We Are All Jews Now Part II

"White Crucifixion" by Marc Chagall 1938, Art Institute of Chicago
"Chagall’s juxtaposition of crucifixion and the immediacy of Jewish suffering creates an intense interplay of religious expectation and historical reality that challenges our facile assumptions. He does not intend to Christianize the painting, certainly not in the sense of affirming any atoning resolution of the Jewish plight. Rather, in the chaotic world of White Crucifixion all are unredeemed, caught in a vortex of destruction binding crucified victim and modern martyr. As the prayer shawl wraps the loins of the crucified figure, Chagall makes clear that the Christ and the Jewish sufferer are one." (Read more)

 

Personally, I believe Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad instructed his goons to set the Middle East on fire on July 12th after talks a day earlier with an exasperated EU Common Foreign and Security Policy Chief Javier Solana failed - we'll soon find out why our Thug-In-Chief wishes to stall his response to the incentive package, which was of course offered to sweeten the International call to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program, until August 22nd ...

Critics voiced their doubt and reasoned that Hassan Nasrallah wouldn't have simply obeyed Iran without the consequences of such an unprovoked attack to be also serving his domestic political interests. Current Affairs makes an interesting case: Apparently, most Lebanese believe that Hezbollah set off the current round of fighting because of a pending attempt, by the Lebanese government, to disarm Hezbollah.

This is called a "diversionary attack," the intention being to divert the Lebanese from their plans to disarm Hizbollah. Being disarmed would be catastrophic for the Hizbollah leadership, because many of these guys were deep into criminal scams, and collaboration with the hated Syrian army of occupation. Most Lebanese would like to see a little justice here, and the Hizbollah brass, quite naturally, would rather skip that sort of thing altogether.

That leaves of course the question, how credible is, if at all true, that the Lebanese government had indeed imminent plans to disarm Hezbollah.

It seems to me, that Hezbollah, acting in concert with Syrian orders, had already made their point with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri; after all, that was revenge not least for events in 1994, when Hariri's government ordered the military to fire on Hezbollah protesters, killing many. But more importantly, Syria held Harri responsible for UNSC Resolution 1559 and feared he'd execute it once elected. So, after that and a spree of further assassinations, I doubt that acting Prime Minister Fouad Siniora was rushing to order, what would surely have been another violent confrontation between the army and Hezbollah, thus exposing him to share Hariri's fate; especially not as long as President Emile Lahoud remains Syria's proxy Commander-In-Chief of the Lebanese army.

I mean, give me a break, this is the guy who issues a tearful plea yesterday to his Arab neighbors to rescue his country from Israel, whilst his former boss - yes, that's right, Siniora ran Hariri's bank and conglomerate - was killed by Hezbollah's murdering thugs. I don't think so.

Finally, how could Siniora have sought to enforce UNSC Resolution 1559, when his government decided only in January to call Hezbollah a "resistance" movement, not a 'militia', with the express intention to bypass the evidently suicidal mission to disarm Hezbollah. 1559 only calls for "for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias", not for 'resistant' movements.

No, I don't think disarming Hezbollah was on anybody's mind prior to July 12th. This is why President Bush and Secretary Rice are pushing so hard for a Resolution with teeth, so that finally Hezbollah's stranglehold on Lebanon, and Iran's, with Syria in tow, on the wider region, can be broken. It is high-time:

Make no mistake: Israel is fighting for its life. It faces a historically new kind of fanatical foe, political Islam, which combines three characteristics: a political-religious ideology calling for its enemies' annihilation; indifference to, even the celebration of, its own people's death (because martyrs are rewarded with a place in heaven); and virtually unstoppable technology (missiles) and techniques (suicide bombing) of terror.

Which leaves the question of whether the current consequences where at all foreseen by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. My guess, absolutely not. Much more likely is that Iran gave the order for the abduction on July 12th, hoping to achieve two objectives: One, divert world attention from the Mullahcracy's refusal to abandon their uranium enrichment program and two, to up the ante on negotiations involving prisoner exchanges for returning Cpl.Gilad Shalit.

Verdict: Both failed spectacularly. One, Iran is now much more widely recognized to control Hezbollah's terrorist activities, both with training and with sophisticated arms; clearly not in their interest in light of the upcoming showdown over its nuclear ambitions. Two, nobody is even talking anymore about prisoner exchanges, neither for Cpl.Shalit nor for Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Unconditional return is the mandate.

I believe, neither our Thug-In-Chief, nor his underling in Syria, nor henchman Nasrallah imagined in their wildest dreams to be facing only weeks later a dramatically invigorated UNSC Resolution 1559, which despite all earlier efforts, is now firmly linked back to Hezbollah as the sole target; none of them ever thought to be facing new UNSC Resolutions, armed potentially with even more of a bite.

No wonder, we are witnessing such a concerted effort by Iran's murdering proxy thugs in Iraq, throwing everything they can muster at Iraqi civilians, desperately seeking to weaken the current momentum directed against Hezbollah.

True, we have a unique opportunity, but in the hands of the French, let alone UN soldiers, it is bound to be missed equally spectacularly.

Instead, as Daniel Goldhagen predicts, "the danger will escalate a thousandfold if [or rather when] Iran, the epicenter of political Islam and Hezbollah's master, achieves its own invulnerability with nuclear weapons, so that it too can launch rocket and other attacks against its many targets."

Iran's former president and current power broker, Hashemi Rafsanjani, spoke candidly in 2001: "The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything," he said, although it would harm the Islamic world. "It is not irrational," he went on, "to contemplate such an eventuality."

A nuclear Iran, sharing Hezbollah's and Hamas' enmity for Israel's very existence, is a foe with a million times the wealth and destructive might to found, fund and supply many more Hezbollahs against many more enemies, including the hated West.

Israel's political Islamic enemies are studying and rejoicing over the new geostrategic situation. These totalitarians' ultimate targets — all "infidels," especially here and in Europe — should study it as well, be sobered and realize that Israel, in fighting this war in its self-defense, to reestablish a geostrategic balance, and for its long-term survival, is ultimately fighting for them as well.

As I have said before: 'We are all Jews now' (Part I).

Comments

[Kenny Pierce]

Right on topic is a great piece by Robert Tracinski reproduced at the Corner, that argues along the basic lines I argue -- and also calls for an immediate strike against Iran -- but does so at much greater length and with much more eloquence. My two favorite paragraphs:

Fortunately, George Bush is not Neville Chamberlain. He has already waged two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine if, during the 1930s, the Allied Powers had already joined forces to defeat the fascists in Spain, then invaded Italy and overthrown Mussolini's regime. It would have made the coming conflict easier—but it would not have defanged our most dangerous enemy.

Unfortunately, George Bush is not Winston Churchill. It is as if, having suppressed fascism in Spain and Italy, we were still appeasing Germany and subordinating our interests to a wobbly consensus at the League of Nations. Just as Germany was the central enemy in the European theater of World War II, so Iran is the central enemy in the Middle East today.

Tracinski's conclusion: "It's five minutes to midnight. The time to strike Iran is now."

Read the whole thing, right away.

[Kenny Pierce]

Patrick,

Very good improvements. I had actually thought, long ago, that we should be trying to figure out how to steal back all the money that goons like Arafat have embezzled, and put it in a trust fund of some sort. But the letters of marque is a great idea. I love it. You put up a list of people whom you consider to be at war with the civilized world and you say, "Anybody who can find a way to steal these guys' money has our blessing." Outstanding idea!

Also I don't necessarily mind the USDA retaining some functions, as long as (a) we get rid of all agricultural tariffs (thus helping our taxpayers, our environment, and the impoverished Third World) and (b) we get the government completely out of the farm business.

Anyone (state or group) declares War on America, we are automatically at war with them.

Absolutely. I would go for that in a heartbeat.

Your parallels with the LA gang areas is extremely instructive as well, and now I'm going to have to go read up on the Malaysian insurgency. And twelve years is the sort of time frame I thought was reasonable when we first went into Iraq. Too bad Dubya didn't do a good job up front of setting reasonable expectations.

[grinning] I told Ghost I was about to get a lot smarter. Didn't take long...this is such a great blog, Alexandra.

[Patrick]

Kenny and DT,

BTW, I agree with all of the goals, just wanted to throw out an alternative for a point or two and highlight what I think are some trouble areas. If you do not take risks, you never have a chance of winning (Who Dares, Wins!).

As for your platform... I vote for Kenny!! Sorry, GD. I will be supporting the Redneck Peril Party. When is the election? If possible, could we change the title to something like Protector of the Peace, or some such world spanning title of awe and reverence? I suppose Chief Constable of the World Police Forces and Guardian of the World Treasury would be more appropriate. Everyone in the world believes they know better on how to employ the US military and the almighty US taxpayer's dollars.

All kidding aside, I would vote for you and this platform of sustainable peace. Can I get a cool lapel pin or obnoxious bumber sticker? PRETTY PLEASE... I promise to display them proudly...and often. LOL!

[DiscerningTexan]

I'll have what Kenny is having...

[Patrick]

First off Kenny, I will avoid discussing any combat tactics in reference to Iran; however I will make a few personal observations about the rest.

You start with

…a strike force in Iraq, of American planes, and as soon as it was militarily practical I would take every piece of military hardware that Syria has out in the open air and obliterate it…I wouldn't bother invading or occupying the country -- just making sure it was clear that if you wage war on us or our allies then you'll get ten times the war back -- even if you do it with proxies like Hezbollah. There would be shrieks of rage from the U.N., which I would ignore.

As we discussed on earlier posts, I fully support a Roman approach to establishing a Pax Americana in the region. That is, do not remove regimes, destroy regime power and step back to let others fill in the void. Realize that this will never engender the “ally” mentality that we have from Japan and Germany. We need to understand that this would be a temporary peace at best. Regional acquiescence will be predicated upon fear. That will keep the barbarians quiet for awhile, but these actions will have to be repeated with some regularity. Those tactics will also move forward the conflict with Russia, China, and the EU. Are we ready for everyone to lay their cards on the table? Right now the American public only wants to use a flashlight from which the roaches scurry back into the darkness. This way they can deal with only the few bold roaches that stay in the light (see, it’s not too big of a problem, we don’t need to call the exterminator and spend hundreds of dollars). If we were to turn on the lights at once, most American could not sleep knowing what is truly out there (they would have to deal with the situation). I myself like turning on the lights and then getting the insecticide.

If you want to see the only truly effective destruction of an insurgency in recent memory, I recommend the various treatise on the Malaysian Insurgency (took 12 years to win). There is no possible way we could afford to do that with Iraq with the current political landscape, but it is an effective blueprint. I throw this out as a little expectation management. I think everyone in the US expects a successful Iraq campaign to create an Iraq that looks like a quaint, peaceful, bucolic New England village (within 2 years or you are just incompetent). The best we can ever hope for is some of the gang infested regions of LA.
It reminds me of some of the quotes out of the LA riots (at an Urban Warfare Conference). The National Guard took over the problem areas and were being shot at least 15-20 times a day. They increased their presence and reduced that to about 5 times a day. The commander thought he was a complete failure and had a meeting with his subordinate commanders and the LAPD asking for further training and help since he could not reduce the incidents. The LAPD just laughed and said, this is LA. We usually get shot at 10 to 15 times a day. You guys just need to stay here, we have never had it this quiet. Expectation Management! What is the “normal” cycle of violence we will accept in the protectorates?

I would pretty much banish the word "democracy" from my vocabulary in talking about the Middle East. I would say simply, "Any place where we are responsible for government, is a place where we are responsible for individual freedoms; and if the institutions of democracy are hijacked to deny human rights, then we will suspend the institutions of democracy. By the way, all private militias have one week to disband, after which we will treat them as armies that are in rebellion against the lawful Iraqi government and as terrorists."

I agree that there cannot be a functioning democracy without a Bill of Rights that would prevent the abuses of democracy. Militias prevent the normalcy that a democracy needs to grow and flourish. Militias exist because people do not trust their government.

I would never again use the phrase "War on Terror." Instead I would ask Congress to pass a law formally declaring war on Iran, Syria, and "stateless Islamic jihadists," including a provision that the revelation to the press of any classified information having to do with secret or covert operations in the course of that war would be classified as treason for the duration of the war and would be a potentially capital offense. And every time a reporter played Islamist-intelligence-agency with our defenses, I'd throw him in jail until he revealed his source -- and then put his source away forever.”

I would go a step further and make declarations of war reactive. Anyone (state or group) declares War on America, we are automatically at war with them. Might get some of them to shut up for a change. Of course, only Congress can declare war, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t give us a 90-180 pass to do punitive expeditions like we did against Pancho Villa.

Furthermore, I would give a speech -- or a series of speeches -- explaining to the American people exactly what the Geneva Conventions are about, and declaring to the world that we refuse to extend Geneva Conventions protections to people who do everything in their power to obliterate the very distinction that is the whole raison d'etre of those conventions.

If you look at “news” coverage these days, we have headline, commercial, headline repeated, 2 minute talking head pitch (if we are lucky) and then reiteration of headline, commercial. Unless NPR actually becomes NPR or you seize control of the media, you will never educate the populace on the intricacies of the Geneva Convention. Look at text messaging. We get shorter and shorter in our “burst” transmissions. When was the last time that you received or sent a multi-page hand written letter. Blogs like Alexandra’s where well thought out and nuanced positions are presented and debated are few and far between. I see no possible success in this arena since the NEA is not even able to teach half our population to actually read and write (much less reason coherently).

“I would throw open every domestic oil field we have to development.“ Hear! Hear! I cannot agree with you more.

“And I would announce that any further provocation from Iran would be a signal for us to start systematically destroying their oil-production capacity…”

Believe it or not, we do not have to do anything to their oil production. They have virtually no refining capacity. We can easily shut down their gasoline imports. Destruction of their oil production would “enhance” China’s will to confront the US on the world stage. Besides if it is their money you want…we could reintroduce “Letters of Marque” for hacker privateers and allow them to keep any spoils they wrest from “hostile” accounts. It worked on the high seas. (Yes I know that in 1856 the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private parties was banned for signatories of the Declaration of Paris; but the United States was not a signatory to that Declaration and is not bound by it.) Besides, several hostile “states” have very active hacker divisions that work for their government (within that subculture, they would technically be called crackers; hackers only look, but do no damage, crackers break in and destroy things).

I would abolish every agricultural tariff we have -- the whole damn Department of Agriculture, as a matter of fact -- along with the War on Drugs, and set about doing everything in my power to maximize the revenue legally obtainable by local farmers from poppy fields in Afghanistan.

No problem with the tariffs, but the USDA does inspection of food, manage the forests, etc. I do not want spoiled food in our markets. Yes I know there are more employees of the USDA than there are farmers. They really need a name change.

In practice, of course, the American people wouldn't stand for any of this, because the American people don't want their illusion of peace shattered. "Peace, peace," they say. But there is no peace, save in the fantasies of folly. A brutal and implacable existential enemy is at war with us, killing our people whenever and wherever they can, and the containment-based approaches that won the Cold War will not work because we are dealing with religious fanatics who are in it for the next world and love death, not incentable atheists who are in it for all they can get out of this life.

Like they say…Pay me now, or pay me later. But you will pay me

[Gang of One]

Murtha proposed all that in 2005, and had a pretty astute assessment of the hand Dubya was holding...

Murtha, along with all the usual suspects, also proposed cutting and running. What were the votes for that when the bluff was called?

Dubya and his Republican supporters are just getting troops killed for no good benefit at this point, for political purposes...taking Baghdad?

As opposed to a 'bad benefit'? do you have a direct line to the Pentagon and Bush's briefings? Do you read minds? They already have Baghdad, so what political purposes are you talking about?

[Patrick]

Kenny,

I will definately respond to this...

BTW everyone, The Obsession video is back up on the Google Video player site. You will need to install the player, but the documentary is well worth watching.

Excellent thread. I am finished with finals for the summer and will be more "participatory" for the next few weeks.

Regards,

[Kenny Pierce]

Ghost,

You're getting dangerously close to causing me to quote The Virginian.

We don't want to hear your borrowed ideas; we want to hear your ideas. What would you do right now? What is so difficult to understand about that question?

It's a bad idea to refer to somebody else as a "loudmouth with a hearing problem" when you (a) talk a lot and (b) don't appear to be listening.

[Saul Davis]

GD: Can't you properly answer Kenny's Gandof One's questions? Stop beating around the "Bush." Did you take lessons from Kerry.

[Ghost Dansing]

Well it's you guys that keep saying the Democrats have no alternatives...I just showed you they did and it was also along the lines of what the top Generals were thinking.

Murtha proposed all that in 2005, and had a pretty astute assessment of the hand Dubya was holding...

Dubya and his Republican supporters are just getting troops killed for no good benefit at this point, for political purposes...taking Baghdad?

Once there is no WMD...there is no Saddam...there won't be a Liberal Democracy...and they are having a civil war...and Iran calls, and Lebanon, and North Korea and Syria...and you are doing what? Oh...taking Baghdad.

You know...Rush Limbaugh is the perfect icon for the modern Republican Party...fat loudmouth with a hearing problem.

[Gang of One]

GD,

If all you can do is cut and paste the words of other sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome, you tacitly admit you have nothing, which is the truth -- you offer nothing only posting the screeds of others and have not answered the question. Answer the questions put to you, not to Molly Ivins or John Murtha. Please, you are growing tiresome.

[Kenny Pierce]

I mean you, Ghost, with something you composed yourself.

[Kenny Pierce]

Ghost,

Not to Gang up on you (sorry, couldn't resist), but here's the thing: John Kerry pretty much lost the Presidential debates when he was challenged to say exactly what he would do, and this was, in effect, his answer:

"Um...um...okay, look, my guys have a plan, but I can't explain it very well because frankly I don't really understand it myself. But my webmaster understands it. Go ask him and he'll explain it all."

I'll give you an example to get you started:

I would be putting together, right now, a strike force in Iraq, of American planes, and as soon as it was militarily practical I would take every piece of military hardware that Syria has out in the open air and obliterate it, while sending the following message through diplomatic channels to Baby Assad: "If we catch a single shipment of goods, or a single dollar of transfer money, or a single soldier, going from you across the Lebanese or Iraqi border ever again, we will send assassins to eliminate you personally. We may not get you right away but you will live the rest of your life in hiding. You are to stay out of Lebanon and Iraq on pain of death." I wouldn't bother invading or occupying the country -- just making sure it was clear that if you wage war on us or our allies then you'll get ten times the war back -- even if you do it with proxies like Hezbollah. There would be shrieks of rage from the U.N., which I would ignore.

Meanwhile I would be pouring a ton of money into every Iranian anti-mullah resistance group I could find, and tomorrow -- or as soon as my military guys told me I could do it -- I would blow into little bitty pieces every Iranian installation I could think of that had anything to do with uranium. Again, I wouldn't be out to invade or conquer -- just damage the military complex, and in particular the parts that had to do with nuclear weapons. And I would set about trying to assassinate Iran's president. Finally, I would have every intelligence asset I could find at work on collecting the information needed for the fast, short-term ground invasion that is going to be necessary to really root out the bunkered-in nuclear installations.

Now naturally those actions would depend on military constraints that I'm not cognizant of. I doubt, for example, we could really do that tomorrow. But I would have all the preparations in high gear (I would have had those preparations up long before this but the assumption is that we start from right now, the current situation). My point isn't so much here to list specific military actions I'd actually take; it's to say that (a) Israel's war is our war, (b) our war is with Syria more than with Hezbollah, (c) it's even more with Iran than it is with Syria, and (d) only military action will have any real effect. The diplomatic game is largely dead at this point because Iran does not respond to diplomacy. We have to take the initiative and see to it that Iran has to constantly be reacting to our initiative rather than our reacting to theirs.

Oh, and I would also say very publicly and forcefully in Iraq that we are at war with Iran, and that anybody that we catch taking money from Iran, dies on the spot. And when I said this, I would make sure that I was staring directly at Muqtada al-Sadr.

I would pretty much banish the word "democracy" from my vocabulary in talking about the Middle East. I would say simply, "Any place where we are responsible for government, is a place where we are responsible for individual freedoms; and if the institutions of democracy are hijacked to deny human rights, then we will suspend the institutions of democracy. By the way, all private militias have one week to disband, after which we will treat them as armies that are in rebellion against the lawful Iraqi government and as terrorists."

I would never again use the phrase "War on Terror." Instead I would ask Congress to pass a law formally declaring war on Iran, Syria, and "stateless Islamic jihadists," including a provision that the revelation to the press of any classified information having to do with secret or covert operations in the course of that war would be classified as treason for the duration of the war and would be a potentially capital offense. And every time a reporter played Islamist-intelligence-agency with our defenses, I'd throw him in jail until he revealed his source -- and then put his source away forever.

I would frequently and emphatically make the distinction between Islamists and non-jihadist Muslims. I would talk incessantly about the civil war in Islam, about the way in which jihadists kill far more Muslims than they do non-Muslims, about how we were on the side of the non-jihadists. In every way possible I would attempt to drum into Muslim ears the difference between the people who kill those with whom they disagree about religion and the people who do not.

Furthermore, I would give a speech -- or a series of speeches -- explaining to the American people exactly what the Geneva Conventions are about, and declaring to the world that we refuse to extend Geneva Conventions protections to people who do everything in their power to obliterate the very distinction that is the whole raison d'etre of those conventions.

I would throw open every domestic oil field we have to development. And I would announce that any further provocation from Iran would be a signal for us to start systematically destroying their oil-production capacity, as it is abundantly clear that that revenue goes not to the Iranian people, but to the military activities of the Iranian regime both against their enemies abroad and against their own people at home. As several people (perhaps most recently Spengler, in that interesting link provided above) have observed, we can handle a 5% reduction in oil supplies a heckuva lot better than that regime can handle a 100% reduction in oil revenues.

I would abolish every agricultural tariff we have -- the whole damn Department of Agriculture, as a matter of fact -- along with the War on Drugs, and set about doing everything in my power to maximize the revenue legally obtainable by local farmers from poppy fields in Afghanistan.

It is too late to establish a corporation that owns -- as a publicly held company -- all the oil in Iraq, with each person in Iraq having a share and with oil profits being distributed directly to individual Iraqis through frequent dividends rather than going to the government. But when we did, as we eventually will have to do, finalize the conquest of Syria and Iran, that's exactly what I would do with the national resources. It's a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible idea for the government to own the economic resources of the country, and Dubya's failure to establish direct ownership of the Iraqi oil by individuals rather than by the state, is one of the failures I most deeply resent. (Though, since like a good Democrat he believes that the best solution to any problem is a government solution, I doubt the possibility of private ownership of the Iraqi oil ever crossed his mind.)

I would presumably not have to tell the American people that they should steel themselves for a decade or more of ongoing occasional American casualties, because how would I have ever been given power if the American people hadn't come around to my way of thinking on that point to begin with? I would simply say, "We can pay a painful cost now, or we can pay a helluva lot more painful cost later," and we would move forward. Nor, presumably, would I have to counter the absurd Democratic idea that our war is with al Qaeda and that therefore the most important task is to catch bin Laden.

In practice, of course, the American people wouldn't stand for any of this, because the American people don't want their illusion of peace shattered. "Peace, peace," they say. But there is no peace, save in the fantasies of folly. A brutal and implacable existential enemy is at war with us, killing our people whenever and wherever they can, and the containment-based approaches that won the Cold War will not work because we are dealing with religious fanatics who are in it for the next world and love death, not incentable atheists who are in it for all they can get out of this life. Of course the sort of military action I'm talking about would provoke a violent response. But the longer we wait, the more inevitable the conflict becomes -- and the more devastating that response will be. So if I were made President tomorrow and given the full confidence of the American people, then those are the general lines along which I would proceed.

--

Now, Ghost, by getting all specific, I have opened myself up to refutation. Anybody who wants to can pick any piece of that and set about showing that I'm an ass. It is very hard not to suspect that the reason you so carefully avoid setting out your own specific policy ideas, as opposed to just talking about how stupid Dubya's are, is that you don't want the risk of getting your ideas shot down.

But if that uncharitable assumption is true (I hope it isn't), then you know what the difference is between you and me?

No, not that. The difference is not that I am gutsy enough to take the shots and you aren't. Try again...

The most important difference is just this: over the next couple of days I am likely to learn a very great deal indeed, as the very intelligent people on this site go to work on my suggestions -- refining them, refuting them, telling me where I'm right, telling me where I'm wrong. I would imagine that in two days from now I will have sharpened my suggestions -- all of which I came up with here in the course of about half an hour -- immeasurably. I will be, in a couple of days, quite a bit smarter than I am at this writing.

And unless you tell us what you would do if you became President tomorrow, you probably won't have improved your ideas very much at all.

Which is by far the best reason for you to man up and tell us what you, the Dancing Ghost, think this country should do specifically now about the Middle East and the threat of Islamism.

[Ghost Dansing]

Balony to you.

I actually like what Molly Irvins wrote in 2004...why don't we do this:

AUSTIN, Texas — Do you know how to cure a chicken-killin' dog? Now, you know you cannot keep a dog that kills chickens, no matter how fine a dog it is otherwise.

Some people think you cannot break a dog that has got in the habit of killin' chickens, but my friend John Henry always claimed you could. He said the way to do it is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog's neck, good and strong. And leave it there until that dead chicken stinks so bad that no other dog or person will even go near that poor beast. Thing'll smell so bad the dog won't be able to stand himself. You leave it on there until the last little bit of flesh rots and falls off, and that dog won't kill chickens again.

The Bush administration is going to be wired around the neck of the American people for four more years, long enough for the stench to sicken everybody. It should cure the country of electing Republicans.

And at least Democrats won't have to clean up after him until it is real clear to everyone who made the mess.

The stench is getting pretty bad...and the Republican majority has had it all their way...they are totally responsible for the mess in Iraq, and for the reason that America is no longer in a position to address issues like those being discussed here on ATB.

Go read what John Murtha proposed a year ago, and read the following:

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, 'the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.' General Abizaid said on the same date, 'Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, 'To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.' We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being 'terrified' about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

"I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included to Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have not received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily.'...

[Gang of One]

GD,

I am not interested in picking a fight with you, mainly because I really don't want to wade through all the high-minded stuff you post as if you were in excruciating pain having to 'splain it to us Neanderthals. The condescension factor in your posts leaves me a bit cold, to say the least.

But I ask you again, in all sincerity:
What would you, Ghost Dansing, wish to see done, and who would you, Ghost Dansing, wish to see doing it?

You've said that the past can't be undone; I'll agree. But saying that the Democrats or anyone else can do nothing because the Republican have blown it all to hell is a cop out. It is intellectually lazy, and nothing but petulant I-give-up posturing, I say. Offer some solutions other than telling us the Republicans need to get their heads out of the rear-ends. That's so general and worthless, GD. It addresses nothing. Admit it -- you don't have a plan and the Democrats don't have a plan. The only thing you and your fellow-travelers in the Bush Sux Medicine Show can sell is a snake oil called, well, BushSux. I challenge you to come up with plausible, obtainable plans and goals. If you cannot, then I can only draw the conclusion that you are as ignorant as the rest of us.

[Saul Davis]

PS: Hat tip to http://www.yourish.com/

[Saul Davis]

Somewhat back on topic -- an interesting assessment of the Israel/Hizbullah war by Spengler at Asian Times; his analyses are always thought-provoking.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH01Ak01.html

[Kenny Pierce]

Good ol' President Regan, the Grate Comunikator.

[Kenny Pierce]

Ghost,

If the past can't be undone, why do you obsess about it incessantly?

The question is straightforward: what would you do now?

And if you really must talk on and on about the past, then exactly what course of action would you have taken in order to deal with the triple threat of Iraq, Iran and al Qaeda, back in the day when Saddam was still a threat?

You talk as though the fact that we now face tough times with no good options, is some new development. Would you care to tell me any time in the last thirty years that the Middle East has presented us with good options, or with any way to avoid tough times other than by pretending times were easy and postponing dealing with reality until a later date when reality would be even harder to deal with?

Finally, saying that Republicans bear "full responsibility for the current situation" is pretty much like saying that a girl who gets drunk at a frat party and winds up getting raped bears "full responsibility for her rape." By far the biggest reason that I have come to feel contempt for Democrats in the past four years, is their insistence on minimizing the role played by the real bad guys in order to be able to exaggerate the culpability of Bush. Bush was put in a brutally difficult situation by the cumulative effects of the foolish and spineless decisions of all four of his immediate predecessors (yes, absolutely including Regan), coupled with an intensity of depravity and evil on the part of our enemies that most Americans find impossible to imagine, coupled with a largely disloyal political opposition that would rather see America lose than see Bush win, and all covered by a media that was both bitterly hostile to Bush and utterly bereft of even the barest professional integrity and competence. Oddly enough, he has failed to resolve all our difficulties and lead us to the promised land where peace and security reign without our having to pay the price of blood that freedom has always required.

You know from my comments that I have some stinging criticism to offer of Bush. But to imply -- as you consistently, though perhaps unintentionally, imply -- that the world in general and the Middle East in particular would be a wonderful place if only the Democrats had been in charge of foreign policy for the last few years, is to combine obtuseness with personal malice toward Dubya, in truly heroic proportions.

[Ghost Dansing]

Hey...it's Wednesday...Wednesday is hyperbole day and your last comment didn't have enough hyperbole :)

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Alright, GD

So in the context of Iraq, how do you stop digging? Answer the bl**dy questions, damn it. Your "oh-I'm-too-smart-for-you" routine is getting tired.

Ghost Dansing, you've got to be Al Gore secretly posting here at ATB.

"Al,... Al is that you?"

[Ghost Dansing]

Asking the Democrats "what's the plan" is like asking the co-pilot to land after the pilot places the plane in a flat spin at 500 feet.

Nice trick, but Republcans have full responsibility for the current situation, and the only thing a good Democrat can say is "...if you've dug yourself into a hole, the first thing you have to do is...stop digging."

The past cannot be undone...whoever has the dubious honor of receiving this "bushwhacked" legacy is in for rough times with no good options.

Even if you are the most rabid warmonger...Dubya has totally let you down...he's stuck...out of bullets.

Oh, yeah...right..."...oh Ghost...what's the alternative to chronic stupidity?..."

We can start with Republicans getting their collective heads out of their backside.

[Gang of One]

If the Democrats have really come out with a coherent plan, please throw out a link.

Frau, somewhere in there is a missing link joke that could match up with the left's obession with Darwinism.

[FrauBudgie]

Heh. So, since when has Hezbollah or anybody else ever taken the Lebanese army seriously.

And, Ghost, please! I've actually been trying to figure exactly what the alternative to the Bush plan is -- and haven't seen anything very coherent from the Democrats, apart from of course impeaching the President, doing what Bush is doing but doing it better ... or pulling the troops out now ... or in general, re-livig the glory days of Vietnam.

If the Democrats have really come out with a coherent plan, please throw out a link.

[Alexandra]

Gang, you are not alone in thinking about this...

[Saul Davis]

Alexandra: Thank you for an excellant follow up; your article is thorough, well written, clearly on point and correct. Kenny: Thank you for your assessments and links; they [the assessments] are analytical, very reasonable and, in my opinion, correct. I had thought of a number of points you raised but saw no need to discuss them after your reading your comments; I would only note one thought -- your assessement of the need to get the American public on board regarding the real threat presented by Iran and the Islamists, while correct, may miss the reason for the lack of public support for the President, and for completion of the GWOT front in Iraq, and against Iran. There is the serious problem of the MSM. While blogs are very effective, the blogs have no where near the public exposure provided the MSM. A simple examination of two related contrasts is important here. The first is the attitude of the MSM during WWII and that of the MSM today; the second is a comparison of the public support for WWII [where there were millions of war casualties], versus public support for completing the liberation of Iraq and eradication of the Islamist threat today [where our casulaties, while tragic, are microscopic when compared to those in WWII]. That examination will disclose the real reason for seriously waning support for the GWOT field in Iraq and in Iran -- the public is "tired" because of the constant negative and biased viewpoints provided by the MSM. Alexandra had discussed this on a number of occasions in the past -- tehy were correct then, and remain correct. If there is one(?) truly guilty party for undermining public support needed to combat Islamism, it is the MSM. A view of Military blogs will show that there is, and continues to be significant progress in Iraq; the progress is virtually never reported by the MSM. I personally view the undermining of the efforts of the military in Iraq, and the rise of the arabists at State, as a direct result of the efforts of the MSM, with a significant assist from liberals at State and at the CIA, whose entire raison d'etre seems to be to undermine the President, with no real thought to the serious consequences that flow from their actions. They do not realize that they are the present-day Chamberlains, have not learned history's lessons, are undermining the GWOT and this country's ability to combat those who seek its destruction. History has taught that appeasement is simply a recipe for disaster. The MSM is the prime chef/witch for this witches brew. Just my thoughts.

[Gang of One]

GD,
Far be it for me to even start Fisking any of your posts, but you dwell on the same meme ... your complete disdain for the Bush Administration. Fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

Talking the talk isn't enough...America needs some competent, effective leadership.

I am wondering if it might be interesting to go back and count how many of your posts end with the same harangue.

Question: What do you think should be done? Who do you think should be in charge?

I'd really like to know.

[Gang of One]

I cannot but help thinking about this. I know it sounds dire and may even be a bit much. However, it does not bode well, if you take the predictions of Nostradamus to be credible.

According to Nostradamus, the first two anti-Christs [Napoleon and Hitler] were extremely evil, and history has shown this to be so; however, Nostradamus speaks of a third anti-Christ who is more hideous than all the others combined. Some say Sadaam Hussein, the dictator from Iraq, could be this evil tyrant. Others say that he has not yet appeared. What does Nostradamus say about this third anti-Christ? First, Nostradamus tells us he will come from the Middle East.

Out of the country of Greater Arabia
Shall be born a strong master of Mohammed...
He will enter Europe wearing a blue turban.
He will be the terror of mankind.
Never more horror.

Here, Nostradamus says that a man from Greater Arabia will lead his forces on an invasion through Europe. This invasion will start a third world war that will be far worse than all the other wars put together (Guentte). When will all this take place? In one quatrain Nostradamus gives us an exact date in which the war will be well under way.

In the year 1999 and seven months
From the sky will come the great King of Terror.
He will bring back to life the King of the Mongols;
Before and after war reigns.

Nostradamus predicts the war will begin shortly before the year 1999 (Roberts 191). He also tells us how long the war will last.

The war will last seven and twenty years. (Guentte)

Nostradamus says that the war will be so terrible that the world will come face to face with final annihilation. Here, he implies that the war might involve some kind of horrible weapon, possibly nuclear. Nostradamus tells what the first target will be.

The sky will burn at forty-five degrees.
Fire approaches the great new city.

In this phrase, Nostradamus refers to a great city in the new world of America near forty-five degrees latitude. Experts agree this could only be New York.

By fire he will destroy their city,
A cold and cruel heart,
Blood will pour,
Mercy to none. (Guentte)

Although Nostradamus 's predictions for our future sound frightening he does give us some hope by telling us how this third world war will end. He says it will end as a result of an unexpected alliance.

When those of the Northern Pole are united,
In the East will be great fear and dread...
One day the two great leaders will be friends;
Their great powers will be seen to grow.
The New Land will be at the height of its power:
To the man of blood the number is reported.

The new land was a common term used by Nostradamus to refer to what we now call America. The countries of the northern pole could be Russia and the United States. We have recently seen the breakdown of Communism in Russia and an increasing friendship between Russia and the U.S. (Reader's Digest 515).

Was Nostradamus a fraud or a prophet? There are some who say that the seeming accuracy of his quatrains are a result of their facile interpretations (Guentte). Still, more than four hundred books and essays about his prophecies have been published since his death in 1566, along with a great number of articles and other commentaries, in numerous languages (Randi 5). Even skeptics pay careful attention to Nostradamus' predictions of the three anti-Christs. If Nostradamus truly predicted Napoleon and Hitler we should take heed of his words about the future. Perhaps we can prevent the dismal fate Nostradamus has predicted (Guentte).

It makes you wonder, neh?

[Ghost Dansing]

Kenny, Iraq was a strategic blunder in the war on terror. Iraq as a front in the war on terror only made sense within the daydreams of some think-tank neocons...they thought they could transform the Middle East by establishing a global-freetrader Liberal Democracy in Iraq, post war, that would evolve a robust economy that was irresistable to the rest of the authoritarian governments in the region.

Interesting theory with little real-world evidence of validity...and largely why many neocon academics were considered gadflys before 9/11...when a desparate Republican administration that had specifically ignored the problem of al qaida (because they wanted to be the un-Clinton) suddenly had to cast about for a framework from which to proceed...they chose the wrong one, and married it with big-energy corporate interests to make a case for Iraq.

Now, in Iraq, Dubya and his neocons have created exactly the conditions for terrorists (islamic extremists) he sought to remedy by the war...

And it was not unpredictable...experts from his father's administration and myriad military generals (let alone the loyal opposition) warned him before the war, and now all they can do is refrain from a chorus of "I toldya so".

Dubya and his kind are the weak links in the chain...the Democrats showed they can exert the will of the people on politicians in some primaries yesterday...

Let's see if the Republicans can get off their idol-worshipping knees long enough to do what needs to be done in future American elections.

Talking the talk isn't enough...America needs some competent, effective leadership.

[Barry Meislin]

There are several solid, clear-eyed posts here.

Some very difficult---excruciatingly difficult---decisions will have to be made in the days ahead. Time, it seems, is running out. One cannot, must not, flinch.

And one is grateful to all--but especially Alexandra--for the firm, stalwart, clear-eyed and uncompromising support.

For those who have not yet seen it, this compilation of thoughts by David Pryce-Jones (on the National Review site) is well worth a glance. Scroll down and read it all....

[DiscerningTexan]

Shalom to you Mac, from a "wandering Episcopalian". Although I am not a native Dallasite; I am an "immigrant" by way of Austin, Houston, Austin (and the Defending National Champion Texas Longhorns--just had to throw that one in...). I have lived here for 20 years now, and am quite familiar with the Preston Hollow area where you grew up. I personally am happily married 5 years now, no kids and none contemplated (the Siberian cat would be insanely jealous). We live in the Park Cities.

I am proud to be standing up for both America and Israel in this war for our mutual survival. I think an equally important front of this war is being fought right here--in the blogosphere, in the media, in the arena of ideas. And it is good and heartening to have another comrade (NOT in the leftist connotation of that word...) in that fight. The importance of Our war in this arena is as critical as the importance of the larger events of which we are only pawns--because in a Democracy we can help to shape those events.

I keep doing it because, pawn as I may be, my deep belief is that we can all make a difference--and it only takes a critical mass who are willing to stand up and say "no more"--like the patriotic few colonists who cast off the world's most powerful colonial empire a couple of hundred years ago. No man is an island as Mr. Donne so eloquently put it. And..even a pawn can particpate in a Checkmate! I raise my glass to that day. To America. To Israel. To the very idea of both. To collective sanity and to VICTORY over evil and blind hatred and inhumanity cloaked in the name of God (or in this case, "Allah").

[mac Brachman]

Kenny P., Discerning T. (incidentally I'm a Dallas native, born and raised, grew up at Walnut Hill Lane just west of the Dallas North Tollway, so, like Kinky Friedman, I'm a Texas Jewboy, though settled in the Midwest for close on 30 years now): just a shout-out; enjoyed your posts; KP, the sardonic remark about the pizzas and buses is funny and shattering at the same time. But then part of the Jewish experience is to see the humor even in the darkest situations... Shalom, Mac Brachman

[antimedia]

OK. This is too weird.

[DiscerningTexan]

What Kenny Pierce said. Spot on, that.

I also agree with Alexandra's point about the other Arab states: the Saudis are probably shaking in their boots at the thought of a powerful nuclear Iran. The paradox is that they and other Sunni states have been so busy for years stoking their hatred for the Jews and teaching this hate to their children, that they probably cannot see past this blind hatred to what is really in their best interest. They are "Jews now" but in their blindness they cannot see it.

As for the 22nd of August, I have posted on that subject myself. If ever I wanted to be wrong about sticking my neck out and predicting something, this would be the time: Because I think they already have a nuke. I think that the scenario painted by Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu is as good a guess as any as to how it will play out.

My prayer is that we have the courage to stand up to world opinion and, with Israel, we take the initiative against Iran and Syria before they unleash their bomb. I fear this may be the only way to avoid a nuclear detonation over Israel...and even then it may not be enough to stop Ahmadinejad's mad dream from happening. If we do not strike first, I think we may be about to witness a "limited" nuclear exchange--with TV cameras rolling. And we can only hope it is "limited". I also would not rule out terror attacks in selected US and/or European cities.

Perhaps a small scale holocaust is what is needed to wake up the loony left and the Cindy Sheehans of the world to the nature of the evil that we really are facing here. I hope not, but then again it is hard to know the course that history and destiny will or should take. But I sense a tectonic shift is coming. My plan is to pray and to trust that what is supposed to happen, happens. And God help us all.

Oh, to be proven wrong on this one...

But the other, harder, truth is this: we cannot stand down to this enemy now. The worst case scenario of all would be to allow the UN and the Arabists to convince the Bush Administration to force Israel to back down. Even if Hezbollah stops launching missiles, Israel must stay until Hezbollah is disarmed and disbanded. I think our best hope is to take the offensive. At the same time I question if Bush and Rice truly have the courage to do what is necessary--but if they do not, who would? The future of the United States and the world may rest on what happens over the next several weeks.

[mac Brachman]

Oy. We just saw the unlamented departure of RL from posting on this blog; now we get the compassion and wisdom of "Dr." Vega, the local undertakers' delight. "Bushmert" indeed. In the mind of Vega, and I use the term "mind" very loosely, ad hominem attacks and squeezing names together (Bush and Olmert are the same person, get it? How clever of the good "doctor") substitutes for substantive argument or discussion. Just for the record, I can assure "Dr." Vega that, of all the reasons Israel has to destroy Hezbollah, ensuring a steady supply of palace servants to the Saudi princelings is not high on the list; it's not on the list at all.

Ghost, I have read your posts regularly since I began to read this blog regularly (that is, about 2-3 months) and you seem to me to be a genuinely well-intentioned person. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. World opinion doesn't give a damn about Israel or Jews, and this has been demonstrated historically so thoroughly over the last 2 or 3 millennia that it is pointless to belabor the discussion as far as I am concerned. If the world at large someday realizes it is in its interest to support open, democratic, pluralist societies against tyranny of any sort, then maybe Israel will gain widespread support in the U.N. Gen. Assembly. I'm not holding my breath. I only hope that Kenny Pierce is wrong when he says Iran may have nuclear surprise awaiting Israel on Aug. 22, not because I don't like Kenny or agree with his analysis (I do agree with his analysis and like him as a person, or at least someone I've never met and only know through posts on this blog) but because this prospect is so fearsome that it is hard to wrap my mind around it.

To John on the writings of Martin Luther: the founder of the Protestant movement is a complicated subject and was a complicated person. He started as a philo-Semite and ended hating Jews because they didn't follow him into Christianity once he had "reformed" it of all corruption (in his own mind). He has some writings about Jews and Muslims (and Catholics, and Protestants who were non-Lutheran) that were troubling, to put it mildly. Modern Lutherans (with some exceptions), including the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), the church to which my dear wife Elizabeht belongs, has repudiated the more extreme and hate-filled of Luther's later, and bitter writings, and repudiated anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, there are additional complications: ELCA is what can be called a "liberal mainstream Protestant" church in America, and a member of the National Council of Churches, and this organization over the past two to three decades has largely bought into the sob-story, Palestinian-as-victim, Israel as bullying-aggressor narrative. (The global organization, the World Council (WCC) is even worse). Not all liberal Lutherans (my wife, for example) buy this narrative hook, line, and sinker, but many do. I hope it is mainly out of ignorance and not out of latent anti-Semitism.

There was a good article by Daniel Pipes (danielpipes.org) about the Seattle attacker of July 28 who murdered one woman (incidentally, she was a Protestant convert to Judaism) and wounded five others, including a 17-weeks pregnant woman whose fetus was protected only because she flung her arm over her abdomen. She also called 911 and is credited by the police from preventing further bloodshed. The article also runs in the New York Sun newspaper. The attack on the Jewish Federation of the greater Seattle/Pacific Northwest Region occurred less than 12 hours after Mel Gibson's infamous D.U.I. bust and subsequent rant against Jews, and received nowhere near the media attention it should have. The attacker is a paradigm of a son of "nice" Muslim immigrants who suddenly goes ballistic, and the Muslim community's subsequent sympathy for the poor, hard working family and the ignominy it suffers because its son is a cold-blooded, cowardly, bigoted murderer, but no mention in their sympathy for the actual (Jewish) victims of the attack. Mel Gibson's sickening and pathetic little melodrama sucked up all the media space and air. Shalom.

Sincerely, Mac Brachman

[Kenny Pierce]

And the sardonic tongue-in-cheek quote of the day, since the Doc has inspired me to wander through the protein wisdom comments, comes from a4g:

"This could all be solved if the Jews would just get the hell off the buses and stop with the gatdamned pizza. I mean, it’s like they want to get killed."

[Kenny Pierce]

Alexandra,

You should read this, if you haven't already. (Knowing you, you've probably already linked it someplace and I overlooked the link.)

[Kenny Pierce]

Doc...

Man, that is some interesting shit. You write it yourself or just clone it?

(I figure if you can cut and paste, then so can I. At least I didn't paste in Rob Crawford's comment...[grinning] Actually, I do a lot of double-posting myself so I'm really just teasing you.)

[Dr Victorino de la Vega]

My old blogging friend C.E. The Republican Realist wrote a razor-sharp assessment of the “Franco-American” draft resolution currently being debated at the UN:

“But this is diplomacy as a tactic in a war. Warfare these days has appropriated many venues that it never before occupied: garage door remotes, CNN, diplomacy, and .pdf files. That's a partial list and the process has been ongoing for some time. It seems that Lebanon (with the coaxing of Hezbollah?) is trying to present an alternative to the DOA Franco-American resolution.”

But, frankly, the UN resolution they’re cooking in New York is far more American (>90%+) than say “French” (less than 9.99%) or Botswana-ean.

A relatively easy way to gauge the ideological/linguistic origin of any (draft) UN resolution is simply to count the number of “Gallicisms” and other “Latinisms”: and (unlike say varied UN resolutions on topics such as Bosnia, Sudan…etc.) there are very few of these semantic indicators in the Neocon-engineered text currently being discussed in New York- a draft to which an ailing Chirac probably only gave his ex-post blessings…

Why you may ask?

Why would France abdicate (what’s left of her dwindling) influence in the last remnant of its former MENA empire (North Africa was lost long time ago to a conglomerate bringing together Exxon, Chevron, Boeing and the Pentagon)?

The answer is quite straightforward: K.S.A., Iran’s real archenemy- as opposed to fake foes such as Israel, Pakistan and Botswana!

With the barrel of oil at $ 85., the French (and most governments on the face of the earth for that materialistic matter) would sell their daughters to the power-hungry princes of Riyadh.

And the “moderate” [??] Saudi rulers and their pliable “pro-Western” Haririst friends in power in Beirut want Hezbollah crushed at any price.

The spoiled 'rentiers' kids of Arabia are used to be surrounded by cohorts of slaves who always do their bidding: Lebanese cooks, British engineers, Pakistani chauffeurs, Moroccan escort girls…etc.

That’s why the Saudis sincerely thought President Bushmert would be happy to satisfy their monarchic good pleasure and flush out “pro-Iranian” scum from the royal playgrounds of Beirut and the Casino du Liban!

Problem is that, in real life (i.e. outside of Arabia’s air-conditioned palaces), no one will do a dirty and expensive job on your behalf for free… Just like the Faustian characters of old, the decadent desert princes are starting to freak out, for Bushmert has come to ask for the price of his services: the soul of Saud.

[Kenny Pierce]

Guys,

Okay, I think a lot of you will enjoy this.

Words fail me. (Well, to be fair, that's a rhetorical flourish, since words don't in literal fact really fail me.)

[Kenny Pierce]

Ghost,

I said, "The fundamental problem is the fact that the American public does not recognize that we are in, and will not support the whole-hearted prosecution of, a war on Islamism in general and the Iranian regime in particular." Now, if you want to argue that this is largely Dubya's fault because of his asinine insistence on pretending -- literally for years -- that we are at war against a tactic rather than at war against an ideology, then you will have my full agreement on that point. Dubya can hardly complain that the American people are confused about who exactly our enemy is when he has himself consistently used language designed to obfuscate, rather than to clarify, the issue.

And yes, o ye Republican commentors (not Ghost, obviously), I am aware that Dubya mentioned Iran by name in his Axis of Evil speech. But in that same Axis of Evil he included North Korea, who not by the wildest leap of fancy can be considered Islamist. North Korea is an evil regime and is a threat; but they are not the same threat that Saddam was and Iran still is.

And yes, o ye Democratic commentors, I know that Saddam ran a secular regime. But he supported and gave refuge to al Qaeda, and he paid bounties to Palestinian "martyrs," and he was clearly trying to compete with Iran to be the Arab/Muslim world's primary foe-of-the-Great-Satan. Saddam and Iran were two more or less equally malignant variations on the Islamist theme; North Korea is a completely separate problem. To put North Korea into the mix was in my view a terrible idea that had devastating consequences on the American public's clarity of understanding the nature of what faces us and of what we have no choice in the long run but to do.

And for whatever it's worth, I still believe that it was tactically and politically easier to take out Iraq and then move from there to deal with Iran and Syria, than to start with Iran and then later on deal with Iraq. That in the long run the toppling of both regimes was and remains an absolute prerequisite for meaningful peace, seems as plain to me now as it did on the day the towers fell. That Dubya either cannot face that fact himself, or else fears (correctly) that if he says it in public he will discover that American voters can't face that fact, appears all too ominously obvious. And we will in the end pay a dear price for it, I believe.

[Kenny Pierce]

The question is not whether we launch a military attack on Iran. The question is threefold:

1. When do we launch the attack?

2. How much higher will the cost be because of our delay?

3. What will Iran have to do before the American public realizes that the Iranian regime will be at war against us until we crush the regime, and that neither Iraq nor Syria nor the Palestine/Lebanon/Israel mess will be anything but failures so long as the Iranian regime has not been taken out?

I can't remember who made this observation, but we will continue to lose until the American public stops talking about "peace" and decides it wants "victory." For when you are going up against an implacable and insatiable foe, there is no peace until there is complete victory.

Every day that goes by makes it that much clearer to everybody in the Middle East that Iran is -- for practical purposes -- stronger than we are, in the only strength that matters: that is, strength that you are actually willing to use. If you defy Iran you will die in the night. If you defy the United States then Duby and Condi will say that you "must" stop it and will shake their fingers menacingly. And if you pander shamelessly to Iran and to their hired murderers...why, then, Dubya will invite you to address Congress.

I would think that it is dawning on the Israelis that the American public will not truly wake up and be the ally that the Israelis deserve us to be, until Iran drops the bomb on Israel -- at which point, of course, our newfound support will be of absolutely no use to the roasted Israelis. And then all those Americans who have not supported Israel and who continue to think that Dubya's putatively nefarious ambitions are a greater threat than are the mullahs', will say, "Oh, hey, Iran's a real problem; we'd better do something about it. Too bad about all those whacked Israeli kids, eh?" A friend in need is a friend indeed. A friend who refuses to admit that you need him until you are already dead...well, what good is such a friend, really? If he has a nice voice I suppose he can sing prettily at your funeral.

It certainly should be dawning on our other allies in the Middle East that if protection is what you need, the United States is not a sufficiently reliable ally to deserve your allegiance. We do not keep our word, at least not when it costs us anything, or when our domestic politicians and our treasonous news media can gain partisan advantage by sabotaging our national will through demagoguery and shameless, ceaseless propaganda. This will, of course, be no surprise to the South Vietnamese, nor to the Shi'ites of southern Iraq who were so unforgiveably left high and dry by Bush Sr. (and who, believe me, remember that betrayal to this day), nor to the unfortunates whose bravery brought about the Cedar Revolution but who have received no meaningful help from us in the disarming of Hezbollah (despite their repeated requests for such assistance). How long until the Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan draw the obvious conclusion?

We are all Jews now. But until Tel Aviv is a melted wasteland, the Democratic Party and the Patrick Buchanan anti-Semitic isolationists and all the other fools trying desperately to convince themselves that there is any long-term option other than war or dhimmitude, will not realize that they too are Jews.

And Howard Dean and the Kossacks and the Democratic Underground may not be convinced even then.

By the way, Ghost, the fundamental problem is not Dubya's "strategic incompetence in prosecuting the war on terror." The fundamental problem is the fact that the American public does not recognize that we are in, and will not support the whole-hearted prosecution of, a war on Islamism in general and the Iranian regime in particular. And please don't start with the nonsense about how we can't invade Iran now because we expended our military capital in Iraq.

1. I don't for a millisecond think that if we hadn't invaded Iraq and Saddam were still in power, the people whining about "we can't invade Iran now because we invaded Iraq" would be supporting military action against Iran. I believe that to be a thoroughly dishonest canard.

2. We have all the military might we need to take out the Iranian regime. We just have to be willing, as a nation, to pay the price in coffins. But if Dubya were to try to do what genuinely needs to be done, the American people would refuse to support it.

The problem is not, fundamentally, Dubya -- though a casual stroll through my comments and blog will show that I have a lot of strongly felt anger at some of Dubya's fundamentally stupid assumptions that have caused him to squander even such political capital as he once had, and though I think that if we had a leader who did comprehend the true nature of what we face and what must be done, and who had the leadership qualities of Ronald Reagan or FDR, then perhaps things would be different. (There is no Democrat, by the way, who comes within light-years of being such a leader, in either respect.) But the fundamental problem is that the American people still do not understand that we can either pay a painful and expensive and tragic price now -- or we can pay a vastly more painful and expensive and tragic price later. Astonishingly, not even 9/11 has been enough to penetrate the fatuously self-deceived complacency of the American public.

Victor Hanson is right. It is 1938 all over again.

[antimedia]

Ghost writes, "rally international support". What a laugh. You live in a fantasy world, Ghost. There is no such thing as international support any more. There is only coalitions of nations that haven't yet gone brain dead. The rest of Frenchified.

[rich]

Israel is not backed into a corner as Goldhagen asserts. It just has a very tough and messy job to do in cleaning out South Lebanon. Ralph Peters had an interesting article on the fighting in the NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/soldiers_grit_in_organized_mess_of_war_commentary_ralph_peters.htm

The tactic of setting up the missile launchers and then firing them remotely means that the job of stopping the launches will be very difficult unless the actual ground is controlled.

Escalation is not in Israel's interest. Yes, Hezbollah doesn't care about Lebanon or Lebanese casualties. Yes, Hezbollah defines victory as destroying what part of Israel it can reach. Yes, Hezbollah is supplied by Syria and Iran. Yes UNIFIL was worse than useless as it allowed Hezbollah to fortify South Lebanon. Yes the government of Lebanon is intimidated and controlled by Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

None of that changes the problem, which is that Israel must clean out South Lebanon to secure its northern territory.

Negotiations are not an answer. The other side practices al-taqiyya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

In a nutshell, they lie to your face and are proud of it.

When the Lebanese complain, the answer must be that you had your chance to implement UN Resolution 1559 and did not do it.

Resolution 1599 (9/2/2004)". . . Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. . . "

A .pdf of the resolution is available at:

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1559%20(2004)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC

The resolution is explained at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1559

This war is proof of, and the result of, the willful disobedience of UN Resolution 1559 by Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Hezbollah.

The answer lies in Lebanon.

Hezbollah in Lebanon must be destroyed root and branch.

There is no other solution.

Iran and Syria will get their due in good time.

[Ghost Dansing]

Good articles in the LA Times by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen...And Alexandra is painting the predicament extremely well.

"The sixth option is to compel Hezbollah's suppliers and patrons — Syria and Iran — to end the terror. Neither country wishes a war with militarily superior Israel (Syria's saber rattling notwithstanding). If every Hezbollah missile into Israel produced Israeli retaliation against Syria, and possibly Iran (including its nuclear production sites), Syria and Iran would be forced to make Hezbollah stop.

^^big assumption here^^

Obviously, this is a last-ditch option. It would escalate the conflict and increase international pressure on Israel to desist."

"All of Israel's strategic choices are bad or ineffective or undesirable. And yet this last option would be the most likely to reestablish the deterrence critical to Israel's long-term survival — and to peace in the region — by demonstrating Israel's enduring power to compel an end of attacks.

^^big assumption here too^^

And it might prevent still more massive devastation of Lebanon."

As I mentioned before, there is a BIG assumption of military effectiveness in all of this military talk.

It's not clear how Israel is going to compel anybody to do anything. The last time they went into Lebanon, they had ground forces south of Beirut in days. This time they are trying to dig hisballa out of an area less than ten kilometers over the border.

Israel will have to take and hold ALL of Lebanon for a long period in order to root-out hisballa. That's a tall order.

Then we are going to attack Syria? And Iran?

This sounds like the type of military ideas dubya got from rumsfield for Iraq.

Now, if you are suggesting as a strategy Israel rally international support and allies like the America and NATO take-on Syria and Iran while Israel tangles with hisballa in Lebanon, then we are back to the problem of Dubya's strategic incompetence in prosecuting the war on terror.

As Captain Jack Sparrow said: "..there's only what a man can do...and what he can't do..."

Dubya's is on his butt.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

If the Iranian leaders have shown anything over the last 30 years it is that they know how to seize every opportunity, and turn bad events into something good.

The seizure of the US embassy was seen by most in Iran as a huge disaster, but US wavering, and Iranian opportunism, turned defeat into victory for the mad mullahs.

I believe they will do so again in Lebanon. True, Alexandra, this has been a huge tactical defeat for Iran, but I believe any ceasefire that does not disarm, punish and humiliate Hizb'allah, and extract painful compensation from them, will be a victory for Iran.

I suspect the Iranians are watching closely to see how they can parlay this fiasco into yet more prestige, more Jew-hatred, more anti-Western hysteria. And most importantly, I believe if Hizb'allah is allowed to take over Lebanon in all but name, Iran will begin the process of the "Lebanisation" of Iraq. It is just a matter of time before Sadr is crowned King of the new Iraqi Hizb'allah, standing ready, aye ready to take on the twin evils of Sunni barbarism, and US "expansionism".

The Sunni depravity in Iraq is exactly what Iran needs to complete the strategic encirclement of Jordan and Israel by basket-case countries, so wait and see how the outcome in Lebanon affects Iraq's future. And of course an Israel surrounded by Shiite Hizb'allah states (I'm thinking Jordan could well collapse in time too) would be well on the way to being bogged down in a frontier war of attrition that she can only win by massive targeting of enemy civilians.

[Michael van der Galien]

Alexandra, I share thoughts that Iran might very well be up to something dramatic. Of course 22nd august is the day that Muhammed, I think?, left the world to go to heaven, so to speak. I believe it was him at least, or was it that 12th Imam?

Anyhoo: Iran might start a larger war, but, on the other hand, Ahmadinejad could also just give in. Maybe, he meant to 'win' from Israel once, before losing to the security council regarding WMD's.

Several theories are available.

[Brian]

Yes, we are all Jews now. My strong feelings of support for Israel are heightened to the point of anger these past few weeks as I see the manipulation of domestic and int'l media, the open anti-Semitism coming from our political left (not to mention the U.N. and the "world community"), and the continued inability of the world to understand that what is happening to Israel is a perfect example of what the near future holds for the civilized world if it does not fight back, and fight back with extreme malice, against the forces of Islamic fascism.

Lebanon's PM Siniora is useless to the world. Yesterday, I felt both contempt and sorrow for the man as he sobbed in front of a conference of Arab leaders. His behavior can't exactly elicit confidence at this critical time. Yet, he is in a terrible position anyway -- he's got Hezbollah agitating to take over the military function of his country, and he has Syria and Iran assuring him that he can go the way of Rafiq al Hariri if he steps out of line. Again, he's useless. The best thing to do for once is to let both sides fight it out till a winner emerges.

As goes Israel, goes the U.S. The Liberman/Lamont primary today may just be a referendum on Israel as much as on Iraq.

[Alexandra]

Antimedia,

What a thought.

[antimedia]

Alexandra, it has been little noted in the press that August 22nd is an important day for Muslims. That is the day of the Al-Aqsa Mosque fire, an event that is used by Muslims everywhere to denounce Israel. Like many events in the Middle East, the lies told about the event have become "the truth" about the event. It can hardly be considered coincidence that Ahmadinejad set August 22nd as the date for Iran's response. August 22nd has more significance than than "just" the Al-Aqsa fire, however.

August 22 is Rajab 28 in the Islamic calendar. This is a special date. Rajab 28 is the date the mighty and glorified Saladin entered and conquered Jerusalem (in A.D. 1187), putting the city under Islamic rule, a hallowed event in Islamic history.

Adding to that, as Joshua Pundit points out, August 22 (Rajab 28) is also the date

the Imam Husayn (who started Shia Islam and who is revered as the precurser of the Hidden 12th Imam) started his journey to Karbala from Medina. And on the eve 27th of Rajab (August 21st) Mohammed allegedly ascended to heaven in the famous `night journey' from Jerusalem, which Muslims commemorate as the Lailatul Mi'raj.

Ahmadinejad said recently that Israel has "pushed the button of its own destruction" because of its actions in Lebanon.

Is August 22nd the day when Iran will use nuclear weapons on Israel? We will know in two short weeks.