Islamic radicalism did not begin with Muslim grievances over Western foreign policy in Iraq or Afghanistan. It has deep roots, going back to the 13th-century reformer Ibn Taimiyya, through Wahhabism to modern ideologues such as Sayyid Qutb in Egypt or Maududi in Pakistan.
Back all the way to the first jihadist, the Prophet Muhammad
The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan gave it the cause it was looking for, and Afghanistan became the place where Muslim radicals were trained, financed and armed (often with Western assistance).
The movements that were born or renewed do not have any kind of centralised command structure, but co-operate through diffuse networks of affinity and patronage. One of their most important aims is to impose their form of Islam on countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia and Indonesia. This may be why they were not regarded as an immediate threat to the West. Their other aims, however, include the liberation of oppressed Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and elsewhere, and also the recovery of the Dar Al-Islam (or House of Islam), in its historic wholeness, including the Iberian peninsula, the Balkans and even India.
In this cause, the rest of the world, particularly the West, is Dar al-Harb (House of War). These other aims clearly bring such movements into conflict with the international community and with Western interests in particular.
So how does this dual psychology - of victimhood, but also the desire for domination - come to infect so many young Muslims in Britain? When I was here in the early 1970s, the practice of Islam was dominated by a kind of default Sufism or Islamic mysticism that was pietistic and apolitical. On my return in the late 1980s, the situation had changed radically. The change occurred because successive governments were unaware that the numerous mosques being established across the length and breadth of this country were being staffed, more and more, with clerics who belonged to various fundamentalist movements.
There were no criteria for entry, no way of evaluating qualifications and no programme for making them aware of the culture that they were entering. Until quite recently, ministers and advisers did not realise the scale of the problem, even though it was repeatedly brought to their attention. Secondly, in the name of multiculturalism, mosque schools were encouraged and Muslim pupils spent up to six extra hours a day learning the Koran and Islamic tradition, as well as their own regional languages. Finally, there are the grievances. Some of these are genuine enough, but the complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene where Muslims are victims (as in Bosnia or Kosovo), and always wrong when they may be the oppressors or terrorists (as with the Taliban or in Iraq), even when their victims are also mainly Muslims.
Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement, and new demands will continue to be made. It is clear, therefore, that the multiculturalism beloved of our political and civic bureaucracies has not only failed to deliver peace, but is the partial cause of the present alienation of so many Muslim young people from the society in which they were born, where they have been educated and where they have lived most of their lives. The Cantle Report, in the wake of disturbances in Bradford, pointed out that housing and schools policies that favoured segregation, in the name of cultural integrity and cohesion, have had the unforeseen consequence of alienating the different religious, racial and cultural groups from one another.
A very significant number of policies will have to be rethought. In this, the Government will need expert help. There must be greater encouragement for moderate Muslim voices to be heard more clearly. All religious leaders, representing any faith, wanting to work here, must be required to show that they are properly qualified, can speak English and are willing to undertake courses in adaptation to culture in this country: a number of suitable institutions offer such courses. Immigration policy should be shaped in such a way as to be able to discover whether potential immigrants have sympathy for characteristically British values and for the way of life here.
The cultural heritage of people who come here must be respected. They should be able to take pride in their language, literature, art and spiritual background. At the same time, if they are to adjust to life in this country, they should be prepared to live in mixed communities, and not on their own. Their children should attend school along with those who come from the host culture, or from other cultures and traditions. They should be willing to learn through the medium of English and to be socially mobile, rather than "ghetto-ised" on the basis of religion, language or culture.
Politicians keep talking about the need to teach British values so that there can be national cohesion. But what are these values, and whence do they come? The most fundamental of these has to do with the innate dignity of all human beings, with fundamental equality, with liberty and with safety from harm. Those learning such values will know how to respect the dignity of people who are quite different from them in appearance, language or belief.
They will not see themselves as superior because of their religious or cultural roots, but regard every human life as of equal worth. They will be committed to freedom of belief and of expression. They will know that their fellow citizens have the right to safety from harm and that this extends not only to individual security, but also the safety of those institutions, such as democracy or a free press, that make liberty possible and actual.
Values, however, are not free-standing; they are deeply rooted in a vision of society. Whether we like it or not, characteristic British values arise out of the Christian faith and its vision of personal and common good. These were clarified by the Enlightenment and became the bed-rock of our modern political arrangements. The Enlightenment, however, by consigning Christianity to the private sphere, also removed the basis and justification for these values in the public sphere.
It is this basis and justification that needs to be recovered if our values are to be secure, and if they are to help inculcate the virtues of generosity, loyalty, moderation and love that lead to personal fulfilment and social wellbeing.
The author is the Bishop of Rochester.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/16/2006 14:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Being a christian from a Pakistani background, the good bishop knows of what he speaks.
Note his mention of the ideological origins of islamic fascism - Ibn Taimiyya, Abd Al-Wahhab, Sayyid Maududi, Sayyid Qutb.
While Taimiyya advocated a fundamentalist reform, "cleansing" islam of all that had "corrupted" it, and he influenced Wahab, it was the fusion of european revolutionary and fascist thought, as expresssed by Maududi and Qutb that created islamic fascism.
Maududi writes of the need to possess "coercive power", that islam is a "complete code of life", that democracy was against god.
It was he who put forth the idea of jihad as perpetual revolution. Khomeni learnt well.
The characteristics of a fascist state like Nazi Germany - belief in a superhuman leader (Hitler), racial superiority (aryan race), glorious destiny (the 1000 year reich), a glorious lost past (nordic origin myths), a sense of injustice ('betrayal not defeat' in WW1 and punitive reparations), bringing out the suppressed warrior spirit (prussia etc), ememies that must be destroyed (bolshviks and jews) are all found in Islamic fascism - Osama, arab muslims and kaffirs, the caliphate, historic rule from Andalusia to India, "oppression" of muslims - Palestine, Kashmir, Chencheya, Bosnia ad nauseam, the legacy of conquorers like Umar, Bin Qassim, Ghauri, ememies like the US, Israel, India.
Posted by: john ||
08/16/2006 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Multiculturalism is to blame for perverting young Muslims
So, uh, like your sayin' that the liberals are all to blame for this? Boy howdy, that one's going to go down swell in the Blue States.
There must be greater encouragement for moderate Muslim voices to be heard more clearly.
#5
Boy howdy is right. First, yesterday they (the British gov't) state they're actually considering (/gasp) "profiling" for boarding a plane. Then today this article in a not-so-small British paper. Maybe we have something to learn from our cousins across the pond. Of course, as always, implementation is a whole 'nother ball game.
Posted by: BA ||
08/16/2006 21:20 Comments ||
Top||
"Why are the liberals always on the other side?" asks the fictional French military commander Colonel Mathieu when he is challenged, in The Battle for Algiers, for using torture to fight terror.
Because liberals are unwilling to face the consequences of having to fight for their freedom?
The film suggests that torture works as a tool of immediate necessity, even if the consequences are a blurring of morality and so final defeat.
The film suggests that torture + incompetence + murder leads to defeat. I don't condone torture at all. I condone losing my life to murderous barbarians even less.
Four decades on, Mathieu's charge against liberal scruples is still being raised, implicit in the defence of the means being used in a modern battle against Islamic terror.
Particularly when those scruples are wielded by 'progressives' who wouldn't have any problems torturing Dick Cheney. Let's be clear, the progressives today aren't unhappy that torture is being used, they're unhappy because the 'wrong' people are being tortured.
Old conventions and legal obligations are being portrayed as obstacles to victory in a conflict, it is said, whose scope and severity are being recklessly misunderstood. Without supporting torture, the prime minister crystalised this thinking when he asserted last year that"the rules of the game have changed". John Reid's urgent demeanour has done it again in the past week.
The Bush Administration has adopted exactly the right posture on the matter. Candor and consistency are not always public virtues. Torture is a crime against humanity, but coercion is an issue that is rightly handled with a wink, or even a touch of hypocrisy; it should be banned but also quietly practiced. Those who protest coercive methods will exaggerate their horrors, which is good: it generates a useful climate of fear. It is wise of the President to reiterate U.S. support for international agreements banning torture, and it is wise for American interrogators to employ whatever coercive methods work. It is also smart not to discuss the matter with anyone.
Counter-terrorism and justice do not always march in step and nor is the easy response, that justice must always come first, enough of an answer. The dilemmas are more acute. The arrest of 24 suspects in connection with an alleged plot to destroy airliners over the Atlantic may have been a triumph of intelligence and policing that saved many lives. No government could be criticised for acting when it did, on the information it claims to have had. Nor have legal safeguards been broken here. Yet safeguards in other countries are less rigorous. At what point do actions abroad pollute British justice, even if in the short-term they may protect British security?
As Mr. Bowden says, if the perps in Pakistan were made cold, uncomfortable and alone, that's fine -- wink wink, nod nod, and nice job. If they had their fingernails pulled out then the interrogators have to be punished.
Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance.
Wink. Wink. Nod. Nod. It isn't hard.
Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture," she said. "There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all."
One person's 'opinion' being elevated to fact.
If this is shown to be the case, the prospect of securing convictions in this country on his evidence will be complicated. In 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled - feebly - that evidence obtained using torture would be admissable as long as Britain had not "procured or connived" at it. The law lords rightly dismissed this in December last year, though they disagreed about whether the bar should be the simple "risk" or "probability" of torture.
The law lords may well need a second dollop of the hand lotion.
But none of this stops governments acquiescing in torture to acquire information, rather than secure convictions, as British as well as American practice has shown. It has been outsourced to less squeamish countries and denied through redefinition: but it is still torture and still illegal. The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan has provided disturbing evidence of the uneasy boundary between benefiting from torture and encouraging it; so did the Council of Europe's report on rendition in June.
The British didn't send Rashid Rauf to Pakistan to be 'questioned'. He flew there himself, so the rendition argument doesn't fly.
The defence, to the extent that anything other than evasion has been offered, is no better than the one provided by Colonel Mathieu in Algiers: it works. But does it? Torture and other illegality can offer authorities a short-term seduction, perhaps even temporary successes. Information provided by torture may have helped foil the alleged airliners plot.
Which is why a reasonable, intelligent people interested in preserving the lives of their citizens find coercion -- the 'other illegality' -- distasteful but occasionally necessary.
But evidence provided uder torture is often unreliable, sometimes disastrously so - and its use always pollutes the broader credentials of torturers and their allies.
Which is why, perhaps, the perps need not be brought to trial.
This battle must be won within the law. Anything else is not just a form of defeat but will in the end fuel the flames of the terror it aims to overcome.
You can't convict them because you can't or won't use the evidence at hand. Even if you convict them you'll not sentence them to a term longer than (at most) ten years. Or you'll release them when the Lions of Islam snatch a citizen of yours. Hezbollah and Hamas have been counting on exactly this by capturing Israeli soldiers. Don't think for a moment al-Qaeda wouldn't stoop to grabbing a British citizen if they thought it would get their people released.
So you have some hard decisions to make. You can try them. You can change your law and use tribunals. You can learn to wink. Or you can wring your hands and allow terrorism to ruin your country, whether all at once or corrosively over time.
I'll make one suggestion: if you can't try them and won't keep them, just release them. In the wild. Somewhere quiet. Out of the way. And let us know when and where.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Hittites were of the same perverse logic. It was not who they were, it was how they thought and how corrupt their thought was,
Amazing the press is siding with those with no press. Maybe that is the arrogance Muslim speaks against. Maybe Muslim wants to be proven wrong? Already has. nevermind. just thinking to myself. Sorry.
#2
Because liberals are unwilling to face the consequences of having to fight for their freedom?
Not always true. Saint Franklin Roosevelt, of the secular church of liberalism, had no problem fighting whether it was ordering 'aggressive' response to German U-Boats in international waters or launching an unprovoked surprise attack upon the French territories of North Africa, even though we were at peace with the French and there was no Congressional authorization to take us into such a war.
#4
A small note about the movie "The battle for Algiers" it was made by a communist in the great tradition from the French Colmmunist Party of ever backatabbing the French Army (even in 1940, it sabotaged French weapon productions to help its Nazi allies). In it you will learn about Henri Allegre being tortured (reality: he called a lieutenant a "fascist" and was slapped) or about the French Army using torture but not about the dilemma it faced: either torture this terroristb (I insist terrorist not suspect) or have his friends bomb a bus school ie the film does not say a word about the atrocities of the FLN and how torture was seen to be the only way toprevent them.
Oh and BTW: Givebn that I was born in Algiers and that even as a toddler I was a legitimate target according to FLN (cf the horrioble masscre at Philippeville or the many massacres of Algerian villages) don't expect of me that I condemn use of torture on proven terrorists.
#5
The film suggests that torture + incompetence + murder leads to defeat.
IIUC, the battle of Algiers saw the fln rooted out; it was a very successful counter-insurgency work which basically set the standards for such operations.
#6
Btw, the "Battle for algiers" is a great movie. Aside for the fact it is pro-fln propaganda piece made after the war by french and italian communists with the help of the algerian gvt to show how heroic were the fln "soldiers" (the murderous pimp ali la pointe tasked by the fln to rein in the underworld is depicted as a saint choosing to die for the Cause), and how "native liberation struggle" they were (the secret muslim marriage).
Still, the movie doesn't completly hide the terrorist methods employed there (the corpse dropped from the car, which turns around the block to sweep the flocking bystanders with smg fire), it just sublime them.
#7
Personally I don't care if the US uses torture or not. If it works and it doesn't affect the psych of the torturers too much I can live with it. If it doesn't work as we hope I can live without it.
I want the bad guys to be 100% confident that we'll use the worse thing they can think of against them if we get ahold of them. I want fevered nightmares, paranoia, and insomnia amung our enemies..
#8
i can buy the Mark Biden approach. Of course that was NOT the admin approach until Sen McCain forced it on them, to loud wailing and gnashing of teeth, here, among other places.
If it's bad form to speak ill of the dead, it seems to be even worse form to speak ill of the almost-dead tyrant. When Ive written before about the monstrous regime of Fidel Castro one of the longest-standing abusers of human rights on the planet Ive been deluged with e-mails and letters accusing me of everything bar incest. Despite the pictures of him that appeared on Monday, its clear that he is on his last legs. And when he does finally pop his clogs, the mourning of left-liberals will be intense.
Such hero worship of so brutal a tyrant would seem beyond rational explanation. As Amnesty International puts it in its 2006 report on Cuba: There was increasing international concern about Cubas failure to improve civil and political rights . . . Restrictions on freedom of expression, association and movement continued to cause great concern. Nearly 70 prisoners of conscience remained in prison.
Cuban prisoners are detained under the catch-all peligrosidad predelictiva, defined as a persons special proclivity to commit offences as demonstrated by conduct that is manifestly contrary to the norms of socialist morality. Castro also operates a pretty basic form of censorship: he imprisons journalists to whom he objects. Twenty-four journalists were in prison at the end of 2005. And no Cuban is allowed to travel abroad without permission.
Rationally, those who describe themselves as progressive ought to be campaigning for Castros departure. Instead, when he does die, his image is likely to outsell even that of Che Guevara on the ubiquitous T-shirts. But rational explanation is the wrong place to start. Ever since Robespierre, the original left-wing tyrant, large sections of the Left have allied themselves with oppressors. Even when the evidence of Stalins butchery was known, for example, George Bernard Shaw continued to praise him, condoning Stalins purges by arguing that he was merely getting rid of those who werent up to their jobs, and that they often have to be pushed off the ladder with a rope around their necks.
There is a further, more modern, incongruity: the willingness of elements of the Left to ally with Islamists who exemplify everything they ought, rationally, to be campaigning against. So when Ken Livingstone sings the praises of the Muslim cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Mayor of London is eulogising a man who quite apart from supporting suicide bombing argues that it is a husbands duty to beat her (his wife) lightly with his hands when she does not obey him, and who proselytises that a homosexual should be given the same punishment as any sexual pervert . . . Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement . . . The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.
The roots of such bizarre hero worship are complex, but for all its apparent incompatibility with a Left which claims to promote freedom, equality and prosperity, there is a linking thread. Whether it be Robespierre, Stalin, Castro or al-Qaradawi, all their actions stem from the same certainty that the broader Left holds: that the ends it seeks are so incontrovertibly proper that the means are justified for the greater good.
It might not be a very deep philosophical explanation, but it works even for relatively prosaic obsessions of the Left such as high taxes. Because it is, to most of the Left, self-evident that only the State should run schools and hospitals, so it is perfectly proper to take peoples money to finance it. The ends make the means entirely justified.
How many times recently have you been in virtually any social situation -- business lunch, gathering with family, summer barbecue with friends -- and when the war has come up in conversation, one of the following statements is made:
"It's sad, but it's going to take another attack before we really fight this war like we need to."
"I just don't think we're going to win until we mobilize the whole nation against the enemy."
"I really don't care whether the Middle East is democratic or not, I just want to win the war."
And so forth. What you are witnessing in these moments is a distinct vein in the American spirit that is currently unrepresented by either major party or any single national politician.
We might call this part of the American psychology the Unfrozen Caveman Voter. . . .
I recently had dinner with a friend, another Marine, who said, "You know, at their basic core, Americans are Type-A, aggressive personalities who want nothing more than to just kick a**!" He's right, and not the first to notice this. General George Patton, in his harangues to his troops, frequently pointed out how different they were from those of other countries:
Many of you have in your veins German and Italian blood. But remember that these ancestors of yours so loved freedom that they gave up home and country to cross the ocean in search of liberty. The ancestors of the people we shall kill lacked the courage to make such a sacrifice and remained slaves.
And then this,
We Americans are a competitive race ... We love to win. In this next fight, you are entering the greatest sporting competition of all times. You are competing with Americans and with Allies for the greatest prize of all -- victory.
The Unfrozen Caveman Voter is begging to be released. But at the moment, he is being misread by both national parties, and especially the Democrats. Sure, some people oppose the invasion of Iraq or simply hate George Bush, period. And sure, some people distrust all Muslims and are racists. But the vast majority of America falls in the middle of these extremes. However they think of it now, they thought confronting Iraq was a fine idea, and wish it had gone better, but that doesn't translate at all into defeatism, as it is defined, refined and reiterated in the press. On the contrary, they'd like to see more action, more activity, a seizure of the initiative in some way. Using defensive policework and intelligence measures to catch bad guys before they blow up more aircraft are all fine and well, but the Unfrozen Caveman Voter wants very badly to see more offensive measures too.
Don't caricature this attitude with a desire for more invasions, more nation-building, more regime-change, random airstrikes, or wanton slaughter. It's hard to say just what policy exactly might satisfy the caveman demographic. But really, the Unfrozen Caveman Voter intuits a large portion of the art of warfare: opportunities must be created and then exploited -- or if they come by luck, they must be exploited all the same. And finally, the use of extreme and otherwise intolerable violence is necessary if used in the service of victory.
It's not healthy in our republic for such a large slice of the populace to be unrepresented by any politician. But that is the case today. Soon enough it will change. . . .
I do believe the boy is on to something here.
Would it not be fair to say that a large segment of the population of greater Rantburg consists of Unfrozen Caveman Voters?
Posted by: Mike ||
08/16/2006 17:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
This is a simple argument. An analogy would be "Would you rather win $10 and feel really, really good about it; or earn 1 Million dollars in such a ho-hum and boring manner that you just can't get worked up about it much at all?"
People who want to join the army in a fit of patriotic ferver, to go attack the hated enemy, then come home to great celebration, make shitty soldiers. Their support for real soldiers is also a fickle and mean-spirited thing. They are the "Thank you, Mister Atkins" crowd, lauding one minute and cursing the next.
Life, for them, is a series of emotional events not grounded in reality. Winning or losing is just a means to have their emotional masturbation.
Often they see even the office of the Presidency as nothing more complex than an hour-long TV show.
At the start, someone bursts into his office waving some papers and says, "Mr President, we have a crisis!" The President then has 40 minutes or so to solve the crisis and bring everything back to normal. There is no continuity.
Such people should never have anything to do with foreign policy or the military. They do not have an attention span that recognizes decades, much less years. Policy is based on something said at last week's cocktail party.
The reality is just the opposite. In the 18th and 19th Century foreign and military affairs were seen with the complexity of a chess game, by the great leaders. But today, the greatest of our leaders plays not just 3rd-dimensional chess, but 4th-dimensional chess.
George Bush Sr. was a master of what were called "linkages" in foreign policy, but his son, and his brain trust, transcended even this. Ironically, in one of his first debates, George W. Bush coined the word "strategery", in a presidential debate, to the great amusement of the media.
However, what he and his strategists engage in is so unique and powerful, a whole new level of strategy, that it transcends the word.
"Strategery" should enter the lexicon as a level of strategic planning as far advanced above ordinary strategy as chess is above checkers.
Our leaders use this means of planning to give the United States an advantage over every other nation and power in the world.
#6
The proper terminology is Jacksonian. Or as reported -
Teddy Roosevelt: "Do not get into a fight if you can possibly avoid it. If you get in, see it through. Don't hit if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting, but never hit soft. Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep."
#7
OK, some more serious food for thought than Pollster Tartare...
* One a da big complaints everyone says about the Vietnam War was that the people who got us into it didn't have an "exit strategy."
* Some people have said we did have an exit strategy, but bailed on our plan when the Congress decided to abandon the country; they have a point.
* Other people say the North Vietnamese won because we were obsessed with "exit strategies" while _they_ didn't have one.
Now, I don't wanna get into whether or not Dubya is smart or dumb. It's neither here nor there. There is a lot of dumb ink being spilled over whether "Democritization" is a good or bad idea.
The continuing existance of Hamas and Hezbollah is often cited as evidence that Democracy can't work in the Middle East; never mind that we wouldn't call it democracy in the first place if Hezbollah were elected to the Chicago city council using the same methods as were used in Lebanon (i.e. a prolonged occupation by the Syrian army which only left after all groups BUT Hezbollah were disarmed, and then the election run by Syrian-written rules).
Iraq is also cited as proof that Democracy Can't Work.
Well, I got at least one cite:
We've run the experiment where we just find a local general to keep the country under control and the enemy at bay. Or where we "give up" on Democracy and shoot the leader we think is being ineffective and put in another one. We did that during the Vietnam War.
It really didn't seem to help that much.
Now maybe Democracy is a bad idea, perhaps in the particular cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe even in general. I think Churchill said something along the lines that it sucked, but everything else just sucks worse.
But it is a goal. It might work better than running away, which half the Carping Critics seem to want, or setting up the Ba'athist Core as _our_ tribute farmers instead of Saddam's which about half of the remaining Carping Critics seem to have wanted. These Carping Critics appear to have a consensus put together because they can blame That Retard, George Bush, for listening to Those Sinister Neocons and doing all these foolish things, but the alternative strategies they're suggesting are mutually incompatible and even if pursuing one or the other would produce results, taken alone each of their mutually exclusive strategies doesn't have very much support.
Remember, folks, Clausewitz said that war was (among other things) the extension of politics by other means. (Some people say it's the other way around. But I digress. I guess it depends on how many barbarians are crowded outside your city walls).
And politics is the art of the possible.
Bush seems to be trying to implement a strategy that fits in with the art of the possible. Verily it sucketh, just like any other one will suck.
Turning over Eastern Europe to the Russians and bequething their kids with the Cold War was a sucky strategy during WW2, it's just that noone who really mattered noticed at the time.
The question is, does it suck less than the other possible alternatives?
As for the thesis of the article, well, if there were such overwhelming support for a "caveman" approach to the situation wrt the Middle East, I suspect that Kerry wouldn't have gotten 48-49% of the vote, or whatever it was.
And I suspect that anything the author or I write on the situation in the ME, or the electorate, is going to be badly obsolete in six months' time.
#10
Also, I think there's a false dichotomy involved: do you want a strategy that sucks less, or one that sucks just as much or worse so long as you can pretend it doesn't suck at all?
#11
The thing is except for the Kurds and the Israelites I don't give a rats ass for the rest. I am sorry that sounds bad , but I don't, if I could get both them groups away from the ME I scorch earth the place and start over.
#12
AS: Turning over Eastern Europe to the Russians and bequething their kids with the Cold War was a sucky strategy during WW2, it's just that noone who really mattered noticed at the time.
As far as I'm concerned, that was a fine strategy. It was superior to losing another million men trying to push the Soviets back. Don't get me wrong - I would have loved seeing the French or the British take on this task. As I am sure they would have loved to see GI's in Russia. But the cost would have been astronomical. It's one thing to take on Iran, North Korea or Syria. And quite another to take on a major power like the Soviets on the tail end of bloody wars with three major Axis powers.
#13
The supply train for the vast majority of the Soviet Army ran on American-made trucks. It wouldn't have hurt if some of the effort that went into those trucks went into building a better tank than the Sherman.
We all have spent too much time talking about the widespread anti-Semitism in the Muslim world and discovering, to our surprise, that many in the West actually share this feeling, while many more couldnt really care less. This is a mistaken approach.
Instead of trying to understand why they hate us and why they (and many others) hate the Jews (something I hope well be discussing for several generations), what we have to understand right now is: what is anti-Semitism good for? What are the uses of anti-Semitism?
Whether those who manipulate anti-Semitism are themselves anti-Semites (or anti-Zionists or whatever), whether they personally share the hatred, all that is irrelevant right now.
We are spending precious time getting surprised or scared, wondering about the hatred itself, its depth and extension. Thats important, but not whats most important right now. What we need to understand is that this hatred is being once again used cynically to obtain certain results.
Besides being anti-Semitic themselves, the Nazis used anti-Semitism brilliantly to subvert other countries and societies. Though Nazism was (among other things) a form of German expansionism, wherever there were anti-Semites the Germans would also find collaborators. Anti-Semitism was used by the Germans to undermine from the inside countries, societies and armies that could or would stand up to them.
The Nazis managed to convince millions and millions of Frenchmen and Poles, Belgians, Norwegians etc. and, yes, Brits and Americans that, since they were fighting a common enemy, the Jews, they werent really the mortal enemies of France and Poland and Belgium and Norway and England and the US. Untold millions were eager to believe that Germany wasnt really threatening them and their countries, that the Germans didnt really want to conquer, exploit and kill them. Why? Because they either thought that they could make a common cause with the Nazis against the Jews, or remained indifferent, neutral and defenseless because, being indifferent to the fate of the Jews, they believed it was none of their problem. "First they came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I didn't speak up...."
Many of them even turned against those in their own countries who wanted to fight the Nazis and blamed them for putting everyone else in danger just to protect the Jews. Can you say "DU" and "the Left"?
In short: if the Jews were used in the beginning as scapegoats, their main use throughout the war was as a tool to divide and conquer. Thanks to their sincere or opportunistic anti-Semitism the Germans were able to paralyse important forces in the countries and societies they wanted to defeat and submit.
Thats just what is happening once again before our very eyes. Though the Jihadists have their own clear, even megalomaniac goals, and while they kill thousands in the US or fight for Sharia in Europe, while they complain about East Timor or fight for Kashmir, it is enough for them to involve the Jews, particularly Israel, in their struggle or their declared agenda to get the active support or at least the indifference of those in Europe, the US and elsewhere who would like to believe that their complaints, grievances and goals are restricted to or only motivated by Israel. Of course, they also declare theyre fighting against America, but then, for those who hate America anyway (and often the Jews and/or Israel too), the same logic works perfectly.
The Jihadists have shown us how brilliantly they can manipulate for their own purposes something as irrelevant as half-a-dozen cartoons in a Danish newspaper. Thus, it is rather unimportant whether Israels destruction is or isnt their main goal (it isnt). Hatred of the Jews and of Israel is the loaded weapon the Jihadis are putting in the hands of a civilization thats willing (again) to commit suicide.
Read the whole thing - he's dead-on.
The LLL fill me to overflowing with total disgust. I wish there were some way to make them live now in the world they're trying to bring about without affecting the rest of us. And never let them come back no matter what happened.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/16/2006 13:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Bolton needs to read this into the record on the floor of the UN General Assembly - and someone should read it into the Congressional Record in both houses as well, hopefully while each house is in session and the members are on the floor.
In fact, I'd like nothing better than for President Bush to read it at a news conference - preferably one that is live.
The seething in the MSM alone would be extremely entertaining - and I've got the popcorn concession cornered.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/16/2006 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I was gonna post this one, but you beat me to it.
. . . wherever there were anti-Semites the Germans would also find collaborators. Anti-Semitism was used by the Germans to undermine from the inside countries, societies and armies that could or would stand up to them. . . . Thats just what is happening once again before our very eyes. Though the Jihadists have their own clear, even megalomaniac goals, and while they kill thousands in the US or fight for Sharia in Europe, while they complain about East Timor or fight for Kashmir, it is enough for them to involve the Jews, particularly Israel, in their struggle or their declared agenda to get the active support or at least the indifference of those in Europe, the US and elsewhere who would like to believe that their complaints, grievances and goals are restricted to or only motivated by Israel. . . .
Look at the blatant anti-Semitism on display at DU and Kos and International ANSWER and among the supporters of Ned Lamont and Cindy Sheehan, and tell me he's not right.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/16/2006 17:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This is the second post I've seen in the last day that suggests Americans will eagerly climb on board the "I hate Jews" bandwagon. There are Jew-haters in the US, but if it came down to Americans picking Jews or Muslims as their hated enemy, does anyone doubt who most Americans would choose? How many Americans have died due to Jewish terror attacks? How many IEDs have Jews set up in Iraq?
Now Europe? That's a different story.
Posted by: Jules in the Hinterlands ||
08/16/2006 17:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Jules, tharea are a lot on the left that will, and indeed have already, chosen Jews over Muslims as an object of their hatred - and Mulsims as their ally against western civilization.
#6
Great article, Barbara. The amount of misdirection employed by Muslims with respect to the Jews makes Houdini look like a rank amateur. Islam, literally, could give a d@mn about the Jews so long as their continued march towards world domination goes unimpeded. That is all that matters. About the only thing that actually magnifies the issue of the Jews is how they routinely and consistently kick humiliated Arab @ss, even when significantly outnumbered.
#7
Very true, Oldspook. But when push comes to shove-and I am sure it will again since Islamists always overstep-I trust the bigger part of America to make the right choice. If things get too out of hand in any direction, haven't we usually been able rely on the folks we know to make the right judgment?
For the survival of our country and culture, I have faith in my neighbors (most of them).
Posted by: Jules in the Hinterlands ||
08/16/2006 20:29 Comments ||
Top||
First, the nation may be tired, but history doesn't care. It is not fair that the challenge of Iran is rising with Iraq, bloody and unresolved. But, as President Kennedy used to say, "Life is not fair."
Behind all the chaos and death in Lebanon and northern Israel, Iran is the main cause of worry in the West Wingthe crisis with the highest stakes. Its government shows every sign of grand regional ambitions, pulling together an anti-American alliance composed of Syria, terrorist groups like Hizbullah and Hamas, and proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan. And despite other disagreements, all the factions in Iranconservative, ultraconservative and "let's usher in the apocalypse" fanaticsseem united in a nuclear nationalism.
Some commentators say that America is too exhausted to confront this threat. But presidential decisions on national security are not primarily made by the divination of public sentiments; they are made by the determination of national interests. And the low blood-sugar level of pundits counts not at all. Here the choice is not easy, but it is simple: can America (and other nations) accept a nuclear Iran?
In foreign-policy circles, it is sometimes claimed that past nuclear proliferationsay, to India or Pakistanhas been less destabilizing than predicted. In the case of Iran, this is wishful thinking. A nuclear Iran would mean a nuclear Middle East, as traditional rivals like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey feel pressured to join the club, giving every regional conflict nuclear overtones. A nuclear Iran would also give terrorist groups something they have previously lacked and desperately want: a great-power sponsor. Over time, this is the surest way to put catastrophic technology into the hands of a murderous few. All options have dangers and drawbacks. But inaction might bring the harshest verdict of history: they knew much, and they did nothing.
The war in Iraq, without doubt, complicates our approach to Iran. It has stretched the Army and lowered our reservoir of credibility on WMD intelligence. But Iran's destabilizing nuclear ambitions are not a guarded secret; they are an announced strategy. If the lesson drawn from Iraq is that the world is too unknowable and complicated for America to act in its interests, we will pay a terrible price down the road.
As these events unfold, our country will need a better way of doing business, a new compact between citizens and their government. Americans have every right to expect competence and honesty about risks and mistakes and failures. Yet Americans, in turn, must understand that in a war where deception is the weapon and goal of the enemy, every mistake is not a lie; every failure is not a conspiracy. And the worst failure would be a timid foreign policy that allows terrible threats to emerge.
There are still many steps of diplomacy, engagement and sanctions between today and a decision about military conflict with Iranand there may yet be a peaceful solution. But in this diplomatic dance, America should not mirror the infinite patience of Europe. There must be someone in the world capable of drawing a linesomeone who says, "This much and no further." At some point, those who decide on aggression must pay a price, or aggression will be universal. If American "cowboy diplomacy" did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.
LONG ago, when I was in Punjab Information, I was directed to ask the federal interior secretary unofficially if anything was being done about bringing home the remains of Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, the man who coined the word Pakistan, as was being demanded by some people in the province, as also by some popular newspapers.
Nothing, he said, and added, Are you sure he himself would have approved? You see, he never came to live in Pakistan because he heartily disapproved of it for being contrary to his concept of a Muslim homeland in India, and preferred to pass his days in England. I wonder what he did for a living there.
This last, more a loud thought than a question, remained unanswered, for some of us too used to make conjectures in the days when Pakistan was still an idea, as to what Rehmat Ali did in Cambridge. But since it was Cambridge, we all thought he was studying there for some kind of a doctorate. It is strange that all those who count him among the founders of Pakistan still cant throw light on what his activities there amounted to.
I owe it to columnist Khalid Hasan for reminding me of those days through a newspaper article called The Quaids Detractor. Actually detractor is small word, because Rehmat Ali had nothing but contempt for Mr Jinnah whom he took as an agent of the devil for not conforming to his (Rehmat Alis) idea of Pakistan.
The difference between the two was that one was a practical, democratic, down-to-earth politician, wedded to truth and exactitude, while the other, sitting in Cambridge, was a visionary without any sense of reality or sense of history, and if I may add on my own, without any commonsense. His only contribution to the making of Pakistan was the name, whereas Pakistan with any other name would have been equally whatever it is.
As for his actual map of a homeland for Indian Muslims, it was the most hare-brained scheme one could ever come across. I have called him a Muslim imperialist. If he were alive in 1965 during the September war with India, he would have been one of those who wanted to fly the Star & Crescent on the Red Fort in Delhi, probably by landing on it by helicopter, for otherwise it was hardly possible. He was a firm believer in the slogan Crush India, and if he could crush Hindu India from Cambridge he would have readily done so.
When (as the map drawn up by him showed) Rehmat Ali appropriated for the Muslims nearly two-thirds of India, he forgot one important detail: how was the new Muslim empire to be brought about? By force of arms or by persuading the non-Muslims to make-do with a very small part of the vast subcontinent to which he chose to give the name Hanoodia? Apparently even this was done in a spirit of generosity, for, in his opinion, the Hindus did not deserve anything better than being pushed into the sea.
According to Rehmat Ali, apart from what is today Pakistan, with Kashmir and much more added to it, in the west was Bang-e-Islam, comprising Bengal and Assam in the east, The Muslim Indian empire was also to have Osmanistan (Hyderabad Deccan) and Moplahistan on the western coast of Southern India, and numerous other bits and pieces. Apparently, any area, big or small, that had any connection with Muslim history and culture, had been arbitrarily included, with Rehmat Ali secure in the supreme confidence that the Hindus wouldnt object despite their overwhelming majority, to say nothing of the Sikhs.
This was the great visionary who, in school textbooks and the countrys postage stamps, is counted among the heroes whose tireless efforts before 1947 led to the establishment of Pakistan. As his admirers would have us believe, a crazy notion, howsoever nebulous and impracticable, is preferable as an ideal to the real Pakistan, which is too small and too pragmatic to evoke the Muslim spirit of imperialism in the style of Mahmud Ghaznavi.
What most of us have dreamed about in the 20th and 21st centuries is empire builders like Muhammad bin Qasim and Salahuddin Ayubi and not the prosaic Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the constitutionalist, who just wanted the Muslims rights and nothing more. By the way, a Rehmat Ali Society is very much active in Gujrat, his home town. Left to it the Quids bones would probably be disinterred from his mausoleum and replaced by its heros remains imported from Cambridge which he loved more than Pakistan.
He said the Quaid had dealt six deadly blows to the millat. I need not recount the six blows; they are too deadly for this column to take. I am convinced he was plain jealous. If you are interested you can look for an old publication called, Pakistan, Fatherland of Pak Nation, which also contains Rehmat Alis original pamphlet Now or Never on what Pakistan was supposed to consist of as a resuscitated Muslim empire. The thing has been out of print for many decades. I gave away my copy to someone and didnt bother to take it back.
Before I close, let me repeat what that interior secretary said in conclusion. If it were generally known what Rehmat Ali thought of Quaid-i-Azam and what he wrote about him, the box bringing his bones from England might not get an exactly red carpet welcome. So, as we bureaucrats say about matters that dont need further attention. Please file.
Posted by: john ||
08/16/2006 20:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is from Khalid Hassan
"Rehmat Alis concept of Pakistan was nebulous, impractical and fantasy-ridden. It was to include the entire northwest of India, Kashmir, the Kathiawar peninsula, Kutch, and several enclaves deep within UP, including Delhi and Lucknow. There were to be two independent Muslim states besides Pakistan: Bangistan comprising Bengal and Assam in the east and Osmanistan in the south. These two were to form a federation with Pakistan. The 243 principalities or Rajwaras were to be divided among caste Hindus and others and then herded together in a ghetto called Hanoodia. As for the Sikhs, they were to be pushed into an enclave called Sikhia. Other races and religions were to inhabit an encampment by the name of Hanadika. Every non-Muslim was to remain subservient to the master race he called The Paks. And yes, the subcontinent was to be renamed Dinia. He did not say how he was going to bring all that about."
Posted by: john ||
08/16/2006 20:58 Comments ||
Top||
A SMALL group of American "jihadists" uses paintball guns to conduct weapons training in the woods of northern Virginia.
A Californian is convicted of providing support to terrorists. Extremists are arrested in raids across Australia before they can allegedly stage attacks in Sydney and Melbourne.
Increasingly, such seemingly disparate cases involving "homegrown" terror groups share connections to one place Pakistan.
The alleged plot to blow up US-bound, trans-Atlantic jetliners foiled by British officials adds another and potentially more significant entry to the growing list.
It could also add a dimension not seen since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in terms of scale, sophistication and leadership being provided from abroad for a seemingly local group of terrorist "self-starters".
Until recently, many counter-terrorism officials believed that extremist enclaves in Pakistan largely offered inspiration, ideological inculcation and limited training for a new generation of militants living in the West who had become radicalised or inspired by al-Qaeda propaganda.
The danger of these cells ranged from the apparently innocuous, such as the so-called paintball jihadists in Virginia, to the extreme, including the London Underground bombers who killed themselves and 52 others last year.
But the nature of the alleged trans-Atlantic plot foiled last week, a scheme that appears to have required substantial technical expertise and detailed planning, suggests "homegrown" groups may now be receiving significant support, if not direct co-ordination, from within Pakistan.
Current and former senior US intelligence officials say Pakistan clearly serves as a bridge.
"The moment I heard the first news about the airline plot I knew it was just a matter of time until we heard the word Pakistan," a US intelligence agent told The Times.
"Whether it's 9/11, the Bali bombs, 7/7 and now this, Pakistan is always the connection. That's gotta raise some questions."
On one side are militants from the West who want to join the global jihad. On the other are more experienced extremists who can help fulfil those wishes, offer guidance or serve as conduits for al-Qaeda instructions.
With or without direct ties to Osama bin Laden's terror network, Pakistan's status as a seemingly unshakeable haven for militants taking aim at targets in the West is likely to complicate the already delicate relationship the US maintains with the regime of President Pervez Musharraf.
As the recent arrests of Rashid Rauf, a British national of Pakistani descent, and others show, Musharraf has been a key ally in fighting extremists. But those same arrests also prove his nation continues to offer sanctuary for terrorists.
US officials also are well aware that their support for Musharraf can endanger his power, or even his life.
Extremists have twice tried to assassinate him since he began targeting militants inside Pakistan.
Citing a Pakistani connection to virtually every so-called homegrown terror cell that has recently come to light, a second senior intelligence official in Washington said one significant mystery remained: Are al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan recruiting would-be terrorists or are the would-be militants going to Pakistan on their own to find guidance?
Clearly, the senior intelligence official said, there is evidence of a "reverse underground railroad" of militants flowing into Pakistan before returning home to sow mayhem.
Officials worldwide have been preoccupied for more than two years by a fear of terror groups consisting of "self-starters" people who become radicalised on their own and decide to conduct operations without the support of an extremist network, or with only tenuous connections.
Instead of taking orders from al-Qaeda these terrorists act on what they believe is al-Qaeda's behalf.
Although bin Laden has always seen the incitement of terrorism as one of his primary roles, al-Qaeda has been viewed for the past couple of years as more of a global ideology than an actual terror network.
The March 11, 2004, synchronised bombings of trains in Madrid, attacks that left 192 people dead, were viewed as the first significant such assault.
John McLaughlin, the Bush administration's former acting chief of central intelligence, says a viable al-Qaeda network exists along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan and is drawing militants from across the globe.
For his part, Musharraf has repeatedly dismissed ties between his nation and global terror plots, although current and former intelligence officials say his claims are politically based and demonstrably false.
In the wake of the Underground bombings he declared that his security services had "completely shattered al-Qaeda's vertical and horizontal links and smashed its communication and propaganda setup"
Posted by: john ||
08/16/2006 18:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Increasingly, such seemingly disparate cases involving "homegrown" terror groups share connections to one place Pakistan.
End of story. Until Pakistan's madrassahs are all rubble, this problem will continue.
A reader writes to Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review:
Today you wrote:
"It's hard to be optimistic at all about Iraq..."
Optimism is for people who believe in progress in other words, not conservatives. The world sucks, permanently, but let us do our best to bend its suckiness to our advantage, as that is the most we can hope for. I think we have done that in Iraq, with greater and lesser success, but done it we have.
Now, let us count the ways we prefer post-invasion Iraq to pre-invasion Iraq.
1) Saddam, not so much a dictator anymore.
2) Uday and Qusay dead sad to say and not very Christian of me, but sometimes the world is better when really bad guys get iced.
3) Speaking of bad guys, I like that they seem to be attracted to Iraq as a place to come and visit violence on we Americans. We have fine American fighting men and women in Iraq who can shoot them in the face. This is, on balance, preferable to them coming to Hoboken to blow up shopping malls and then lawyering up.
Please don't contribute to the negativism. Courage. Life sucks, but we're Americans, and that's still as good as it gets.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/16/2006 08:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We have fine American fighting men and women in Iraq who can shoot them in the face.
Ya just gotta love it.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/16/2006 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yeah, think of it this way. How many bad guys have the boys flamed in Iraq so far? Is there even a reliable body count? Last estimate I read was 50K and that was a year ago. 50,000 nutjobs that would die to kill a few Americans are taking a dirt nap, instead of blowing up shopping malls in Hoboken like the post said.
#3
Now remember your proper liberal tripe, SC1711. We all KNOW (from our cozy desks in lower Manhattan) that 50% of those killed are wommin-folk, and kids, bunnies, duckies, etc. (/sarcasm off). Still, 25,000 jihadis dead as Jim sounds good to me.
Posted by: BA ||
08/16/2006 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And remember that we also culled the cream of the crop of the radical Islamic world, drawing in their very best fighters to Iraq and Afghanistan, concentrating them away from human shields where they fight our soldiers; not our civilians back home.
#6
And remember that we also culled the cream of the crop of the radical Islamic world, drawing in their very best fighters to Iraq and Afghanistan, concentrating them away from human shields where they fight our soldiers; not our civilians back home.
While I believe this to be an overly-optimistic assessment of the so-called "flypaper" effect, I still maintain that if Iraq has shown this world one thing it is this; Muslims will gleefully slaughter each other with endless bloodshed in the exact same fashion that whichever surviving sect will then go about killing all non-Muslim people.
The lesson of Muslim on Muslim violence must be spread far and wide so that the outside world gains some comprehension of what awaits once they overcome their crippling internecine differences.
HISTORIANS will look back at this weekend's cease-fire agreement in Lebanon as a pivotal moment in the war on terror. It is pivotal in the same sense that the Munich agreement between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain was pivotal in an earlier battle against the enemies of freedom. The accord in October 1938 revealed to the world that the solidarity of the Western allies was a sham, and that the balance of power had shifted to the fascist dictators.
Resolution 1701 shows that, for the time being at least, the balance has likewise shifted to the terrorists and their state sponsors. Like Munich, it marks the triumph of the principle of putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today. Like Munich, it will mean not peace in our time, but a bigger war in our future.
The clear losers were the United States and Israel. Israel has sacrificed lives and treasure, and had its honor dragged through the mud of international opinion, for no purpose. America squandered its political capital at the start of the crisis by getting moderate Arab regimes to condemn Hezbollah instead of Israel. They did so because they thought Hezbollah was about to be annihilated. However, they soon realized their mistake. They now know Tehran and Damascus will set the agenda in the Middle East, not Washington. The Arab League's support for this U.N.-brokered deal is just one more measure of our strategic failure.
The other loser is Lebanon. The price of peace in 1938 was de jure dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, as Germany annexed the Sudetenland. The price of Resolution 1701 is de facto dismemberment of Lebanon. A large, well-armed terrorist army acting at the behest of a foreign power now controls the southern half of Lebanon, and pulls the strings in the other half. The facade of Lebanese self-government has been preserved. As a territorial state, it may even last longer than Czechoslovakia did (Hitler gave the Czechs five months before he annexed the rest of their country).
But other states in the region will have learned their lesson. Faced by an internal terrorist organization, especially one with links with Tehran, they will have to make accommodations. No white knight in the guise of U.S. Marines will ride to their rescue; no Israeli tanks and F-16s will do their dirty work for them. Appeasement will be the order of the day.
That includes Iraq. The disarming of Sunni and Shia militias, the necessary first step to ending sectarian violence there, will be postponed - perhaps for good. On the contrary, this crisis has taught Iraq's Shia minority that extremism pays, particularly the Iranian kind.
For everyone in the Middle East knows Iran is the clear winner. Only the diplomats and politicians, including the Bush administration, will pretend otherwise. Iran has emerged as the clear champion of anti-Israeli feeling and radical Islam. The Iranians have their useful puppet in Syria; they have their proxy armies in place with Hezbollah and Hamas. They have been able to install missiles, even Revolutionary Guards, in Lebanon with impunity. Sunni regimes in the region will move to strike their own deals with Iran, just as Eastern European states did with Germany after Czechoslovakia. That includes Iraq; the lesson will not be lost on Russia and China, either. And all the while, the Iranians proceed with their nuclear plans - with the same impunity.
Finally, the other winners are the conventional diplomats at the State Department, especially Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns. In a narrow professional sense, appeasement is their business. They never saw the point to a "war on terror they are delighted to take back the initiative from the hawks at the Pentagon and the White House.
The war in Iraq has clearly sapped the moral strength of the Bush administration. The men of Munich acquiesced to Hitler because another world war like the first seemed unthinkable. The Bush administration clearly feels it cannot face another major confrontation even with a second-rate power like Iran. Yet by calling off the war on terror, it has only postponed that conflict.
Much as we have grown to know war, we were still shocked by the perversity of the one man whose job it is in wartime to most directly inspire nobility, unity of purpose, trust, sensitivity to comrades, reasoned judgment under fire and, above all, focus.
The blood had not yet dried on Israel's side of the border with Lebanon. Eight soldiers lay dead, two others kidnapped across the footprint strip and the tripwire fence and the concertina wire and the chain link, into Hezbollah's heartland in Lebanon.
Continued on Page 49
#2
Lemme guess. Haaretz, Israel's left-wing daily opposes the war. But the vast majority of its readers support it. So this is Haaretz's politically-acceptable way of attacking the war, by attacking the personalities that started it. This is really, really lame. Note that the criticism is really about the war happening at all - there's no substantive criticism about how it was conducted - the focus on air raids, its tentative nature, the piecemeal introduction of forces instead of a blitzkrieg, et al.
I still remember the sleazy Israeli bureaucrat who was interviewed by Haaretz over the Pentagon's nixing of the Israeli AWACS sale to China - he said that this was because Uncle Sam was hoping to sell to the Chinese directly. This editorial shows that Haaretz is as sleazy as the people it interviews.
The war was an unavoidable disaster for Lebanon. It ends in a worse disaster: the victory of Hezbollah. The great majority of Lebanese who want nothing to do with Hezbollah must now live in a country that the terrorist organization will soon take over. They have the force of arms, and as Mao Tse-tung correctly observed, Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. It is why the ruthless can prevail on this planet, and why it is never a mistake to confront them too early.
For Israel, the war was equally inevitable. No freely-elected government can stand and watch its citizens attacked and terrorized. For years Hezbollah had been dropping Katyushas into Israels northern farms, without response. Since the year 2000, Israel had depended upon a final border with Lebanon, agreed by all parties through the U.N., in the hope of containing the problem. Finally Hezbollah performed a provocation larger and cockier than Israel could ignore. The capture of two IDF soldiers, infinitely more than the killing of six, was calculated to force a response. Israelis are rightly horrified at the thought of their own sons and daughters falling captive to such animals. Mere death they are accustomed to.
Those who have argued that Israels response was disproportionate should learn how to feel shame. Hezbollah fired several thousand Katyusha and other rockets, almost all of them aimed at civilian targets -- and fired them from within Lebanese villages, crawling with human shields. For more than a month, nearly a million Israelis were trapped in air raid shelters, while the devastation accumulated above them.
What would have been a proportionate response? Should Israel have lobbed a few thousand bunker-busters casually into Lebanons villages and towns? If they had done that, would the Jew-haters and Jew-baiters of the world have shut up?
But now the ceasefire is a catastrophe for Israel to harvest, and Lebanon to share. And it was Israels fault. Not for trying to destroy Hezbollah, but for failing to do so. A weak and stupid prime minister, Ehud Olmert, spent five crucial weeks changing his mind about what he was doing. The entire ruling establishment exposed itself as crippled by political correctness, trying to fight against an enemy like Hezbollah, with the chief object of limiting civilian casualties.
I refer my readers to an article written by Avi Shavit, in last Sundays Haaretz, to get some idea of the depth of the hole that Israels own smug gliberal class has excavated. They acted on the incredible assumption that Israels power would persist as a fact of nature, no matter what they did to subvert it.
For nearly sixty years, Israel has been in a position where it must unambiguously win every war. In the neighbourhood they occupy, a single defeat, and they are finished. They almost lost in 1973, but recovered (thanks to the local generalship of one Ariel Sharon), and had crossed the Suez and were in the act of cutting off most of the Egyptian army when the whistle finally blew for that ceasefire. The mess in Lebanon in 1982 likewise ended, despite setbacks, with the PLO enemy begging for mercy.
Speed has likewise been crucial to each Israeli advance. The country is small and cant afford the casualties of long campaigns, but worse, they are dependent on American arms. They must accomplish all goals, before American interests across the Arab and Muslim world are sacrificed. In this case, Shia support for Hezbollah was pulling Iraq to pieces, and alliances with Arab moderate states were cracking.
This time the war ends with the enemy substantially intact, after the longest campaign yet, and the whole world on the other side of the negotiating table.
After one week of the war, the Israelis had assembled the necessary pieces for a classic rout through the south of Lebanon, as I wrote on July 22. It was going to be bloody, but there was no way around except through. In the week after that, Mr Olmert and his colleagues began fussing, fumbling, and contradicting each other. Essentially, they could not bring themselves to do what they had to do, from horror at what it involved. Essentially, they persisted with an air war that wasnt getting results, and with limited ground incursions, in the vain hope of a miracle. It emerged that, with six years to prepare, they had seriously underestimated the degree to which Hezbollah were dug in, and the amount of explosive force it would take to dislodge them.
Read Caroline Glicks analysis of the ceasefire resolution in last Sundays Jerusalem Post, if you want to understand how thoroughly it compromises Israels most vital interests. It is not an overstatement to say, it leaves them in the position of being criminalized by U.N. proclamation, should they ever dare to defend themselves from Hezbollah again.
The next question is: Can Israel survive this?
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Only one way to survive this, full bore ground invasion and overtake entire country of Lebanon. Conduct a Nuremberg trial on all government officals complicit with aiding Nasalboy (presumbly residing comfortably in Iran)
Posted by: Captain America ||
08/16/2006 0:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sorry David, this is nonsense. Israel has been 'compromising its vital interests' repeatedly since at least 1990 and getting jack. Yet it still exists.
Hezbollah's 'victory' of having their area occupied, their fighters killed, and their entire deterrent force exposed as a joke may play in the Arab street. And if Hezzie takes over Lebanon, good. They have it defacto now, lets remove the empty suit they get to hide behind whenever convenient.
#3
Israel will survive this and replace Olmert with a sock puppet.
I don't think the UN can survive it, however. Every day, they fumble away and the Hezbs return to their bunkers fully rearmed. The UN exposes themselves as a collection of Kofi Annons. Blandly ineffective at their best, and blatantly misled at their worst. The UN is a great place for old democraps to go. Ha
#4
they had seriously underestimated the degree to which Hezbollah were dug in, and the amount of explosive force it would take to dislodge them.
Sounds to me like a lame-ass excuse for a sorry display of political ineptitude and poor military execution. To be fair, Israel, as always, was severely hamstrung with all the Geo-Political correctness on this one. But if they continue to assert that they were somehow caught off-guard theres a good chance they might actually begin to believe it. And that folks would spell disaster for the coming show.
- In 1978 France was the only country in the world that offered warm and sympathetic political refuge to the spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini. Nevertheless, in 1986, a series of terror attacks in the heart of Paris killed and wounded dozens of people. Behind the attacks was Hizballah operative Anis Nakash. After he was arrested and sentenced to life in prison, he was released by the French in a shameful prisoner exchange with Iran. From his hiding place in Beirut, Nakash has called for attacks on the international force to be stationed in southern Lebanon.
- French Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy declared during a recent visit to Beirut that: "Iran constitutes a stabilizing force in the Middle East and it should be taken into account and included in any arrangement for restoring quiet to our region." This was followed by a strange and incomprehensible meeting with the Iranian foreign minister in Beirut. It comes as no surprise that in a Le Monde interview on August 12, 2006, Douste-Blazy said the purpose of the enlarged UNIFIL in southern Lebanon would not include the disarming of Hizballah by force.
- Recently, French Maj.-Gen. Alain Pellegrini has commanded the UNIFIL force. Hizballah fortified its positions and brought in huge quantities of weapons and ammunition right under his nose. Did he warn of the arming of Hizballah by Iran and Syria? Did he prevent the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers? In any multinational force, France will not take upon itself the task of disarming Hizballah. Indeed, Gen. Pellegrini said on August 15 that his peacekeeping force will not attempt to disarm Hizballah.
Continued on Page 49
Historians will look back at this weekend's cease-fire agreement in Lebanon as a pivotal moment in the war on terror. It is pivotal in the same sense that the Munich agreement between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain was pivotal in an earlier battle against the enemies of freedom. The accord in October 1938 revealed to the world that the solidarity of the Western allies was a sham, and that the balance of power had shifted to the fascist dictators.
Resolution 1701 shows that, for the time being at least, the balance has likewise shifted to the terrorists and their state sponsors. Like Munich, it marks the triumph of the principle of putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today. Like Munich, it will mean not peace in our time, but a bigger war in our future.
In that sense, the cease-fire may be even more momentous than Munich, and a greater blunder. In 1938 Chamberlain and other appeasers had the excuse that they were trying to prevent an armed conflict no one wanted. Today, of course, that conflict is already here. Historians will conclude that by supporting U.N. Resolution 1701 and getting Israel to agree, the Bush administration has in effect declared that its global war on terror is over. We have reverted to the pre-9/11 box of tools, if not necessarily the pre-9/11 mindset. From now on, the worst Iran, Syria, and North Korea will have to worry about are serial resolutions in the United Nations. Terrorists will be busy dodging Justice Department subpoenas, not Tomahawk missiles.
Our enemies know better. They know the war is only entering a new stage, and they know who the winners and losers were last weekend.
The clear losers were the United States and Israel. Israel has sacrificed lives and treasure, and had its honor dragged through the mud of international opinion, for no purpose. America squandered its political capital at the start of the crisis by getting moderate Arab regimes to condemn Hezbollah instead of Israel. They did so because they thought Hezbollah was about to be annihilated. However, they soon realized their mistake. They now know Tehran and Damascus will set the agenda in the Middle East, not Washington. The Arab League's support for this U.N.-brokered deal is just one more measure of our strategic failure.
The other loser is Lebanon. The price of peace in 1938 was de jure dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, as Germany annexed the Sudetenland. The price of Resolution 1701 is de facto dismemberment of Lebanon. A large, well-armed terrorist army acting at the behest of a foreign power now controls the southern half of Lebanon, and pulls the strings in the other half. The facade of Lebanese self-government has been preserved. As a territorial state, it may even last longer than Czechoslovakia did (Hitler gave the Czechs five months before he annexed the rest of their country).
But other states in the region will have learned their lesson. Faced by an internal terrorist organization, especially one with links with Tehran, they will have to make accommodations. No white knight in the guise of U.S. Marines will ride to their rescue; no Israeli tanks and F-16s will do their dirty work for them. Appeasement will be the order of the day.
That includes Iraq. The disarming of Sunni and Shia militias, the necessary first step to ending sectarian violence there, will be postponed - perhaps for good. On the contrary, this crisis has taught Iraq's Shia minority that extremism pays, particularly the Iranian kind.
For everyone in the Middle East knows Iran is the clear winner. Only the diplomats and politicians, including the Bush administration, will pretend otherwise. Iran has emerged as the clear champion of anti-Israeli feeling and radical Islam. The Iranians have their useful puppet in Syria; they have their proxy armies in place with Hezbollah and Hamas. They have been able to install missiles, even Revolutionary Guards, in Lebanon with impunity. Sunni regimes in the region will move to strike their own deals with Iran, just as Eastern European states did with Germany after Czechoslovakia. That includes Iraq; the lesson will not be lost on Russia and China, either. And all the while, the Iranians proceed with their nuclear plans - with the same impunity.
Finally, the other winners are the conventional diplomats at the State Department, especially Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns. In a narrow professional sense, appeasement is their business. They never saw the point to a "war on terror they are delighted to take back the initiative from the hawks at the Pentagon and the White House.
The war in Iraq has clearly sapped the moral strength of the Bush administration. The men of Munich acquiesced to Hitler because another world war like the first seemed unthinkable. The Bush administration clearly feels it cannot face another major confrontation even with a second-rate power like Iran. Yet by calling off the war on terror, it has only postponed that conflict.
"We have passed an awful milestone in our history," Winston Churchill said after the Munich agreement was signed. "Do not suppose this is the end . . . This is only the first sip, the first foretaste, of a bitter cup that will be proffered to us year by year." Despite the failure of appeasement, Churchill still believed the Western democracies would make the "supreme recovery" and take up the banner for freedom again. The United States and the forces of democracy will recover from this debacle - even with a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic president in 2008. The reason will not be because Bush's opponents have a better strategy, or a clearer vision, or even a Winston Churchill waiting in the wings. It will be because our enemies will give us no choice.
Less than a year after Munich, Nazi panzers rolled into Poland. Instead of fighting a short, limited war over Czechoslovakia, the Western democracies ended up fighting a world war, the most destructive in history. The war with the mullahs of Iran is coming. It is only a question of whether it will be at a time or on a ground of our choosing, or theirs - and whether it is fought within the shadow of a mushroom cloud.
Arthur Herman is the author most recently of "To Rule The Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World." He is completing a book on Churchill and Gandhi.
One Cheer for Ceasefire
An alternative explanation for why we the U.S. and Israel gave in.
By Noah Pollak
JerusalemTo most Israelis, supporters of Israel, and especially to the IDF soldiers I spoke to on the border over the past few days, the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah that recently went into effect is viewed as a cruel indignity, a dangerous projection of Israeli weakness and equivocation, and a plucking of defeat from the jaws of victory. These were my thoughts as well. The IDF was inflicting heavy, lopsided one might even say disproportionate damage on Hezbollah men and materiel. Stopping the war seems inexplicable, other than as an expression of total Western cravenness and appeasement to Islamic radicalism.
But people like John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, have a proven track record of sobriety in these matters. Its difficult to believe that Bolton would have thrown United States support behind a patently unwise agreement, or that Israel would have agreed to a resolution thoroughly harmful to its own interests. So herewith, in what may rightfully be construed as an exercise in wishful thinking, is an alternative explanation for U.S. and Israeli acquiescence to the U.N. cease-fire resolution.
Undoubtedly, the most important and highest-priority U.S. and Israeli objective in the Middle East today is thwarting Irans nuclear-weapons project. It is likely that the confrontation with Iran will not be resolved diplomatically, and that in the decisive moment it will be America, not Israel, that dispatches its military forces to destroy the Iranian nuclear sites. This basic calculus is the context in which American and Israeli Middle East strategic thinking takes place today.
Israels actions against Hezbollah thus must fit within the greater shared U.S.-Israeli strategy for the region. That strategy always must consider the danger of an Arab League or OPEC decision to curtail oil sales, as in 1973. An oil embargo is the Arabs secret weapon: Gas rationing and triple-digit per barrel oil prices would cripple the global economy, enrage the American public, and possibly engender anti-Israel popular sentiment in the U.S. Even the threat of an embargo would send oil prices skyrocketing. American support for Israeli military actions must therefore always be wary to the risk of Arab hostility to Israel uniting behind the cause of restricting the sale of Middle Eastern oil.
The heart of the strategic conundrum thus becomes this salient fact: If the U.S. is to strike Iran, Israel must be deterred from being provoked into the conflict and jeopardizing the abstention of other Arab states from interference in the clean execution of the mission and its aftermath. Because Iran, in conventional terms, is largely defenseless against an American bombing campaign, Irans first objective upon being attacked will be to draw Israel into the conflict. This is almost the exact same scenario as in the first Gulf War, and then it took intense diplomatic pressure to prevent Israel from retaliating against Iraq for its repeated missile attacks. It is almost unthinkable that Israel could be called upon again to summon such self-restraint.
The way Iran would drag Israel into the war and dramatically complicate the U.S. mission would be through Hezbollah, which until recently was firmly entrenched on Israels northern border, fully armed and spoiling for a fight. Thus, even given Israels curtailed and incomplete war against Hezbollah, the U.S.s and arguably, Israels primary objective in the conflict has been accomplished: creating a state of affairs in which Iran cannot use Hezbollah to drag Israel into the U.S. attack on Irans nuclear facilities, incite Arab opposition to the U.S., and threaten a global energy crisis. The partial war against Hezbollah has accomplished an important additional objective: what was previously a looming unknown Hezbollahs military capability on Israels northern border has been engaged, partially destroyed, and is now a known quantity.
Iran still has many other means to deter, complicate, and retaliate against a U.S. strike: International terrorism and an increased campaign of destabilization in Iraq are two of the most fearsome, but its most reliable and effective course of action would have been to use Hezbollah to rain down destruction on Israel. Assuming the ceasefire period prevents the re-arming of Hezbollah and the reinfiltration of Hezbollah on Israels northern border two very big, and possibly foolish, assumptions Irans most worrying means of retaliation against an American strike has been defeated.
But why stop Israel now? Wouldnt all of the benefits to the American-Israeli strategic position be even further solidified by a more complete destruction of Hezbollah? Perhaps. But there are complications: One is the unrest the conflict is causing in Iraq. The U.S. doesn't need Muqtada al-Sadr to feel any more emboldened than he already does. Moreover, American pressure on Israel to stop the war is likely a concession to Europe and the U.N. in advance of needing (or believing to need) those alliances to be healthy in anticipation of the Iran confrontation. Also, the Cedar Revolution and the partial wresting of Syria out of Lebanon are two of the most tangible victories of the Bush administrations Middle East democratization project. A continued Israeli assault on Lebanon that is seen by Lebanons ostensibly pro-Western Christians, Druze, and Sunnis as being needless American-approved destruction threatens the sympathies of the nascent Lebanese moderates. In particular, France retains some prestige in Lebanon and can be useful in preventing the reversal of U.S. accomplishments there. Pressuring Israel is a way to give the Europeans and the U.N. something they want now in return for something the U.S. wants later, which is a basic level of unity and fortitude in dealing with Iran.
Finally, one of the most surprising occurrences in the past month was the hostility expressed by the Sunni Arab world to Shia Hezbollahs provocation. The importance of this should not be understated: Arab regimes like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia actually publicly condemned other Arabs who were fighting against Israel. Why? Because the Sunni regimes are worried about the ascendance of a Shia alliance comprised of Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran that could manipulate the region with proxy terrorist armies (such as Hezbollah) operating under the safety of an Iranian nuclear umbrella. The Sunni states dislike Hezbollah and Iran enough to condemn the adventuresome attack against Israel, but detest Israel enough and are sufficiently aware of the contours of their own domestic public opinion to oppose a protracted Israeli reprisal. Given their fear of a nuclear Shia Middle East, the Sunni states can likely be counted on to tacitly accept a U.S. strike on Iran. Hence, pressure from them to make their acquiescence to an Iran operation contingent on U.S. endorsement of the ceasefire, in the interest of pacifying their publics.
Sober-minded observers are right to be wary of a new flight of fancy emanating from the United Nations, especially a U.N. led by the venal and treacherous Kofi Annan. The inclusion in the ceasefire deal of an open-ended, unrestricted weapons-inspections regime in Lebanon with pre-approved sanctions imposed on any country caught re-supplying Hezbollah would have been an important indication of seriousness. The failure to articulate such a premeditated penalty is a further indication to our enemies that the Western diplomatic community is devoted to toothless half-measures. The ceasefire has damaged Israeli morale, prevented a more thorough destruction of Hezbollah, and in the short term spared Syria and Iran from the humiliation of seeing their proxy military dismantled. But and this again may be wishful thinking it also may be tangible evidence that the Bush administration is taking Irans nuclear ambitions seriously.
#5
I really like that article, twobyfour. I hope it comes closer to the essential truth of the situation than the one I posted. It's the first well reasoned opinion piece I've read so far that gives some hope. Maybe there is a silver lining hidden in the looming black cloud.
In the sparse Baathist drawing rooms of Damascus, reality often seems a long way away.
Does it ever.
But it was a sign of the times that President Bashar al-Assad was able to bring the great and the good of Damascus to their feet by the simple token of telling the truth - which no other Arab leader has chosen to do these past five weeks: that the Lebanese Hizbollah guerrilla army has, in effect, won this round of their war with Israel.
So they claim. There are lots of unhappy Israelis who are helping to make that point. The Hezbies claim victory by not having been wiped out like previous Arab armies. That's not a western definition of victory.
There was plenty of hyperbole in the Assad speech.
No, really?
A conflict that has cost 1,000 Lebanese civilian lives ...
... a good number of whom were Hezbies, Hezbie symphs or Hezbie gophers ...
... can hardly be called a "glorious battle" but he did at least reflect more reality than his opposite number in Washington who, driven by self-delusion or his love of Israel, claimed that Hizbollah had been defeated in Lebanon.
The Hezbies got spanked and got pushed off some real estate. That may not be a glorious victory for Israel, but it looks more like a western definition of defeat for the Hezbies.
Israel's "victory" in Lebanon presumably has to be added to our own famous "victories" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Remind us all how the Taliban, in control and in power in 2001, are doing today Robert. Remind us all how Saddam is doing today. Remind us how many days it's been since Uday last raped an Iraqi woman.
Syria and Iran, according to Mr Bush, were responsible for the "suffering" of Lebanon - which contains the seeds of truth since Hizbollah provoked this war by capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three others on 12 July - ...
Nice of you to notice that. Killing and capturing soldiers from another country usually does provoke a response.
... although it wasn't the Syrian or Iranian air force that was slaughtering the convoys of innocent refugee civilians in Lebanon.
The Syrian air force was nowhere to be seen. The Israeli air force was bombing the Hezbies.
So it was that President Assad must have enjoyed his little peroration in Damascus yesterday.
Since he has so little to celebrate other than propaganda ...
"This is a [American] administration that adopts the principle of pre-emptive war that is absolutely contradictory to the principle of peace," he said. "Consequently, we don't accept peace soon or in the foreseeable future."
Mr Assad can say that again.
He might as well, since we'll say it too. There's not going to be 'peace' until Assad is out of power, the Mad Mullahs are dead or on the run, the Paleos decide to value their children for something other than splodydopes, and you shut up.
Indeed, there is no more sign that Hizbollah intends to "disarm" under the terms of UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701 than Israel is prepared to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 242 and withdraw from Arab territories it occupied in 1967.
Funny, Israel did comply with 1559, is complying with 1701, and evacuated Gaza so as to comply in part with 242 and 338. Remind me what Assad has done in that time? Remind us all what the Paleos have done?
However, it is clear that President Assad now sees himself back at the centre of Arab power after his army's humiliating retreat from Lebanon last year.
And the humiliating knock-down of his air force by the Israelis in 1982. And the humiliating buzzing of his summer palace by the IAF. And the humiliating performance of his army from the second day of the Yom Kippur war on.
There was no more need for defeatism among Arabs, he said - a sentiment widely held in the real Arab world but quite absent from President Bush's fantasy Middle East.
It's doubtful that the Sunni Arabs are going to gain a lot of pride from the Shi'a Hezbies, especially since their sponsors, the Iranians, would prefer to subjugate the Sunnis the day after they kill all the Joooz.
That it should be Syria, of all nations, which can state this to so much applause probably says more about Washington than it does about Damascus. And it is, of course, the return of the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights - see UN Resolution 242 - that lies behind this whole disastrous war.
Which the Israelis decided to keep after having been attacked for 25 years straight from it by the Syrians. You forgot to mention that, Robert.
The truth is Israel opened its attack on Lebanon by claiming the Lebanese government was responsible for Hizbollah's attack - which it clearly was not - and that its military actions would achieve the liberation of the captured soldiers.
Lebanon was responsible by allowing a terrorist organization to operate freely, build a military force, and worm its way into its government. The Cedar Revolution started nobly but it literally died out, as the Syrians and the Hezbies together snuffed and intimidated enough people to halt it in its tracks. If a 'sovereign' country can't control the terrorists and guerrillas within its borders, it's no longer sovereign. But it's still responsible.
This, the Israelis have signally failed to do. The loss of 40 soldiers in just 36 hours and the successful Hizbollah attacks against Israeli armour in Lebanon were a disaster for the Israeli army.
It's a setback, and the Israelis know it. Next time in, and there's going to be a next time real soon, the Israelis will have fixed the problems. Do the Hezbies have the same after-action analysis or do they rely on Allan?
The fact that Syria could bellow about the "achievements" of Hizbollah while avoiding the destruction of a blade of grass inside Syria suggests a cynicism that has yet to be grasped inside the Arab world. But for now, Syria has won.
And the next Israeli PM is going to make sure they lose.
Iran, as Hizbollah's principal supporter, clearly thinks so too. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who usually talks far more than he thinks, condemned the US for supplying Israel with the weapons it used on Lebanese civilians - perfectly true. But he did not say Hizbollah's missiles come from a new-generation Iranian arsenal that did not even exist during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. While the US will be keen to assess the effectiveness of its weapons - albeit largely used on civilians - ...
Exactly which side targeted civilians as part of its overall formal strategy? Robert can't mention that because it would disturb the meme.
... no one should doubt that Iran will also be assessing the success of its new Fajr missiles - and their effect on the Israeli army.
And the Israelis will be assessing the best way to take the Iranians out. What Olmert couldn't do this past month and may not be able to do at all is think strategically about how to solve the problems the Israelis face. But there are people in Israel who can, and I suspect they're going to be in charge soon.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How many of these fuxksticks reside in the UK?
Posted by: Captain America ||
08/16/2006 0:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It is what happens when you "Lounge" with the Devil.
#3
Pretty good article for a guy with half a brain with a fifth of JD in him if I say so myself. And I do.
Posted by: Robert Fisk ||
08/16/2006 3:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
...condemned the US for supplying Israel with the weapons it used on Lebanese civilians - perfectly true. But he did not say Hizbollah's missiles come from a new-generation Iranian arsenal that did not even exist during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. While the US will be keen to assess the effectiveness of its weapons - albeit largely used on civilians - no one should doubt that Iran will also be assessing the success of its new Fajr missiles - and their effect on the Israeli army.Hey Robbie! So yer sayin' that US weapons are bad, and only killed civilians, while the Iranian stuff only hit the Army guys? And it's good for them to have supplied their cients, because they get to figger out how to make them more effective against the Army?
Mebbe they'll add Army-Joo seeker heads to their missiles...
Where did this guy come from?
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/16/2006 6:13 Comments ||
Top||
Hezb lost around 500 "militants"
Thousands of rockets fired to no military effect, plus an undetermined number destroyed.
Bunch of launchers destroyed. at least 20 midlevel commanders banged.
A force of 15,000 Leb soldiers entering territory from which the Leb army has been excluded by Hezb.
In exchange for A. Embarrasment to Israel, that it couldnt completely destroy Hezb before the gong sounded. B. Some cheers from the streets of Cairo. C. A yet more complex political situation in Lebanon.
BTW, the German FM decided NOT to visit Damascus cause of this speech.
After 1967 Israel let a huge victory go to their heads, for which they paid. It would be a much bigger mistake for Assad and co to let what isnt even quite a draw go to their heads.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
"Why are the liberals always on the other side?" asks the fictional French military commander Colonel Mathieu when he is challenged, in The Battle for Algiers, for using torture to fight terror. 
by Robert Fisk
