Don’t be too quick to judge the Olmert government if it should accept the UN bartered ceasefire. Israel has been stuck in the rut of southern Lebanon before with their troops, tanks and armored vehicles getting picked off like fish in a barrel. Now six years later with a stronger, better armed and more entrenched enemy, it may be a reality that the vaunted IDF just isn’t capable of taking on this task by itself. America kept them on leash for six decades and acts surprised that they aren’t ready to run now that they are no longer tethered. I would ask, “Where are Israel’s allies?” Oh, I forget they only have one. The best that Israel's staunchest ally has to offer is tepid back channel support, while pushing to take the lead in brokering a deal. It seems Bush is more concerned with making a good appearance at the UN instead of providing real support to an ally in need.

Before 9/11, Hezbollah was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist group.  As another dog, ‘Zero Ponsdorf' posted, “the saying ‘next year in Israel’ will turn into ‘next year, next door’.”  I totally agree with that sentiment, but stop short of blaming Olmert and the Israelis.  Bush’s apparent unwillingness to assist Israel in keeping the heat on Hezbollah now, flies in the face of his statements that it is “better to fight terrorist ‘over there’ than at home.”  Unfortunately for Olmert and the Israelis, “over there” is home.  Bush’s platitudes of how we “stand behind Israel” can be taken quite literally.  It is Israeli cities that are being assaulted by incoming missiles, while America stands a good distance behind.

I have heard too many Democrats opine that the U.S. must remain neutral in this conflict so that we can be an honest broker for peace.  Who in their right mind believes that anything resembling peace can occur if we leave these fanged devils to regroup, rearm and retrench again and again? How and why should we remain neutral? Hezbollah is our enemy too.

I fear that this diatribe may start to sound like the opposition’s “blame America first” mantra, but it was George W. Bush who called for a Global War on Terror.  It took a lot of arm twisting, coercion and outright bribes to assemble our small “coalition of the willing”. He, more than anyone, should understand the difficulty of going it alone. Now that we have a willing participant engaged with a common enemy, it seems that the best aid we have to offer is just more “Shock and Shucks.” 

There may be more going on behind the scenes than most of us are aware.  But I for one am not ready to criticize the Olmert government. Yet!

Contributed by The Gray Dog on August 12, 2006 at 10:28 AM in Current Affairs, DisUnited Nations, G W Bush, Hezbollah, Israel, The Gray Dog | Permalink

Comments

Posted by: Ponsdorf

I'm inclined to agree that Olmert is between a rock and a hard place. However, if you'll forgive me for re-quoting Einstein: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein.

The Israeli people have had the clearest look at what ceasefires and appeasement bring of any country since WWII. I do hope that there are some backroom machinations ongoing, because what's on the table confuses the hell out of me.

Posted by: Ponsdorf | Aug 12, 2006 11:12:04 AM

Posted by: The Gray Dog

Zero, I suspect we are more in agreement than not. My point in a small part is to call into question the real strength and ability of the IDF to do the job alone, and in a larger part Bush’s foot dragging and failure to provide cover and support. After watching Condi at the UN yesterday, and again on Hannity and Colmes last night, I am beginning to convert to Rurik’s less than positive appraisal of her. But we both agree that to stop short of crushing Hezbollah (Syria and Iran) now, is indeed insanity.

Posted by: The Gray Dog | Aug 12, 2006 11:36:53 AM

Posted by: Bill Faith

Re: Re: Peace in our time.

Kudos on a very well reasoned and well written post, Mike, even if I'm not sure you've won me over yet. I guess there's still enough wolf in this ol' dog that my natural instincts say "When you have a foe by the throat never turn loose and give him another chance at yours." In the last few hours you, and Ed Morrissey and Dafydd ab Hugh, have posted some good arguments for doing that. I'm not ready to say you're right and the Power Line gang and I are wrong,  but I will go as far as admitting there are two sides to the argument and both sides have merit. Only time will tell, I think. If I had to place my bet right now I'd predict Hezbollah will agree to the terms of the UN resolution and then violate it within hours, after which the Israelis will finally give them both barrels like they should have to begin with. In the long run I think historians will look back some day and realize that Lebanon is to Iran and Syria today as Spain was to Germany and Italy 70 years ago. The big question in my mind at this point is whether it's going to take another Pearl Harbor for this country to wake up and start taking "that war over there" seriously.

Posted by: Bill Faith | Aug 12, 2006 11:53:32 AM