VMaus, I think this deserves it's own thread, apart from this one. AG Torture-Boy Gonzales admits to the Senate that there is no war, so the President should not have "war powers". That takes apart a lot of BushCo's defense of their fascist policies.

US STATE DEPARTMENT: LEBANON IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HEZBOLLAH - OMRI CEREN (IRAPUNDIT, JULY 18): Alberto Fernandez, Director of Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department, took a conference call with Jim Zogby's Arab American Institute in order to clarify the US?s official policy regarding the war: that the Lebanese government is not responsible for Hezbollah?s actions.
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=1868

ELECTED SILENCE SING TO ME: KAREN HUGHES ON THE MIDDLE EAST - JOHN BROWN (TRUTHOUT, JULY 18): While Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes's evidently deliberate loss of words regarding the Middle East at this time is in many ways disturbing, it is still refreshingly (one is tempted to say strangely) honest. Like the administration she represents, she basically has nothing to say, and is saying nothing. For once, she cannot be accused of hypocrisy.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00271.htm

WAIT! WHATEVER HAPPENED TO... - TED COMPTON (YET ANOTHER MEDIA EMPIRE BLOG, JULY 18): So how's Karen doing, you may wonder. Well, she is indeed now referred to as Ambassador Hughes and she was last seen, according to the State Department web site, Honoring the Longstanding Friendship Between the U.S. and Morocco.
http://76003dot1414.blogspot.com/2006/07/w...appened-to.html

RICE, ABULGHEIT DIFFER ON TIMING OF CEASEFIRE BETWEEN HIZBOLLAH, ISRAEL (KUWAIT NEWS AGENCY, KUWAIT, JULY 18): At bilateral discussions as part of a newly adopted US-Egyptian Strategic Dialogue, present was, among others, Under Secretary of State Karen Hughes.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/home/story.aspx?Lan...=en&DSNO=888097

FOX BIG STORY IN RE-RUNS - NON-STOP BEATING OF WAR DRUM - CHRISH (NEWS HOUNDS, CA, JULY 19): Guest Dina Powell, Deputy Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, told viewers that Secretary of State Rice will go to the area to bring a permanent cessation to hostilities when the time is right. Asked if that meant that she (Rice) was waiting for the violence to stop, Powell dodged the question and did a big glib PR spiel -- just doing her job.
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/19/fox_bi...of_war_drum.php

Jul. 19, 2006 On the Web:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/200...0718-13474.html
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131 Public contact:
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
or +1 (703) 428-0711

Presenter: Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh July 18, 2006

DoD Briefing with Vice Admiral Walsh from Bahrain

MODERATOR: Let's go ahead and get started. Good afternoon, and to Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, good evening, and thank you for taking the time this evening from Bahrain. Our briefer is Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, who is the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the U.S. 5th Fleet. Vice Admiral Walsh and his staff are coordinating the U.S. military's assistance to the departure of Americans from Lebanon. He is speaking to you outside his headquarters in Bahrain.
And again, we appreciate you doing this on little notice and late in the evening like it is.
With that, Admiral, I think what I'd like to do is turn it over to you to see if you'd like to start with any opening remarks, and then, we'll get into some questions here.
VICE ADM. WALSH: Thank you, Bryan. Yes, I thought what we would do is just give you a quick snapshot of how we see things developing in Beirut from our perspective and then open up for questions. Currently, Orient Queen is pier-side in Beirut. We will take on passengers and depart at first light tomorrow morning. We have Brigadier General Carl Jensen on the ground in Akrotiri, Cyprus. He's the commander of our task force and coordinating the efforts. Approximately, nine ships are enroute to the area -- nine U.S. ships -- as well as coalition ships from the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy. The ones I wanted to talk to you about tonight are the U.S. ships that's enroute.
We have six ships coming out of our area of responsibility, which includes ships from the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba that are enroute. This is part of the Expeditionary Strike Group led by the Iwo Jima, and in conjunction with our European Command, we have three ships that are flowing in into the Mediterranean -- eastern Mediterranean -- excuse me -- enroute to the joint operating area off the coast of Beirut.
These ships have been involved in an effort that frankly has had our guidance to proceed at best speed and to be ready to accept passengers and American citizens on arrival. And we are moving as quickly as we can. It's a complex operation that involves an extraordinary level of effort. We're sending the very best that we have available, and we'll move at max speed.
And what I'd like to do is open it up to your questions and find out what your interests are tonight.
Q This is Will Dunham with Reuters. Admiral, how many U.S. citizens will be on the Orient Queen tomorrow when it departs Lebanon? And why didn't the Orient Queen make its first passage to Cyprus today? Did it involve the Israeli blockade?
VICE ADM. WALSH: Approximately, 800 to a thousand, Will, will be on the ship.
I can't give you the exact number. This will be one of our first operations with the Orient Queen. A lot that is involved in the answer to that question will specifically have to do with space available on the ship, but our understanding is approximately 800 to a thousand.
And as far as the second part of your question is concerned, the Orient Queen had come intact with the Israeli blockade while it was en route to Beirut. It was delayed for a period of about 20 to 30 minutes. I would characterize this as some coordination procedures, as the Orient Queen was inbound to Beirut. But in terms of the ability of Orient Queen to arrive on station, it had a lot to do with just simply the time and distance and speed available.
Q Admiral, have any additional commercial vessels been contracted to take on the evacuation?
VICE ADM. WALSH: Yes. We're working with U.S. Transportation Command, and we have potentially two more motor vessels that will be part of the ferrying activities back and forth between Cyprus and Beirut.
Q Pauline Jelinek of the Associated Press. Sir, could you talk in more detail about when the nine ships you referred to would be arriving, and what their roles will be in more detail?
VICE ADM. WALSH: The -- of the nine ships, four of those are amphibious ships. They're arriving from Gulf of Aqaba and Red Sea. The first ship arrives tomorrow, and we'll see the rest of the ships arrive during the course of the week. The three ships from European Command are arriving as we speak and over the next two or three days.
Q Admiral, Tom Bowman with National Public Radio. Do you expect any of the Navy ships to take part in the evacuation?
And also, we've been told by the Military Sealift Command that they've already contracted with a ship called the Rahmah, which carries 1,400 passengers, and it's en route to Cyprus. Can you talk about that?
VICE ADM. WALSH: Rahmah does have a capacity of about 1,400. We'll see that in Cyprus here tomorrow, and I'll be able to update you once we get operations with it.
And I'm sorry, Tom. What was the other part of your question?
Q The other is, do you expect any of the Navy vessels to take part in the evacuation? Or is that just in case of an emergency procedure?
VICE ADM. WALSH: I do expect Navy vessels to participate in the authorized departure of American citizens out of Beirut.
VICE ADM. WALSH: We do -- yes, I'm sorry. I was just going to complete the answer. We do have to be prepared for any contingency. We have to be prepared for a range of operations for an extended period of time.
Q Admiral, it's Nick Simeone at Fox News. What -- how do you -- what do you consider the threat level to this operation to date?
VICE ADM. WALSH: The threat level to date allows for us to move ferries back and forth. But it's not something that we take for granted. So part of the effort here is to plan for any contingency. That's our job, and that's the sort of mindset that we're going into with this operation. So the threat level presently allows for us to move the ferry back and forth. We will take advantage of that to the maximum extent possible. But we'll also have warships positioned strategically and tactically in order to ensure the safe and secure passage of American citizens from Lebanon to Cyprus.
Q Peter Spiegel with the Los Angeles Times. We know what ships are part of the Iwo Jima task group. But can you give us some detail on the EUCOM ships? Are they amphibs, or what kind of ships they are? And also, to follow on Tom's question, if you could just give a little more detail on how the Navy ships might participate in the evacuation. Are we talking about using helicopters from the amphibs to go into the embassy and bring them back on the ships, or are we talking about surface ships going back and forth? Could you talk a bit more about that?
VICE ADM. WALSH: Sure. I'd be glad to. We have four amphibious ships with well-decks that can take American citizens on board. There's a substantial number of people that we can take on board with the amphibious transport docks and dock landing ships. The operation with EUCOM assets involves the Gonzalez, which is already on station, Barry, which is en route, and the Mount Whitney, which is the command and control ship afloat. Those assets are on the way to the operating area as well. And I might add that we're working with our U.K. allies here when it comes to this operation, and they have approximately six ships that are arriving in the operating area here tomorrow and the day after.
Q Admiral, this is Jim Mannion from AFP. How closely are you coordinating your operations with the Israelis now?
VICE ADM. WALSH: We're working with European Command, who has contact with a coordination cell. And I'd like to just leave it at that. We're deconflicting operations here. Our sole purpose and focus here is the departure of American citizens out of Lebanon. And that's really the extent of our mission at this point. Any kind of coordination that we can take with the Israelis through European Command that can facilitate that departure and help us to expedite and to move quickly, we will work with them closely in order to make that an efficient operation.
Q Joe Tabet with Al Hurra. Admiral, do you have any information if this operation will take place in the port of Beirut?
VICE ADM. WALSH: I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? I don't think I was able to understand it completely.
Q I was asking if you have any information if this operation, the evacuation operations would take place in the port of Beirut?
VICE ADM. WALSH: Yes, we will use the port of Beirut for our amphibious operations. The advantage of bringing the amphibious capability is that, if in the event that there is a deterioration of the conditions at the port, we're able to move either north or south, as required, in order to continue the departure of American citizens.
Q Admiral, Jeff Shogol with Stars and Stripes. What role do you see the 2,200 sailors and Marines of the 24th MEU having in these evacuation efforts?
VICE ADM. WALSH: Well, this is our rapid response capability. They're capable of amphibious operations day and night, all weather. They're also capable of operations that are conventional in terms of an authorized departure like this. And so this is a core Marine competency; this is part of the effort here that Marines train to, to be able to handle and facilitate the movement of this large number of people over to Cyprus. So remember, they have an air element that will be part of the effort. They have a ground element that we will have in ready reserve in the event that we need them. And they also have a support group that will be part of facilitating this mission.
Q They'll have them in ready reserve. Does that mean they won't go on the ground unless you need them?
VICE ADM. WALSH: Remember the environment right now allows us to use ferries. So when we characterize the environment, this is an environment that we would consider permissive. However, we're very much aware of the movement of weapons into the area and how the situation can change rapidly. So the benefit of having the Marine Expeditionary Unit on board is that we can adjust to changing conditions on the battlefield.
At the moment, I'm going to continue to use the ferries, and I'm going to facilitate the movement -- the mass movement of people as fast as we can using the amphibious transport that's available with the four ships that are here, part of the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group.
At that point, I don't think it would be helpful to speculate any further in terms of going ashore or future operations that may involve or may not involve the use of amphibious Marines ashore. So let's leave it at that, and then we'll talk further in the event that the environment changes.
Q Kay Maddux from Voice of America. Admiral, two questions. Has the U.S. military asked Israel to back off its targeting of Lebanon while these operations go on so they can go on safely and smoothly? That's number one.
And number two, do you have an estimate of the total number of American citizens that will be evacuated eventually?
VICE ADM. WALSH: I know the European Command is coordinating with the Israelis. They're aware of our movement, they're aware of our intentions.
They know that we're on the way. And they know that we're making best speed and we're going to operate as soon as we arrive.
To the second part of your question, we've got rough orders of magnitude, and frankly, we're not going to know until we get there in terms of how many people are ready to leave. Some of the early estimates were 5,000, but we're prepared for that number to change in the event that conditions change. And so that's part of our level of planning and effort that's gone into this mission up until this point.
Q Jim Garamone from AFPS. Israel is a part of European Command. Lebanon is a part of Central Command. That seam between the two commands, is that difficult for you to overcome?
VICE ADM. WALSH: Well, as you can see, we have command and control afloat capabilities that are here from European Command, we have destroyers that are here from European Command, and you have Central Command assets that are working as well. So I haven't come up against any seam issues. I will leverage whatever relationships that EUCOM has with Israel. Remember that our sole focus in Central Command is really with a number of partners in the region that object to operations with Israel. EUCOM has a relationship with Israel. We'll work through that. But up until this point we have not had any issues that we consider seams or that limit our ability to operate effectively in the area.
Q Admiral, it's Lou Martinez of ABC News. Can you tell us which port the Orient Queen is going to return to in Cyprus? And given that this is a mission with a turnround maybe of about a day or so, is it your ultimate goal to have daily ferries going in and out of Cyprus? And it seems right now there is going to be a gap right now.
VICE ADM. WALSH: We'll coordinate the number of times that we can get ferries back and forth alongside with the amphibious ships that will be moving people as well. And let me get back to you in terms of the port and the port specifics, that part of your question. We'll get that for you. That will be a matter of record.
Q Admiral, Jim Miklaszewski with NBC. I just wanted to clarify one point. Is it the intention to put U.S. naval vessels into the port at Beirut?
VICE ADM. WALSH: It is the intention to use U.S. naval vessels to facilitate the rapid transfer of citizens off of Lebanon and into Cyprus. In terms of whether or not you're going to see ships tied up alongside or not, I don't know that that would facilitate the rapid use of amphibious craft, and recognize that we have a changing environment.
So Jim, the way to answer your question is, I'm going to position those ships tactically in view of how the environment changes, and I wouldn't try and predict what that's going to look like tomorrow or the day after. So if you can give me a little room here, what we're going to do is take advantage of all the capability that we have, and then recognize that we're trying to move quickly, that we're trying to move large numbers of people as fast as we can, but at the same time we're charged with the responsibility for their security and safety.
So we'll take all that into account and then I'll be able to answer the question in terms of how close they're going to be or how far apart they're going to be.
Q Larry Shaughnessy from CNN. Admiral, should Americans who are being evacuated be expected to reimburse the federal government for those evacuations?
VICE ADM. WALSH: I have not considered reimbursement. But that is something that probably the State Department would be best positioned to answer.
Q Again, this is Joe Tabet. Admiral, are you taking seriously the risk of any attack from the Hezbollah against your ships?
VICE ADM. WALSH: I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? We're just having a little interference here.
MODERATOR: The question was your concern about attacks by Hezbollah.
VICE ADM. WALSH: I'm concerned about attacks on ships, you bet. That's our job and that is our focus. And that's one of the reasons why the answers that I'm giving you tonight are the best I can give you conceptually, but they're not going to reveal a lot of specific detail, and that's because this is part of the ongoing calculations here.
We do not assume anything when we go into an environment like this. And so we'll make all preparations in our planning and deliberations so that we're ready for any contingency. And that sort of scenario is something that we are planning for. It's something that, you know, up until this point, innocent vessels have been able to move freely back and forth. Ferries are able to move freely back and forth. And so we're going to continue to manage and monitor the situation and we'll take proactive steps to ensure the safety and security of the crew and the passengers.
Q Jim Mannion from AFP again. Why is it that it's taken so long to order the amphibious warships to the Med? I mean, we're six days into this crisis, and it seems like a long time.
VICE ADM. WALSH: It's a good question, and thank you for it. The order did not come six days into the crisis. Remember, we do have a time-distance problem here. We've got vessels coming all the way from the Indian Ocean, Jabal ali in fact. You have vessels that were in exercises, in this particular case on the ground in Jordan prior to the events that took place here over the weekend, as well as vessels in the Red Sea. So we're working against the environment and we're making best speed, and we'll be ready on arrival.
Q Admiral, Jeff with Stars and Stripes again. In order to get the evacuees onto the amphibs, are you planning on helo-ing them from Beirut to the ships?
VICE ADM. WALSH: I will use all means available to us, so that involves some of the landing craft units and it also involves helicopters.
Q Admiral, Tom Bowman again with NPR. Can you give us the capacity of the amphibs to take on evacuees? Any sense of how many you can hold?
VICE ADM. WALSH: Tom, what I'd like to do is just describe -- it's a very large number. It would be in excess of a thousand. And what I'd like to do is, give us a day of these operations and we'll see exactly how this plays out. We're working closely with the embassy, so the number that we actually take on board is a number that we've coordinated in advance with the embassy, and then what I'd like to do is to report to you at the end of the day just how that number has played out.
Q A point of clarification, please?
Q Jim Miklaszewski, NBC, again. Has the decision, Admiral, been made to use U.S. Navy vessels to transport American evacuees out of Lebanon, or is that a contingency?
VICE ADM. WALSH: No. The answer to your question is, it's not a contingency, we are going to use U.S. -- (word inaudible) -- vessels in order to transport -- excuse me again. We are going to use U.S. Navy vessels to transport American citizens out of Beirut and to Cyprus. We will do that in conjunction with the ferries that are moving people back and forth, the ones that we discussed earlier under contract with Military Sealift Command.
Q I'm sorry. That last part sort of muddied the waters a little bit. Will we see American evacuees on U.S. Navy vessels transported to Cyprus, or will they just facilitate the use of the commercial carriers?
VICE ADM. WALSH: You will see amphibious ships with American citizens on board. You will see the destroyers and the other combatants in the area facilitate the safe movement and secure movement of those passengers.
Does that help?
MODERATOR: I think we've gotten through a good series of questions and even a couple clarifications there. So Admiral, again I'd like to thank you for your time this evening. And obviously, we're going to be into this for a little while, and we hope that you'll make yourself available as we go down the road a little bit to keep us well informed on what the command is doing.
VICE ADM. WALSH: I will make myself available. I want to be clear tonight that we've addressed all the concerns and we gave you the clarifications that you need. Are there any re-attacks here that we need to go back and provide further clarification?
MODERATOR: Admiral, that will keep you here all night. (Laughs.)
VICE ADM. WALSH: Well, let's recognize -- I mean, I appreciate the point, but let's recognize we've got a changing situation, that we have a very complex environment that we're about ready to put a substantial number of more American citizens into, and that the security and safety of those people are paramount to us and that's our number-one mission.
And so while we're looking at 5,000 that are currently listed as authorized departures, we are expecting more; that we have a very large responsibility of -- a very large scope of effort.
And I want to be very clear on one point. The order has been given some time ago in order to respond to this crisis, and you -- you're looking at substantial global effort in order to respond quickly and with the ability to adapt to any changes on the ground as well as to sustain the effort for however long it takes.
MODERATOR: Again, Admiral, we hope to talk to you soon.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/07/post_880.html#003571

TAPPED

WHY IT'S TAKING SO LONG. A reliable source tells me that the reason the United States has been so slow in evacuating its citizens from Lebanon is that the public diplomacy (i.e., P.R.) issues raised by evacuating under Israeli assault are so complicated. Individuals within the State Department, I am told, have been reluctant to create an impression that the Israeli assault on Lebanon is as bad as it is or that civilian U.S. citizens are being threatened by U.S. ally Israel. If a conflict this severe had broken out in, say, Indonesia, the American embassy would have been shut down the next day and its personnel and families rapidly brought to safety. That's how things normally work. (See Laura Rozen on the evacuation from Albania here.) In this case, however, the diplomatic message sent by shutting down the U.S. embassy in the face of Israeli bombing would have contradicted the U.S. government message of support for the Israeli mission against Hezbollah terrorists, which, when added to the general concern within lower-level diplomatic circles about ever creating a Fall of Saigon-style visual for the news media, have led the Americans to be slower than they could have been about getting U.S. citizens out of harm's way.

On Monday, Steve Clemons raised concerns about "sending a cruise ship, a slow moving huge target, into a war zone" to evacuate Americans. However, it seems to me that such a move would be perfectly consistent with attempting to downplay the severity of the conflict and the nature of the Israeli threat to American citizens in Lebanon.

--Garance Franke-Ruta

Posted by Garance Franke-Ruta on July 19, 2006 01:28 PM | Permalink

TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.prospect.org/cgi-bin/mtype/mt-tb.cgi/1459

Comments
God, our foreign policy priorities are "expletive deleted"ed up.

Posted by: Christmas | July 19, 2006 01:46 PM

However, it seems to me that such a move would be perfectly consistent with attempting to downplay the severity of the conflict and the nature of the Israeli threat to American citizens in Lebanon.

Perhaps there's some more 'public diplomacy' ju-jitsu involved, and State believes that keeping large numbers of Americans in Beirut might stop the Israeli air force (Powered By Your Tax Dollars™) from bombing the city to "expletive deleted".

A bleak corner of my mind would like to see Israel smooth spokesbots try to justify American bombing deaths on CNN. I'm sure Wolf Blitzer would nod in sad agreement that it was all Hizbollah's fault, and that right-wing bloggers would say the Americans deserved it for being near those 'mooslims'.

Posted by: ahem | July 19, 2006 01:51 PM

That's crazy. Couldn't they just as easily say "we need to get our citizens out of the way because this is now one of the frontlines in the war or terror," or whatever, if they're really so concerned about that sort of PR effect on their preferred narrative?

Posted by: Haggai | July 19, 2006 01:58 PM

Well, if we're open to considering the Bush Admin putting US civilians and government employees at such risk on a cruise ship purely for the "optics" of backing up the Admin's claim that the bombing/conflict is no biggie, then are we ready to consider the possibility that the Admin just might be interested in actually having the cruise ship bombed and all the US civilians killed in a live-fire Gulf of Tonkin/9-11/Reichstag casus belli?

Posted by: The Confidence Man | July 19, 2006 02:12 PM

FWIW, I suspect that no one in the administration thought "hey, we're going to have to evacuate our people" until relatively late. The Europeans are closer & better prepared, and our feds are typically clueless.

Like, there are *Americans* in Beirut? Bush thought they were all brown people. But maybe they're those confusing brown Americans! Isn't Condi supposed to keep up with them?

Posted by: Anderson | July 19, 2006 02:16 PM

It's a sad situation (since 2000), but there's some damn funny 'gallows humor' style comments above.

The saddest thing maybe that some of them are right on the money...

Posted by: Paul in KY | July 19, 2006 02:30 PM

Garance -

I think it's a lot less reasonable than you are suggesting.

The more likely explanation appears to be the Katrina thing. My friend Ben Ryan who appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 prior to his evacuation to Cyprus yesterday explained that "I know they had a plan at least to evacuate us at the university before, but it became a little too widely known. And major media outlets were reporting on it and they had to scrap it, because they decided it was no longer safe to go with that plan." (Full interview here.)

My latest update from Ben indicates that he did not end up on the fancy Orient Queen, but on a Norwegian cargo ship. It really sounds like someone screwed up the planning for this in a major way. The "Heckuva job, Condi" message is appearing all too real.

I just hope that as a consequence, none of our citizens face the unfortunate fate so many Lebanese and Israelis are suffering in these days.

Posted by: Michael Roston | July 19, 2006 02:50 PM

You'd think any plan that could possibly lead to a USS Liberty style accident [go away, conspiracy theorists] would not be in the cards. Then again, it's not like the adminstration is playing with a full deck.

Posted by: Lydia | July 19, 2006 03:12 PM

tweety slyly implied that americans were eager to flee lebanon due to fear of lebanese citizens turning on them on last nite's program.

Posted by: linda | July 19, 2006 03:21 PM

Lydia, I think the real issue with the cruise ship is that a big, slow-moving boat might be a tempting target for terrorists. A Liberty-type accident would mean that the Israelis had accidentally mistaken it for a Hezbollah cruise liner, but the odds of that happening seem pretty slim!

Posted by: Haggai | July 19, 2006 03:24 PM

I suspect there's a spiteful, punitive element in our treatment of the these Americans, like the way the Chinese bill the executed's family for the bullet. Take a look at some wingnut commentary, if you can stomach it; take a look at Snow's Hebollah comment about Helen Thomas (Lebanese). We're in Israel's race war now.

Posted by: brendan | July 19, 2006 04:11 PM

Every time I think these scum can't sink any lower, they do.

If the Bush Administration is deliberately exposing civilians to the dangers of a war zone for political reasons, then that alone should be an impeachable offense. It's also a war crime.

Posted by: Firebug | July 19, 2006 04:43 PM

Lydia: "Go away, conspiracy theorists"? You're asking people not to make too many connections or ask too many questions. We're ruled by a government of conpirators. The Iraq group? Judith Miller and Scooter Libby? MZM, Halliburton et al?

You should know that a mainstream blogger and contributor to TPM Cafe, Steve Clemons, was the first to worry about the ship. He was seconded by the ablest conspiracy theorist of them all, emptywheel. Don't use the phrase "conspiracy theory" pejoratively.

Posted by: brendan | July 19, 2006 04:46 PM

I can only add that I put Nothing.. a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y Nothing, beyond my own goverment or Israel any longer. The America most of us thought we knew is gone, finished.

The orwellian spin from this adm and Israel and the MSM is astounding.

We aren't on the edge any longer we have fallen over. The ony thing I can possibly think of to do is Burn Washington to the Ground and Start Over.

Posted by: Calypso | July 19, 2006 08:23 PM

Give the State Department a break. Since they are CHARGING U.S. citizens for the evacuation service, perhaps it just took them a little time to develop a fee structure, get all the credit card machines they would need, and decide how much our citizens should tip the pilot on their way out of the helicopter.

Posted by: robertl | July 19, 2006 10:40 PM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Our " Compassionate Christian President " has vetoed the stem cell bill.

His reason: As the infants gurgled and fidgeted in their parents’ arms, Mr. Bush said the bill violated his principles on the sanctity of human life by encouraging the destruction of embryos left over from fertilization procedures.

" The sanctity of human life ! " Yes, he actually said that.

How many thousands of human lives lost this unspeakable excuse of a person is responsible for may never be known.

Where and when will it end? Who can tell? As long as the American public puts ip with it, I guess.

In the meantime, those in the MidEast will make sure that the slaughter he has initiated and continues to condone, will not be forgotten by generations to come.

A.B.

What we should do...

See these threads --- plenty of discussion of this topic...regarding what we should have been doing and should be doing...


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...pic=59497&st=20

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=59309

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/12604

Angus Reid Global Scan : Polls & Research
Americans Reject Involvement in Middle East War
July 20, 2006
- Many adults in the United States believe their country’s armed forces should play no role in the current Middle East conflict, according to a poll by SurveyUSA. 84 per cent of respondents believe the U.S. military should stay out of the war.

On Jul. 12, Hezbollah militants based in Lebanon killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two more in a cross-border attack. Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert called the incident an "act of war" and vowed a "very painful and far-reaching response."

The Israeli armed forces launched air strikes inside Lebanese territory to fight Hezbollah, targeting the country’s infrastructure and its airport. Hezbollah has retaliated by firing rockets into several Israeli towns. The Lebanese Internal Security Forces have reported 216 civilians killed and 524 civilians injured. According to the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), 29 Israelis—15 civilians and 14 soldiers—have died during the conflict.

On Jul. 18, U.S. president George W. Bush discussed the situation, saying, "This crisis started when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. They were unprovoked and they then took hostages. Imagine how the United States would react if somebody provoked us with that kind of action. And secondly, (they) started firing rockets. And it’s this provocation of Hezbollah that has created this crisis, and that’s the root cause of the problem." 52 per cent of respondents believe U.S. diplomats should not attempt to negotiate a ceasefire.

Hezbollah—or Party of God—was founded in 1982. The military and political organization was originally assembled to fight Israel in the southern area of Lebanon. Hezbollah has been implicated in several terrorist attacks, including the 1983 truck bombing that killed 241 American soldiers in Beirut.

Polling Data

Should the United States military get involved? Or should the United States military stay out of it?

Jul. 16
Jul. 13

Get involved
12%
11%

Stay out of it
84%
84%

Not sure
4%
5%



Should United States diplomats attempt to negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and its neighbours? Or should the United States stay out of it?

Jul. 16
Jul. 13

Stay out of it
52%
55%

Attempt to negotiate a ceasefire
44%
41%

Not sure
4%
4%



Source: SurveyUSA
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,200 American adults, conducted on Jul. 16, 2006. Margin of error is 2.9 per cent.

Ihttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/20/AR2006072001907_pf.html

n Mideast Strife, Bush Sees a Step To Peace

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 21, 2006; A01



President Bush's unwillingness to pressure Israel to halt its military campaign in Lebanon is rooted in a view of the Middle East conflict that is sharply different from that of his predecessors.

When hostilities have broken out in the past, the usual U.S. response has been an immediate and public bout of diplomacy aimed at a cease-fire, in the hopes of ensuring that the crisis would not escalate. This week, however, even in the face of growing international demands, the White House has studiously avoided any hint of impatience with Israel. While making it plain it wants civilian casualties limited, the administration is also content to see the Israelis inflict the maximum damage possible on Hezbollah.

As the president's position is described by White House officials, Bush associates and outside Middle East experts, Bush believes that the status quo -- the presence in a sovereign country of a militant group with missiles capable of hitting a U.S. ally -- is unacceptable.

The U.S. position also reflects Bush's deepening belief that Israel is central to the broader campaign against terrorists and represents a shift away from a more traditional view that the United States plays an "honest broker's" role in the Middle East.

In the administration's view, the new conflict is not just a crisis to be managed. It is also an opportunity to seriously degrade a big threat in the region, just as Bush believes he is doing in Iraq. Israel's crippling of Hezbollah, officials also hope, would complete the work of building a functioning democracy in Lebanon and send a strong message to the Syrian and Iranian backers of Hezbollah.

"The president believes that unless you address the root causes of the violence that has afflicted the Middle East, you cannot forge a lasting peace," said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. "He mourns the loss of every life. Yet out of this tragic development, he believes a moment of clarity has arrived."

One former senior administration official said Bush is only emboldened by the pressure from U.N. officials and European leaders to lead a call for a cease-fire. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan demanded yesterday that the fighting in Lebanon stop.

"He thinks he is playing in a longer-term game than the tacticians," said the former official, who spoke anonymously so he could discuss his views candidly. "The tacticians would say: 'Get an immediate cease-fire. Deal first with the humanitarian factors.' The president would say: 'You have an opportunity to really grind down Hezbollah. Let's take it, even if there are other serious consequences that will have to be managed.' "

Jack Rosen, chairman of the American Jewish Congress, said Bush's statements reflect an unambiguous view of the situation. "He doesn't seem to allow his vision to be clouded in any way," said Rosen, a Democrat who has come to admire Bush's Middle East policy. "It follows suit. Israel is in the right. Hezbollah is in the wrong. Terrorists have to be eliminated, and he sees Israel fighting the war he would fight against terrorism."

Many Mideast experts warn that there is a dangerous consequence to this worldview. They believe that Israel, and the United States by extension, is risking serious trouble if it continues with the punishing air strikes that are producing mounting casualties. The history of the Middle East is replete with examples of the limits of military power, they say, noting how the Israeli campaign in Lebanon in the early 1980s helped create the conditions for the rise of Hezbollah.

They warned that the military campaign is turning mainstream Lebanese public opinion against Israel rather than against Hezbollah, which instigated the violence. The attacks also make it more difficult for the Lebanese government to regain normalcy. And what seems now to be a political winner for the president -- the House overwhelmingly approved a resolution yesterday backing Israel's position -- could become a liability if the fighting expands to Syria or if the United States adds Lebanon to Iraq and Afghanistan as a country to which U.S. troops are deployed.

"There needs to be a signal that the Bush administration is prepared to do something," said Larry Garber, the executive director the New Israel Fund, which pushes for civil rights and justice in Israel. "Taking a complete hands-off, casual-observer position undermines our credibility. . . . There is a danger that we will be seen as simply doing Israel's bidding."

Robert Malley, who handled Middle East issues on the National Security Council staff for President Bill Clinton, voiced skepticism about whether the current course would pay off for either Israel or the United States. "It may not succeed with all the time in the world, and Hezbollah could emerge with its dignity intact and much of its political and military arsenal still available," said Malley, who monitors the region for the International Crisis Group. "What will you have gained?"

Those who know Bush say his view of the conflict was shaped by several formative experiences -- in particular the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which made fighting terrorism the central mission of his presidency. Another formative experience was a helicopter ride over the West Bank with Ariel Sharon in 1998, when Bush was Texas governor -- a ride he later said showed him Israel's vulnerability. The cause of Israel has been championed by many of the evangelical Christians who make up a significant chunk of the president's political base.

Bush and his team were also deeply skeptical of the Middle East policy of the previous administration, and of what they see as an excessive devotion to a peace process in which one of the protagonists, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, was not seriously invested. Explaining the reluctance to push quickly for a cease-fire, one senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record indicated a belief that premature diplomacy might leave Hezbollah in a position of strength.

"We don't want the kind of truce that will lead to another conflict," said this official, who added that, when the time comes, "you will see plenty of diplomacy."

Fred S. Zeidman, a Texas venture capitalist who is active in Jewish affairs and has been close to the president for years, said the current crisis shows the depth of the president's support for Israel. "He will not bow to international pressure to pressure Israel," Zeidman said. "I have never seen a man more committed to Israel."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=9369

July 21, 2006
Doing bin Laden's Work
for Him

by Michael Scheuer
As Israel and Hezbollah again prove racial and religious hatred are the core, irremediable traits of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the international media focuses on each side's weaponry and the evacuees, Osama bin Laden is smiling and praising Allah in his mountain fastness. Again, as after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, bin Laden and his far-flung lieutenants can have no doubt about which side God is on.

The battle raging in the Levant has fixed the attention of the world's eight most powerful leaders, each of whom foolishly thinks that the Arab-Israeli conflict is solely about Israel's security, and willfully ignores the fact that it fuels the much more dangerous bin Laden-led war against America and the West. Their long-standing aversion to this reality can be seen in the failure of even one of these leaders – or anyone in the mainstream media, for that matter – to note that Israel and its Western supporters are doing bin Laden's work for him, thereby undercutting their own security to an extent Hezbollah could never even dream of.

As Lebanon burns, bin Laden's words will reinforce and harden Muslim perceptions – including the views of Muslims in Europe and North America – that the U.S.-led West is warring on Islam and its followers. Bin Laden's claims that Arab regimes cannot protect Muslims and are the West's apostate lackeys were underscored when Arab kings and dictators acted through the Arab League to condemn Hezbollah. Nothing better proves bin Laden's consistently made point than the juxtaposition of the Arab leaders' damning of Hezbollah – heretofore always a "legitimate resistance group" in their rhetoric – and their implicit acquiescence in Israel's leisurely razing of Beirut.

And what Muslim in his or her right mind can now doubt bin Laden's claim that Washington and its allies have given Israel carte blanche to do what it will to Hezbollah, Hamas, and Muslim civilians? The G-8 grandees called for mutual restraint but assigned sole culpability to Hezbollah and Hamas; Prime Minister Blair and Secretary-General Annan call for undefined diplomatic efforts that might, someday, lead to UN peacekeepers; and Secretary of State Rice said she really does hope to find time in her busy schedule to visit the region. Muslims will see this lack of enthusiasm for ending the fight for what it is – the West's forelock-tugging deference to Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's estimate that his military still needs a week or so to finish off Hezbollah and Lebanon.

This supine indulgence of Olmert, moreover, suggests Western leaders suspend common sense when dealing with Israel. Olmert's claim that Israel will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Hezbollah is nonsense, as only Israel's occupation and virtual annexation of Lebanon could raise this goal even to the level of a slim possibility. Olmert and his cabinet know this and are relying on the cowardly fear Western leaders have of their pro-Israeli voters – aren't there U.S. congressional elections in about 90 days? – to give Israel's military a free hand for as long as possible.

Most damaging for G-8 leaders will be this week's validation for Muslims of bin Laden's assertion that the West considers Muslim lives cheap and expendable. They will see that three kidnapped Israeli soldiers and several dozen dead Israelis are worth infinitely more to the West than the thousands of Muslims held for years in Israel's prisons, the hundreds already killed in Lebanon, and the eradication of Lebanon's modern infrastructure.

So bin Laden wins without lifting a finger. The G-8 leaders, their Arab allies, and Israel have behaved in a way that will burn bin Laden's words deeper into Muslim perceptions and push more to accept jihad as the only recourse. Western leaders can argue forever that they are honest brokers but, because perception is reality, it will be bin Laden's words, not theirs, that echo long and tellingly in Muslim ears.

The impact of this Israel-Hezbollah round will not stop with the inevitable truce that will be declared after Israel ruins Lebanon. While temporary order may return to the Levant, America, Britain, and the West should not fool themselves. They have again gratuitously picked sides in a fight between two inconsequential nations; the survival of neither is a genuine national security interest for any G-8 state. Led by Washington's absurd, 30-year obsession with the minimal Shia threat to America, and blind to the hatred generated among Muslims by their foreign policies, the G-8 have mightily strengthened the enmity, durability, and resolve of the Sunni extremist movement that bin Laden leads and personifies.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9375

July 21, 2006
No, This Is Not 'Our War'

by Patrick J. Buchanan
My country has been "torn to shreds," said Fouad Siniora, the prime minister of Lebanon, as the death toll among his people passed 300 civilian dead, 1,000 wounded, with half a million homeless.

Israel must pay for the "barbaric destruction," said Siniora.

To the contrary, says columnist Lawrence Kudlow, "Israel is doing the Lord's work."

On American TV, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu says the ruination of Lebanon is Hezbollah's doing. But is it Hezbollah that is using U.S.-built F-16s, with precision-guided bombs, and 155-mm artillery pieces to wreak death and devastation on Lebanon?

No, Israel is doing this, with the blessing and without a peep of protest from President Bush. And we wonder why they hate us.

"Today, we are all Israelis!" brayed Ken Mehlman of the Republican National Committee to a gathering of Christians United for Israel.

One wonders if these Christians care about what is happening to our Christian brethren in Lebanon and Gaza, who have had all power cut off by Israeli air strikes, an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left them with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water, and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July.

When summer power outrages occur in America, it means a rising rate of death among our sick and elderly, and women and infants. One can only imagine what a hell it must be today in Gaza City and Beirut.

But all this carnage and destruction has only piqued the blood lust of the hairy-chested warriors at The Weekly Standard. In a signed editorial, "It's Our War," William Kristol calls for America to play her rightful role in this war by "countering this act of aggression by Iran with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?"

"Why wait?" Well, one reason is that the United States has not been attacked. A second is a small thing called the Constitution. Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?

Answer: It never did. But these neoconservatives care no more about the Constitution than they cared about the truth when they lied us into war in Iraq.

"Why wait?" How about thinking of the fate of those 25,000 Americans in Lebanon if we launch an unprovoked war on Iran? How many would wind up dead or hostages of Hezbollah, if Iran gave the order to retaliate for the slaughter of their citizens by U.S. bombs? What would happen to the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, if Shi'ites and Iranian "volunteers" joined forces to exact revenge on our soldiers?

What about America? Richard Armitage, who did four tours in Nam and knows a bit about war, says that, in its ability to attack Western targets, al-Qaeda is the B team, Hezbollah the A Team. If Bush bombs Iran, what prevents Hezbollah from launching retaliatory attacks inside the United States?

None of this is written in defense of Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran.

But none of them has attacked our country, nor has Syria, whom Bush I made an ally in the Gulf War, and to whom the most decorated soldier in Israeli history, Ehud Barak, offered 99 percent of the Golan Heights. If Nixon, Bush I, and Clinton could deal with Hafez al-Assad, a tougher customer than son Bashar, what is the matter with George W. Bush?

The last superpower is impotent in this war because we have allowed Israel to dictate to whom we may and may not talk. Thus, Bush winds up cussing in frustration in St. Petersburg that somebody should tell the Syrians to stop it. Why not pick up the phone, Mr. President?

What is Kristol's moral and legal ground for a war on Iran? It is the "Iranian act of aggression" against Israel, and that Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons, and we can't have that.

But there is no evidence Iran has any tighter control over Hezbollah than we have over Israel, whose response to the capture of two soldiers had all the spontaneity of the Schlieffen Plan. And, again, Hezbollah attacked Israel, not us. And there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which it has signed but Israel refuses to sign.

If Iran's nuclear program justifies war, why cannot the neocons make that case in the constitutional way, instead of prodding Bush to launch a Pearl Harbor attack? Do they fear they have no credibility left after pushing Bush into this bloody quagmire in Iraq that has cost almost 2,600 dead and 18,000 wounded Americans?

No, Kenny boy, we are not "all Israelis." Some of us still think of ourselves as Americans, first, last, and always. And, no, Mr. Kristol, this is not "our war." It's your war.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

July 21, 2006
America Held Hostage
It's day 10 – and Israel is still threatening the lives of 25,000 Americans in Lebanon
by Justin Raimondo
The Israelis are dropping leaflets, as well as bombs, over Beirut. Aside from warnings to stay away from Hezbollah facilities, this little missive stands out:


"We all know from the experience of the past few days the massive strength of Israel and its readiness to use this power against the terrorist elements.

"The saying goes: those who sleep in graveyards have nightmares."

With all of Lebanon becoming one big killing field, the Israelis should be the last ones talking about graveyards and who sleeps in them. As of Wednesday, "at least 300 people, mostly Lebanese civilians, and including 29 Israelis, had died in the fighting." One thousand Lebanese wounded, and half a million refugees.

What's interesting about this screed, however, is the preening, bullying tone. Note the "massive power" trope and the taunting reminder that the assault has only gone on for a "few days" – the clear implication being that it could go on much longer. Wednesday the story was that the Bush administration would give the Israelis a week to degrade Hezbollah's military capability, and then they'd send Condi in to patch things up.

Thursday morning, however, as the bird sings outside my window, I awake to the news that the IDF is insisting on two weeks. In two weeks, they'll be saying a month more – and the Americans will start to get antsy. The Arab killer regimes that back the bashing of Hezbollah are fidgeting nervously as pictures of the slaughter are beamed around the world: the Egyptians, for one, are reportedly furious that Bush refuses to endorse calls for a cease-fire. Any other American president would have long ago made such a pronouncement and fulfilled America's mediating role, in line with our status as the predominant power in the region.

But not this president. This is all about Israel, and not the U.S., as the dominating power in the Middle East. Bush's indifference to American interests and craven appeasement of the Israelis has led him to stand helplessly by as Israeli fighter jets paid for by American taxpayers drop U.S.-made ordnance on American citizens. There are 25,000 U.S. nationals in Lebanon, for all intents and purposes held hostage by the IDF. Instead of taking the Israelis to task for putting Americans at risk – without warning, and without apology – George W. Bush gave them the green light to keep up the bombing and the blockade for as long as they can get away with it.

The scandal over the reimbursement demanded by the State Department for rescuing U.S. citizens trapped in Lebanon will pale as Americans realize why it took so long to even begin the difficult task of getting our people out of there safely. Garance Franke-Ruta reports the outrageous truth on the American Prospect's weblog:

"A reliable source tells me that the reason the United States has been so slow in evacuating its citizens from Lebanon is that the public diplomacy (i.e., P.R.) issues raised by evacuating under Israeli assault are so complicated. Individuals within the State Department, I am told, have been reluctant to create an impression that the Israeli assault on Lebanon is as bad as it is or that civilian U.S. citizens are being threatened by U.S. ally Israel. If a conflict this severe had broken out in, say, Indonesia, the American embassy would have been shut down the next day and its personnel and families rapidly brought to safety. That's how things normally work. (See Laura Rozen on the evacuation from Albania here.) In this case, however, the diplomatic message sent by shutting down the U.S. embassy in the face of Israeli bombing would have contradicted the U.S. government message of support for the Israeli mission against Hezbollah terrorists, which, when added to the general concern within lower-level diplomatic circles about ever creating a Fall of Saigon-style visual for the news media, have led the Americans to be slower than they could have been about getting U.S. citizens out of harm's way."

In my last column, I likened the slowness of the American response to the federal government's hapless efforts to deal with the effects of Hurricane Katrina, a comparison made by many others. However, the Lebanese disaster is much worse than what happened in New Orleans and environs. This isn't incompetence: the U.S. government made a conscious decision to delay the rescue mission to avoid embarrassing the Israelis. The Bush administration can always be counted on to put Israel first – ahead even of the welfare and very lives of American citizens.

When it comes to kowtowing before the Israel lobby, however, Congress outdoes the executive branch by several degrees of servility. Pat Buchanan was exactly right when he described Congress as "Israeli-occupied territory." A resolution giving unconditional support to Israel passed the Senate unanimously: and, in the House, a similar measure passed overwhelmingly. Not that everyone who voted for it is proud of his or her vote: in the negotiations leading to the introduction of the resolution by the Republicans, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pledged to vote for the resolution and speak on its behalf, but refused to be a co-sponsor. Or, as Roll Call put it, she refused to "attach her name to it." Does she really imagine this kind of obfuscation is going to provide adequate cover on her left flank? The antiwar faction of her party, large and growing, is already on to her brand of warmongering, and she knows it. In any case, it takes a special kind of cowardice to slither around the issue with such snake-like alacrity.


The Democrats are competing with the GOP to see who can praise the Israeli blitzkrieg in the most obsequiously extravagant terms. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid made a fire-breathing speech in favor the resolution, Hillary Clinton declared her "unreserved support" for the invasion, and even Russ Feingold, ostensibly the antiwar candidate among the Democratic presidential wannabes, averred:

"I stand firmly with the people of Israel and their government as they defend themselves against these outrageous attacks. What we have done by becoming mired in Iraq, and by deciding to change the balance of power in that region, is enable Iran and Syria to be much more open in tormenting Israel, the United States, and our allies."

That is gibberish. The "defense" of Israel hardly requires the bombing of northern Lebanon, including the Christian areas and the civilian infrastructure. The Israelis are even hitting the barracks of the Lebanese army – the very army the Israelis are demanding must police southern Lebanon and prevent Hezbollah attacks. Israel's goal has nothing to do with getting any soldiers back: it's all about the dissolution of a Parliament where Hezbollah's representatives sit, and the division of the country. Forget the "Cedar Revolution" – touted by Bush and the neocons as indisputable evidence of a "democratic wave" supposedly sweeping the region as the direct result of Iraq's "liberation." The Israelis have decided that the government brought to power in the "Beirut spring" must fall, and that is the end of that.

As for Syria, it has never been weaker, which is precisely why the Israelis are now engineering a provocation. It is also hard to believe the presence of 130,000 U.S. troops nearby emboldens either Syria or Iran to "torment" anybody, except, perhaps, their own people.

If anyone is being tormented, it is the Syrians, who have bent over backwards to cooperate with the Americans in the war on al-Qaeda and assiduously tried to avoid any conflict with Washington. To no avail: Israel's enemies are our enemies. President Assad was recently given a sign of things to come when Israeli jets buzzed his summer palace. The Iranians, too, have signaled their willingness to negotiate, yet the U.S. is openly embarking on a campaign to fund a Chalabi-like "democratic" opposition, consisting of monarchists, Communist cultists, and job-seekers.

Baghdad – Beirut – Damascus – Tehran: get on board the "regime change" train and fasten your seat belt. Because it doesn't matter how sick unto death the American public is of the neocons' wars. They will get one after the other anyway, in rapid succession. This is due to the unprecedented power of "the Lobby" – as Professor John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt term it in their now-famous Harvard University study of Israel's fifth column in the U.S.

This is Israel's war, for the moment, but already the outline of a scheme to drag us in is taking shape, with calls for an "international force" to supplant the Israeli invaders, to be stationed in a buffer zone on the Lebanese-Israeli border. Not a UN force, however, but a "multinational" one, presumably made up mostly of Americans, Brits, and probably the French. It's possible they could recruit from among the motley crew of Sunni Arab autocrats who have turned on their Lebanese "brothers" and left them to twist slowly in the wind: the Saudis, the Egyptians, and the Jordanians, who have all joined Israel in assigning the blame for this war on Hezbollah.

This would gather all the elements of a broad anti-Shia alliance in one place, and lay the foundations for future action – in Syria, perhaps, where a confrontation is looming, and ultimately in Iran, the real target of the regime-changers.

The narrative of this war is being carefully articulated: it is, we are told, a "proxy war" being waged by Hezbollah, which the conspiracy theorists insist is merely an Iranian instrument. According to this view, Hassan Nasrallah is merely Mahmoud Ahmadinejad writ small.

To begin with, Hezbollah is a nationalist organization, with the requisite Islamist veneer. It was created not by Iran but by the Israelis themselves, in 1982, when they foolishly invaded the first time – and provoked a reaction that eventually drove the IDF out of southern Lebanon. This fantasy that Hezbollah consists of remote-controlled robots operated by the mullahs of Tehran is convenient for the purposes of war propaganda, but the reality is a bit more complex.

Yet even if we accept the simplistic Israeli-neocon view of Hezbollah as merely Iranian-run automatons, their proposed course of action still fails to make much sense. The logic of the neocon argument, applied to Iraq, would require us to turn our guns on the very government we are pledged to defend against the insurgency. The principal elements of Iraq's democratically elected Shi'ite coalition –including the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the Badr Corps (SCIRI's militia), and the Da'wa party – were funded by Tehran and given sanctuary on Iranian soil during the years of Ba'athist rule. Are they, too, cat's-paws of Tehran?

Most Americans don't want U.S. troops to return to Lebanon – perhaps they remember what happened the last time. If the question is put as Israel versus Hezbollah, then, according to this CNN poll, 57 percent are more sympathetic to Israel, while 20 percent disdain taking sides and 4 percent are pro-Hezbollah. One suspects, however, if asked to choose between Israel and Lebanon, quite a different result would be forthcoming. In any event, 47 percent disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the crisis, with 43 percent approving – and 31 percent saying Israel's military response to the kidnapping of its soldiers went too far. As pictures of the devastation wrought by the Israeli military machine capture the brutal reality of Israel's exercise in "self-defense," this number is bound to go higher.

Yet the momentum of the burgeoning conflict may sideline public opinion and give impetus to the War Party's ambitious plans. As the rescue mission got belatedly underway, and American troops set foot on Lebanese soil for the first time since the ill-fated 1980s incursion, the chances of the U.S. getting roped into this snake-pit were quadrupled. Those Marines will be a magnet for every nutball "militia" and provocateur – a tripwire just waiting to be triggered.

Which leads us to wonder if this, perhaps, wasn't built into the calculations that went into the making of this war.

No one believes the official pretext for the invasion – the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah – and it is well-known that plans for the operation were ready to be taken off the shelf well before the incident. On Meet the Press the other day, Tim Russert asked NBC's Martin Fletcher if the Israelis had been looking for an opportunity to attack Hezbollah and took the first one that came along. Fletcher's answer was illuminating:

"I think so very strongly. I mean, they've never – they'll never say that publicly, but don't forget that when Israel left – ended their occupation of south Lebanon in the year 2000, the deal was that the Lebanese army would go in and police the border. Well, they never did that. Instead, Hezbollah moved in with all those rockets, and ever since then, about – for that last five years, Israel's been planning what to do, how to fight Hezbollah, how to destroy them. So this is, this is not a quick reaction to a kidnapping, it's the implementation of a plan Israel's been working on for five years with very specific targets. They call it a work plan. They're going step by step."

Step 1 – Seize a pretext, any pretext, to goose-step into Lebanon.

Step 2 – Simultaneously denounce Syrian influence and a hidden "spy network" supposedly still remaining in Lebanon – this in spite of the recent bust-up of a Mossad cell by Lebanese intelligence, which had been responsible for several assassinations.

Step 3 – Restart the Lebanese civil war – and drag Syria into it.

Step 4 – Engage the enemy on two fronts:

A. Diplomatically, in the United Nations, by imposing sanctions on Iran and demanding inspections of its nuclear facilities. This long drawn-out ritual is meant largely for American and European consumption – to convince world opinion that every possible avenue for a peaceful settlement has been explored, before the second front is opened up.

B. Militarily, in Lebanon, and beyond. Bashar al-Assad is a pincer movement away from being deposed. A right hook from U.S.-occupied Iraq and a left from the Israelis would knock out the last remaining Ba'athists and open up a veritable Pandora's box of ethnic and religious conflicts long masked by the dictatorship of the Assads.

Step 5 – On to Tehran!

The hijacking of American foreign policy by a small but influential cadre of neoconservatives is no secret, nor is it a deep mystery that they have the president's ear. Whether the sound of their whispered advice will drown out the plaintive cries of ordinary Americans, who are hardly in the mood for yet another "cakewalk," is not yet known. In the case of George W. Bush, however, it is always best to count on him living up to one's worst expectations.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2218162

U.S. Opposed to Cease-Fire With Hezbollah
Despite Pressure From World Powers and U.N., U.S. Holds Line Against Cease-Fire Deal With Hezbollah
By ANNE GEARAN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The United States held the line Thursday against a quick cease-fire deal in the Middle East, increasingly isolated as world powers and the United Nations demanded an immediate end to fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was meeting Thursday night with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who earlier in the day denounced both Israel and Hezbollah and called for both sides to stop fighting immediately.


"He was talking about a cessation of violence in the context of a lasting, durable solution, which is exactly what we have been talking about," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.


The Bush administration is playing down expectations for Rice's upcoming trip to the Mideast, saying she will not shuttle among capitals to broker a deal.


"You're not going to see a return to the kind of diplomacy, I think, that we've seen before where you try to negotiate an end to the violence that leaves the parties in place and where you have status quo ante," McCormack said.


Administration officials also questioned whether a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah is even feasible.


"We'd love to have a cease-fire," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "But Hezbollah has to be part of it. And at this point, there's no indication that Hezbollah intends to lay down arms."


John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said it was time for the Security Council to start considering a response, but he, too, ruled out a cease-fire.


"I think it's a very fundamental question how a terrorist group agrees to a cease-fire," Bolton said. "How do you hold a terrorist group accountable? Who runs the terrorist group? Who makes the commitments that the terrorist group will abide by a cease-fire? What does a terrorist group think a cease-fire is?"


Hezbollah is an Islamic militant group that does not recognize Israel as a state. It holds effective military and political control over southern Lebanon, and is the most potent political force on Lebanon's fractured political landscape.


The Bush administration has repeatedly said that a temporary or quickly negotiated cease-fire would leave Hezbollah able to regroup and rearm after more than a week of Israeli missile attacks.


Israel, and Washington as its closest ally, insist that any settlement must deal with the underlying threat posed to Israel by Hezbollah's control of southern Lebanon. The Bush administration is trying to hold off international pressure for as long as possible, while also asking Israel to consider the consequences of its actions for civilians.


More than 300 people have died in Lebanon, most of them civilians, since Israel began retaliatory rocket attacks after Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers last week.


The House voted 410-8 on Thursday to support Israel in its confrontation with Hezbollah guerrillas. The resolution also condemns enemies of the Jewish state.


House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, cited Israel's "unique relationship" with the United States as a reason for his colleagues to go on record swiftly supporting Israel in the latest flare-up of violence in the Mideast.


Little of the political divisiveness in Congress on other national security issues was evident as lawmakers embraced the Bush administration's position.


So strong was the momentum for the resolution that it was steamrolling efforts by a small group of House members who argued that Congress's pro-Israel stance goes too far.


The nonbinding resolution is similar to one the Senate passed Tuesday. It harshly condemns Israel's enemies and says Syria and Iran should be held accountable for providing Hezbollah with money and missile technology used to attack Israel.



Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13940168/site/newsweek/



From Lebanon to America
With Hizbullah under attack in the Mideast, will the group strike out at U.S. targets?
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Mark Hosenball
Newsweek


Updated: 3:52 p.m. ET July 19, 2006
July 19, 2006 - Though the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have urged added “vigilance” against new terror attacks inside the United States in light of the conflict in the Middle East, law-enforcement and intelligence agencies say that, so far, there is no evidence that any attack against America is in the works.

In a written statement, the FBI said that while the public should remain alert “during this heightened state of tension in the Middle East,” there is “no credible or specific information at this time suggesting individuals may be planning to act out on grievances or sympathies in the Homeland.” Michelle Petrovich, a spokesman at the Department of Homeland Security similarly told NEWSWEEK that there was “no credible or specific information at this time suggesting a threat … in the wake of this conflict.” Administration officials indicated there was no plan to raise the color-coded national terror “threat level”—currently at Yellow for “elevated.”


Given the players in the latest Middle East fighting, speculation and fear about a possible new wave of U.S. terror attacks has focused mostly on the reach of Hizbullah. Before the Iraq war, former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage called Hizbullah the “A Team” in world terrorism and Al Qaeda the “B Team.” More recently, when tensions between the United States and Iran began heating up, the FBI “increased its focus on Hizbollah,” said bureau spokesman Bill Carter in an e-mail. Carter said the FBI has investigations into the “potential presence of Hizbullah members, alleged fund-raising and financial activity on U.S. soil.”

A U.S. counterterrorism official, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, said that U.S. intelligence analysts believe that all evidence so far suggests Hizbullah's leadership is going to stick by a “strategic decision” it made years ago to stop attacking U.S. targets. In the 1980s, Hizbullah either admitted to or was held responsible for a series of bloody and spectacular attacks on American interests, including the Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines and a U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut that killed 63. Hizbullah also kidnapped and murdered senior CIA official William Buckley and masterminded the spectacular 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 to Beirut. The organization—and in some cases its Iranian patrons—have also been linked by investigators to at least a handful of attacks outside the region against Israeli or Jewish targets.


A local law-enforcement official said that because of the current crisis, the New York Police Department had stepped up security measures for some Jewish and Israeli organizations. A federal counterterrorism official said that U.S. agencies believe that although it has never attacked inside the United States, Hizbullah has the “capability,” and that authorities have reason to believe the organization has both fund-raisers and recruiters at work within U.S. borders. The official added, however, that if Hizbullah renewed attacks on U.S. targets, they are more likely to take place overseas.

While both British and U.S. intelligence agencies see little indication that Hizbullah has decided to attack Americans once again, U.S. officials say they can’t rule it out. Such a change, one U.S. official said, could be triggered if Hizbullah became convinced that it was a target of what it regarded as a particularly antagonistic act by the U.S. government. Another theoretical possibility that official analysts have considered is that Hizbullah’s patrons in the Iranian government would order the Lebanese group to strike U.S. or other Western targets.


Such scenarios are little more than war-gaming, however. In fact, U.S. and British officials say intelligence analysts see no persuasive evidence that Hizbullah launched the current crisis at Iran’s behest. Several U.S. and British officials said U.S. intelligence agencies also have serious strong doubts about claims by Israeli political and military figures that Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives are at work behind the scenes in Lebanon. On the other hand, U.S. officials say Hizbullah couldn’t have begun its current campaign of rocket attacks against Israel without Iranian-made armaments and that U.S. agencies do believe that Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops have regularly visited Lebanon to train Hizbullah fighters.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13940168/site/newsweek/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006 MSNBC.com

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/rightangl..._syria_is_vital

Going After Syria is Vital

by Chris Field — 07-20-2006 @ 12:20 PM

As Israel attempts to stop Hezbollah with a campaign of air strikes in Southern Lebanon, world leaders seeking to stem the violence must squeeze Syria—a leading sponsor of Hezbollah along with Iran—to help end the fighting along the Israel-Lebanon border.

In yesterday’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman wrote:


To me, the big strategic chess move is to try to split Syria off from Iran, and bring Damascus back into the Sunni Arab fold. That is the game-changer. What would be the Syrian price? I don't know, but I sure think it would be worth finding out. After all, Syria hosts Hamas's leadership in Damascus. It is the land bridge between Hezbollah and Iran, without which Hezbollah can't survive. And it is the safe haven for the Baathist insurgents in Iraq.


Our Human Events editorial on Tuesday said:


Hezbollah, created by Iran and nurtured and supplied by both Iran and Syria, is used as a weapon by these two anti-American, anti-Israeli regimes. Without the support of Syria and Iran, Hezbollah is out of business.

Moreover, Syria and Iran are responsible for Hezbollah’s recent attacks on Israel because—at a minimum—they supplied the weaponry for the attacks and then cheered the attacks on when they happened.


If President Bush and the international community fail to convince Syria to stop Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, further violence is likely to spread throughout the region—including into Syria. The Wall Street Journal on Monday noted that “some observers ... worry Israel may decide that the only way to rein in Hezbollah is to attack Syria and possibly Iran,” and quoted Israel security cabinet member Isaac Herzog saying, “We place full responsibility for this crisis on Syria and Iran.”

If the Middle East is to avoid all-out war, Syria must take action on two fronts.

First, Syria must stop its support of Hezbollah.

It is no secret that Syria provides not only financial support to Hezbollah, but also material support, and allows Iran to support the terror group through Syria. According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report titled “Syria: U.S. Relations and Bilateral Issues” dated June 22, 2006:


Syria continued to permit Iranian resupply via Damascus of the Lebanese Shi’ite Muslim militia Hizballah in Lebanon. Syria admits its support for Palestinians pursuing armed struggle in Israeli occupied territories and for Hizballah raids against Israeli forces on the Lebanese border, but insists that these actions represent legitimate resistance activity as distinguished from terrorism.


Among the many problems Israel faces in its fight against Hezbollah is the lack of control at the Lebanon-Syria border. According to the The Wall Street Journal:


That area, which includes the vast Bekaa Valley, has long been one of Hezbollah’s main conduits for bringing its missiles into Lebanon. Large stretches of it remain unguarded and open to smugglers, suggesting Hezbollah may find a way to replenish its missile stocks.


Hezbollah should have no problem getting missiles from one of its lead sponsors. The CRS report, summarizing Syria’s WMD programs, notes:


Syria has one of the largest missile inventories in the Middle East, consisting of several hundred short-to-medium range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.


In a lunch conversation Monday with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush noted the need to get Syria involved in ending Hezbollah’s aggression: “What they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and then it’s over.”

But without the force of the international community, Syria is not likely to give up its support of Hezbollah. Since the start of this most recent crisis in the Middle East, Syria has strongly defended the actions of Hezbollah and blamed Israel for the problems, even though other Arab governments have criticized the terrorist organization’s actions, specifically the kidnapping of Israeli troops.

The Associated Press reported that at a meeting last weekend of the Arab League Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal “called [Hezbollah’s] actions ‘unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible,’ telling his counterparts: ‘These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them.’”

Second, Syria must release its hold on the Lebanese government.

In 1976, Syria sent forces into Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war. According to the CRS report, though Syria’s troop levels in Lebanon have dropped from nearly 40,000 in the late 1970s to approximately 14,000 by early 2005, Syria still exercised a “controlling influence over Lebanon’s domestic politics and regional policies.”

Under apparent pressure from Syria, Lebanon’s parliament, on Sept. 3, 2004, extended pro-Syrian Lebanese President Emile Lahoud’s six-year term by three more years. The day before the vote, as noted in the CRS report, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1559, which called for “a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s upcoming presidential election ... without foreign influence” and called for “all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon.” Syria’s UN ambassador disagreed with the resolution, claiming that Syria was in Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese government.

Protesting the extension of Lahoud’s term, the CRS report reveals, Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri resigned his post and joined an opposition group demanding the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. Hiriri was assassinated in a car bomb explosion in Beirut on Feb. 14, 2005. The next day, though Syria and the pro-Syrian Lebanese government denied involvement, the U.S. ambassador to Syria was recalled by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. On February 23, President Bush insisted that Syria pull both its military and intelligence personnel out of Lebanon.

Syrian President Bashir Assad, under growing pressure from the international community, began withdrawing Syrian forces. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan reported on May 23 that the UN had confirmed Syria’s withdrawal of military forces, but could not confirm that all Syrian intelligence personnel were removed.

In October of last year, Annan, according to the CRS report, “noted that other requirements of Resolution 1559 remained to be implemented, particularly disbanding and disarming Lebanese and non-Lebanese militia (notably Hizballah and several Palestinian groups) and extension of Lebanese government control throughout all of the country” (emphasis added).

The CRS report continues:


Although Syrian forces had departed Lebanon before the Lebanese parliamentary elections in late May and June, 2005, some observers think Syrian officials may be trying to circumvent the effect of the withdrawal by maintaining their influence through contacts they have acquired over the year in the Lebanese bureaucracy and security services. While anti-Syrian candidates secured a comfortable majority (72 out of 128) in the new parliament, the strong showing by a largely Shi’ite Muslim bloc in southern Lebanon resulted in the reelection of a pro-Syrian parliamentary spearker (a Shi’ite post under Lebanon’s unique system), while the pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud remains in office.


The question now is how does the international community pressure Syria to take end its support of Hezbollah and release its grasp on the Lebanese government.

On May 17, 2006, following the suggestion of U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton to “highlight the areas of deficiency in Syria’s performance under [UN Resolution] 1559,” the Security Council passed Resolution 1680. From the CRS report:


The resolution calls on Syria to prevent movement of arms into Lebanon, ‘strongly encourages’ Syria to respond positively to the request by Lebanon to delineate their common border and establish full diplomatic relations, and calls for disbanding all militias inside Lebanon.


The United States has already imposed sanctions on Syria, including prohibitions on aid and restrictions on bilateral trade, because of its status as a state sponsor of terrorism, as determined by the U.S. State Department. But many U.S. allies continue to enjoy trade with Syria and decline to stand up to Syria.

President Bush must continue to hold a hard line with Syria by using every legislative and executive provisions at his disposal, including the Syria Accountability Act he signed on Dec. 12, 2003, which imposes sanctions against Syria unless it stops supporting terrorism, withdraws from Lebanon, ends its development of WMD, and stops backing terrorist activity in Iraq. He also needs to continue to lead the international community in the recognition that Syria continues to yield influence over Lebanon and supports anti-Israel terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, and in convincing President Assad that the best interests of his country are vested in Middle East peace.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15080564.htm

Military analysts question Israeli bombing
JIM KRANE
Associated Press
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Thousands of Israeli bombs have fallen on Lebanese homes, roads, bridges, ports, broadcasting towers and even a lighthouse.

Nearly 300 people, mainly civilians, have been killed, Lebanon's prime minister said.

Analysts say Israel's targeting of civilian and government infrastructure overshadows its strikes on the offices and rocket launchers of Hezbollah guerrillas, whose capture of two Israeli soldiers triggered the attacks.

"This is a classic strategic bombing campaign," said Stephen Biddle, a former head of military studies at the U.S. Army War College now at the Council on Foreign Relations. "What the Israelis are trying to do is pressure others into solving their problem for them, hence the targeting of civilian infrastructure."

But the growing list of civilian casualties - despite Israel's use of U.S.-designed precision-guided bombs - could turn Arabs and others against the Jewish state and its key ally, the U.S., and still not fatally wound Hezbollah, said military analysts.

Israeli Cabinet ministers have said the bombing aims to punish Lebanon and make the government understand the entire country will suffer if Hezbollah - which operates freely in the south - isn't reined in.

But Israeli military spokesman Capt. Jacob Dallal said Wednesday that Israel's bombing targets have direct military significance, since Hezbollah uses roads to transport its rockets and stores them in houses.

"A lot of the rockets are stored in people's homes in urban areas, fired from within villages and brought in from the Damascus-Beirut highway," Dallal said. "We are in day eight and the present condition of Hezbollah is unlike it was on day one. There's no comparison, their infrastructure, their weaponry have all been degraded considerably."

Classic strategic bombardment campaigns aim to flatten key economic resources and are usually designed to bend the targeted government to the will of its attacker or turn the populace against the government.

The United States has been one of the chief proponents of strategic bombardment, launching campaigns in Vietnam, Iraq and Serbia. In World War II it targeted factories, railroads, bridges, ports and, in some cases, residential neighborhoods.

James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan who now heads military analysis for the Rand Corp., said choice of targets by Israel was the key and may be misdirected.

"The military rationale seems rather thin, since many of the targets have no conceivable relationship to Hezbollah," he said.

Hezbollah has little visible presence and few links to Lebanon's military. It is skilled at cloaking its actions from Israeli sensors, while its primitive rockets - which have also killed innocents - are fired from easy-to-hide mobile launchers. Their lack of a guidance system leaves them without a traceable electronic signature, said Mustafa Alani, a military analyst with Dubai-based Gulf Research Center.

"The Israelis face their classic problem: They cannot punish Hezbollah, which has no physical structure to destroy," Alani said.

Instead, Israel is bombing Hezbollah's Shiite Muslim power base, leveling villages and office and apartment blocks in Shiite neighborhoods in the eastern Bekaa Valley, southern Lebanon and south Beirut.

Dallal said the Israeli military bombs civilian buildings or homes if intelligence points to a Hezbollah office or munitions on the site.

"If there is a rocket stored in an apartment building and we attack the apartment in the building in which it is stored," he said. "We have the right to attack because of the missile."

The Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon said the Israeli campaign most closely resembles the U.S.-led NATO bombardment of Serbia in 1999, in which a victory was achieved without a land invasion.

But the 78-day NATO bombardment of Serbia had clear international legitimacy and was more gradual. Air crews targeted Serbian military and communications sites first, and when that didn't persuade the Serb military to pull out of Kosovo, planes hit civilian and government targets.

Targeting was far more discriminatory. Despite tens of thousands of sorties, NATO is thought to have killed 500 civilians in the 2- 1/2 month campaign. By contrast, Israel has killed more than 250 Lebanese in eight days.

And the Serbian actions that triggered NATO's airstrikes were far larger than anything launched from Lebanon, Dobbins said.

"The Serbian government was responsible for the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo that drove a million people from their homes," Dobbins said, "while the Lebanese government is not responsible for the rocket attacks upon Israel."

The government, however, has been unable to fulfill a U.N. directive that Hezbollah be disarmed and that government forces take control of southern Lebanon.

Israel has also chosen to hit targets that the United States would probably reject, because of the danger of killing civilians, said Michele Flournoy, a former Pentagon strategist now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

U.S. war planners realize their campaigns lose international and domestic support when innocents are killed, Flournoy said.

"Our own population is very discriminating in the use of force. People here have bought into the idea of proportionality and the just war," Flournoy said.

For Israel, "it's a balancing act," Flournoy said. "They want to use enough force to get through to the terrorists, while at the same time staying within international norms, so as not to become a pariah."

Israel's history, however, has produced a defense posture that views its enemies as fundamental and existential threats to the country's very survival.

"The airports and bridges don't belong to Hezbollah," Alani said. "People may understand their (Israeli) reactions for the first few days. But world leaders will soon say 'we don't see any links between your attacks and the threat you face.'"

---

AP Correspondent Lara Sukhtian in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

http://www.alternet.org/story/39235/

Don't Let the Neocons Call It a 'War on Terror'

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted July 21, 2006.


If we don't challenge the 'war' narrative, the hawks may just get the existential Clash of Civilizations they've spent decades working for. Tools

There's never been a global war on terror. It's a sham, a ruse. The conflict that's broken out between Israel and Hezbollah shows us, again, how important it is to articulate that. It's a real war, and it has both neocons and Islamic extremists praying that it will escalate into the global Clash of Civilizations that they've long lusted after.

Bush and Congress gave Israel the green light to pummel Lebanon for a while because "Israel is fighting a brave battle in a dangerous front in the War on Terror." And what can we, as Americans, really say about that? After all, we accepted the idea (some of us grudgingly) that there was a global "War on Terror" ourselves -- why shouldn't Lebanon be the next front?

When the media and our political class accepted the war frame, the hawks got a blank check. Everything that followed -- invasions, illegal surveillance and prisoners held in limbo, are all expected during times of war. Once we went to "war," resisting those policies became an uphill fight. War talk justifies powerful states responding to terrorist or insurgent attacks with disproportionate force. That makes the hawks feel macho and will likely create a whole new generation of potentially violent radicals who hate our guts.

We should have fought the "War on Terror" narrative from the beginning. Calling it a "war" is a numerical error, not an ideological difference. There are a few tens of thousands of potentially violent extremists dispersed around the world. They're not gathered in large groups, and you can't distinguish them from ordinary civilians. That makes it fundamentally an intelligence and law enforcement problem (which may require some military support).

But it goes further than that. There's no global war between East and West because there are no discrete sides. First of all, there's no 'Us.' The Western democracies agree that terrorism is a problem, but they are perfectly divided about how to address it. The United States and Israel stand alone in their "wars," the Russians have their "war" with the Chechens and the rest of the world does what simple logic dictates: investigate terror cells and arrest the participants. Sometimes security forces kill them. They've had quite a bit of success.

What's more, we don't really care about Islamic extremism per se. We are no more allied with the Russians in their war with Chechen separatists than we have been with the Chinese as they've cracked down on Islamic groups in Xinjiang. Where U.S. "interests" aren't involved, we're indifferent.

Much more important -- and so many Americans don't get this -- there's no "them." The image of a well-organized global Islamic insurgency is a fantasy. Al Qaeda was one of a dozen Islamic extremist groups that emerged in the 1990s, and Bin Laden was one of a few dozen influential and charismatic militant leaders. Individual groups were fighting separate, distinctly domestic battles; Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya opposed the Egyptian government, Hezbollah was formed to beat back the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, the Group Islamique Armé rose up to topple Algeria's government, and so on.

All of those conflicts had their own unique contexts and histories, and almost all of those movements had legitimate gripes with some rather unsavory governments. Most Americans couldn't tell you what the struggle between the Philippine government and Abu Sayyaf is all about, and why should they? That battle has little to do with us, as so many of them don't. Some of these "terror groups," remember, were called "freedom fighters" when they were pointed at the Soviets or their client states.

In that landscape, Al Qaeda was unique in one important way: Bin Laden, like his neocon counterparts, saw the world gripped in an existential struggle between East and West. He was jockeying for position with dozens of other movements, none of which were based on a broad, global effort against the United States and its allies. Bin Laden focused on US support for the Saudi government, for Israel, for Egypt's repressive regime (a government that imprisoned and tortured tens of thousands of political Islamists) and he preached that the United States was the head of the snake. First defeat America, and then all those individual, national and very particular battles could be won.

This was not an easy sell. Messing with the U.S., it was widely acknowledged, was not a terribly smart course of action, and many militants had a narrowly focused hatred of their own domestic ideological opponents. It also didn't sit well with Bin Laden's hosts. As Jason Burke writes in his excellent book, Al Qaeda, "it is important to recognize that [Islamist movements] in Yemen and Afghanistan, and the regime in the Sudan, have roots in local contingencies that pre-date Bin Laden." They used the sheik and allowed themselves to be used by him, but their conflicts, too, were domestic in nature. In early 1996, the Sudanese government approached the United States and Saudi Arabia and offered to turn Bin Laden over to their security services. They refused. In May of that year, he returned to Afghanistan, where he had developed a reputation fighting the Soviets.

Here we come to a crucial part of the story of the rise of international Islamism -- a narrative the American media has been criminally complicit in ignoring. In August of 1998, independent groups loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda attacked U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Rather than treating the attacks as a security problem that cried out for better intelligence, Bill Clinton reacted by using the tools of war, launching over a hundred cruise missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan in Operation Shortsighted Violence ("Infinite Reach"). The missiles were primarily for domestic consumption -- to deflect attention from Monica's cum-stained dress and to assuage the bloodthirsty right -- and had little effect on violent extremists. But they did knock out Sudan's only pharmaceutical plant, precipitating a disease epidemic that killed tens of thousands of people -- a story ignored by the Western press.

Meanwhile, the Taliban had grown weary of Bin Laden's shtick. They were sick of his public attacks against the "crusaders and Zionists," and while the Taliban's leaders were terribly provincial, they understood that the heat Bin Laden was bringing down on them wasn't helping their cause. Remember, this was a group that was negotiating with Texas oilmen from Unocal to install a major pipeline in Afghanistan; they wanted foreign investment and recognition.

In mid-1998, the Taliban, like the Sudanese before them, cut a deal to turn Bin laden over to Saudi Arabia, where he would be tried for treason and in all likelihood executed. All that the Taliban asked in return was for a group of religious authorities loyal to the Saudi government to issue a statement justifying the move under Islamic law -- a mere technicality.

In July of that year, the deal was confirmed and, in early September, two planes landed in Kandahar carrying Prince Turki and a group of Saudi commandos to collect Bin Laden. But the deal had run into a snag three weeks earlier, when the United States had launched its cruise missiles. The Saudis arrived only to be told the deal was off and to be dressed down by Taliban leader Mullah Omar. The strikes had changed everything.

The missile attack was a disaster with far-reaching consequences. Those Tomahawks validated all of Bin Laden's claims. The United States, it seemed, really was unconcerned with the deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims. Hundreds of extremists who had come to Afghanistan to train for their local fights in Kashmir or the Philippines or wherever suddenly flocked to Al Qaeda, convinced that Bin Laden's epic struggle against the West was their own.

They didn't necessarily share his priorities, but our military response showed he had gotten to us, and he became a hero. It was the beginning of of a trend that continues today: the United States, where political leaders explain complex geopolitical issues in simple binaries (freedom-loving/terror-loving) and are unable to differentiate between a war and a law enforcement problem, stumbles blindly into a full-blown attack on a sovereign country -- pressed ever forward by its psychotic and racist right wing -- with disastrous and unintended consequences. Iraq wasn't the first, and Bush didn't start it -- Clinton did.

9/11 was destined to happen one way or another, even if Bush had paid attention to that famous briefing at his ranch in Crawford. That's because the fuse that set off 9/11 was laid out decades ago in the Reagan era. His administration joined the Saudi regime (and Pakistani intelligence) in promoting an extremist form of Islamic fundamentalism to counter the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Pan-Arabists in the Gulf -- and it was lit by Clinton's fireworks display.

After 9/11, we could have knocked the hell out of Al Qaeda and fractured the delicate coalition that Bin Laden had managed to cobble together after the East Africa bombings. Instead, we launched a "war" on terror, and we again proved to a receptive audience that we're the enemy they should focus on. Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Gitmo -- these are recruiting posters for global Jihad.

We may yet end up with a unified opponent against whom we can fight a global war. But if we do, it will be one of our own making. It'll be because we didn't nip the war talk in the bud.

An earlier version of this article first appeared in The Mix. Read the original here.

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/39272/

The Most Dangerous Alliance in the World

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted July 20, 2006.


The U.S. is helping to destroy Lebanon in its tacit support of Israel. Tools

After getting out of Lebanon, writer June Rugh told Reuters on Tuesday: "As an American, I'm embarrassed and ashamed. My administration is letting it happen [by giving] tacit permission for Israel to destroy a country."

The news service quoted another American evacuee, Andrew Muha, who had been in southern Lebanon. He said: "It's a travesty. There's a million homeless in Lebanon and the intense amount of bombing has brought an entire country to its knees."

Embarrassing. Shameful. A travesty. Those kinds of words begin to describe the alliance between the United States and Israel. Here are a few more: Government criminality. High-tech terror. Mass murder from the skies. The kind of premeditated action that the U.S. representative in Nuremberg at the International Conference on Military Trials -- Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson -- was talking about on August 12, 1945, when he declared that "no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

The United States and Israel. Right now, it's the most dangerous alliance in the world.

Of course, Israeli officials talk about murderous crimes against civilians by Hezbollah and Hamas. And Hezbollah and Hamas officials talk about murderous crimes against civilians by Israel. Plenty of real crimes to go around. At the same time, by any measure, Israelis have done a lot more killing than dying. (If you doubt that, take a look at the website of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem and its documentation of deadly events.)

In American media, the current mumbling about the need for "restraint" is little better than window-dressing for bomb-dropping. The prevalent dynamic is based on a chain of rarely spoken lies, however conscious or unconscious: none more important than the lie that a religion can make one life worth more than another; render a human death unimportant; elevate certain war-inflicted agonies to spiritual significance.

"Israel has overwhelming military superiority in both southern Lebanon and Gaza," the New York Times noted in mid-July. A pattern is deeply entrenched in U.S. media and politics: the smaller-scale killers condemned, the larger-scale killers justified with endless rationales.

Stripping away the righteous rhetoric, media manipulation and routine journalistic contortions, what remains in joint U.S.-Israeli policy is the unspoken assumption that might makes right. Myths spin around as convenient. Israel ceremoniously "withdraws" from Gaza, only to come back with missiles and troops however and whenever it pleases. The West Bank also continues to be a place of subjugation and resistance. And, as W.H. Auden observed, "Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return."

The Israeli leaders who launched this month's state-of-the-killing-art air assault on Gaza and Lebanon had to know that many civilians would be killed, many others wounded, many more terrorized. The smug moral posturing that Israel's military does not target specific civilians is moldy political grist -- and, in human terms, irrelevant to the totally predictable carnage.

"There are terrorists who will blow up innocent people in order to achieve tactical objectives," President Bush said on July 13. Of course he was referring to actions by Hezbollah and Hamas. We're supposed to pretend that Israel does not also "blow up innocent people in order to achieve tactical objectives."

Israel calls itself a Jewish state, and its leadership often claims to represent the interests of Jewish people. Killers who terrorize often claim to be acting on blessed behalf of others of the faith. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus... By now, such demagoguery ought to be transparent.

In the 40th year of Israel's unconscionable occupation of Palestinian territories, Israeli leaders have their agenda. What's ours?

It should include clearly opposing the most dangerous alliance in the world.

In the United States, evading the "might makes right" core of the alliance is easy. The dodge makes dropping bombs on Lebanon and Gaza that much easier for the Israeli government. As usual, you can hear it in the weasel-worded statements from even the better politicians on Capitol Hill. You can read it in New York Times editorials. Instead of saying that aggressive war by Israel "is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy," the message is that aggressive war by Israel is accepted and embraced as an instrument of policy.

Most of all, you can hear it in the silence.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

Frida Berrigan is a Senior Research Associate with the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/21/1432202

They keep killing we keep paying and building....



It's not like we could not "just say no", After all Ronnie did...

Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel: Everything You Need To Know

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
http://www.counterpunch.org/Cockburn07212006.html

For those who have very short memories, try and go back a few weeks...

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_fri...3545.shtml?s=br


Report: U.S. Rushes Precision-Guided Bombs to Israel
NewsMax.com Wires
Saturday, July 22, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, The New York Times reported on Saturday.



Citing U.S. officials who spoke on Friday on condition of anonymity, the Times said the decision to ship the weapons quickly came after relatively little debate within the administration, and noted in its report that its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others who could perceive Washington as aiding Israel in the manner that Iran has armed Hezbollah.



The munitions are actually part of a multimillion-dollar arms-sale package approved last year which Israel is able to tap when it needs to, the officials told the Times. But some military officers said the request for expedited delivery was unusual and indicated that Israel has many targets it plans to hit in Lebanon.


The arms shipment has not been announced publicly. The officials who described the administration's decision to rush the munitions included employees of two government agencies, one of whom described the shipment as just one example of a broad array of armaments that the United States has long provided Israel, the Times said.




Pentagon and military officials declined to describe in detail the size and contents of the shipment to Israel, the newspaper said, and they would not say whether the munitions were being shipped by cargo aircraft or some other means. But one U.S. official said the shipment should not be compared to the kind of an "emergency resupply" of dwindling Israeli stockpiles that was provided during the Yom Kippur War, according to the Times report.



A spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington told the Times: "We have been using precision-guided munitions in order to neutralize the military capabilities of Hezbollah and to minimize harm to civilians. As a rule, however, we do not comment on Israel's defense acquisitions."



© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

If the "surprises" have anything to do with WMD, Syria and Iran will be in serious trouble!!!


http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2006/0...3166582478.html



Defiant Hezbollah promises surprises
Date: July 22 2006


Jonathan Steele in Beirut

THE defiant leader of Hezbollah has vowed to resist the military assault on his organisation and said the two Israeli soldiers seized last week would only be released as part of a prisoner exchange.

"If the entire universe came [to pressure Hezbollah], it will not bring back the Israeli soldiers unless through indirect negotiations and a prisoner swap," Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said.

Mr Nasrallah, whose whereabouts is unknown, said his group "has remained firm and has been able to absorb the hit" and promised "there are still more surprises that we will keep to ourselves in the coming stage".

On Wednesday, Israeli jets dropped 23 tonnes of explosives on a suspected Hezbollah bunker in southern Beirut in the belief senior leaders of the Shiite group, including Mr Nasrallah, were there.

But Mr Nasrallah, who made the comments on television yesterday, said the group's leadership structure was intact.

"I can confirm without exaggeration … that the leadership structure of Hezbollah has not been hurt," he said. "All this Israeli talk that they hit 50 per cent of our rocket capabilities and warehouses, this talk is all wrong and nonsense."

Israel began its offensive on Lebanon after Hezbollah captured two soldiers and killed eight in a cross-border raid on July 12.

Finding anyone willing to criticise the Hezbollah leader on the streets of Lebanon is a hopeless venture.

The man who launched the attack into Israel last week that captured two soldiers is widely regarded as a hero, however grim the destruction that Israel's retaliation has caused.

"Hezbollah is doing more for the Palestinian cause than any Arab government has ever done. When he says he will resist Israel, he does," said Muhammad Hassan, who runs a small barber's shop. "We didn't know he had such technology - and especially the ability to hit an Israeli warship. It was a nice surprise."

His enthusiasm for Mr Nasrallah is not blind or unquestioning. A customer nodded in support as Mr Hassan conceded: "It's diverting attention from Gaza to Lebanon, and everyone's focusing on Lebanon now." After a pause, he added: "I'm not sure whether Hezbollah should have waited but it has lessened