What the Hell Is Wrong With Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador?

Of all the irresponsible, dangerous bullshit...well just read

Lopez Obrador's "Legitimate Government"

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, convinced he won't be awarded the presidency, has vowed to create a parallel leftist government and is urging Mexicans not to recognize the apparent victory of the ruling party's Felipe Calderon.

While his party lacks the seats in Congress to block legislation, Lopez Obrador can mobilize millions to pressure his conservative rival to adopt the left's agenda or to clamp down and risk a backlash.

Both scenarios are possibilities as the former Mexico City mayor lays out plans to create his own government to rule from the streets, with the support of thousands who are already occupying protest camps throughout downtown Mexico City.

Some predict his parallel initiative which Lopez Obrador's supporters call the "legitimate government" could turn those protest camps into the core of a violent revolt, especially if the government tries to shut it down.

Such violence broke out in the southern city of Oaxaca after Gov. Ulises Ruiz sent police to evict striking teachers. Outraged citizens' groups joined the protests, setting fire to buildings and public buses, seizing radio and TV stations and forcing the closure of businesses in a city known throughout the world as a quaint tourist destination.

"Everything we do, from property taxes to permits to natural resources, will go through the 'legitimate government,'" said Severina Martinez, a school teacher from Oaxaca camped out in a tent in Mexico City's main Zocalo plaza. "We won't have anything to do with the official government."(...)

Lopez Obrador is encouraging his followers to disobey Calderon, whose 240,000-vote advantage was confirmed Monday by the country's top electoral court.(...)

Oh, this is not looking pretty. Sure they say it will be peacefull but how long before the clashes begin with Mexican police? The government of Mexico certainly should not be expected to simply allow the existence of a parallel government, it would be disaster.

Its a very delicate and precarious situation because, all assurances aside, if they do go through with it, IT WILL PROVOKE A RESPONSE EVENTUALLY by a Mexican government who will see its sovereignty, and legitimacy threatened by the mere existence of this "legitimate government" of Obrador. Some response will occur, and when that happens its very possible that it will provoke PRD supporters to violence, a scenario that spells trouble for Mexico.

Hopefully it can be sorted out with words before that happens (or at least before the crackdown begins), or that Obrador will be persuaded to forget about the alternative government. Or lets hope that, when push comes to shove, when the moment of truth arrives, that even most of Obrador's followers will not listen to Obrador but continue to recognize the official government of Mexico as the real government. Who knows?

Lopez Obrador and the PRD need to stop acting like the damn sore losers that they are. They got their chance to contest their elections, by the laws that govern such things in Mexico.
Obrador demanded a full recount because of accusations (no doubt some true) of elections tampering.

The problem is: The law does not allow for a full recound, only recounts of boxes where there is actual suspicion of tampering...Or is that only in precinct where tampering is claimed?
Well, in any case, the law is clear: No Full Recount. That is the law. You cannot go outside the law because you do not like the result. [An interesting note: Both sides lost votes due to vote tampering, apparently PRD does its share too. Even with that, these have been some of the cleanest elections in Mexico]

Lopez Obrador's demands for recounts outside the bounds of the law, his encouragement of the civil disturbance to support his illegal demand, and recently his idea to declare his own parallel government (again, outside the law) point us to a very distrubing trend in Obrador.

He has little regard for the rule of law, or of the laws themselves. If he thinks it helps him or if he wants to do something, it seems apparent that he cares very little if the law stands in his way. A respect for the rule of law is essential for any leader of a democracy and highlights some very disturbing tendencies in Obrador.

All one has to do is look at our own president, with his NSA warantless wiretapping program (outside the law), with his Presidential Signing Statements to overide the will of Congress contra the Constitution etc..., to see the danger of what a leader who does not respect the rule of law means when the leader of a nation.

My Thoughts on Iraq - Why We Must Stay

I've been thinking much about this very unpopular war lately...And I've come to a point in my thinking where I know I will be at some odds with many in the liberal blogosphere, as well as in some opposition to a majority of the American people. Before I explain that, let me make a few things clear for people.

I think the decision to invade Iraq was a horrible, horrible mistake. I believe that it was done without the evidence necessary to prove a WMD case, I never believed any of the "diplomacy" before the war was anything but the political equivalent of saying "gee gosh, I tried, I really did. Oh well now I have to go to war." I was against the invasion before the invasion began. The war has been a disaster to the US:

It has sapped billion of dollars from our Treasury, it has done much damage to our military and makes responding to threats elsewhere that much harder -- and makes any threats of force (a tool in statecraft) lack that much more credibility; We are bogged down, who believes we could launch another major invasion of anything? (Iran knows that)

What's more, it is clear that the planners and boosters where incompetent dolts who ran under false assumption such as "it will be easy, they will greet us as liberators" leading them to assume they would be in and out within months. That, in turn assured very little "Phase IV" (post-war/occupation) planning prior to the invasion, which in turn contributing to the horrible chaos and lack of progress that provided the perfect environment for an insurgency to grow in.

Further military tactical failures (emphasizing getting tough with Iraqis, intimidation, mass round-ups, detainee abuse and humiliation, as well as heavy use of conventional tactics) that eschewed classical counterinsurgency tactics to win Iraqi hearts and minds -- the goal of counterinsurgency -- in favor of "getting tough." The US has not changed its tactics until recently, allowing the insurgents to grow and for instability to increase for years.

The situation is pretty well messed up now and we know the people to blame.

With all that said, I've come to a point in my thinking where I am not really convinced that a immediate withdrawal nor a withdrawal within a year (or two) is a wise idea.

We have lost much through our invasion of Iraq, but we stand to damage ourselves, and the region a whole lot more by leaving Iraq before we can insure the Iraqi democracy can handle itself, and ensure that:

1) Iraq not remain a terrorist haven
2) Iraq not stabilize into civil war that could turn regional, with Sunni Arab nations fighting off their own energized Shia populations, a conflict that could involved Sunni nations and Shia nations such as Iran (at least through proxies).

Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, nor did it have anything to do with 9/11 or the war on terror. In fact, the invasion has created a new Afghanistan -- a new terrorist training ground and haven that did not exist in Iraq prior to the invasion and occupation. But that's the problem, while it wasn't a terrorist haven before, now it is. We cannot turn our back and allow terrorist to keep Iraq as their new Afghanistan. We cannot allow Iraq to continue down the path of failed states.

Whether we like it or not (and I don't), when we invaded Iraq we essentially invoked the Pottery Barn Rule that Colin Powell talked of:

--If you break it, you bought it--

If the US leaves, there will be civil war, Iraq will maintain a haven for terrorist, and it will come back to haunt us. There is so much that can go wrong, so many bad things that can happen if we leave. The problem is, things are not so peachy now. Its low-grade civil war now and the only thing that keeps the nation from going over the precipice is the US, and even then it might do so anyways.

If you are honest to your selves, and for those wanting withdrawal, ask yourselves:

Do you believe the US is better off with Iraq in full civil war, and/or as a terror haven, and/or a regional war sparked by the Sunni/Shia fighting in Iraq?

We may be better off in the short-term with the return of our soldiers, and cutting off the bleeding of US funds on occupation, but in the long-term I believe we would be worse off.

I want to be clear: I am not proposing "Staying the Course," it is precisely that course that has lead us down to the situation that we are in today. It is that "course" which has fed the insurgency, humiliated Iraqis, and turned them towards the insurgency. Like I've said before many times: Heavy handed tactics, abuse, humiliation, disproportional force -- it all serves to move Iraqis further down the recruitment pipeline. And insurgencies die without that continued flow of recruits and support.

What Do I Mean By Staying in Iraq, But Not "Staying the Course?"

What I want is for American tactics to change, for them to abide closely by counterinsurgency tactics: To win hearts and minds. A counterinsurgency tract means you:

1)Educate your troops to be culturally sensitive, taking such issues as the centrality of Honor in Arab society into account. This means, no mass round-ups, it means treating ALL prisoners or detainees with the utmost respect because as Thomas E. Rick (author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq) tells us:

"One of the keys to winning a counterinsurgency is to treat prisoners well because today's captive, if persuaded to enter politics, may become tomorrow's mayor or city council member."

I might add that, if innocent usually fence sitting Iraqis are detained but treated well and released if there is mistake, there is a lowered probability of them turning towards the insurgency. This means that when going into the houses of Iraqis, not to break things, not to point weapons at family, not using relatives as hostages, and not humiliate the head of the family in front of his children and wife, for which he would be required to regain his honor by taking arms against the US.

Its not an easy proposition, and it is exponentially more difficult now, so late in the occupation, than it would have been if done from the get go.

2) It means using more deliberate force that minimizes the amount of civilians getting hurt or killed. It means minimizing the destruction of properties. It means being educated enough to know that the insurgency and the occupation are after the same thing, the support of the Iraqi people. The insurgency will try and goad US soldiers (by firing from within crowds, using provocateurs in civilian demonstrations or events) to shoot at civilians. A good counterinsurgency does not let itself be goaded into undercutting its mission to win the Iraqi people.

3) US Troops must not live away from the people, locked away in large bases apart from the Iraqi people. It must eschew stationing troops in large bases and base them in smaller bases among the people, throughout occupied areas. To pick up and absorb the culture more, for the Iraqis and Americans to interact better, and to make it harder for insurgents to defend against US forces, by allowing a US response to come from multiple directions, as opposed from a well know, well defined direction (roads leading from a big base) which the insurgency will be prepared for. Such an arrangement would also make the planting of IED's much harder to accomplish for insurgents.

4) It must do a better job in training Iraqi forces; Using Special Forces Officers to train Iraqis as opposed to using regular troops, contractors, or guard units. Special Forces troops are taught to be culturally sensitive and knowledgeable because their missions by their natures involves more interaction with foreign languages and cultures. They are specialist in training foreign militias and armies and will produce better quality troops.

5) If the above is handled correctly, the task of reconstruction projects will become much easier, but the security situation must be better. If handled correctly the security situation will improve in these towns, projects will be possible and the US should invest heavily in those projects. As the Iraqis in other villages and towns see the improvements in security and infrastructure in these towns due to new US tactics, there will no doubt be more cooperation for US efforts in their other towns. The US will gain the support of more of the Iraqi people at the expense of the insurgency. The more the people support the US efforts, the harder it is for the insurgency to continue resisting the US occupation.

These are but a few ways to run a counterinsurgency. Even then success is never assured, but I believe we do owe it to Iraq to fix the mistakes we ourselves have helped cause. We also owe it to ourselves and our safety and wellbeing not to allow Iraq to remain a terror haven, to keep it from turning into a failed state, and to prevent further regional instability that a US pulled of Iraq would bring. Such an outcome could be disastrous for us and the whole world.

Editors Note: From here on out, postings of this blog will likely become less and less frequent as I begin classes on Tuesday Aug. 29. This promises to be one of the hardest, most intense semesters to date -- and likely my last semester before I graduate. This semester will be no joke. I'll still try and post at least twice a week though.

I hope what I wrote made people think. I know there will be some disagreement but if it made someone think than I will have no regrets in spending so much time and thought putting this post together.

Peace

So, How Wrong Do You Have To Be Before They Stop Listening To You?

It's something I wonder a lot when it comes to those pundits, politicians, pro-war guys who were all about this war: That it would be good for the US and the Middle East, that it would deal a blow to international terrorism, that we would be greeted as liberators and that Iraq would be a cakewalk. How could you not support that?

How can people be so damn wrong, about such important matters, so many times, and still have people listen to them? You don't reward idiots with poor track records with continued attention...the credibility of anything these people say should seriously be questioned. Yet it doesn't stop there; Now the same people who cheerleaded and brought you the Iraq war are now instigating and pushing for war with Iran? The nerve of these guys!

Not only that, but they don't seem to have learned any lessons from Iraq, namely, striking and invading Iran will not bring Iranians to side with the US and topple their own government. They are not going to come out and greet us as Liberators with flowers and candy.

Repeat for the Warmongers: They are not going to greet us as Liberators and it will not be a cakewalk.

We have our plates full with Iraq at the moment...I say the US military should focus on that for the time being.

For example of how wrong you can be -- and in the case of Glenn Reynolds how deluded you have to be to insist that he still thinks he was correct by saying the following: From April 11, 2003

"FOR SUCH AN ADVANCED SPECIES, THEY SURE KNOW HOW TO RUB IT IN."-- Marge Simpson

Yeah, there has been a lot of pro-war gloating. And I guess that Dawn Olsen's cautionary advice about gloating is appropriate. So maybe we shouldn't rub in just how wrong, and morally corrupt the antiwar case was. Maybe we should rise above the temptation to point out that claims of a "quagmire" were wrong -- again! -- how efforts at moral equivalence were obscenely wrong -- again! -- how the antiwar folks are still, far too often, trying to move the goalposts rather than admit their error -- again -- and how an awful lot of the very same people who spoke lugubriously about "civilian casualties" now seem almost disappointed that there weren't more -- again -- and how many people who spoke darkly about the Arab Street and citizens rising up against American "liberators" were proven wrong -- again -- as the liberators were seen as just that by the people they were liberating. And I suppose we shouldn't stress so much that the antiwar folks were really just
defending the interests of French oil companies and Russian arms-deal creditors.
It's probably a bad idea to keep rubbing that point in over and over again.

Nah.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald links this post in the -- as usual -- deluded notion that it proves his point. I've responded here.

So how wrong can you be?

Gleen Greewald found these ridicolous right-winger posts

PS: I have been brewing over the situation in Iraq for a while now...I will share my thoughts in a post later today. You might be surprised at what I say.

All the Stuff I've Been Too Lazy to Blog About

Yeah...well, I'm finding it hard to keep blogging on a daily basis, sometimes you feel like it and sometimes you just want to read a book or not type, or have a beer, or play poker and then watch cartoons *ahem* I mean CNN. (phew). Usually I can do it all AND blog, but dammit...

Oh oh, my eyes are getting a little droppy so I better make this a quickie:

From a couple days back (the backlog is that long): Syria threatens to close its border into Lebanon

HELSINKI, Finland - Syria has threatened to close its border with Lebanon if U.N. peacekeepers are deployed along the frontier, Finland's foreign minister said Wednesday.

"They will close their borders for all traffic in case U.N. troops will be deployed along the Lebanon-Syria border," Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said after meeting his Syrian counterpart Walid Moallem in Helsinki.

Syrian President Bashar Assad has rejected the U.N. deployment along Syria'sborder with Lebanon, saying such a move would create animosity between the two countries.

So...Is that supposed to be a threat to Lebanon, to the US, to Israel, to anyone? So your telling me that if the UN moves peacekeepers near the Syrian border Syria will close its borders? And that's a threat how exactly? In fact keeping the border closed makes it a lot easier to stop shipments of arms to resupply Hezbollah from Iran via Syria. It conceivably could make the job of UN easier - if tasked to interdict arms shipments - by reducing the overall amounts of traffic coming in, making any contraband Syria tries to sneak in even easier to stop.

Oooooh but Syria says it will create animosity between the two nations. What, years of Syrian military occupation and overwhelming control of Lebanese politics and government has not created such animosity already? As if animosity did not already exist. I don't think it should really matter to Lebanon or the UN what Syria says. It should station troops near the frontier and if Syria wants to close its border...Good!!

Economist says that 2007 will bring nasty US economic Recession more deep than 2001 recession

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The United States is headed for a recession that will be "much nastier, deeper and more protracted" than the 2001 recession, says Nouriel Roubini, president of Roubini Global Economics.

Writing on his blog on Wednesday, Roubini repeated his call that the U.S. would be in a recession in 2007, arguing that the collapse of housing will bring down the rest of the economy. Read more.

Roubini wrote after the National Association of Realtors reported Wednesday that sales of existing homes fell 4.1% in July, while inventories soared to a 13-year high and prices flattened out year-over-year.

That some bad news if it turn out that way. A new recession would be a disaster for the United States and the world. I'm no economist so I couldn't tell you whether this will happen or otherwise verify this economists assertions.

Amnesty International accuses Israel of committing warcrimes during its conflict with Lebanon - They accuse Israel of warcrimes for its purposeful destruction of a lot of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure. They themselves concede they deliberately targeted such infrastructure although they claim it was to hamper Hezbollah.

Some have accused Israel of bombing that infrastructure in order to make Lebanese civilians turn on Hezbollah (an absurd proposition to believe that bombing a nations infrastructure would magically turn them against Hezbollah. Dolts.)

In either case, I might be inclined to agree that some rule of war may have been violated -- certainly the destruction of this infrastructure is a massive travesty for Lebanon and its vitality. A UN investigation must be launched to see if the damage was not "collateral damage" but I doubt Israel can blame it all on "collateral damage."

If the Seymour Hersh is correct -- that its was done to turn civilians -- than I would definitely agree that it constitutes a warcrime. I'll see how this develops, but I'll await an inquiry to state anything conclusively about warcrimes.

And Last: A Possible Al Qaeda Connection in Kidnapping of Fox Reporter in Gaza?

The kidnapping of a 2-man Fox News television crew in Gaza has the hallmarks of an al-Qaida operation, terrorism experts tell ABC News.

The U.S. reporter and New Zealand cameraman were taken at gunpoint Aug. 14, and nothing was heard of them until Tuesday when a videotape and note were given to the Arabic media. The kidnappers set a 72-hour deadline for all Muslim prisoners to be released from U.S. prisons, and included exhortations of Islam and threats to infidels.

Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence College said that was a clue it wasn't traditional Palestinian jihadis.

The rhetoric is vintage al-Qaida, Gerges said. This is consistent with what we have seen in Iraq and other places.

Additionally, last March, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas expressed concern over an al-Qaida incursion to the Al Hayat Arabic daily newspaper, the report said.

"We have indications about a presence of al-Qaida in Gaza and the West Bank. This is intelligence information," Abbas said.

What goes unsaid in this article and what truly makes it very disturbing -- as if it wasn't already -- is that if true, this would constitute the first time (to my knowledge) that Al Qaeda will have operated in Palestine. If true this could mean the beginning of a new phase in Palestine and Israel, where the more sophisticated techniques, tactics, and technology of Al Qaeda will herald bigger and deadlier attacks against Israel. I can't imagine that Hamas or Fatah would appreciate the meddling of Al Qaeda and its ilk in the conflict, especially considering that it would bring the focus of the international terror war on them. If Hezbollah believes it is being pressured now, imagine when nations -- fairly or unfairly, truthfully or untruthfully -- connect Hamas to Al Qaeda. If true, get rid of the meddlers I say.

Now back to my book, and perhaps some Colbert Report, then later some Shin-chan (on Adult Swim) before I knock out.

Peace!

Did "Occupationized" IDF troops account for Israel's Defeat?

(Editors Note: In order to understand what I am responding to please read this brief post. Also, I might add that the wording and overall coherence of the follwing post is not exactly very good. I wrote it in a hurry...besides, its not as if I were writing a paper. Then I'd have to revise it. I'm just too lazy.)

Following up on the post below.

Its tricky because in order to gauge how Israel failed we have to know what the strategic goal of Israel was in its conflict with Hezbollah. Tactics are supposed to flow from strategy.

If the strategic goal is to destroy or severely hurt Hezbollah than its clear that the tactics were wrong and in fact counter-productive towards achieving that strategic goal.

[For the uninitiated: Strategy is defined by 'What You Want to Achieve?' Tactics is how you go about doing that. How do tactics flow from strategy? Well, for example if your strategic goal is to be rich and happy, your tactics could be going to school, working hard, working smart, investing smart? That flows from the strategy. You could also rob steal and kill to get money, but you might undercut achieving your goal because these tactics might ultimately lead to you in prison, where you are broke and unhappy. Or you could end up dead, one more casualty of that lifestyle. This is counter-productive. Hey its the best I could come up with on short notice.]

In this case, Occupation-minded soldiers would have been a plus in fighting such an asymmetric foe. Such forces are better suited for asymmetric challenges.

Israel needed to use vastly more soldier to achieve that strategic goal of course (and that did not happen). That's irrelevant for several reasons:

The conventional tactics used by Israel such as massive airstrikes on infrastructure, of bombing which purposely or inadvertently killed civilians, and the heavy use of artillery (hurting and killing many civilians and damaging homes of innocent people) undermined any gains that large amounts of occupation soldiers would of done. Disproportionate force, through the use of weapons such as bombs (especially cluster bombs) killed more civlians than Hezbollah, it further radicalized the population and moved more people through the "recruitment pipeline" (to borrow the terms). It is for these reasons that it is well accepted that missiles, bombs, cluster bombs, and artillery are counter-productive - definite no-no's in most cases - when dealing with guerilla (or guerilla-ish) forces.

Why? Because asymmetric organizations require the continued support of the population they reside in, as lookouts, future recruits, financiers, collaborators etc... By its very nature, the IDF and the IAF will have overwhelming military superiority; Its military will always kill more Hezbollah than Hezbollah will kill them.

That is besides the point though, because if your tactics produce more recruits for the organization, than you can kill 20 and 50 more will replace them. In any case, conventional force tactics such as airstrikes are not really that effective against guerilla-ish warriors, making it even more foolhardy to use such tactics.

Israel's use of conventional force and tactics - airstrikes, artillery etc.. - was what really undercut the mission and prevented the achievement of the strategic goal, not "corroded" occupation-minded troops who 'lost their combat edge.'

Occupation would be neccessary for Israel to achieve its strategic goal, because if occupation is not part of the plan than there is no real way to battle Hezbollah without undue damage to civilians.

One might as well not go to war in the first place if one is not prepared to do it in the manner that is necessary and correct. In fact, I don't think Israel should have gone in at all.

If they were not willing to put in an occupation force, than they simply did not have the will to succeed. I say this for several reasons:

1) Fighting a guerilla force takes time. It will not be done in weeks or perhaps even months

2) If you bring in troops for a short time without a longer-term presence, than when you leave you will have left without having destroyed or wilted the organization. Hezbollah wins simply by surviving. If it survives, it will simply grow again, usually stronger than it was before. Any troop insertion, any boast or attempt to destroy Hezbollah had to be followed by invasion AND occupation and if it didn't, they might as well have stayed home and did nothing.

In fact, its better if Israel did not even try to occupy southern Lebanon in any case.

Why? Because Israel does not have a good track record handling internal insurgencies or guerilla movements, in any case: Its handled the Palestinian issue poorly, relying on faulty tactics which kill many civilians and ensure a steady stream of fighters and resistance to Israel. Thus ensuring the continuance of the conflict.

It has shown through its failure for the same heavy-handed reasons that it could not destroy Hezbollah and cut of their base of support in Lebanon during the 13 years that it did occupy Lebanon. There is no indication it would handle any more recent occupation any better. It would have been better if it never stepped foot within Lebanon to begin with.

Ultimate Conclusion: Israel is simply not equipped or prepared to fight a war that could succeed against Hezbollah. Its airforce and artillery batteries are counter-productive as are most conventional tactics, and with the examples of its handling of the Palestinian territories and earlier Lebanon occupation to guide us, it is very clear that the IDF, no matter if it was still a sharp combat-ready force or if it has "corroded" into Occupation-ready troops, would not be up to the task of running a successful campaign against Hezbollah. It would just get bogged down in continual violence as it has done in the Palestinian Territories and as it did in Lebanon all those years ago.

It shows no ability or willingness to adapt and I don't see it doing so in the near future. And that's how I see it.

Occupation Duty Corrodes Combat Ability

It makes sense, although I'll admit that its something that didn't really cross my mind when I though about why Hezbollah put on such a good show and why the IDF and IAF put on such a bad one. I'll comment on this later


Josh Marshall of TPM

I've been waiting for someone to say this, someone who can say it not with the guide of history and logical inference but with actual knowledge of the IDF. And here it is.
In the Israeli daily Ha'aretz tonight, military affairs writer Ze'ev Schiff says that the main conclusion that will be drawn from the IDF's disappointing performance in the Lebanon war will be that the army's fighting capacity and edge has been blunted by years of policing duties in the territories.

Writes Schiff ...

"Most units, in their training and operations, followed fighting doctrines of police forces and not of standing armies. Hezbollah trains, fights and is equiped as an army, utilizing some of the most advanced anti-tank missiles and other weapons."

"The character of the IDF - known for its blitzkrieg methods, encircling movements deep inside enemy territory, and the ability to bring about a quick and decisive conclusion to the fighting - has been spoiled by years of involvement in operations that tied it down, emotionally and politically."

I'll start of by pointing out that occupation/police minded troops are not bad for fighting off a guerilla force, but the circumstances here, plus the more convetional minded air tactics of the IAF could have undercut any gains the IDF could have made - or perhaps made success all but impossible. I'll post later as I try and organize my thoughts.

The Day's Round Up

Not really comprehensive, as this is only a portion of what I read but who wants dozens of links?

Israel PM Ehud Olmert is in political hot water - also tells us that IDF soldiers want an investigation into the events of the past few weeks. I guess they want a reason why the Israeli campaign failed so bad.

US pushing for a UN resolution that would disarm Hezbollah - Without a good reason for Hezbollah to disarm, Hezbollah is not going to disarm. If they are counting on the UN to do it or on the Lebanese Army to do it...yeah right. Keep hoping. Right now, Hezbollah sees no reason for it to disarm especially given that it believes the balance of power has shiften in their favor over the course of conflict with Israel. It's stronger than it was before, its more well respected, it has a higher base to recruit from due to the conflict, and it feels that it won. Why, they would ask, should they disarm? Even more dangerously, if it is tasked on UN forces to do the disarming, they might ask: Who's gonna make me? Come and try.

Not much today.

Asymmetric Warfare: What is It, How to Fight It, How Not To Fight It

Asymmetric warfare - commonly taking the forms of guerilla wars and insurgencies - is something the US is dealing with now in Iraq, and considering its overwhelming military superiority to all other nations armies, will deal with in the future uses of our military.

Asymmetric warfare, as a subject, has been an area that I've devoted some time and energy studying. As a student of international relations, I have spent time, took part in classes, and researched on subjects such as asymmetrical warfare as well as on terrorism. The reasons for this lay on the very real importance and relevance this subject has for the United States.

As we speak, we are now engaged in a war against an guerilla insurgent force in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its important to know what one is dealing with, as well as to know how to run a counter-insurgency, and how not to run one. For the curious, I recommend the book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, for a detailed account - from interviews with 3000 military sources themselves - of what went wrong in Iraq (from the planning stages on) and for concrete examples of how not to plan an invasion & occupation, and how not to run a counter-insurgency.

Read this for a good rundown on what asymmetric warfare is, what ingredients it needs to thrive, how they success, how they fail, how they can be defeated. I couldn't of written it better myself if I tried.

If you know gung-ho, destroy them all, I'm a bad-ass muthafucker types who think everything can be solved by blowing something (or one) up, than you know someone who would fail miserably at putting down - or preventing - insurgent movements. In fact, these types (of which there are too many in our civilian government, as well as too many in the military) are likely the reason that guerilla movements grow and succeed. Read the whole thing though, its good.

Here's a good passage:

-----------

When Losers Don't Quit

Asymmetric warfare happens when it's obvious who the winner of a symmetric war would be - maybe a symmetric war has already been fought and decisively won - but some core group on the losing side is not willing to give up and get on with life. Replaying the game of civilized symmetric warfare would just get them slaughtered to no purpose, but the issues of the war are so important that they cannot simply accept defeat. And so they fight on - outside the game, outside the rules.

Asymmetric warriors don't wear uniforms and fight pitched battles. Rather than defending territory, they accept that the opposing force can go where it wants, killing and destroying at will. They hide among civilians, they hit and run, and they attack whatever targets their enemy values but has left undefended. Often those targets are non-combatants.

To the winners of the symmetric war (and all others who remain locked into the game mentality of symmetric warfare) the asymmetric warriors just look like sore losers. If the asymmetric warriors were civilized and honorable, they would wear uniforms and face their opponents' soldiers on a battlefield - and get slaughtered like vermin. The asymmetric tactics - attacking civilians and running away from soldiers - look cowardly, even when they lead to certain death.
And because the decisive war is already supposed to be over, an asymmetric attack looks like pointless destruction, killing for the sake of killing.

And it would be, if not for one fact: Sometimes the asymmetric warriors win. How on Earth does that happen?

How Insurgents Win

Asymmetric warfare works in a very specific situation: The winner of the symmetric war wants to govern the region (or hand it off to a local client government) at a finite cost. If the asymmetric warriors - in this setting let's call them insurgents and their opponents occupiers - can make the territory ungovernable and establish themselves in such a way that they cannot be crushed within the cost parameters of the occupiers, then eventually the occupiers will have to give them at least part of what they want.

In other words, insurgents win by not losing. If the occupiers find the status quo unacceptable, but have no acceptable way to bring the insurgency to an end, then it is only a matter of time before they realize their goals cannot be achieved. It's up to the occupiers to decide when to stop the bleeding and admit defeat, but they have lost. This is the story of the Americans in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, and white settler governments in various parts of Africa. It is arguably the story of the Americans in Iraq as well. (It is worth noting why this is not - at least not yet - the story of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza. The difference is that the Israeli level of commitment very nearly matches that of its opponents. Israel is unable to crush the Palestinian insurgency, but seems ready to bleed at this level into the indefinite future.)

Americans have a hard time grasping this basic fact: Right up to the day the occupying power admits defeat and pulls out, it continues to wield overwhelming force. It may never lose a pitched battle. It may - right up to the end - be able to go where it wants, killing and destroying at will.

That doesn't mean it's not losing.

The Recruitment Pipeline

If insurgents win by not losing, then the question shifts: How do they lose?

They lose by wasting away. Their numbers diminish by death, captivity, or discouragement and they are unable to replenish themselves with new recruits. Recruiting is an essential part of any insurgency, because the occupiers will always appear to be winning the battle of attrition.

Occupying soldiers are trying to kill insurgents while insurgents are trying to avoid occupiers, so any body count will favor the occupiers - right up to the day they admit defeat and pull out.
In a successful insurgency, warriors are only the tip of a large iceberg. Even though the number of active warriors may be small, a much larger segment of the population is at some earlier stage of recruitment. Some sympathize with the insurgents silently; they know who the warriors are, but chose not to tell the occupiers. Some help in small ways, by delivering messages, holding money, or even hiding weapons. Some harbor warriors and help them hide from the occupiers. Some will not fight, but will act as look-outs and report the movements of occupying troops. A successful insurgency is always losing warriors (sometimes by intentional suicide attacks), but the pipeline of recruitment is full of people moving to ever greater levels of commitment.
Occupiers who continue to think in a symmetric, conventional-war mindset (with its sharp distinctions between soldiers and civilians) do not see these flows of sympathy and commitment. If the insurgency has, say, ten thousand warriors, then these occupiers believe they win by removing ten thousand insurgent pieces from the board.

But they don't win, because in the course of removing those ten thousand pieces the occupiers push some number of sympathizers further down the path of commitment to the insurgency. Ten, twenty, thirty thousand insurgents may die or be captured, and still the war goes on. A man who stays out of the war for fear of losing his house will join it when his house becomes "collateral damage." Each family that loses a member in an occupier attack - especially an innocent member like a child - will move further down the path of recruitment.

In the beginning, an insurgency is a small group of warriors moving in a large sea of people who are waiting to see what happens next. Maybe the occupier will be gentle. Maybe life will go on in some acceptable way. The insurgents' first goal is to goad the occupier into using its overwhelming force so that life cannot go on in an acceptable way. A foolish occupier swats flies with hammers, creating disproportionate damage and forcing the previously ambivalent population to choose sides.

Once the insurgency's pipeline of recruitment is well established, the only exclusively military solution available to the occupier is genocide, or some form of ethnic cleansing that will move the insurgent-sympathizing population somewhere else. An occupier who is unwilling to go that far must accept the fact that overwhelming force alone is not enough. Military force must continue to play a role, but only in support of a political solution that gives the asymmetric warriors a reason to lay down their arms.

Occupier Strategy

If a direct kill-the-insurgents strategy is doomed to failure, what can the occupier do?

The Vietnam-era notion of "winning hearts and minds" is not just a way for guilt-ridden liberals to feel better about themselves. It deals with the real problem: the whole pipeline of sympathy and recruitment, not just the comparatively small number of active insurgent warriors. Every policy of the occupier - and especially any use of force - must be examined in light of its effect on insurgent recruitment. A search-and-destroy operation may kill dozens of insurgents with only minor occupier casualties, and still be a net loss if it pushes the general population further down the recruitment pipeline. A lawnmower may cut down dozens of dandelions, but if it scatters their seeds hundreds more will pop up.

All effective anti-insurgent strategies involve drying up the supply of recruits by isolating the insurgents from the larger population. In the so-called "ink spot" strategies the isolation is geographic: a small area is pacified and reconstructed to the point that it becomes governable. The population, seeing the benefits of peaceful governance, resists insurgent efforts to infiltrate. The surrounding areas come to envy the pacified area, and the governable "ink spot" spreads. Other kinds of isolation can also work, as long as the population comes to see a clear separation between itself and the insurgents rather than a slippery slope.

Insurgency by its nature is a low-lifespan occupation. Lenin's line about revolutionaries - that they are dead men on furlough - applies even moreso to insurgents. They must take action to stay relevant, and any action they take carries great risk. Without a constant resupply of recruits ready to die, an insurgency withers.

In order to disrupt that supply, the occupier need not be loved. It need only convince the population that ending the occupation is not worth dying for.

---------------[End Excerpt]

Well...read the whole thing will ya!!

Immigrants: Lower crime rates than native borns

Of course, this goes for native borns of all types: Native born non-Hispanic whites, native blacks, and native born (ie 2nd and 3rd generation folks like myself) Latinos.

Immigrants - as opposed to the paranoia being spewed from nativist Republicans - have drastically lower crime rates than any native born populations.

Via Duke 1676 (author of Migra Matters blog btw)

On Wednesday, the House Homeland Security Committee went to Houston to investigate "The criminal consequences of illegal immigration along the Southern Border." During the five hour hearing, they took testimony from the Texas Homeland Security Director, and officials from The Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Webb County Sheriff, Rick Flores narrated a video of a gunfight between members of drug cartels in the Mexican city of Nuevo Laredo, and they heard from the mother of a 17 year old girl murdered by and undocumented immigrant who escaped prosecution by returning to his home country. Texas prison officials testified along with Houston police and Harris County Sheriffs. The hearings made for good political theater, but the real answers to the Representatives questions could be found by Congressional interns with a few hours of research time.

In June, one of the most comprehensive studies of immigration and its effect on crime was published by The Migration Policy Institute. It's finding - immigrants commit far fewer crimes than native born Americans.


Debunking the Myth of Immigrant Criminality: Imprisonment Among First- and
Second-Generation Young Men by By Rubén G. Rumbaut, of the University of
California - Irvine, looked at the rates of incarceration of newly arrived immigrants and their US born children and compared that to the rates of the US non-immigrant population.

Published in the MPI journal "Migration Information' the study, went back over three decades, and looked at various factors such as educational levels, country of origin and ethnic background, to examined the confluences of two major trends in the US society; the staggering increase in imprisonment of large segments of the population during the period, and a tremendous growth in immigration. In a classic case of correlation not equaling causation the study found no clear relationship between the two.


The study notes that the last three decades have marked a period of vastly increased immigration. According to the latest census 23% of the population (70 million people), are either foreign born or of foreign parentage, including 76 percent of all "Hispanics" and 90 percent of all "Asians"

The era of mass immigration has also coincided with an era of mass imprisonment in the United States ... the US incarceration rate has become the highest of any country in the world. In California alone, there are more people imprisoned than in any other country in the world except China.

The number of adults incarcerated in federal or state prisons or local jails in the United States skyrocketed during this period, quadrupling from just over 500,000 in 1980 to 2.2 million in 2005, according to the Department of Justice...the vast majority are young men between 18 and 39.

Common knowledge would have it that these two trends would be related. Daily we here stories of increased gang violence, of drugs being smuggled in over the border, and crimes committed by "illegal aliens." This in spite of the fact of a falling US crime rate. For many, this perception has become their "reality". From the pundits to politicians, all echo the same refrain; immigrants bring crime.

But that quite simply is not the case:

---------

This is only a piece of the post, if you want to see the facts and numbers, please read the rest of his post at Daily Kos.

It seems violence is not so much an immigrant thing, but an American thing. American's who live in poverty that is. The poverty and lack of opportunity that often exemplifies the neighborhood that native born minorities live in, and that is where alot of the increases in crime rates among minorities and second generation people come from.

It seems that immigrants are immune to that though. They come from a different land with a different culture and usually it is to find a better life and work hard...perhaps it is this important difference in immigrants and native-born americans that can explain why they are the least likely to commit crimes.

What does it say about American culture though?

Immigrant + poverty = less crime

American = more crime

American + poverty = even more crime

We as a nation should not be worried about the crime immigration brings, we should be seeking ways to address the blinding poverty, violence and lack of opportunity found in poor areas in our nation (often minority areas). The problem among Americans has its roots there.

Will the Ceasefire Survive Even the Month?

It's in everyone's interest for the ceasefire to hold, and I think they all want it to hold. Even then I worry when I read stuff like this. Via Talking Points Memo (Updates at bottom)

-----------

Early reports indicate another military setback for Israel in Lebanon:

[Israeli] security sources said commandos in two vehicles unloaded from helicopters were on their way to attack an office of senior Hizbollah official Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek in the village of Bodai when they were intercepted. After the gunbattle, the Israelis pulled out under cover of fierce air strikes.

Reports of casualties are still coming in:

Hezbollah militia fighters found bloody bandages and syringes on the ground after the battle, leading them to conclude the Israelis suffered casualties. Hezbollah, on its Al Manar television, reported a number of Israeli casualties but did not say whether they were killed or wounded.

Lebanese security officials told the Reuters news agency that three Hezbollah fighters were killed and a half-dozen Israelis were killed or wounded, but Hezbollah did not confirm the toll.

Israel claims it suffered one death and two injuries. The worry, of course, is that the aborted raid--the first major violation of the ceasefire--will prompt a Hezbollah retaliation and re-escalate the conflict.

------------------

(First, my bad to TPM for quoting the whole post. )

Now there is debate and argument over whether this commando operation counts as a breach of the ceasefire. Lebanon is very unhappy about the situation and contends that it was a breach. Because of this it has threatened that it may stop its deployment of its troops into southern Lebanon. I'm not sure I buy it. Lebanon has a big interest in the continuation of the ceasefire:

1) It and its people are not getting bombed
2) It wants to be able to have a presence in all Lebanon as it has the chance to do with the term in the ceasefire calling for it to occupy the south with the UN forces.

I think it is merely tough talk on the part of Lebanon in the hope that they will get the Israeli's to stop similar attacks in the future. It must know that Israel definitely wants to stay out of Lebanon and thus has much to lose if the ceasefire falls apart.

Hezbollah for its part needs some time to lick its wounds but I see it as very possible that if IDF and IAF strikes such as these were to continue, they were to announce the ceasefire dead and resume its bombardment into northern Israel, which of course would bring Israel back into Lebanon.

Israel is in a tough predicament: Let Hezbollah rearm or get sucked immediately into a disastrous conflict it just barely managed to dodge a week ago. Rock and a hard place. I would council against war, and do as much (like the US) to keep Iranian supply planes from reaching Syria, slow it that way.

There is very little Israel can do to stop the rearming of Hezbollah though, only Lebanon itself can "handle" the Hezbollah question (purposely vague use of "handle") because it became very clear over the conflict that Israel had neither the will nor ability to disarm or destroy Hezbollah itself.

Rock and a hard place...

Update: UN Sec. General Kofi Annan calls Israel raid a violation of ceasefire

Bad News in Iraq + Some 'meh' News in Lebanon

Lets start with the "meh" news shall we. Just a little update on what's going on in Lebanon now that its mostly off the mainstream news.

Lebanese troops cross the Litani River into south Lebanon for the first time in decades.

That's some OK news, but this passage caught my attention

Lebanon's Cabinet on Wednesday approved the plan to deploy army troops south of the Litani River, but the government said soldiers would not hunt down Hezbollah guerrillas and would not try to disarm them.

(snip)

"There will be no confrontation between the army and brothers in Hezbollah. ... That is not the army's mission," said Information Minister Ghazi Aridi after the two-hour Cabinet meeting. "They are not going to chase or, God forbid, exact revenge (on Hezbollah)."

(snip)

Hezbollah's top official in south Lebanon issued the strongest indication yet that the guerrillas would not disarm in the region or withdraw, but rather melt into the local population and hide their weapons.

Which more or less falls in line with what most people expected. I'm sure the south will remain a powerbase for Hezbollah, except now they are not allowed to brandish their guns in the open or carry them in the open. Until the time comes when they will find a justification to say that they need to remobilize themselves that is.

The US has blocked missile shipments for Hezbollah coming from Iran:

This was during the conflict mind you, but the gist is that they managed to get Turkey to refuse a suspicious Iranian cargo plane to fly over its territory unless it submitted to inspection (it flew back to Tehran instead). Good for the US, but I'm certain that things will get through nonetheless and Hezbollah will be rearmed again and perhaps stocked with more advanced weapons given their proven track record of success.

And since we are on Turkey, Iran and the US

Iran and Turkey have amassed forces on the border of northern Iraq and are shelling towns in Kurshish controlled northern Iraq

This is the bad news. Turkey and Iran are fed up with the Kurdish seperatists activities that they say stem from their bases in northern Iraq and there is much pressure - especially in Turkey to actually invade northern Iraq - to put a stop to it. What will the Americans say?

Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases. Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory.

(snip)

Frustrated by the reluctance of the US and the government in Baghdad to crack down on the PKK bases inside Iraq, Turkish generals have hinted they are considering a large-scale military operation across the border. They are said to be sharing intelligence about Kurdish rebel movements with their Iranian counterparts.

"We would not hesitate to take every kind of measures when our security is at stake," Abdullah Gul, the Turkish foreign minister, said last week.

There has been sporadic shelling of the region since May but officials worry that concerted military action against PKK bases in Iraq could alienate Iraqi Kurds and destabilize their self-rule region, one of few post-invasion success stories. Some analysts say Ankara and Tehran may be trying to pressure Iraq's Kurds, afraid that their de facto independent region would encourage their own Kurdish population.

Let me put some context to people with little knowledge or interest in the region (I'm no expert by any means, but I know a few things)

Although I know this is probably not the complete list, Kurds are an ethnic group that reside in parts of Turkey, northern Iraq, and Iran. They have no state but the collective region they reside in that overlap with these different countries is dubbed "Kurdistan." There are Kurdish groups who push for their own state carved out of the parts of the existing states they currently reside in (called seperatists) and it is these seperatist groups that Turkey and Iran are worried about. The PKK mentioned is one of the Kurdish groups in the region and it is listed as a terrorist groups by most governments.

With that said: Does not the situation resemble the Lebanon/Israel situation? A terror group in Iraq is striking targets in Iran and Turkey (Turkey is an ally btw), the Iraqi government nor the US occupation forces are able or willing to intervene, leaving much pressure for Turkey and Iran to do something about it on their own.

Now by the rationale that we continually heard from Israel and repeated over and over again by the US; Turkey and Iran should have the right to defend themselves from these attacks coming from northern Iraq. I wonder if the US government will see it the same way this time. I doubt it.

What a bummer for the US though, the center and south are hellholes and the much quieter and peaceful north may erupt in violence and invasion of foreign different foreign troops if the US
does nothing to stop the PKK in the north. Problem is:

1) They have their hands full dealing with the Iraqi insurgency and operating in the midst of "a full-scale sectarian conflict" (Can someone just call it what it is dammit: Civil War!), do you think they can spare troops to quell the PKK in the north. In any case they'd likely just get the PKK to start fighting the Americans as well and then the WHOLE of Iraq would be a shithole for the US.

Of couse, the alternative is to do nothing and risk pushing Iran and Turkey into conflict in the north, using the same rationale as the US and Israel gave for invading Lebanon no less!

There seems to be no good answer for the US in Iraq, and that was before the prospect of conflict in the north started. Hey maybe the US can convince the PKK with words or incentives to stop its activities...who knows. (I kind of doubt it)

Man, we need to get the hell out of Iraq within 1 year. Dammit if the US continues to get slaughtered as the different sectarian groups in Iraq try and duke it out. It was not a good idea to begin with and its obvious it continues to do harm with out continued presence in Iraq.

Are we safer yet?

Bush: Ignorant Fuck

Sure I could rant...and I have before, but when someone comes along with a better rant, well, it just saves me the trouble and high-blood pressure.

John Aravois at Americablog (a daily read for me) on the absolute ignorance of the president when it comes to what exactly the court is supposed to do. A rant, but an amusing rant.

I've had it with this idiot.

We've got the president of the fucking United States of America lecturing a US court of law that it's supposed to reach decisions NOT based on the rule of law, but on "the nature of the world we live in."

You God damn stupid fuck.

You have the nerve to claim Osama and the terrorists hate our democracy? They got nothing on you and your fellow "Republicans." Do you people even believe in freedom? Do you believe in the Bill of Rights? Do you believe in our Constitution? Do you fucking believe in anything other than your absolute power to do whatever the fuck you want like some two-bit communist dictator rather than the president of the greatest country on earth?

We live in a democracy, you incompetent ass - one that is quickly eroding because half the people of this country elected a moron to the presidency (twice) and now are so embarrassed by their vote that they refuse to stand up and demand an end to your idiotic reign of terror.

These are judges you're demeaning. American jurists. The people in charge of our laws. And you speak of them like they're nothing more than crap.

You and your party have contempt for our entire system of jurisprudence, the entire system of checks and balances our democracy is based on, because you can't get your way 100% the time. Well boo-fucking-hoo. We are a country of laws, you stupid stupid man.

The world in which we live is one in which the town drunk thinks he's the king of the fucking world.

Osama bin Laden is a danger to be sure. But the greatest threat to our democracy is from George Bush and his genuflecting Republicans.

I'll have an orignial post later in the day, I got some stuff do in a bit.

More Lebanon + A Bush Funny (which will make you cry)

I didn't feel like typing yesterday so here is what I would of blogged yesterday:

The NY Times (Aug.14) telling us what we already suspected; Bush liked the invasion but didn't push for ceasefire until it started going bad. There could have been ceasefire earlier but the US made that impossible early on.

Aug. 13 When Israel began its counterattack on Hezbollah one month ago, the Bush administration backed the Israeli plan to destroy the militia and its arsenal of rockets, resisting efforts by France and other allies to call for a cease-fire.

But as the assault wore on and it became evident that Hezbollah was a far more fearsome and skilled adversary than Israel had first thought and as Lebanese civilian casualties mounted American policy moved more urgently toward seeking an immediate political solution.

That shift, recounted by senior administration officials, led to one of the most dramatic bouts of diplomacy that the United Nations Security Council has witnessed in years. Whether it leads to peace in southern Lebanon remains unclear. But what is certain is that negotiators in a half-dozen countries took part in a rare high-wire act.

Bush calls for sealing of Syria's border with Lebanon (Raw Story)- Yeah, good luck with that. Who is going seal the border? The Lebanese Army? I wouldn't put my hopes on them. Hezbollah was very confident of its ability to resupply even in the midst of massive surveillance and airstrikes from the IAF but if it means anything: I someone does seal the border.

A transcript of a CNN interview with a Lebanese political scientist on the prospects in Lebanon (and on whether Hezbollah will disarm): A snip

HOST: Hezbollah ministers are refusing to talk about [disarmament] but once they do accept to talk about it -- at some point the political dialog will have to start up again -- then what? Will Hezbollah lay down its arms, do you think?

SAAD-GHORAYEB: No. It's out of the question. I mean, Hezbollah has said on many occasions -- even in private interviews, I've had with them before this conflict, during this conflict -- there was no way, given that the balance of power has shifted -- in Hezbollah's opinion, to its favor -- that it sees any need to disarm. And, in fact, that the hostilities are ongoing -- Israel continues to occupy the Shivah[sic] Farms. It may take quite a while before the U.N. resolves that issue. You've still got the prisoner exchange still being negotiated. There will be eventually. Of course, there's the fact that Israeli forces are still on Lebanese soil. So it's premature to discuss disarmament.

(snip)

HOST: Wait. So, wait. Because the perception you were getting in the last week, 10 days is that Hezbollah has agreed with the Lebanese government on its 7 point plan which calls for a southern Lebanon that is free of all arms except for the regular Lebanese army and a strengthened Unifil force. Did we misunderstand then?

SAAD-GHORAYEB: Well, it's all a matter of semantics. Basically, when the government said -- that 7 point plan -- that the Lebanese state would have a monopoly over arms, this did not, in Hezbollah's understanding, mean that Hezbollah would be disarmed. I think that what they thought was going to happen was weapons deactivation but not disarmament. You know, it's not the same thing.

Like I said, Hezbollah has been boosted by the war and it will not disarm, merely "deactivate" its forces which can be activated again should they feel like it. The only pressure that had a shot of disarming Hezbollah was the internal political pressures post Cedar Revolution. It was not going to be immediate, but eventually it could have happened. That opportunity is gone with the war, and as the quote implies, Hezbollah sees even less of a reason to disarm given the "shift in the balance in power in their favor."

President Bush is confused and frustrated as to why Iraqi's are not supporting the American mission in Iraq (via AmericaBlog's AJ):

I nearly choked on my Wheaties this morning reading the headline:

"Bush Said to Be Frustrated by Level of Public Support in Iraq."

Apparently the President met with some leading Iraq and Middle East scholars and informed them that he's "frustrated that the new Iraqi government and the Iraqi people had not shown greater public support for the American mission." Further, he was reportedly "puzzled" as to how recent anti-American protests could draw so many people.

Everybody knows he's out of touch, but wow. Just . . . wow.

This coming from a man who apparently advocates "constructive chaos" as a policy for an entire region of the world. I'm really running out of ways to be shocked by the incompetence of this administration. The leader of the free world is so clearly out of his depth that it's incredibly difficult for me to imagine his administration doing anything right -- anything at all -- in these difficult times. One despairs.

President Bush also reportedly expressed the view that "the Shia-led government needs to clearly and publicly express the same appreciation for United States efforts and sacrifices as they do in private." So he thinks that when Iraqi leaders thank him in private, they're being honest? And not, y'know, doing the usual diplomatic sucking up? His failure to appropriate plan for the war and its aftermath has ruined their entire country! Yes, many many Iraqis were glad that the U.S. toppled a murderous, despicable regime. But now Iraqi leaders think that they could do far better than the U.S., and it's hard to argue with that assessment. Shia groups especially increasingly view the Coalition presence as an inflammatory and unhelpful presence, and wishing it weren't so isn't helpful.

But is this newfound desire for alternative viewpoints going to make a difference?Will it push the administration towards more reality-based policy? Could there be some hope from a meeting like this? Uh . . .

Mr. Nasr, author of 'The Shia Revival' . . . said he got no sense that the Bush administration was contemplating a shift in its Iraq policy.

I will now stab myself in the eye.

That's it for now!

Finally, the Left and Right Agree On Something.

On what you ask? There is surprising consensus on this: Hezbollah is the winner(unfortunately) and President Bush is a horrible fuck-up of a president.

Of course, people (like myself) of the Left persuasion have different reasons to explain the clusterfuck that was the Israel/Lebanon conflict, and to explain the clusterfuck that has been the George W. Bush Presidency.

They are angry at Bush for not supporting Israel enough and encouraging it to go for the long haul and completely invade Lebanon to get rid of the Hezbollah threat. They are angry that he 'gave in' and finally pushed for this current UN ceasefire that they view as failure for Israel. They think he is too "compassionate" (I was drinking a soda as I read that...needless to say I had to wipe the computer down). He does not have enough of the warrior temperament.

WTF?! A Warmonger is not enough of a warmonger? What do they want, Attila the Fucking Hun? Its his warmongering that is precisely why we are fucked in Iraq, and why we think he is a horrible president. And they think he's too nice!! Again, WTF!? Read what they have to say about Dear President.

Daily Pundit - in a post recommended by Instapundit: "Read the whole thing, especially if you work in the White House."

Bush's proud words of five years ago stand revealed as hollow and
meaningless. What happened?

What happened was one of the biggest failures of leadership in Presidential history. Bush supporters will claim that Bush was done in by a liberal media and the ferocious hatred of liberals and leftwingers, but that is one of the things true leadership is all about: Managing and overcoming opposition in order to achieve the necessary goals - in this case, the destruction of world Islamist terrorism and the regimes that support it.

Bush turned out to be singularly ill-equipped for this task, both by skill and by temperament. His public relations management was curiously hesitant and badly timed, and, of course, his inability to speak effectively in public was a gigantic handicap. His temperament, it eventually became clear, was hesitant, overly calculating, timid, and "compassionate."

Compassion has its place, but not in warfighting. The Bush we know would not have pulled the trigger on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He abdicated the hard decisions in favor of political maneuvering and meaningless gestures.

As for me? I've moved on. The first administration of the first century of the American Third Millennium will, in my estimation, be remembered as one of the biggest failures of that century. Bush's great failure was, not invading Iraq, but not weathering the adversity that followed through acts of real leadership, and then pressing on with the necessary military destruction of the other regimes he, himself, named as most dangerous five years ago.

I'm hoping we can get through the next two years without any major disasters, and then I'm looking to elect a real war leader to the White House - somebody with a warrior's temperament and a leader's skills. George Bush has neither. He is a dangerous failure, and America will be well rid of him.

As Glenn Greenwald points out, it is interesting that when we criticize the president "during a time of war" (gag) we are somehow helping the terrorist, undermining our president, and emboldening our enemies...so what do they make of what they are saying.

I doubt they would describe it the same way.

The Ceasefire Takes Effect

A cause for some celebration in Lebanon and Israel; the bombs have stopped falling in Lebanon (unless an IAF feels the need to "defensively" bomb the hell out of someone), and the rockets have stopped hitting northern Israel (until the next time Hezbollah decides to goad Israel).

Does it sound as if I am very optimistic?

Sure, there is a marginal chance that the ceasefire and its terms will be followed but its very unlikely. The UN resolution calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah...yeah, that's not gonna happen and I doubt the UN and Lebanese forces will try and "force" the issue in any case.

The UN and the Lebanese military will occupy the south of Lebanon - a good thing - but somehow I doubt that the south will cease to be a powerbase for Hezbollah. For the most part this just returns the region to the status quo before the conflict, so why was I relieved when all sides agreed to the ceasefire?

Because a ceasefire (even if the terms would not be followed) would end the violence, and would save Israel and Lebanon the disaster and violence that would have followed had the war continued and the invasion run its course. Lebanon is better of with the ceasefire, and Israel dodges a bullet by getting the hell out of there.

So we are back to the status quo...sort of.

In fact, things are not exactly the same: For Israel, money and treasure has been blown down the tube for an unsuccessful campaign, its international image and the image of its military has been brought down a peg. Israeli PM Ehud Olmert is now facing terrible political problems and calls for him to resign. What will this mean for Kadima? What will it mean for the lot of Likud and Labor parties? I cannot tell you, but it is not as it was prior to the conflict. Israel's enemy Hezbollah has dealt it a defeat and has emerged from the conflict boosted and emboldened. Lebanon and the region has become even more anti-Israel, and there is no doubt increased radicalization in Lebanon that will fuel additional recruits and power for Hezbollah in the future.

Lebanon...the old status quo was a lot easier for them than the modified status quo. Nearly a thousand dead Lebanese, billions of dollars of damage to Lebanon's infrastructure, increased radicalization among its populace. Hezbollah has been boosted and emboldened by the war and is even now promising to help people rebuild their homes in their efforts to act like a state when the actual state cannot do a god damn thing for its people.

So its back to the status quo ante, except Israel, Lebanon and its people are in a worse position than prior to the war. It could have been worse had the war continued...but it wouldn't be this bad had the war never started.

Plan to Strike Lebanon a Year Old? An American Test Case?

Seymour Hersh - the guy who broke the Abu Ghraib story - has a new article in the latest New Yorker that in essence tells us that the Israel had been planning this offensive for a year and was only looking for a pretext (kidnapping) to use it. He charges that the US knew about the plan and in fact had plans that mirrored it for use in Iran. It saw Israel's offensive on Hezbollah and Lebanon as a test run of its plans for Iran.

The reason the US looked to give Israel "a green-light" early on and resisted early calls for a ceasefire was so they could give Israel time to do its thing.

Hahaha!! If true than one cannot help but be amused at the sheer idiocy of US and Israeli leaders stupid enough to believe that they would be able to succeed. As the past few weeks have demonstrated, the air-war failed and then the ground war failed. The US should take those lessons to heart when thinking of the much larger and better armed Iran.

Read it here : (some excerpts)

The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israels retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollahs heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israels security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American ppreemptivetive attack to destroy Irans nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground.

(snip)

According to a Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of both the Israeli and the U.S. governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah and shared it with Bush Administration officialswell before the July 12th kidnappings. Its not that the Israelis had a trap that Hezbollah walked into, he said, but there was a strong feeling in the White House that sooner or later the Israelis were going to do it.

(snip)

The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits, a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. Why oppose it? Well be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.

Cheap war with many benefits. Where have we heard this before? *coughIraqcough*

According to Richard Armitage, who served as Deputy Secretary of State in Bushs first term and who, in 2002, said that Hezbollah may be the A team of terrorists Israels campaign in Lebanon, which has faced unexpected difficulties and widespread criticism, may, in the end, serve as a warning to the White House about Iran. If the most dominant military force in the region the Israel Defense Forces cant pacify a country like Lebanon, with a population of four million, you should think carefully about taking that template to Iran, with strategic depth and a population of seventy million, Armitage said. The only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis.

What does Israel expect, to be greeted as liberators and saviors, or as the people blowing up my house, my neighborhood, my country? What kind of idiots would believe that...oh wait. Where have we heard that before? *cough cough* What? I'm sick.

Iraq.

Hmm, you hear something? Anyways.

The initial plan, as outlined by the Israelis, called for a major bombing campaign in response to the next Hezbollah provocation, according to the Middle East expert with knowledge of U.S. and Israeli thinking. Israel believed that, by targeting Lebanons infrastructure, including highways, fuel depots, and even the civilian runways at the main Beirut airport, it could persuade Lebanons large Christian and Sunni populations to turn against Hezbollah, according to the former senior intelligence official. The airport, highways, and bridges, among other things, have been hit in the bombing
campaign. The Israeli Air Force had flown almost nine thousand missions as of last week. (David Siegel, the Israeli spokesman, said that Israel had targeted only sites connected to Hezbollah; the bombing of bridges and roads was meant to prevent the transport of weapons.)

How'd that work out? Morons. To think that they will be turned by bombing their infrastructure. Think about it? You'd be angry at the bombers would you not?

The Israeli plan, according to the former senior intelligence official, was the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran. (The initial U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Irans nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran, have been resisted by the top leadership of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, according to current and former officials. They argue that the Air Force plan will not work and will inevitably lead, as in the Israeli war with Hezbollah, to the insertion of troops on the ground.)

(snip)

The surprising strength of Hezbollahs resistance, and its continuing ability to fire rockets into northern Israel in the face of the constant Israeli bombing, the Middle East expert told me, is a massive setback for those in the White House who want to use force in Iran. And those who argue that the bombing will create internal dissent and revolt in Iran are also set back.

Nonetheless, some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain
deeply concerned that the Administration will have a far more positive
assessment of the air campaign than they should, the former senior intelligence official said. There is no way that Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this, he said. When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.

That is scary. These neocons are ruining the United States and are no doubt contributing to the collapse of American power. They failed in Iraq and are running under the same misguided assumption for war with Iran as they did about Iraq. They simply do not learn from their mistakes.

It is said that insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result.

Neocons, its safe to say, are fucking bat shit crazy.

Israel, Lebanon & Hezbollah to Accept Ceasefire and Terms

Well let me first correct myself - again.

There will be a 15,000 strong Lebanese contingent along with the expanded 15,000 strong UNIFIL force. The plan is for the UN/Leb force to take control of the south bits at a time, then Israel leaves that bit, and the process is repeated until they reach the border and Israel finally leaves Lebanon. From USA Today

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said Saturday that the Islamic militant group will abide by a U.N. cease-fire resolution but will continue fighting as long as Israeli troops remained in south Lebanon...

The resolution, adopted unanimously, authorizes 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers to help Lebanese troops take control of south Lebanon as Israeli forces that have occupied the area withdraw....

The U.N. plan approved Friday night would create a peacekeeping force by combining a beefed-up version of the ineffective U.N. units already in the war zone and 15,000 soldiers from the Lebanese army. The force, which could number around 30,000, would stand between Israel and the Hezbollah militia...

But it will be nearly impossible to rid south Lebanon of the Islamic guerrillas, who are now in the Lebanese Cabinet and run clinics and other charities that are considered essential in rebuilding the region. Their ability to withstand the Israeli military assault has also made Hezbollah heroes across the Arab and Islamic worlds.

To be sure, the fighting continues at least until Sunday when Israel is expected to vote to accept the UN resolution. It will likely go longer as Hezbollah has promised to fight as long as Israel is in Lebanon and the withdrawal plan looks like it will take awhile.

I got to say, I'm feeling a lot better about this ceasefire. I was worried about the status of the Lebanese contingent but it indeed will be with the UN force. I was worried about the acceptance of Hezbollah to the plan (I called it extremely important that they accept) and they indicate they will. (They knew this was the smart thing to do.)

Honestly this whole thing hinges on Hezbollahs willingness to accept the terms, so if they go along this has a real good chance.

My overall assesemt of winners and losers still holds true. The Lebanese people have lost the most in this conflict but this resolution is good for them as it may end the violence. Something has to be done by the international community to rebuild the destroyed Lebanese infrastructure. We want Lebanon back on its feet. I'm afraid that some degree of radicalization has already taken hold there and Hezbollah recruits will be more than forthcoming. Anti-American sentiment no doubt has increased and that can't be good.

Israel is the big loser in this conflict. Its international image is degraded further, it has lost troops and treasure to fight a war that 1) Proved unsuccessful. 2) Shattered its mystique of "invincibility" by showing how the IDF and IAF could be defeated. 3) Boosted the power and prestige of the Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah. The Ceasefire that Israel will accept has terms that are mostly what Lebanon and Hezbollah wants. Sure it might stop rocket attacks but Israel has little confidence in the new UN/Leb force; for them to accept it despite this shows a core weakness and a desperate need to get the hell out of Lebanon no matter what it takes. They want out.

The US: An overall loser. While it is possible that it might gain something for its work getting this ceasefire resolution together, what most Muslims and Lebanese will remember most (and first) is the apparent "green-light" that the US gave for Israel to continue striking Lebanon in the early stages. That "green-light" for Israel to hit Hezbollah is the reason that a ceasefire was not done earlier and why nearly 1000 Lebanese civilians have been killed along with billions of dollars of damage to Lebanon's infrastructure. To paraphrase Billmon: Our credibility and respect has gone down the toilet and it was not all that great to begin with.

The Lebanese State is a loser. While it gains from taking control of all its territory, the country has been totally devastated. Its hundreds of thousands of its people are refugees and will need to be resettled. Thousands of its people have been killed or injured in the bombing. Billions of dollars in damage has been done to its heavily damaged infrastructure. The people will look to them to fix this and that is no easy task. Plus, the power and prestige of Hezbollah will only increase in Lebanon as the people look back to Hezbollah success in 'fighting for Lebanon'.

Hezbollah comes out ahead at the end of this: It is potentially losing its powerbase in the south but I doubt all Hezbollah presence will be eliminated. It is boosted and emboldened by its successful repelling of the Israel military. Expect a jump in recruitment and expect Syria and Iran to continue to supply weapons to them. It took on Israel and made them back down and accept a resolution that is much more preferable to Lebanon and Hezbollah than to Israel. I can't predict what this will mean for its representation in the Parliament since I don't know those politics well enough.

That's it for now.

Billmon On the UN Ceasefire

Billmon at Whiskey Bar has dealt with the Lebanon conflict more consistantly and often than some other A-List blogger (I don't judge), so I've visited his blog often for his thoughts.

He echoes some of my doubts (and addresses a few I never even mention), and after reading his post my enthusiasm about this ceasefire has decreased even further. I was very enthusiastic about it just a few hours ago as my previous posts attest...oh well Please read his post on it.

A great sample:

But what are they going to do? They've blown it, right down the line, from the opening bid for an aerial knockout, through the defeats and retreats, the incredible shrinking war aims, the daily humiliation of seeing a third of Israel bombarded with rockets. And now this -- a ceasefire that appears to give Hizbullah all or nearly all of what it demanded (although not the Laker tickets), all of it to be supervised by a "reinforced" version of UNIFIL (most of the reinforcements will probably never arrive) working under a limited one-year mandate, and with no more legal authority to use force than the current bunch of blue helmets.

And for this, Lebanon was ravaged, thousands were killed, millions on both sides spent weeks couped up in air raid shelters and the credibility and any lingering shreds of respectability of the U.S. government in the Islamic world were flushed down the you-know-what. For this.

So we are stuck with this: A ceasefire with a UN force that alone will not be able to use force and no Lebanese soldiers (I hope this changes or the Lebanese take it on themselves to do it. Even then though, will Shia soldiers fight Shia Hezbollah brethren?) While Israel dodges a bullet by not following through on its full offensive, it and the United States has already lost plenty.

The defeat of its forces, the loss of its mystique of 'invincibility', the increased popularity of Hezbollah. The weakness it showed by its inability to stop the rocket strikes. And as Billmon points out: " the credibility and any lingering shreds of respectability of the U.S. government in the Islamic world were flushed down the you-know-what" with the reports of hundreds of dead Lebanese civilians at the hands of the IAF with the "green-light" of the US.

I take back my declaration that, finally, Israel had the upper hand. I still hope that a good peace can prevail with this ceasefire, but I'm under no illusions about the winner in this: Hezbollah is still winning. I still believe that Hezbollah would have loved to see IDF forces bogged down in Lebanon, but this is still good enough for them.

Will the ceasefire hold? Its up to Hezbollah now.

UN Sec. Council Resolution Passed for Ceasefire!! Great News!

This is great news!! Nothing is for sure, but it seems as if this will be accepted by both Israel and Lebanon.

From USA Today what the resolution looks like:

The draft would ask the U.N. force to monitor a full cessation of hostilities and help Lebanese forces gain full control over an area that had been controlled by Hezbollah. The draft said the U.N. force could respond by "forceful means" to efforts to prevent it from carrying out its mandate.

The final version fell short of Israel's demand that the force be deployed under the U.N. Charter's Chapter 7, which would authorize troops to use force. Lebanon opposes that because of its fears such a mandate would make the peacekeepers look like occupiers.

Israeli officials said a small, weak U.N. force in south Lebanon is a deal breaker. Israel worries such a force will not be able to prevent Hezbollah guerrillas from resuming attacks on Israel. However, Israel TV's Channel 10 quoted an Olmert aide as saying the final draft was "good for Israel," and an individual close to the government said there was a "good chance" Israel would accept it.

This is very encouraging. A boosted Chapter 6 UN force and agreed ceasefire ensures that they are peacekeepers as opposed to peacemakers (like Israel and the US wanted) tasked with fighting off Hezbollah. It avoids the perception of an occupation force. I also hear that it will also include Lebanon sending in 15,000 soldiers to take control of the southern regions that it has not had control of.

[UPDATE 7:26 PM: I can't verify the 15,000 Lebanese troop contingent. I haven't seen mentions of them and that 15,000 force is important. Although there will be more UN forces in Lebanon, they will be just as useless as the current forces. Without those 15,000 Lebanese troops to control the south than this UN resolution is stupid. Will Hezbollah respect the UNIFIL force alone? I doubt it. Oh god, once again I am begining to have my doubts about this. I was so excited about this just a few short hours ago and now I'm very worried.

In this case, I see very little that Israel gains from the ceasefire except that it will avoid the disaster that was sure to occur where it to actually fully implement its full ground invasion. It gained little; then again they were desperate to get the hell out of there. With that said you can continue to read this post but a lot of what I wrote depends on Lebanese control of the south and that's not a given anymore. *Sigh*]

Why did Israel accept it, especially as it was just beginning its large invasion of Lebanon? I believe it was a large bluff. It really does not want to have a large invasion of Lebanon (very, very smart of them) and they see this as acceptable enough despite it not including a lot of what they want. Its enough for them, they just want out.

The increased UN force plus the Lebanese soldiers in the south must make them feel a little better about the resolution. The invasion will continue until Sunday when they vote to accept the resolution: They want to get in as many blows as possible before the ceasefire begins.

Hezbollah has gained much from the conflict, but this resolution should be a blow to Hezbollah.

Israel will have agreed to a ceasefire, taking away one of the rationales for Hezbollah to continue strikes on Israel, the Lebanese state has signed on to it, reducing the legitimacy of Hezbollah strikes on Israel and its continued resistance among the Lebanese public (in case they refuse to stop fighting). The Lebanese people desperately want an end to the fighting and this ceasefire will be seen as that avenue; for Hezbollah to continue fighting, this time it will likely incur the wrath of the Lebanese people.

It will be UN and Lebanese troops who will be in the south, if Hezbollah resists these attempts by the UN and Lebanon to command the south it will hurt Hezbollah. They are not killing IDF soldiers this time, it will be fellow Lebanese and UN forces. That will not help Hezbollah.

There is still the possibility that Hezbollah will not agree and continue the fight but perhaps Hezbollahs approval may not be needed to work as I once believed. It would be great for them to agree, but it would not be smart for Hezbollah to fight the Lebanese government and the UN.

What is bad is that it would be a blood bath if it does decide to resist. Hmm...Let me change my
view around as it keeps changing on the necessity to have the acquiescence of Hezbollah for a ceasefire to work:

Hezbollah's acceptance of the ceasefire resolution and its terms is extremely important, but for Hezbollah to not accept it would hurt Hezbollah. May even erase much of the gains it has made during the course of this conflict. (That is my final view on that on this post)


It will likely lose much of what it has gained among the Lebanese and Arab public if it does so. Hezbollah would be smart to go along with this.

Oh, how things have turned around. Israel - for once - made the right choice and it was diplomacy that has turned the tables on Hezbollah, not its military might. Hezbollah likely would have preferred for Israel to continue fighting on indefinitely.

As of today, finally, I believe it is Lebanon and Israel who have the upper hand on Hezbollah. I hope this will pan out not turn out like so many "close to peace" moments in the middle east; Turns to dust.