|
Please Don't Miss
Defensive
Misgivings and
Veterans as an
Ethnic Minority
|
|
It's not all
that complicated, folks. |
|
Monday, 21 August 2006 |
|
RE: Israeli Commando Raid: the Case of the Curious Omission Contributed by The Gray Dog
In a post written at Big Lizards by Dafydd, and excerpted here at OWD by Bill Faith, the author summarizes that the blogosphere and news media divided neatly into two groups:
Both the author and my OWD colleague align themselves in Camp 1, with Dafydd asserting,” The fact that we are still, today, championing Israel's right to conduct this commando raid while the ceasefire is in effect, that we refuse to characterize it as a violation, speaks volumes about which camp is correct.” Dafydd ends his analysis with the following summary: The United States still backs Israel in its actual warfare against Hezbollah (contrary to those folks in Camp 2, who cannot let go their charming fantasies about almighty Israel) -- and the mainstream media still supports the other side. This old dog would take exception to the “two camp” argument as being an over simplification of past six week’s events, but first, I will state two areas of agreement with the author: 1. Israel did run a feckless and infantile “pseudo-war”. It has been reported that Olmert had initially wanted to enter into Lebanon with a significant ground force, only to accede to intelligence assessments that proved to be grossly incorrect in their estimation of Hezbollah’s missile stockpile as well as their ability to relocate and avoid detection. This occurred not only before Israel’s initial strike, but continued to be their Achilles’ heel throughout the first several weeks. Day after day, reports from the Israeli government predicted that Hezbollah had been pushed far enough north to eliminate the threat to their cities. No sooner would such statements be released when a new volley of Katyusha’s would reign down on Haifa. Unfortunately for the Olmert government, world opinion had rapidly shifted from its initial condemnation of Hezbollah to one that repudiated Israel’s disproportionate response. In hind sight it becomes obvious that Olmert’s initial instincts were correct. But I wonder if his late change in heart was a result of placing too much trust in Aman (Military Intelligence) or if it was the common weakness found in most western democratic leaders who must attempt to balance internal political realities with external strategic goals. In the end, does it matter? Many might say that the reason is unimportant in light of the fact that the result still remains an unsatisfactory standoff that leaves a ticking bomb set to announce the commencement of round two in the very near future. These are the people set to toss the baby out with the bath water. I personally want to believe that Olmert has learned a valuable lesson and will trust his gut and establish a firmer hand when the next round begins. One way to ensure that is to have America provide more than tepid back channel support. George Bush and Condi have given plenty of lip service in support of Israel, but in practice have engaged in the type of nuanced diplomacy one might have expected from a Kerry administration. The fact that a resolution was agreed upon with France, no matter how fleeting their support was, ensured a solution that lacked soundness or enforceability. It has been only a few short years since America acted in defiance of the UN and began an assault on Iraq. What has changed in three years to make us engage this august body as the ultimate arbiter of dispute? America’s support of Israel in this latest conflict is reminiscent of a playground skirmish between a persecuted kid and the school bully. With nervous anticipation, America gathered around the contestants with the rest of its classmates ready to cheer on and “stand behind” their buddy. And while their friend is taking all the punishment, everyone else criticizes the little guy’s tactics and his inability to dispose of the bully. In the end, America and its classmates dutifully report to the principal’s office to await a proper punishment to be dispensed by the higher authority. Yes, I agree with Dafydd and Bill Faith that there is plenty of room for second guessing Israel’s half-hearted response to Hezbollah, but I still maintain that America and George Bush have offered no support of substance. Instead we have smugly sat back and turned allies into surrogates in the War on Terror. This was a bad tactic used by several presidents during the cold war and certainly not something I would have expected from that same man that said “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on August 21, 2006 at 12:00 PM in Best of Old War Dogs, Bill Faith, Current Affairs, DisUnited Nations, G W Bush, Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Politics, The Gray Dog | Permalink Comments Posted by: piscivorous At least the Isralis know what to expect and can porporly attend to the matter when once again the crap hits the fan. Posted by: piscivorous | Aug 20, 2006 4:00:42 PM Post a comment Comments accept simple HTML for formatting and linking. Comments are moderated and may not appear on the site immediately. Comments in violation of our comment policy will never appear on the site. TrackBacks TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451e4ed69e200e5506f3c038833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference RE: |
