Google
 
Web my-twocents.blogspot.com

Monday, July 31, 2006

Worst and Best Case Scenarios According to the Experts

The news is grim for both Israel and the United States according to veteran policy-makers and those who were in the State Department.

The disturbing thing is that it is not just Israel and Lebanon that stand to suffer and lose in this conflict. The United States has a lot to lose in seeing this conflict continue any longer. This is not just about Israel and Lebanon, this affects us. Remember that people.

Peter Baker on how the Lebanon crisis can undercut Bush's Long term goals (and the US's I might add). I hate to quote this extensively but it is a great article.

The Israeli bombs that slammed into the Lebanese village of Qana yesterday did more than kill three dozen children and a score of adults. They struck at the core of U.S. foreign policy in the region and illustrated in heart-breaking images the enormous risks for Washington in the current Middle East crisis.

With each new scene of carnage in southern Lebanon, outrage in the Arab world and Europe has intensified against Israel and its prime sponsor, raising the prospect of a backlash resulting in a new Middle East quagmire for the United States, according to regional specialists, diplomats and former U.S. officials.

Although the United States has urged Israel to use restraint, it has also strongly defended the military assaults as a reasonable response to Hezbollah rocket attacks, a position increasingly at odds with allies that see a deadly overreaction. Analysts think that if the war drags on, as appears likely, it could leave the United States more isolated than at any time since the Iraq invasion three years ago and hindered in its foreign policy goals such as shutting down Iran's nuclear program and spreading democracy around the world.

"The arrows are all pointing in the wrong direction," said Richard N. Haass, who was President Bush's first-term State Department policy planning director. "The biggest danger in the short run is it just increases frustration and alienation from the United States in the Arab world. Not just the Arab world, but in Europe and around the world. People will get a daily drumbeat of suffering in Lebanon and this will just drive up anti-Americanism to new heights."

And this:

Analysts foresee a muddled outcome at best, in which Hezbollah survives Israel's airstrikes, foreign peacekeepers become bogged down, and U.S. relations with allies are severely strained. At worst, they said, Hezbollah and Iran feel emboldened, Islamic radicalism spreads, and a region smuggling fighters and weapons into Iraq fractures further along sectarian lines.

(snip)

"The worst-case scenario . . . is a much more radicalized Islamic fundamentalist Middle East and much more isolated Israel and a much more isolated United States and fewer people to talk with."

(snip)

In the long run, he and others warn, the situation could cement the perception that the United States is so pro-Israel that a new generation of Arab youth will grow up perceiving Americans as enemies. The internal pressure on friendly governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere could force them to distance themselves from Washington or crack down on domestic dissidents to keep power. In either case, Bush may have little leverage to press for democratic reforms.

Jon B. Alterman, a Middle East specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, outlined "not even the worst-case scenario, but a bad-case scenario: South Lebanon is in shambles, Hezbollah gets credit for rebuilding it with Iranian money, Hezbollah grows stronger in Lebanon and it's not brought to heel. The reaction of surrounding states weakens them, radicalism rises, and they respond with more repression. None of this is especially far-fetched. And in all of this, the U.S. is seen as a fundamentally hostile party."

I was wrong

I had assumed that Israel would not make the decision to launch a full-scale ground offensive in S. Lebanon. I didn't believe it would want to repeat the difficulties it had last time around in Lebanon but I miscalculated.

As it stands, if hostilities end today, say with a ceasefire, Hezbollah would be considered the winner. This cannot go on forever though and I believe all sides, including Hezbollah would like to see a ceasefire and diplomacy take place. I still believe that a ceasefire is inevitable (though not necessarily the Lebanese offered ceasefire I mentioned yesterday who's viability I think I way overstated in hindsight), but I think this new ground offensive seems like a final attempt by Israel to seriously diminish Hezbollah in the south prior to a ceasefire.

It does not want to be seen as the loser and it wants Hezbollah to be weakened prior to diplomacy to reduce Hezbollah leverage in such negotiations. The clock is ticking and Israel's leadership is trying to get in as many blows (and perhaps hoping for a miraculous knock-out) as it can before the inevitable resumption (or establishment) of diplomacy between the many parties.

I could be wrong, its certainly already happened a few times in these 3 weeks of fighting.

I'll keep commentary brief on the following articles that should be read:

Lebanese PM thanks Hezboallah for its 'sacrifice' - Sad. Where once the Lebanese government might have been counted on as an instrument to counter Hezboallah, it seems the strikes by Israel and the civilian casualties are indeed pushing the Lebanese government and Hezbollah together.

I worried in past posts that the continuation of the conflict may - ironically - push the government and Hezbollah closer together and now we may be seeing the beginnings of that. Hopefully it can be revered. Perhaps when the strikes end the Lebanese government will continue to disassociate with the group.

Saturday, July 29, 2006

HUGE Lebanon Update - Reason For Optimism

A lot of stuff seemed to happen overnight, or I just was not paying close enough attention. Lets start

A Lebanese Ceasefire Plan has a real chance:

The Lebanese cease-fire plan, developed by Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora, will be presented to Rice. It calls for an immediate cease-fire, the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails and the return of two Israeli soldiers held by Hezbollah.

The plan calls for the return of displaced Lebanese and negotiations between Israel and Lebanon concerning the disputed Shebaa farms under Israeli control.

It also calls for the release of maps showing Israeli minefields near the Lebanese border; the deployment and strengthening of the Lebanese army; and the expansion of the U.N. force in the south.

Although Hezbollah agreed to a cease-fire with Israel and a larger international presence in southern Lebanon, the group objected to "a robust force" of international peacekeepers, the sources said.

Also, Hezbollah did not specifically agree to disarm, as Israel has demanded, the sources said. The plan does call for the Lebanese military to take control of southern Lebanon, along with the U.N. force.

A great development that may address many of the problems that lead to the problems we are seeing. It will strengthen the Lebanese military, bring its rule into southern Lebanon, allows for an expanded UN role, addresses the lingering Shebba Farms subject, and allows Israel to save face with the return of its soldiers and with the successful removal of Hezbollah (voluntarily) in the south (a big deal for its security). And note to President Bush, the Ceasefire must come first in order for these concessions and terms to be implemented, the continued military offensive has NOT helped the situation.

Which bring us to a possible reason why Israel may be receptive to a ceasefire in my opinion; It is facing tough resistance in south Lebanon and especially in Bint Jbeil. Israel announces it will withdraw from action around the Hezbollah stronghold of Bint Jbeil.

JERUSALEM - Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared victory on Saturday after Israel announced it was withdrawing its forces from the southern Lebanese town of Bint Jbail where Israeli troops found unexpected difficulty in dislodging the guerrilla group from its strongholds.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev defended the decision to pull troops from Bint Jbeil, saying Israel had never intended to occupy the town, but Nasrallah's
quick declaration of victory underscored the propaganda gains Hezbollah is reaping across the Muslim world as it battles Israel to a stalemate.

"The Israelis are ready to halt the aggression because they are afraid of the unknown," Nasrallah said in a speech in which he also expressed measured support for the Lebanese government's efforts to reach a peace agreement.

Despite Israel's claims that they never intended to take the town, it is very clear that they simply ran into too much resistance and did not think it wise to bring in a larger-scale ground force that could dislodge them (wise of them). What this amounts to is this:

Israel was not able and does not wish to bring the necessary force to truly dislodge Hezbollah in the south, the stature and power of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the middle east has increased due to their successful resistance to the IDF and will increase more as they spin this withdrawal as a victory against the IDF (the first in Arab History it may seem). Hezbollah simply has the upperhand in this situation and so Israel, seeing a way out diplomatically that will save it some face and, if truly implemented, will contribute to a more secure Israel. It will definitely give such a ceasefire a chance if it is smart.

Further proof that this is the case is evidenced by the reporting coming out of Reuters that Israel will not demand Hezbollah to disarm as a condition in a ceasefire. Israel understands the situation and knows such a demand will immediately torpedo any agreement on a ceasefire and jeopardize the terms of the ceasefire that it finds appealing. Whatever Israel says, Israel wants a ceasefire.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel will not demand the immediate disarming of Hizbollah as part of a deal to end the current fighting in Lebanon, a senior Israeli foreign ministry official said on Saturday.

Israel's stance could make it easier to reach an agreement with major powers and the Lebanese government on the deployment of a peacekeeping force in south Lebanon.

Hizbollah would almost certainly reject a peacekeeping force whose mandate calls for its disarmament.

But if the UN force and the strengthened Lebanese Army (per the ceasefire) can keep Hezbollah away from the south it will be good for Israel and it may be counting on that. 1) It will make rocket attacks nearly impossible 2) It will strengthen Lebanon's Army to the point that IT could possibly work in the future in the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Israel's campaign in Lebanon has done nothing but strengthen the hand of Hezbollah, but it is possible that through diplomacy (hopefully the US will finally get off its ass!!) Israel and the world will gains something from the tragedies of the past couple weeks.

Here's to Hope!!

Friday, July 28, 2006

Does Hezbollah Hide and Operate Among Civilians?

A frequent retort to the high - over 600 now - casualty count is that it is because Hezbollah uses civilians as "shields" by operating among them. I had seen enough reports of attacks on non-Hezbollah related targets to question the story that they are ONLY bombing Hezbollah but also punishing Lebanon into disassociating from Hezbollah (Like that will work!!)

That retort always seemed weak, but I had always assumed that it was certainly true that Hezbollah purposely operated among civilians. This article in Salon by Mitch Prothero flips that conventional wisdom, calling it a "myth." I'm not sure what to think anymore. Perhaps if there were more people saying this than him.

But then there IS the fact that very few Hezbollah fighters have been killed during the conflict, and there have been tons of civilians killed. You'd think there would be more dead Hezbollah if so many of them hid among the civilians.

Of course, this does not give me any more sympathy for Hezbollah, they are nothing but a curse for Lebanon and I hope their power and sway diminishes in Lebanon though it seems this conflict is doing nothing but give Hezbollah a HUGE boost among Lebanese and the wider Middle East. I know I say it a lot but...Israel and the US is run by morons.

"The hiding among civilians myth"

Excerpt:
"The handful of people in the town include some from Hezbollah's political wing, as well as volunteers keeping an eye on things while the residents are gone. Off to the side, as we watch the Israelis pummel ridgelines on the outskirts of town, one of the political operatives explains that the fighters never come near the town, reinforcing what other Hezbollah people have told me over the years."

"Although Israel targets apartments and offices because they are considered "Hezbollah" installations, the group has a clear policy of keeping its fighters away from civilians as much as possible. This is not for humanitarian reasons -- they did, after all, take over an apartment building against the protests of the landlord, knowing full well it would be bombed -- but for military ones."

"You can be a member of Hezbollah your entire life and never see a military wing fighter with a weapon," a Lebanese military intelligence official, now retired, once told me. "They do not come out with their masks off and never operate around people if they can avoid it. They're completely afraid of collaborators. They know this is what breaks the Palestinians -- no discipline and too much showing off."

Is this propaganda? Who knows?

Arabs Opinion is Shifting In Favor of Hezbollah

According to Today's New York Times popular opinion among the Arabs has very quickly shifted from condemnation of Hezbollah to support of it in the wake of the ongoing civilian casualties. They also cite the fact that Hezbollah has managed to survive this long, an accomplishment that no Arab governments have managed in their various wars with Israel.


DAMASCUS, Syria, July 27 At the onset of the Lebanese crisis, Arab governments, starting with Saudi Arabia, slammed Hezbollah for recklessly provoking a war, providing what the United States and Israel took as a wink and a nod to continue the fight.

Now, with hundreds of Lebanese dead and Hezbollah holding out against the vaunted Israeli military for more than two weeks, the tide of public opinion across the Arab world is surging behind the organization, transforming the Shiite groups leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, into a folk hero and forcing a change in official statements.

The Saudi royal family and King Abdullah II of Jordan, who were initially more worried about the rising power of Shiite Iran, Hezbollahs main sponsor, are scrambling to distance themselves from Washington.

An outpouring of newspaper columns, cartoons, blogs and public poetry readings have showered praise on Hezbollah while attacking the United States and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for trumpeting American plans for a new Middle East” that they say has led only to violence and repression.


With the violence continuing due to a lack of a ceasefire (there certainly is no US pressure to have one) the Arab populations are increasingly supporting Hezbollah to the point that the same moderate Arab governments winitiallyallly condemned Hezbollah are now trying to distance themselves from the United States. That is very unfortunate for the United States and any future attempts at talks in the region, or in its attempts to gather support for cooperation on dealing with Iran.

This article alludes to Al Qaeda (A Sunni group) supporting someone it usually would not Hezbollah (a militant Shia group). It reminds me of a joke I think is applicable enough to the situation and that is probably true to some extent:

Jon Stewart asked a guest almost rhetorically "president Bush said he would unite people, but doesn't it seem as if he's not uniting Americas, but that he is uniting the whole world, sunnis and shias, in opposition to the United States?" (not exact quote. From my head)

Our leaders and Israel's leaders are morons.

UPDATE: 7/28/06 8:50 PM: Via Bloomberg we learn that the standing of Hezbollah's leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has risen due to the conflict in Lebanon. Certainly a bad turn of events and I bet moderate Arab governments are worried at this Shia leaders growing popularity among their own Shia populations.

"Kill However Many Lebanese it Takes to Destroy Hezbollah"

Its not an exact quote, but I was just watching Paula Zahn's show today when she was talking with 2 guys. 1 For an immediate ceasefire and another against it.

It went back and forth but when pressed repeatedly by the the guy for the ceasefire "How many Lebanese should die for Israel to succeed" (or destroy Hezbollah), the guy finally said:

(Paraphasing) "We will kill as many as it takes to completely destroy Hezbollah"

I was stunned and so was the other guest it seemed. There's no transcript yet but I'll add it as soon as I can.

Minutemen, Racism, and the GOP

Dave Neiwert of the blog Orcinus

A great piece on the phenomena of the minutemen and racism in general here and in Australia. I've seen other articles on the Minutemen (including from The Southern Poverty Law Center) which details the ties to racist, seperatist, and supremacist groups to the Minutemen. Any time you hear Lou Dobbs or anyone else try and paint the Minutemen as not affiliated with these groups or try and defend them by saying "stop using the racism card" please know those guys are full of shit.

I hate the "stop playing the racism card" card!!! AAARGH!!

Thursday, July 27, 2006

"Holding 3.8 million People Hostage"

Juan Cole is a great resource on Middle East issues (its his specialty). Here is a great update post.

He has some interesting things to say. Its worth reading the whole thing.

----------

Excerpt:

Philip Gordon relays the thinking of the Israeli political and military elite behind its inhuman and massive bombing of all Lebanon:


' According to retired Israeli army Col. Gal Luft, the goal of the campaign is
to "create a rift between the Lebanese population and Hezbollah supporters." The
message to Lebanon's elite, he said, is this: "If you want your air conditioning
to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull
your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land."
'

In other words, Zbig was right that the Israelis have kidnapped the 3.8 million Lebanese and are holding them all for ranson, while breaking their legs from time to time to encourage prompt payment. The horrible thing is that the Lebanese could not do anything about Hizbullah if they wanted to. Their government is weak and divided (Hizbullah is in it, and the Bush administration and Ambassador Mark Feltman signed off on that!) Their new, green army only has 60,000 men, and a lot of them are Shiites who would not fight Hizbullah. Lebanon was a patient that needed to be nurtured carefully to health. Instead, it has been drafted and put into the middle of the worst fighting on the battlefield.

Then there is this: ' Brigadier General Dan Halutz, the Israeli Chief of Staff, emphasised that the offensive . . . was open-ended. “Nothing is safe (in Lebanon), as simple as that,” he said. 'In other words, Halutz, who is also said to have threatened ten for one reprisals, is openly declaring that he will commit war crimes if he wants to. Nothing is safe? A Christian school in the northern village of Bsharri? A Druze old people's home in the Shouf mountains? A Sunni family out for a stroll in the northern port of Tripoli? He can murder all of them at will, Halutz says. And Luft gives us the rationale. If these Lebanese civilians aren't curbing Hizbullah for Israel, they just aren't going to be enjoying their lives. They are a nation of hostages until such time as they have properly developed Stockholm syndrome and begin thanking the Israelis for their tender mercies.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

US Troops in Lebanon?

No, I don't mean another US invasion in the Middle East. This refers to the possibility of the US making up a sizeable portion of new international peacekeeping force to stabilize and patrol the southern border regions and - I assume - help facilitate the disarming of Hezbollah. (By force? Through an agreement between Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah and the international community? I don't know)

Via Harpers, but because it is easier for people, I will cite the shorter excerpts from Raw Story : (emphasis mine)

"The officer, who had broad experience in the Middle East while at the CIA, noted that NATO and European countries, including England, have made clear that they are either unwilling or extremely reluctant to participate in an international force. Given other nations' lack of commitment, any robust force between 10,000 and 30,000 troops, according to estimates being discussed in the media would by definition require major U.S. participation. According to the former official, Israel and the United States are currently discussing a large American role in exactly such a multinational deployment, and some top administration officials, along with senior civilians at the Pentagon, are receptive to the idea.

The uniformed military, however, is ardently opposed to sending American soldiers to the region, according to my source. They are saying 'What the fuck?' he told me. Most of our combat-ready divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan, or on their way, or coming back. The generals don't like it because we're already way overstretched.

The former CIA officer said that the Bush Administration seems not to understand Hezbollah's deep roots and broad support among Lebanon's Shiites, the country's largest single ethnic bloc. A U.S. force is going to end up making, not keeping, peace with Hezbollah. Once you start fighting in a place like that youre basically at war with the Shiite population. That means that our soldiers are going to be getting shot at by Hezbollah. This would be a sheer disaster for us.

The scenario of an American deployment appears to come straight out of the neoconservative playbook: send U.S. forces into the Middle East, regardless of what our own military leaders suggest, in order to stabilize the region. The chances of success, as we have seen in Iraq, are remote. So what should be done? My source said the situation is so volatile at the moment that the only smart policy is to get an immediate ceasefire and worry about the terms of a lasting truce afterwards.

Why o why must we continue to be led my idiots and chickenhawks who continue to think and treat war and using military force as it means nothing in order to prove their twisted and bogus foreign policy theories. Did they not learn from Iraq what it means not to listen to your military leaders.

As the CIA officer believes, I too believe that such a force would quickly devolve from being a peacekeeping force into a peacemaking force.

You'll never force Hezbollah to disarm because it will fight and the fighting will be fierce. We'll likely see such a force coming under guerilla attacks of the type similar to what US troops are facing in Iraq. The political road is the only road to take; if you can't force them to disarm perhaps at some point they will disarm themselves through negotiations. It may take a while but I don't think it is impossible. I am not saying a peacekeeping force is necesarilly bad, but any multinational force must be there with the aquiesence of Hezbollah, likely after talks.

The fighting has to stop and then there has to be talks for a more lasting peace that involve at least Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel, the US, the UN, and Syria as parties to the talks. If we really want attacks to stop in the future than Syria and Hezbollah MUST be allowed in the negotiations or else it wont work.

Military force is not going to solve this problem and it is foolish to believe a solution will arise solely by force. If it did than Israel would of solved its problems with the Palestinians three-times over.

Going To War in Iraq Was Supposed to Bring Peace and Democracy To the Middle East

Wa happen? It was perfectly planned out by those lovable neo-cons in the Administration. It was foolproof said the neo-con gnomes when asked to explain their plan which they did thusly:

1) Go to War in Iraq

2) ????????

3) Peace and Democracy in the Middle East

Man, now I'm starting to think that I was a bit naive to buy a foreign policy model based on stealing underpants...ahem...I mean going to war with Iraq.

So how is the Middle East doing?

Iraq - The deaths and sectarian violence continues, there's word of more troops in Baghdad where the US seems to be caught smack dab in the middle of a civil war.

There is much impatience on the part of Turkey against the Kurds in the South of Turkey and in the Iraqi north as pressure mounts for Ankara to deal more harshly with Kurdish seperatists attacking from Iraq. According to Newsweek, 15 Turkish soldiers have been killed in the last week by acts of terror from Kurdish seperatists. As the article notes, Israel went to war with Lebanon (with US tacit support) for less, but I doubt the US would support Turkish claims that it has a right to defend its self and cross into Iraq with troops.

Already the Turkish military has laid detailed plans for possible helicopter-and-commando assaults, government sources tell NEWSWEEK. Meanwhile, Ankara's frustration with Washington has grown palpable. For all the Bush administration's repeated promises to crack down on the PKK, little if anything has happened.
The pressure mounts for Turkey to send in troops and I cannot even comprehend what will happen in such event. All I can say is that it probably wouldn't be a good thing.

Israel/Palestinian Territories - Israel rocket attacks and incursions continue in Gaza in the wake of the kidnapping of Israeli officer Capt. Gilad Shalit by the militant-wing of Hamas. As I have argued, the militant-wing of Hamas seems to have kidnapped Shalit in order to derail progress and eliminate pressure that brought the PA, controlled by the "governing-wing" of Hamas, from recognizing Israel. Like that will happen now.

There is this bit of good news though. There may be a deal - brokered by PA President Mahmoud Abbas - to stop the Qassam rocket attacks on Israel and to return the kidnapped soldier.

Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have agreed to stop firing rockets at Israel and to free a captured Israeli soldier in a deal brokered by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president.

The deal, agreed on Sunday, is to halt the rocket attacks in return for a cessation of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, and to release Corporal Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured on June 25, in exchange for the freeing of Palestinian prisoners at some point in the future.

An adviser to Mr Abbas told the Guardian that all Palestinian politicians were united on the need to free the Israeli soldier and stop all violence in Gaza, but the obstacles were the Israeli government and the Hamas leadership in Damascus.
At this point the agreement seems hinged on Hamas' leaders in Damascus giving the go ahead, and on the Israeli's agreeing to it as well. Here's to hope.

Lebanon - Where to start. I'll try and keep it short. The bombing continues in Lebanon, the Katyushas continue to rain down on northern Israel, the Israeli's have their hands full rooting Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon villages such as Bint Jubail and Maroun Al-Ras. Not entirely secure by Israel, and as I am writing this I hear word that attempts to mop up Hezbollah in these villages were met by a Hezbollah counter-attack. More in future post.

The IDF has shelled and bombed a UN base filled with UN peacekeepers attached to the UNIFIL force on the border of Lebanon, 4 peacekeepers were killed. The four monitors came from Austria, Canada, China and Finland. The UN Sec. General has criticizing Israel for the sustained bombing of the base and an investigation will likely occur as to how this could have happened.

Israel asserts that it was a mistake but there is speculation that it was on purpose stemming from reports that the UN peacekeeping base called and warned the Israel military on several occasions during the bombardment that they were the ones being bombed. UN vehicles coming to evacuate those in the destroyed base also came under fire.

Jane Lute, the assistant secretary general for peacekeeping, told the UN security council that the base came under close Israeli fire 21 times - including 12 hits within 100 metres and four direct hits - from 1.20pm until contact was lost with the four peacekeepers inside at 7.17pm.

Ms Lute said the peacekeeping force had protested to the Israeli army after each firing incident. The UN's deputy secretary general, Mark Malloch Brown, and Ms Lute herself also made several calls to Israel's mission to the UN "reiterating these
protests and calling for an abatement of the shelling", she said.

After contact with the base was lost, Unifil then won safe passage for two armoured
personnel carriers to evacuate the position, she said. They arrived at 9.30pm "and found the shelter collapsed and major damage to the rest of the position". Despite negotiating safe passage, the APCs also came under Israeli attack, Ms Lute said.
That's it for now, as I've already gone long with this post. More in future posts.

Its All About the PetroBenjamins Baby!

Well, I usually try to steer clear of rather simplistic protestmarch-esque phrases such as "No Blood For Oil" or "Its about the Oil" and stuff like that, but in the following piece Greg Palast makes a few good points about the people who have benefited from the instigation and perpetuation of the armed conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon.

As for the its all about oil point he makes...well I'm sure oil has a role (it would certainly be ignorant and dishonest to note oil), but I sure as hell dont know how big it is or want to overstate that factor. I agree with him on who benefits from the conflict though (armed militants and sagging-in-the-polls politicians) Warning: Long Post

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


Greg Palast

BLOOD IN BEIRUT: $75.05 A BARREL

The failure to stop the bloodletting in the Middle East, Exxon's record second-quarter profits and Iran's nuclear cat-and-mouse game have something in common -- it's the oil.
By Greg PalastJuly 26, 2006

I can't tell you how it started -- this is a war that's been fought since the Levites clashed with the Philistines -- but I can tell you why the current mayhem has not been stopped. It's the oil.
I'm not an expert on Palestine nor Lebanon and I'd rather not pretend to be one. If you want to know what's going on, read Robert Fisk. He lives there. He speaks Arabic. Stay away from pundits whose only connection to the Middle East is the local falafel stand.

So why am I writing now? The answer is that, while I don't speak Arabic or Hebrew, I am completely fluent in the language of petroleum.

What? You don't need a degree in geology to know there's no oil in Israel, Palestine or Lebanon. (A few weeks ago, I was joking around with Afif Safieh, the Palestinian Authority's Ambassador to the US, asking him why he was fighting to have a piece of the only place in the Middle East without oil. Well, there's no joking now.)

Let's begin with the facts we can agree on: the berserkers are winning. Crazies discredited only a month ago are now in charge, guys with guns bigger than brains and souls smaller still. Here's a list:

-- Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's approval rating in June was down to a Bush-level of 35%. But today, Olmert's poll numbers among Israeli voters have more than doubled to 78% as he does his bloody John Wayne "cleanin' out the varmints" routine. But let's not forget: Olmert can't pee-pee without George Bush's approval. Bush can stop Olmert tomorrow. He hasn't.

-- Hezbollah, a political party rejected overwhelmingly by Lebanese voters sickened by their support of Syrian occupation, holds a mere 14 seats out of 128 in the nation's parliament. Hezbollah was facing demands by both Lebanon's non-Shia majority and the United Nations to lay down arms. Now, few Lebanese would suggest taking away their rockets. But let's not forget: Without Iran, Hezbollah is just a fundamentalist street gang. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can stop Hezbollah's rockets tomorrow. He hasn't.

-- Hamas, just days before it kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers, was facing certain political defeat at the hands of the Palestinian majority ready to accept the existence of Israel as proposed in a manifesto for peace talks penned by influential Palestinian prisoners. Now the Hamas rocket brigade is back in charge. But let's not forget: Hamas is broke and a joke without the loot and authority of Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah can stop these guys tomorrow. He hasn't.

Why not? Why haven't what we laughably call "leaders" of the USA, Iran and Saudi Arabia called back their delinquent spawn, cut off their allowances and grounded them for six months?

Maybe because mayhem and murder in the Middle East are very, very profitable to the sponsors of these characters with bombs and rockets. America, Iran and Saudi Arabia share one thing in common: they are run by oil regimes. The higher the price of crude, the higher the profits and the happier the presidents and princelings of these petroleum republics.

This Thursday, Exxon is expected to report the highest second-quarter earnings of any corporation since the days of the Pharaoh, $9.9 billion in pure profit collected in just three months -- courtesy of an oil shortage caused by pipelines on fire in Iraq, warlord attacks in Nigeria, the lingering effects of the sabotage of Venezuela's oil system by a 2002 strike... the list could go on.

Exxon's brobdingnagian profits simply reflect the cold axiom that oil companies and oil states don't make their loot by finding oil but by finding trouble. Finding oil increases supply. Increased supply means decreased price. Whereas finding trouble -- wars, coup d'etats, hurricanes, whatever can disrupt supply -- raises the price of oil.

A couple of examples from today's Bloomberg newswire are:
"Crude oil traded above $75 a barrel in New York as fighting between Israeli and Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces in Lebanon entered its 14th day... Oil prices rose last month on concern for supplies from Iran, the world's fourth largest producer, may be disrupted in its dispute with the United Nations over its uranium enrichment ... [And, said a trader,] 'I still think $85 is likely this summer. I'm really surprised we haven't seen any hurricanes.'''

In Tehran, President Ahmadinejad may or may not have a plan to make a nuclear bomb, but he sure as heck knows that hinting at it raises the price of the one thing he certainly does have -- oil. Every time he barks, 'Mad Mahmoud' knows that he's pumping up the price of crude. Just a $10 a barrel "blow-up-in-the-Mideast" premium brings his regime nearly a quarter of a billion dollars each week (including the little kick to the value of Iran's natural gas). Not a bad pay-off for making a bit of trouble.

Saudi Arabia's rake-in from The Troubles? Assuming just a $10 a barrel boost for Middle Eastern mayhem and you can calculate that the blood in the sand puts an extra $658 million a week in Abdullah's hand.

And in Houston, you can hear the cash registers jing-a-ling as explosions in Kirkuk, Beirut and the Niger River Delta sound like the sleigh-bells on Santa's sled. At $75.05 a barrel, they don't call it "sweet" crude for nothing. That's up 27% from a year ago. The big difference between then and now: the rockets' red glare.

Exxon's second-quarter profits may bust records, but next quarter's should put it to shame, as the "Lebanon premium" and Iraq's insurgency have puffed up prices, up by an average of 11% in the last three months.

So there's not much incentive for the guys who supply the weaponry to tell their wards to put away their murderous toys. This war's just too darn profitable.

We are trained to think of Middle Eastern conflicts as just modern flare-ups of ancient tribal animosities. But to uncover why the flames won't die, the usual rule applies: follow the money.

Am I saying that Tehran, Riyadh and Houston oil chieftains conspired to ignite a war to boost their petroleum profits? I can't imagine it. But I do wonder if Bush would let Olmert have an extra week of bombings, or if the potentates of the Persian Gulf would allow Hamas and Hezbollah to continue their deadly fireworks if it caused the price of crude to crash. You know and I know that if this war took a bite out of Exxon or the House of Saud, a ceasefire would be imposed quicker than you can say, "Let's drill in the Arctic."

Eventually, there will be another ceasefire. But Exxon shareholders need not worry. Global warming has heated the seas sufficiently to make certain that they can look forward to a hellacious -- and profitable -- season of hurricanes.
*****
Greg Palast is the author of the just-released New York Times bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War. Go to www.GregPalast.com.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Lebanon Updates

I've been mostly offline for the past few days so I haven't updated in a while. Everyday, we hear of rockets hitting Israel, and missiles pounding Lebanese civilians or Hezbollah locations. After the escalation of striking outside of areas Southern Lebanon and south Beirut it has more or less become an issue of strike and counterstrike. Devastation is found on both sides, although, because of the sophistication of Israel's weaponry the casualties in Lebanon are strikingly more numerous.

As it stands at least 306 people have been killed in Lebanon since Israel's campaign began, according to Lebanese officials. At least 31 Israelis have been killed, including 16 soldiers.

Today is different than the other days though. So with out further ado, here are some Updates: (with short excerpts)

Israel Hints at Full Scale Invasion



BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Israeli troops met fierce resistance from Hezbollah guerrillas Thursday as they crossed into Lebanon to seek tunnels and weapons for a second straight day, and Israel hinted at a full-scale invasion.

Israel warned residents to "immediately" flee a nearly 20-mile swath of south Lebanon along the border. Its warplanes also launched new airstrikes on Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, shortly after daybreak, followed by strikes in the guerrillas' heartland in the south and eastern Bekaa Valley.

The planes also bombed large parts of the south, from which Hezbollah guerrillas fired more rockets into Israel. On Wednesday, Israeli bombings killed as many as 70 people, according to Lebanese television, making it the deadliest day since the fighting began July 12.

The fighting seems fierce and I honestly do not believe that Israel expected the level of resistance they are receiving. The sophistication of Hezbollah's guerilla tactics has caught some Israeli commanders by surprise and is described as reminiscent of Viet Cong tactics used against Americans during the Vietnam War.

The toll in one days bombing is horrendous and it might just get worse for the Lebanese government and its people. I chose my words carefully and here is why:

Lebanese Defense Minister says it is ready to confront Israel ground invasion. The same invasion that is referenced in the first link:



Lebanese Defense Minister Elyas Al-Murr said on Thursday the army was ready to confront any ground attacks by Israel. In a press statement, Al-Murr explained that the Lebanese army is ready for confrontation if Israel decides to conduct a ground operation against Lebanon. Al-Murr's statement was the first of its kind by a member of the Lebanese Cabinet.

This is very disturbing. Up to now, although Israel has put fault on the Lebanese government for the kidnappings, official stated policy was to attack Hezbollah and try to reduce harm to the Lebanese government so as not to destabilize it. Also, the Lebanese government has kept out of the fighting and not sided with Hezbollah.

An Israeli invasion, and the Lebanese promises of a response will mean that the the Lebanese will have been forced to side in this conflict with Hezbollah against its will. It will also mean that Israel will likely start striking at government infrastructure, institutions, and military bases and units. The likelihood of the government of Lebanon falling increases exponentially as a result.

We can expect chaos in any case, but it could lead to closer bonds and working bonds formed between Hezbollah and the government (would it not be ironic if Israel action instead of separating Hezbollah from Lebanon, pushes them closer together?)

The question is: Will President Bush now try and intervene with the Israeli's? An invasion and its consequences do threaten the Lebanese state, so will we see him finally intervene? I just don't know.

Update: I was invited to eat by a friend but I said no 'cause I was writting this post and anyways I ate an hour ago. And the guy was Salvadoran. There, I wrote it. I bet you didn't think I would lol!! You know who you are!!

Monday, July 17, 2006

What Happened to Compassionate Conservatism?

Via Jesus' General blog we get a sampling of the rabid, inhumane character of many in the right-wing. Like I said before, to many of these people the lives of Arabs mean nothing and the state of being an Arab makes you automatically guilty of terrorism. Just one sample of the right-wing reaction to an article stating that Eleven children and eight adults were killed by Israeli warplanes when trying to flee the carnage.

To: yankeedame

boo friggin hoo.

just eliminating future terrorists IMO.


That tells you everything don't it?

"Baghdad on the Verge of Collapse"

The Times:

As I hung up the phone, I wondered if I would ever see my friend Ali alive again. Ali, The Times translator for the past three years, lives in west Baghdad, an area that is now in meltdown as a bitter civil war rages between Sunni insurgents and Shia militias. It is, quite simply, out of control.

I returned to Baghdad on Monday after a break of several months, during which I too was guilty of glazing over every time I read another story of Iraqi violence. But two nights on the telephone, listening to my lost and frightened Iraqi staff facing death at any moment, persuaded me that Baghdad is now verging on total collapse.

And then there is this, a horrible, fearful situation to live ones life every day:

Ali has a surname that could easily pass for Shia. His brother-in-law has an unmistakably Sunni name. They agreed that if they could determine that the gunmen were Shia, Ali would answer the door. If they were Sunnis, his brother-in-law would go.

Whoever didn't answer the door would hide in the dog kennel on the roof.

Their Plan B was simpler: to dash 50 yards to theirneighborss house home to a dozen brothers. All Iraqi homes are awash with guns for sedefensence in these merciless times. Together they would shoot it out with the gunmen one of a dozen unsung Alamos now being fought nightly on Iraqs blacked-out streets.

Iraq is degenerating into civil war, Hezbollah and Israel are duking it out (with much civilian casualties), there is the possibility of the violence spreading to Syria and Iran, WE still are trying to get the Iranians to stop their nuclear program, and we are are still in rough seas trying to convince the North Koreans to give up their nuke program.

The world seems pretty fucked up nowouldn'tuldnt envy this situation for wise and capable US policy makers, this must be much worse for dunderheads like Bush and Cheney.

The World Needs Some Happy

Following this conflict is frustruating, infuriating, and depressing. I am just a spectator though. I can only imagine how Lebanese and Israeli people are taking this. Its times like these I like to shut off the news and watch something funny, or a cartoon or something (what of it? lol).

I'm on break for now, but Ill probably post something later today.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

"Constraining America's Options"

Steve Clemons has a very interesting piece that argues that Israel, in its reaction to the kidnapping of its 2 soldiers, is working to take certain US foreign policy options it doesn't like of the table. Or as Clemons puts it Israel's is trying to curb the US's Deal Making in the Middle East.

I have argued that Israel's response to Hezbollah has been precisely what Hezbollah wanted (as its response to Hamas has similarly been what Hamas wanted), but I would always be at a loss to explain why Israel would play into their hands. I would usually attribute it to the goal of Israeli hawks to ruin any type of political solution that would require something they oppose with all their being: compromise, giving something to get something (because they want it all). But I was confused as I never saw Olmert and Peretz as unreasonable hawks. Here Steve Clemons provides a possible explanation:

The Israeli response to the Hezbollah incursion is exactly what Hezbollah wanted. Adversaries rarely give each other the behaviors the other actually desires unless there are other objectives involved.

My view is that three broad threats were evolving for Israel from the American side of the equation. One one front, the U.S. will be attempting to settle some kind of new equilibrium in Iraq with fewer U.S. forces and some face-saving partial withdrawal. To accomplish this and maintain any legitimacy in the eyes of important nations in the region -- particularly among close U.S. partners among the Gulf Cooperation Council states -- America "might have" tried to do some things that constituted a broad new bargain with the Arab Middle East. The U.S. had even previously flirted, along with the Brits, in trying to get Syria on a Libya like track and out of the international dog house.

There was also pressure building to push Hamas -- or at least the "governing wing" of it -- towards a posture that would move dramatically closer to a recognition of Israel.


A development I specifically point out as a reason Hamas' militant wing may have attacked and kidnapped the Israeli soldiers in Gaza; to bring on the Israeli response (which it did) and destroy any possibility of such a political development. Steve Clemons seems to be making the point that perhaps the Israeli leadership ALSO saw it in their interest to destabilize any political progress made with the PA leadership and for US political progress with Syria (it prefers US hostility towards it).

Abbas was becoming increasingly entrepreneurial in creating opportunities for the constructive players in Hamas to squirm towards eventual negotiations with Israel that could possibly be packaged in terms of "final status negotiations" on the borders and terms of a new Palestinian state. George W. Bush is the first President to actually call the Palestine territories "Palestine" and may have eventually come around on trying to pump up Abbas's legitimacy as the father of a new and different state. I am doubtful of this scenario -- but some in Israel had serious concerns about this unfolding.

Lastly, despite lots of tit-for-tat tensions and enormous mistrust, Iran and the U.S. were tilting towards a deal to negotiate about Iran's nuclear pretensions and other goals. Some in Israel viewed all three of these potential policy courses for the U.S. -- a broad deal with the Arab Middle East, a new push on final status negotiations with the Palestinians, and a deal to actually negotiate directly with Iran -- as negative for Israel


The flamboyant, over the top reactions to attacks on Israel's military check points and the abduction of soldiers -- which I agree Israel must respond to -- seems to be part establishing "bona fides" by Olmert, but far more important, REMOVING from the table important policy options that the U.S. might have pursued.

Israel is constraining American foreign policy in amazing and troubling ways by its actions. And a former senior CIA official and another senior Marine who are well-versed in both Israeli and broad Middle East affairs, agreed that serious strategists in Israel are more concerned about America tilting towards new bargains in the region than they are either about the challenge from
Hamas or Hezbollah or showing that Olmert knows how to pull the trigger.



Or, they don't want the US to make nice with Muslim nations of the Middle East so they conspire to eliminate the possibility of the US making nice with them. Israel is close to war with Syria and perhaps Iran, in essence forcing the issue to the point where the US will have to decide to side with Israel and forgo (as if the situation as it already stands today doesn't already) political negotiations with Iran and Syria. They don't want the US to be able to cut deals in the Middle East. In doing so they threaten our national interest and well-being.

How should the US respond to such manipulation by Israel? Well, we do provide much funding to Israel, perhaps someone should break the politically charged taboo subject of using the massive funding as leverage in moderating the actions of the Israelis. Ideas?

Saturday, July 15, 2006

"Israel Takes a Stupid Pill"

Expressing my thoughts (and much more) into words much better than I ever could, Larry Johnson. A much more knowledgable source and very adept and concise.

(Update 7/16/06 6:58 PM): It should be noted that Larry Johnsons assertion that Ehud Olmert did not serve in the military is like false. A minor detail and inconsequential in the scheme of Johnson's arguments in the article, but it should be noted.

Larry Johnson in TPMuckracker:

Apparently not content to let the U.S. do a self-immolation act in the Middle East by itself, Israel decided to set itself on fire by invading Lebanon. Burn baby burn? Like George Bush, Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, never served in a combat unit and launched military operations without thinking the matter through. In fact, Olmert reportedly never even served in the military. I raise this because there is one simple question Israel cannot answer about the current operations--what is their strategic military objective. Olmert has somehow persuaded the Israeli military to ignore strategy, think tactically, and in the process become really stupid. The events in the next several weeks will expose as myth the canard that you can secure a nation by killing terrorists. No you can't.

Killing "terrorists" has a place in policy but it is not a strategic military obective. It is a tactical objective and may serve political purposes, but achieves little in terms of securing Israel. Israel is attacking targets in Lebanon like a drunken sailor in a bar fight. Flailing about, causing significant damage, hitting innocent bystanders, and generally making a mess of things. This is not the Israeli military that pulled off the brilliant and daring raid at Entebbe.
What about Hamas and Hezbollah?

They are not terrorists. They carry out terrorist attacks, but they are not terrorists. They are something far more dangerous. They are fully functioning political, social, religious, and military organizations that use terrorism tactics, but they are far more formidible than terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or the Basque Terrorist Organization. They do have the resources and the personnel to project force, sustain operations, and cannot be easily defeated. Unlike the Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1973, Hamas and Hezbollah will not easily fold and cannot be defeated in a seven day war. If that is the assumption among some Israeli military planners it is a crazy fantasy.

While most folks in the United States buy into the Hollywood storyline of poor little Israel fighting for it's survival against big, bad Muslims, the reality unfolding on our TV screens shows something else. Exodus, starring Paul Newman, is ancient history. Hamas and Hezbollah attacked military targets--kidnapping soldiers on military patrols may be an act of war and a provocation, but it is not terrorism. (And yes, Hezbollah and Hamas have carried out terrorist attacks in the past against Israeli civilians. I'm not ignoring those acts, I condemn them, but we need to understand what the dynamics are right now.) Israel is not attacking the individuals who hit their soldiers. Israel is engaged in mass punishment.

How did Israel respond? They bombed civilian targets and civilian infrastructure and have killed many civilians. Let's see if I have this right. The Arab "terrorists" attack military units, destroy at least one tank, and are therefore terrorists. Israel retaliates by launching aerial, naval, and artillery bombardments of civilian areas and they are engaging in self-defense. If we are unable to recognize the hypocrisy of this construct then we ourselves are so enveloped by propaganda and emotion that, like the Israelis, Hezbollah, and Hamas, we can't think rationally. We can only think in terms of tribalism and revenge.

*(This is only a portion of the post, please follow the link to read the rest)*

Israel/Lebanon Escalation Continues

Via Bloomberg:

July 15 (Bloomberg) -- Israeli warplanes struck Lebanon for a fourth day, reportedly killing at least 26 people, hours after Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah declared war with Israel and an Israeli navy gunboat was hit off Beirut.

Israeli air strikes hit a van and a taxi, as well as power stations, gas stations and bridges, Lebanese police said. The Israeli army said targets included a second attack on Hezbollah's headquarters in southern Beirut and bridges on Lebanon's border with Syria.

A Lebanese police official said at least 84 people had been killed and 218 wounded in Israeli air strikes since July 12 in violence sparked by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, a Shiite fundamentalist group. Thirteen Israelis have died, including nine soldiers, according to the Israeli army.

What irks me is the sheer one sided nature of the coverage given to deaths in the conflict. At the time of this articles update 13 Israelis, of them 4 civilians have been killed. Yet the attention to the Israeli's killed has taken more importance than the deaths of Lebanese civilians. Where is the attention to the innocent civilian deaths in Lebanon, who are just as innocent as the Israeli civilians. Since when has innocent meant something different due to the nature of the location of ones birth, or because one happens to share the same birth-nation as the Hezbollah killers who provoked the Israeli onslaught? Think about these figures: 84 people have been killed and 218 wounded in Lebanon while 13 Israelis have been killed. Innocent Arabs, it seems, are only worth a fraction of innocent Israeli's.

Hezbollah's militia continues to operate in southern Lebanon, near the border with Israel, almost two years after the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution asking for the disbanding and disarmament of the force and for Lebanon to extend its control over the entire country.

The Shiite Muslim group combines military elements with political influence: almost a fifth of Lebanon's legislature is made up of lawmakers from Hezbollah.

Israel is attacking the Lebanese government ostensibly so it will reign in Hezbollah, but the Lebanese government is weak; it has neither the military force of arms or resources to actually take on Hezbollah, which is precisely why it is the de facto government in the south. The US, while praising the Cedar Revolution has done little else to bolster the Lebanese government or its military might, or its ability to provide services that the state is supposed to provide for the people but is now being provided by Hezbollah. And Israel, by attacking and holding the Lebanese government responsible for Hezbolla's actions runs the very serious risk of further weakening or fully destabilize the government.

Hezbollah attacked Israel so strike at Hezbollah (and it has), do not punish ALL Lebanon.

PS: Since I have begun writing I have learned that now Israel has further escalated the conflict and begun strikes in central Beirut. The act itself is widely seen as an escalation. Its still early though, I will be very worried if the violence spreads into Syria and/or Iran.

UPDATE: (3:09 PM) Im seeing news reports that say that Israeli casualties from the rocket attacks has gone up to around 30. I don't have updated causlty figures for the Lebanese in the wake of the bombings in central Beirut. I will update from time to time.

Friday, July 14, 2006

David Ignatius on Lebanon

A great, great column by David Ignatius on the Lebanon crisis, the implications of it, and even policy prescriptions (which will not likely be used).

He disagrees with the notion from the previous WaPo article that public anger in Lebanon will translate into the reigning in of Hezbollah in the south, which is unfortunate, because I desperately hoped that something good could come from such a horrible situation.

He seems to agree with the view, which I share and go on about in various earlier posts, that the actions of Hezbollah were done precisely to provoke Israel into attacking it in Lebanon in order to further its own goals. Ignatius goes further than that and opines that the "goals" where to benefit Hezbollah benefactors, Iran. To distract the US, and to drag Israel into a conflict that will sap it of its strength as they as they see the US being bogged down in Iraq. This snip really resonates with me:

Israeli and American doctrine is premised on the idea that military force will deter adversaries. But as more force has been used in recent years, the deterrent value has inevitably gone down. That's the inner spring of this crisis: The Iranians (and their clients in Hezbollah and Hamas) watch the American military mired in Iraq and see weakness. They are emboldened rather than intimidated. The same is true for the Israelis in Gaza. Rather than reinforcing the image of strength, the use of force (short of outright, pulverizing invasion and occupation) has encouraged contempt.

The danger of Iranian-backed adventurism is immense right now, but that's all the more reason for America and Israel to avoid past mistakes in countering it. Reliable strategic lessons are hard to come by in that part of the world, but here are a few:

The first is that in countering aggression, international solidarity and legitimacy matter. In responding to the Lebanon crisis, the United States should work closely with its allies at the Group of Eight summit
and the United Nations. Iran and its proxies would like nothing more than to isolate America and Israel. They would like nothing less than a strong, international coalition of opposition.

A second point -- obvious from Gaza to Beirut to Baghdad -- is that the power of non-state actors is magnified when there is no strong central government. That may sound like a truism, but responding wisely can require some creative diplomacy. The way to blunt Hamas is to build a strong Palestinian Authority that delivers benefits for the Palestinian people. The way to curb Hezbollah is to build up the Lebanese government and army. One way to boost the Lebanese government (and deflate Hezbollah) would be to negotiate the
return of the Israeli-occupied territory known as Shebaa Farms.
That chance is lost for now, but the Bush administration should find other ways to enhance Siniora's authority.

I cannot agree more with Ignatius. Its perfectly within Israel's right to respond to Hezbollah in a military manner, like it was its was perfectly within Israel's right to respond to Hamas' provocations, but RESPOND WISELY. Israel needs to get beyond the tried and repeatedly failed policy of "hit them with overwhelming and disproportionate force" for every single act of terrorism that is committed. Its clear that Hamas and Hezbollah WANT, no, NEED the disproportionate and uncomplicated responses that Israel has so far produced in response to provocations.

Lets not play Hezbollah's (and Iran's), and Hamas' game and get sucked down a road that Iraq has shown us to unwinnable. Lets stop being suckers!! Or as Ignatius more eloquently puts:

In the Lebanon crisis we have a terrifying glimpse of the future: Iran and its radical allies are pushing toward war. That's the chilling reality behind this week's events. On Tuesday the Iranians spurned an American offer of talks on their nuclear program; on Wednesday their Hezbollah proxy committed what Israel rightly called "an act of war." The radicals want to lure America and Israel deeper into the killing ground, confident that they have the staying power to prevail. We should not play their game.

For the sake of the world and our nation, lets not play their game.

Hope for the Future?

Could there actually be a silver lining to the chaos going on in Lebanon? Could the aggressive actions of Hezbollah come back to bite them in the ass?

According to this Washington Post article from today, Hezbollah may see its significant power erode within Lebanon in response to its actions in provoking Israel:

Here are some choice snippets:

The radical Shiite movement Hezbollah and its leader, Hasan Nasrallah, hold an effective veto in Lebanese politics, and the group's military prowess has heartened its supporters at home and abroad in the Arab world. But that same force of arms has begun to endanger Hezbollah's long-term standing in a country where critics accuse it of dragging Lebanon into an unwinnable conflict the government neither chose nor wants to fight.

...

The conflict will likely prove a turning point in the history of the movement, which was created with Iranian patronage in the wake of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It has since evolved from a terrorist organization blamed for two attacks on the U.S. Embassy and the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 Marines, into a sprawling movement with a member and supporter in Lebanon's cabinet, a militia that effectively controls southern Lebanon, and an infrastructure that delivers welfare to its Shiite constituency, Lebanon's largest community.

But in the wake of Syria's withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon in 2005, the disarmament of Hezbollah has emerged as one of the foremost issues in Lebanese politics. Since the fighting with Israel started Wednesday, calls for Hezbollah to relinquish its weapons have gathered urgency. The violence began when Hezbollah fighters captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border incursion, followed by an Israeli attack on roads, bridges, power stations and airports.

And then there is this:

Thursday, Lebanese officials began to lay the groundwork for an extension of government control to southern Lebanon. Hezbollah largely controls southern Lebanon, where it has built up a network of schools, hospitals and charities.
"To declare war and to make military action must be a decision made by the state and not by a party," said Nabil de Freige, a parliament member.

...

After a cabinet meeting Thursday, the government said it had a right and duty to extend its control over all Lebanese territory. Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat said the statement marked a step toward the government reasserting itself.

It appears that there is anger at the arrogance and stupidity of Hezbollah dragging Lebanon and its people into a war with Israel that it did not want and that it cannot win. A depowered Hezbollah would definitely constitute a silver lining in this horrible situation. Hopefully, Israel will take heed of President Bush's warning to be carefull not to destabalize the Lebanese government before it can assert itself in the south. It would be in Israel's interest that the Lebanese government survive.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Josh Marshall on Gaza and Lebanon

Josh Marshall at Taking Points Memo is one of those blogs I've visited everyday for, well I'm not sure, at least 3 years. I agree with him about the difficult situation Israel is in; it cannot not react, but it is easy to react wrong and/or over react. Anyways, here ya go. Oh, and see the rest of his blog

Josh says:

Where's the US? I think I see the escalation of hostilities in and around Israel a bit differently than some readers. One TPM Reader asked yesterday in heated tones why I hadn't written anything about the "atrocities" Israel was committing in Gaza and southern Lebanon. I take a different view of this. I don't see why Israel should or really can, in the context of withdrawing from occupied territories, sit still while de facto governments to the north and the south kidnap her soldiers. And I say that as someone who thinks Israel should get out of the occupied territories in Gaza and the West Bank and support the establishment of a true Palestinian state not at some vague point in the future but now.


Israel actually faces what the Bush administration has pretended America faces, hostile neighbors using terrorist and irredentist factions as proxies in their conflict with Israel.

But retaliation has consequences. How far does this creeping war creep? Into Lebanon? We're already at that point. Into Syria? We're close. Iran? Maybe not too far in the future. Is it in Israel's or America's interest to acquire more occupied territories? Other than retaliatory bombing or occupation of buffer zones, what the the strategic objectives?

This is spinning out of control very quickly. And we need to think right now about where this leads in a week and a month. For America's interests and Israel's the US can't afford to hold back and watch where this goes.

Israel and the Middle Easts Dire Situation

The situation in the middle east has been escalating very fast as even casual observers will notice. Although it is clear that in the case of how it is handling the Hamas kidnapping situation and the Hizbollah situation it is overreacting (overreactions that serve to strengthen the cause and interests of Hizbollah and Hamas), it would also be very unrealistic to expect Israel to essentially sit on their hands as Hamas and Hizbollah kidnap their soldiers.

What has been done so far has, well, been wrong. Its been two weeks and Cpt. Shalit is still missing and I suspect that the 2 kidnapped soldiers in Lebanon will not be returning anytime soon, so certainly the reaction is not furthering the goal of release.

Direct negotiations are not preferable in either case: The precedent of releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for 1 soldier may very well prompt Hamas to repeatedly kidnap soldiers to get what they want. It would of been better to allow the PA and the Fatah faction to try and negotiate for the release. Of course, the incursions and strikes in Gaza makes the possibility of Fatah negotiating with Hamas to release the prisoner, less and less likely.

And now, as I predicted in my earlier post, Israel has gone the road of collective punishment in Lebanon:

Striking the the Beirut Int. Airport, closing the ports, and striking hundreds of other targets in Lebanon to punish the government of Lebanon and its people and it is now threatening that Beirut itself will soon become a legitimate target. When it does, expect "collateral damage" (ie innocent civilian deaths). Syria may be next, and perhaps Iran.

I fear we have yet to see the worst of the violence and carnage in the middle east. Imagine, this escalating conflict began with the kidnapping of 1 soldier, and then the kidnapping of 2 more. What a sad situation.

UPDATE: (1:06 PM) Reports of civilian deaths are already popping up in Lebanon:
53 civilians killed in Lebanon . And the targets so far have been narrowed to military bases, and the airport and such things. Imagine if Israel makes true its promise to make the capital city Beirut a target. The death toll with be horrible. The worse, I know, is yet to come.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Khan!!!...Ahem, I mean, Lou Dobbs!!!

Why I torture myself and watch his show. I keep telling myself I'll stop but there I am every day watching. Anyways.

Now Lou Dobbs and his ilk are going on and on about the requirements that in several states that residency status be checked before state and federal benefits be given to people, to which I say, SO WHAT?

Heeellooo, illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicare benefits, food stamps and various other things because they are, duhn duhn, ILLEGAL.

I sincerely doubt many illegal immigrants are shaking down the American and state governments for benefits but this is certainly being used as another cudgel to further the fear-mongering against the Senate comprehensive immigration reform.

I suspect that to the extent that illegal immigrants are getting these benefits it is clearly because they are defrauding the state with fake documentation to get the benefits, to which these residency-proof requirements will not solve anything.

Oh, Lou Dobbs, you silly!!

Everyone Getting Into The Act

Well now Israel is sending soldiers into Lebanon to fight Hezbollah fighters for what they describe as acts of war.'

It appears Hezbollah fighters, in a similar fashion to their Hamas brethren, have kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers and killed 7 others (3 during the attack, and the rest during the Israeli counter raids) with the express goal of forcing Israel to release "their" soldiers.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the Hezbollah attacks were an "act of war" and blamed the Lebanese government, which he said would be held
responsible.

He promised a "very painful and far-reaching" response, The Associated Press reported. There have been only sporadic border clashes since Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon in 2000 after 22 years of occupation.

Israel will be holding the Lebanese government responsible because....What? And, "very painful and far-reaching" response I take to mean that Israel will take on to the collective punishment of the Lebanese government and people for the crimes of Hezbollah who must of know very well the type of response their acts would of provoked from the Israeli's especially after its response to the kidnappings by Hamas. The question is why?

I can understand how factions in Hamas saw much gain from provoking Israel in its kidnapping of Capt. Gilad Shalit (see my earlier posts here and here for more on that), but Ill admit to ignorance on issues of Lebanon.

Hezbollah must have known it would provoke a collective punishment on all Lebanon and the Lebanese government with its actions....perhaps that's it. Perhaps its in the interest of Hezbollah for Israel to do that. Perhaps it will damage the Lebanese government, or cause a rise in Lebanese hatred of Israel, or cause a stark rise in Lebanese support for Hezbollah. I'm not quite sure, I'm just throwing stuff out.

One things for sure, it seems everyone is getting into the act.

EXTRA: The White House Announces It Believes Syria and Iran are Behind Capture of 2 Israeli Soldiers!! Wow

"We also hold Syria and Iran, which directly support Hizbollah, responsible for this attack and for the ensuing violence," Jones said.

The United States called the attack "an unprovoked act of terrorism" aimed at exacerbating Middle East tensions.

So lets recap: Lebanon, Syria, and Iran will be held responsible and I assume, if Israel was so inclined it could retaliate against anyone of them if not all of them. Its hard to know what this means. Will there be strikes on Syria and Iran and Lebanon. Will Israel see this as a pretext to strike at Iran's nuclear development labs and enrichment facilities, which would certainty be in the interest of the United States policy makers. Who will be striked, or, will anyone be striked. All I can say is Stay Tuned.

I agree with the last part of the quote: Hizbollah has certainly succeeded in exacerbating Middle East tensions, and Israel is going along with it. I believe that was part of Hizbollah's plan.

Friday, July 07, 2006

Terrorist Coming through Mexico? What Are You Stupid?

I'm watching Lou Dobbs right now - I don't know why I continue to since it certainly kills my mood - and I see that their new fear-mongering tactic is to scare Americans with the threat of terrorist infiltrating into the US from Mexico. This only the latest in a series of ways to scare Americans into changing their mind on any form of amnesty or earned legalization for Mexicans and others. There's also the 'cost of illegal immigration' (they pay taxes by the way AND take of social services at a far reduced rate that other Americans), how they bring down wages (not true except they do play a small role in the low wages of the poorest Americans. Most of that can be attributed to other things such as the lack of a inflation adjusted minimum wage for example. They contribute to raising wages for everyone else.) They bring diseases, crime, etc...etc...

I've heard it all on Lou Dobbs.

Now Republican and people like Lou Dobbs want to tell us with a straight face that Terrorist will come through the Southern Border. Please!! This really just proves that its not really about national security, but by some movement to keep Mexicans out of the United States and the fear of terrorism is just a tool towards that end.

The border with Canada is 3 times larger than the Southern Border and much less well protected and monitored than the Mexican border. If terrorist wanted to get in through Canada they could easily do so without the rigors and dangers of trekking through the desert, without having to pay thousands to a coyote, without having to avoid and get through a better defended border with more Border Patrol. The path of least resistance is Canada, not Mexico, but strangely enough very little is said among those Tancredo Republicans on the dangers of the northern border.

And as any CNN watcher has heard about, drug smugglers have managed to use helicopter and small planes to smuggle marijuana into the US by flying through the myriad mountain valleys (so radar will not detect them) that run from Canada into the US. In the case of the Helicopter they end up at a secluded spot drop of the marijuana and pick of the cocaine and go, in 43 seconds. Its only a small step for terrorist to use the same technique to come to the US, half dozen at a time, along with equipment and gear (like explosives). They can do that from Canada, they cannot do that from Mexico.

So why are they jokers focusing on the southern border as a threat to national security?

Well, I sure have my theories. Your guess is as good as mine though.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

What Are You Reading?

First off, let me comment that I saw an ad on my blog that said "Conservatives be Heard." I saw that on top of my blog and I ask: Huh? Hello, Progressive here!! Anyways, I'm new to blogger and to AdSense so I'll try and figure out how to filter the type of ads on my blog. If some one knows and just happens to be reading this, please, feel free to email me at bosker1 AT netzero dot net

I'm a new blogger with very few, if any readers, but I am curious to know from people who just happen to stumble upon this page:

What are you reading? I have a post of what I was reading a few days ago. Since then I have picked up How Would a Patriot Act - by Glenn Greenwald of the well-known blog Unclaimed Territory . A great author with a great blog. I turned to him as a source of knowledge and analysis in the aftermath of the Hamdan Supreme Court decision. Take a look at his work.

So, what are you reading?

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

There Will Be No Immigration Bill This Congress...Hooray for Comprehensive Reform!!

So, the House and Senate decide to start holding hearings on immigration reform and, well...It kind of went like this :

At odds over immigration, lawmakers from the Senate and the House held rival hearings on Wednesday on opposite coasts, competing for public support for their
sharply differing proposals and moving no closer to compromise.

Senator Arlen Specter , Republican of Pennsylvania, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sponsors of a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate in May, chose the day after the Fourth of July to hold a hearing wrapped in
patriotic themes at the National Constitution Center here.

Most of the speakers embraced the Senate's approach, which calls for a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants and a guest worker program, as well as enhanced border security and punishment for employers who hire illegal workers.

In San Diego, Representative Ed Royce, Republican of California and chairman of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Non-Proliferation, was chosen to lead a meeting in a Border Patrol station that featured agents and local sheriffs.

Made for TV moments for proponents of the bipartisan Senate Comprehensive Immigration Bill, as well as for Republican supported House Immigration Bill.

The Senate bill is much more lenient and comprehensive with regards to immigration; it ups border security, but it also deals with illegal aliens already here (which the House bill seems to ignore) by providing them with a path to earned legalized status, plus a guest worker program. The House bill focuses more on upping the enforcement, penalties on employers of illegal immigrants, and has a controversial aspect that would make being an illegal immigrant a felony (a crime) as opposed to remaining a civil infraction. If you think illegal immigrants are underground now, just wait for that to pass.

If I had to make a choice I'd rather have the Comprehensive Senate McCain-Kennedy bill pass...But here's the thing people: There will be NO immigration reform bills passed this Congress.

The Republicans are making a lot of hot air and trying to rouse their base with the whole illegal immigration issue, but the two competing bills are so fundamentally different, and so many politicians are up for re-election and don't want to pass bills that may cause controversy, that the odds are that no bill will pass...And that people, is a good thing.

The Tancredo's in the Republican Party would be best advised to try and get as much of their bill as possible as they can even if it means getting almost nothing because the midterm election are coming up and the wind is blowing on the Democrats backs, not the Republicans. Democrats stand poised to make gains in both the House and the Senate - of that I have no doubts - only the how much the Democrats will gain is unknown. I'll break it down simple like for the Tancredo wing of the Republican Party.

(From a Republican point of view)

Best-Case Scenario: Democrats increase their minority in both the House and the Senate, increasing their leverage in the immigration battle.

What it Means: If Tancredo Republicans are having trouble unifying on this issue now to pass something akin to the House version, add a few more Democrats in the House and Senate and see your dreams look more and more impossible.

Worst-Case Scenario: Democrats retake one or both Chambers of Congress and more than easily pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill which will be "worse" than the one your bitchin and moaning about now. The pressure for reform will remain because no reform was passed this (current) Congress, ensuring that it will be debated next Congress (after midterms).

What It Means: Better immigration reform, Lou Dobbs passing away in what doctors could only describe as a rare case of "his head just exploded."

So...Get what you can, while you still can. Though honestly, I'm hoping you wont.

An Overreaction Continues

Or is it misreaction. I haven't updated and posted much lately in part because of the holidays, but I have followed the developments in Gaza. I believed in earlier posts that the Israeli reaction was not going to solve the crisis but make it worse and make violence increase. Unfortunately, that seems to have happened. The violence has only been escalating

While things where not perfect prior to the kidnapping of the young 19 yr old Israeli soldier, Hamas was feeling the pressure to make compromises and concessions; It was feeling the pressure from Palestinian President Abbass to finally recognize Israel (once though unthinkable) through Abbas' promises to take the issue to the Palestinian people in a vote. It was feeling the pressures associated with running a nation, of having to govern, of having the international community financially pressure it to moderate. All things considered, recognition would of been progress. Who believes now that Hamas will still feel compelled to do so?

As I mentioned before, I really believe that elements in Hamas took it upon themselves to do this with the knowledge that Israel would respond the way it did. Its precisely what they wanted. And hey if in the end they can get some Palestinian women and children out of jail, it will certainly be icing on the cake for them, but the main goal of eliminating the pressure to moderate and compromise has certainly already been achieved.

Although the source of the quote - A Hamas legislative faction spokesman - is certainly biased, I have to agree with his assessment: (from the above cited article)

Mr. Bardawil, who serves as spokesman for the Hamas faction in the
legislature, said that Israel's actions are increasing the popularity of Hamas. "Israel wants us to raise our hands in surrender," he said. "But the Palestinian people, led by Hamas, have developed a strong psyche.
The more pressure we face, the more we will be steadfast and resist."


That's not entirely true, it should be amended to say that the more military pressure is applied, the more popular Hamas gets. Its the type of pressure Hamas loves to instigate.


Sunday, July 02, 2006

What I'm Reading

Mostly blogs, magazines and newspapers of course, but of couse I mean books.

I just finished The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind and I gotta say it was a very good read. Interestly, mixed in with bits of info - disturbing ones - about the troubling developments and lack of process (and messed up intelligence process leading up to the Iraq War) in the US response to terrorism, one also gets the sense that there is heartfelt feelings among people such as Bush and Cheney et al to defend the nation. Not everything is about politics with them but it certaintly has a obvious role. No, I haven't gone soft on them. Suskind in this book has a lot of sympathy for the plight of George Tenet, who as we all know fell on his sword and took the blame for mistakes and decisions that the President VP and his circle were responsible for.

Suskind through his narrative does criticize Tenet for being too eager to please the president and part of that comes profoud loyalty and gratitude from Tenet to the President steming from the fact that the President chose to keep Tenet on after Bush was elected and after 9/11.

Suskind makes clear though that, the both Tenet and his deputy never exlclaimed "slam dunk" in a meeting supposedly about the intelligence on Iraq. I say supposedly because the meeting itself was described more as a meeting on how to "sell" the war (PR) as it was already decided, not as a meeting to asses the evidence and then come to a decision as it has been characterized by the adminisration. The imlplication of course that the administration is attempting to blame the CIA for the Administrations mistakes.

Here is a short excerpt about the in Laden tapes released days before the 2004 election, and the conclusions the CIA analysts made of the purpose of the tape. (One which I agreed with at the time).

He mocked Bush for being stupid, and deceptive and corrupted by big oil and big business entagelements, like those with Halliurton. At the end, he managed to e dismissive of Kerry, but it was an afterthought in his "anyone but Bush" treatise.
....
Inside CIA, of course, the analysis moved on a different track. They had spent years, as had a similar bin Laden unit at FBI, parsing each expressed word of the al Qaeda leader and his deputy, Zawahiri. What they'd learned over nearly a decade is that bin Laden speaks only for strategic reasons -- and those reasons are debated with often startling depth inside the organization's leadership. Their assesement, at day's end, are distillate of the kind of secret, internal conversation that the American public, and y association the wider world community, were not sanctioned to hear: strategic analysis.

Today's conclusion: bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection.
....
But an ocean of hard truths before them - such as what did it say about U.S. policies that bin Laden would want Bush reelected - remained untouched. (pg. 335 - 336)

What indeed.