129 Comments

1. whiskey:

Hezbollah running Lebanon is likely to produce far less Israeli agreement on Obama’s peace plan than a non-Hezbollah Lebanon.

Hezbollah Lebanon equals Iranian ICBMs with perhaps nuclear warheads that are simply unstoppable, and present an existential first strike against Israel by Iran.

Therefore, Obama may propose but Israel may dispose. Not by another invasion of Lebanon, but by a direct nuclear strike, bolt from the blue, against Iran. Aimed at destroying Iran’s total warmaking capacity.

Obama has clearly withrdawn the US defense shield around Israel, and has made it clear that the US opposes it’s existence and would gladly countenance Israel’s destruction. A feeling shared widely among Democrats, and the core constituencies of Democrats: Blacks, Hispanice, Gays, SWPL Yuppies, and Women.

Israeli leaders know that not only will Obama not help them, no help will be forthcoming from other American forces or elements, even after Obama leaves office one day.

They are in fact truly alone, with a world bent on wiping them out. The recent Krystallnacht in France, near one of France’s biggest Holocaust sites (deliberate) re-inforces that reality.

That’s precisely why Israel has nukes. To survive.

And to survive Israel must kill the Iranian people. It’s that simple. Obama’s plan to hand Lebanon over to Hezbollah, which means in effect Iran, only makes an Israeli first-strike more likely.

May 7, 2009 - 5:14 pm 2. wretchard:

I think the logic behind appeasing Syria is the calculation that it can be “peeled away” from Iran. Syria wants Lebanon back and in the regional calculus the fate of few Maronites, Druze and Lebanese Sunnis probably count for very little. There will be those who think Lebanon is a small price to pay for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement and Iran’s weakening. Personally, I think Syria and Iran will simply take Obama’s “stimulus” and go back to business as usual after a short interval.

With regard to an Israeli attack on Iran, whatever its benefits, it would change the dynamics of the region forever. After such as an attack, the inevitable retaliation against Israel and subsequent counter-counter strike would only be a matter of time. Israel would survive for a time; and so would the other countries but things would go to a new and terrifying level and there would be no easy way off that plateau of peril. A nuclear attack on Iran would be an unimaginable catastrophe and the prelude to a vaster tragedy. The sad thing is that the administration’s policies may make that tragedy more likely than ever. If Israel is driven into a corner or Iran miscalculates then nations will do what it takes to survive for the day and tomorrow will be left to itself.

I want to be wrong on this matter, but can’t convince myself that recent developments in the Middle East are any good.

May 7, 2009 - 5:30 pm 3. Tamquam Leo Rugiens:

Mordor advances.

May 7, 2009 - 5:35 pm 4. maineman:

Just out of curiosity, Wretchard, have you been able to convince yourself that recent developments anywhere are any good?

Maybe all looks yellow, etc., but pretty much everything seems bleak from my vantage point up here in the north country.

May 7, 2009 - 5:39 pm 5. wretchard:

If you’re unprincipled and don’t mind switching sides then all news is good news. But if you’re principled the task is a little harder though not impossible. The problem is to find the good inside the bad, the silver lining in the cloud and tack into the prevailing wind.

What’s the worst that can happen anyway? Our lives eventually come to an end. Nobody’s going to live forever. Our only real freedom is to pick the way we live it out. As Gandalf once put it “all you have to do is choose what to do with the time you are given”. So no matter what, there’s always good news somewhere. You can try and tell yourself that anyway.

May 7, 2009 - 5:47 pm 6. Mike Sylwester:

the United Nations international court in the Hague last week instructed Beirut to release four pro-Syrian generals suspected of involvement in the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri — a decision that the Americans are hailing …

If there is inadequate evidence to indict them, then it’s time to release them. They have been detained without an indictment since September 2005. Now the judge has ruled that there is not enough evidence to charge and try them. Do you know that there ever was enough evidence? If so, then what is the evidence that the judge has ignored?

How does this judge’s decison indicate that the USA is “winking” at a Syrian takeover of Lebanon? It seems to me that the US Government is simply acquiescing in a reality is that there is not enough evidence to indict, try and convict these four Syrians.

May 7, 2009 - 5:48 pm 7. wretchard:

The first prosecutor was a German, Mehlis, if memory serves. He had to leave Lebanon under threat of death. The next one up was a Frenchman, and the last, I can’t remember. But I got the distinct impression that the Tribunal’s writ would not be limited by the evidence. There’s no one, I think who won’t tell you off the record that the Syrians didn’t kill Rafik Hariri. Heck, for that matter, Walid Jumblatt will tell you to your face that they killed his father.

The problem was that no court in Lebanon was big enough to hail the real killer — perhaps the President of Syria — into the dock. The International Tribunal was advanced to answer two needs: first, to bring justice to the murderers of Hariri; and second to serve as a deterrent (these were the words I heard over and over in private conversations) against “political murder”. The threat that Assad or his associates would be prosecuted was the only thing that the anti-Syrian coalition had as a real counterweight to Damascus. Damascus has the brute power to do what it wants. Only Israel, in the region, has the metal to stop it, and none of the Lebanese want the two to clash inside their country. Absent that, the fear of the West was the sole slender shield everyone operated under to keep themselves out of the sights of Damascus.

So when the International Tribunal cut the pro-Syrian suspects loose, what happened was that the final deterrent against “political murder” collapsed. Hunting season was on again. It was never completely suspended. Christopher Hitchens can be beaten in the heart of West Beirut by Syrian Nazis. But with the “deterrent” in place, there was some confidence the bully boys would draw the line somewhere. They did not always so restrain themselves. Rafik Hariri was blown to bits right in the middle of his stronghold and he was a former prime minister, a billionaire and a personal friend of Western heads of state.

What you hear under the blanket of fear is not always what people really feel. I have personally seen and heard Lebanese Arab intellectuals, politicians and notables express gratitude that George W. Bush (he of the infamous name) for invading Iraq, backing down Syria for a time and giving them the chance to be free, who would never say so in person or to the press because of the Syrian/Hezbollah shadow. In that part of the world, it’s not entirely useful to think of exonerations as occurring for “lack of evidence”. The gun rules. Lawyers are the icing on the cake. But your best bet in the last analysis is to be represented by the notable firm of Smith and Wesson.

May 7, 2009 - 5:59 pm 8. blert:

Nibras Kaimi does not think that the right perps were in the docket:

http://talisman-gate.blogspot.com/2005/09/who-killed-hariri.html

“Yes, blaming the heads of the Lebanese security apparatus seemed the rational thing to do, and a little too easy. At the top of the list was the much-feared director of General Security, General Jamil Al-Sayyid. I went to visit him in May at his home, but was much disappointed: instead of finding a nefarious and evil spymaster, I found a vain and very proper military officer. Al-Sayyid seemed genuinely stung by the accusation that drove him to volunteer his resignation after decades of service to the Lebanese state. He had an “I’ll show them” attitude that involved setting-up his own think-tank and publishing a liberal newspaper: he would launch a political career and avenge his sullied name and track record. He did not strike me as a man that would be smartly sinister enough, or gullibly dumb enough, to be involved in the Hariri murder.”

May 7, 2009 - 6:07 pm 9. blert:

The last time I witnessed such an evil political brew three witches had it on the boil.

Putting the Hez in the wheelhouse of Beruit will have the forest afoot for sure.

May 7, 2009 - 6:12 pm 10. Derek:

So honestly.

What moral and just reason would prevent a middle eastern liberal from shooting an American on sight?

Derek

May 7, 2009 - 6:53 pm 11. Anodyne:

“With regard to an Israeli attack on Iran, whatever its benefits, it would change the dynamics of the region forever. After such as an attack, the inevitable retaliation against Israel and subsequent counter-counter strike would only be a matter of time. Israel would survive for a time; and so would the other countries but things would go to a new and terrifying level and there would be no easy way off that plateau of peril”.

In other words, an accelerated fight to the death rather than a protracted one. Why is the latter preferable?

May 7, 2009 - 6:55 pm 12. Willie G:

“But your best bet in the last analysis is to be represented by the notable firm of Smith and Wesson.”

Wretchard, that is unfortunately true worldwide.

I suppose the bright side of that thought is the rather sizeable retainer that I’ve paid for representation may be money well spent.

May 7, 2009 - 6:59 pm 13. joe buzz:

Benevolent host, In 7) you exhibit more knowledge of conditions in country than Madame Hillary could or would in 3x her time in office even if she listened to her sources.

But if you’re principled the task is a little harder though not impossible.

Is principled voting present or turning your back on the Druze and Christians? Christians are considered right wing now here. How can they be otherwise elsewhere?

May 7, 2009 - 7:12 pm 14. RWE:

Gee, you mean the “They’ll see what I am like, and where I am from and how my grandmother lives in Africa and they will react by becoming more reasonable” approach is not working?

Gosh, who could have expected that?

May 7, 2009 - 7:21 pm 15. Walt:

Radically OT, but with Wretchard’s kind permission I invite all Belmont Clubbers to visit my site, verse-afire.com, and submit verse or comment on mine. Most of it will already have appeared here, and I will continue to post here, no matter what anyone says.

Thanks,
Walt Erickson

May 7, 2009 - 7:51 pm 16. Wadeusaf:

None of the investigators or prosecutors was allowed to take the investigation into Syria, to the heart of the darkness. There was not enough international political will nor interest to stand up to the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah troika. Certainly the HR department at the UN could not be bothered, nor any of the human rights watch groups that cover the globe looking for violations by western government agents and western government backed agents.

Western governments have all been reduced to senseless debates about unessential and inconsequential topics du jour as directed by a dying press. I am reminded of a quote from the movie BRAVEHEART, when Hamish tried to convince Wallace not to meet with the Bruce. “They cannot agree on the color of Shit.”

Apparently the sense of smell as failed them as well. This treatment of friends and allies stinks to no good end.

May 7, 2009 - 7:57 pm 17. DeadButMorallySuperior:

I continue to be impressed with the thoughtful writings of our host, and of (most of) the commenters at this blog. Very glad to humbly squat in a corner of the room here to listen and learn.

Walt, I wait with cigar in hand, for the birth of your site.

May 7, 2009 - 8:21 pm 18. MarkJ:

I suppose, one day soon, we will all be treated to the sight of President Zero climbing down from Air Force One and waving a piece of paper for assembled reporters. “Gentlemen, I believe we have peace in our time.”

Lebanon: I think that’s Arabic for “Czechoslovakia.”

And, just like 1938, this isn’t going to turn out very well for President Zero, is it?

May 7, 2009 - 8:37 pm 19. Mark:

As a famous person once said, “It is expedient that one man—er, one nation—should die for the people.”

May 7, 2009 - 8:41 pm 20. Lifeofthemind:

Israel could decapitate the Syrian regime at any time with conventional arms. They could eliminate President Assad, his top 20 henchmen, and bury the two villages that the Alawites come from. They could do this with no notice and then tell the American Ambassador to go take a running leap at a rolling donut. Finally they could announce that if Iran does not unconditionally disarm then Israel will close the Hormuz Straits.

If I was the Israelis I would have buried shielded nukes in a dozen foreign cities years ago. Perhaps a leaked message to look under the public restroom in one of the Moscow subway stations would be how they should deliver the ultimatum. Could they have done this? Absolutely, and why shouldn’t they? The Chechens prepared for the Beslan assault by hiding their weapons within the walls of a school they were hired to build. Why shouldn’t that technique have been used by others?

May 7, 2009 - 8:54 pm 21. EdGi:

Appeasement is the enabeler of horror; 1938 Munich did not work out because the Allies thought Hitler was negotiating for Czechoslovakia when he was negotiating for London and caused the destruction of Germany. When the anti-us people discuss the horror of Hiroshima, ask them if they thought the League’s China negotiations went well. Wretcard’s discussion is well put, and I would add that the bad guys are negotiating for the rule of the gun, not Lebanon. Appeasing these thugs will remove any rational Tehran opposition discussion opposing Armegeddon and our appeasers will cotinue forever to flaggelate us for what will happen and deny they set it up.

May 7, 2009 - 9:15 pm 22. Robohobo:

wretchard @ 2: “I want to be wrong on this matter, but can’t convince myself that recent developments in the Middle East are any good.”

Sadly, you are not. My Israeli friends, no matter where they sit vis a vis Iran, Palestinians, etc., agree on ONE THING: ‘Never Again!’ They really mean it and know the last good place for the Jew is at home in Israel. Russian, Morroccan, Georgian, Latvian, Armenian or Ethiopian, they all agree.

Here is the thing, if Israel decides to wage war for real (total war) in Lebanon, it will roll them up very quickly, recent sorties not withstanding.

The only way that I can resolve BHO’s actions in the ME since 1/20/09 is that he is truly on the side of the Muslim, as he said.

Derek @ 10: “What moral and just reason would prevent a middle eastern liberal from shooting an American on sight?”

Derek, I just want to ask and this is innocent. Have you ever been to that part of the world? IMHO, ‘moral and just’ do not enter the calculations in that part of the planet. Who is the strongest, the big man, does.

LOTM @ 20: “They could eliminate President Assad, his top 20 henchmen, and bury the two villages that the Alawites come from.”

Or shorter: Apply Hama rules. That is so true. I think that we will see something sooner rather than later. Whether it accelerates into our hosts 3 conjectures depends on what The Won does. If he votes present then . . . BOOM!

The vultures are starting to circle.

May 7, 2009 - 9:27 pm 23. Walt:

Deadbutmorallysuperior @17

The site is alive and upandrunning. Click on Walt. Welcome aboard.

May 7, 2009 - 10:03 pm 24. twobyfour:

LotM/20

Paragraph1: OK, agreed

Paragraph2: The Chechens prepared for the Beslan assault by hiding their weapons within the walls of a school they were hired to build. Why shouldn’t that technique have been used by others?

I’d say that comparison is not very well thought out. Moral equivalence slippery slope it is.

Essentially, you are asking Israelis to use a blackmail. Hmmm.

If (and if olny) Israelis are forced to resort to it, maybe some sort of a bluff would do. Has to be made credible by some means, but not at the expense of a loss of life. Some sort of a “demo”.

“Look, for centuries we Jews have been accused of ruling the world through different means. It was never true. But since we are blamed no matter what we do, we decided to make good on that concept. Therefore, we acknowledge we have what is called the ‘Samson Option’. However, that is an option that would be invoked as a last resort. In order to prevent that option from ever coming to pass, we decided to employ a whole range of other options that would enable us to deal with threats of a localized nature. Here is what these options entail:…”

May 7, 2009 - 10:07 pm 25. twobyfour:

A hypothetical question…

Say you stumbled upon a concept that is not yet addressed by current physics–no theoretical framework as of yet. In basic terms, this thing makes holes. However, it does not feel constrained by distance squared as far as the effect is measurable. One may think of it that the first hole passes its properties to the next hole in the line of application and so on.
One aspect of it is that it is absolutely quiet, there is no boom, only a hint of a swishing sound and just a hole, or series of holes.
Imagine that a missile is flying in your direction. You can target it and simply make a hole or a series of them in appropriate places and render it harmless except its kinetic energy. Actually say it would be possible to create an envelope of sorts (all speculation!) and blot it out completely. However there is a risk that some plane is flying in the line of target further away and you take a large chunk of it out as well. Then about two AU away you make a hole in an alien spaceship and it is considered as an act of war. Actually scratch that, they already know about it and have even a defense measure in place.
This is just to demonstrate that you may not know what you are really messing with. Now imagine that you naively offered it to some group that you though of as good guys, but they really weren’t after an absolute power corrupted them absolutely. Would you continue to mess with it?

May 7, 2009 - 10:46 pm 26. Molon Labe:

[comment deleted by author]

May 7, 2009 - 11:03 pm 27. Doug:

Oliver North, who has now spent more time in Iraq than he did in ‘Nam, says the renewed bombing of Shia civilians is NOT being done by a resurgent al-Queda in Iraq, but by bombers recruited by Iran.

This being done in response to BHO’s overtures to make deals w/Iran.
The bombings being used as leverage, or 2 by might say blackmail, threatening to re-ignite a civil war if the Admin is the least bit recalcitrant in playing
“Let’s Make a Deal.”
—
U.S. Importing Somali ‘Pirate-Jihadists’

The Obama administration is preparing to reinstate a fraud-riddled immigration program that has brought over 36,000 Somalis into the United States under questionable circumstances, including two dozen Minneapolis men that the FBI fears may be planning a terrorist attack.

The FBI has launched an “aggressive” manhunt for the men, who have “gone to ground” and have mysteriously disappeared, terrorism experts tell Newsmax. Authorities fear the men may have been recruited by extremists to carry out suicide attacks inside the United States, or abroad.

Critics of the State Department programs that brought the Somalis to America express grave concerns about the practice of admitting refugees from failed nation-states known to harbor extremists.

May 8, 2009 - 12:16 am 28. RAH:

The real deterrent to political murder or assassination, inside a state or between states is that it can come back to you.

No one can bring a head of state to justice from outside the state without a war. Like Iraq where we finally caught Saddam Hussein or Hitler in WWII.

Spain is trying to use courts to hunt Americans but we have said we do not care about them and will not allow that. The deterrent is if a foreign court grabbed an American is that we may take ultimate umbrage and bomb them.

To deter Syria and Hezbolla is really simple. They kill one of ours and Israel or we kills one of theirs. Israel can successfully kill and assassinate in Damascus. If they felt it was warranted they could put a hit order on the ruler of Syria. The down side is of course that the next ruler can be worse and governed by a need for vengeance.

Lebanon or the various sects’ needs to get a secret intelligence network that can do wet work. Hezbolla is already doing that along with bullyboys. It always comes down to that, who is most willing to kill their opponent and protect their own. The deterrent has always been that if you hurt one of mine I will hurt one of yours. Once you fail to respond then you cannot allow outside of fortified compounds any of your people that are not capable of fighting and surviving a gunfight.

American are stronger because we believe in self-defense and we cab be badder and meaner when we have to be. This attitude comes from the bottom up and not a top down attitude. Most Americans are capable and willing to protect their own, we believe in being armed. The reason for institution of justice was to prevent unending feuds between large families that can continue revenge for generations.

This is the same natural law that the Middle East is used to. Large family clans those are willing to kill other members of clans in revenge to protect or deter attacks on their own.

Western societies progress beyond that because we delegated justice to a third party and that third party delivered on the promise. When justice fails then people will take that power back and deliver it on their own. That usually makes a society more violent. If a family or clan fails to defend or provide revenge for a killing of one of theirs, that family will not survive. Simple law of survival. If the family calls out to its ally to provide justice and that ally only gives lip service, then the family must either get a stronger ally or do it on its own.

You can substitute a state for family since the same rules apply. We followed those basic rules after 9/11. Attack us and you get attacked. So we took out Afghanistan (Taliban) and Iraq. Because we are so scary a lot of other nations try not to annoy us.

Since Obama des not recognize the reality of kill or be killed in foreign affairs, his deterrent factor is low.

Weak countries should not depend on the US to help them when they will not help themselves. Israel knows that and will be willing to attack if need and wait for a better administration that knows the reality of kill or is killed.

I disagree that Israel will be worse off if they attack Iran. They have been attacked 7 times and have provided the lesson that they can hurt those countries worse than they are hurt.

The worse they will suffer is being attacked by their neighbors and they can threaten nukes to retaliate if need be. They can fight their neighbors conventional and win against any military. Besides who will attack Israel, Jordan or Egypt? No, I do not think so. Will Syria attack? Unlikely. Iran, probably since they have an irrational leader. So if they only country that are likely to attack Israel is Iran and that is who they plan to attack, so where is the downside? That war is coming anyway. This is not the Cold War where Russia or China will come openly on the side of Iran. Besides that could pull in the US with our full nuclear ability. So Russia and China will content themselves with providing arms and intelligence. That will not help Iran. Israel will suffer the verbal slings and arrows of Europe but how is that different from now?

If the attacks come via Hezbolla with suicide and bombings then they need to ramp up their intelligence and murder network and kill Hezbolla in Lebanon and Syria wherever they may be. Same thing they did with Hamas during the last conflict with Gaza.

The worse thing any one can do is to refuse to defend or attack for you own self interest because it informs other predators that you do not care enough to defend yourself or your family. In Obama case that family will mean America.

Other countries do have to factor that a President is only a temporary leader and if they hurt America enough the people will force another leader who is willing to attack or defend them. WE always understand that the power to delegate justice is also the power to withdraw that delegation and assume it ourselves.

May 8, 2009 - 2:11 am 29. twobyfour:

RAH/28

They kill one of ours and Israel or we kills one of theirs.

Iran’s response: “We have about 6 million to spare… you got yourself a deal!”

The equation has to be different: “You kill one of ours, we kill two of yours. The next time we’d kill four of yours for one of ours. The next time 16:1, then 256:1 and so on. Someone in the enemy camp may know about the geometric progression and what it means. Disproportionate? Yewbetcha, the moral is don’t kill ours.

May 8, 2009 - 3:49 am 30. Casca:

@Rah:

“We always understand that the power to delegate justice is also the power to withdraw that delegation and assume it ourselves.”

There’s no opportunity to encourage or employ any delegated justice in the Middle East. Any justice that may find its way into the region will be of the un-delegated variety–will be justice we (or someone) labor(s) for our(them)selves.

It is a typical liberal failing to presume (usually via abstraction) that important labors will be done by “someone”, so long as the need is great enough. Electricity will come from “somewhere” even if we close the powerplants; criminals will be punished “somehow” even if we set open the prison cell doors; jobs and prosperity will result “sometime” even though the industries were shooed away as too filthy and the currency inflated and devalued to mask the lack of production.

The inevitable fact that there are people who comprehend that labor is a better solution than “ISEP” (it’s-somebody-elses-problem), means problems get solved, in the end, however. Usually, intentionally, in ways that benefit the actors.

People who rely on delegation never solve problems–people who have no agency in addressing their problems never find the “solutions” which inevitably arrive beneficial to their way of life.

Obama is interested in “soft-power” and “organic peace”. It’s code for “somebody-elses-problem”, clear as day. All problems are inherited, all solutions external, all outcomes detrimental.

By definition.

Godspeed to our bold allies–unfortunately the dependency of these allies on American initiative (Europe et al) has bred an incorrigible and pervasive faith in the benignity of the modern geopolitical order.

That it is most certainly anything besides benign is an exercise in the stupefyingly obvious.

May 8, 2009 - 3:50 am 31. twobyfour:

Casca/30

I’d quip with your use of term “delegation”.
Delegation is a purposeful act of distribution of task to other parties. A managerial skill without which our society won’t be able to function. One needs to be aware of all the interconnection in order to make delegation work.

ISEP is just the opposite. One may say that there is no awareness of the interconnections. It is based on magical thinking and a direct result of passive-aggressive behavioral pattern.

While the first implies responsibility, the second is underwritten by a profound lack of it.

May 8, 2009 - 4:28 am 32. Casca:

@31,

I believe your quip is appropriate, and find because of it that I’ve been imprecise.

Rather than disagree with Rah’s comment on delegation of justice, I fully agree and am speaking to it.

Delegation is a critical managerial task, but delegation is not the managerial task. If the US set out to be Manager of The Justice in the Middle East (that is to say, were behaving managerially), I’d fully appreciate this as appropriate action and agency on its own behalf–but this wouldn’t be “delegating justice”, this would be “managing justice”, even if the principal form of this management were delegation.

In my view, nothing about delegation implies responsibility except when delegation implies management has or is happening. To say then that “the power to delegate justice is also the power to withdraw that delegation and assume it ourselves” seems either no different than saying we assumed/maintained ultimate responsibility all along, or that instead we were ‘merely delegating’ in a strict (not-responsible or at least non-liable) sense.

I, of course, advocate for disabusing the notion that lack-of-action (ISEP) is in any way ‘delegating’ or managerial or even a rational response to perceived problems of any kind. The world has not seemed to often change itself to suit my wont spontaneously; and even with great work and tempering of expectation, I often still find myself curiously unfulfilled and ignored by it, whether I’m ‘only-delegating’ or actively managing. Doing nothing is not delegating; neither is expecting ’someone else to do it’ or for it to just ‘all work out in the end’, nor ‘it’s-someone-elses-problem’.

It seems there is a valid distinction to be made however–I just don’t think at the end of the day, it’s possible for the US to both manage justice, and delegate management at the same time. Thus, “there’s no opportunity to encourage or employ any [strictly] delegated justice in the Middle East. Any justice that may find its way into the region will be of the un-delegated variety–will be justice we (or someone) labor(s) for our(them)selves”… whether we manage it and do the work, manage it and delegate the work, or find ourselves victim to a less timid actor.

May 8, 2009 - 5:10 am 33. RAH:

Civilization is based on specialization of tasks. The are downsides to this. However capitalism works best when the factors of production come together to produce a product. See Friedman video on a pencil. No one person makes that, the factors come together via free enterprise. The various factors do not speak the same language or have the same religion.

So delgation is a necessity. However the ability to assume the task itself is basic competencey. That competence is a eroding ability in western societies.

Americans still have a variety of skill sets that are unusual. We have a great ability to work together without an authoritaruan overlord.

American culture of independance does foster an ability to self govern.

Note that Toledo Ohio has laid off 75 police. The gun sales have skyrocketed. People will protect themselves.

Maybe they will stop using police as a revenue stream for tickets on traffic and do basi c detective work.

We don’t need speed cops. Yet that is a prominant function.

Back to the subject. Lebanon better save itself, because the US is not responsible to save Lebenon from itself. They need to crush Hezbolla and kill the members.

May 8, 2009 - 5:17 am 34. Barry 0351:

Israel is not fated to survive. Nothing short of a miracle will save it. Unfortunalty for the region a lot of other nations will go down with her.
Perhaps it’s time to let nature take it’s course and step back wait for the war and deal with who is left.

May 8, 2009 - 5:52 am 35. RAH:

Such a bald statement “Israel is not fated to survive” I am not a fatalist. I believe in free will and we have the ability to change our future.

Since you decided not to justify or rationalize your statement I do not find it valid, Barry.

Israel may or may not survive. In the end all empires and countries die and change. But not in the near term. The next 20 or so years, I do not see anything that can destroy Israel other that the US.

May 8, 2009 - 6:02 am 36. Doug:

I would think most can fill in any blanks left by Barry.
The agenda of POTUS, and what the suicidal left in Israel has wrought are obvious.
Obama’s “free will” bodes very little good fortune for Israel or the USA.

May 8, 2009 - 6:13 am 37. anton:

Poor Lebanon, the unfortunate child of a dying Ottoman mother and two clumsy Imperialist mid-wives she will soon be thrown to the wolves by the gutless West and the Teleprompter President.

The cascade from will doubtless mean a lot more dead people in the Mid-East. The way I see it is that Israel will end up having to go “all-in” and take out Syria, Lebanon (or at least the Hezbollah portins) and Iran all at once. Hamas will be an afterthought, without sponsors they will crumble easily. Israel has too many open flanks, they can ill-afford to leave one open while dealing with a single opponent. Unannounced surgical strikes to decapitate the opposing regimes and command structures, then a systematic destruction of military and productive capacity (via conventional or atomic weapons) would give them another generation of safety at least.

The downside? the EU and UN would denounce Isreal (as if that didn’t happen on a day-to-day basis) and the Telepromter in Cheif would make unhappy noises (big deal).

Survival trumps popularity.

May 8, 2009 - 7:00 am 38. Mark:

On the one hand, Israel is just a geopolitical problem, and Obama intends to be a master lever puller and effect resolution of the problem. Its just another country.

On the other hand, Israel is a cultural issue, especially in the sense that the Judeo-Christian heritage, and the civilization which has emerged upon it, depends in some profound ways on the Jewish scriptures and commentary on them. Marcion in the first century was the first of many who wanted to discard the Jews and their Bible. But Christians can’t and shouldn’t discard them, if in some essential ways “Salvation comes from the Jews.”

Christianity ultimately does not need the state of Israel, one might say, and Judaism, as many Jews argue, doesn’t need Israel either. But it’s a deep issue, as deep as the culture and its religion, and to ignore our cultural stake while privileging the Arab/Islamic stake is to indulge, at a very basic level, in cultural malfeasance, if not suicide.

Co-existence in Israel? Sure, if you could count on it. Does Intrade have a line on it?

I guess Obamites are too sophisticated to consider the basic good, i.e. that Israel is a friend and ally. Why can’t liberals ever take their own side in a fight?

May 8, 2009 - 7:04 am 39. maineman:

“It is a typical liberal failing to presume (usually via abstraction) that important
labors . . .”

And there you have hit on the crux of this and other matters, Casca. ALL (contemporary) liberal failings, indeed most modern liberal notions, are predicated on the conflation of abstraction and reality.

May 8, 2009 - 7:11 am 40. anton:

@38. Mark
“Why can’t liberals ever take their own side in a fight?”

I concur, I have always found it odd that the Libs will go absolutely bonkers if you say “God” in a political forum here but will merrily go to bed with a bunch of misogynistic, stone-age, religious right-wingers as soon as they find themselves in Arabia. Their love of Islamists makes a lie of the “pinciples” that they so stridently protest about here at home.

It is a wonder that the cognitive dissonance doesn’t make their heads explode.

May 8, 2009 - 7:20 am 41. whiskey:

Obama and his people may argue that Syria can be peeled off, but the Israelis cannot afford to buy that argument because they don’t trust Obama or the Pax Americana.

Obama has made it clear he’s anti-Israeli, he has been such all his life, and surrounds himself with pro-Palestinians and doubtless the Israelis have had access to the infamous Rashid Khalidi tapes from that going away party.

Plus Obama has a well deserved reputation for both hard-Left radicalism and throwing people under the bus. No one can trust him. Much less his coalition.

Therefore the more pressure the Obama people put on the Israelis, the less the Israelis will agree to anything. What will Obama threaten, to throw Israel to the wolves? Not much a threat when everyone in Israel already suspects that will be the case.

As for Iran, if Israel nuked half of Iran’s people out of existence, it would IMHO be both terrible and stabilizing.

First, it would create sharply defined limits in the Middle East. That Israel alone absent Pax American will kill who it has to in order to survive. Clear bright lines and a chilling example to the people of the Middle East who have fantasies of killing all the Jews and then heaven on earth: the Palestinians, Egyptians, Jordanians, and Saudis.

Second, it would deter nuclear expansion. Since Israel would have a head start advantage and would have already established a nuke-first policy against those intent on eradicating them pursuing nukes. Meanwhile, the primary driver of nuclear proliferation, the Iranian threat, would gone. Israel has had nukes since the late 1960’s. For forty years no other nation around it has pursued nuclear weapons since Israel was too small and fragile to sustain colonial adventures in marked contrast to Iran, population 70 million or so.

Nuclear proliferation is not all bad. It allows small, relatively weak states to stave off military conquest by larger more hungry neighbors: Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary can survive as independent nations against Russia with them. Israel can survive through nukes and a nuke-first option against nuclear-arming states like Iran.

What has characterized the second half of the Twentieth Century has been a patience with “War without consequences,” where various states and peoples have made war upon other peoples and expected restraint. More peace would follow, if the people of Egypt for example got an eyeful of just what war to exterminate Jews from the face of the Earth was all about: their own destruction as well as that of the Jews.

As for retaliation, well of course Iran could and would retaliate. But there is a difference between say, 5-6 nukes eradicating the people of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem, followed by the systematic extermination of the remaining Jews in Israel (which is what we are really talking about) and the loss of at most ten thousand by rocket barrages and such.

Israel and Jews have the choice: kill their enemy, most of them, who are in fact the Iranian people themselves, or die. It’s that simple. What they choose: survival or death, will IMHO foretell if Western Civilization lives, or simply surrenders to Islam in an orgy of self-loathing and internal hatreds.

Obama I think if Israel nuked Iran would probably order an invasion of Israel to wipe them out, but his military cuts and his well-publicized hatred/loathing of the military would force a crisis. Not only would he lack commanders willing and able to be the second SS Extermination Squads, which is what most of his advisors like Power and Susan Rice wish, but he’d lack forces too. Domestically, that would be a “bridge too far” for him and his allies.

May 8, 2009 - 8:19 am 42. twobyfour:

anton, we need to find one that does.

May 8, 2009 - 8:22 am 43. maineman:

It pays to keep in mind that anti-Semitism and anti-American are close cousins and that, whether you choose to take scripture seriously or not, the Jews have a way of surviving, those who attack or subjugate them have a way of losing out in the end, and those who come to their aid have a way of benefiting.

Opposing and abandoning the Jews in this hour of need will come back to haunt us unless we find a way to reverse course.

May 8, 2009 - 8:57 am 44. RAH:

You may find a Democrat that will take on the liberal left, but you won’t find a Liberal that does. Liberals and many on the left are anti American and have been since the 1960’s that are why so many Democrats have shifted to the GOP.

Now small l liberal or classical liberals may have the gumption to take on the socialist and Marxist left. But they do not have the gumption to recognize that a lot of conservative principles are the same thing as they believe in. However most small l still believes in the idea that we are our brothers keeper and that we should pay for others housing, food, health care and children.

Conservatives wanted to roll back a lot of the New Deal and Johnson programs and they only thing they succeeded was in a reform of Welfare under Clinton when the GOP in Congress forced that. I recall the demonization that the GOP was trying to starve kids in school by cutting the increase in those programs. That was what happened when a little restraint was applied. So Bush II said forget about spending restraint. If people want government spending then they can have it. For that Bush and his stubbornness in fighting the Islamic forces he was demonized as Hitler by the loony left. The so-called progressives were following the loony left and voted in Obama.

May 8, 2009 - 9:04 am 45. Subotai Bahadur:

#28 RAH

You have laid out very accurately the real situation in international life, in the absence of the option of some power wielding an overwhelming force to impose some system of order [that order may not be 'just' by our principles, but it will be a system with its own rules. Keep in mind that tyranny is a system.]. If you are a small nation that has depended on the support of a larger patron to limit the worst attacks against your sovereignty or survival, and that patron disappears or changes sides, your only hope for survival is to be able to inflict enough damage on your enemies yourself to eliminate them, either completely or at least as a force that can do you harm.

With the United States in full betrayal mode vis-a-vis former allies, indigenous nuclear deterrents and the readily apparent will to use them are the only chances that Israel, the former Warsaw Pact countries, and for that matter Western European countries and Asian countries who have been under our deterrent umbrella, have to survive. No matter who Hussein Pasha bows to, the ability to inflict unacceptable losses on those who would attack you in whatever way is the final arbiter of international relations.

The election of Benjamin Netanyahu gave me the first hope for a long time that Israel would not meekly submit to a second Endlösung. The United States has switched sides and now tacitly supports the destruction of Israel. Its National Command Authority may want to actively participate in that destruction, but is as noted constrained for now by domestic political considerations.

Some years ago, as I have mentioned before, I was involved in a project that considered amongst other things how far Israel could reach and where and how it could strike if it was in a literal existential crisis. There were a number of scenarios. The best I could calculate from open sources, Israel’s nuclear deterrent is far larger than publicly conjectured. There is a wide range it can fall into, but taking a credible median figure, and with the known Israeli means of delivery [which can be researched with far more confidence], it should have the ability to destroy the Ummah as a cultural and economic entity. It would take a slightly unorthodox targeting strategy, tailoring it to specific effects of nuclear detonations, but it could be done. And they would have enough left, and appropriate delivery means, that they could credibly threaten, not destruction, but the ability to inflict unacceptable damage to all other nuclear powers.

There is absolutely NO benefit to Israel if it should choose a more “moderate” set of targeting parameters. Nothing short of absolute defeat will end the threat of attacks from the Ummah. And nothing short of the ability to credibly threaten the other nuclear powers will forestall their coming in on the side of the Ummah either actively during the hostilities or in vengeance afterwards. I am not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, but in this case, Shema Yisroel.

In passing, you applied the concept of power relations to internal matters in the Middle East, most accurately, and mentioned its relationship to the West:

Western societies progress beyond that because we delegated justice to a third party and that third party delivered on the promise. When justice fails then people will take that power back and deliver it on their own. That usually makes a society more violent. If a family or clan fails to defend or provide revenge for a killing of one of theirs, that family will not survive. Simple law of survival. If the family calls out to its ally to provide justice and that ally only gives lip service, then the family must either get a stronger ally or do it on its own.

I submit that there are larger groups within a Western society than families or clans. Bill Whittle’s concept of Tribes comes to mind. Can any of the BC’ers think of one or more Western societies where the rule of law and its impartial application to all is being breached at will? Where the normal political boundaries that constrain those in power from acting in an arbitrary fashion have eroded? I have two in mind.

I have quoted Robert Bolt’s “A Man for All Seasons” before. The danger from a lack of set system of laws and authority is both international and domestic.

Subotai Bahadur

May 8, 2009 - 10:17 am 46. anton:

@45. Subotai Bahadur:

One has to look no further than the treatment of the Chrysler bondholders to see the answer to your last question (just substitute Union for Tribe).

Those “unruly youths” in Paris are off to a pretty good start as well.

The there is the Teleprompter-in-Cheif’s Cabinet…….

I could go on, I am sure you are way ahead of me already.

May 8, 2009 - 10:48 am 47. DWB:

I sent this article to a good friend that is very active both in the states and Lebanon. For the record he is a Christian Lebanese. His reply:

There are two issues in this article and comments. The elections and the four generals.

Let me start with the generals. There are thousands of reasons to charge and indict these guys for all they have done to Lebanese as Syria’s lackeys. Not the least of which is the tens of thousands of arbitrary arrests without proper warrants of Lebanese opposed to Syria’s occupation. I would still like to see this happen, but I do not expect it soon. Most of the political class in Lebanon were their partners in all these crimes. The so called “anti-Syrians” were Syria’s henchmen in Lebanon all the way until the last Syrian soldier crossed the border in 2005. They jumped ship and pretended to be pro-US. Hizbullah did not exist in a vacuum and grew under the nurturing guidance of Hariri, Jumblat and others who never tired of telling us how necessary it was to have the Syrian boot on Lebanon’s neck and having Hizbullah the way it is. The US and Israel were also partners in acquiescing to all that and telling us we should grin and bare it.

As a man of principle I refuse to do to others what I oppose and do not accept done to me. That is why the arrest for 44 months without accusation never sat well with me. The only reason for the arrest was the testimony of one Syrian, who later was found to be a fake and quickly went from being a witness to a suspect. He later disappeared from house arrest in Paris and is suspected to have been whisked away by Hariri’s son. The accusation against Syria and the generals is admitted to be a political accusation.

I will not absolve Syria or the generals, but in a court of law we cannot try people without evidence, and the court has none so far.

On the elections and Hizbullah dominance.

If Hizbullah wins every seat it is contesting, it will have a 10 member block in a 128 member Parliament. That is much less than the 15 members it currently has. Its other Shiite partner will hold only 13 if it wins all as opposed to the current 18. That is hardly a dominant number and is actually a retreat.

The Lebanese political system is sectarian on all levels. The Shiites cannot hold more than 5 cabinet seats in a 24 seat cabinet. Hizbullah will probably hold 2 or 3, which is what it holds today. Not even close to a controlling vote.

The opposition win is largely expected on the Christian side, where Hariri’s Christian allies have performed so badly and are seen as nothing more than Hariri and Saudi employees, that the Christians are not likely to re-elect. Hariri and Jumblat are also likely to loose some Sunni and Druze seats as they have lost the Syrian imposed twisted electoral law (recently changed) and they have lost the momentum they built due to Hariri’s death.

No matter what one thinks of the Christian opposition, no sane person can believe that Christians are Muslim Fundamentalists. Many of those Christians standing to win in the elections are people who have spent the last 35 years fighting Syria and Iran. They are the ones credited with the survival of Christianity in Lebanon and the actual weakening of Syria’s grip on Lebanon. Not Hariri and Jumblat who where sharing the occupation and looting of Lebanon.

The opposition to the current Government started on the Christian side, who saw this as a Saudi take over of Lebanon, under a US cloak.Washington’s biggest mistake is to take guidance from the Saudis on these matters. Hariri and the Saudis financed the Islamic fundamentalists who fought a bloody war with the Lebanese army in 2007. They admitted this, while remaining in government.

The Saudis and their allies believed that after Syria’s withdrawal, Hizbullah, targeted and isolated will be a perfect tool to carry out the task of preventing the re-emergence of a Christian political role in Lebanon. The Saudis convinced the US that the Christians should go out and fight Hizbullah, which the US requested. Of course the US was not willing to provide any weapons or support for this effort. The intent was to get the Christians to fight a loosing battle. Hizbullah wipes them out and looks like an even more evil villain. The Sunnis and Saudi Arabia reign supreme.

Most Christians saw this and refused to play along. Instead they proclaimed their willingness to sit down and talk with all Lebanese on ways to build their country again. The Saudis and allies refused. Hizbullah saw that as a way out of the corner they had been painted into and reached out to the Christians. Of course there are some Christians allied with Hariri and Jumblat, but they have been hard pressed to convince the public that they should fight Hizbullah to protect Israel.

The Saudis stand to loose what they believed to be a done deal in their control over Lebanon. Israel fears that all it has done to destroy Lebanon has failed and if the Lebanese unite and refuse to fight each other on behalf of foreign countries, Lebanon will re-emerge as a vibrant democracy.

As such, booth are trying to scare the world. It is not working. The world will deal with Lebanon after the elections as it has done before.

Finally, I ask you. Will Israel be safe even if it wiped Iran completely off the map? Will that not make the Sunni fundamentalists like Al-Qaida so much more powerful? Are these not the most viral enemies of Israel and the West at this time?

Why then this fixation on Iran, while Pakistan and its nukes fall into the hand of the Taliban and Al-Qaida?

Some of these guys seem to believe that Israel will actually survive a counter offensive to a nuclear strike on Iran. I tell you this, a heavy strike on Iran will bring the whole Muslim world to bare on Israel including Pakistan’s nukes. Israel will survive a few minutes beyond that strike.

Unfortunately, nuking Israel will probably leave the surrounding countries, including Lebanon uninhabitable.

Samson and the Temple come to mind, only with nuclear weapons.

Enough said for now.

I Hope this helps.

May 8, 2009 - 11:15 am 48. Wadeusaf:

I have to wonder if the “patronage” issue was not already decided in the fight against Hezbollah and the early withdraw of Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon. Was leaving So. Lebanon in such a power vacuum similar to what has been done more recently in the Sinai. Where was the pressure to finish off the enemy of peace, where was the green light to take out Hezbollah?

Instead of pressure to perform a necessary task, the Israeli’s heard a chorus that they were killing women and babies and were heartless, when the truth as later proved, was the opposite.

It worked. It continues to work. The democrats in charge of the current US administration are in league with or at least want to believe the meme that Israeli kills Palestinian women and children, that they do not try to save lives, or try to surgically remove the bad actors. It is the lie that repeated over, Ad nauseam will not allow for reasoned refutation.

Still, my question remains why did the Israeli Army stop in So. Lebanon, and why again in the Sinai. What does that say about their capabilities? Or the limits of their reasoned response.

May 8, 2009 - 11:23 am 49. Wadeusaf:

DWB,

I believe the apology you attribute to an unnamed “friend” is preposterous in a number of ways. Not the least of which is the attempt to tie the Fundies hiding in the PLO camp to the Saudi’s and the US. It was in fact the infusion of American weapons to the Lebanese Army, many of which were owned by the Saudi’s, that made the successful outcome of the battle possible for the Lebanese Armed Forces.

I am not so naive as to believe the Iranian laundry list of weapons and training was provided by the full knowledge and complicity of KSA. I am not defending the House of Saud, just pointing out reasons why your “friend’s” statement is fraudulent.

May 8, 2009 - 11:38 am 50. dan:

it could be that the hariri investigation is stalled because it ultimately leads back not to Syrian intelligence services as such but… another party’s intelligence service, which effectively holds the syria “state” (such as it is) captive, using its government as a stage-set for independence while the Other Party directs its actions, and provides invincible PR cover to Other Party. meanwhile, everyone benefits, particularly the Ophthamologist and his family.

consider the relationship between the principle proxy groups, Hezbollah and Hamas, and Damascus: it is their headquarters. Isn’t that curious? A group that claims to be the True Shi’a Lebanon and the group that claims to be the True Sunni Palestine – and which de jure or de facto rule the respective objects of their political ambitions – both headquartered in the trustfund-dictatorship of Ba’athist Syria?

curious, is it not?

how does such a country, for example, even have an army? a competent intelligence service – particularly when they are supposed to be the province of Iran… and depend ultimately on Russia?

Ah Russia. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but it occurs to me that there are few countries capable of presenting its allies with a completely destabilizing coup de main such as Hariri’s murder turned out to be. Add to that the re-dredging of a Soviet port, the delivery of MiGs, the hiding or transit of Saddam’s WMD, the existence of Bekaa Valley, the nuclear cooperation with NK, the ongoing… – I mean, Syria’s basically just a huge terrorist camp. It obviously isn’t a country. How could it resist all this pressure when it is aboslutely hollow on paper? What’s up with that?

just food for thought.

May 8, 2009 - 11:56 am 51. Wadeusaf:

Dan, in defense of Syrian economic activity, they do pump about 381,600 bbl/day of oil, some 229,000 bbl/day of which is consumed domestically and the rest exported. Unfortunately the export of crude oil, minerals, petroleum products, fruits and vegetables, cotton fiber, textiles, clothing, meat and live animals, wheat (according to the CIA) still leaves their revenues shy by about of third of their expenditures.

Russia or FSU is acting exactly with Syria as it does in Iran. Iran it is believed, financed the former NK Nuke facility along the Euphrates. Russia installed and provided technical know how to Syria, for the Air Defense system the Israeli AF blew by.

May 8, 2009 - 12:13 pm 52. Richard Aubrey:

Should things go south in the ME due to O and Hillary’s incompetence and/or agenda, the O supporters have invested too much in O, and done so publicly, to say it was a bad thing that just happened.
They have to say it was good. They’ll have to subvert every value they claimed to stand for, but if they don’t, they’ll have to admit they’re at least partially responsible for this by ignoring the obvious.
Once they are on board as having to support it, whatever catastrophe it is, the US internal debate on what to do about it is over.

May 8, 2009 - 12:33 pm 53. Armeggedon Rex:

DWB #47:

Your Lebanese friend has a humorously unrealistic idea about the capabilities and reach of Arab, Iranian and Pakistani militaries.

No significant immediate or short term retaliation against Israel is likely following a large scale Israeli nuclear attack on Iran unless Israel is foolish enough to wait at least a few more years while Iran develops and tests nuclear warheads for their ballistic missiles.

At this moment, Iranian medium range ballistic missiles (MRBM) topped with chemical weapons are the only retaliatory threat Israel need seriously worry about in the “sort of” short term. Even those MRBMs, assuming they were launch ready, and if they were launched immediately following a series of mushroom clouds, would take several minutes to reach Israel.

In the aftermath of multiple nuclear explosions that would likely eliminate most of Iran’s military and political leadership, it is doubtful anyone would remain who could authorize retaliation using MRBMs, even if any missiles survived the bombardment in operating condition. Independent thoughts and action are not widely encouraged among mid and low level officers in much of Iran’s military.

Iranian MRBMs shouldn’t be confused with the much more reliable ICBMs utilized by Russian, France, the U.K, and the U.S.

Iran does not have dozens of missiles fully fueled, warheads loaded with chemical weapons, sitting on launch pads or in hardened silos, continually manned by vigilant launch officers possessed of itchy trigger fingers with standing orders to launch against predetermined targets when the order is given.

Pakistan, on the other hand does have a creditable nuclear deterrence. It is focused entirely on India. Pakistan’s forces are tailored to eliminate perceived Indian military threats and to make India’s cost of unrestricted war with Pakistan unpalatable to the Indian government.

It is highly doubtful that Pakistan’s current government would expend any of their limited number of weapons against an opponent who would then respond with overwhelming force. This also raises the question of delivery. Israel is not within range of any Pakistani missile designed to accommodate nuclear warheads. Pakistani fighter/bomber aircraft could theoretically deliver such a strike, but they lack the refueling aircraft necessary to reach Israel. They could conceivably refuel in Iran, but that would require them to cross a great deal of controlled and probably hostile airspace and penetrate Israeli airspace which is highly controlled and under constant surveillance by many RADARs.

The Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian, and Saudi militaries combined couldn’t defeat Israel with conventional forces. Turkey is a marginal Israeli ally and is unlikely to take action on behalf of a Shiite, terrorist supporting regime anyway.

What then is the source of this overwhelming retributive strike that will wipe Israel off the map?

Are you sure your Lebanese friend isn’t really a Palestinian expatriate? He sure seems to have drunk the Hezb’Allah cool aid!

May 8, 2009 - 1:02 pm 54. RAH:

I thank DWB for the friend’s perspective; though I am credulous and the statement that Israel could be wiped off is silly based on realistic military capabilities. That seems to be Arab pride speaking, your friend may be a Christian but he is a Lebanese and betrayed by all sides for 30 years in Lebanon. The Christians pacifistically supported Hezbolla in the Israel latest conflict. They allowed without resistance Hezbolla to set up rockets at their homes and then cried when Israeli return fire destroyed those homes. I do not blame them for being bitter about Israel but when a person allows himself to be used for evil intents then he has supported evil and is not innocent.

No Christian should have allowed Hezbolla to use his property to instigate attacks against another unless he supports those attacks. That cowardice is the same as being part of Hezbolla.

I have no mercy toward those whose homes are bombed that hold AQ in Pakistan or Afghanistan and others are killed. The children are unfortunate victims as children of terrorist supporters. Proper parents would get women and children out of a home being used for those purposes if they truly valued those children and women, I saw how easily Lebanese allowed themselves and their dead children to be used as propaganda and will not fall for that again.

May 8, 2009 - 1:34 pm 55. Abandoning Israel « New Wineskins:

[...] Some great info & thinking in this post and thread over at Belmont Club regarding Obama’s deliberate capitulation to those arrayed against [...]

May 8, 2009 - 1:45 pm 56. Doug:

Talked to Death
An Afghan writer says that the idea of reaching out to the Taliban must be shelved.

This approach has failed every time. Thus it is puzzling to many Afghans that President Obama has also been talking about negotiating with “moderates.” Let’s hope that when the two men met in Washington this week, along with President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, the idea of reaching out to the Islamic extremists was shelved once and for all.

After all, President Karzai’s efforts have simply revealed the weakness of the Afghan government and its international allies. Taliban spokesman have repeatedly demanded unacceptable conditions for talks, including the departure of all foreign forces from Afghanistan and the establishment of Shariah law.

May 8, 2009 - 1:54 pm 57. Doug:

Pakistan confirms full-scale Swat attacks
MINGORA,
Pakistan, May 8 (UPI) — The Pakistan military said it implemented a full-scale offensive in the Swat Valley Friday in an attempt to drive out Taliban militants.
…Abbas said nearly 4,000 militants estimated to be in the Swat Valley were fleeing the military offensive….

“They are on the run and trying to block the exodus of innocent civilians by preventing their departure through coercion ,”
the military spokesman said
—
I would never charge the Taliban with such dastardly behavior, and place all blame on the gutless civilians for so eagerly sacrificing their offspring.

….Pakistan’s English-language newspaper Dawn reported security forces in the Swat Valley have orders to eliminate any key Taliban leaders they find.

May 8, 2009 - 2:01 pm 58. Doug:

ht – Linear

May 8, 2009 - 2:02 pm 59. Shivermetimbers:

Why is it that leaks from the CIA only seem to target Republicans? I mean, is there no one in this agency who isn’t alarmed with where this President is taking the country? Don’t they have any dirt on the guy?

Or is it that if they did leak anything, there would be no reporter interested? Unfortunately, the left has done a good job painting the NY POST, Wash Times, Fox News and the WSJ, as ‘Right Wing’ tools. The rest would not pick up on anything – just look at the coverage of tea parties.

May 8, 2009 - 2:15 pm 60. Doug:

IMO, W’s most damaging error was leaving Democrat crooks and hacks in place in the name of compassion and the “new tone” that never materialized.
Also appointing faux “Republicans” like Powell, then remaining silent when he and Armitage actively subverted Libby, the admin, and the country.
The Rule of Law, and the country, suffered the consequences.

May 8, 2009 - 2:21 pm 61. Doug:

Pants Bergler should still be in prison.
Too many similar examples can be cited.

May 8, 2009 - 2:22 pm 62. RAH:

Shiver me Timbers the CIA is doing leaks against Pelosi and other Dems given the minutes of meetings and that she was told of interrogation using water boarding that was done.

So Obama and friends are getting the same treatment that Bush got when the CIA decides to trash a politician.

Obama angered his own intelligence network when he suggested that criminal sanctions about torture and rendition. So now they will make sure that Dems are tarred with the same brush to protect themselves.

Another foolish move. No ruler (tyrant) should betray his security forces or intelligence forces. CIA remembers the damage that the Church investigation did and decides that those who target the CIA will go down also.

May 8, 2009 - 2:38 pm 63. Lifeofthemind:

Something must be about to happen, we are getting agitprop from the Lubyanka again.

May 8, 2009 - 2:53 pm 64. Marie Claude:

“They are in fact truly alone, with a world bent on wiping them out. The recent Krystallnacht in France, near one of France’s biggest Holocaust sites (deliberate) re-inforces that reality.”

Hmmm can you elaborate to which event you’re referring to ?

I can’t remember any recent event that look like a krystallnacht, plus near a big holocaust site ?

Don’t tell me you’rereferring to the worn out pics of cars burnings, or ?

May 8, 2009 - 3:39 pm 65. Doug:

From what I understand, Peugeots Spontaneously Combust.
…another feature, not a Beetle.

May 8, 2009 - 3:45 pm 66. Lifeofthemind:

Has Wretchard ever gone over 23 hours without a post? Should we send out search parties?

May 8, 2009 - 3:45 pm 67. Bonzo:

2009 has the potential to be a mast year. A mast year for what?

May 8, 2009 - 3:55 pm 68. Bonzo:

Doug, I owned a Peugeot 505, it was way better than the Chevy Chevette it replaced. To change the oil in the Peugeot, I needed a special square wrench. The seats were warm in the winter though.

I want to piss on the French but the 505 was a tank compared to buying a new car then. Of course before the Chevette I drove a Vega so my perspective may be off a bit…….

May 8, 2009 - 4:22 pm 69. Anodyne:

“Some of these guys seem to believe that Israel will actually survive a counter offensive to a nuclear strike on Iran. I tell you this, a heavy strike on Iran will bring the whole Muslim world to bare on Israel including Pakistan’s nukes. Israel will survive a few minutes beyond that strike.”

That’s some serious geo-political smack-talk – basically a threat to bring a very dull, very petite knife to a gun (big guns) fight.

“Why then this fixation on Iran, while Pakistan and its nukes fall into the hand of the Taliban and Al-Qaida?”

Not an either/or thing. Serious folks are concerned in regards to both.

May 8, 2009 - 4:37 pm 70. Bonzo:

Doug #60, don’t forget that back then the fear was Hillary as President. Today many will giddily sigh if Hillary is appointed to the Supreme Court.

She is too right wing of course for Obama, thus the irony.

May 8, 2009 - 4:42 pm 71. twobyfour:

LotM/66

Not unusual.

May 8, 2009 - 4:43 pm 72. Bonzo:

Sorry twobyfour:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrwO8b9iq34

May 8, 2009 - 5:29 pm 73. Camus:

I am not a Palestinian expatriate. I am a true blooded Lebanese, who have fought, bled and watched dear friends and relatives die in a war against Islamic fundamentalism, Palestinian, Arab, Iranian and every other fanatic force in the world while most of you turned your back on Christians in Lebanon and wished the images will not come over the TV. The West so eager to see a “Democratic” Lebanon cut deals with Syria, Iran and all the Arabs at Lebanon’s expense. Obama will not be the first one.

I continue to fight against Islamic fundamentalism and dictatorship. I have not drunk from Hizbullah’s cup (whatever that may be) I remain on the list of wanted by both Hizbullah and Syria, and by transition Iran.

My note to my friend was not intended for all of you.

But, I ask you. You talk of liberals not willing to take their own side. How many Christians in this world are willing to take their own side? Iraqi Christians are being eradicated right under the noses of our soldiers and nothing happens. Jerusalem and Bethlehem the birthplaces of Christianity are being emptied of Christians and nothing.

Lebanon the place of Christ’s first two miracles, the birthplace of three of Christ’s disciples and the place where we were first called Christians is the last place were Christians still have their rights in the Middle East is under siege and all you do is advocate wiping it off the face of the earth.

The Islamic “friends” of the US – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc – deny Christians any rights. In fact converting to Christianity in all Moslem countries is a capital crime. Yes, they will put you to death for becoming Christian.

Have any of you ever considered lending even a meager hand to Middle Eastern Christians. While all of you are willing to die in defense of Israel, are you even willing to save the life one Christian, even if it does not entail any risk.

Have any of you ever met a Moslem Fundamentalist or a terrorist? Have any of you ever looked the devil in the eye?

I have looked the devil in the eye and lived to tell about it. And, I consider name calling from coach potato war mongers as a badge of honor.

I wonder if any of you have ever lived through war. Has any of you watched little kids die or cry in bomb shelters as war raged so loud that you could not hear yourself think for days and days? Have any of you watched people gone hungry due to monstrous sieges? Have any of you listened to screams of the wounded in the streets while you had no ability top help, where you began to hope they will die so they will be quite?

Having experienced the horrors of war, I know the true value of peace. Clearly you do not.

What I find sickening is that instead of talking about ways to help people, all you are discussing with great pride are ways to kill millions of people, without batting an eye. Some have gone so far as to advocate Israel kill more than a billion people and threaten to wipe out another few billion (all nuclear powers).

Have any of your brilliant minds considered that this will include the US (a nuclear power) and all of you?

What is humorous and naïve is the belief that Israel can actually do all that, and that all 1.5 billion Moslems will simply die out without the ability to do anything. And, all other world powers will follow.

Six million people will wipe out Six Billion people at will.

What is truly insane is the belief that expressing the willingness to kill all Moslems will somehow earn us Moslem friends who will actually help us do this.

What world do you live in and how long did it take you to create it?

You need to stop and think about who you are taking your queues from. Threatening the whole Moslem population only makes fundamentalists more credible and more powerful, as they point to these threats to prove that they are right to fight us.

The Saudi Government is much more fanatic than Iran’s Government. They have been the primary suppliers of Al-Qaida and other fanatics who have attacked us on many fronts including 9/11. It was the Saudis who started the war against Lebanon’s Christians long before Khomeini came to power in Iran.

It is important to note that as I fought fundamentalists I have also witnessed acts of extreme kindness and humanity from many Moslems. Some went to the extent of stepping between me and a loaded gun, without asking for anything in return. Those are the people we should be reaching to undermine fundamentalism. Threatening them with mass destruction is not the means.

Do any of you have any idea what you are talking about?

What I have seen and know about all this will make your stomach turn. If you knew the truth about all these fanatics, who finances them, why and how, you will probably never sleep again.

Cadmus

May 8, 2009 - 5:53 pm 74. Marie Claude:

Bonzo = Colombo

how ya goin your wife ?

May 8, 2009 - 6:02 pm 75. Marie Claude:

and your doggy ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5HRVz_bSqg

May 8, 2009 - 6:12 pm 76. Marie Claude:

The National Alliance formed around Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement and Hassan Nasrallah’s Hezbollah will win the next elections, there’s no doubt about it, if this election can be fair and free. The Hariri family will only survive as long as the PTB will rely on it to collect taxes and make the people pay for Lebanon’s foreign debt, whereas more than half of this debt comes from the Hariri family’s illegal wealth. War criminal Walid Joumblatt – Vice-President of the Socialist International no less – or neo-fascists like pathological killer Samir Geagea are going to be dropped by their sponsors. Those henchmen have lost their efficiency and are not presentable any longer.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon in charge of the prosecution of criminal acts relating to the assassination of Hariri and other politicians will either fade away or lead to a dramatic turn of events. It was designed to accuse Syria, to outlaw it from the international community and to make it a military target. I know that the Tribunal has received some new data over the last weeks. Those documents exonerate Syria and put Saudi Arabia in the hot seat. King Abdallah’s takeover of Saudi Arabia and the dismissal of the Ministers who funded the fight against Hezbollah and Hamas must be assessed from this perspective.

Back to the Lebanese general election in June, the question is to know whether the resistance will win by a 55% or a 70% margin. It will mostly depend on the emergence, or not, of a new dividing and diverting Christian movement around President Sleimane. Finally, the collaborators of the United States and Israel might negotiate a compromise while they are still able to do it. So we would move towards the nomination of a billionaire as Prime Minister (Saad Hariri or someone else) heading a government fully controlled by the national resistance. It would be a very Eastern style solution: honors and spotlights for the losers, while the real power would stay in the dark. The advantage of such an approach would be to prevent any military action against Lebanon.

I had like that the Lebanese Fellows that commented over tell what they think of this analyse

May 8, 2009 - 6:17 pm 77. Cadmus:

There is a lot of conjecture about the elections and the International tribunal.

The Tribunal claims to still be investigating. The Saudi theory has surfaced more than once in the past four years, along with other theories. It is all political and will go where the big powers want. I have seen many investigations make a u-turn without explanation.

Does anyone remember PanAm flight 103. The investigation had detailed evidence that implicated Syria with names of operatives, money trail, etc. Then overnight, it was Libya, and the two poor lackeys who spent years in jail and then released with an apology. Why? The powers that be needed Syrian assistance against Iraq.

This can go anywhere.

The results of the elections in Lebanon will only be known on June 8. If we already know the results, there will not be a need for elections. With that said, I expect the difference to be minimal, only a few seats, in favor of the current opposition.

But, as I said before, the gain will be primarily on the Christian side with a few Sunni and Druze seats. Hizbullah and Amal already control most of the Shiite seats in Parliament and cannot gain the others.

While the world likes to paint Lebanon with a broad brush of 14 March and 8 March, there is really no such thing. Neither camp has anything in common except the opposition to the others. The current majority constitutes mostly of crooks and corrupt politicians who have wiped the country out. They have common political agenda and would stab each other in the back if the need arises. The opposition consists of three parts. 1- Crooks and corrupt politicians who were left out of the current line up. 2- Hizbullah which is opposed to the current Government taking its queues from the US. 3 – Independent minded movements who truly want to change the way politics is played in Lebanon.

Hizbullah cannot gain any more seats as there are no more Shiite seats to grab.

The crooks will replace other crooks in the line up, but probably simply by being associated with the other side, but not actually gain in numbers.

The difference will come from the third group, the “Change and Reform” block that is expected to gain seats in parliament and thus tip the scale. Those are primarily Christians, who are neither Iranian nor Syrian. They include many who fought the Syrians and Iranians for 35 years and then got thrown to the wolves by the West that was supposed to be their friend.

It is not yet clear how much change they can effect and how far will their current allies go along.

They have little in common with Hizbullah, politically. The only thing they share is a country and a willingness to work together to protect it and rebuild it. They still have different ideas on how to do this, but have pledged to work out a solution peacefully and not return to war.

They are not known for deal making along the lines described. The reason they are hated by the ruling elite is the fact that they want to put an end to corruption and theft. If the leadership enters such deals, it will loose all or most of its popular support. Such a deal will be nothing less than political suicide.

Hizbullah may entertain such a deal, but would want iron clad guarantees that they will not be betrayed as they had been four years ago. Remember, Hizbullah ran on a combined ticket with the majority and helped the others gain about 15 seats that they would have lost to the FPM if it wasn’t for Hizbullah’s votes. But, then their allies turned against them.

The wild card will be the other Shiite party Amal. Its leader, and current Parliament speaker will be looking at the numbers. If the difference is minimal and his block can tip the scale he may very well make a deal to retain the speaker’s seat and make Hariri the Prime minister. He is one of the crooks left out today, and will want to get back in.

The big question is. What kind of deals will the US, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia make and effect their lackeys in Lebanon? They have done it before and will do it again.

At the core of this group is the Free Patriotic Movement, a secular party, whose charter and believes most resemble those of the US. I have included the charter from their web site.

When you read the Charter, you would say these are the guys the US should be supporting. Yet, these are the guys the US is most opposed to and has been for the past 20 years.

Promoting Democracy and the Rule of Law.

Cadmus

The Charter of the Free Patriotic Movement Party

The Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) is an extension of the Lebanese phenomenon that began with a long journey filled with struggle on which General Michel Aoun embarked. This journey continued throughout his office as head of the Lebanese Government in the late 1980’s. The FPM phenomenon manifested itself in a heightened awareness among the Lebanese people of foreign conditions and their outcomes. With pioneering, humanistic and brave conduct, the FPM opposed the occupation of Lebanon domestically and internationally and presented many sacrifices while defending its freedom, sovereignty, independence, and the dignity of its people.

As a political party, the Free Patriotic Movement aims at renewing the political life in Lebanon on the bases of knowledge, ethics, progressiveness and the emancipation of the Lebanese individual. The Party is committed to work under the banner of change and reform according to the following tenets:

In Principles
The FPM declares:

1. Its belief that the individual is intrinsically valuable and that people are born equal and die equal, having equal rights, freedom, and dignity, and being able to differ in opinions, orientations and beliefs.

2. Its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to all pertinent international charters and conventions, whose values and principles will act as guidelines to the Party’s goals and programs.

3. Its intransigence in the belief that Lebanon is a sovereign, free and independent entity founded on a social pact sanctioned by the free will of its people.

4. Its assertion that Lebanon is a distinctive human experience by virtue of its pluralism, intellectual interaction and openness to civilizations, and due to its pioneering democratic experience in the Arab world.

5. Its abidance by the Lebanese Constitution as a charter of governance in Lebanon, in its practice, interpretation, and ratification.

6. Its adherence to the openness of Lebanon to and its interaction with its Arab surroundings and the world, in such a way as not to conflict with the national belonging and provided that the Lebanese will be a dimension of Lebanon in foreign countries and not a foreign dimension within Lebanon.

7. Its conviction that men and women are equal in rights and obligations, since women are fundamental partners in the building of the society and in the making of the political decision.
In the Goals

The FPM aspires to:

1. Guaranty the sovereignty of the Lebanese state and its independence and to safeguard its existence.

2. Build a nation of law based on equality, justice, social solidarity, equal opportunities and the upholding of a fair judicial system, since the latter is a true and impartial criterion for the consolidation of justice and democracy.

3. Establish democracy as a system of government and a way of life by guaranteeing the respect of freedoms and basic rights of the citizen.

4. Institute a culture of citizenship in the aim of achieving equality between the Lebanese; enact a discretionary civil personal status law; and separate politics from religion to facilitate the establishment of a secular state.

5. Protect the family because it is the nucleus in the building of a society and a nation.

6. Eliminate all legal and social distinctions between men and women and promote equality through practice on the basis of competence and aptitude.

7. Persevere in supporting the youth and promote their role in developing the society and in stimulating political life.

8. Enable the Lebanese Diaspora to exercise their political rights in Lebanon from their countries of expansion and strengthen the bond among them and between them and their motherland.

9. Disseminate a political culture that liberates the Lebanese from a mentality of tutelage and supplication and develop their sense of critique.

10. Adhere to the free economic system and personal initiative within the boundaries of human dignity and the welfare and principles of social justice.

11. Promote institutional functions on the basis of competence and the implementation of the principal of liability and accountability.

12. Protect and Preserve the environmental resources for a healthy environment is a natural and intrinsic human right and a part of human existence.

13. Make education available to all Lebanese, propagate Lebanese heritage, develop all sectors and encourage the mastering of skills, sciences and arts in such a way as to cater to the needs of the society and the requirements of the age.

14. Propagate the culture of peace, dialogue and democracy.

May 8, 2009 - 7:24 pm 78. Marie Claude:

thanks, I have a few lebanese friends who would recomand themselves from this chart

Though I have the feeling that HBZ is accepted as a component of the political lebanese spectrum now.

May 8, 2009 - 7:39 pm 79. Wadeusaf:

Cadmus of (Camus?) or Tyre,

Even if the supposition you are making about the House of Saud were true, which I imagine as a wheel within an wheel within a wheel within…, to accomplish something, hell anything to do with Syrian involvement in Lebanon, the position you describe means implies cutting off your nose to spite your face. What you describe is a lifetime of fighting against Syria and Iran is being wasted because the Saudi’s are more radical? That Wine you are sipping is flavored by Persian hands, Cadmus, not Phoenician and certainly not Saudi.

But I have heard the claim before from other supposedly knowledgeable men whose proof did not stand up to scrutiny. Obama has decided the election in favor of Hezbollah just as surely as he has stabbed Lebanese style democracy in the back. Your Confessional style does not work when the cabinet is being either murdered or coerced to exercise Nasrallah’s bidding. Nasrallah isn’t smart enough though Baby Assad is and the Ayatollah K is. Now who of the three speaks for the KSA?

Show me some reason to believe your claim againt the Saud, or I have to believe you are a tool of Iran. Witting or not is the only question.

May 8, 2009 - 7:47 pm 80. RAH:

I liked reading the Christian Lebanese perspective but he does not recognize the American perspective. First of all American may be a primary Christian nation but our foreign policy is not based on protecting any one religion or religious groups. We protect the state of Israel not all Jews in whatever country they live in.

American got burned trying to mediate Lebanon and lost a lot of people in the Marine barracks bombing. After that we decided not to interfere. We supported a more moderate government and were appalled at the increasing power of Hezbolla over Lebanon government. If Syria is blameless in Hairri death, that is not an American issue. Saudi Arabia has been an ally of the US for many years due to national interest and though the terrorists mostly came from Saudi Arabia we do not blame the royal family or the people of Saudi Arabia. Mostly American was ignorant of the fundamentalist danger of Wahabist theology and that that meant to Islamic terrorism.

We helped the Muslims of Bosnia and really just wanted the various groups to be able to live together in peace. Many Americans supports the Palestinian because they got a raw deal as permanent refugees by Arab machination.

We supported Iraq over Iran in that war and then because of Saddam’s intransigence we went against Iraq. We defended Kuwait, a Muslim country and prepared to defend Saudi Arabia.

Iran used to be a close ally and then transformed into an enemy when they took our embassy hostage. We still have not forgiven Iran or our President that caused that situation Jimmy Carter.

Iran has explicitly said they will wipe Israel off the map. They are working toward nuclear weapons and recently launched a satellite, which is ballistic missile technology. So with Iran being an irrational player many of us believe that a change in leadership would be good idea but that is unlikely to happen. Iran belligerence and announcing all it centrifuges is defiance and a declaration they intend to develop nuclear weapons.

Most of us do not seriously believe that Israel will use nukes against Iran. Conventional bombs will be enough to demolish the nuclear facilities. But the fact is a weapon has to be prepared to be used if a massive invasion will sweep over Israel. So the Nuclear retaliation is there in that case.

But when push comes to shove America will support Israel despite how much they may annoy us over states that have not been good allies and are often treacherous.

The new President may not be supportive of Israel but many Christians and American in general are because it is a modern country that has a western culture. The religion is beside the point.

After all we conquered Iraq in 3 weeks but spent 6 years trying to stabilize and rebuild Iraq, we did the same to Japan and Germany after we defeated them. It is a shame that NK stalemated that war otherwise we would have rebuilt them too.

We may side incorrectly in Lebanon due to ignorance or venality but Lebanon will be left alone to settle its own differences. We will not interfere militarily again.

May 8, 2009 - 7:49 pm 81. Marie Claude:

the problem with you, is that you believe what you’re told

May 8, 2009 - 8:03 pm 82. twobyfour:

Cadmus,

Many of us here went through a war or several or an armed conflict of some kind, first hand. We know the scope. We hate wars.

But there is the thing… we know the signposts and many of us think a big one is coming. Because as always, one side does not see a red line in the sand. That is because some on our side erased it in their do-gooder type of stupidity that is based on wishful thinking rather than on acceptance of reality.

What’s to negotiate? Whether Iran will kill Jews slowly or quickly?

In 1930’s, people thought that this talk about killing Jews was just talk. It wasn’t.

If someone repeats that they are going to kill you, you better believe it. And the only option to negotiate is likely how they are going to kill you. And since you love peace, you make sure that you have superior firepower and act before they can deliver what they promised.

That, in the long run, would save many lives. Do you think that WWII would have happened in the scope that it did if the Western Powers said “pull back or else” when Germany’s Wehrmacht marched into Rhineland? No, the appeasers decided to tear Czechoslovakia apart thinking that a juicy bone would satisfy the Lebensraum proponents.

It is always a gamble and one does not know what the result would be. But history is all there in front of you to learn. And it is a reasonable conclusion that it is better to mark a red line in the sand and be ready to act when someone is about to cross it. Else, you may postpone the inevitable, but at far higher price.

May 8, 2009 - 8:24 pm 83. twobyfour:

Marie Claude/81

And you… immune?

May 8, 2009 - 8:32 pm 84. Marie Claude:

Twoby, no, but we are professional of the double meanings, and Talleyrand was our master

May 8, 2009 - 8:51 pm 85. Wadeusaf:

RAH I have only three minor points to debate with you, and I beg your forebareance because I think they are important.

American got burned trying to mediate Lebanon and lost a lot of people in the Marine barracks bombing. After that we decided not to interfere.
After the marines were murdered, we could only have interfered with weapons locked, loaded and ready, We could not act as a mediator or as a guarantor of the peace, such as it was. We should have kicked Hez butt then and there.

We supported a more moderate government and were appalled at the increasing power of Hezbolla over Lebanon government. If Syria is blameless in Hairri death, that is not an American issue.

The murder of Hairri is an American issue, and was made so by President Bush in pursuing the rule of Law under the representative of democracy in Lebanon. The investigation got as far as it did, implicating not just these three generals but leaving a trail of evidence up to the highest levels of Syrian authority. Hairri is not the only one who was murdered by the Iranian Syrian Hezbollah troika, as at least six anti Hezbollah members of the Lebanese Cabinet have been killed, murdered by Hezbollah seeking to cling to life after the Syrian Secret Police were deposed and the Army forced to flee. At one point the Anti Hezbollah coalition in the Cabinet had enough votes and enough popular support to make disarming Hezbollah a real possibility. American support for the March 14th Coalition is what kept it together after loosing so many members of the Government. There is no way we can say it is otherwise except by use of President Obama’s reset button. I think it is disgusting.

Saudi Arabia has been an ally of the US for many years due to national interest and though the terrorists mostly came from Saudi Arabia we do not blame the royal family or the people of Saudi Arabia.

Actually we do blame the Kingdom for the threat that Bin Laden had been allowed to become. The House of Saud has made progress with regard to taming the Wahhabi. That progress is also dependent on the support of a strong and firm Washington DC. Thus we see slippage for want of back bone in both Riyadh and DC.

May 8, 2009 - 8:57 pm 86. Mad Fiddler:

Population of Lebanon in the 1940’s
40 % Maronite Christian
27 % Sunni Muslim
3.2 % Shi’a Muslim
Remainder (>30%) Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Greek Catholic, Druze Muslim, others

In the last 50 years, the Shi’a population has exploded, and now is between a third and half of the remaining mix, after years of killing and fleeing refugees, especially Christians.

Throughout all this, no official census tallies have been done, because of the antagonism among all the parties.

In 1970 the PLO were emphatically kicked out of Jordan by King Hussein’s armes, after they had tried to take over the country. (In September of 1970, PLO hijackers landed three hijacked passenger jets on a field in PLO-controlled territory in Jordan. It was the last straw. The ejection of the PLO killed a lot of Palestinian civilians as well as militant fighters (thus “Black September”) and almost precipitated a wider war with Syria, which regarded King Hussein as a mere puppet of the U.S.

Of Course! The dog does not want to give a free hand to Good Muslim Terrorists in his own country! He *HAS* to be a Jew-Loving Puppet of the Great Satan!

The PLO set up in Lebanon – the government of which has never been strong enough to control its borders or interior – and were in daily battle with Israeli forces, both by cross-border raids and by rocket attacks from Lebanese territory. The Lebanese Shi’a population were caught in the crossfire, and abandoned their traditional territories to the belligerents. They moved in many tens of thousands to the slums and shantytowns around Beirut.

That open running sore was aggravated by the influx of Palestinian refugees after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. By the mid-1970’s there were too many factions ambushing and murdering each other to track without a printed program.

The upshot to all that, Shi’a population explosion in the midst of an endless war zone, convinced the Shi’a it was time to develop their own home-grown terrorist organization.

Sorry, Community Organizer Group, with lethal capabilities.

It’s not clear from what I’ve read whether the Shi’a expansion was from prolific breeding or relocation from other climes, or a combination.

May 8, 2009 - 9:40 pm 87. RAH:

Wadeusaf #85

I accept your issues. However though we could have interfered in Lebanon when our Marines were killed, Reagan ran because there was not an inclination on the American public to get involved in the civil war in Lebanon.

Despite our interest in justice for the murder of Hairri it was not an American that was killed and the primary lead had to Lebanese. We did push the UN to make this an issue. I believed that Syria was behind it and I am sure that Hezbolla is behind many of the murders. Clearing your political opposition by killing is a classic Hamas/ Hezbolla move.

Saudi Arabia has a been an ally of the US for decades. Bush’s refusal to condemn a religion has forced him to be blind about they danger of Wahabism and those schools that were fostered in the US during the 1990’s by Saudi Arabia that pushed that more fanatical doctrine. So though many in the US did blame Saudi Arabia it was not the policy to blame Saudi Arabia doe 9-11. We blamed the organization that planned it not the state the foundations of radical Islam came from.

Despite our interest in justice. The US was not about to invade Syria and grab Bashere to stand trial. So the only suspects hey could try were those found in Lebanon. Unless your are suggesting the US should have been the bounty hunter for a foreign leaders assignation?

Bush found out that war was not so fast and easy and Iraq and Afghanistan was enough to handle. We did not need to take on a military occupation of Saudi Arabia or Lebanon. Though I am sure we had fantasies of invading Syria.

May 8, 2009 - 10:08 pm 88. In the Industry:

I think that RAH has it right and Wretchard has it wrong. We learned from the attack on the Syrian facility that Israel can do a thorough and sophisticated strike deep in enemy airspace. We also know from attacks on Sudanese smuggling that the Israelis can do a long-distance attack. So if the Israelis figure out the route they can do it.

Now what if they do? They are likely to set back the Iranian program no less than 5 years. Then what do the Iranians do? I’m thinking not much.

Option 1: Fire ballistic missiles at Israel. I’m guessing that the Arrow anti-missile system shoots down most and Israel then attacks economic targets.

Option 2: All out attack by Hamas, Syria and Hezbollah. Hamas and Syria probably want to sit this one out and Israel could handle Hezbollah, even with high ground casualties.

Option 3: Terrorism against Israeli embassies. For Israeli response, see option 1.

Option 4: Scream loudly and claim to be the new leaders of Islamic resistance, using the Israeli attack as political leverage against local Sunni regimes. This seems most likely, creating nightmares of 1 billion against 7 million. I can see Europe quaking in fear over this and the protests in Cairo and Jakarta looking scary, but this is more bark than bite.

The more that Obama caves in to Iran on Lebanon and seriously tries to get Iranian pasage to Afghanistan (why would we ever trust that?), the more it focuses the minds of the local Sunni regimes. Cairo has been calling out Hezbollah activities in Egypt and the Saudis were trying to block Hezbollah progress in Lebanon. This coalition is now at least trying to obtain Syrian neutrality to the extent they have concluded Syria cannot be flipped. Hell, the Saudis and Egyptians are talking about modifying their earlier peace plan to make it more palatable to Israel.

Given everything that Obama has set in motion, I would not be surprised at the following: Netanyahu wants to personally size up Obama and the MIT grad and commando feels confident of his ability to size up the oily smooth Harvard law grad. He wants to hear Obama take some positions on critical issues and will decide that yes + legalese = no. Then it is a matter of how and when, not if.

May 8, 2009 - 11:30 pm 89. Wadeusaf:

Bush’s refusal to condemn a religion has forced him to be blind about they danger of Wahabism and those schools that were fostered in the US during the 1990’s by Saudi Arabia that pushed that more fanatical doctrine. So though many in the US did blame Saudi Arabia it was not the policy to blame Saudi Arabia for 9-11. The house of Saud proped up by Wahabbi is a danger. The house of Saud held back by Wahabbi, is not. The schools are mainly in Europe and American Prisons. We can no more blame the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for 911 than we can blame the actions of John Wilkes Booth on his boarding house mates. The distinction is crucial.

May 9, 2009 - 12:22 am 90. DOWNTOWNDUBAI:

hey

tough to write…have many leb friends, but here goes. christians and most democratic people would fall favorably on the side of leb christians, if, they weren’t so full of shit.

probably, (and i can’t believe i am excluding the argentinians)the most self important group on earth. their fate was tied always to their collective heads up the titanic french asshole. to see lebs in paris…their spirtual home is still a scene out of twilight zone.

now they want a global sign of solidarity…naaaa go suck off the french…more your style habibi…

May 9, 2009 - 8:31 am 91. Marie Claude:

downtowdubai you’re an iranian goat f*cker

Lebaneses have governmental institutions thanks to the French

May 9, 2009 - 10:39 am 92. twobyfour:

Marie Claude, you owe downtowdubai a big apology. If you read carefully and do not let your nationalist pride blind you to what you are reading, you may notice that downtowdubai would likely agree with your second sentence.

Just to make sure you don’t interpret it incorrectly again… the “giant french asshole” is what leb xtians are seeing, it is their perception of reality.

May 9, 2009 - 12:00 pm 93. Marie Claude:

Twoby, then I need a 6th sense, I am still not catching all the american language subtilities

May 9, 2009 - 12:03 pm 94. RAH:

Lebanon will be an issue settled or not by the Lebanese and local neighbors. The US other than diplomatic and economic pressure will not take sides. Especially under Obama. It is very hard from this distance to know the various local players in Lebanese politics and candidates. We hope a more westernized and civilized group emerges. We would like a government that can control and restrain its more radical elements like Hezbolla provoking war with Israel.

The US will deal with dictators and evil regimes because realpolitics requires that we have to do so unless we want to start a war or assassinate every leader that we do not like.

Syria really ought to change to an inherited kingdom to create an orderly succession. Son of Assad had very little control initially and was under the management of Assad’s generals and power brokers. He is more westernized than many and may have greater sympathy to modernize his country. The lesson of Arab rulers is not to challenge the religious power structure, especially if you are from the secular Baathist party. Assad comes from the Allowites and they are a minority so his clan or tribe may have less manpower to intimidate, so he has to use guile instead. The main risk was in 2003 when the US was on a roll and could have easily rolled right into Syria. He gambled that the US would not and his was right. Then in order to maintain his street credibility he allowed fighters to transit through Syria into Iraq and that was a big problem for us. After we finally shut down that corridor with the alliance with the Sunni tribes (Anbar Awakening) in that area. We finally got Iraq under control and were able to focus on getting rid of the Iraq AQ in the country and the Shiite and Sunni killer groups eliminated or suppressed.

Syria is not a strong power either economically or militarily. They do have a strategic location. They allow the residents of neighboring countries to transit through Syria to leave the Middle East as many Lebanese did during the conflict with Israel.

Syria was called one on the countries that comprise the axis of evil. But they are really a little evil and not a big threat. More bluster than real threat. Iran is a real threat or maybe like Iraq want to appear so. Middle East politics seems to depend on blustering that each country is bigger and meaner than any other. Arab boastfulness is a portion of the Muslim identity.

Since Iran is pretty closed to good intelligence we cannot properly access whether the threat is real or not. I will assume the threat is real. Iran having a nuclear gives them a lot of power to dominate politics in the Middle East. The major threat is Israel. Iran believes that we have been too chastised by our Iraq adventure to be a problem and that is probably correct. However the fact that we have significant troop, air and naval presence next to Iran should be a factor for them to be wary.

Jordan has a lot of trade with Israel and will not contemplate a war with Israel. Egypt suffers more from the problem of the Muslim Brotherhood and Palestinian gangsters to wish to fight Israel. Plus Egypt has been paid off by the US for years to moderate is stance with Israel.

So the only real problem is loss of US intelligence, support and arms if they take unilateral action against Iran. That is a big loss. So they need to access Obama to see if it is better to be treated as an unpopular friend or an enemy. I think that good way to figure the dangers of being on Obama bad side is how they dealt with the Chrysler hedge funds, which is very ruthless indeed. Bush would never have acted that badly and Israel has to determine the likely downside of pissing off Obama.

Muslim pride not withstanding I really doubt that Pakistan will as a state go to war with Israel. That would open them up to a Taliban coup and Indian invasion. China no way will interfere they would be more likely to snatch a few decent ports from Iran instead. Russia is providing weapons and technical assistance, but probably has been hoping that the US would take out the nuke threat a while ago. Otherwise why would they delay so long on the contracts and doing the work stoppages? Russia primary focus is control of the gas fields and Iran being damaged would give then better contracts because Iran would need that help more to gain hard currency.

So Russia figures that Israel taking out Natanze is OK as long as they get their personnel out which I believe has been done already. Conventional bunker busters would be used and Israel has the refueling capacity for the long run. The only thing that stopped them was during Bush was the issue of Iraq airspace and that we kept the option of refusing passage. Israel does not want the US to shoot down their plans in a mistake of whether we really mean to stop them from overflying Iraq. That is still an issue with Obama and I would not take the chance if I were Israel but take the long route instead.

My sense is that if Israel successfully does the raid that they will not suffer major consequence from the US. Nothing is better than a winning hand. Probably easier to get forgiveness than permission. Beside they may make better relations with the next US administration that may be done in 4 years.

Iran will be not a danger for another 5years while they rebuild. A failure to do this raid may embolden NK moves to cause an issue to get more money. Regrettable we cannot take out NK since China will back then up. They are already have destroyed their economy yet the ruler and his henchmen will not leave power.

So Iran with it s nuke capacity destroyed is a net plus for Israel and the US. The only one left of the axis of evil will still be a thorn in S Korea and the US side.

May 9, 2009 - 12:04 pm 95. twobyfour:

MC, it takes time. It was not that different in my case. 10 years on the continent and I were still like a blind bat. My American wife, that I acquired then, was really a big help and unlocked the gate of subtlety and unexpected complexity for me. Unless you have a talent and predesignated brain cells for specific languages, I don’t know of any better method.

Decided I’ll learn Spanish. Now, there is this fabulous Latina lady, her name is DeeDee….

May 9, 2009 - 12:47 pm 96. Marie Claude:

I did improve since a few years, my english of the Brits before, and both are a bit different, especially for the popular expressions

DeeDee ?

May 9, 2009 - 2:21 pm 97. Wadeusaf:

RAH, what do the Arab nations stand to loose should they ever piss off Obama? I have not seen, with the exception of Lebanon, that as a possibility.

We shall see what becomes of Jordan and Egypt under this Administration, as there appears to be a sea chance taking place on the red sea and another in the Gulf, despite or because of the unclenched hand. I think Assad is going to school Obama, and I think Lebanon is a heavy tuition to pay. Not a reasonable price, not at all.

Not a realistic or “real politic” price either as prices of everything will skyrocket. In such an atmosphere Assad is no better than a Somali pirate, just dryer.

Marie Claude,

Dee Dee is the name of his predesignated Spanish language brain cells.

May 9, 2009 - 2:21 pm 98. Mad Fiddler:

Bashar al-Assad trained as an ophthalmologist in Syria and had started “subspecialty training” at a hospital in London, U.K. He quit to respond to the death of his brother, and his father’s failing health. He “inherited” the leadership after the death of Hafez al-Assad, his father. Though some folks thought he might have been “gentled” by time spent in both medical training and in London, he seems to have comfortably settled into the unforgiving struggle that characterizes political struggle in the Levant.

Hafez al-Assad had managed to maintain control over Syria for three tumultuous decades, despite being a member of a Syrian minority held in deep disdain by the rest of the population. He kept control of the Syrian secular Ba’athist party long enough to groom son Bashar to take the reins.

In the late 70’s the militant fundamentalist group “Muslim Brotherhood” was trying to take over Syria, murdering opponents in the military and bombing hundreds of civilians. When they tried to assassinate him in 1980, he didn’t shirk from having his army slaughter the population of their stronghold community of Hama. Estimates of the number killed range from 20,000 to 40,000 men women & children.

Here’s the upshot:

In the vicious arena of Mid-east politics, the Assad Family has managed to keep Syria from sliding into self-immolating chaos like that we see in Lebanon. A lot of that I think is because the leadership has been essentially Muslim for a long time. Tolerating small enclaves of Syrian Christians for centuries, at least until recently, they had working relationships with a number of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups, providing funding and support (offices in downtown Damascus, no less!) In return, they did a lot of Syria’s dirty work, assassinating and eliminating enemies and troublesome groups both domestically and in neighboring territories.

Hizb’ollah (hezbolla) has been a particular beneficiary of Syrian support, however much the Iranians are involved.

It is also thought that nerve gas, weaponized pathogens, and weapons-grade processed Uranium – the fabled WMD of Saddam Hussein – were carried by Soviet convoy to Syrian warehouses in the last months before the sheet hit the fan. German magazine “Die Welt” had an article after reports filtered out of Darfur of gas attacks on Black African tribes by Islamic militant groups. Evidently several planeloads of specially trained Syrian chemical weapons teams with equipment and supplies had arrived in Khartoum a few weeks before the reported gas attacks.

Syria may not be the big dog in the middle east, but it’s a real nasty player.

May 9, 2009 - 3:50 pm 99. RAH:

Israel got a lot from the US so they have more to lose from a rupture in the relationship. I really am not well informed what Jordan gets from us other than money and intelligence. Egypt gets quite a lot of money and Saudi Arabia gets deference and implied defense.

So what will the Arab states lose if they PO Obama, not much. He so far has treated enemies better than allies.

May 9, 2009 - 4:03 pm 100. RAH:

Syria has benefited from smart rulers who have a very good idea on how far much they can get away with. They have not fallen into the mistakes that of Iran’s boasts and threats.

I will note that the danger of the Muslim Brotherhood was recognized by Egypt and Syria. Hafez was old school and very ruthless and played the terrorist game more than Bashar does.

Does Bashar have the fortitude to massacre a population like Hafez did?

I don’t get that impression but I do npt think that the US has a real good handle on Bashar as yet. That this the real purpose of diplomacy is to get a good idea of a ruler, his government and possible sucessors character to predict their behavior.

Regrettably I do not think that our State Department is that good. Some are too much inclined to go native and others are too arrogant to listen well.

Our military seems to do a much better job learning to understand the character and then able to work with it than our civilians.

Maybe the reason is that most of our military is not blinded by their biases so much but that is just a guess.

May 9, 2009 - 4:16 pm 101. Wadeusaf:

Getting out of “green zones” does tend to remove a lot of biases.
Syria has thrown in its lot with Iran for a number of reasons. First, it had its share of troubles with Nassar’s Egypt and the dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood, which have not healed since. Second, It had its share of troubles with KSA, as the Alawi are Shi’ah Islam and the Baath party has been outlawed in both Jordan and in Egypt.

Bashir appears to have inherited good strong man instincts and his family lends positive support to his position and leadership.

He has handled the Lebanese with ruthless-ness and dissapearing up to 10,000 (some little few of whom have reappeared) and allowing for the murder of many of those. The Al Assad vice grip on the political situation in Syria has not allowed for much result from the Damascus Spring. Many of the leaders of that protest are still in prison.

I am convinced at the least that Syrian agents and not just Hezbollah, played a role of both the Marine bombing and the capture and torture of the CIA Station Chief in Beirut. In addition they have been implicated in the various assassinations of Lebanese Cabinet officials. While there is probably little hard evidence, to support the claim (there is circumstantial) there is enough real evidence to point to the Syrian government if not the individuals within. Part of the trouble investigating the Syrian government is the amount of folks with the same last name as the President. It would quickly becomes a stand off almost like the great WMD chase with Saddam.

May 9, 2009 - 8:00 pm 102. Cadmus:

Marie Claude

I do not think your English has any thing to do with this. Downtowndubai clearly intended to insult Lebanese Christians, as he started by apologizing from his Lebanese friends.

I thank him for making clear to all listening how much Arabs and Arabists believe in coexistence and care for Christians in the area.

Aside from that, I am glad to see some rational discussion of the issues. We may disagree on some of the details, but at least this is a civilized discussion rather than barbaric name calling and insults.

First let me point out that while Americans seem to focus on Obama as a special case in dealing with the Middle East, most people in the region do not. They have gotten used to US policies flip flopping all over the place. We support someone and then make a deal with their enemies and throw them under a bus. That has been our legacy, and that is the reason no one really trusts us anymore.

Allow me to point out a few facts.

Those who defend the Saudis need to remember the following.

Only three countries supported and recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Pakistan.

The Pakistani Nuclear program was financed by the Saudis and the King attended the first test. The bomb was hailed by all Arabs as the “Moslem Bomb”

Saudi Arabia directly finances all “Madrasas” – Islamic Fundamentalist Schools that produce all the terrorists who are fighting us – including at least a few dozens in the US. Those schools teach absolute hatred to all things non-Islamic and advocate armed Jihad.

They do not apologize for this nor have they shown any willingness to stop building more schools.

The Shah of Iran was our friend and ally, until the US, Europe and Israel naively believed that Islamic fundamentalism is the best way to prevent the Soviets from moving south. Thus, the plan to unseat the Shah and this is very well documented even though it is not public knowledge in the US.

The US French and Israeli intelligence brought Khomeini out of exile in Paris and began the transition for Iran. The Iranian Mullahs along with Lebanese Shiites where trained by the PLO with US, French and Israeli support in South Lebanon leading to the Iranian revolution. It was not Iran that created Hizbullah, but rather both were created simultaneously in Lebanon in the early and mid 70’s. You are welcome to check this out.

At about the same time, The US and others were working with the Saudis and other Arabs on Sunni fundamentalists in Afghanistan. That resulted in the creation of Taliban and the recruitment and training of Bin Laden and his Al-Qaida.

All arguments from the Middle East, by both Christians and Moslems were discounted as paranoia. It was naively believed that the fanatics will only survive as long as we want them to, and then disappear when we no longer need them.

The Iranian revolution turned against us almost immediately. So we supported Saddam in Iraq in his war against Iran. We used that war and the apparent threat to the region as a perfect excuse to expand our military presence in the region.

By the way, our military presence in Saudi Arabia dates back to early 70’s. We built our first Airbase in northern Saudi Arabia in 1973. That is right. Our troops were on the ground and flying over head during the oil crisis.

Of course we later had a falling out with Saddam, who like the Shah had his own ideas of what Iraq should do. He also began building a formidable industrial base including military equipment.

Anyone remember the Iran-Contra problem. Most people look at the Contra part of the equation, but the Iran side was the most critical. In that affair, the Iranians where getting weapons and spare parts from the US via Israel to continue to fight Iraq.

With that approach failing, we move to plan B. We push the Kuwaitis to antagonize Saddam, tell Saddam that we have nothing to say about the argument – effectively a green light to do what he wants – and then strike when he acts upon the green light.

The real reason for the Iraq war was the fact that Iraq was gaining too much power, and the Arabs felt secure in the fact that Iraq can stop Iran. The Arabs had also become infected with the fundamentalism they had created and where under pressure to remove the US bases. It was necessary to remove the Iraqi security and turn it into a threat that makes our presence necessary again. It worked. Saddam became the boggy man for the next 13 years.

What was miscalculated was the effect that would have on the Iranian front. The war with Iraq left Iran free to build its military capabilities and its strategic position in the region. It capitalized on the general fear in Russia and elsewhere from Sunni fundamentalism to get support and assistance.

Afghanistan would take another decade to become a problem and a second decade to really become a threat. Had we at least heeded our lessons and dealt with Afghanistan upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, we would have been in much better shape today.

Instead we continued to believe that somehow Sunni and Shiite fundamentalists will cancel each other out.

The reality is that booth have been playing us, maintaining that pretence to continue to get support, assistance or at least acquiescence from us to grow stronger. They have working together all this time – competition for supremacy not withstanding.
The PLO, in return for its assistance in training the Iranians was promised the “Alternative State”. They were offered to take over Lebanon as a replacement for Palestine. This was believed to solve many issues. Israel will solve its problem with the Palestinians. The Arabs get rid of the only non-Moslem country – Lebanon – in the region. The US gains friends in the region, and weakens the Soviet presence.

The resistance by the Lebanese was not expected to last more than a few days or weeks. All military experts in 1975 expected the Lebanese Christians, who were the main target of the PLO, to be defeated very quickly.

The US and Canada offered all Lebanese Christians immediate citizenship if they left. But they refused. They fought with what little they had and stood their ground.

As fate would have it, the Shiites also turn on the Palestinians. That spooked the Israelis and got them to start providing support for the Christians. However, it was never sufficient to win. It was only sufficient to keep the war going.

Others provide aid, but just as sporadic and fluctuating as Israel.

The Syrians entered Lebanon with the full blessing of the whole world as a peace keeper, after it was a main contributor to the war. The “Saiqa” brigades, who claimed to be Palestinians, where nothing less than regular Syrian soldiers.

The Syrians made the deal that they would trade the Golan for Lebanon. Meaning they will not ask for the Golan if the world would allow them control of Lebanon, which was much more lucrative than the Golan. They also offered to eliminate the PLO and put an end to any possible threat to Israel.

The Syrians used and abused everyone in Lebanon with full international support.

The final offensive on Lebanon in 1991 included Syrian Air Force bombing of the presidential Palace with Israeli Jets flying reconnaissance higher up.

The growth of Hizbullah since then was with the blessing of Saudis whose deal with the Syrians included allowing Hizbullah to fight Israel while the Sunni Hariri takes over the Lebanese economic engine.

The Taef accord –named after the city of Taef in Saudi Arabia – that produced this formula was written in Washington. It was believed that the Syrians will become our unspoken friends and the Saudi will become closer friends due to this. The decimation of Lebanon’s Christians was deemed an acceptable price to pay.

Well neither Syria became our friend nor did the Saudis like any more. This formula did not lead to peace in Madrid either. It just complicated the whole seen even further.

All these games resulted in a potent Hizbullah and a vast Al-Qaida network supported by well armed states, ready and willing to strike deep in the heart of America. When I warned in 1991 – right after the collapse of the Soviet Union that the West has a 10 year window of opportunity to defeat fundamentalism or suffer the consequences, no one believed me. That was 10 years before 9/11.

After 9/11 the US focused on Al-Qaida, and was willing believe anyone who claimed to want to help. Iraq’s Shiites told us Saddam was helping Bin Laden and they would help us get rid of him. Chalaby – in western suits – proclaimed himself a democratic advocate and lead the effort. He turned out to be and Iranian agent whose job was to get us to remove Saddam so they can enter the country. The Iranians and Syrians supported the Sunni insurgency to keep us focused in the wrong direction long enough for the Shiites to build their power base and take over.

Iran has changed the rules of the game in Middle East. It has built a military production complex that allows it to be self reliant. It no longer depends on supplies from the outside to sustain a war. It has built missile capabilities that placed two locally made satellites into space. Those missiles are correctly believed to be able to deliver warheads anywhere in the world. It is not just medium range anymore.

I have already written two much.

I will have to leave the rest for later.

Cadmus

May 9, 2009 - 10:37 pm 103. Doug:

Nice Web, too bad we’re not spiders.
Could you cite a source on that satellite assertion, Cadmus?

May 10, 2009 - 1:07 am 104. twobyfour:

MC, Wadeusaf, I have unfortunately no predesignated Spanish brain cells so have to look for a tutor and here is a great candidate: DD / DeeDee

May 10, 2009 - 3:49 am 105. RAH:

Cadmus, thanks for the primer. That agrees with what I remember but fills in quite a few blanks.
Not sure I agree with all you said but I will keep an open mind.

Sorry about Lebanon but basically the Lebanese Christians do have to fight to keep their lands and gain political control. I don’t think Hizbolla is your friend in Lebanon.

May 10, 2009 - 4:59 am 106. Cadmus:

Doug

The Web is much more tangled and multi-dimensional. This is just a peak at all that has happened and is still happening.

Enter “Iran Satellite Launch” in Google and see all the stories about the Iranian Satellite and the US concerns.

RAH:

I never claimed Hizbullah was anyone’s friend. I just do not see how we can ask unarmed Lebanese Christians to fight Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, when no one else is willing to even supply the necessary weapons.

Simple survival dictated that the Christians work another angle that would not entail suicide. Surviving to fight another day.

By the way we do not have to agree on everything. That is why these discussions are nice. We all get to see a different view point or learn about facts that we have missed. There is so much happening and even with my substantial commitment to learning all there is about it, I still cannot learn everything.

What I stated was a very brief version, which if detailed would fill an encyclopedia. It does leave some question marks, which I hope we can discuss and clarify over time.

Who knows may I will learn a thing or two here.

Happy Mother’s day to all.

Cadmus

May 10, 2009 - 9:59 am 107. Marie Claude:

Cadmus, thanks for your kind explanation
though for HBZ origin you don’t know all the history
I’ll bring you later on what I have in store (got no time at the moment)

May 10, 2009 - 10:12 am 108. Wadeusaf:

RAH, As far as predetermined Spanish linguistic brain cells go, yours are much prettier than my own. My predetermined Spanish brain cells all want to speak German. MC I am seeking an english language or subtitled version of the film you suggested. I don’t know if I really need the translation though.

May 10, 2009 - 12:30 pm 109. Marie Claude:

Cadmus, if you can read french, HBZ is a product of “le parti de Dieu” that has more than a century been the fantaisy of Mirza Malkam : L’inspirateur de la république islamo-maçonnique en Iran, and is the Iraninian theocracy expression

http://www.iran-resist.org/article3213

May 10, 2009 - 12:50 pm 110. Marie Claude:

Twoby, you trust a feminine brain, whiskey is going to put you on his boycott listing

May 10, 2009 - 12:57 pm 111. Marie Claude:

Wadeusaf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCEZ2m9o7vc&feature=channel_page

or

May 10, 2009 - 1:03 pm 112. Marie Claude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXFpnsmhJzQ

May 10, 2009 - 1:04 pm 113. Marie Claude:

or rather this version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU2ZgaQ_H-Y

May 10, 2009 - 1:06 pm 114. Doug:

Here ya go, Wadeusaf

May 10, 2009 - 2:03 pm 115. Doug:

Marie!
That’s a Guy’s Movie!
Dennis Miller’s favorite,
…and mine.

May 10, 2009 - 2:05 pm 116. Doug:

Amphibious Rodents

May 10, 2009 - 2:23 pm 117. Marie Claude:

Doug, I wanted to bring that video first

It’s really funny, and reproducts quite well some french attitude

May 10, 2009 - 2:23 pm 118. Doug:

Wife’s best friend’s dad was a French “Journalist.”
From Russia.

My favorite French Couple were parent’s friends:
She was the governess of the Hearst kids @ the castle.
He, the Pastry Chef.
Both very memorable characters she, moreso.
Extremely voluble, I was her little “Doggie”!

May 10, 2009 - 2:55 pm 119. Wadeusaf:

Cadmus
Only three countries supported and recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Pakistan.
Pakistan helped create the Taliban in response to Russian aggression. Funding that group was in their and our interests. Pakistan was to be the great Moslem utopia, that it has failed is a testament to their failure to agree or compromise on something as simple as everyday common law. Religious zealotry has doomed them to fail.
After the fact of the Soviet war, Osama Bin Ladin and Al Queda’s status with the Taliban was as a guest.
The Pakistani Nuclear program was financed by the Saudis and the King attended the first test. The bomb was hailed by all Arabs as the “Moslem Bomb”
Yup, the Moslem Bomb, that Pakistan could not share except surreptitiously.
Saudi Arabia directly finances all “Madras’s” – Islamic Fundamentalist Schools that produce all the terrorists who are fighting us – including at least a few dozens in the US. Those schools teach absolute hatred to all things non-Islamic and advocate armed Jihad.
Yup, the relationship between the House of Saud and the Wahab, upon whom the House of Saud relied for religious credibility has been on the decline since before 9/11. Remember the Pakistani Army that had to free the shrine in Mecca? It is an uneasy alliance that is or was on the decline as recent reforms have shown. This no mere matter of Saudi survival it is an ongoing struggle within the various clans in the Kingdom.
There is an effort to modernize and moderate the extremes that will continue as long as it is beneficial to the house of Saud to moderate or until they are overthrown. They will not, unlike our political leaders, become involved in a suicide pact.
They do not apologize for this nor have they shown any willingness to stop building more schools. Local content? Local Imams, Who controls the selection of the preachers? Change today is more possible than ever. I am frustrated that there is not more.

The Shah of Iran was our friend and ally, until the US, Europe and Israel naively believed that Islamic fundamentalism is the best way to prevent the Soviets from moving south. Thus, the plan to unseat the Shah and this is very well documented even though it is not public knowledge in the US. Your understanding of the motivation is off.
The US, French and Israeli intelligence brought Khomeini out of exile in Paris and began the transition for Iran. The Iranian Mullahs along with Lebanese Shiites where trained by the PLO with US, French and Israeli support in South Lebanon leading to the Iranian revolution. It was not Iran that created Hezbollah, but rather both were created simultaneously in Lebanon in the early and mid 70’s. You are welcome to check this out.
Where? When the creation of Hezbollah is placed nearly 10 years beyond the dates you set? That is a tough timeline. I have no sources that agree with your assertions about training the Mullahs in So Lebanon, nor PLO involvement in anything more than survival between hostile hosts in Syria and Jordan. The PLO was acting the scourge in Lebanon as well. I must insist on documentation or at least on more evidence than your interpretation of events.
At about the same time, The US and others were working with the Saudis and other Arabs on Sunni fundamentalists in Afghanistan. That resulted in the creation of Taliban and the recruitment and training of Bin Laden and his Al-Qaida. Of the many groups operating against the Soviets in Afghanistan there is no evidence I am aware of that shows Bin Ladin ever had contact or trained with any CIA nor had use of CIA funds. Again, I must insist on more that rumor.
All arguments from the Middle East, by both Christians and Moslems were discounted as paranoia. It was naively believed that the fanatics will only survive as long as we want them to, and then disappear when we no longer need them. The approval to introduce fundamentalists did get the green light from President Carter, and has been a scourge for the world.
The Iranian revolution turned against us almost immediately. So we supported Saddam in Iraq in his war against Iran. We used that war and the apparent threat to the region as a perfect excuse to expand our military presence in the region. By the way, our military presence in Saudi Arabia dates back to early 70’s. We built our first Airbase in northern Saudi Arabia in 1973. That is right. Our troops were on the ground and flying over head during the oil crisis. I am not aware of that, unless you mean Kuwait, and unless you are referring to the flexing of military muscle in the Persian Gulf I know of no US military assets on Saudi soil in that period. There were Oil assets, but that is not even the same.
we move to plan B. We push the Kuwaitis to antagonize Saddam, tell Saddam that we have nothing to say about the argument – effectively a green light to do what he wants – and then strike when he acts upon the green light.
The real reason for the Iraq war was the fact that Iraq was gaining too much power, and the Arabs felt secure in the fact that Iraq can stop Iran. The Arabs had also become infected with the fundamentalism they had created and where under pressure to remove the US bases. It was necessary to remove the Iraqi security and turn it into a threat that makes our presence necessary again. It worked. Saddam became the boggy man for the next 13 years. There are so many things wrong with this that I find it difficult to know where to start. We start with Kuwait. Your insinuation that it was planned is not a little unrealistic. I can only marvel at the amount of evil you credit us with. The intricacy of such a Plan B, not only working but having controls is phenomenal. There is no way that a conscience decision like that was made to plan like that. There are far too many variables, far too much to lose for not even a little bit of gain.
What was miscalculated was the effect that would have on the Iranian front. The war with Iraq left Iran free to build its military capabilities and its strategic position in the region. It capitalized on the general fear in Russia and elsewhere from Sunni fundamentalism to get support and assistance. Chechnya? Your time line is off here I think.
I will come back to this.

I will admit there is a great deal that I do not know, but there is a lot that is knowable. The Iranian Islamic Revolution did not need nor want any assistance. I am quite sure they were able to take over without our assistance, once the Shah was sufficiently weakened.
The notion that one set of fundamentalisms can cancel out a different set of fundamentalisms is not a theory with which I am familiar. Much of the notions you set forth seem to grow out of stories from “the strong man” panacea, and the “they’re not yet ready for democracy” schools of thought.

I am not giving you the benefit of the doubt on most of this.

May 10, 2009 - 8:02 pm 120. downtowndubai:

hey marie claude

binti charmuta…i’m america-born and raised- and laugh my head off diggin how blouted leb egos are shocked at seeing there country slide into the sewer. guess ya gotta tell pretty Marwan or Pierre that freedom ain’t free !!!

soooo-go fight for whats yours. ahhh, whats that…Marwan tooooo busy seting up a ladies underware shop in abu dhabi, ahh Pierre busy getting that green card. well, i guess you snooze you-loose. just like the cuuuuubanossss on calle ocho in Miami

sorta like blouted cubans in miami, looking down their snoots at other latinos.

May 11, 2009 - 8:25 am 121. Marie Claude:

and laugh my head off diggin how blouted leb egos are shocked at seeing there country slide into the sewer. guess ya gotta tell pretty Marwan or Pierre that freedom ain’t free !!!

Actually, Dubaisucker, the country that has more pain in its a**, is yours ! unemployment rates are higher than by ours ! and don’t worry for our freedom, our laws code is effective, plus we had not 2 presidents that advocated for Turkey being an EU country (ie your 2 Bush & Obama), one wonder for which firms they voiced, any idea ? got to say that Brezinsky was/is still the US state policies guru !

recent years, before the financial crash, what is loosely known as the French model came in for fierce criticism, chiefly for failing to generate enough growth or jobs. Its detractors have not only been les Anglo-Saxons but have also included Nicolas Sarkozy himself. He may be better known now for proclaiming the end of laissez-faire capitalism. But he was elected France’s president partly by arguing that the French model was moribund, and picking out the British and American models for praise.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610197

soooo-go fight for whats yours. ahhh, whats that…Marwan tooooo busy seting up a ladies underware shop in abu dhabi, ahh Pierre busy getting that green card. well, i guess you snooze you-loose. just like the cuuuuubanossss on calle ocho in Miami

I bet you’re under drugs cuz your livin in a parallel world, and mummy won’t be there when you’re going to wake up —-> tic tic Booooom !

May 11, 2009 - 9:24 am 122. Cadmus:

Wadeusaf

I was not referring to evil. I was specific in my post in addressing the inconsistencies and flip flopping in our policies. There has been no consistent direction in our approach to that region for a long time.

As far as control is concerned there has also been very little. If the US had control over events, things would have worked our way a lot more than they have.

I never expected anyone to believe me or give me the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately the truth is stranger than fiction, and is very hard to believe. I am sure if I told where I have been you would be more willing to believe, but that is not the intent. This is not about me or my reputation. In here, I am just a code.

The intent is to instigate critical thinking.

I have spent enough time in the halls of Government addressing these issues – independently and not as an employee – to know that most people entrusted with making these decisions, unfortunately do not know what they are doing.

I have found that while there are many good people in Washington, the whole government structure is badly infected with three nasty viruses, arrogance, ignorance and wishful-thinking. There is a pervasive belief of superiority and a dismissive attitude towards what their opponents are capable of doing. I am sure all have heard the adage “Underestimate your enemy at your own peril”. There is also a sad lack of knowledge about the region and the way people think that often leads to failure. Finally, it appears that many simply roll the dice and hope they win.

Vice President Chaney’s answer on TV in 2004 should be taught to all political science students. With Iraq falling to pieces, he was asked how come the US did not seem to have had a plan to deal with Iraq after the take over. He responded that the US had a “very detailed and extensive plan, but when the plan met reality it had to be revised substantially and quickly”

“WHEN THE PLAN MET REALITY!!!” Shouldn’t the have been based on reality to start with?

As free thinkers we must always keep an open mind about all possibilities. I have learned not to discount what I hear with antagonism and absoluteness. Even if it is the words of the enemy, it behooves me to listen carefully, for I may learn something about them that could be critical in determining how I handle the conflict and win.

I also believe the fastest way to loose our freedom is to entrust it to others and turn away. It is not only our right, but our absolute DUTY to key a keen eye on those making decisions on our behalf and point out mistakes, whether they be intentional or not.

I once was young (No insult intended) and very idealistic. I believed in absolute right and wrong. I saw things in black and white. You are either with us or against us kind of mentality. I believed that our side is never wrong and the others are evil and always wrong. I believed in clear delineating lines.

But, the scars on my back, left by knife wounds – there are many on the chest also, as some would not care to wait until you turn your back – over the years have taught me that things are almost never what they seem.

Global politics is more like a demolition derby than a race. Those who assist you in one case will be your worst nemesis in the next and so on.

The old adage that “There are no permanent friends or enemies, but only permanent interests” is absolutely true.

As far as hard proof is concerned, you will not find it on Google. I am fully aware of the transfer of WMDs from Iraq to Syria and the Syrians working with Sudan in Darfur (points brought up here), but has any of you seen “hard evidence” in this string, or anywhere else? I have.

Now to your points, in the order you make them.

The Pakistanis shared their nuclear knowledge very well. Have you read the recent reports from the UN commission about Egypt and its nuclear program? There are also programs in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Sudan, Libya, Morocco, etc. Scary to think that if Qaddafi had not turned over evidence in that regards a year or so ago, the West would still be in the dark.

The house of Saud is inextricable from the Wahhabi religious leaders, and cannot go against them. All the talk about change is just talk. Al-Saud does not exist without the Wahhabis. We are deluding ourselves if we expect any real change from these guys. Unfortunately having them bowing down to the Wahhabis is better than the alternative at this time. But, that does not mean we must take our queues from them. We should recognize them for what they are.

Hizbullah and Iran. Khomeini was in Paris until he moved to Iran on the heels of the revolution. Do you really think he could have conducted all this without the Western powers knowing? How can all those mullahs and revolutionary guards be trained under the watchful eyes of the Shah’s henchmen?

The South Lebanon training camps are very well documented. We were on the ground and saw those happen. We fought them and tried to stop them. This was one of the triggers for the war in Lebanon.

As far as the time line of Hizbullah is concerned, this is how it evolved. The training camps produced a Shiite group called Amal (an Arabic acronym for the Brigades of the Dispossessed) under the leadership of Imam Mousa Sadr. If the name sound familiar, he is the uncle of the Sadr in Iraq, the current leader of Al Mahdi Army. He was a Lebanese born and raised in Iran. His brother went to Iraq to work on the Shiites there.

Sadr, however, did not fulfill his fanatic destiny. He immediately began to advocate coexistence with other Lebanese and merely insisted on giving the Shiites an equal roll (Whatever he meant by that) In 1977 Sadr supposedly boards a plane from Libya to Italy, but never arrives in Italy. It was a commercial plane. The Italians say he never arrived, and the Libyans provide evidence that he got on the plane. That remains a mystery to be solved.

Those who took over the leadership simply turned into a rag tag band of thugs without much direction. Soon after, a break away group called Islamic-Amal came into existence proclaiming to correct the path of the movement. That is what eventually became Hizbullah in the early 1980s. Hizbullah did not actually proclaim its existence until 1985, but trust me; they had been there long before.

Taliban and Al-Qaida. You deny any connection and then admit that Carter approves the introduction of fundamentalism. It is no secret that we recruited Bin Laden. Washington does not deny this.

Bin Laden was officially a guest in Afghanistan, but effectively ran the country. Taliban and Al-Qaida are two sides of the same coin.

The Saudi base can be checked with old military personnel if you wish. Some of you said you had been in the military, you can ask some of the older guys. I personally know the people who built it and some who used it as far back as 1973. It was not Kuwait, and not oil assets.

The Iraq-Kuwait issue is a little more complicated. During the Iraq-Iran war, the shipping lanes from the Iraqi ports were not very reliable. The Iraqis made a deal with Kuwait to extract Iraqi oil and ship it and pass on the proceeds to Iraq – less any commission to do so. The wells were drilled at an angle from Kuwait under the border to make them look like Kuwaiti fields.

At the end of the War, Kuwait claims Iraq owes it the funds they gave them and claims the fields were actually Kuwaiti. The US took the side of Kuwait and encouraged them not to back down. We promised them protection and told them to hold their ground.

When Saddam masses more than 100,000 troupes at the Kuwaiti border and threatens to attack, our ambassador to Iraq clearly tells Iraq it is an internal issue that we have nothing to do with, but that clearly was not the case. Iraq takes that as a green light and strikes, and the rest as they say is history. The ambassador was not allowed to talk to reporters and then simply went off screen.

You may want to check which company was drilling and extracting that oil, and who owns it. I know you will not believe me if I told you.

Russian support for Iran. Chechnya is a problem for Russia, but not a real threat. The real Russian fear at that time stemmed from the more than 60 million Moslems in ex-Soviet central Asian republics and their extension into Afghanistan and Pakistan. Add to that the war in Yugoslavia and Turkey’s position in relation, and you have a serious threat.

In fact it was that fear of the central Asian Moslems that played a major, if not the primary, roll in the break-up of the Soviet Union. The Slavs wanted to separate from them. Remember, the initial plans of Gorbachev and Yeltsin were to keep the European side the union in a federation, but once the chain was broken, all the beads fell out.

All this was happening between 1988 and 1992. The same time frame as the end of the Iraq-Iran war and the end of the first gulf war.

Finally I will encourage you to read the writings of some of the operatives who were involved in all of these issues. It will shed a whole new light on the workings of international politics. A good place to start is “Confessions of an economic hit man”.

One Israeli Mossad operative in another book explains how when Israel wanted to strike an enemy, it would often strike its enemies enemy. It would make look like its enemy did it, thus starting a conflict and sitting back to watch and feed the fire. Espionage 101.

More to come.

Cadmus

May 11, 2009 - 9:52 am 123. Cadmus:

DowntownDubai

Thank you for confirming in no uncertain terms your absolute hatred of Lebanese Christians. I take it no one will need a course in English subtleties to understand this.

For those who do not understand Arabic. The first phrase translates into “Daughter of a Whore”. Does anyone disagree that this is an insult? How about the rest of the post?

What I find really humorous is that while you try to insult and demean others, you have actually shown how crude and uncivilized you are.

I truly hope no one reading will take your assertion that you are an American as a reflection on the rest of us.

You insult Marwan and Pierre for working in Dubai. What are you doing there? Should all Americans be denied their rights because you are not here?

I will respect the rest of the readers and refrain from telling you what I really think of you. But, I sure hope Marwan and Pierre will hear this and know who you are.

Cadmus

May 11, 2009 - 10:02 am 124. Marie Claude:

Cadmus, I hold as a delight to read you

May 11, 2009 - 10:24 am 125. Marie Claude:

Cadmus what do you think of Victor Ostrovsky’s “The Other Side of Deception” ?

May 11, 2009 - 10:29 am 126. Cadmus:

Thank you Marie Claude.

I am not familiar with the book. But, I will look it up.

May 11, 2009 - 11:34 am 127. twobyfour:

Cadmus/123

Insults… my favorite topic.

So, would “bin Sharmuta” mean “son of a Whore”?
How do you say “son of a pimp”?

Do you know any really juicy ones? I want to amaze my Arab acquaintances, that hold the notion that one can’t really properly insult in English.
(Please transcribe into English phonetics, I can’t read Arabic)

Thx!

May 11, 2009 - 2:54 pm 128. Marie Claude:

Twoby, ask your acquaintances or take a translator into arab

May 11, 2009 - 3:34 pm 129. Wadeusaf:

Cadmus, I have the same problem with Mr. Perkins as I have with your efforts. NO substantiation. lots of coincidence and a great deal of insider seeming info, but absolutely no confirmation. Despite the utter contempt with which I hold Perkins, a man who has given himself entirely too much credit for things he said he did and now would punish everyone for his flaws of character, Perkins is a first rate ass. Not just an ordinary pain in the posterior, however, I will give him that.

I am aware the world is not all fairy dust and marmalade, but neither are the actors in it so dull witted and stupid as Mr Perkins would have us believe nor business leaders so self centered as to put up with the kind of shortsighted nonsense to which Perkins attributes all motive and with which he indulges his self importance. I do hope you do not hold me with the same esteem Mr Perkins holds humanity.

I suppose given the story of our current economic colapse, and the involvement of our politicians, there may be some veracity to Perkins Claims. But it does explain to me a great deal, perhaps.

May 11, 2009 - 5:16 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments:

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail