Thursday, 05 April 2007
 

Introducing David Hazony
Contributed by 72nd TCS

The "Opinion Journal" newsletter of the Wall Street Journal for Wednesday, April 4 had a long article by guest-author David Hazony. Mr. Hazony, who deserves to be better-known to American readers, is the Editor-in-Chief of AZURE, which originally published his column here. AZURE is a quarterly produced in Israel and bears a strong resemblance to the American monthly Commentary. Like Commentary, AZURE specializes in solid, well-written think-pieces. The right-hand sidebar of its home page [cf. initial link above] links to authors covering the entire spectrum of reasoned commentary, ranging from George Soros by way of Fouad Ajami and Bernard Lewis to Mark Steyn. It offers the think-piece maven just the intellectual fare needed to turn many a night of insomnia into brilliant day.

Mr. Hazony's article, in particular, makes the startling case that the Iranian mullahs have been and are waging a Cold War against the West, comparable to the Soviet pressures that kept us on tenterhooks for four decades. Given the huge discrepancy in size, population, and military might beween the former Soviet Union and Iran, anyone who lived through that era is bound to regard the analogy at first as more than a bit strained.  Even so, the most skeptical reader cannot fail to be impressed by the cogency of  the author's arguments in favor of his thesis. The mere excerpts that follow cannot hope to do justice to this presentation.  They are presented simply as bait, to entice the reader to Read The Whole Thing..

Mr. Hazony comes on strong right at the outset: NOTE: in what follows, block quotes are taken directly from the Hazony article. Intercalated text, aligned flush left, are comments and other asides from 72nd TCS.

A new Cold War is upon us. Though there is no Soviet Union today, the enemies of Western democracy, supported by a conglomerate of Islamic states, terror groups and insurgents, have begun to work together with a unity of purpose reminiscent of the Soviet menace: not only in funding, training and arming those who seek democracy's demise; not only in mounting attacks against Israel, America and their allies around the world; not only in seeking technological advances that will enable them to threaten the life of every Western citizen; but also in advancing a clear vision of a permanent, intractable and ultimately victorious struggle against the West--an idea they convey articulately, consistently and with brutal efficiency.

The term "clear vision" crops up again and again as this article progresses. Sadly, in the context of the response of Western leaders to the Islamic extremist onslaught, the author mentions it only to stress its absence among the elites of our world. Continuing, he writes...

It is this conceptual strategic clarity that gives the West's enemies a leg up, even if they are far inferior in number, wealth, and weaponry. From Tehran to Tyre, from Chechnya to the Philippines, from southern Iraq to the Afghan mountains to the madrassas of London and Paris and Cairo, these forces are unified in their aim to defeat the West, its way of life, its political forms and its cause of freedom. And every day, because of this clarity, their power and resources grow, as they attract allies outside the Islamic world: In Venezuela, in South Africa, in North Korea.

At the center of all this, of course, is Iran. A once-friendly state has embarked on an unflinching campaign, at considerable cost to its own economy, to attain the status of a global power: through the massive infusion of money, matériel, training and personnel to the anti-Western forces in Lebanon (Hezbollah), the Palestinian Authority (Hamas and Islamic Jihad), and the Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies of Iraq; through its relentless pursuit of nuclear arms, long-range missiles and a space program; through its outsized armed forces and huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons; through its diplomatic initiatives around the world; and through its ideological battle against democracy, Zionism and the memory of the Holocaust. For the forces of Islamic extremism and political jihad, Iran has become the cutting edge of clarity.

Muddled thinking, by contrast, is the Order of the Day in Israel, the EU, and the United States...

The West, on the other hand, enjoys no such clarity. In America, Iraq has become the overriding concern, widely seen as a Vietnam-style "quagmire" claiming thousands of American lives with no clear way either to win or to lose. (As the bells of the 2006 congressional elections continue tolling in American ears, it is hard to hear the muezzins of the Middle East calling upon the faithful to capitalize on Western malaise.) Europeans continue to seek "diplomatic solutions" even as they contend with powerful and well-funded Islamists in their midst and their friends among the media and intellectual elites--forces that stir public opinion not against Iran and Syria, who seek their destruction, but against their natural allies, America and Israel.

Throughout the West we now hear increasingly that a nuclear Iran is something one has to "learn to live with," that Iraq needs an "exit strategy," and that the real key to peace lies not in victory but in brokering agreements between Israel and the Palestinians and "engaging" Syria and Iran. The Israelis, too, suffer from a lack of clarity: By separating the Palestinian question from the struggle with Hezbollah and Iran, and by shifting the debate back to territorial concession and prisoner exchange, Israelis incentivize aggression and terror, ignore the role Hamas plays in the broader conflict, and send conciliatory signals to the Syrians. Like the Americans with Iraq, Israelis have allowed themselves to lose sight of who their enemies are, how determined they are, and what will be required to defeat them.

At this point, one thing is eminently clear--Mr. Hazony knows exactly what he thinks, and never permits political correctness or pious sentiment to fuzz his message.  We now skip past many lines of closely reasoned discourse, to the bottom line.  Those who take up and read, and learn how he gets from here to there, will find the effort exceedingly rewarding.

Yet there can be no question that today, it is Iran that has earned the greatest admiration, given the global jihad its greatest source of hope and funds, and racked up the most impressive victories, taking on the West and its allies throughout the Middle East--and especially in Iraq, where its proxy insurgencies have frustrated American efforts and even brought about a shift in the internal politics of the United States. Iran is not the only foe, but it is the leader among them. It is only through Iran's defeat that the tide of the Second Cold War will be turned.

There you have it--clear, cold and bracing--like a shot of vodka taken in the classic Russian manner.

Contributed by 72nd TCS on April 5, 2007 at 12:22 PM in Current Affairs, Dem Dumbness, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Israel, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, War? What war? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 04 September 2006
 

Thoughts on the need for total war
Contributed by George Mellinger

You cannot be objective about an aerial torpedo.  And the horror we feel of these things has led to this conclusion:  if someone drops a bomb on your mother, go and drop two bombs on his mother.  The only apparent alternatives are to smash dwelling houses to powder, blow out human entrails and burn holes in children with thermite, or to be enslaved by people who are more ready to do these things than you are yourself; as yet no one has suggested a practicable way out.

—George Orwell, reviewing Arthur Koestler’s Spanish Testament

for the magazine Time and Tide, Feb. 5, 1938.

John Derbyshire is not a jolly man, but he is a very serious man.

These troubling thoughts came up while I was watching TV coverage of the fighting in Lebanon.  It would be a wonderful thing if the Israeli Defense Force could kill only Hezbollah operatives, leaving the civilian population alone.  They can’t, of course, and civilians are dying.  It would be a much less wonderful thing—though still, so far as I am concerned, an acceptable one—if the Israelis could reduce their enemies to the condition of abject, unconditional surrender we reduced Germany to in 1945.  But they can’t do that, either.

For Israel this is a “crisis war”, at least as much as WWII was for us.  Hezbollah has been firing missiles into Israeli cities, killing Israeli civilians.  Eighty percent of the population of South Lebanon voted for “Resistance Party” candidates in last year’s election—that’s mainly Hezbollah, joined with a few like-minded groups.

And this applies to us as well, in Iraq, Iran, and eventually other places yet to be imagined.

Rurik's first rule of war, if you're not prepared to do what is necessary to win, then don't even pretend,  just resolve to lose from the beginning and get it over with honestly.

-Rurik

Contributed by George Mellinger on September 4, 2006 at 09:30 PM in Current Affairs, George Mellinger, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon, The American Warrior, War? What war? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Two Posts on Lebanon from Debka
Contributed by George Mellinger

First the proviso. Debkafiles is a well known but controversial site, It is wide rumored to have ties to Israeli Intelligence, the Mossad, though nobody knows for certain. As in the old Zen paradigm, "He who speaks does not know, he who knows does not speak."  Debka has been accused of spreading disinformation and propaganda on occasion. or perhaps that is only how you explain error by a source which usually seems to have prime inside information. Debka is very worth auditing, though you should always do so with skepticism. Of course, you really should do that with everything you find on the web, even the authoritative insights of Rurik. Except of course for the ranting at DU and the Daily Kotz, which you know to be always nonsense.

Today there are two items from Debka, which offer cause for concern. the first discusses the naval build-up off the coast of Lebanon.

The extraordinary buildup of European naval and military strength in and around Lebanon’s shores is way out of proportion for the task the European contingents of expanded UNIFIL have undertaken: to create a buffer between Israel and Hizballah.

Close investigation by DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources discloses that “Lebanese security” and peacemaking is not the object of the exercise. It is linked to the general anticipation of a military clash between the United States and Israel, on one side, and Iran and possibly Syria on the other, some time from now until November. Continue reading here.

In this case, I cannot help but wonder if the description of the size of the fleet is either exaggerated or distorted by short memories. But it does suggest that something may be a-building. Even more notable is the unusual mix of national fleets. (Note - where they refer to the warships as including "...5 Italian, 2-3 Green, 3-5 German..." I presume that is a typo for Greek, since I have never heard of the Environmentalist Navy.)

The second article, Some Lebanon War Riddles Solved and Their Relevance to Moves on Syria in Jerusalem Explained is even more alarming and considers Israel's sudden desire to negotiate with Syria's Bashir Asshat, and raises questions of why the Israeli military conducted such a limited war in Lebanon. Certain Israeli leaders (sic) are singled out, and accusations are also leveled at some American Administration figures. if even some of the accusations are true, it is troubling. but remember, this article may be intended for its political impact, both in Israel and America.

A tip of the helmet to TACAN.

-Rurik

Contributed by George Mellinger on September 4, 2006 at 07:41 PM in France, George Mellinger, Germany, Hezbollah, Iran, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon, US Marine Corps, US Navy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 29 August 2006
 

Here We Go Again!
Contributed by Jim Bartimus

Everybody seems to be an armchair quarterback when it comes to the Middle East. The theme is always the same and if you pay attention to our lovely MSM news sources or our Liberal champions on the Left, you probably won’t question that America and Israel are at fault. And in certain ways we are. Jimmy Carter was one of the first to drop the ball and it’s been rolling down hill gathering muck ever since. And yes, I realize it was already mucked up in the first place, but nobody seems to consider that point.

Truth be known, the UN has done more damage than anybody else in trying to deal with this mess. Kofi Annan is now making another whirl wind tour to set things straight, but will only cause us bigger problems down the road. At some point we need to tell the UN to get out of the way and deal with the problems emanating from that region. He’s doing more damage than good as usual and only postponing the inevitable.

The following is from Jeb Babbin at The American Spectator

What could possibly make the Lebanon situation worse today than it was yesterday? Only yesterday the hapless Israeli defense minister, Amir Peretz, said that Israel expected the "international community" to take control of Lebanon's border crossings. Peretz's pointless whine was in response to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's statement on Saturday that the new UN force in Lebanon won't either disarm Hizballah terrorists or try to interdict shipments of weapons to Hizballah from Syria. But what Peretz said changed nothing. The Son of UNIFIL force won't do anything to inconvenience Hizballah or its Syrian and Iranian suppliers.

I really doubt this is going to do us any favors or contribute to a solution.

Read "On the Road Again" here

Contributed by Jim Bartimus on August 29, 2006 at 08:38 PM in Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Jim Bartimus, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 28 August 2006
 

Shutting down Terror TV
Contributed by Bill Faith

It's gonna be Monday all day, folks, even if the sun manages to come out eventually. I have some posts to do based on emails I got last night and a kickoff post to do for a personal "crusade" I'm sure I can count on some of the other Dogs to help with; otherwise I'd probably go right back to bed.

If you're the one Old War Dogs regular who still doesn't follow Michelle Malkin and Hot Air on a regular basis, I can't let you miss today's Vent on terror TV or Michelle's companion post here. Also, don't miss the excellent related posts at Stop The ACLU and Don Surber.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 28, 2006 at 11:56 AM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Another Adnan Hajj photoshop?
Contributed by Bill Faith

It's Monday. Gonna be all day. I'm on my 3rd cup and I still don't feel smart enough to know who to blame for this one, but something fishy's going on. Check out Randy's post here and Allah's discussion of same here.  Personal to Randy: Blog on!

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 28, 2006 at 10:58 AM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Media Perfidy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sunday, 27 August 2006
 

Bruce Kesler: "Proportionate Results = Just Desserts"
Contributed by Bill Faith

The just desserts being visited upon Israel’s enemies is serving to deter them, at least until the next time.

Congressman Tom Lantos, as often, seems to be one of the few in power trying to prevent a next time. Lantos is blocking U.S. aid to Lebanon’s reconstruction to pressure Lebanon’s Hezbollah-scared government to allow UNFIL blocking the Syria border crossings to rearm Hezbollah.

[Read the whole thing.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 27, 2006 at 07:03 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Oops!
Contributed by Bill Faith

Hezbollah head didn't foresee such a war

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in a TV interview aired Sunday that he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war. ... "We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not," he said in an interview with Lebanon's New TV station.

[Read the whole thing. H/T: Allahpundit]

***

Captain Ed comments here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 27, 2006 at 01:57 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 26 August 2006
 

UNIFIL spied for Hezbollah during war
Contributed by Bill Faith

What did you do in the war, UNIFIL?
You broadcast Israeli troop movements.

[Read on.]

DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 26, 2006 at 08:03 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon, UNuseful | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 25 August 2006
 

Kofi Annan's UN
Contributed by Bill Faith

Click the pics, bookmark the site. H/T: Kerry Leight.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 25, 2006 at 02:47 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, UNuseful | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Straight Scoop on Hezbollah
Contributed by John Werntz

Like many another, this writer has drunk deeply of the MSM Kool-Aid regarding Hezbollah's startling victory in the Lebanon conflict.  Now comes Mr. Amir Taheri to set the record straight. Writing in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal of Friday, August 25, 2006, Mr. Taheri states flatly that Hezbollah Didn't Win, and bolsters his case with ample evidence observed on the scene in Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon and the Middle East.

This posting will merely reproduce his introductory remarks and the conclusion:

The way much of the Western media tells the story, Hezbollah won a great victory against Israel and the U.S., healed the Sunni-Shiite rift, and boosted the Iranian mullahs' claim to leadership of the Muslim world. Portraits of Hassan Nasrallah, the junior mullah who leads the Lebanese branch of this pan-Shiite movement, have adorned magazine covers in the West, hammering in the message that this child of the Khomeinist revolution is the new hero of the mythical "Arab Street."

Probably because he watches a lot of CNN, Iran's "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenei, also believes in "a divine victory." Last week he asked 205 members of his Islamic Majlis to send Mr. Nasrallah a message, congratulating him for his "wise and far-sighted leadership of the Ummah that produced the great victory in Lebanon."

By controlling the flow of information from Lebanon throughout the conflict, and help from all those who disagree with U.S. policies for different reasons, Hezbollah may have won the information war in the West. In Lebanon, the Middle East and the broader Muslim space, however, the picture is rather different. [snip]

Having lost more than 500 of its fighters, and with almost all of its medium-range missiles destroyed, Hezbollah may find it hard to sustain its claim of victory. "Hezbollah won the propaganda war because many in the West wanted it to win as a means of settling score with the United States," says Egyptian columnist Ali al-Ibrahim. "But the Arabs have become wise enough to know TV victory from real victory."

Would  that we all, and CNN especially, could say the same.

Readers owe it to themselves to follow the first link up top and make up their own minds.

Contributed by John Werntz on August 25, 2006 at 11:21 AM in Current Affairs, Hezbollah, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Israel Demands UN Troops on Syria-Lebanon Border
Contributed by Bill Faith

Syria objects to U.N. troops on border

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Israel is demanding that U.N. troops patrol the Syria-Lebanon border to prevent Hezbollah from receiving arms shipments. But even if Israel overcomes Syrian objections to the idea, policing the mostly mountainous frontier could prove nearly impossible.

The controversy has developed as the United Nations tries to muster enough peacekeepers to serve as a buffer force between Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon's south.

Israel, which accuses Syria of supplying arms to Hezbollah, refuses to lift its sea and air blockade of Lebanon unless U.N. troops also deploy to the far larger Syria-Lebanon border.

[Read the whole thing here. Hat tip: James Joyner]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 25, 2006 at 10:31 AM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon, Syria | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 22 August 2006
 

The "Curious Omission" Gets Curiouser and Curiouser
Contributed by Bill Faith

Three days ago, we noted a curious omission from the New York Times and the Associated Press stories about Israel's commando raid deep into the Bekaa Valley Saturday: while both of those two media sources, as well as the Reuters account, all found occasion to quote chief U.N. envoy to Beirut Terje Roed-Larsen pronouncing Israel's raid "a clear violation of the ceasefire," only Reuters added a second quotation from Mr. Roed-Larsen: that if it were true, as the evidence clearly demonstrates, that Hezbollah were attempting to rearm in Lebanon... then that too would be a violation:

Israel said the operation, in which commandos were airlifted into the area by helicopter, was defensive and was designed to disrupt weapons supplies to Hizbollah from Syria and Iran.

It denied it had violated the resolution, which allows it to act in self-defense, and accused Hizbollah of doing so by smuggling weapons. Roed-Larsen said that if the guerrilla group was [sic] found to have smuggled weapons, it would indeed be in breach of the truce.

Well, here it is, 72 hours later... and now it appears that even Reuters has forgotten that vital piece of information. In a new article, Reuters -- perhaps having been teased unmercifully by its playmates for its unseemly faux pas -- repeats the point that the UN condemned Israel's raid as a violation... but they make no reference whatsoever to the fact that the same UN representative likewise condemned Hezbollah's provocation. Exhibit A:

[Read the whole thing.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 22, 2006 at 08:47 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Photographic evidence of Hezbollah counterfeiting?
Contributed by Bill Faith

Allah's on top of it here.

***

Dan Riehl has an excellent related post here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 22, 2006 at 12:02 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Newsflash: Hezbollah sinks Aussie warship!
Contributed by Bill Faith

Fauxtography: Hezbollah caught red-handed

After the staging and photoshopping, this one’s almost quaint. They found a photo online of the Aussies sinking one of their own ships and passed it off as a photo of the attack last month on an Israeli warship stationed off the coast of Lebanon. Pathetic. Follow the link and examine the photos side by side. They’re identical.

[Read on.]

Rusty has more here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 22, 2006 at 10:11 AM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 21 August 2006
 

RE:
Israeli Commando Raid: the Case of the Curious Omission
Contributed by The Gray Dog

A "Best of Old War Dogs" featured post. The webmaster is backdating this post to keep it near the top of the blog for a while. Please scroll down for newer posts.

This item was originally posted 2006.08.20.10:41.

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:

1. Those who think Israel ran a feckless and infantile "pseudowar," and that the United States salvaged what little it could with UN Security Council Resolution 1701, the ceasefire agreement;
2. Those who think Israel was right on the brink of annihilating Hezbollah, when the US stuck out an invisible foot to trip them up, then dragged them, kicking and screaming, to the ceasefire.

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”.
2. America (and Bush) support Israel.

The questions remain:  Why did Israel react so timidly? And, what has been the value of American support?

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 (1) | TrackBack

If this is New York it must be 1939
Contributed by Bill Faith

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 21, 2006 at 11:30 AM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon, UNuseful | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Israeli PM rejects UNIFIL troops
from countries without relations (Updated and bumped)
Contributed by Bill Faith

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel would not accept the presence of peacekeepers in Lebanon from countries that don't have diplomatic relations with the state, officials said on Sunday.

The decision complicated efforts by the United Nations to form a 15,000-strong peacekeeping force to help enforce a truce that ended 34 days of fighting between Israel and Hizbullah.

The decision was made at a meeting of Olmert's inner Security Cabinet, meeting participants said.

"We will not agree that countries which do not have relations with Israel will participate in the multinational force," Olmert was quoted as saying ....

[Read on. H/T: Dan Riehl]

*** Update and bump. Original timestamp 206.08.20.15:58

Israel Rejects Peacekeepers Who Reject Israel

Israel has formally rejected the UN's plan to comprise its bolstered UNIFIL force with nations who do not recognize Israel. Ehud Olmert has warned Lebanon and the UN that it will not abide by 1701 if the UN stations hostile troops on its northern border:

ISRAEL said last night that it would veto the presence in Lebanon of peace-keeping forces from nations with which it does not have diplomatic links.

Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, ruled out countries that do not recognise Israel, complicating the already difficult task of assembling 15,000 troops to oversee the United Nations’ ceasefire resolution and bolster Lebanese forces.

Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh — Muslim states that do not have diplomatic links to Israel — are among the few countries that have offered troops for the stabilisation force that is expected to be led by European troops.

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 21, 2006 at 09:43 AM in Bill Faith, DisUnited Nations, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon, UNuseful | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Annan to give UNIFIL 'teeth'
Contributed by Bill Faith

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is expected to recommend Monday that the rules of engagement of the enhanced UNIFIL force to be deployed in Lebanon include opening fire on Hizbullah where necessary, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

[...]

Israel has been pushing for the need for an effective force, arguing that one of the criteria would be the ability to open fire on Hizbullah if the force saw, for instance, Hizbullah launching rockets toward Israel. ...

[Read the whole thing. H/T: Ed Morrissey, who comments here.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 21, 2006 at 09:24 AM in Bill Faith, DisUnited Nations, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, UNuseful | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 20 August 2006
 

British Night Goggles Go From Iran To Hezbollah
Contributed by Bill Faith

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Israelis have found sensitive night-vision goggles on Hezbollah fighters that originated in the UK. The tactical equipment appears to come from a shipment sent from the British government to Iran in 2003, intended to help interdict narcotics. Instead, the Iranians put them to another use entirely (via The Asylum):

Israeli intelligence officials have complained to Britain and the United States that sensitive night-vision equipment recovered from Hezbollah fighters during the war in Lebanon had been exported by Britain to Iran. British officials said the equipment had been intended for use in a U.N. anti-narcotics campaign.

[...]

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 20, 2006 at 03:27 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Iran, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The NYT Could Find a Lesson Here.
Contributed by The Gray Dog

I was astounded to say the least, to read the following straight news stories that contained little or no editorializing.  The reports appear to be factual, honest and without bias.  I now truly believe that soon, hell will freeze over and the Cubs will win the pennant.  Click on any of the articles below to discover the surprising source.

France wobbles on troops promise

Israel arrests senior Hamas politician

Hezbollah warned not to violate truce

Israeli jets fly over Lebanon

Contributed by The Gray Dog on August 20, 2006 at 12:47 PM in Current Affairs, DisUnited Nations, Hezbollah, Israel, The Gray Dog | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Fuad And Kofi: Big Fans Of Newspeak
Contributed by Bill Faith

The war peace in Lebanon keeps getting stranger. Fuad Siniora and Kofi Annan seem intent on standing themselves on their heads rhetorically to ensure that they can blame Israel when Lebanon and Hezbollah violate the terms of the cease-fire. Although Lebanon has rejected the key component of UN Security Council 1701 -- the disarming of Hezbollah -- Annan made sure that he blamed Israel for violating the agreement to which Lebanon agreed:

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announced Saturday night that the raid in Baalbek constitutes a violation of the UN cease-fire resolution that went into effect on Monday.

A statement issued by Annan's spokesman said that the UN chief spoke with both Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Olmert about the fighting. "The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities," it said.

"All such violations of Security Council Resolution 1701 endanger the fragile calm that was reached after much negotiation," said the statement, issued by spokesman Stephane Dujarric.

That agreement died when the Siniora government and the UN itself refused to enforce the provisions of the agreement. ....

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 20, 2006 at 10:11 AM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon, UNuseful | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 19 August 2006
 

“This man must die.”
Contributed by Bill Faith

Israel Committed to Block Arms and Kill Nasrallah

JERUSALEM, Aug. 19 — Despite a cease-fire agreement, Israel intends to do its best to keep Iran and Syria from rearming Hezbollah and to kill the militia’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, says a senior Israeli commander.

commitments to exclude the Hezbollah militia from southern Lebanon and to disarm it already seem hollow, said the commander, who had a well-placed view of the war and its planning and has extensive experience in Lebanon.

The officer would only speak on the condition of anonymity in an interview on Friday. But, speaking one day before commandos carried out a raid that Israeli officials said was to disrupt arms shipments for Hezbollah from Syria and Iran, he was explicit that Israel would continue to seek out and block any such attempts. ....

Furthermore, he made it clear that Sheik Nasrallah remained a target as the leader of a group that Israel and the United States have labeled terrorist. “There’s only one solution for him,” he said. At another point, he said simply, “This man must die.”

[Read the whole thing. Hat tip: Dan Riehl]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 19, 2006 at 11:31 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Iran, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Israeli Commando Raid: the Case of the Curious Omission
Contributed by Bill Faith

It's clear from reading the accounts in various antique-media sources what the Israeli raid into the Bekaa was all about: Iran has been trying to rearm Hezbollah through Syria; the Israeli commando raid sought to disrupt that rearming, and in addition, capture a high-value Hezbollah target.

The raid took place in "the village of Boudai west of Baalbek in eastern Lebanon, about 17 miles from the Syrian border," according to AP. It was disrupted by Hezbollah fighters -- whether before or after it achieved its objectives depends upon whether you believe Israel or Hezbollah -- and a firefight ended up killing one Israeli soldier and three Hezbollah, and wounding a further two Israelis and three Hezbollah soldiers.

Beyond that much, the details are murky. But a couple of interesting tidbits remain. First, for those who insist that George W. Bush, the most pro-Israel president since Lyndon Johnson, threw Israel under the bus, here is an interesting counter-argument: according to every news account, we've still got Israel's back even now. Associated Press:

[Read the whole thing.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 19, 2006 at 10:58 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Is Israel ready for what comes next?
Contributed by Bill Faith

I'll say it right up front: Color me pro-Israel. Maybe I was exposed to enough Christian fundamentalism in my childhood to affect my thinking, or maybe I got where I am some other way. In any case as far as I'm concerned Israel belongs to the Jews, always has and always will, and the Israelis have the right to do whatever it takes to keep it that way. It would suit me fine to see Israel march into Lebanon in force and install a tame government, then turn east an do the same in Syria. If they have to nuke Iran to keep Iran from nuking them, then so be it.

I said I was pro-Israel. That doesn't by any means mean I'm pro-ChamberlainCarterOlmert or that I that I think the Israeli government can do no wrong. Reading things like this is not good for this ol' dogs blood pressure:

War Stirs Worry in Israel Over State of Military
Many Say Failure to Silence Hezbollah Sends Bad Signal
By Doug Struck and Tal Zipper

JERUSALEM, Aug. 18 -- Sgt. Lior Rahamin's Israeli reserve unit had not trained in two years. When its members were called up for the Lebanon war, they didn't have straps for their guns, spare ammunition, flak jackets or more than one good radio. There were other shortages: Twice their operations were canceled because they had no water to take; once they went two days without food.

"Hezbollah didn't surprise us. We were surprised by the Israel Defense Forces," said Rahamin, 30, a paratrooper who was wounded fighting in Lebanon in 1997 and who volunteered to go with his unit again. The next time they call, he said, "we will not show up."

From the failure to get food and water to the troops, to complaints of an uncertain war plan and overconfident generals, the Lebanon war is fast being viewed within Israel as a major stumble. ...

"For four weeks we failed to defend ourselves against daily bombardments against our cities. This is a failure that never happened before," ... "This is going to send a bad message."

[Read on.]

The message it sends is "Nobody's driving." Regardless of what other tactical or strategic goals the Israeli government had in mind they should have sent as many troops as it took as far north as necessary to put an immediate end to those rocket attacks, and they should not have withdrawn from Lebanon as long as there was any possibility of renewed attacks.

The recent Israel/Hezbollah war is widely seen, and properly so, as a proxy war between the U.S. and Iran. By displaying weakness the Olmert government made the U.S. and all of her allies look weak. The odds of President Ahmashiithead getting a case of juevos grandes and doing something stupid sometime soon just went way up.

Color me pissed.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 19, 2006 at 10:29 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Iran, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Supporting the Lebanese Army
Contributed by Martin Andrew

I believe that the Lebanese Army with their show room condition M-113 mobile coffins  er.. APCs should be rearmed with state of the art weapons and be given the task of removing Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon.  The Syrians were given the boot, now it's the time for the Iranians to be shown the door, and as for the supporters of Hezbollah in the Lebanese parliament annd the electorates who voted for them, or what's left of them thanks to the Israeli Air Force, who should be forced to choose - a Sh'ite state or the state of Lebanon.    The Principles of Applied Marksmanship can be used later.   If they do that then a mini-Marshall Plan should be introduced to aid a fledgling democracy.  Another buffer zone is created for israel, the Lebanese Army becomes a force of peace, and the US and other supporters of a new Lebanon get huge brownie points.  And did I mention Iran and Syria get a punch in the nose to boot.

My thoughts anyway.

Contributed by Martin Andrew on August 19, 2006 at 09:00 PM in Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon, Martin Andrew | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

French To Alter Uniforms For Lebanon Deployment
Contributed by Bill Faith

Given genuine concerns over the UN mandate and the fear that French forces might come under fire in their peace keeping role in Lebanon, French military authorities have opted to use an alternate uniform for the 200 or so engineers they will be deploying in Lebanon.

The new uniform is said to be more clearly identifiable as a UN force due to its incorporation of the traditional UN blue and white.

[Read on. Swallow your coffee first.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 19, 2006 at 08:05 PM in Bill Faith, France, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Arab Media Take Aim At Assad
Contributed by Bill Faith

After Bashar Assad called Arab leaders "half men" for failing to rally to Hezbollah's support, state-sponsored media in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have castigated Assad in terms usually reserved for infidels. His critics have called him a coward and a dead rosebud, among other epithets:

Syria's president sparked a wave of anger after he knocked Mideast leaders as "half men" in a televised speech, underlining the divisions as Arab nations try to form a unified front in the wake of the Lebanon crisis.

The bitterness over Bashar Assad's speech last week will likely stir up a gathering of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on Sunday. The meeting is supposed to pave the way for a summit of heads of state later in the month that will draw up plans to help rebuild Lebanon - and try to launch a new Arab peace initiative with Israel.

[...]

[Read on.]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 19, 2006 at 12:36 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon, Syria | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Lebanese Army Ordered to 'Stand With' Hizballah
Contributed by Bill Faith

Even the UK's rabidly leftwing Guardian Unlimited seems to find this alarming:

An internal Lebanese army statement, circulated among forces in the past week, has called for troops to stand "alongside your resistance and your people who astonished the world with its steadfastness and destroyed the prestige of the so-called invincible army after it was defeated".

While the UN peacekeeping force is touted in the West as a deterrent to Hizballah terrorism with a mission to disarm Hizballah, Hizballah's leaders and supporters within the Lebanese army see the peacekeepers as reinforcements in their war with Israel:

The UN's expected deployment of 15,000 troops is seen as an additional force to assist in Lebanon's defence against Israel. "We are happy with such a large force to provide sufficient deterrent to Israeli aggression," said Gen Kader.

[Read on. H/T: Allahpundit]

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 19, 2006 at 12:13 PM in Bill Faith, Hezbollah, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Big Loss in Third Major War on Terror Campaign
Contributed by Shane Briscoe

A "Best of Old War Dogs" featured post. The webmaster is backdating this post to keep it near the top of the blog for a while. Please scroll down for newer posts.

This item was originally posted 2006.08.16.17:41.

Afghanistan, Iraq and now Lebanon.  Thus far, these are the three big campaigns in the overall War on Terror.  Democrats and left-wing media pundits insist on separating the three into separate wars, but such thinking only confuses the fact that World War III is already under way. 

Afghanistan was a success, although Taliban remnants, supported by the usual suspects--Iran, Syria and al Qaeda--continue to operate, though on a much smaller scale.  Iraq was an unqualified military success, but Washington's relative timidity in the face of Democrat and UN pressure has emboldened the terrorists and Shiite militias and enabled Iran and Syria to ship in IEDs and other weapons and military/political "advisers" with impunity.  Lebanon was a the first big defeat for the forces of Western Civilization, with Israel committing too little, too late, and then backing off as the worldwide apologists for Islamofascism beat the drums for premature withdrawal.  Moreover, Washington missed a golden opportunity to join with Israel to ensure that not only Hezbollah, but Iran and Syria go down for the count.

The Israeli government will likely be thrown out, and deservedly so.  Unlike in our own country, there are plenty of tough minded sheriffs in Israel to get that nation back on the right path.  The problem with America is that, hesitant though he may be, President Bush remains the strongest proponent for pursuing the War on Terror, and he cannot run again.

As in the First and Second World Wars, there will be occasional setbacks in World War III.  Our only viable option is to learn from those setbacks, get tougher and drive on toward victory.  Simply put, Islamofascism must be utterly and completely destroyed.  The cost of terrorism needs to be so high that no one dare employ the tactic.  Such were the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

The left argues that killing terrorists only begets more terrorists, but that is simply not true.  Killing terrorists in a half-assed, timid, politically correct manner (with no civilian collateral damage) does indeed create more terrorists, for that is what we are witnessing now.  But overwhelming force, applied with brutal efficiency to tell the enemy that resistance is futile has always worked in warfare.

Germany was bombed into near-oblivion during World War II.  Thousands of civilians were killed in massive bombing runs.  The entire German economy was wrecked.  The Wermacht was pounded into submission.  The Russians retaliated for their loss of 20 million people by raping, pillaging and murdering German soldiers and civilians alike.  It was not pretty. 

This is not to say that American soldiers should go around wantonly murdering and raping civilians, but neither should we be second-guessing and restricting them to the point where they hesitate to pull the trigger when deadly force is called for.  That should have been the lesson of Vietnam.

There should be no more Fallujahs.  If an enemy controlled city does not submit to our power, we should give its citizens a time limit to get out of town along predetermined routes, where all would be subject to rigorous searches and suspicious persons (including virtually all men of combat age) detained in prison until they can be further sorted out.  Then, when the deadline has passed, the entire city should be leveled. 

There should be no more Shiite or Sunni militias.  Any time masked gunmen gather for demonstrations, they should be taken out with missles or bombs.  And we need to go after their leaders as well.  The overwhelming power of America's military must be brought to bear sufficiently so that the enemy gets the idea that our power is, in fact, overwhelming.

Iran must be made to pay for inciting violence across the globe.  We already know that the IEDs that are killing and maiming American soldiers are manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border into Iraq.  A price must be paid for these acts of war, and until we exact that price, the murders and mutilations will only continue.

Iranian forces were actively involved in the rocket and missile atacks on Israel.  Hezbollah is but an Iranian irregular militia.  I am certain that if we could only connect the dots, the Iranians would be shown to have had a hand in planning or funding the aborted terrorist action against civilian airliners flying between Great Britain and the United States.  They are at war with us and we refuse to recognize the obvious.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is the worst of all possible outcomes (save a complete military rout of Israel) for the larger War on Terror.  The enemy rightly claims to have achieved a strategic victory, and that victory is due solely to Israeli and U.S. timidity.  The next time hostilities break out, the enemy will only be stronger. 

The lessons of this temporary setback ought to be clear:

• Throw everything you've got into the battle with Islamofascists; unconditional victory should be the sole objective;
• Collateral damage--dead Lebanese, in this case--is a fact of war.  Lebanese civilians must pay the price for allowing their country to fall into the hands of terrorists;
• France is not our friend.  They lied to us before Gulf War II, and they lied to us in proposing the terms for the current ceasefire.  We should never trust them again;
• The UN is on the side of the terrorists.  It is run by Third World despots who hate the United States and Israel and will do everything they can to thwart us.  The UN has no military might unless the United States supplies it, so we should not be swayed by its rhetoric.  They are allied with the enemy;
• You don't negotiate with terrorists... ever.

Ultimately, I have confidence that we will win this thing, but it is going to take a lot more pain and a lot more deaths before we give it the seriousness it deserves.

Contributed by Shane Briscoe on August 19, 2006 at 11:59 AM in Best of Old War Dogs, Hezbollah, Iran, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon, Shane Briscoe, Syria | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack