A rather long post about the Middle East

I've started to write about the situation in the Middle East several times, and stopped until today.  A week ago I became very despondent, when I realized this was just another escalation in the Bush Plan for World Domination.  When I explained to a friend, that if you looked strategically at what we've done to date, Israel flexing some muscle is just another step. Of course, his response was an incredulous "Bush isn't that smart!".  Call it, evil genius.  But that's for another discussion. 

For the first several days of the war, there was a lot of disbelief, destruction and and confusion as residents fled the war zone.  Media outlets paid a lot of attention to the evacuation of American citizens.  I can't imagine the inconvenience of being routed out of your home, forced to navigate enormous crowds to arrange an exit from a country at war, possibly without resources.  I was glad to see our folks escape to Cyprus, whatever their reason for being there.  But as our citizens were rounded up on cruise lines, I kept thinking, who was going to save the Lebanese?

At some point during the first week, I fell into the war on terror mindset and decided that Israel had the right to defend itself against terrorism.  If they could eliminate the militants and stop there, everyone might be better off. But in these kind of situations, it's difficult to separate the militants, and civilians get hurt.  And where do you stop?  After two weeks of bombing and fighting, you have to ask, what has been accomplished?   There was and still may be support for the U.S. to negotiate a deal.  Check this post on Dilbert Blog for supporting arguments from an Arab point of view.  But what we need to do here in this country, is have a real discussion on whether or not a state of perpetual war is the right direction.  I don't think you can win the hearts and minds with bombs.   

Although trivial compared to air raid sirens, as my daughter gets older, it becomes more difficult to devote my full attention to MTP on Sunday mornings.  I did catch part of an interview with NY Times columnist and author Tom Friedman.  He characterized our foreign policy and public image in the world this way. 

One of the things that the world has always hated us for, but secretly admired too, is our hopeful attitude and naivety.  American Can-Do Spirit; this needs to be done, and we may not have all the details worked out, but by golly, that won't stop us from trying.  The American Dream; we always believe we can succeed.  The world needs that hope.   

The Bush Administration has turned hope into a culture of fear.  Of terror, of war, of control.  That's why the world is starting to grow wary of us, and why we grow wary of him.  If there's any common gene that exists amongst humans, it's that of hope.  The American Dream isn't just for us anymore.   

Comments

[kanbasher]

"The world is starting to grow wary of us."
The world has been wary of us for MANY more years than Bush has been in office, believe me.

On the subject of civilians getting hurt in war: that's war, it's just a fact of life. Did we worry about civilians in Hiroshima? Do you think the terrorists worried about civilians getting hurt when they bombed the WTC? War is war. If we are not careful, it will be here. And they won't worry about civilians, then, either.

[Todd]

Kanbasher: Don't be so dismissive. The world is exponentially more wary of us now than it was before Bush.

As for the civilian casualties, yes, true, that's war. War is war, as you say. But the analogy to the 9/11 plot is not applicable to the previous statement about war being messy. It's a different topic.

[The Brain]

I love how you guys, particularly you Todd, seem to have your finger on the pulse of the citizens and governments of every country in the world. It's as if you have some meter on which the needle moves up and down tracking the views of every country and every citizen in the world. Of course, it's an easy claim to make-- that the world is exponentially more wary of us under Bush than previously-- because it's utterly incapable of proving or disproving.

The left is coming out of the wood work on this war in Beirut. Last week I was reading in the liberal media about Israel's so-called 'disproportionate response' to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Only viewed through the prism of liberalism is any act in war 'disproportionate' and only if the side taking the criticized action is the U.S. or Israel. Not once did I hear any liberal or member of the media declare that the WTC attacks were disproportionate.

[kanbasher]

And, let's not all forget this is an election year, and we have Republicans dismissing themselves from the White House policy and bashing the Middle East agenda simply because they know they must fit the demographic in order to get elected.

[Todd]

Brain: Somebody has to do it.

But honestly, (and honesty is not something I'm getting much of from your arguement, incidentally), I hear about this EVERY DAY. This morning it was Thomas Freedman (radio) talking about how we're more isolated now than anytime in the last 5 decades (yeah, he's an arrogant prick, but he's on top of the issue, published, and indisputably smart). Now, I know that Fox doesn't have a radio station. But, you could pick up a paper now and then. The information's out there.

I liked how you used the insect metaphor to try and marginalize the opposing position. That's very Reagan-esque of you. But, comeon. "Last week I was reading in the liberal media." What paper IS THAT? Do even know what that term Liberal means?

I know these things are forgone conclusions where you're from ideologically, but you're off the reservation. So, esplain yo-self please.

Also, would you say that the kidnapping of two soldiers is proportionate to the killing of 300 kids? Cuz if so, you can send a big fat Neo Con hello to Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam over there on your side of the arguement.

[djobe]

Todd has just set a new record for ramlbing incoherence and gone from 0-hitler in a mere 4 paragraphs...well done, Todd we are all collectively dumber for having read your comment.

The constant belittling of those that disagree with the generally accepted liberal ideology as folks that are simply brainwashed by Fox, or in more extreme cases--by insinuating that Hitler, Stalin and Saddam are all ideologically in line with conservatives is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

Moreover, to declare that "the kidnapping of two soldiers is propertionate to the killing of 300 kids," is intentionally misleading and it is clear where your allegiance lies. If you believe that Hezbollah is just an innocent victim of Israel's aggression, then you have bought the terrorists' propoganda.

I believe that our democratic ally in the region is responding to the constant threat posed by Hezbollah with force and is justified and that she is taking great care to avoid civilian casualties even while Hezbollah forces hide among the Lebanese, lob missiles indiscriminately at Israeli cities, and in some cases hold civilians hostage as human shields, banking on the moral superiority of the IDF.

Here's a story of one of those gentle Hezbollah militants that Israel won't release: According to the BBC "the prisoner Hezbollah wants most" is Samir Qantar. On April 22, 1979, Qantar murdered 28-year-old Danny Haran and his 4-year-old daughter and caused the death of another Haran daughter, age 2. Haran's widow, Smadar Haran Kaiser, describes the crime (she transliterates the murderer's name as "Kuntar"):

Follow the link for his details...
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Prosecute_Abu_Abbas.asp

[Todd]

Sigh. You preach to me about honesty and yet I'm the only one here using my real first name. Spare me the pedantry and insults "djobe". I mean, I can sling it with the best of 'em, but I'd rather just debate the topic.

As with my last comment, the following commentary is mapping to your commentary. So if you feel it rambles...

The comparison between the kidnappings and the 300 dead children is not only accepted fact (1/3 of the casualties in Lebenon are reported to be children) it IS the comparison that's being made across the region. In other words, it's a political reality for Israel that Western leaders and media organizations are saying their reaction was disproportionate (brutal) and a fools gamble (dumb) (see link below). This isolates them politically. They're upping the stakes every day and getting deeper and deeper in the hole. There's no way to fight Hezbollah without injuring civilians and injuring civilians translates to more pressure from the West to stop and more agitation (if that's possible) on the Arab street. Is aggression justified? Sure. To this degree though? Not sure.

Yes, I agree that Hezbollah is a repugnant organization for using their own people as a sheild and the resulting deaths as a recruiting tool. Sooo....please don't assume that a person's arguement implies an allegience to any one group. As far as tragic stories of dead innocents go, there's a million of 'em on both sides. Why did you tell us that one? What was the point of that? Are you trying to make the case for the slaughter of innocent children? An eye for an eye?

I still challenge any of y'all to actually define liberal. I really really do.

Finally, I concede that playing the Fox card was insulting and unfair. However, there are some interesting comparisons between neo-conservatism and brutal dictatorships (that's for another day). Tell ya what...you define liberal and I'll write about the comparison with neo-cons and Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam. Deal?

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3275042,00.html

[djobe]

My name is Darin, it's linked on the right hand side of this blog. My last name is Jobe, thus the name djobe...click on my name and you can send an email to darin_jobe or visit my blog...Hiding in plain sight.

The comparison between 300 dead children and two hostages would be true if you were to take the entire history of hezbollah and Israel, throw it out and only talk about the past 3 weeks...as though the last three weeks is a representation of history.

I told the story of that tragic death because it is the story of how Israel came to capture Quntar, the man that hezbollah wants to be released from Israeli custody, which is their stated purpose for kidnapping two idf soldiers....seems like pertinent information.

No, I will not respond to your loaded questions..."Are you trying to make the case for the slaughter of innocent children?" That's called arguing in bad faith.

I do not want to get into a silly semantic battle of what you think liberal means, when in public discourse people use labels for identification there are some generally accepted short hand phrases...of course they are not perfectly accurate. Congratulations, you win a Pyrrhic victory. My definition of "liberal" is probably not the same as yours.

So the article that you link to is a diplomatic call for Israel to stop and Hezbollah to release the kidnapped soldiers. I don't think anyone would argue with that--but who would sign such an agreement and ensure it is enforced? We can reasonably trust that the Israeli would honor a cease fire that they sign, but who signs it from Hezbollah? Wouldn't we also like Hezbollah to stop firing missiles at Israel, or are they justified?

The stakes are high, words mean something. Let's try to be precise when using them.

[The Brain]

Israel is at war, and if you trust what many Israelis are saying publicly (and who better to speak to the issue than actual Israelis and not American left wingers), they feel they are at war to protect their very existence.
The point being, there is no proportion in war. Each side tries to win. Measured and proportionate responses do not win wars. And thank God for that or we would have never dropped the bombs on Japan thus ending WWII and saving many American lives. There are civilian casualties in every war. The number of civilian casualties when you're fighting an enemy that hides among civilians and doesn't wear uniforms, will be, unfortunately, high. But if you just throw up your hands and say we can't fight you Hezbollah because we're killing too many civilians, Hezbollah wins.

[Todd]

I'm sure you've all gone by now (and so had I). But I was just reading this and thought it might inform our little discussion we were having here. From Slate:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

Among the conclusions:

1) Many Israelis are openly acknowledging that the Israel-Lebanon war has been a disaster for Israel.

2) Waging unnecessary wars, particularly when they are waged poorly, makes a nation much weaker, not stronger (see, e.g., Iraq)

Incidentally, I was quite impressed with the use of Pyrrhic Victory in your comment until I looked it up (hadn't heard that one), and found that it doesn't quite apply. It means winning while suffering huge losses. Perhaps I'm dim, but I just don't see where the huge losses part comes in. I don't even see it as a victory but a fight that never happened.

I'm still waiting.