Nick Kristof provides an object lesson in the perils of reasoning by analogy in his latest column, portions of which we will liberate from TimesSelect. His theme is that Israel's problem with Hezbollah and Hamas can be compared to the British problem with the IRA or the Spanish problem with Basque separatists. When you finish blinking, riddle me this - doesn't the analogy wobble a bit on the point that Hezbollah and Hamas are committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, not to the separation of their own territory from Israel?
Here we go, with rhetorical questions afterward:
Spanish Lessons for Israel
In 1982, many friends of Israel vigorously supported its invasion of Lebanon, arguing that it was only assuring its own security.
In retrospect, though, that assault undermined the long-term security of Israel. The invasion spawned Hezbollah, whose perceived success in driving Israel out of Lebanon encouraged Hamas and other Palestinian groups to adopt more violent tactics.
Today again, Israel believes that it is improving its long-term security by attacking Lebanon. And once again, I believe, that will prove counterproductive.
...
More broadly, one reason this bombardment — like the invasion in 1982 — is against Israel’s own long-term interest has to do with the way terrorism is likely to change over the next couple of decades.
In the past, terror attacks spilled blood and spread fear, but they did not challenge the survival of Israel itself. At some point, though, militant groups will recruit teams of scientists and give them a couple of years and a $300,000 research budget, and the result will be attacks with nerve gas, anthrax, or “dirty bombs” that render areas uninhabitable for years.
All this suggests that the only way for Israel to achieve security is to reach a final peace agreement, involving the establishment of a Palestinian state (because states can be deterred more easily than independent groups like Hamas). Such an agreement is not feasible now, but it might be five or 15 years from now. Israel’s self-interest lies in doing everything it can to make such a deal more likely — not in using force in ways that strengthen militants and make an agreement less likely.
...
On the other hand, there are two democracies that endured constant and brutal terrorism and eventually defeated it. Neither Spain nor Britain was in a situation quite like Israel’s (Palestinian terrorists have been more brutal in attacking civilians), but they still offer useful lessons. And both the Northern Ireland and Basque problems were often considered insoluble a couple of decades ago, perhaps even more than those in the Middle East today.
Spain could have responded to terror attacks by sending troops into the Basque country, or by bombing the sanctuaries that ETA guerrillas used just across the border in France. (France was blasé about being used as a terrorist base.) Instead, Spain gave autonomy to the Basque country and restrained itself through gritted teeth, over the objections of those who thought this was appeasement.
Likewise, Britain endured constant bombings by the I.R.A., which enjoyed support in both Ireland and the U.S. and obtained weapons and Semtex plastic explosive from Libya.
Yet Margaret Thatcher didn’t bomb Dublin (or Boston), nor even the offices of the I.R.A.’s political wing in Northern Ireland. When she saw that Britain’s harsh tactics were strengthening support for the I.R.A., the Iron Lady moderated her approach and negotiated the landmark Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985. At the time, that agreement was widely denounced as rewarding terrorists and showing weakness.
Frankly, neither British nor Spanish restraint was a huge or immediate success. Spain had hoped that democracy would end Basque terrorism; instead, it increased. And Mrs. Thatcher acknowledges in her memoirs that her results were “disappointing.”
Yet in retrospect, the softer approach gave London and Madrid the moral high ground and slowly — far too slowly — isolated terrorists and made a negotiated outcome more feasible. That’s why Britain and Spain are today peaceful, against all odds.
That admirable restraint should be the model for Israel, with the aim of making a comprehensive peace agreement more likely — in 2010 or 2020 if not in 2007. The record of Spain and Britain suggests that restraint and conciliation can seem maddeningly ineffective — but they are still the last, best hope for peace.
Uhh, kidding? Let's ask a few questions - did the Basques really hope to liberate Madrid and turn all of Spain into Basque-land? Were they supported by several hundered million like-minded Basques in the region? Was invading, or bombing, France, really an option?
And for the Irish - did Sinn Fein, the IRA political wing, ever become the second largest party in Ireland (Hezbollah has the second largest number of seats in the Lebanon parliament, per this post.) Was bombing Dublin a serious option for the British? Did "Brits Out" mean that it was the goal of IRA separatists to liberate England and Scotland from British rule, or simply to move "the Brits" out of six counties in Northern Ireland?
More broadly - did the IRA or the Basque separatists pose an existential threat to Spain or the United Kingdom? And doesn't that make a difference? The Israelis left both the Gaza and southeren Lebanon, yet the violence did not end - does that mean anything?
Nick Kristof,
You said it best. No reasoning was available to him...just plain scary wrong! I really just don't understand some of these journalists (except to say that he works for NY Times).
Posted by: Deagle | July 23, 2006 at 12:02 PM
Aren't the margins of this blog green from your support for the Cedar Revolution? Didn't you used to post Lebanese protest babe pictures?
Do you think those chicks are now cheering for Israeli bombing to wipe out Hezbollah?
Perhaps we could make all those Cedar revolution protesters our allies in a campaign of isolating Hezbollah, and some initial restraint might have accomplished that goal better than bringing misery to Beirut.
We'll never know though since mindless WWW III warmongering is all the rage.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 12:10 PM
You gotta love the peaceniks. I wonder if they will advocate sitting back and taking it when it comes to a neighborhood near them.
Posted by: Jane | July 23, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Au contraire dear, I just think the actions of you and your pals is exactly what's going to ensure it does come to a neighborhood near me.
Why worry about peaceniks anyway? Bush is president for the next 2 and 1/2 years. Is he not sufficeiently warmongerish for you?
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 12:45 PM
So according to Kristof Isreal can mollify Hizbollah be granting them an autonomous state in southern Lebabon.
Where has Nick been these last 6 years?
Posted by: Jos Bleau | July 23, 2006 at 12:47 PM
martin, like the denizens of SF, the Lebanese partied on in Beirut by pointedly ignoring what was going on elsewhere. Reality bites.
And I say that as someone who supports the Cedar Revolution and likes the Lebanese people. It should have been clear to the more lucid among them that without engaging Syria and Hezbollah more directly ,Hezbollah was going to take out Israel and then the Sunnis and Christians in Lebanon.
As I understand it all financial support and contact between the Lebanese elite and the Arab neighbors was with and for the Sunnis. The Shias were left to their own devices allowing Iran (thru Hezbollah) a clear to use social welfare programs to recruit members.
Posted by: clarice | July 23, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Martin sez: >Bush is president for the next 2 and 1/2 years. Is he not sufficeiently warmongerish for you?
Uh, no he is not, actually.
I think if Hesbollah wants to demonstrate their ability to use rockets against enemies then Shrub ought to follow suit.
Lofting a rocket from Nebraska to denonate a mile or so above Hesbollah's heads
...
Posted by: pouncer | July 23, 2006 at 12:59 PM
"Perhaps we could make all those Cedar revolution protesters our allies in a campaign of isolating Hezbollah..."
Good idea. Now lets see how would one go about isolating Hiz'b Allah?
First you would bomb the major transportation corridors out of Lebanon to isolate the terrorists and then you would bomb them and kill them. Sounds like Israel is taking your advice.
Unless of course you meant 'isolate' as in voluntarily confine them to a geopgraphical location with access to Syria and the ability to do whatever they please when no one is looking. They were already isolated in that way.
There is nothing new under the sun. There will always be thugs who want to kill their neighbors and there will always be people who think if you just apply a little diplomacy to murderers they will see the light.
Posted by: Barney Frank | July 23, 2006 at 01:00 PM
Wrong Barney Frank. Let's quote the roll filled mouth of our own president Bush as to what could work:
"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hizbullah to stop doing this shit and it's over"
Was Bush right or wrong?
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 01:31 PM
Give that man a math degree!
Posted by: Extraneus | July 23, 2006 at 02:01 PM
In the span of a couple paragraphs, Kristof points out the likelihood of Hezbollah developing dirty bombs and like (putting aside the assumption that they don't already have them) and then casually instructs restraint for, oh, say, 10 or 20 years. And if Hezbollah uses the fruit of its r & d budget in the meantime? Well, Nick couldn't have seen that coming -- it didn't happen in the textbook IRA and ETA cases.
Kristof and so many others are getting stuck on form over substance. Yes there's a "government" in Lebanon and an "army." But they exist at the mercy of Hezbollah. Given Hez's training, armaments and ability to use them -- which has surprised scores of military analysts here and in Israel -- coupled with the Iranian and Syrian material support, it is clear that for all practical purposes Hez IS Lebanon. The "government" and "army" exist only so long as Hez (i.e. Iran) allow them to. Israel's use of force is not "strenghening militants" per Kristof. Israel is fighting a hostile STATE on its border which has attacked it. And contrary to Kristof, a peace agreement is NOT the only solution -- it's not a solution at all -- because as long as Hezbollah controls Lebanon there is no Lebanon that will agree to anything with Israel.
Posted by: brutus | July 23, 2006 at 02:12 PM
Easy for Martin to counsel the Israelis to exercise restraint--he isn't facing a radical, well-armed state-within-a-state on his border, one which is openly dedicated to his nation's outright destruction. He further counsels the "diplomatic solution." As someone recently observed here, "Gee, why didn't we think of that before?"
Posted by: Other Tom | July 23, 2006 at 02:18 PM
Martin wants to hold hands and offer everyone a coke and smile.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | July 23, 2006 at 02:24 PM
"Was Bush right or wrong?"
He was absolutely correct. I'm glad you're seeing reason.
Now how do we get Syria to cooperate? Empty threats? Shuttle diplomacy?
How about if Israel starts killing their proxies until Syria cuts their losses, which of course is exactly what Israel is doing.
Posted by: Barney Frank | July 23, 2006 at 02:30 PM
A round up of the dog didn't bark stories (about how the Arabs aren't doing their usual blame Israel song and dance.) http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008689
Posted by: clarice | July 23, 2006 at 02:44 PM
Gee-maybe some high level creative diplomacy could play the Arabs off the Iranians?
Furthermore, I see on Fox News that Bush is meeting this very minute with Saudi Arabian officials as a backdoor to negotiations with Syria.
Seems like (for now) Bush is shying away from Kristol's and Gingrich's dog whistle into war.
Never fear-it won't work and you guys will get the war for which you pine.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 03:07 PM
How about if Israel starts killing their proxies until Syria cuts their losses, which of course is exactly what Israel is doing.
Martin probably got his talking points from CNN this morning....
First the stick, then the carrot
Funny how all of a sudden the Hizziefits and Syria want to negotiate all of a sudden.
Rice will take her time and then tell Syria to either cut loose from the mullahs or the F16s with the blue stars will be dropping by with some presents.
Posted by: windansea | July 23, 2006 at 03:10 PM
Well, Kristof's article does serve a purpose for me because I find it puzzling that otherwise intelligent people think the way he does!! Now I know why.
Next: explain moonbats!
Posted by: noah | July 23, 2006 at 03:13 PM
As I say-don't worry you vampires-bllod is forthcoming. Just look at the state to which Iraq has devolved -60 dead and 200 wounded just today. It's clear that Condi's peacemaking skills are virtually nil. Bombs are our only option.
Just like terrorists.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 03:21 PM
Just look at the state to which Iraq has devolved -60 dead and 200 wounded
And that bloodshed was caused by the terrorists and Baathist insurgents trying to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iraq.
I do hope that you condemn those elements and the actions that they've taken?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | July 23, 2006 at 03:25 PM
Unfortunately its a New Coke too.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | July 23, 2006 at 03:28 PM
Martin, I am guessing here and am assuming that you want us to pull out of Iraq like yesterday? Would that stop the violence in Iraq? If so, what is your evidence?
And if you believe THAT fairy tale, I suppose you buying Kristof's or do you have one of your own?
Posted by: noah | July 23, 2006 at 03:37 PM
No you idiot I fully support terrorist's bombing innocent people to death.
What is it with you guys? You show the slightest deviation from 100% Bush support or a slightly less than 100% desire for blood, and you get branded a "peacenik" or now an actual terrorist supporter.
I do believe we are in a war on terror. I do want to win it. I just think our current leadership is losing it.
If you missed it, the old guard conservatives, e.g. Will and Buckley are catching on to this too. Buckley just said if Bush was a prime minister he'd be forced to resign. Buckley is right. Get with it. It's not just moonbats anymore you have to denigrate.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 03:37 PM
No you idiot I fully support terrorist's bombing innocent people to death.
I never accused you of supporting them. I was wondering if you would simply condemn them. It appeared in your comment that you believed the cause of the violence in Iraq was the Bush Administration.
You do recognize that there are folks who believe that the actions by the insurgents are legitimate acts?
Some of them even post here. If you're not in the crowd, good for you.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | July 23, 2006 at 03:42 PM
What is it with you guys? You show the slightest deviation from 100% Bush support or a slightly less than 100% desire for blood, and you get branded a "peacenik" or now an actual terrorist supporter.
gosh Martin...just upthread you called us terrorists
you are probably too young to realize we have been on the negotiating merry go round a few times before
Posted by: windansea | July 23, 2006 at 03:43 PM
Who did I call a terrorist? Your reading comprehension skills are zero.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 03:44 PM
Martin, ok so you believe we are in a war against terror. Good.
1) Should we withdraw from Iraq? Now?
2) Should we push for a ceasefire in Lebanon?
3) If Syria should attack Israel should we support Israel militarily?
4) What are your policy prescriptions toward Iran? Syria?
Thanks
Posted by: noah | July 23, 2006 at 03:44 PM
Who did I call a terrorist?
Well, you've made a number of posts accusing folks of being "war mongers" and blood thirsty vampires.
Not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people. Or win an argument.
And yes, you've been at the receiving end of some barbs too. But don't be surprised if folks don't send you flowers after accusing them of being blood thirsty war mongers.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | July 23, 2006 at 03:47 PM
-Bombs are our only option.
Just like terrorists.-
Posted by: topsecretk9 | July 23, 2006 at 03:50 PM
TopSecret, I'll repeat-if you think that calls us terrorists-your reading comprehension skills are zero as well.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 03:52 PM
Martin, but where do you stand? C'mon man take a stand? Hard to tell if you are a Kristof liberal or a raving moonbat otherwise...inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: noah | July 23, 2006 at 03:55 PM
Martin:
your reading comprehension skills are zero as well.
Please.
Okay, you didn't explicitly call them terrorists. Simply blood thirsty vampire-like war mongers.
Not exactly a Hallmark Greeting Card slogan.
Right?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | July 23, 2006 at 03:56 PM
I imagine it's a nice warm feeling to be purely anti-war, as long as one's reasons are pure. I know I'm anti-war, except when confronted with threatening, bloodthirsty wackos from a death cult who announce their intentions, begin to carry out their plans, and appear poised to step it up to the point that the lives of our children and our way of life are imperiled. Then I'm pro-war, and inclined to an offensive strategy. Those who are anti-war about this war because they're anti-American and/or anti-Semitic and/or greased with oil money and/or otherwise allied with our enemies aren't quite so pure, of course, but it's hard to compartmentalize everybody spewing faulty logic and leftist talking points. It could be that they have the best of intentions.
Posted by: Extraneus | July 23, 2006 at 03:56 PM
The point of that comment is that we are better than terrorists: oh well, I'll explain it then-
See we are not terrorists. Bombs in fact are not our only option. They are for terrorists.
So if we get to a point where bombs are our only option, we'd be -in that limited sense- just "LIKE" terrorists.
We still would not be terrorists since presumably we'd not target innocents. And before further conniptions erupt, there'a lots of ways you can be like terrorist- be a human, eat , sleep, etc. and not be a terrorist.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 03:57 PM
Steve MG - with "bloodthirsty" I'm referring especially to Kristl's article "Our War" abnd the whackier commenters on Fox who wants us -the U.S. military, not just bombs, but ground troops, to invade Syria, Iran, and wh knows where else.
Soory dude, but if that's not "bloodthirsty" I don't know what is.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 03:59 PM
BTW, my answers are: 1) no 2) no 3) yes and 4) who the hell knows
Posted by: noah | July 23, 2006 at 04:00 PM
Soory dude, but if that's not "bloodthirsty" I don't know what is
But the comment was directed here, not at Kristol.
It seems to me that a fair reading of your posts could only conclude that your were directing them at other posters. You didn't say, "What Kristol is advocating is blood thirsty et cetera".
That's why you got the less than open-armed welcome (ahem).
Granted, we're using a medium - posting on a blog - that leads to misreading and mis-interpretation. You misunderstood my comment above, for example. We all use shorthand that tends to be a poor method of conducting a conversation.
Just say: "Sorry folks, my harsh judgment was directed at Kristol's plan".
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | July 23, 2006 at 04:04 PM
Thanks Martin...I know now that you stand for virtually nothing except platitudes and half-baked accusations of others based on what people say on FOX!
Posted by: noah | July 23, 2006 at 04:04 PM
martin,
Killing terrorists is a presumptive good.
The burden of proof is on those who advocate a different path. You haven't begun to meet that burden.
Posted by: Barney Frank | July 23, 2006 at 04:10 PM
Hezbollah is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian Revolution
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 04:15 PM
Noah-here goes:
Let me tell you my primary emphasis-the physical safety and continued prosperity of the United States-and by extension me.
In the Federalist papers #7, they argue for the creation of this very Republic because a confederation is more likely to get dragged into the "pernicious labyrinths" of European wars.
The Middle East is just one big pernicious labyrinth.
To answer your questions:
1) Get out of Iraq. Hell yeah. Get out of the whole middle east. We should also cut Israel loose an as ally. They have nukes right? They choose to live in a shitty neighborhood, let them deal with it.
2) Ceasefire? See above, Israel is on its own. Let them and the Arabs make their own deal or no deal.
3) Nope. Israel is a big boy.
4) No reason to treat Iran any different than Soviet Russia-containment. Stalin was worse than Hitler btw. If they attack us-or even look like they will-of course we attack them.
5) As a bonus- I say we let terrorists take over Saudi Arabia. Let them have their theocratic state. And -if there any terrorist attacks-we have an actual country to attack for real reasons.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 04:16 PM
Spanish lessons — Um, that would be the Spain whose prime minister just posed in a Kheffiyeh, right?
Posted by: richard mcenroe | July 23, 2006 at 04:22 PM
Martin:
Noah-here goes
The old head-in-the-sand approach?
Sorry for the snark; but this is 2006 and not 1806.
Okay, back-to-back snarks.
What you advocate, my friend, is just not realistic anymore. It's quite appealing, granted. But the oceans can't protect us; we live in a global and inter-connected world. One that leads to events over there directly affecting us over here.
Didn't we try this in 1937?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | July 23, 2006 at 04:23 PM
No-think 1967 Steve MG-
a whole war in the middle east we stayed out of.
And a war in SE Asia where none of our objectives were met, and 40 years later, do we even care what is going on in Vietnam?
90% of America couldn't locate Vietnam on a map today.
Why should that not be the case for Iraq in 2047?
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 04:26 PM
Furthermore, I see on Fox News that Bush is meeting this very minute with Saudi Arabian officials as a backdoor to negotiations with Syria.
Well, that's all right then. All we have to do is get Syria to reduce the number of rockets they transship to Hizbullah, and everything'll be fine, eh?
So if we get to a point where bombs are our only option, we'd be -in that limited sense- just "LIKE" terrorists.
So if we were like, in a real shooting war, with bullets and everything, we'd be just like terrorists (in that limited sense, of course)? Is this what passes for strategic thought on the left?
Soory dude, but if that's not "bloodthirsty" I don't know what is.
How about kidnapping people to cut their heads off as a political expression? Or is that, like flag-burning, free speech?
If they attack us-or even look like they will-of course we attack them.
Bad news for ya dude, they "look like they will." And, following your advice, we just pulled our army out from the perfect staging area across the border. What do you suggest now? (Please include a landing plan for the Marines who no longer have a land base to operate from.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | July 23, 2006 at 04:28 PM
--They choose to live in a shitty neighborhood, let them deal with it.--
Hmmm. How nuanced.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | July 23, 2006 at 04:31 PM
Thanks Martin. I applaud you for taking a stand.
Of course a case can be made that Iran has already committed and is currently committing acts of war against Israel...so maybe Israel should nuke Iran. None of our business correct? I suspect you wouldn't like it but its their call...right?
Hell's bells none of the world's business is our business, so we should just let the UN take care of everything.
NATO...finito.
Etc. Just think how much money we can save...just maintain nuclear deterrence. Sounds sort of like Pat Buchanan. Fortress America. Might not be the label you like but thats where you are.
Posted by: noah | July 23, 2006 at 04:32 PM
"Gee-maybe some high level creative diplomacy could play the Arabs off the Iranians?"
God save us from another half arsed ignoramus.Do you know what diplomacy is Martin? It is horse trading,to do that you have to have a horse.
Peacemaking isn't sitting down with a spliff and a beer,it is about spelling out what the alternative to peace is,if you don't have an alternative, there is no reason for those you negotiate with to change their ways.
Right now,the Middle East is making bets on who will prevail,the US or Iran,then they will see who they can screw over with impunity.They are aware that Iran will shown no mercy if the US does not prevail,that there is prospect of a nuclear armed Greater Iranian Islamic sphere of influence fro Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. All hinges on whether Iran's proxy Hezbollah prevails or Israel manages to defang this Iranian army of occupation in the Lebanon.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 04:32 PM
"As I say-don't worry you vampires-bllod (sic)
Would that be Bllod the Impaler Martin?
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 04:34 PM
Knowing it would too much to ask of "Martin et al to read
this report by Wallis Phares a contributing expert to MSNBC, home of Olberman and Matthews for "lefty street cred":
HIZBOLLAH’S IRANIAN WAR IN LEBANONBy Walid Phares
......
The crisis years
From when the American public mobilized against Terrorism in general to the first US-led intervention in Afghanistan, Tehran’s leaders got extremely nervous about the changes hitting their neighborhood. Any democracy anywhere around them is a bad omen. When the Taliban regime was removed from Kabul in 2001, Tehran’s Khumenists witnessed the rise of women in the electoral process and within the Afghani Government. Iranian leaders understood the future implications at home. When Saddam’s regime was removed from Baghdad, Khamenei’s elite wasn’t unhappy with the removal, but with the multi party process that followed, even though they succeeded in inserting their influence in it. And when UNSCR 1559 was voted calling on Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon and Hizbollah’s disarming, both Tehran and Damascus felt the heat pressuring their joint influence on the Eastern Mediterranean. The Syrian Baathist reaction to the new era was quick with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri on February 14, 2005. Assad paid a dear price for this fast drawing and shooting against his opponents in Lebanon. In March of that year, and despite an attempt by Hezbollah to shore up popular support to the Syrian President inside Lebanon, one million and a half citizens marched in the street of Beirut, shattering the myth of both Syrian “brotherly” occupation and Hizbollah’s untouched position in the country. With the political weakening of its allied organization by the public and the pulling out of Damascus’ regular troops from Lebanon, Iran’s regime mobilized for the counter regional attack. Hezbollah readied for its role in the general Jihadi offensive.
The counter offensive:
The Jihadi Syro-Iranian offensive started simultaneously in early 2005, with the Hariri assassination in Lebanon and the selecting of Mahmoud Ahmedinijad as head of the Islamic Republic in Tehran. In Lebanon and as the pro-Syrian Government collapsed, new elections were held and an anti-Syria majority was established, Hezbollah executed a sophisticated one year plan in preparation for the war launched in July 2006. It began with Nasrallah imposing on the Seniora Government a strange offer: taking three members of the Party into his cabinet, while Hezbollah maintains a strategic relation with Syria’s regime. That success brought other moves forward. For six months, political leaders and journalists of the Cedars Revolution were assassinated with car bombs: Samir Qassir, George Hawi and Gebran Tueni. This sufficed to convince the anti-Syrian politicians that any serious obstruction of the Iranian-Syrian axis and opposition to Hezbollah will be “punished.” The terror treatment seemed to have worked, as the Government was forced to abandon the implementation of UNSCR 1559 and have its components sit down with Hezbollah to “discuss” the future of its weapons. In short, it took Nasrallah and his allies less than a year to contain and weaken the Cedars Revolution and the Government it has produced. Twelve months passed after Syria’s withdrawal from the country, and yet the Lebanese army was not allowed by Hezbollah’s veto power inside the Seniora cabinet to deploy along the borders or even inside the sensitive area of south Lebanon. Strategically, Hezbollah absorbed the consequences of the Syrian withdrawal, penetrated the Government and along with pro-Syrian politicians created further divisions within Lebanon’s religious communities, including within Sunni, Druze and Christian political establishments.
Regional acceleration
pushed Iran and Syria to press their allies in Lebanon and in Palestine for havoc. ......
.....
The death of the Cedars Revolution:
In a few months,number of leading politicians and journalists were savagely murdered by the pro-Syrian camp: Syrian intelligence, Hezbollah and other groups were suspected as being behind the assassination campaign. In parallel, Hezbollah and its allies outmaneuvered the parliamentary majority, which was supposed to form an anti-Baathist Government, bring down the pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud and remove the pro-Syrian speaker of the House, Nabih Berri. A magic hand convinced the so-called politicians of the March 14 movement, that none of these measures is feasible. Hence Syria maintained its power in Lebanon, while U.S and French Presidents were singing the praise of the liberation of Lebanon. Furthermore, and in a suicidal move the Lebanese cabinet, headed by Fouad Seniora invited Hezbollah to join the Government, before the latter disarm. By the summer of last year, the Cedars Revolution was bleeding seriously. Not only entrenched in the legal Government of Lebanon, but Hezbollah succeeded in a penetration of the Christian community, the hardcore of the anti-Syrian resistance, by enlisting the former commander of the Lebanese Army who performed an about face after 10 years in exile, where he claimed opposition to Syria. Michel Aoun signed an agreement of “understanding” with Hassan Nasrallah during the spring of 2006. The “revolution” was beheaded and Hezbollah was waiting for the right time to operate its come back into the center of Lebanese politics, while executing the instructions of Tehran and Damascus.The “Waad al sadeq” operationBy early July 2006, Hezbollah’s preparations for the bloody return to the top were fulfilled. The organization had already accomplished its Lebanese tasks:1) Elimination (direct or in conjunction with Syrian intelligence or Syrian Social Nationalists) of visible symbols of anti-Syrian leadership: Tueni, Qassir and Hawi, and attempts against others such as May Chidiac, as an intimidation lesson to all others.2) Paralysis of PM Seniora’s cabinet from the inside and in cooperation with President Lahoud networks on the outside.3) Paralysis of the parliament in collaboration with speaker Berri and the Aoun bloc.4) Dragging the political forces in the country in the so-called national dialogue on the weapons of Hezbollah, a major waste of time and marginalization of the 1559 stipulation3) Intimidation of the Lebanese army command.4) Attempts to divide the Lebanese Diaspora by implanting agents linked to the axis. 5) Reactivation of the pro-Syrian and Jihadist networks in Lebanon and within the Palestinian camps.6) Distribution of weapons among allied militias7) Finally and most importantly, completing the final steps in the deployment of a system of rockets and long range artillery batteries aimed at Israel.
Most will want to read this very comprehensive paper by Wallis Phares and yesterday's columns by
Michael Ledeen and Victor Davis Hanson. Others in the "Martin" camp will great joy from Dinocrats
posting of the writings from the
Koran that refer to Jews as Pigs and Apes found by a young man from Pakistan who could not believe that "educated" Imams preached this nonsense.
What are chances someone will share
Phares paper with Kristoff?
Posted by: larwyn | July 23, 2006 at 04:35 PM
hey Cecil Turner -take it up with President Bush: quoting his own roll filled mouth:
"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hizbullah to stop doing this shit and it's over"
Landing bases for marines. What sort of lunatic are you. We retaliate in kind to Iran.
If they send their navy over here to land on the Virginia coast-then maybe we need to worry about a land invasion.
Otherwise-its bomb for bomb. How are they a threat to us anyway?
Headcutting? Yeah terrorist suck. Indians used to scalp people too. I think the Republic will suvive a few decapitations.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 04:36 PM
I think Cecil ought to be made national deprogrammer.
Posted by: clarice | July 23, 2006 at 04:36 PM
Hey, Clarice, I'm just back from work but I noticed a notice at American Thinker. I've been getting that defender message even with Firefox. Can you get the American Thinker webmaster to take another look into it?
Thanks!
Posted by: lurker | July 23, 2006 at 04:37 PM
whole war in the middle east we stayed out of.
Well, we pretty much let Israel do what they wanted for six days. Had the war dragged on or had Israel faced danger, I'm pretty sure that LBJ would have intervened. Certainly had the USSR stepped in, we would have had to get involved.
And again, that was six days.
Besides, that was pan-Arab nationalism against Israel. A much more localized threat. The danger today comes from Islamism, an ideology that unfortunately has its tentacles in at least three if not four continents.
Think of Nasser versus Sayyid Qutb.
Again, your idea is very appealing. It has some merits - a sort of neo-realism that given the limits of our power is a tenable alternative to what Bush is advocating (at least rhetorically if no longer militarily).
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | July 23, 2006 at 04:39 PM
Will do, lurker
Posted by: clarice | July 23, 2006 at 04:42 PM
As I say-don't worry you vampires-bllod is forthcoming. Just look at the state to which Iraq has devolved -60 dead and 200 wounded just today. It's clear that Condi's peacemaking skills are virtually nil. Bombs are our only option.
Just like terrorists.
ok...we're vampires just like terrorists :)
Posted by: windansea | July 23, 2006 at 04:42 PM
Windansea somebody was just talking about landing bases for marines to invade iran. That's a damn vampire.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 04:45 PM
Gotta go. Lost connection to DailyKos HQ. Hate me later.
Posted by: martin | July 23, 2006 at 04:49 PM
--Headcutting? Yeah terrorist suck. Indians used to scalp people too. I think the Republic will suvive a few decapitations.--
There is no terrorist threat?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | July 23, 2006 at 04:49 PM
I don't consider myself a war-monger, however, decades of avoiding the reckoning with radical Islam has made an awful situation even worse. There are no painless solutions. The West cannot continue with magical thinking.
Its a good time to revist Wretchard's sobering piece The Three Conjectures
The West has long had an appointment with the devil. Best deal with it now.
Posted by: Lesley | July 23, 2006 at 04:52 PM
Yes,I can see that an extreme theocratic state controllin all the vast oil reserves of the Middle East would have no effect on economies which run on oil.After all the Iranians are only teasing when they call for the destruction of the Great Satan.
Small problem with Israel,abandoned by the West,she might decide not to go quietly into the night,a choice between being slaughtered up close and personal by fanatics or reducing those selfsame fanatics to radio-active dust might just be weighted towards the latter.
Doesn't matter though,watch it all in isolationist splendour Stateside on CNN.Still why should you bother are you drive your ox-cart to work.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 05:01 PM
PUK
remind me to get the global wind and fallout patterns in case Martin gets elected Prez
Posted by: windansea | July 23, 2006 at 05:03 PM
Winansea,
Since the stuff floats round the stratosphere,you might be better relocating at a lower altitude.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 05:06 PM
"Otherwise-its bomb for bomb. How are they a threat to us anyway?"
Fascinating,241 Marines killed in Beirut,the Cole bombed,Hostages taken in Tehran,a low intensity war in Iraq,US foreign policy forced to change.
Yes, you will be OK as long as you don't upset the Mullahs.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 05:10 PM
I did ask Martin for his positions and he was kind enough to finally inform us. More than I can say for the usual troll.
But we already know what kind of support his position has...just look up Buchanan's vote totals in 2000.
That is not a refutation...just reality. If it were that simple I would say hell yes! Personally getting awfully sick of the Middle East!!
Posted by: noah | July 23, 2006 at 05:10 PM
I did ask Martin for his positions and he was kind enough to finally inform us. More than I can say for the usual troll.
But we already know what kind of support his position has...just look up Buchanan's vote totals in 2000.
That is not a refutation...just reality. If it were that simple I would say hell yes! Personally getting awfully sick of the Middle East!!
Posted by: noah | July 23, 2006 at 05:11 PM
WOW...finally achieved a dbl post! (And don't know how!)
Posted by: noah | July 23, 2006 at 05:12 PM
Windansea somebody was just talking about landing bases for marines to invade iran. That's a damn vampire.
Yeah, cuz only Ay-rab blood works in Matzoh balls. (Oh wait a minute, they're Persian, not Arab, and I ain't even Jewish . . . this isn't working at all.)
Hey martin, you just said "If they attack us-or even look like they will-of course we attack them. " But first, of course, you want to move out of the only place you can attack them from. Again, is this what passes for strategic thought on the left?
If you're incapable of discussing bases, deep water ports, and lines of supply, you are simply not competent to dicuss military options. And if you can't discuss military options, you probably ought not to hold forth on proper courses of actions in the War on Terror. You are, of course, free to yell "Vampire" at the top of your lungs (which is more than a bit of unintended humor, since it's the code word for an incoming hostile missile), and some will believe you're a high-minded man who's righteously offended. But some of us will just think you're a doofus talkin' out yer . . .
Posted by: Cecil Turner | July 23, 2006 at 05:17 PM
Well, since Martin is gone...the obvious answer is nuclear attack when threatened since we shall have given up any other means of responding. No dangerous entangling alliances, no Navy to threaten others, etc.
Posted by: noah | July 23, 2006 at 05:26 PM
Again, is this what passes for strategic thought on the left?
He says he supports the war on terror but also wants us to pull out of the Middle East.
Hmm.
And then he cites the Six-Day War in 1967 as a successful example of where we stayed out out of the conflict.
But that was a war between Israel and Arab nationalism. This is against Islamism, a wider-reaching ideology.
Then he says that if they attack us we strike back. But Hezbollah through Iran has repeatedly attacked us. Unless by "us" he means here in the US.
Y'now, I'm not sure what the hell he was arguing for.
I know he was against anything Bush says or does. And to the Left, apparently that's all that really counts.
Okay, who am I kidding? Not apparently. Explicitly.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | July 23, 2006 at 05:29 PM
PUK
I am as sea level as it gets ;)
Martin
Cecil sounds pissed and that vampire commin up your tail pipes means it's time to hit the eject button
Posted by: windansea | July 23, 2006 at 05:29 PM
. . . that vampire commin up your tail pipes . . .
Technically, it's an antiship cruise missile. But I'm down with the sentiment.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | July 23, 2006 at 05:32 PM
ISP check on aisle 'Martin' - Spammin' Sam is back.
KosolaKidz- dummer than three sacks of hammers and loudly proud of it.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 23, 2006 at 05:37 PM
"No dangerous entangling alliances, no Navy to threaten others,"
Why is it the leftist position always has the effect of leaving you defenceless,there is something more to this than pacifism or isolationism.
Iran has already made alliances with Venezuela,if Saudi Arabia fell to Iran that is a fair chunk of the worlds oil supplies under Iranian influence.
The other point is, the strategy that Martin proposed is exactly what the Mullahs want,the US out of the Middle East. One might almost think he was on the other side.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 05:39 PM
Iran caught red handed in smuggling nuclear material
OT
Bar association task force urges Congress to push for judicial review of Bush signing statements
Sigh, the 750 laws weren't really laws from what I was told. So what's the big deal?
Drudgereport points out that Bush has directed his counsel to beef up its activities in case the dems win the house. He is expecting the Dems to start investigations against him.
Posted by: lurker | July 23, 2006 at 05:48 PM
Rick Ballard, as I was reading Martin's posts, I wondered if this was Sam's sockpuppet. Guess the Kos Kids are training its posters plus Glenn Greenwald how to be sockpuppets so that they can troll the conservative blogs.
Posted by: lurker | July 23, 2006 at 05:51 PM
One might almost think he was on the other side.
Uncanny, isn't it?
Posted by: Extraneus | July 23, 2006 at 05:53 PM
Lurker.
Read Martin's 1:16pm,the kid has less brains than a dead squid,if somebody is using him as a sock puppet I hope they wear rubber gloves.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 05:56 PM
Martin's posts raise an interesting question.
Do lefties (and I suppose the isolationist right) truly not see the demographics and grand strategy the Islamists are engaging in and therefore think these are all mere brushfires or....
do they see them but choose to ignore ignore them so that they can pursue their peacenik proclivities regardless of reality?
Posted by: Barney Frank | July 23, 2006 at 05:57 PM
Syria says willing for talks with U.S. over Lebanon ceasefire
Posted by: Extraneus | July 23, 2006 at 06:03 PM
Barney, you're ascribing pure motives to them. I don't think they're all so pure. Maybe some, but not all.
Posted by: Extraneus | July 23, 2006 at 06:05 PM
Or Peter, one might think that there is some brain damage there.
I love that this is the same side that supports every wild enviro warning to provide fodder for their trial attorneys. They are so concerned about putting grocery store food into their mouths. Warnings warnings everywhere about the damage to you and what damage you can cause the unborn (those you haven't offed yet).
But - butts are fine way to express whatever even tho that is what made AIDS an epidemic. And
a lifestyle of recreational drugs is just fine, no threat to you or your unborn. Wonder how many of the visitors partake and how much their parents par-toked? No one wants to look into that.
Let's "give peace a chance" for another 3 or 5 years so that they can give us a "fair" fight?
I say brain damaged. These people don't remember that their side have been chanting "General Shinseki" for years now while praising Powell's doctrine.
Powell who so despised the "neocons" that he and his "Sir" couldn't get off their butts to go to Turkey
to make sure we also had an attack on Iraq from the North.
Now they want to send him to make peace in the MidEast along with Clinton, Albright, Richardson .....
Sorry for ranting - they just set my blood boiling with their uninformed and illogical "solutions".
Asking Martin to read the Phares piece must have been threatening.
Posted by: larwyn | July 23, 2006 at 06:10 PM
Or Peter, one might think that there is some brain damage there.
I love that this is the same side that supports every wild enviro warning to provide fodder for their trial attorneys. They are so concerned about putting grocery store food into their mouths. Warnings warnings everywhere about the damage to you and what damage you can cause the unborn (those you haven't offed yet).
But - butts are fine way to express whatever even tho that is what made AIDS an epidemic. And
a lifestyle of recreational drugs is just fine, no threat to you or your unborn. Wonder how many of the visitors partake and how much their parents par-toked? No one wants to look into that.
Let's "give peace a chance" for another 3 or 5 years so that they can give us a "fair" fight?
I say brain damaged. These people don't remember that their side have been chanting "General Shinseki" for years now while praising Powell's doctrine.
Powell who so despised the "neocons" that he and his "Sir" couldn't get off their butts to go to Turkey
to make sure we also had an attack on Iraq from the North.
Now they want to send him to make peace in the MidEast along with Clinton, Albright, Richardson .....
Sorry for ranting - they just set my blood boiling with their uninformed and illogical "solutions".
Asking Martin to read the Phares piece must have been threatening.
Posted by: larwyn | July 23, 2006 at 06:11 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | July 23, 2006 at 06:12 PM
Guess I am truly back!
Sorry! Grin
Posted by: larwyn | July 23, 2006 at 06:12 PM
Extraneus,
Obviously in Spain picking up tips on how to capitulate.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 06:15 PM
I did not post twice but had to hit the post button to try to get those "robot filter" letters to present one that I could see.
Posted by: larwyn | July 23, 2006 at 06:15 PM
larwinized :)
Posted by: windansea | July 23, 2006 at 06:16 PM
>do they see them but choose to ignore ignore them so that they can pursue their peacenik proclivities regardless of reality?
I don't think they get that far. Something - *anything* happens and they immediately think: "How can I blame Bush for this"? They like it quiet. As it was under Clinton. Then they didn't have to think what was going on in the middle east or anywhere else.
And see it worked. Because while the mid-east was a brewing cauldron in the '90's, they didn't know about it, thus making it all Bush's fault.
Posted by: Jane | July 23, 2006 at 06:18 PM
Barney,
"do they see them but choose to ignore ignore them so that they can pursue their peacenik proclivities regardless of reality?"
Barney they don't have children and grandchildren to think of.
Don't think that SS needs reformed either and that we can give it anyone and their families who cross the border.
No long range thoughts - brain damage.
Posted by: larwyn | July 23, 2006 at 06:22 PM
Barney,
The left are socaring and socially concerned that they are willing to kick this problem down the road for their children and grandchildren to pick up.It is really covert cowardice,"Peace in Our Time",or as it is known "Please don't let it happen whilst I'm about".
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 06:24 PM
PeterUK, yeah, checking out the bull-fights, too, I bet. I picked up on that comment, though, since it seemed to suggest that Syria was pledging to get into it if Israel enters Lebanon with ground troops. If that's the case, and if the overall GWOT strategy involves mixing it up with Syria, then maybe that's the next move. Not to be too much of a warmonger, but you can imagine a playground arrangement where Israel takes Syria on while big brother prevents Iran from interfering in a one-on-one.
I wonder if Israel knows where the WMDs are.
Posted by: Extraneus | July 23, 2006 at 06:31 PM
Extraneus,
Time for some hot pursuit across the Iraq - Syrian border.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 06:40 PM
"I wonder if Israel knows where the WMDs are."...Extraneus
I have thought about that.
Initial thought was that it would
only take a few Israeli hits in the Baakke valley and let the wind do the rest.
Then the world blames Israel for using WMD.
Then Iran is free to NUKE Israel.
This could have been the plan for burying Saddams' stuff in the valley. It protects them without being used as whoever tries to blast it needs to use the high thermal bombs that actually destroy it.
Are these what Israel needed ASAP?
Whole new line of thought here.
Many of Mil Strategy blogs have been discussing the fact that Israel has telegraphed all their moves. Ralph Peters thinks they've
lost. And many are saying that Israel Intel was bad and they were surprised by the weapons that HEZ had.
No buds, you were surprised. The Israelis have been telling us how dangerous this triangle was for years.
Posted by: larwyn | July 23, 2006 at 06:53 PM
..and here we go again, more constraints on Israel to engineer failure,were these lefties born with white flags in their mouths?
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 07:06 PM
BREAKING NEWS:
Israel has captured 2 Hezzies alive.
"they are now interrogating them"
to lead them to more weapons caches.
Wonder if Lindsey, McCain and Kennedy are already on the line demanding "Miranda Rights" be read and mint tea served?
Posted by: larwyn | July 23, 2006 at 07:08 PM
larwyn,
This is the first time Israel has faced a really well equipped and dug in guerrilla group. I suspect their learning curve is pretty steep.
Prior to this they have either faced molotov throwing, disorganized and under equipped Palestinians or standing Arab armies which have a historical propensity for rapidly converting from a standing army to a laying one.
Posted by: Barney Frank | July 23, 2006 at 07:10 PM
"BREAKING NEWS:
Israel has captured 2 Hezzies alive.
"they are now interrogating them"
I do hope they are being kind to them.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 23, 2006 at 07:16 PM
I think strategically, their hardest problem is limiting civilian casualties when their enemy is using those civilians as human shields and the propganda wing is working hand in glove with the media. (The latter more evidently in Europe.)
Posted by: clarice | July 23, 2006 at 07:17 PM
And CNN & their UN buddies are complaining about the "humanitarian aid corridor".
Last night during 3AM hour, a reporter on CNN Intl let slip that over 500,000 Israelis had "evacuated".
Dore' Gold this AM says more than 1,000,000 Israelis have evacuated
northern area.
Hmmmmmm. Could it be that when you don't buy into "victim" status you take care of your own?
Amazing that Israel builds bomb shelters for their citizens and Hezzies build bunkers for bombs.
Just ruins the fun in reporting good JEWS KILLED numbers. But
sure helps the JEWS ARE KILLERS/VAMPIRES (Hey isn't that
in the best selling "protocols of
zion" (correct the title for me)
Now we know where Martin got the idea.
Posted by: larwyn | July 23, 2006 at 07:18 PM