There was a very interesting piece based on an interview with Norman Podhoretz on the WSJ’s editorial page today.
It was particularly interesting — and disturbing — for me because he is considered a sort of seminal neoconservative. "Disturbing" because I agreed with almost everything he said. When you hate agreeing across the board with any ideological label the way I do, this sort of thing can make you very uncomfortable.
I take comfort from the fact that the piece was confined to neocon thinking on foreign policy. That there is an overlap in that area should probably not be disturbing or surprising. I’ve said many times that my view of America’s role in the world is pretty much that of pre-Vietnam liberals, and it should be expected that my views would jibe with the neocons in this area because they were pre-Vietnam liberals — at least, the old ones like Podhoretz were.
Of course, nowadays "neocon" is most often defined more or less entirely in terms of a certain stance on foreign policy, and indeed it largely grew out of its fathers’ dispute with liberalism in that area during the ’60s. I still don’t like the label, though, because I first heard of it in connection with Reaganomics, and I disagreed with that stuff most vehemently. That’s the trouble with all modern political labels. I agree strongly with the "conservatives" on abortion and I agree strongly with "liberals" on public education. So I guess it’s OK to agree strongly with the "neocons" on muscular interventionism. Or so I tell myself.
Anyway, back to this piece. I said I agree with almost all of it. My blood sort of runs cold when he seems to be advocating torture. But then I wonder: Am I being hypocritical about this? While I embrace the McCain-Graham approach of pulling us away from the use of coercion on prisoners, I wonder if I take that position just to make myself feel righteous.
Guilty be told, on a certain level I hope that the Brits are doing what they can to extract information from the bomb plotters they’ve arrested so that they might quickly capture the ones they haven’t arrested, before they manage to carry out some plan B. I ask myself, which is worse — a would-be mass murderer getting slapped around a little, or a 747 with 400-plus people on it blowing up? And I think I know the answer.
But ultimately, I think McCain and company are right — if we’re going to win this war that Mr. Podhoretz calls World War IV, we have to tie our own hands to a great extent. Otherwise, it’s sort of hard to be champions of the liberal democracy we hope to foster in hostile soil. So on that point, I think the Podhoretz approach is not only chilling, but strategically wrong.
Related Posts
> a would-be mass murderer getting slapped
> around a little
I don’t think that would be considered torture. You know what torture is… and you also know that we employ methods far more “intense” than slapping them around.
Let’s not be naive here. There are people on both sides of the “War on Terror” who are willing to do WHATEVER it takes to achieve their objectives. We’re just better at denial.
Much like the vast majority of Neocons, Podhoretz has never felt it necessary to come out of the ivory tower and actually participate in war – he’s too much of an intellectual to get his hands dirty. Along with fellow neocons like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Jonah Goldberg, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, William Kristol, William Bennett, ad infinitum, this group is far more comfortable talking about war rather than putting themselves on the front line. They are all far more comfortable sending an 18 year old kid from the South Carolina lowcountry over to Iraq. I mean, if their grand theories don’t work out, well, they’ll just have to write another book.
How many of these neocons who think things are going just swell in Iraq would be willing to go to Baghdad tomorrow? None.
Brad, did you actually read that Far Left screed you linked to for Reaganomics? Even Wikipedia is more balanced! Surely a “centrist” like you wouldn’t agree with a description that is so biased and totally out of the mainstream. Or would you?
Amazingly enough, I again have to agree with you (mostly). This part especialy hasn’t changed in the past 40 years or so:
“The issue was America,” he says. “I was repelled, almost nauseated, by the rise of anti-Americanism on the left. The hatred of this country seemed to me not only wrong, it was disgusting. . . . Everything the left was saying about America was wrong–everything–and wrong by 180 degrees.” He likens it to “staging a black mass, with the cross inverted and Christ hanging by his feet.”
The Left hasn’t changed a bit since then. If anything, it’s gotten even worse. Just don’t question their patriotism!
Ahhh… right-wing, left-wing, neocons, greenies, libertarians, etc, etc. So many people so intent on name-calling and finger-pointing. You have to dig through 40 tons of dross to find 4 grams of interesting thought.
And yet more of the same tired and worn out charges that none of the people in favor of military action in Iraq have a right to that position because they are not personally buying airline tickets to Baghdad leveled by another bunch that thinks supporting our troops is a yellow magnetic ribbon sticker with some qualifying political slogan they got at the 7-11 six months ago when they were buying gas for their SUVs…
It’s all so black and white; that is when it’s not self-contradictory.
Brad, you just set yourself up for the inevitable tangential name-calling, etc when you start any discussion by saying that you agree (or disagree) with a particular group. (Ahoooo… neocons… You’re not by any chance typing your blog in the dark while sitting in front of a mirror holding a flashlight under your chin?)
In the case of torture, John McCain knows what he’s talking about (speaking about people that have actually paid a personal price for going to war). The current war on terror cannot be won completely by military means. Victory will only be achieved when our enemies refute their own objectives and desire peace with the world. We cannot force them, militarily, to do that. Military force is only one part of what must be a comprehensive strategy in the Middle East.
Torture is inimical to that goal, and not generally effective from a practical point, either.
Podhoretz is correct that successful military (and Iraqi police) operations depend on good intelligence, but the most useful intelligence is usually not collected from prisoners under duress. It is, rather, collected by exploiting sources who have access to the terrorists and their operations. Such exploitation is made by intelligence agents who have the necessary language and cultural skills to interact with the locals.
There is another downside to torture, as well, and that is the damage it does to your own side. It’s not just the political and public controversy and dissolution of support for the overall strategy. It’s also the moral and ethical damage it does to the men and women executing it and by extension to the institutions carrying it out.
One thing that should be kept in mind, though, by both the proponents and critics of torture, is that the young men and women who have largely taken it upon themselves to abuse POWs are all products of American society and symbols of the same to the rest of the world. They are what we made them in our classrooms and through our mass media. The blame for what they have done doesn’t rest in some backroom in DC with some dark conspiracy, it lies with all of us.
Where does one begin when attempting to address comments such as these? First of all, if you are even contemplating the use of state sanctioned coercion or torture under any circumstances, then you’ve got serious issues. How un-American and un-Christian can one be? It’s hard to believe that our “natural aristocracy” has sunken to this level of thought and discourse-from the pen of a major newspaper editor, no less.
Despite Brad’s equivocation, I believe I understand his message. It’s O.K. to slap around and use coercion on prisoners as long as you don’t do the serious stuff (i.e., electrocution, pulling out fingernails, etc). That way, in Brad’s view, we can still “extract” information without appearing to be barbaric.
Brad, what on earth are you thinking? What happened to you to make you what you are?
The use of coercion and torture shouldn’t even be a question-not in America-they’re totally antithetical to everything that this country and Western Civilization stand for. So now you think that maybe we should start pulling away from such practices because McCain and Graham say so. Did your leaders have to tell you that coercion and torture are wrong? Didn’t you go to Sunday-School? I know you must have at least heard the Golden Rule growing up.
That’s what concerns me about you-you’ve evidently been warped by neo-conservatives who try to pass off their ideology as being somehow American, when nothing could be further from the truth. Even the neo-con lexicon isn’t American. The second I heard America referred to as the “Homeland” (as akin to the un-American “Fatherland”), I knew that we were in serious trouble. How could a professional editor and writer be led astray by the likes of corporate funded, fascist, so-called think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation? Perhaps you’ve been led astray precisely because of your professional status. What would Jesus think about your thoughts? My advice is to love God with your heart, soul, and mind-and to love your brother as yourself as Jesus commanded. That way you can get yourself back on track.
No, America is (and should be) about due process and the rule of law. I hope and pray that you come around to your senses. Many people will be willing to help you.
Since the western world in general has achieved a level of civilization that is foreign to many of the third world, and especially so for many in the Arab world, it is hard for some to imagine that there are those who don’t follow rules of civil behavior, even in war. So we agree to rules where you treat prisoners with basic dignities, even pay them a small stipend. The other side has no such rules. Military and civilian prisoners are mutilated publicly like something out of a horror film. We in the western world would never dream of rigging a retarded child with explosives, or send a pregnant woman on a packed flight to slaughter innocents. So, as we fight an enemy that blends in with “normal” citizens, and yet again the neighbors of the Muslim Brits recently arrested claimed what nice people these were, our rules have to be altered to prevail in this battle for the soul of the world. Those who are rabidly against torture remind me of those who would eat supermarket chicken, beef, or pork day in and day out yet would be horrified to observe the killing process at the slaughterhouses. As long as the Islamofascists are out of sight and out of mind with no impact on their own families, many American citizens want to be on the high moral ground. That high moral ground is being used as a weapon against us by an enemy that will stop at nothing, include mass suicide, to kill us.
The question was asked, what would Jesus do? I can’t speak for him personally, but he would see Satan in this enemy, and he would condemn the sins of the sinner. And he would not expect us to turn the other cheek while our heads are being sliced off.
Brad, nearly 100,000 Iraqi Shiites (the ones we “liberated”) marched in the streets last week burning American flags and shouting “Death to Israel and America”, Lebanon lies in ruins while Hezbollah enjoys over 90% support of the people, Gaza is a shambles with over 125 Palestinians killed in the past few weeks, and you are endorsing the philosophy of someone who describes the policies that led us to this point as a “huge accomplishment”? As George Will said, “neoconservatism is a spectacularly misnamed radicalism” and it is leading us to the brink of an extreme disaster. We seem poised to make the same mistakes again only with much more dire consequences.
To people like Podhoretz, Ledeen, Kristol, etc, the principles that made the US a respected superpower over the past century are obsolete and need to be discarded. We have been too good, to moral too restrained. We haven’t fought enough wars and those we have weren’t ferocious enough. As Ledeen said, “Every 10 years or so , the US needs to pick some crappy little country and throw it against the wall , just to show the world we mean business.” The essence of the philosophy advocated by these “intellectuals” is really no more complex or noble than the fundamental belief that we must be in a perpetual state of war, killing as many people as necessary in as many countries as necessary until the rest of the world (or what remains of it) is sufficiently afraid of the might of the US that they will submissively comply with our will. To them, the problem is “we aren’t sufficiently feared”. The problems of the Middle East can be solved with the application of a sufficiently brutal force. Our past failures can be explained by the fact that we didn’t kill enough people. The people of the world need to know and be forewarned that this is the “New American Century” and the US isn’t restrained any longer by int. law or treaties, world opinion, or even another superpower, but only by our own self interest. Either comply with our instructions, or face the consequences.
In my opinion, this is of course, homicidal madness and not serious political philosophy, but it seems to be very enticing to many. This is antithetical to the core political values that have governed this country since it’s founding. If we continue in this direction, we will be transformed into a rogue state that operates with no moral, legal, or ethical boundaries or restraints. When you view the defense of torture in light of the Bush “preventive war”doctrine, the “unitarian executive” who is above the law, the suspension of habeus corpus for anyone deemed an “enemy combatant”, the violation of civil liberties at home, etc. there does appear to be good reason for concern for a “creeping etremism” in the halls of power in our federal govt.
Jim, you sound like a member of the pragmatic majority. Brad’s argument that the Lamont victory represents a takeover of the Democratic party by fringe radicals is completely devoid of facts. Given the very strong and growing support for withdrawl from Iraq Brad’s continued harping about how Lieberman fits into his so-called “mainstream” Unparty illustrates how effective the neocon propaganda machine has become.
Fact: >60% support = mainstream position
<40% support = fringe position
Bud,
I’ve seen this 60% number thrown all around this blog lately. Do you actually have a link to those polls. or did you just make it up?
Whether 100% of Iraqis love America or not, we have shut down Iraq as a hangout and travel route for terrorists. Iran and Syria are separated by hundreds of miles of desert under US control, and Israel has cut off most other resupply access to Lebanon.
Here is a great article that could just as well apply to this country (and rest of the West): A spirit of absolute folly
Time to pick up a gun, put on a helmet, and head to Iraq? My goodness, the cry of ”Chickenhawk!” just keeps on coming. Folks who employ ad hominem attacks like this just want to attack, not discuss or convince. It’s best to ignore them until they come up with something substantive.
But that’s not why I write. Another Bush supporter — a neocon — has a piece entitled “Standing By Bush” in today’s WaPo that I heartily recommend, especially this from the penultimate paragraph:
Brad, the reluctant neocon, anticipated this over a week ago in his blog entry The coming war with Iran, etc.
Brad – come out of the closet, come on home, join us with pride: Neocon is thy name.
Brad, I’m glad you are finally coming out of the closet on this. Your Vietnam revisionism gave you away a long time ago. Cheney and Bush and Wolfowitz and Feith and all those guys would definitely agree with you on Vietnam. That is a huge reason why Iraq happened. These guys have been jones-ing, itching, dying inside to pull some triggers and they saw this as their chance. It has only a little in their minds to do with remedying problems in the Middle East, but everything with their desire to insure the global perception of America’s continued military will and dominance.
As I’ve argued elsewhere, that’s fine, but you can’t ask for that and then to NOT be a terrorist target. Being #1 comes with a price. Ask the Roman Empire.
Iran is one of the most stable sovereign nations in the middle east and holds at least nominal elections. The country denounced the 9/11 attacks and provided logistical support to the US and it’s allies in Afghanistan. They have not attacked another country in over three decades (US supported Iraq was the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war). It was named a founding member of the “axis of evil” and is very aware of it’s potential as a “preventive war” target. The lesson they have learned from Iraq was that Saddam had the “beware of dog sign” but no dog. They have 7 countries with nuclear weapons surrounding them. Our policy of “preventive war” has them rushing to aquire a nuclear weapon not to lob it at Israel in a move of national suicide (Israel has reportedly at least 250 nuclear weapons) but rather to deter any first strike against it. We have “allowed” both India and Pakistan to join the nuclear club against the NPT with no consequences (we have even agreed to enhance India’s capacity which will lead to further world-wide proliferation). They have learned the US rules of “preventive war”: The target must be essentially defenseless (Iran has a 4th rate army), they must possess something of value (Iran’s natural gas and petroleum reserves are apparently the most valuable in the world) ,and they must be easily demonized as a “threat to civilization” (check).
Iran has agreed to oil and natural gas deals with Russia and China which may shut out the US (this is cited by grassy knoll theorists as the real reason they were placed in the pantheon of evil). An unprovoked strike by the US would possibly bring in China and Russia on the side of Iran and would certainly jeopardize our 150,000 troops surrounded by Shiite militia in Iraq. To my knowledge, we have had no direct talks with Iraq in 6 years. Pres. Ahmadinajead (sp) is on 60 minutes tonight and an extended version is on CSPAN tomorrow. All interested should watch. A nuclear Iran is something the Western world needs to work diligently to avoid, although the days of Israel existing as the only nuclear power are likely limited, unless we’re ready to resort to genocide or “ethnic cleansing”(I won’t ask for any takers on this blog).
Jim, the Iranians, led by the militant mullah Khomeini, kidnapped American embassy workers and took them hostage. They were beaten, tortured, humiliated, and permanently damaged in many ways. I don’t care about their elections, how they haven’t attacked another nation. They must pay for what they have done and Brad is right, it is coming. The sooner the better.
The Iranian government may have not declared war since losing over 1,000,000 soldiers against Iraq in the 1980s, but Iranian terrorists and members of their elite military units have been killed and captured while fighting in other countries, most recently just last week by the Israelis in Lebanon. Since 2003, we have been killing and capturing Iranians in battles all over the Mideast.
I disgree with Mr. Podheretz. We’re aren’t losing in Iraq because of intelligence. We’re losing because we’re trying to adapt soldiers to fight terrorists. “A soldier fights because of something to protect; a terrorist fights because there’s nothing to lose.” The more overwhelming the force we apply (short of extermination – God forbid more of that thinking!), the more hopeless the situation becomes, the easier it is for people to make that slide into becoming terrorists. We know this from our own country – why are gangs prevalent in inner cities?? I don’t believe we have made the right efforts to provide Iraqis with something to lose. Certainly they don’t seem to value democracy all that much, not yet. SGM boiled it down nicely the other day, we should “fight smarter, not harder.” Podheretz is advocating harder not smarter. We desperately need to challenge ourselves to think creatively about what the Iraqis value, and about strategies for linking access to that with our well-being.
On a different note, Brad, you use the phrase “we’ll have to tie our own hands…” That’s deeply disturbing, it implies you think refusing to torture is a negative (assuming unbounded hands are a positive). Our government’s sanctioned application of torture by the executive (tacitly approved by the legislative) is a horror. I’m a Christian; I won’t wall off what I have been taught all my life to Sunday-morning only. Torture is an evil act, and our nation is shamed by it. At least some parts of it are.
It may be helpful to recall that Iran was the site of the 1st successful American attempt at “regime change” in 1953 when the CIA assassinated the democratically elected popular reformer Mosadegh who led the Iranian parliament from 1951-1953, ending democracy in Iran for a half century. We installed the Shah to the throne who led a brutal single party regime, arresting dissenters, torturing prisoners,secret police but keeping the door open for US and multinational companies to have access to the countries resources. Despite the human rights abuses and tyranny, Kissinger was just glad “The Shah supported the US on every major foreign policy issue.”The Shah was propped up by the US until the revolution. With the election of Carter, human rights began to influence US policy -“No more Viet Nams, and No more Pinochet’s”. The Shah fell and we began backing Saddam to overthrow Khomeini. The Iran-Iraq war (with US WMD) lasted a decade and killed millions. As we all know, Reagan did not apparently have a problem negotiating with “terrorists” (if we did invade, would those be our weapons being fired at US troops?).
For 26 years, we have treated Iran like a pariah and have tried to isolate them politically and economically (although Haliburton is fighting for the contract to the world’s largest nat gas field despite the mullahs). If you look at history (S Korea, Russia, S Africa) when we engage countries politically and economically, democracy and liberalism will usually develop. Countries we treat as pariahs (Cuba) don’t. Iran has an amazingly liberal, educated, shockingly pro-AM population that does not like the Theocratic Mullah rule. But as with the Iraqi Shia, they would like US meddling even less. Attacking them will only stimulate a patriotic defensive response (obviously) and create more America haters.
Or we could just bomb the —- out of them.
By now I’m sure most Iranians would love to have the Shah back.
Sad to say, the Left is so deluded about the real state of the world that it will probably take another 2 or 3 9/11s before they finally wake up to the fact that we’re in World War 4 against the Islamist fascists. We can stick our heads in the sand all we want but they will not rest until we’re all Muslims. Except of course the Left because their lifestyles would make them the first ones to be stoned, beheaded, shot etc. Too bad they don’t understand the stakes and would rather stick their heads in the sand, pretending that the Islamist fascists are just reasonable guys and if only we would talk to them, everything would be alright. Sleep, babies, sleep, everything will be alright if you just dream nice, soft dreams…..
How do you talk or negotiate with mothers who are willing to blow themselves up with their babies in their arms?
A recent study of 450 suicide bombers worldwide found that the common motivating factor for the overwhelming majority was an attempt to desperately strike back at an occupying nation who had taken territory seen by the bomber as rightfully theirs. Fundamentalist Islam was frequently used as a tool to assure the bomber of the justness of the cause and future reward, but the main motivation was political and often territorial. Read “Jihadi generation” in the State today. The 7/7 London bombings were a direct result of our Iraqi “Liberation”. They are letting us know there are consequences to the killing, bombing and overall disregard for Muslim life. An expanded war in the ME is not the answer. We must coexist, and given that we haven’t even talked to the Iranians in 26 years, to say diplomacy has failed is absurd. I know many of you will be disappointed, but this does not have to happen and it is not inevitable.
O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
Mark Twain
European Muslims are being recruited by methods such as the five “documentary” films being shown as propaganda instruments, all of which have some variation of the story that
* Muslims did not attack America on Sept 11
* the buildings were blown up by Jews
* the buildings were blown up by President Bush
* the reason was to launch a Christian jihad against the peaceful Arabs and take their oil
* same for the Madrid train bombings… Jews
* same for the London subway bombings… Jews
Notice how much it sounds like the radical core of the Democratic Party.
Notice how much it sounds like Hitler’s and Tojo’s rationale for “defending” Germany and Japan from British and Dutch agression.
In September, 1939, after hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland, an act that signaled the start of World War II, U.S. Senator William Edgar Borah ( R-ID) said, “Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” I have always been fascinated by this notion. What would he have said to dissuade the Nazi leader from doing what he felt he was his destiny to do?
Many of the comments in this blog follow the same, well-intentioned but naïve, line of thinking. Jim, especially, seems to believe that there is another, non-military option for disarming Iran. Is it something that we could say that would dissuade the apocalyptic Mullahs from building, and using, nuclear weapons?
I would really like to hear what it you would say that could change their minds so drastically. Otherwise, you might be the 2006 winner of the Borah award, known as the Ostrich.
-gene
We cannot change the terrorist mind but we also cannot expect to become LESS of a target by pursuing a strategy of bomb first, ask questions later.
It will take internal pressure from the Muslim community to diminish terrorism by the radical members of their religion.
How is it different from the “Christian” lunatics who kill doctors who perform abortions? or protest at soldiers’ funerals with anti-gay signs? Maybe because the vast majority of Christians denounce the behavior, it is kept mostly under control. I don’t see a great outcry from the Muslim community over the terrorist acts.
That’s why I don’t believe our policies in the Middle East have any chance of succeeding. We are not perceived as liberators or moral authorities. We cannot change hearts and minds… we can only blow stuff up.
We didn’t bomb any terrorists first.
Iran has considered itself to be at war since the Jimmy Carter administration.
Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden have been planning, training and financing terrorist groups which have attacked Americans abroad and on US soil every year of the Clinton administration. They have also attacked other countries which had done nothing but try to negotiate with radical Muslims: Holland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, England, Canada, Spain, Portugal, Thailand, India, etc.
Doug, I understand your point, but there is one, more huge difference between the extremists you cited. Thankfully, there are very, very few that share their radical views. Look at the polls from the Muslim world. There is overwhelming sympathy for the extremist point of view.
I agree that we cannot bomb first, but given the historical evidence that no amount of talking is going to change Islamic “hearts and minds,” we have to be prepared to restrain “guns and bombs.” Militarily, if need be.
-gene
Jim –
Facts don’t support your claims.
Iran has been at war with the West since at least 1983:
Their terror strategy succeeded!
As I wrote on another of Brad’s links, current and past Iranian leaders would welcome the destruction of Israel by Islamic nuclear weapons, and that wild and wacky Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has added the the twist of his devout belief in the return of the “occulted” or 12th imam and cataclysmic events that will hasten it.
In the eyes of Iran’s rulers, Israel is the little Satan, we are the big Satan.
Political Science
by Randy Newman
No one likes us-I don’t know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let’s drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they’re spiteful and they’re hateful
They don’t respect us-so let’s surprise them
We’ll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia’s crowded and Europe’s too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada’s too cold
And South America stole our name
Let’s drop the big one
There’ll be no one left to blame us
We’ll save Australia
Don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo
We’ll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin’, too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We’ll set everybody free
You’ll wear a Japanese kimono
And there’ll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let’s drop the big one now
Let’s drop the big one now
Dave’s theme song?
Ha ha, a catchy tune for sure. But don’t despair, the Israelis are going to drop the big one before we can do it. That is better, more justified for the Jews to send these murderous subhumans back to Allah. Yesterday the punk thug running Iran threatened the US with nuclear weapons. The leftists consider that a funny haha until it happens. But, even then, KOS, Howard Dean, and the other kooks will actually claim that Bush dropped the big one on us.
Despite the opening salvo in the Lebanon “debate” which began with the stated premise that “one side has no agenda other than killing civilians”, the Middle East would be the one part of the globe in which our precious “moral clarity” is sorely lacking. The violent conflict has continued for over 50 years and both sides like to begin the story at the time of their choosing with themselves cast as the innocent pious victim and the other as the evil aggressor. Both sides have significant blood on their hands and both have “wasted no opportunity to waste an opportunity.” The dual lists of grievances are myriad. The endless and very predictable cycle of reciprocal violence continues unabated with many on this site excited about the possibility of us diving in headfirst, expanding the war and bringing more death, destruction and chaos to a wider swathe of humanity-all to “keep us safer”.
I don’t have the time nor the desire to be the token “terrorist sympathizer” on this site but I have learned a great deal about Hezbollah from a Lebanese neighbor and from subsequent reading precipitated by our debates. Hezbollah was created with Syrian and Iranian support in response to the “unprovoked” invasion (there are always at least two versions) of Lebanon by Israel which killed 12-19,000 Lebanese, mostly Shiite civilians. The above cited acts of violence were carried out against countries engaged in the battle on the side of Israel in Lebanese territory. Since the 1980’s , Hez has denounced attacks on Western civilians and has pledged to attack the US only in defense (this preceded the past months events.) They are committed to fighting the occupation of the West Bank on behalf of the Palestinians although Nasrallah has stated on numerous occasions that he would not obstruct a two state settlemment for the creation of Palestine. (Of note, the Syria, Iran and Hamas have all at one time agreed in principle to a two state settlement.) Hez denounced 9/11 as an act of terrorism, and is seen across the ME as a legitimate resistance force, and unlike al Qaeda, not a terrorist group. They are deeply embedded in Lebanese culture and were given the support of over 90% of the population in the latest conflict. As evidenced by Israel’s performance this past month, they can’t be eliminated without genocide. Israel’s efforts have only strengthened their resolve and popularity.
The foreign policy of both the US and Israel (now almost one in the same) is counter-productive and will only perpetuate the violence. As has been said, if we succeed in achieving the extinction of our species, it will certainly be the other —–‘s fault. Israel has the right to “defend itself”, but does it have the right to exist in it’s present borders-not according to the UN and the opinion of nearly 2 billion Muslims. Does Palestine have the right to exist-not according to the 250,000 West Bank Settlers that have been financed by US aid to live in illegal settlements. These ideological questions used for rhetorical advantage by both sides need to be discarded in favor of realpolitik solutions. Did the US “accept the USSR’s “right to exist across the globe? No, but it didn’t halt pragmatic engagement and albeit tense coexistence. Israel, and unfortunately the US, will only have peace through a political settlement in which they return to their lawful borders, tear down the wall and allow the creation of Palestine in exchange for a secure border and the cessation of violence. The entire world is being held hostage by this conflict which is not irresolvable. Enough. It must stop now.
Jim –
You’ve been fed a load of horse manure by your neighbor. I urge you to take a gander at the Wikipedia entry for Lebanon. (Disclaimer: Many consider Wikipedia to generally adopt a left of-center attitude.)
We can start with the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
The bad news is that Lebanon became home to more than 110,000 Palestinian refugees who had fled from the newly established state of Israel. Along came the Lebanese Civil War, 1975-1990.
You can find more details here.
The Israelis first invaded a few days before St. Patrick’s Day in 1978. The UNSC passed resolutions 425 and 426, calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces, removal of the militant Palestinian forces, and establishing an international peace-keeping force in southern Lebanon, the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL). The UN force is still there. In 1978 the Israelis withdrew, but came back in June 1982.
It may be this second invasion that your neighbor exaggerates, for that’s when the the Sabra and Shatila massacre occurred. The Kahan Commission concluded that direct responsibility for the massacre of 700-3500 civilians:
So the Christians did it, but the Jews got the blame. Note too that the Kahan Commission was set up by the Israeli government. What nation in that area adheres to the rule of law? The same one that has the freest Arab citizens – Israel.
But I digress.
You owe it to yourself and your neighbor to read the rest. Note that it was in 1982 that Hizbullah was formed with Iranian financing and support. After that, things got even worse..
And on and on. I often tell my neighbor that he’s full of manure; he says the same of me. Both of us subscribe to one saying of a really great man: Trust, but verify.
You are also out to lunch on the view of Syria, Hizbullah, and Iran toward a two state solution. Just a week or so ago Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel.
Tell me where I am wrong in what I’ve written above, and please provide citations.
I don’t have to make any of this up. You can find it for yourself, so please do so and then report back to us. I’ll drink some beers while we’re waiting.
Don’t hurry. Take your time. Anybody got any chips?
Mike, it will be immediately evident that your cut and paste ability far exceeds mine, but I will make a honest attempt to adequately demonstrate that perhaps the Palestinians have a modicum of legitimacy to their grievances, that there is plenty of guilt to go around, and that it would be in our best interest to serve as a fair broker in a political settlement. I may run short on time tonight but would be glad to return to provide humorous fodder for your “evening snack”.
A few of the world record number of UN resolutions violations of Israel- reminiscent of those that were cited nightly on certain networks as grounds for “liberating the Iraqi people” who we are now so desperately trying to kill.
A list of UN Resolutions against “Israel”
0. 1955-1992:
0. * Resolution 106: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”.
0. * Resolution 111: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”.
0. * Resolution 127: ” . . . ‘recommends’ Israel suspends it’s ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”.
0. * Resolution 162: ” . . . ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”.
0. * Resolution 171: ” . . . determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”.
0. * Resolution 228: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”.
0. * Resolution 237: ” . . . ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”.
0. * Resolution 248: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”.
0. * Resolution 250: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”.
0. * Resolution 251: ” . . . ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250″.
0. * Resolution 252: ” . . . ‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”.
0. * Resolution 256: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”.
0. * Resolution 259: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”.
0. * Resolution 262: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”.
0. * Resolution 265: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan”.
0. * Resolution 267: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”.
0. *Resolution 270: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 271: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”.
0. * Resolution 279: ” . . . ‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 280: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 285: ” . . . ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 298: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”.
0. * Resolution 313: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 316: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 317: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 332: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 337: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”.
0. * Resolution 347: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 425: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 427: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
0. * Resolution 444: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”.
0. * Resolution 446: ” . . . ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious
0. obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
0. * Resolution 450: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 452: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”.
0. * Resolution 465: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member
0. states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”.
0. * Resolution 467: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 468: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
0. two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”.
0. * Resolution 469: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the
0. council’s order not to deport Palestinians”.
0. * Resolution 471: ” . . . ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide
0. by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
0. * Resolution 476: ” . . . ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are ‘null and void'”.
0. * Resolution 478: ” . . . ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its
0. claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law'”.
0. * Resolution 484: ” . . . ‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported
0. Palestinian mayors”.
0. * Resolution 487: ” . . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s
0. nuclear facility”.
0. * Resolution 497: ” . . . ‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan
0. Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith”.
0. * Resolution 498: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 501: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”.
0. * Resolution 509: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 515: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
0. allow food supplies to be brought in”.
0. * Resolution 517: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
0. and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 518: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”.
0. * Resolution 520: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”.
0. * Resolution 573: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia
0. in attack on PLO headquarters.
0. * Resolution 587: ” . . . ‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
0. its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”.
0. * Resolution 592: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students
0. at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”.
0. * Resolution 605: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices
0. denying the human rights of Palestinians.
0. * Resolution 607: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
0. requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
0. * Resolution 608: ” . . . ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”.
0. * Resolution 636: ” . . . ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
0. * Resolution 641: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
0. * Resolution 672: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians
0. at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
0. * Resolution 673: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United
0. Nations.
0. * Resolution 681: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of
0. Palestinians.
0. * Resolution 694: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and
0. calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
0. * Resolution 726: ” . . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
0. * Resolution 799: “. . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians
0. and calls for their immediate return.
0.
. Return to Resolution 425
An interview with Nasrallah from 8/12/06
Forced by Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq, both men returned to Lebanon, where Hassan took up residence in Beirut’s southern suburbs, known as the Dahiyeh. At 19, he married Fatima Yassin, who was from another southern village, and the couple had four children.
The galvanizing moment in the young clerical student’s life came in 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon in an effort to eliminate militants operating from what Israelis then called the Palestine Liberation Organization’s “state within a state” in southern Lebanon. Hassan was only 21.
Shiites didn’t much like the PLO either, finding themselves pushed around by the relatively powerful refugee militia. But most believed that Israel’s continued presence in their country was far worse.
Amid the civil war that broke out, a series of kidnappings and suicide bombings in Beirut carried out from 1982 to 1985 by an assortment of upstart groups, mostly supported by Syria, succeeded in driving out U.S. and French troops, and confining Israeli forces to the south of the country.
PRINT EDITION – SECTION FRONT
Enlarge Image
It is unclear whether Hezbollah as a group existed at that time. Certainly, many of those responsible for the attacks would later end up in the movement.
The big question, however, remains: Does he have plans for more than just a role in Lebanon’s future, with or without a militia? Is his dream an Islamic state?
He, like Hezbollah’s spiritual leader, Sheik Fadlallah, has always denied wanting to turn Lebanon into an Islamic state, and his agreement with General Aoun would seem to rule that out. The general certainly thinks so. “Hezbollah must be a part of the power in Lebanon,” he has said. That’s all.
Some of Mr. Nasrallah’s criticism of other Islamist groups and their activities may be illustrative of his own philosophy.
The Taliban, for example, turned Afghanistan into “a hideous example of an Islamic state,” he told an interviewer this year. It was “the worst, the most dangerous thing that this Islamic revival has encountered.”
PRINT EDITION – SECTION FRONT
Enlarge Image
And the decision by al-Qaeda in 2004 to behead Nicholas Berg, the U.S. businessman kidnapped in Iraq, was a “despicable act” that did “grave damage to Islam and the Muslims,” he said
He also told The Washington Post’s Robin Wright, author of a forthcoming book on Islamic groups, that he condemned most of al-Qaeda’s practices, particularly its attack on the World Trade Center five years ago.
“What do the people who worked in those two towers, along with thousands of employees, women and men, have to do with war that is taking place in the Middle East? Or the war that Mr. George Bush may wage on people in the Islamic world?” he asked. (The attack on Pentagon, a military target, was a bit less of a problem: “We neither favoured nor opposed that act.”)
As for Israel, however, desperate times appear to call for more desperate measures, he says. In general, “women and children need to be avoided,” he told Ms. Wright, but there may be exceptions, such as an attack this year by Islamic Jihad, another Iran-backed group. “It came after more than two months of daily Israeli killing of Palestinians, and the destruction of houses and schools, and the siege that is imposed on the Palestinians. There is no other means for the Palestinians to defend themselves. That is why I cannot condemn this type of operation in occupied Palestine.”
A few notes on human rights in the O.T.
UN criticizes Israel for human rights violations in territories The Associated Press, Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz October 15, 2004 Israel is guilty of severe human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including “wanton destruction” of houses and infrastructure, according to a United Nations report obtained Thursday by The Associated Press. The annual human rights report is to be presented to the UN General Assembly later this month. The 18-page report was prepared by John Dugard, the UN representative for human rights. It charges that while some of Israel’s actions in the Palestinian areas can be explained by security concerns, many cannot. During operations in the Gaza Strip, Israel engaged in “massive and wanton destruction of property,” the report said. “Bulldozers have destroyed homes in a purposeless manner and have savagely dug up roads, including electricity, sewage and water lines.”
I will gladly continue this tomorrow as we engage in 60 years of mindless finger pointing (at which time you can explain to me how it is all the Palestinian’s fault), but I think we all need to realize that our unilateral, unconditional support of Israel as well as our creative destruction in Iraq are the prime factors in unprecedented and deadly anti-Americanism and this crosses all national, regional and even many religious boundaries. The road map to peace is not that complex and the world would greatly benefit from our leadership.
Jim –
Aha! The old quantity versus quality game.
Let’s take a look at UNSC 111 against Israel. The resolution notes that Syrian authorities had been interfering with Israel activities on Lake Tiberias/a>, the northeastern shore of which Syria occupied during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Israel regular army forces attacked Syrian regular army forces on Syrian territory on 11 December 1955. Heck, I suppose Israel should have complained to the UNSC first. Because it did not, it received an expression of grave concern. BTW, Israel got the whole durn lake during the 1967 war.
Can’t find some with background, and UNSCR 237 just seems to call on Israel to be nice, no? UNSCR 248 seems to deal with Karameh; don’t forget that it was Jordan’s King Hussein who eventually sent his army to crush the emboldened Palestinian forces and send them packing to Lebanon, an event known as Black September.
I acknowledge that them stinking Jews have upset the diplomats at the UN, but I sense a bit of unfairness in that along with some moral relativism. I’ll grant you the point that Israel has certainly been the subject of more resolutions than any other country, but have they been the murdering, cheating thugs, or just on the outs with the knuckleheaded diplomats who cheat on their parking tickets in New York? Where are the UNSCR resolutions against the really bad guys who hijacked the planes or killed the innocents?
As for your bit on Nasrallah, you need to check out some of the links I posted and watch out when reading the Globe and Mail! He’s Shia so he’s going to badmouth al Qaeda, a Sunni outfit. Hizbullah is supported by Syria, but funded by Iran, to the tune of $100M annually over the past four years alone. The 1983 US Embassy and barracks bombings were ordered by Iran, as were other operations. Iran, a non-Arab nation, has to have Arab proxies do its work in Arab lands; it still sticks with Shia folks whenever it can. Although ostensibly secular, Syria does a lot of Iran’s legwork. Why would a country that’s 75% Sunni do Iran’s bidding? The Alawites, an extremist form of Shia, dominate the military and intelligence apparatuses. My point is that Hizbullah are bad guys and proxies of Iran.
But you seem to have this a little bass-ackwards. I don’t blame this on the Palestinians –they are merely pawns played by the folks who really want the elimination of Israel, believing that with the Jews gone, peace will come. Right, as if differences between the nations and religious sects will disappear. The peoples in that part of the world have been taught for generations that their way is the right way, all others are evil, and that their mission, which many would gladly accept, is to convert or kill the heretics.
What keeps what peace exists in the region are bribes and brute force. It’s rather like the Balkans, but with a lot more sand and oil. Fixing that sort of regional insanity takes several generations of economic development and real education in things like technology, science, mathematics, and home economics. There are great and wonderful people, but when bribes and brute force rule, they act like sheep, having no possibility of improving their situation on their own.
That’s what make’s Bush’s world historical gamble in Iraq and elsewhere interesting, bold, and scary. He’s looking for a way — a paradigm — to gradually turn systems governed by strongmen of different types — some rabid radical religious extremists, others just strong-arm totalitarian / authoritarians — into something we in The West would recognize as civilization.
I look forward to continuing to review the futile tit-for tat violence of the past half century with you but I must depart to seek gainful employment. On the radio this morning, they discussed the offer from Syria to disarm Hez (or stop their support) in return for the Golan Hts, as I alluded to last night. We can’t confirm this because we don’t negotiate with Syria, that would be too Clinton-esque. It amazes me that I cite “realists” like Pat Buchanan and George Will, but Will’s column this morning is worth a read, although he was one of the naive idiots who thought our “interesting and bold” initiative in Iraq might not turn out so well-what does he know? A few choice paragraphs:
The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright’s “The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.” The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.
Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry’s belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that “many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror.” In a candidates’ debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be “occasionally military,” it is “primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.”
Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a “senior administration official,” insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:
“The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren’t for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It’s like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn’t work.”
This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike “the law enforcement approach,” does “work.”
The official is correct that it is wrong “to think that somehow we are responsible — that the actions of the jihadists are justified by U.S. policies.” But few outside the fog of paranoia that is the blogosphere think like that. It is more dismaying that someone at the center of government considers it clever to talk like that. It is the language of foreign policy — and domestic politics — unrealism.
Foreign policy “realists” considered Middle East stability the goal. The realists’ critics, who regard realism as reprehensibly unambitious, considered stability the problem. That problem has been solved.
Most “realists” were only realistic about appearances for their own selfish goals.
Bill Clinton left a shambles of inattention to the Mideast, declaring that he and Richard Holbrooke had solved all the problems. It was just another of his lies.
Even Holbrooke admitted early in 2002 that Clinton’s refusal to face the reality of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and Al Qaeda was creating a larger problem to deal with in the future.
When pointing fingers at responsibility for the current Mideast mess, let’s not forget dear old Ronnie, who cut and ran after Hezbollah murdered 261 Marines in ’83, cause he was running for re-election and wars are (or used to be) inconvenient things to have around when you’re up for re-election.
Reagan wasn’t considering re-election in 1983 (read his biographies and the memoirs of his advisors), but he did make a mistake to pull out of Lebanon after the bombing. His first mistake was to leave the Marines in Lebanon and other places they had been put by Jimmy Carter, our most child-like President.
Reagan did get it together and bomb Kadaffi to convince him to stop funding terrorists. The Democrats and whining liberals hated that, but it is too bad he didn’t kill the little tyrant, because Kadaffi continued to acquire a nuclear arsenal, unbeknowance to the US.
Only after GW Bush rousted Saddam Hussein out of his palaces did the Libyans rush to hand over their nuclear weapons, which Clinton and the UN inspectors had no idea that they existed.
Lee, I’ve let many of your misstatements and just plain errors pass uncommented on (like the one last week about the Revolutionary War lasting “172” months), but you’re as full of c*** as a Christmas goose. REAGAN (engrave the name on your brain), not Carter, put the Marines into Lebanon (in ’82). Or maybe you have a Ph.D. in international relations along with your many other credentials? This one hits home because the brother of a close friend got killed in the barracks bombing in Beirut (10/22 or 10/23/83, if memory serves). Is there no degree of distortion or wrongheadedness you will not commit in pursuit of making a point?
Eisenhower sent more than 14,000 U.S. troops into Lebanon in 1958 to stop fighting between factions.
In March 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon to chase out guerrillas who were firing rockets and conduction raids into Israel. Israel cleared out and occupied a buffer zone for itself. President Carter, seeing his peace negotiations going up in smoke, sent US Marines into Lebanon as part of a multinational force.
As soon as Reagan took office, the civil war between radical Muslims and Christians boiled over, as Arabs were emboldened by the weakness of Carter. Reagan had to bomb Libya after a series of airline hijackings and bombings, and sent 800 Marines into Beirut to help evacuate civilians.
Lee, you take revisionist history to new extremes. Not only did RONALD REAGAN send the Marines into Lebanon he pulled them out after they were attacked. Can you say Cut And Run. Furthermore, Carter’s peace negotiations led to the highly successful Camp David Accords. And Isreal and Egypt have not exchanged fire on each other since.
As a side note: I fully realize discussing actual facts with Lee is a hopelessly lost cause but maybe others will see the extremes the right will go to defend their backrupt ideas and try to understand the truth rather than rely on Rush Limbaugh to do thier thinking.
I disagreed with Reagan’s removal of Marines then, but they were there to cover an evacuation of Americans from the chaos left by Jimmy Carter’s failed Camp David accords.
What is important today is that G.W. Bush has learned from the mistakes of Carter, Reagan, and Clinton. McGovernite hippies haven’t learned from their mistakes about Vietnam, much less anything since then.
1. The Camp David accords were between Israel and Egypt. Lebanon was not included. 2. W has yet to accomplish anything equivalent to what Carter, Reagan, or Clinton accomplished in the Middle East. He’s running out of time. Had his team not fouled up and disbanded the Iraqi army and the civil service, the situation might not have slipped out of his control. The promise of “freedom and democracy” taking hold is a piece of Presidential vaporware, given what’s already happened.
The Camp David Accords included Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, and specifically nailed down control of Gaza and the West Bank by treaty.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22578.htm
Lee, you’re a liberals best friend. Some day I’ll have to buy you a beer. Now show me where Syria, Jordan or Lebanon are mentioned:
There were two 1978 Camp David agreements A Framework for Peace in the Middle East and A Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel, the second leading towards the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in March, 1979. The agreements and the peace treaty were both accompanied by “side-letters” of understanding between Egypt and the US and Israel and the US.[1]
The first agreement had three parts. The first part was a framework for negotiations to establish an autonomous self-governing authority in the West Bank and the Gaza strip and to fully implement SC 242. It was less clear than the agreements concerning the Sinai, and was later interpreted differently by Israel, Egypt, and the US.
Lee, you’re a liberals best friend. Some day I’ll have to buy you a beer. Now show me where Syria, Jordan or Lebanon are mentioned:
There were two 1978 Camp David agreements A Framework for Peace in the Middle East and A Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel, the second leading towards the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in March, 1979. The agreements and the peace treaty were both accompanied by “side-letters” of understanding between Egypt and the US and Israel and the US.[1]
The first agreement had three parts. The first part was a framework for negotiations to establish an autonomous self-governing authority in the West Bank and the Gaza strip and to fully implement SC 242. It was less clear than the agreements concerning the Sinai, and was later interpreted differently by Israel, Egypt, and the US.
If you bother to click on my URL and read the actually accords, you will see
…”They therefore agree that this framework, as appropriate, is intended by them to constitute a basis for peace not only between Egypt and Israel, but also between Israel and each of its other neighbors which is prepared to negotiate peace with Israel on this basis. With that objective in mind, they have agreed to proceed as follows:”
followed by mentions of that which Jordan, Syria and Lebanon agree to, and to previous treaties involving those countries.
Of course, at this time, Lebanon didn’t have much of a government left, and it would get worse by the time Carter left office. The Camp David Accords just threw Lebanon over the side in the interest of declaring peace, and we see the result in 1982, 1983, 2000, and 2006.
If you bother to click on my URL and read the actually accords, you will see
…”They therefore agree that this framework, as appropriate, is intended by them to constitute a basis for peace not only between Egypt and Israel, but also between Israel and each of its other neighbors which is prepared to negotiate peace with Israel on this basis. With that objective in mind, they have agreed to proceed as follows:”
followed by mentions of that which Jordan, Syria and Lebanon agree to, and to previous treaties involving those countries.
Of course, at this time, Lebanon didn’t have much of a government left, and it would get worse by the time Carter left office. The Camp David Accords just threw Lebanon over the side in the interest of declaring peace, and we see the result in 1982, 1983, 2000, and 2006.
If you bother to click on my URL and read the actually accords, you will see
…”They therefore agree that this framework, as appropriate, is intended by them to constitute a basis for peace not only between Egypt and Israel, but also between Israel and each of its other neighbors which is prepared to negotiate peace with Israel on this basis. With that objective in mind, they have agreed to proceed as follows:”
followed by mentions of that which Jordan, Syria and Lebanon agree to, and to previous treaties involving those countries.
Of course, at this time, Lebanon didn’t have much of a government left, and it would get worse by the time Carter left office. The Camp David Accords just threw Lebanon over the side in the interest of declaring peace, and we see the result in 1982, 1983, 2000, and 2006.
If you bother to click on my URL and read the actually accords, you will see
…”They therefore agree that this framework, as appropriate, is intended by them to constitute a basis for peace not only between Egypt and Israel, but also between Israel and each of its other neighbors which is prepared to negotiate peace with Israel on this basis. With that objective in mind, they have agreed to proceed as follows:”
followed by mentions of that which Jordan, Syria and Lebanon agree to, and to previous treaties involving those countries.
Of course, at this time, Lebanon didn’t have much of a government left, and it would get worse by the time Carter left office. The Camp David Accords just threw Lebanon over the side in the interest of declaring peace, and we see the result in 1982, 1983, 2000, and 2006.