Centerblue.org

If ever there was an event that showcased the complete and utter failure of anything Bush touches, it is the pinnacle of failure represented by the coup in Gaza last week.

For those unaware, the radical Hamas Palestinian faction kicked out their more moderate Fatah governing brethren out of Gaza and essentially set themselves up as a rogue state and a haven for terrorism on the borders of Egypt and Israel. That’s the last thing that Israel needs, and essentially destroys any possibility of a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian statehood issue–since the Palestinians are now split between the radical Gaza and the moderate West Bank.

How did this come about? Because Bush, in his utter stupidity and hubris, felt it necessary to declare a new pax americana by insisting that the middle east had to become a “bastion of democracy.” We already know the disaster that awaited that policy in Iraq.

As far as the Palestinians are concerned, Bush insisted that the Palestinians hold free elections a couple of years ago, convinced in his delusions that they would elect a George Washington that would lead the Palestinians to a new land of the free. Imagine how they were shocked–shocked!–when the Palestinians instead elected Hamas to power in Parliament, putting them at odds with the rival Fatah ruling faction represented by Abbas. “Nobody saw it coming,” whined Condoleezza Rice.

They didn’t see it coming because they have ideological blinders on their eyes. When you attempt to impose democracy on a society that has not asked for it, on a culture that lacks a thriving middle class yearning for it, in an environment without consistent justice or enforcement of the peace, do not expect to get a George Washington. Expect instead to get a bunch of radicals that feed into people’s fears and play to their nationalistic heartstrings. We have seen the same thing happen in other places where Bush has pushed for elections, including Lebanon and Iraq.

Why should this matter to us? Apart from even greater threats to our oil supply arising from a Middle East in perpetual conflagration, people who voted for Bush’s re-election because they thought he would keep us safe really need to ponder the foolishness of their choice. Bush’s misguided crusades were crystal clear when we re-elected him, and yet a majority of the public chose to send him back. Instead of guaranteeing our greater security, he has guaranteed the creation of pockets of terrorism that will bedevil and attack America for decades to come. America is far less safe now than before his tenure, and not because of 9/11 but because of the awful policies enabled by his election.

Choose more wisely next time, please. It’s not as if we didn’t tell you so.

Hezbollah is claiming victory over its nemesis in the wake of the recently announced Israel-Hezbollah cease-fire. But wait–Bush says Israel won, and I’m sure we’ll hear the spin from Israel soon enough. Who’s right in claiming victory, who’s wrong?

They’re all wrong.

Israel is wrong because it has suffered a huge loss of face in the Arab world for initiating a war to annihilate Hezbollah and clearly failing to do so while at the same time incurring the condemnation of the rest of the world.

The US is wrong because it shares in Israel’s embarrassment vicariously. Its refusal to call for a cease-fire for many days against the wishes of the rest of the world further eroded US credibility and respect, and gained it nothing in its “war on terror” (which is a war against Al-Qaeda, not Hezbollah).

Hezbollah is wrong because it will face extreme pressure to disarm from all quarters as an international presence moves into Lebanon. It also must contend with the massive damage inflicted against Lebanese society and infrastructure, from which it draws strength.

It’s a bunch of losers and no winners in this nonsensical war, with the biggest losers of all being the many Israeli and Lebanese civilians who lost their lives and livelihoods for no good reason.

Finally, the UN Security Council has voted unanimously on a cease-fire resolution that would stop the violence and destruction in Lebanon. Under the terms of the agreement, the UN would deploy 15,000 international troops that would be authorized to use force to keep the peace, and would be deployed simultaneously with Israel’s withdrawal so as to not create a power vacuum. Israel and Lebanon both seem amenable to the resolution.
It’s about time.

It’s been interesting to see cast of characters and the changing viewpoints during the flurry of negotiation. Most notably, the US did a complete about-face from maintaining a stony silence about the violence to proactively negotiating the terms of the agreement. It apparently lost patience with Israel’s inability to put a quick end to Hezbollah. Israel’s willingness to go along is also interesting but not surprising–it obviously failed to “de-fang” Hezbollah, realized it probably could not do so, and needed a way to save face. Finally it has to be noted that France was the lead broker of the UN resolution, not the US. It’s sad that America has abrogated its duty as honest broker for the Middle East and left that to a country with no background, experience, or interest in the region.

Assuming the terms are honored by all sides, we will soon know the toll of human lives and infrastructure that has been taken against Lebanon. Hopefully Israel will join the rest of the world in paying for the reconstruction.

The US criticized Israel for planning to expand its Lebanon offensive in the wake of Israel’s cabinet approving such a move. The Israeli escalation was unwelcome given the efforts to iron out a United Nations resolution that would broker a cease-fire. “We are working hard now to bridge differences between the United States position and some of the positions of our allies,” said Bush spokesman Tony Snow. “We want an end to violence and we do not want escalations.”

The news will probably stick in Israel’s craw, but it fails to heed US advice at its diplomatic peril. It’s about time the US stepped up to stop the ceaseless slaughtering of civilians taking place on both sides as a result of this war.

In an about-face no doubt motivated by mounting Lebanese casualties and Israel’s failure to swiftly destroy Hezbollah, the US is suddenly supporting a truce pact in cooperation with France and other powers.

The draft resolution calls for “a full cessation of hostilities” between Israel and Hezbollah, sets terms for a negotiated settlement of the war, and proposes deployment of an international peacekeeping force to the region.

Israel is “studying” the agreement and will give its reaction later.

Hezbollah, battered but not beaten after weeks of punishment, was surly about any peace agreements, saying it would accept peace only when Israel pulls all of its troops out of Lebanon. Time will tell if this is just more bluster and sabre-rattling, as it would be very much in the militia’s interests to honor the cease-fire.

It’s about time the US stopped playing politics with Lebanese civilians’ lives and joined the rest of the world in trying to put an end to this misbegotten war.

Charles Krauthammer, who has apparently recovered from his encounter with rabies, has a much more rational column this week explaining how Israel’s approach to the conflict in Lebanon is straining relations with the US.

Israel has laid it all on the line in this campaign to “de-fang” Hezbollah. It has painted itself into a corner where the only way it can claim victory is through the absolute destruction of Hezbollah. Anything less will be seen by the Arab world as a defeat for Israel. Even now Hezbollah is gaining a cult-like status for its ability to withstand Israel’s military might, as shown by this demonstration of hundreds of thousands of Shiites in Iraq calling for death to America and Israel.

(By the way, it’s good to know that a $300 billion+ price tag has bought us a wish for our own destruction from those we sought to “free” from tyranny, but can you really blame them with all the raping and killing and torturing at the hands of Americans going on?)

In launching this campaign, Israel looked to the US for time enough to finish the job, and the US agreed. The US has a stake in wanting Hezbollah destroyed, especially given its current propensity to view the entire world through the one-dimensional lens of terrorism (lumping groups like Al-Qaida and Hezbollah together when in fact they and their goals have little or nothing to do with each other.) Israel defeating Hezbollah would also serve as a proxy for the US dealing a serious blow to Hezbollah’s sponsor Iran, a country the US is struggling to contain given its nuclear ambitions and its own designs for the Middle East. The Bush administration expected Israel to demonstrate its value as an ally and terminate Hezbollah with extreme prejudice.

Given how much Israel has on the line, Krauthammer laments the weakness Israel has shown in this campaign. If Israel was going to risk raising the ire of the rest of the world and put so much of its reputation with the US and elsewhere at stake, he argues it should have launched a strike with quick and overwhelming force by both ground and air. Instead, it attempted the campaign with air power alone, which has always failed to settle any score in any war. Only later did Israel’s leader Olmert reverse himself and allow for a ground campaign, but even now almost a month into the conflict Israel remains helpless to prevent the relentless bombardment of its cities by hundreds of Hezbollah rockets daily.

Its failure to destroy Hezbollah and the latter’s ability to keep striking Israel is dealing a serious blow to Israel’s prestige and capability. It will embolden Hezbollah and its sponsor Iran, and possibly Israel’s other neighbors, to strike with more impunity and with less fear of reprisal. Its failure is also seriously disappointing the US and calling into question Israel’s worth as an ally, as it faces mounting pressure to join the rest of the world in demanding a cease-fire.

This is what happens when you launch a military campaign without thinking through the risks and consequences. You would think Israel would have learned from the US’s mistakes in Iraq.

Credit the Brits for telling it like it is instead of pulling the wool over their leaders’ eyes. A recently leaked memo from William Patey, outgoing British ambassador to Iraq, to Tony Blair and his cabinet showed just how much worse the situation in Iraq is than what British and American leaders have been saying publicly:

“[T]he prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.

“Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq — a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror — must remain in doubt.”

When you invade a country without doing your homework about its civilian divisions and without having a plan in place for ensuring peace after you yell “Mission Accomplished,” you should not be surprised when you are stricken by the Law of Unintended Consequences. Instead of a democratic Iraq with arbitrary borders established by colonialists we are more likely to see a country divided along its sectarian lines, with radical religious groups perhaps having a country-within-a-country similar to Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon. The fragile hold of democracy cannot bind groups together that would prefer to kill each other than live with each other.

We’ve spent $300 billion and counting to break up a country, incite instability, and foment the exportation of terrorism. The only mission accomplished was to make the world a far more dangerous place while lining our soldiers up for slaughter. So much for Bush’s vision of a “new Middle East.”

Lebanon, which had been making great strides in cleaning up and protecting its environment, is now becoming a toxic wasteland in the wake of Israel’s invasion. Over 15,000 tons of heavy fuel oil, almost half the size of the Exxon Valdez spill, have ruined over 50 miles of pristine coastline after spilling from a power plant hit by Israel. The slick threatens coastal wildlife and Lebanon’s entire fishing industry. Oil is being allowed to burn rather than having more of it fall into the ocean, causing massive amounts of air pollution as well.

In the end, it may be the US and especially Israel who stand to lose the most as a result of the invasion of Lebanon.

Israel and the US are demonstrating weakness in the region in a way they did not before. Israel has been unable to stop the rain of Hezbollah missiles on its cities despite three weeks of bombing. It has been unable to back up its claim it would finish Hezbollah in two weeks, putting the US in an increasingly difficult position as the days drag on.

Meanwhile, the US is helpless to stop the escalating violence in Iraq despite its best efforts. Making matters worse, Iraq’s top Shiite cleric Ali Al-Sistani is demanding an immediate cease fire in Lebanon. When Al-Sistani opens his mouth, the US listens given the cleric’s enormous influence in Iraq. America needs to keep him on its side, placing it increasingly at odds with Israel’s continuing military campaign.

What had previously given opponents pause in their dealings with the US and Israel was the threat of massive and quick destruction. These days these two countries look more like paper tigers than anything else.

Iran and other powers are now emboldened as a result of this perceived weakness. Iran is thumbing its nose once again at the United Nation’s latest resolution to get it to stop researching nuclear technology. Iran knows it can do whatever it pleases. It controls large spigots of the petroleum the West needs so badly, and it believes neither Israel nor the US are capable of seriously threatening it militarily. Russia and China continue to implicitly support Iran despite the protests of the West. Israel had better get used to having a nuclear-armed Iran next door, because it doesn’t seem there’s anything the UN, the US, or Israel can do to stop it.

More importantly, the US and Israel continue to lose the hearts and minds of the Arab world, including important oil ally Saudi Arabia. The longer this war goes on, the more sympathy is generated towards Hezbollah and the more Nasrallah will be seen as a hero for standing up to the “evil West.” Jimmy Carter agrees, in an editorial published in today’s Washington Post:

It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.

Israel may win the current battle, but it and its American ally stand to lose the war against terrorism and nuke proliferation as a result of failing to deliver a quick and effective end to their unjustified military operations.

The State Department announced today that Israel would briefly suspend bombardment of southern Lebanon in the wake of an attack in Qana that killed over 50 people, mostly women and children. There was no announcement from Israel itself.

Could someone explain why the US State Department is speaking for Israel? Does Israel not have a foreign minister? I can’t understand why the US can’t attempt some semblance of neutrality. Instead it seems content to fan the flames of hatred in the Arab world and let them think that the US and Israel or synonymous–or worse yet, that the US speaks for and is accountable for Israel’s actions.