

In response to ex-liberal's comments far up-thread about what liberals like Condicely (and myself) think. I think we think that at this point, the only thing the Israeli's will understand is force. There seems to be some historical precedent for this in their behavior in the West Bank and Gaza. Why is their force better or more legitimate the Hezbollah's force,if in fact it is the only thing the Israeli government understands? Some of us have come to believe that the only way we will get peace in that part of the world is by a humiliating Israeli defeat.

Just saying.

It obstructs progress toward the only thing that can even possibly deal with Hezbollah, and by delaying that progress further destabilizes and radicalizes the region and undermines the viability (already tenuous) of the US position in Iraq.

What is that "one thing", and when you write "deal with", do you mean "disarm"?

It looks to me like Bush/Rice are doing the "right thing", that there is no "deal with" Hizbollah, and that Israel is the only force that can disarm Hizbollah. You could argue that disarming Hizbollah is the wrong policy, but I don't think that is your position, and disarming Hizbollah is US/UN/EU policy. Dealing with Hizbollah without first disarming them probably postpones the disarmament until Hizbollah is strong enough to, for example, obliterate the civilian populations of some Israeli cities with rocket barrages. That is what they have claimed is their intention.

They were unilateral withdrawals to simplify Israel's security arrangements.

cmdicely:

Anything Israel does is going to be an attempt to "simplify Israel's security arrangements". What other interest does Israel have in this situation? The entirety of its aims are to "simplify its security situation". Is there something wrong with that?

Your assessment or mine of what was in the Camp David or, more important, Taba deals isn't very relevant. They met basic conditions: they gave the Palestinians over 90% of the territory in the West Bank (and Gaza, of course), plus a land swap in Negev; and more importantly, they were what the Palestinian negotiators managed to hash out. After eight years of negotiating, that was what they could get. And at the top levels of its leadership - Arafat, basically - the PA decided not to take it.

Gaza is not divided into bantustans. They got the whole thing. And the instant the Israelis withdrew, the first thing that happened was that Palestinian militant factions fell over themselves to take advantage of the new situation to fire some rockets into Israel, to position themselves as the "true defenders" of the Palestinian cause, provoke an Israeli reaction and reap the political benefits. If you are wondering why Israel is unlikely to agree to allow Palestine to have a major defense force (as opposed to security forces, which, of course, the PA already has), perhaps this dynamic suggests the answer.

On the day after the Palestinians get their state, there will not be peace. There will be aggressive military actions by Palestinian militants dissatisfied with the deal, no matter what it is, who want to make a political name for themselves by positioning themselves as the true nationalists in a young democracy. (See under: Moqtada Al-Sadr.) Whatever deal Israel makes will have this situation in mind. Once there is a Palestinian state, it will take perhaps another decade of war, large or small, before a grudging and exhausted peace settles in.

Israel has an army that has proven itself, repeatedly, as very good at state-on-state war. Its been not so good at defeating armed guerrilla movements in Palestine and Lebanon.

The target here isn't "guerillas". The target here is: a cache of 13,000 - 20,000 rockets and their launchers; an extensive network of concrete underground command bunkers; an extensive network of communications. After those are taken care of, the guerillas will be much less of a threat.

ex-liberal is very smart. he almost certainly is correct these terrorists arise out of a desire for power, and he is sanguine about the reality that the conservative approach may not work, but the liberal negotiation approach certainly has not worked in terms of Israel achieving peace from terrorists.

What a joke.

First of all, the desire for power is a constant in the affairs of men and organizational leaders. The desire for power influences behavior - as does anger at having your friends and loved one destroyed. These are not mutually exclusive roles. The world does not fit your charades. Tyrants make peace, and men of peace become killers. No one can say what how Hizballah would react to negotiations, because no one has asked. History is replete, despite ex-liberal, with wars not definitively won by either side, where truces and ceasefires took hold. Sometimes they flare up again later, sometimes they don't. However, classic wars of victory and defeat have almost literally nothing to do with this war, where Hizballah's military victory is a literal impossibility and Israel's military victory is equally unlikely. What is likely is a prolonged and bloody stalemate with increased death on all sides. You don't like Israeli children dying? I'd bet my fortune, there are Israeli children that will die in the next five days, because of Hizballah, but also because of the idiocy of American policy that refuses to look for a cease-fire that is quite possibly available. But no, we have to hold out for the forcible disarming of Hizballah, which isn't happening. It's not happening. israel's not even considering the actions neccesary to do that. Frankly, it's exteremely unlikely that Israel has even the theroetical capability to do that, short of extinguishing all life in Lebanon. So your chest-beating for a decisive victory are a joke, a stupid joke that your government believes and is therefore squandering innocent lives by the bushel - more of them Lebanese by a factor of 8 to 1.

the liberal negotiation approach certainly has not worked in terms of Israel achieving peace from terrorists.

What do you have? The Oslo accords? Okay, that's ONE example since 1948. I'll tell you what, I can name about fifty examples of Israel blowing the s*it out of people, and - what a surprise - they haven't achieved peace yet?

So you really think this is it, huh? Kill a few hundred more Lebanese civilians, clean out a few more weapons caches, recapture a few more outposts, and Hizballah will never act like their bad selves again?

The advantage of a cease-fire is that innocent people would stop dying right now. The advantages of continued war are nothing. For either side. Except - what was that - the lust for power? Each side gets to swing its big heavy gonads around. That's about it for the advantages.

ex-liberal - while i do understand the point you are trying to make, i feel that i should elaborate on what i was saying.

In no way am i denying that the events you cite were on the surface, good faith, liberal actions. What i was getting at was that there was still an ulterior motive or hidden agenda to these actions, percieved or actuall.

eg: clintons road map balanced against the genocide (mainly against children)inflicted by the UN sanctions on Iraq at the same time. The arab world does talk to each other, and can you blame them for being a bit cynical of a "peace plan" at the time?

brooksfoe:

What do you -- as a sane, sensible and liberal supporter of Israel -- believe are the fundamental underlying motives of the Palestinian militant factions?

Bob

jonrog1: I was unaware Hesbollah was hiding their short-range rockets in the middle of Beirut, in the Beirut airport, in the buildings of two non-Hesbollah-affiliated television networks, in tiny vans fleeing north just like they were told to do, and in in UN observation posts.

More complete reports indicate that Hizbllah soldiers were indeed using the UN observation post as cover. And Lebanese reports confirm the use of vans and light trucks to transport rocekts and other weapons. you can find the rest if you are interesred.

She's stalling because she hasn't a clue what to do. She's an idiot - a well-educated, book-smart, clueless idiot. And remember: she's the one who tutored George on foreign policy.

She's also stalling because the US has nothing left in its bag of tricks to convince anyone of anything. We have no influence because we can't offer anyone anything they want or need enough to help us out.

And, she's stalling because she needs instructions from Bush about long-term strategy, which is like asking a junkie to put together a health plan. All the junkie wants is his next score, even if he has to go mug someone for it. He doesn't care how much it costs or what damage it'll do to anyone.

"Gaza is not divided into bantustans."

Yeap, Gaza is one big Jew run CONCENTRATION CAMP.

The Nazi Jews shoot dead many Palestinian women, men and children from outside, just like the VICIOUS concentration camp commandant in Schindler's List.

The Nazi Jews do not even deny they are doing this to Palestinian males. They call it "targeted killing", just like the VICIOUS concentration camp commandant in Schindler's List targeted Jews for killing with his hunting rifle.

Israeli Jews = Nazis. American supporters of such = Nazis.

I largely agree with CaseyL. I would also mention that this administration is largely reactive in foreign policy with little or no inclination to bring stability and common sense into potential conflict areas until it is too late. Obviously a weakened Lebanon was in no position to disarm the militants wedged into their South by the Syrians prior to their long-overdue withdrawl from that country. Rather than bolster international aid and resources in a potential trouble spot, Bush and company allowed another vacuum to be created and voila, another war and failed state.
Bush was at it again yesterday with that egregious "they hate us for our democracy" crap. He has no foreign policy. His "state department" is incompetent, over-matched, and largely powerless--a product of being right about Iraq and its rebuilding needs.

Bush is clearly incompetent, dangerous, and a threat to the survival of the United States. They are actually contemplating sending troops to Lebanon as we speak. The attack on Hezbollah was a war of choice by Israel, using weapons and financing provided bu the U.S. on credit provided by Arabs and petroleum producing states. Weird irony drips all around us like the blood of the Middle East. America could little afford a slacker president and his sadistic and shallow handlers.

More complete reports indicate that Hizbllah soldiers were indeed using the UN observation post as cover.

'More complete reports' that you appear not to have cited. In that vein, I have more complete reports that indicate you're full of shit.

It's been over a quarter century since an Israeli government was willing to negotiate in good faith with anyone(*). The last time they tried it they ended up with a peace with Eqypt that has lasted nearly 30 years now.
...
(* = with the possible exception of one brief shining period under Rabin. Who was executed for trying to make peace.)

Anwar Sadat also was assassinated for making peace.

PTate not in MN: Will Israel be more secure when they have established a DMZ in south Lebanon and wiped out Hezbollah's existing weapons cache? For the short term, maybe, but will what they are doing in Lebanon persuade other Arab states to leave them alone? Will Iran be more positively inclined towards Israel? Will Hamas be intimidated? Will Israel's Muslim neighbors be more likely to tolerate its existence? Will the billions of Muslims shun those in their midst who are so filled with hate for Israel?
...
I just can't see how, long term, Israel is viable.

Personally, I don't think that Israel has a long-term future. Israel has at best a long series of crises. There is a persistent animosity toward the existence of Israel (supported several days ago by a writer named "maungo", if I remember the name correctly) that is independent of any particular Israeli policies. Even if only 1% of the Moslems worldwide have that intense desire to destroy Israel, they outnumber Israelis, and will, as Iran is doing now, take military measures to destroy Israel.

There was a nice quote from a Lebanese leader of the 80s, quoted by Mark Steyn a few days ago. "We are not fighting you because we want something from you. We are fightin you because you want to destroy you". I think that any discussion has to start with the persistent existence of people with that attitude, who have further more considerable intelligence and ability, and considerable backing. Iran's president Ahmedinejad has made many similar assertions over the past year.

So, Israel has to prevail militarily in each crisis that occurs, or permit its enemies to continue to accumulate the military power to remove it. Egypt negotiated primarily because they decided that they could not win, and the U.S. continues to pay them to adhere to the treaty. Even at that, Egyptians assist in smuggling arms to the Palestinians.

republicrat:

So was Yitzak Rabin.

Bob

republicrat:

Didn't notice what you responded to, sorry.

Bob

JEWS RUN WORLDS LARGEST CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

Both the Gaza concentration camp and the West Bank concentration camp come complete with guard-towers, machine gun emplacements, electrified fences, etc.

"Yes we have to lock the Jews up for the protection of Germany. These vicious Jew killers, especially the Communists, have repeatedly killed German soldiers and civilians and bombed everything from train-tracks to Gestapo units. The Jews are like a disease, we lock them in concentration camps so that they can not infect the German population. The German people need protection from these scum." B. Hitler.

osama_been_forgotten: I think it's a disservice to the other hundreds of nations in the world (and the civillians who are stuck living in these de-facto sovereign regions) to continue to recognize illegitimate governments who can't or won't' govern their own territory.
...
The UN needs to do something about this. There should be some legal mechanism for formalizing a legitimate ruler of a territory, so that negotiations can be effectively directed to the folks who can actually change the situation on the ground.

That isn't going to happen any time soon. I am assuming that you are serious. If the UN had such power and authority now, I think (from your other posts) that you'd want the UN to overturn Bush v. Gore. That's not an indefensible position (after all, 4 SC justices think the case was wrongly decided), but it isn't something that the UN is likely to do in the interests of justice and democracy. As it's now constituted, the UN is happy with Mubage.

Knut Wicksell: Some of us have come to believe that the only way we will get peace in that part of the world is by a humiliating Israeli defeat.

You'd probably have non-peace without Israel. Plus the massacre of all those Israeli Arabs.

Bob, apology accepted.

Two peacemakers, both Nobel Peace Prize winners, both assassinated for the peace that they negotiated.

It's almost too sad to write.

Again, the Bush Doctrine: "making no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them" even if they are the United Nations.

Many of the convervatives above keep on saying that Bush is allowing the IDF to disarm Hezbollah, but from the public statements of IDF generals even they don't believe they can do this. Even if Hezbollah's operational capacity is severly limited, it can still come back with a vegeance. Mao and the CCP barely survived the GMD's purges, White Terrors, the crackdown against the Jiangxi Soviet and the Long March. They also were attacked by the Japanese imperial forces, including in the Three Alls campaign. About 5,000 communists were all that were left of around 100,000 during the Jiangxi days, but they were able to capitalize on the combination of GMD impotence against the Japanese and anti-Japanese nationalism to come to power in the world's largest nation.

Castro and Che were once down to less than 20 men, but they still beat Batista. The Tamil Tigers were once almost completely destroyed, but were helped by the Tamil diaspora to rebuild to the point they have a navy that can take on the Sri Lankan Navy. Even after the brutal Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and the creation of an anti-KR government, the Khmer Rouge still exercised de facto control of large parts of Cambodia. Russia's destruction of Chechnya has not ended Chechnyan terrorism, but instead inflamed it and turned former security advisors to the Russian government into terrorist leaders. The US used genocidal force against the Filipino resistance, but it took 40 years for the resistance to give out.

The US was also lucky that the Phillipines is a collection of islands without a large diaspora abroad to send money. Lebanon is an Arab state surrounded by Arab states that are all angry at Israel while Hezbollah can always seek financial assistance from abroad in both Sunni and Shia populations. If Israel wants to use the conservative approach of overwhelming force against a terrorist group, it will only achieve its long-term goal if it is willing to commit genocide against the entire Arab world and the umma using nuclear weapons. Even that may not kill enough people to work. Enough non-Arabs and non-Muslims would probably be mad enough to committ terrorist acts against Israel. Conservatives may have good intentions, but history shows they are only offering Israel a path down a death spiral.

It is the conservative path that led Israel down the wrong path that spawned Hezbollah in the first place. Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, leading to the PLO. Israeli crackdowns sent the PLO into southern Lebanon, leading to an Israeli invasion which the Shia initially cheered just like how the ones who cheered loudest when the British invaded Northern Ireland were the Irish Catholics. However, Israel's brutal tactics (even a major Bush supporter like Hitchens has condemned Israel's 1980's brutality in Lebanon as disgusting) led to the creation of Hezbollah and the first suicide bombing attacks against Israelis in history. The Israeli invasion also helped to further destabilize Lebanon during its civil war, weakening it to the point that Lebanon's government would be too impotent to deal with a problem like Hezbollah and thus allow Hezbollah to exercise de facto control over Southern Lebanon. People have been afraid to invest in Southern Lebanon to strengthen it because of Hezbollah's control and the existential threat of an Israeli invasion, thus guaranteeing that Hezbollah would continue to control Southern Lebanon.

Meanwhile, the US and the rest of the world looked the other way while Syria ruled Lebanon with an iron fist, keeping the Arab world's greatest potential democracy and most cosmopolitan society weak. When Bush stood up to Syria after the start of the Cedar Revolution (in part inspired by Al-Jazeera broadcasts of the Orange Revolution), Syria withdrew (though it continues to flex its muscle in Lebanon through assassinations). This was the greatest highlight of the Bush presidency, but Bush has allowed his greatest legacy to be destroyed. Now both Syria and Iran feel empowered to act as they see fit.

If Israel reacted to the kidnapping of two soldiers (allowed by a fluke breach of protocol that left them exposed) by dealing with the Lebanese govenment and the UN as partners instead of nuisances, Israel would be in a better position. This may not have had a perfect guarantee of success, which is more than the zero-percent path that history shows Israel is on now. You may scoff at UN peacekeeping, but despite its failures a RAND Corporation study mentioned in the Atlantic Monthly shows they have a higher success rate at this than the US military.

Don't forget, all of this was caused by the kidnapping of two soldiers. The Beirut airport was bombed because two soldiers could have been flown out of there, not because missiles could be flown in. Lebanon is not a big country and it needs its airport to keep its economy strong enough to be able to do things like exercise control of Southern Lebanon. Israeli strategic planning only looks at marginal victories while ignoring whether such actions serve Israel's long-term interets. This is like the Japanese celebrating the bombing of Pearl Harbor because they won that single battle and weakened the US Navy and somehow expecting this will keep the US crippled. Tony Judt was right. Israel refuses to grow up.

Did the RAND Corporation study mentioned in the Atlantic Monthly consider oil-for-food a "success" or "failure"?

Many of the convervatives above keep on saying that Bush is allowing the IDF to disarm Hezbollah, but from the public statements of IDF generals even they don't believe they can do this.

Given all your examples, consider the most relevant one;

The Jews. Once dominated Israel. Then got their asses handed to them by Babylon. Then Rome. Then Persians. Were subject to genocide by the Nazis. Look at them now.

Seems the more beaten-down a people are, the stronger they bounce back.

Personally, I don't think that Israel has a long-term future. Israel has at best a long series of crises. There is a persistent animosity toward the existence of Israel (supported several days ago by a writer named "maungo", if I remember the name correctly) that is independent of any particular Israeli policies. Even if only 1% of the Moslems worldwide have that intense desire to destroy Israel, they outnumber Israelis, and will, as Iran is doing now, take military measures to destroy Israel.

There was a nice quote from a Lebanese leader of the 80s, quoted by Mark Steyn a few days ago. "We are not fighting you because we want something from you. We are fightin you because you want to destroy you". I think that any discussion has to start with the persistent existence of people with that attitude, who have further more considerable intelligence and ability, and considerable backing. Iran's president Ahmedinejad has made many similar assertions over the past year.

So, Israel has to prevail militarily in each crisis that occurs, or permit its enemies to continue to accumulate the military power to remove it. Egypt negotiated primarily because they decided that they could not win, and the U.S. continues to pay them to adhere to the treaty. Even at that, Egyptians assist in smuggling arms to the Palestinians.
Posted by: republicrat on July 27, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

Israel's long-term future would have been better secured if it and other actors (the UN, the US, etc.) hadn't acting ineptly when crafting Israel as a state on cheap and on the quick. Will Safire wrote a few years ago about recently discovered journals of Truman's that show how cynical he was about his role in creating Israel, showing how only a handful of Zionists actually cared about competently and humanely creating Israel.

Even then, Israel's precarious stance could have disappeared with the passage of time. Anti-Semitism in the Arab world has long been a problem, but its recent heights are a recent phenomena closer to what was deeply ingrained into European culture. Jews used to escape from Europe to the Ottoman Empire, where they lived as second-class citizens but not at existential risk of genocidal-level pogroms like in Russia, France, Germany and Spain. Defense of the Jews living in the ME against foreign invaders was a strong part of local identity. Israel helped to cripple its once-greatest ideological foe - Pan-Arabism (combined with Arab Socialism) - when it won a defensive war in 1967 that prevented Nasser's invasion. If different leaders across the region had made different choices, that could have been the end of Israel's defensive problems, especially once Israel went nuclear.

Instead, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza and allied itself with the US. The US then proceeded to prop up unpopular, secular dictators in the region like Moubarek, Saddam and the Jordan monarchy in part because of the fear that electoral democracy in the region would lead to regimes that were hostile to Israel. These dictators then destroyed some or all of civil society except for the mosque, which they could not touch without getting overthrown. Islam became the only vehicle for political expression and political identity in many nations, which transformed Islam and then exported that version from the Arab world to countries like Indonesia. If these dictators allowed civil society, free markets and then electoral democracy to flourish, Arab nations would be more successful and prosperous and less obsessed with Israel. Instead, Arab leaders make peace with Israel while bashing it at home as their only popular position while sometimes also aiding the likes of Hamas. This policy ensure that these societies stagnate, which means that Israel becomes the focus of their anger. The type of Arabs who are dedicated only to the destruction of Israel offer nothing to their societies, which would be more obvious if their leaders gave them a chance of success. However, those leaders will stay as long as the US fears democracy in the Arab world, especially Egypt, will put Israel in jeopardy or there is some type of revolution.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to shoot itself in the foot in the Palestinian terrorities with a string of bad policies. 50% of the settlers only live there because they cannot afford to live in or around Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Israel could then do something like impose rent controls or subsidize housing within the 1967 borders, but even Rabin refused to do this for reasons that are not entirely clear. The other 50% are dedicated to the idea of a Biblical Greater Israel. A supermajority of Israelis hate the settlers there because these types of settlers are more loyal to the land of Israel than the nation-state of Israel, even sometimes openly calling those in Israel proper false Jews and saying civil war is always an option. No one is really sure why Israel continues to be in the Palestinian terrorities anymore.

Israel's predicament was not path-dependent and need not be if both Israel and the US (the fitter of the governments involved) can start making better choices. Also, history may have turned out differently if Rabin had lived. We will never know.

More complete reports indicate that Hizbllah soldiers were indeed using the UN observation post as cover.

"The strikes occurred despite the fact 'Hezbollah firing was not taking place within the immediate vicinity of the patrol base,' she said."

-from the cbc.ca website
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/25/un-lebanon.html

Did the RAND Corporation study mentioned in the Atlantic Monthly consider oil-for-food a "success" or "failure"?
Posted by: Thomas on July 27, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

This type of analysis is just stupid. If I point out that the US military won WWII and you respond that the members of the US government were involved in Watergate, you haven't made any type of relevant point. You have just made an ass of yourself. No one is here to apoligize how deeply disgusting the oil-for-food scandal was. Those responsible need to be punished. However, the oil-for-food scandal is not really relevant for the role of using boots on the ground for peacekeeping. If you had a heart condition that only one heart surgeon in the world was capable of solving, you go to that heart surgeon. Whether or not he beats his kids or cheats on his wife is irrelevant. Instead of making snarky comments about the UN so you can look cool to your conservative buddies, you could actually think of something useful to say. Strengthening the UN's ability to do what it actually does well could do everyone in the world a lot of good by leading the UN back on the path of reform and greater relevancy. However, the only people on the right who seem to have any wish for the UN to actually work and be effective instead of masturbating for the home team with platitudes a la Bolton tend to be rather cosmopolitan, bookish and possibly debonair intellectuals like Fukuyama and Zakaria. These are the guys who are not wanted anymore on the right because they question the weird reactionary line of modern-day conservatism and its narrowly-defined nationalistic ethos.

Condi is handling this exactly right. Give Israel more time to decimate Hezbollah.

Kevin Drum - quit your whining.

Good news:

** Beckett protest at weapons flight **
The UK foreign secretary protests to the United States about it using a British airport to transport bombs to Israel.

WATCHER = JEW HATER
JEW HATER = NAZI

Condi is handling this exactly right. Give Israel more time to decimate Hezbollah.

Kevin Drum - quit your whining.
Posted by: Paddy Whack on July 27, 2006 at 2:05 AM | PERMALINK

I guess it takes a big man to be not care about historical precedents or the fact that the IDF doesn't even think it can do this. However, if you mean decimate in the literal sense, then the IDF can probably kill off about 10% of Hezbollah, but such an insignicant number would probably not be too helpful to Israel, especially if in killing that 10% they end up angering enough people to join Hezbollah. I guess the reason Russia still suffers from terrorism after all their crackdowns against the Chechnyans is that they haven't been violent enough. That Putin is such a pussycat with such a good soul. I know so because Bush told me. If he were only less of a lefty liberal who doesn't get it Russia would be safe from everyone and gumdrops and ponies would rain from the sky.

Really, what is this magic military strategy that the IDF is going to use to destroy Hezbollah that the IDF has not been able to use against the PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the Japanese and the GMD did not use against the CCP, Batista did not use against Castro, the Vietnamese and Cambodians did not use against the Khmer Rouge, the Russians have not used against the Chechnyans, the US did not use against the Filipinos, the Colombians haven't used against the Marxists, the Indians haven't used against the Kashmiris, the Soviets didn't use against the jihadists, the Sri Lankans haven't used against the Tamils, the French didn't use against the Algerians and the Vietnamese, the British didn't use against the Afrikaaners, the slave owners didn't use against the Haitian slaves and just about every military has mercilessly used against every successful violent non-state actor? Is there really any such plan that conservatives have that has actually learned from the history of insurgencies, terrorist groups and ethnic politics or are American conservatives just offering vague platitudes couched in military language to make it seem like there is actually a real plan they have and the IDF is only pretending not to have? Could it really be that the people who did not expect the Iraqi insurgency to form have no idea what they are talking about and only live in a vague dream world? Conservative foreign policy theory has become so ideological and theoretical and detached from reality that it can only seem plausible among fellow thinkers in ivory towers, similar to how no one outside of comparative literature departments take Derrida seriously.

chaboard wrote

It's been over a quarter century since an Israeli government was willing to negotiate in good faith with anyone(*). The last time they tried it they ended up with a peace with Eqypt that has lasted nearly 30 years now.

(* = with the possible exception of one brief shining period under Rabin. Who was executed for trying to make peace.)

(line to prevent signature from wrapping to the end of previous paragraph due to a weird bug in this blog's comment software)

Brian wrote "A post like this encapsulates Kevin's weakness on foreign and miliary affairs and his liberal sanctimony. He effectively dismisses all who disagree with him having childlike mental capacity and then the best he can come up with in terms of analysis is that the people dumber than him "'mistake playground-level charades like this for shrewd and visionary geopolitical strategy.'"

But Brian, Kevin didn't express his own views at all in this post. He merely tells us what Mark Lynch thinks. In particular, Kevin said nothing here at all about those who disagree with him.

Oops, sorry Brian. I thought this was comments to The Arab Street, Kevin's previous post. Never mind.

Wow! And that is all he had to say on the subject! That is really amazing.

That tells me it is so clear in his mind it needs no further justification.

Wow! again.

C. Rice isn't achieving anything because diplomacy ISN'T about saying "nice doggey" while reaching for a stick.

Does "subtle" mean anything? "indirect", "logical", "history"?

Idiot! This guy is totally out of touch!

============
"And the instant the Israelis withdrew, the first thing that happened was that Palestinian militant factions fell over themselves to take advantage of the new situation to fire some rockets into Israel, to position themselves as the "true defenders" of the Palestinian cause, provoke an Israeli reaction and reap the political benefits...."

Posted by: brooksfoe on July 26, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

What was expected?

And if you think they were ever included in the process, let me know.

Another Idiot!

If you were just dictated to, would you feel empowered? Free? Able to accept what you were told to receive? Would you make statements, even actions, to distance yourself from prior suppressors and politically close yourself with the populace?

To reclaim land you felt had been removed by force from you? After 40 (60?) years of abuse of your people?

Idiot, IDiot, IDIOT!!!

And I used to think you were intelligent!

"prior suppressors" please correct:

"prior and continuing present supressors".

All the more reason!

The cartoon shows Mr Olmert standing on a balcony in a prison camp.

He is holding a sniper's rifle and a dead man is seen lying on the ground.

The drawing clearly alluded to the Hollywood film Schindler's List, in which a sadistic Nazi commander shoots Jewish prisoners for fun,...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5218002.stm

Gee,... that sounds familiar.

All this grand strategy of delay is doing is giving the IDF more time to demonstrate its inability to push Hezbollah away from the border.

The only answer to middle east peace is a united war on violence - by ALL SIDES!

The old 'he started it' excuse doesn't work on the playground and it shouldn't work in the real world either.

In fact, I think that pretty much everyone in the world over the age of ten has figured this out.

Which explains why beltway pundits and the newsroom hairdos haven't got there yet.

Condi's position on the Israel-Lebanon situation reminds me of another old definition of diplomacy.
"Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they can't wait to begin the trip".

What is that "one thing", and when you write "deal with", do you mean "disarm"?

The "one thing" is the same thing I've said it was on every other thread where this has been discussed: a force without Israel's history in the region and the political baggage that comes from being (again!) an invader of Lebanon assuming responsibility for security in the southern portion of Lebanon while and until the Lebanese government builds the capacity to take on that role; and by "deal with Heabollah" I mean to deal with the problem Israel faces from Hezbollah: to disarm Hezbollah, and to create political and security conditions in the Southern Lebanon that prevent it from being used as a base against Israel in the future by Hezbollah or any other radical group.

All sides are showing their true allegiances - HOWARD DEAN called the Iraqi Prime Minister an anti semite!

WHAt the fuck else would the PM of Iraq be??

Jews have instigated a war on Islam using a false flag operation against Americans on 9/11 - but since Americans are tiring of war, now Israelis are pushing the 'we are all Israelis' line....

if Jews in AMerica could bomb another building or shopping center to enlist more Islamophobia, they would do it in a minute.... how about those israelis who tried to bomb the Mexican congress...

that was headline news in Latin America for WEEKS...
n
not a PEEP here ....

JEWS ARE PLAYING the US media and people for suckers... eXACTLY what they did in Germany.

Exactly what they did in Russia and Poland.

Jews are hated for a reason.... the difference between now and 1939? -- they own our media too.

Straussians sure are tricksey. Very tricksey they are.

A weak but provocative posting, makes for a really lousy thread. Kevin totally failed to express himself here. I think the message is this:

Yawn.

The potentially interesting questions don't get asked. For example, regardless of the administration's intentions here, would it be politically feasible (in terms of US politics) for the admin to take any other stance right now? And if they told Israel today that they should stop their attacks, would Israel do it? My guess: No f-ing way. So the 'strategy' reflects not just the admin's preferred Israeli policy, but also the fact that the admin would look ... oh, what's the word ... ineffective if they tried anything else.

Obviously, i for one dismiss the idea that the Israel-Hizbollah grudge match is some kind of proxy war between the US and Iran. Both of the latter countries are in the background, trying to make the best of the situation. We don't seem to be faring too well there (we're being shown up to our allies & rivals outside the ME as being unable to control the situation, and still getting all the blame in the Arab media & elsewhere for being the malicious power behind it all). Iran isn't especially winning this, either, but at least on the PR/hearts-and-minds dimension they seem to be faring a lot better among Arab popular opinion than we are.

I don't see any clear winners coming out of this, and the only clear losers are forces that we should want to see succeeding (i.e. the democratic regime in Lebanon, pro-democracy moderates in other Arab countries). In contrast, radical Islamists will likely come out ahead (i.e. Hizbollah is likely to be dramatically weakened for some time; but on the other hand Arab public opinion will be more outraged & more susceptible to their appeals, and what divisions there have been between radical Sunnis & radical Shiites are going to be put aside for a while, so that they'll be better able to coorindate their actions & leverage each other).

An important take-away that doesn't get much attention: the US role in the current crisis says as much about Bush's political weakness, and the myriad ways in which that weakness constrains our options in foreign policy, as it says about Bush's 'grand strategy' for the Middle East. And whatever happens to Hizbollah, that 'grand strategy' is going to be even further away from success after this episode than it was beforehand.

It's going to be a long two-and-a-half years.

Can America even afford to allow Bush/Cheney to finish their second term? I hope somebody starts impeachment proceedings after the mid-term elections are over. The world can't afford two more years of their crap "leadership."

cmdicely: The "one thing" is the same thing I've said it was on every other thread where this has been discussed: a force without Israel's history in the region and the political baggage that comes from being (again!) an invader of Lebanon assuming responsibility for security in the southern portion of Lebanon while and until the Lebanese government builds the capacity to take on that role; and by "deal with Heabollah" I mean to deal with the problem Israel faces from Hezbollah: to disarm Hezbollah, and to create political and security conditions in the Southern Lebanon that prevent it from being used as a base against Israel in the future by Hezbollah or any other radical group.

OK

I am sorry I missed your meaning. However, I do not think that the US administration is impeding anything that might be accomplished. I do not believe that any UN force would have the desire to disarm Hizbollah and protect Israel. The UN "observers" let Hizbollah arm, and has let Hizbollah attack Israeli citizens.

Certainly, if the UN wants to do something effective, and has the force to do something effective, they do not need to wait for a cease-fire.

Glenn didn't say it was shrewd and visionary, he said it was the primary M.O. of a diplomat. I really wish you would quit attacking Glenn, I like you're site, but face it - you are no Glenn Reynolds. When you can afford an air conditioner during the daytime maybe you can start taking shots at your intellectual superiors.

ex-liberal:

Historically, most wars have gone on until one side has won a definitive victory.

...wow....

''If Lebanon took care of the Hezbollah problem, none of this would be necessary.''

Didn't Lebanon take care of all the problems with the ouster of the Syrians in the glorious election?
Oh, sorry, that was last year's spin retroactively justifying the Iraq Debacle. New year, new spin. Same old bloodlust for the psychopaths.