Peace in the Middle East? Dave, What are you Talking About?
It appears that Dave has returned from catching wide-mouthed Chinook salmon on his fishing trip, and such has time to weigh in on the fact that the Mideast has gone to hell in a handbasket. Some how, I'm sure, Dave feels that the New York Times is behind this one, but in the meantime we have his latest column in which he weighs heavily on the recent actions that have been carried out in the Middle East, ultimately coming in defnse of Israel.
Shockers! Who would've saw that coming? Look, I'm not saying that Israel has no right to defend itself and protect its borders. If it exchanges land for peace that's exactly what it should get, peace. Instead, Israel has been on the receiving end of numerous attacks from foreign-government nuzzled terrorist groups on two fronts- both by Hamas in the Palestinian South and by Hezbelloh, attacking from a militarized zone in Lebanon on Israel's northern border.
Dave asks a lot of questions. I count twelve question marks, as he makes use of the "lazy columnist" tactic of filling half his column up with queries, a rhetorical device that causes readers to glaze over the rest of the column, lacking any interest as to whetehr Dave even has a conclusion or not. However, amongst all his questions, the one that isn't asked, the elephant Dave's side-stepping in the room, is How could this have happened?
Invading Iraq was supposed to create a "beacon" of democracy, remember? Or has Dave forgotten? He can easily ask Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and all the other architects of the failed "democracy exportation" experiment. Elections have happened in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Palestine, with the end result being nothing except democratically-elected headaches. The Taliban is on a resurgence- again- in Afghanistan, with actions being undertaken against them by U.S. and Afghan forces this past month. Nearing the five-year anniversary of 9/11 and we still haven't been able to run out the nest of vipers that allowed the planning and committing of that event to happen in the first place?
After the Lebanese elections, there was an uprising that pushed out Syria's occupying forces, after nearly three decades of influence. Conservative pundits bellowed, declaring democracy was thriving and Dubya was simply better than Jesus. However, a year later, it has become clear that the popularly-elected Lebanese goernment has no sway over Hezbollah, who have continually defied United Nations resolutions by continuing to attack Israel from the same land that Israel had pulled out from in 2000. Indeed, with members of Hezbollah sitting on Lebanon's parliament and holding their own private militias, it appears that Lebanaon presents a classic case of minority factions engaging in actions in which the rest of the population have to suffer for.
And let's not forget last winter's Palestinian elections, in which the old Palestinian Authority regime was replaced in favor of a Hamas-led ticket. From the on-set this government was met by acrimony by Israel, to nobody's surprise, who cut off all economic support to the Palestinain people. This may have cut off some funds from finding their way into the hands of terrorists, but at the same time condem millions of non-terrorists forced to live and starve in abject poverty and dehumanizing conditions. Gosh, no wonder Palestinians lobby rockets over the border and making daring excursions to kidnap Israeli soldiers! When you're of such an insignificant size being trampled by an elephantine nation, it could be aruged that the only steps you can take are simialr to the ones Palestine has.
On the flip side of the editorial page in his syndicated column, Thomas Friedman writes "I don't see the U.S. promoting any more elections in the region, for now. The Arab democracy experiemnt is on hold- because if Islamist parties can't be trusted to rule, elections can't betrusted to held." Uh, no shit, Sherlock? Seriously, all the rhetoric espoused by the ideologues as they clumsily grabbed power over a half-decade ago was so divorced from reality, they might have pused for Operation Magic Wands, which they could use to wave over the region and magically transform centuries of in-fighting and bloodlust in a blink of an eye. Instead, we have our soldiers bleeding on the sands of Iraq as the tinderbox that once was the Mideast has been blown to high heaven.
What course of action does Dave think is the most appropriate? That the United States should "continue to do nothing to get in Israel's way." These are pretty sober words, forcing the reader's introspection on Dave's words of inaction. That is, until when you turn the editorial page to see Jack Ohlman's political cartoon. Since it takes a couple of days before his cartoons are available online, I'll describe it:
The setting is a town square on a Old West movie set. Above the various saloon and business doors, however, the signs read 'Hezbollah', 'Israel' and 'Lebanon.' Bodies are strewn about, covering the square. In the middle of this scene stands Condoleeza Rice, wearing a typical sheriff's ten-gallon hat and a thick moustache. In the balloon, she asks "....Am I late?" This is exactly the scene that would be carried out if Dave gets his wish of the U.S.- who is, after all, fighting proxy through Israel in the first place- continuing to "do nothing to get in the way."
Of course, the U.S. needs to get in Israel's way. And in Hezbollah's. And in Lebanon's. And Hama's. And Palestine's. The current situation is the exact reason for a mutlilateral coalition to tamp down any "hot" battles and gave an opportunity for diplomacy to allow itself to work. Not for optional, voluntary, misguided pre-meptive wars into a countries that pose no threat. However, with the treasure and lives expunged in the foolhardy war in Iraq, the U.S. lacks the international credibility to take a pro-active leadership role in scaling back the hostiltiies in the mideast. Nor does it sound as if the conservatives want to. (Conservatives try to avoid war? That's a good one.) Indeed, conservative pundits are bandying about the phrase 'World War IV' while discussing this current bat-shit storm in the Mideast in hopes of making the situation palatable to the wider American consciousness, and their hopes of finally attacking Iran and Syria would be realized.
Becuase that's what they want. Nothing short of global war involving every country occurring on George W. Bush's watch is a worthwhile legacy. Thatis why Victor Davis Hanson is using the phrase "World War IV," believing that the Cold War was the Third World War. That is why Reinhard states that the U.S. should do nothing but "continue to get out of Israel's way" even though such a tactic would only make the situation on the ground worse in the mideast.
Such a hopeful series of events would bring the mideast to a veritable standstill, accomplishing nothing but an even more increasing cycle of violence and destrutction. On the domestic front, conservatives would continue to exploit the situation to the same extent as they always do. With every election they would cry in mock horror, "You can't change leadership during a time of war! Think about the troops!" Which they would continue to send off to die in a cynical attempt to create "peace" and "democracy."
This is Dubya's legacy. You create foreign policy in a vaccum, divorced from reality, be prepared to reap the rewards. Sometimes it may take a few years for foreign policy miscues to bite you on your ass, such as Dubya ignoring the Mideast situation during the past half-decade, except, of course, to give lip-service to a "road map for peace." Sometimes, the consequences of foreign policy mistakes may take generations to make itself obvious, such as the aftermath of imposing the Shah on Iran or of abandoning the mujahdeen after the Soviets were chased out of Afghanistan.
To be fair, these foreign policy mistakes weren't all Dubya's fault. No, he was just the latest in a long line of Presidents continuing the same mistakes. Even if Israel- with the U.S.'s complicitness or no- succeeds indestroying Hezbollah, how many young terrorists will rise up to replace those murdered? I'd wager two for each one.
Oh, and Condi Rice's chances of becoming the next President? They have all but disappeared...
Shockers! Who would've saw that coming? Look, I'm not saying that Israel has no right to defend itself and protect its borders. If it exchanges land for peace that's exactly what it should get, peace. Instead, Israel has been on the receiving end of numerous attacks from foreign-government nuzzled terrorist groups on two fronts- both by Hamas in the Palestinian South and by Hezbelloh, attacking from a militarized zone in Lebanon on Israel's northern border.
Dave asks a lot of questions. I count twelve question marks, as he makes use of the "lazy columnist" tactic of filling half his column up with queries, a rhetorical device that causes readers to glaze over the rest of the column, lacking any interest as to whetehr Dave even has a conclusion or not. However, amongst all his questions, the one that isn't asked, the elephant Dave's side-stepping in the room, is How could this have happened?
Invading Iraq was supposed to create a "beacon" of democracy, remember? Or has Dave forgotten? He can easily ask Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and all the other architects of the failed "democracy exportation" experiment. Elections have happened in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Palestine, with the end result being nothing except democratically-elected headaches. The Taliban is on a resurgence- again- in Afghanistan, with actions being undertaken against them by U.S. and Afghan forces this past month. Nearing the five-year anniversary of 9/11 and we still haven't been able to run out the nest of vipers that allowed the planning and committing of that event to happen in the first place?
After the Lebanese elections, there was an uprising that pushed out Syria's occupying forces, after nearly three decades of influence. Conservative pundits bellowed, declaring democracy was thriving and Dubya was simply better than Jesus. However, a year later, it has become clear that the popularly-elected Lebanese goernment has no sway over Hezbollah, who have continually defied United Nations resolutions by continuing to attack Israel from the same land that Israel had pulled out from in 2000. Indeed, with members of Hezbollah sitting on Lebanon's parliament and holding their own private militias, it appears that Lebanaon presents a classic case of minority factions engaging in actions in which the rest of the population have to suffer for.
And let's not forget last winter's Palestinian elections, in which the old Palestinian Authority regime was replaced in favor of a Hamas-led ticket. From the on-set this government was met by acrimony by Israel, to nobody's surprise, who cut off all economic support to the Palestinain people. This may have cut off some funds from finding their way into the hands of terrorists, but at the same time condem millions of non-terrorists forced to live and starve in abject poverty and dehumanizing conditions. Gosh, no wonder Palestinians lobby rockets over the border and making daring excursions to kidnap Israeli soldiers! When you're of such an insignificant size being trampled by an elephantine nation, it could be aruged that the only steps you can take are simialr to the ones Palestine has.
On the flip side of the editorial page in his syndicated column, Thomas Friedman writes "I don't see the U.S. promoting any more elections in the region, for now. The Arab democracy experiemnt is on hold- because if Islamist parties can't be trusted to rule, elections can't betrusted to held." Uh, no shit, Sherlock? Seriously, all the rhetoric espoused by the ideologues as they clumsily grabbed power over a half-decade ago was so divorced from reality, they might have pused for Operation Magic Wands, which they could use to wave over the region and magically transform centuries of in-fighting and bloodlust in a blink of an eye. Instead, we have our soldiers bleeding on the sands of Iraq as the tinderbox that once was the Mideast has been blown to high heaven.
What course of action does Dave think is the most appropriate? That the United States should "continue to do nothing to get in Israel's way." These are pretty sober words, forcing the reader's introspection on Dave's words of inaction. That is, until when you turn the editorial page to see Jack Ohlman's political cartoon. Since it takes a couple of days before his cartoons are available online, I'll describe it:
The setting is a town square on a Old West movie set. Above the various saloon and business doors, however, the signs read 'Hezbollah', 'Israel' and 'Lebanon.' Bodies are strewn about, covering the square. In the middle of this scene stands Condoleeza Rice, wearing a typical sheriff's ten-gallon hat and a thick moustache. In the balloon, she asks "....Am I late?" This is exactly the scene that would be carried out if Dave gets his wish of the U.S.- who is, after all, fighting proxy through Israel in the first place- continuing to "do nothing to get in the way."
Of course, the U.S. needs to get in Israel's way. And in Hezbollah's. And in Lebanon's. And Hama's. And Palestine's. The current situation is the exact reason for a mutlilateral coalition to tamp down any "hot" battles and gave an opportunity for diplomacy to allow itself to work. Not for optional, voluntary, misguided pre-meptive wars into a countries that pose no threat. However, with the treasure and lives expunged in the foolhardy war in Iraq, the U.S. lacks the international credibility to take a pro-active leadership role in scaling back the hostiltiies in the mideast. Nor does it sound as if the conservatives want to. (Conservatives try to avoid war? That's a good one.) Indeed, conservative pundits are bandying about the phrase 'World War IV' while discussing this current bat-shit storm in the Mideast in hopes of making the situation palatable to the wider American consciousness, and their hopes of finally attacking Iran and Syria would be realized.
Becuase that's what they want. Nothing short of global war involving every country occurring on George W. Bush's watch is a worthwhile legacy. Thatis why Victor Davis Hanson is using the phrase "World War IV," believing that the Cold War was the Third World War. That is why Reinhard states that the U.S. should do nothing but "continue to get out of Israel's way" even though such a tactic would only make the situation on the ground worse in the mideast.
Such a hopeful series of events would bring the mideast to a veritable standstill, accomplishing nothing but an even more increasing cycle of violence and destrutction. On the domestic front, conservatives would continue to exploit the situation to the same extent as they always do. With every election they would cry in mock horror, "You can't change leadership during a time of war! Think about the troops!" Which they would continue to send off to die in a cynical attempt to create "peace" and "democracy."
This is Dubya's legacy. You create foreign policy in a vaccum, divorced from reality, be prepared to reap the rewards. Sometimes it may take a few years for foreign policy miscues to bite you on your ass, such as Dubya ignoring the Mideast situation during the past half-decade, except, of course, to give lip-service to a "road map for peace." Sometimes, the consequences of foreign policy mistakes may take generations to make itself obvious, such as the aftermath of imposing the Shah on Iran or of abandoning the mujahdeen after the Soviets were chased out of Afghanistan.
To be fair, these foreign policy mistakes weren't all Dubya's fault. No, he was just the latest in a long line of Presidents continuing the same mistakes. Even if Israel- with the U.S.'s complicitness or no- succeeds indestroying Hezbollah, how many young terrorists will rise up to replace those murdered? I'd wager two for each one.
Oh, and Condi Rice's chances of becoming the next President? They have all but disappeared...
posted by true_slicky at 5:05 PM
1 Comments:
Very well said. OK, now suppose that Israel goes ahead, as Dave suggests, and does "all it practically can to wipe out Hezbollah." Then what? Israel has tried this all before -- in the 1982 incursion, the 1993 bombings, and the 1996 "Grapes of Wrath" operation -- with no real success. Maybe some other method is needed, that is, other than cranking up World War III (or IV, depending on which warmonger is talking).
Post a Comment
<< Home