War on Terror is Lost

[Michael Z]

May I ask what you think Israel should do? It seems to me like they've pulled out all the stops, short of nuking Lebanon.

They attempted to win with only a few ground troops backed by air support.  The result is a Muslim populace that now believes, for the first time in a generation, that Israel can be defeated.  The impression of a vulnerable Israel is a sure recipe for a much wider war.  And if the Muslims believe Israel is vulnerable, then they will surely attack BOTH Israel and its main ally, the US.

The damage is already done, hope of destroying Israel has been rekindled in the hearts of Muslims.

My worry is not whether people believe Israel to be weak, but the amount of Lebanese citizens who will have been radicalised by the bombing campaign. Many people who otherwise wouldn't have supported Hizbollah will certainly do so now because they regard Hizbollah as defending their country.

Of course, it was Hezbollah who caused Lebanon to be attacked in the first place.  I suspect that the population in the Hezbollah-dominated parts of Lebanon was already radicalized before this war.  Even if they weren't, that didn't stop Hezbollah from using the area as a staging ground for attack.

There are no easy answers, but I really don't see toleration of a threat from Hezbollah in a vain attempt to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Lebanese as a real answer.

That's not what I am arguing for. It's one thing for Israel to defend itself against Hizbollah, but I fail to see how bombing roads, hospitals, airports, warehouses, entire urban districts, UN buildings, etc, and destroying the entire country's infrastructure will help matters. All it achieves it turning all of Lebanon against Israel and thus playing right into Hezbollah's hands.

This isn't about appeasing or tolerating terrorists, it's about ensuring that the response is proportionate to the terrorist threat at hand. If we had gone and bombed the living daylights out Belfast when the IRA were at their peak we'd probably still see bombs going off in London and Birmingham.

[Rob]

Iran openly admits their support of Hezbollah, the only thing you are being "conditioned for" is the facts.

That's only a pretext. Check out this article, for one:

In recent weeks, the attacks by Hezbollah on Israel have given neoconservatives in the Bush administration the pretext they were seeking to launch what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls "World War III." Denouncing the bombings as "Iran's proxy war," William Kristol of The Weekly Standard is urging the Pentagon to counter "this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities." According to Joseph Cirincione, an arms expert and the author of Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Threats, "The neoconservatives are now hoping to use the Israeli-Lebanon conflict as the trigger to launch a U.S. war against Syria, Iran or both."

But the Bush administration's hostility toward Iran is not simply an outgrowth of the current crisis. War with Iran has been in the works for the past five years, shaped in almost complete secrecy by a small group of senior Pentagon officials attached to the Office of Special Plans...

Apparently it's working; many armchair patriots are frothing at the mouth in their eagerness to bomb/invade/nuke Iran.

[??????????]

We should have levelled Iran 25 years ago.

[Serenity Now]

2) The populous of almost all muslim nations are dependent upon the mosques for their very survival.  It is the mosque which feeds and educates the masses.

Um... no... not at all. Mosque's aren't actually that important in most branches of Islam, and going to a Mosque (note; most Muslims can't understand Arabic, beyond a few words, so can't actually understand a lot of what is said in 'em) is essentially a social thing. Certainly the Pakistani communities over here do most of their religious stuff at home.

Kind of like in pre-reformation England, where Catholics with no knowledge of Latin attended sermons that were delivered in Latin

[dazzleman]

We should have levelled Iran 25 years ago.

It's hard to disagree with you, States.

[Frodo]

We should have levelled Iran 25 years ago.

Or, better yet, desisted from reinstating the Shah in 1953, and letting Iran pursue its own course without interference. 

[they don't love you like i love you]

We should have levelled Iran 25 years ago.

Or, better yet, desisted from reinstating the Shah in 1953, and letting Iran pursue its own course without interference. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

2) The populous of almost all muslim nations are dependent upon the mosques for their very survival.  It is the mosque which feeds and educates the masses.

Um... no... not at all. Mosque's aren't actually that important in most branches of Islam...Certainly the Pakistani communities over here do most of their religious stuff at home.

Kind of like in pre-reformation England, where Catholics with no knowledge of Latin attended sermons that were delivered in Latin

Glad that you two are naive enough to judge the role of Mosques by observing Muslims in your WESTERN countries.

So, let me repeat the point and see if it makes more sense to you:

2) The populous of almost all muslim nations are dependent upon the mosques for their very survival.  It is the mosque which feeds and educates the masses.

[The Duke]

As for me, I don't really give a damn about Israel or the war on terror.  The former is a two-bit stretch of desert the size of New Jersey, and the latter is just as unwinnable as the war on drugs and gun control.

Israel is a stretch of desert that happens to be home to 7 million people.  It's a pretty deranged attitude to say you don't care whether 7 million people live or die.

I've never heard a convincing rationale as to why the war on terror cannot be won.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The current Israel/Hezbollah skirmish is the tipping-point in the War on Terror....the entire Arab and Muslim world will become bolder in attacking Israel and its main (only) ally, the United States.

Iran: Victory celebrations, threats to Israel:  "'If Israel and US attack us, we will shoot missiles at Tel Aviv"
 
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3291469,00.html 

---

In the long term, the US, shrinking on the world’s stage, will drop its support for Israel.  It is not a matter of if, but when. 

[??????????]

The ceasefire was the most stupid idea in a long time. Why Israel agreed to it is beyond me.

[jerusalemcar5]

Why Israel agreed to it is beyond me.

So innocents would stop dying on a daily basis....

Now they actually have a system to thwart Hezbollah.  Had Israel rejected it, the UN should simply have invaded Israel.

[ATFFL]

Why Israel agreed to it is beyond me.

So innocents would stop dying on a daily basis....

Now they actually have a system to thwart Hezbollah.  Had Israel rejected it, the UN should simply have invaded Israel.

With what army?

Israel took the cease fire to prepare for the next stage.  They know it will not hold.  They are already threatening to resume if the Lebanese army does not step in soon.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I've never heard a convincing rationale as to why the war on terror cannot be won.

Because to eliminate every single terrorist in the world is about as possible as eliminating every single narcotic in the world.

[MODU]

I've never heard a convincing rationale as to why the war on terror cannot be won.

Because to eliminate every single terrorist in the world is about as possible as eliminating every single narcotic in the world.

It's not a matter of "eliminating" them as much as it is in removing the environments in which they can grow and gain support.  You take away their ability to find host nations/regions and turn the general public away from them, they will not be able to resupply, gain funds, or carry out attacks that sway public support to their side.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=3&cid=1154525897203&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

wow...this chick is tough

[Jens]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=3&cid=1154525897203&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

wow...this chick is tough

More like a mad warmonger.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

and so it continues...

Across Arab world, hostility toward Bush after election results
The Associated PressPublished: November 8, 2006
   
AMMAN, Jordan: Angered by the Iraq war and new violence in Gaza, some Arabs reacted harshly Wednesday to the drubbing of President George W. Bush's party at the polls. Most governments across the region had no official comment, but critics of the U.S. role in the region were blunt.

"President Bush is no longer acceptable worldwide," said Suleiman Hadad, a lawmaker in Syria, whose autocratic government has been shunned by the U.S.

Nafie Ali Nafie, an aide to the Sudanese president, who has lashed out at the U.S. over its calls to send United Nations peacekeepers to Darfur, echoed those sentiments.

"I'm very happy about the defeat of the Republicans as an expression of the rejection of Bush's policies in Iraq, the Middle East, the blind bias in favor of Israel," Nafie said.

Even in pro-Western Jordan, newspaper editor Nabil al-Sharif said many Arabs believe U.S. policies under Bush are "dangerous to the region and to the world."

"We are delighted that the American voters have at least disassociated themselves from these dangerous policies," he said.

Iranian state television said in a commentary that the Republicans suffered losses because of "Bush's wrong strategy in the Middle East" as well as "financial corruption in the United States."

In Israel, on the other hand, some analysts worried that political infighting between Democrats and Republicans in the runup to the 2006 presidential election might distract the Americans from looming crises in the Middle East, chief among them the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

"Israelis perceive the Iranian threat as imminent," said Prof. Menahem Blondheim of Hebrew University. "Without political support at home and in his party and among American public, a decisive military or diplomatic move against Iran seems less and less likely."

But overall, the U.S. election results were overshadowed in both Israeli and Arab media by the deaths of at least 18 people when Israeli tank shells blasted a residential neighborhood in Gaza early Wednesday.

Hamas' military wing in Gaza urged Muslims worldwide to attack U.S. targets, but the call was disavowed by the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

Nevertheless, many Arabs are highly critical of the United States for its support of Israel, especially during last summer's war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The latest bloodshed in Gaza seemed certain to intensify that.

"Our experience is whether it is Democrats or Republicans, we don't see much difference when it comes to dealing with Israel," said Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat.

He was not alone in dismissing the results because of seeing little difference between Democrats and Republicans on such hot-button issues as U.S. support for Israel.

"I don't believe there will be any change at all in U.S. policy," said Yousef Abu Hijra, who runs a mobile phone shop in Amman. "There's no difference between the two parties."

For many Arabs, the war in Iraq stands out as the defining event of the Bush administration.

Kuwaiti political analyst Abdul-Ridha Aseeri described Democrats' gains as a "normal reaction" to the president's "failed" policies in Iraq. Kuwait was among the few Arab countries where support for the war was strong when the conflict began in 2003.

Aseeri predicted the resurgent Democrats may succeed in pressuring Bush into a face-saving formula for withdrawing from Iraq.

but some analysts saw dangers for the region in a quick American departure from Iraq — even some who opposed the war from the start.

"The problem for Arabs now is, an American withdrawal could be a security disaster for the entire region," said Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi analyst for the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.

[Joe Republic]

As for me, I don't really give a damn about Israel or the war on terror.  The former is a two-bit stretch of desert the size of New Jersey, and the latter is just as unwinnable as the war on drugs and gun control.

Israel is a stretch of desert that happens to be home to 7 million people.  It's a pretty deranged attitude to say you don't care whether 7 million people live or die.

Millions of people die every week.  Everybody dies eventually.  You just learn to live with it, if you excuse the pun.

Moreover, why should I care more about the death of Israelis, and not so much the death of any other victims of conflict?

[gorkay]

The war on terror is not a conventional war, and thus it cannot be fought by conventional means... a fact which somehow seems to escape the leaders of both the U.S. and Israel.

I am a staunch supporter of Israel, just as I am a staunch supporter of the U.S., but that doesn't translate into a blind, uncritical acceptance of the policies of the current leaders of either country. Just as it doesn't make you unpatriotic to criticize Bush, it doesn't make you anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli leadership. Trying to make yourself immune to criticism by wrapping yourself in the flag of your country is an old, tired trick that only the simple-minded fall for. As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

The entire situation is a lot more complex than some of the posters here seem to believe.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The war on terror is not a conventional war, and thus it cannot be fought by conventional means... a fact which somehow seems to escape the leaders of both the U.S. and Israel.

I am a staunch supporter of Israel, just as I am a staunch supporter of the U.S., but that doesn't translate into a blind, uncritical acceptance of the policies of the current leaders of either country. Just as it doesn't make you unpatriotic to criticize Bush, it doesn't make you anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli leadership. Trying to make yourself immune to criticism by wrapping yourself in the flag of your country is an old, tired trick that only the simple-minded fall for. As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

The entire situation is a lot more complex than some of the posters here seem to believe.

To whom, exactly, are you preaching?

[AuH2O]

I've long opposed Israel for the very reason we now are in trouble. First of all, the Israelis have a nuclear deterrent. They don't need massive US military aid, although they do if they want to sock it to Iran.

And the Israelis are going to hit Iran. There's just no question.

At this point things are so screwed up that there's no good solution. We probably could destroy Muslim fundamentalism, but needless to say, Westerners don't support that kind of mass warfare anymore.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

First of all, the Israelis have a nuclear deterrent.

suicidals are not deterred by threat of death

---

At this point things are so screwed up that there's no good solution. We probably could destroy Muslim fundamentalism, but needless to say, Westerners don't support that kind of mass warfare anymore.

and we've already discussed the limitations imposed by our conscience and civility.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In the long term, the US, shrinking on the world’s stage, will drop its support for Israel.  It is not a matter of if, but when. 

from http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061117/OPINION/611170387/1002...

One area where the recommendations of the ISG may run into resistance from Bush himself is in Hamilton's answer to the last question from the audience at DePauw. "Do we have to rethink our relations with the state of Israel? That issue is at the top of the Arab agenda." Essentially, Hamilton said yes, the strongest criticism of America is its pro-Israel stance. "In the Middle East, everything is connected to everything else, and at the core is the Israeli-Palestinian question. It's terribly important for the U.S. to deal with every aspect of this, refugees, borders, Jerusalem. The U.S. has to get seriously involved in the Middle East beyond Iraq. We have to adjust our relations with Israel to move the process. This does not mean we'll change our close relations with Israel, but we do have to adjust our relations."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In the long term, the US, shrinking on the world’s stage, will drop its support for Israel.  It is not a matter of if, but when. 

The following article is just plain shocking to me:

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Baker_1.htm


The White House has been examining a proposal by James Baker to launch a Middle East peace effort without Israel.

The peace effort would begin with a U.S.-organized conference, dubbed Madrid-2, and contain such U.S. adversaries as Iran and Syria. Officials said Madrid-2 would be promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq's future, but actually focus on Arab demands for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war. They said Israel would not be invited to the conference.

“As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure,” an official said. “This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month.”

Officials said Mr. Baker's proposal, reflected in the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, has been supported by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. The most controversial element in the proposal, they said, was Mr. Baker's recommendation for the United States to woo Iran and Syria.

“Here is Syria, which is clearly putting pressure on the Lebanese democracy, is a supporter of terror, is both provisioning and supporting Hezbollah and facilitating Iran in its efforts to support Hezbollah, is supporting the activities of Hamas," National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told a briefing last week. "This is not a Syria that is on an agenda to bring peace and stability to the region."

Officials said the Baker proposal to exclude Israel from a Middle East peace conference garnered support in the wake of Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 25. They said Mr. Cheney spent most of his meetings listening to Saudi warnings that Israel, rather than Iran, is the leading cause of instability in the Middle East.

“He [Cheney] didn't even get the opportunity to seriously discuss the purpose of his visit—that the Saudis help the Iraqi government and persuade the Sunnis to stop their attacks,” another official familiar with Mr. Cheney’s visit said. “Instead, the Saudis kept saying that they wanted a U.S. initiative to stop the Israelis’ attack in Gaza and Cheney just agreed.”

Under the Baker proposal, the Bush administration would arrange a Middle East conference that would discuss the future of Iraq and other Middle East issues. Officials said the conference would seek to win Arab support on Iraq in exchange for a U.S. pledge to renew efforts to press Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.

“Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis,” the official said. “The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians.”

Officials said Mr. Baker's influence within the administration and the Republican Party’s leadership stems from support by the president's father as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Throughout the current Bush administration, such senior officials as Mr. Hadley and Ms. Rice were said to have been consulting with Brent Scowcroft, the former president's national security advisor, regarded as close to Mr. Baker.

“Everybody has fallen in line,” the official said. “Bush is not in the daily loop. He is shocked by the elections and he's hoping for a miracle on Iraq.”

For his part, Mr. Bush has expressed unease in negotiating with Iran. At a Nov. 30 news conference in Amman, Jordan, the president cited Iran's interference in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki.

“We respect their heritage, we respect their history, we respect their traditions,” Mr. Bush said. “I just have a problem with a government that is isolating its people, denying its people benefits that could be had from engagement with the world.”

Mr. Baker's recommendation to woo Iran and Syria has also received support from some in the conservative wing of the GOP. Over the last week, former and current Republican leaders in Congress—convinced of the need for a U.S. withdrawal before the 2008 presidential elections—have called for Iranian and Syrian participation in an effort to stabilize Iraq.


“I would look at an entirely new strategy,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. “We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want.”

In contrast, Defense Department officials have warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at Israel's expense. They said such a strategy would also end up undermining Arab allies of the United States such as Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.

“The regional strategy is a euphemism for throwing Free Iraq to the wolves in its neighborhood: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia,” said the Center for Security Policy, regarded as being close to the Pentagon. “If the Baker regional strategy is adopted, we will prove to all the world that it is better to be America's enemy than its friend. Jim Baker's hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel's foes in the region.”


But Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates, a former colleague of Mr. Baker on the Iraq Study Group, has expressed support for U.S. negotiations with Iran and Syria. In response to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, which begins confirmation hearings this week, Mr. Gates compared the two U.S. adversaries to the Soviet Union.

 “Even in the worst days of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a dialogue with the Soviet Union and China, and I believe those channels of communication helped us manage many potentially difficult situations,” Mr. Gates said. “Our engagement with Syria need not be unilateral. It could, for instance, take the form of Syrian participation in a regional conference.”