According to this article there was a plan-in-waiting, and the captured soldiers provided the opportunity, now doesn't that sound familiar? The devious web-weavers/deceivers at work again.

If you use the link you need to scroll down the screen until it comes into view.





http://www.juancole.com/

War on Lebanon Planned for at least a Year
The Bush Administration's Grand Strategy and the Birth Pangs of Terror

Israeli war planes hit the cities of Sidon, south Beirut and Baalbak on Saturday and Israeli ground troops fought a hard battle to take over the village of Maroun al-Ras, said to be a Hizbullah rocket-launching site. The Israeli bombing of Sidon hit a religious complex linked to Hizbullah. The BBC reports that 'The UN's Jan Egeland said half a million people needed assistance - and the number was likely to increase. One-third of the recent Lebanese casualties, he said, appeared to be children. '

Matthew Kalman reveals that Israel's wideranging assault on Lebanon has been planned in a general way for years, and a specific plan has been in the works for over a year. The "Three Week War" was shown to Washington think tanks and officials last year on powerpoint by a senior Israeli army officer:
"More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail."


The Israelis tend to launch their wars of choice in the summer, in part because they know that European and American universities will be the primary nodes of popular opposition, and the universities are out in the summer. This war has nothing to do with captured Israeli soldiers. It is a long-planned war to increase Israel's ascendency over Hizbullah and its patrons.

But since Hizbullah's short-range katyushas can only hit targets 3-4 miles away, and were mainly being fired at the occupied Shebaa Farms, why worry about it so much?

1. If Hizbullah forced Israel out of the Shebaa Farms, it might increase pressure for it to give back the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and all of the West Bank-- the other territories stolen by Israel in 1967. The Israelis have their own Domino Theory, which haunts them the way the original haunted Lyndon Johnson-- and just as foolishly.

2. Some of Hizbullah's missiles might have been able to hit sensitive Israeli chemical or nuclear sites, or just cause panic by hitting Israeli cities. There was zero likelihood of Hezbollah launching such a strike unprovoked. But this capacity formed at least a slight drag on the Israeli ability to strike Iran and the Palestinians with impunity. The destruction of the Hizbullah arsenal may be the precursor of even more drastic action against the Palestinians and perhaps a bombing raid on Iran's nuclear research facilities near Isfahan.

Israel is a regional superpower, the only nuclear power in the Middle East proper, and possessing the most technologically advanced military capability and the most professional military. Since Egypt opted out of the military struggle for economic reasons and since the US invasion broke Iraq's legs, there is no conventional military threat to Israel. Israel seeks complete military superiority, for several reasons. One impetus is defensive, on the theory that it has to win every contest and can never afford to lose even one, given its lack of strategic depth (it is a geographically small country with a small population, caught between the Mediterranean and potentially hostile neighboring populations). But the defensive reasons are only one dimension.

There are also offensive considerations. The Right in Israel is determined to permanently subjugate the Palestinians and forestall the emergence of a Palestinian state. This course of action requires the constant exercise of main force against the Palestinians, who resist it, as well as threats against Arab or Muslim neighbors who might be tempted to help the Palestinians. Thus, Iraq and Iran both had to be punished and weakened. Likewise, the Israeli Right has never given up an expansionist ideology. For instance, the Israelis have a big interest in the Litani River in south Lebanon. If and when the Israeli military and political elite felt they needed to add territory by taking it from neighbors, they wished to retain that capability.

The remaining challenges to complete Israeli military superiority and freedom of movement are 1) asymmetrical forces such as Hamas and Hizbullah guerrilla cells wielding rockets and 2) the menace of future unconventional challenges such as an Iranian nuclear weapon (circa 2016 if in fact the Iranians are working on it, which is not proved). Given the alliance of Shiite Hizbullah with Shiite Iran, one capability shielded the other.

That this war was pre-planned was obvious to me from the moment it began. The Israeli military proceeded methodically and systematically to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure, and clearly had been casing targets for some time. The vast majority of these targets were unrelated to Hizbullah. But since the northern Sunni port of Tripoli could theoretically be used by Syria or Iran to offload replacement rockets that could be transported by truck down south to Hizbullah, the Israelis hit it. And then they hit some trucks to let truck drivers know to stay home for a while.

That is why I was so shaken by George W. Bush's overheard conversation with Tony Blair about the war. He clearly thought that it broke out because Syria used Hizbullah to create a provocation. The President of the United States did not know that this war was a long-planned Israeli war of choice.

Why is that scary? Because the Israeli planning had to have been done in conjunction with Donald Rumsfeld at the US Department of Defense. The US Department of Defense is committed to rapidly re-arming Israel and providing it precision laser-guided weaponry, and to giving it time to substantially degrade Hizbullah's missile capabilities. The two are partners in the war effort.

For the Bush administration, Iran and Hizbullah are not existential threats. They are proximate threats. Iran is hostile to US corporate investment in the oil-rich Gulf,, and so is a big obstacle to American profit-making in the region. Rumsfeld is worried about Iran's admission as an observer to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is to say, that he is worried about a budding Chinese-Islamic axis that might lock up petroleum reserves and block US investments. If Chinese economic and military growth make it the most significant potential challenger to the Sole Superpower in the coming century, a Chinese alliance with the oil-rich Muslim regions, including Iran, would be even more formidable. The Shanghai group has already pulled off one coup against Rumsfeld, successfully convincing Uzbekistan to end US basing rights in that country.

Rumsfeld also believes, contrary to all available evidence, that Iran is actively destabilizing Iraq and is conniving with Syria and Hezbollah to do so.
(In fact, the Iraqis had shaped charges in their depots and did not need to learn about them from Iran or Hizbollah). At some points, the Pentagon has even tried to blame Iran for the radical Sunni Arab violence in Iraq, which makes no sense at all (and thus that propaganda campaign has been put on the back burner).

Rumsfeld is so eager to stop what he believes is an Iranian nuclear weapons program that he reportedly has considered using tactical nuclear weapons against it preemptively. After all, a nuclear-armed Iran would forestall American gunboat diplomacy in the oil-rich Gulf.

Iran also supports Syria, and Rumsfeld believes that Syria is helping destabilize Iraq, and is also a patron for Hizbullah.

Clearly, if one could get rid of Iran and Hezbollah, in Rumsfeld World, Iraq is much more likely to turn out a delayed success than an absolute disaster. And then the stalled-out rush to Bush's vision of "democracy" (i.e. Big Private Property) in the region could proceed. In fact, the instability in Iraq mainly comes from Sunni Arab guerrillas, who hate Iran and it is mutual.

The Bush administration's perceived economic and geopolitical interests thus overlap strongly with Israel's perceived security interests, with both benefitting from an Israeli destruction of Hizbullah. It is not impossible that the US Pentagon urged the Israelis on in this endeavor. They certainly knew about and approved of the plan.

What is scary is that Cheney and Rumsfeld don't appear to have let W. in on the whole thing. They told him that Bashar al-Asad of Syria stirred up a little trouble because he was afraid that Iraq the Model and the Lebanese Cedar Revolution might be such huge successes that they would topple him by example (just as, after Poland and the Czech Velvet Revolution, other Eastern European strongmen fell). (Don't fall down laughing at the idea of Iraq and Lebanon as Republican Party success stories; people in Washington, DC, coccoon a lot and have odd ideas about the way the world is.) So, Bush thought, if that is all that is going on, then someone just needs to call al-Asad and reassure him that we're not going to take him out, and get him to rein in Hizbullah. And then the war would suddenly stop. No one told Bush that this war was actually an Israeli war of choice and that al-Asad had nothing to do with it, that, indeed, it could only happen because al-Asad is already irrelevant.

That is why Administration hopes of using the Israeli attempt to destroy Hezbollah as a wedge to convince Syria to give up rejectionism and detach itself from Iran are crazy.

Syria is not going to give up its stance toward Israel unless it at the very least gets back the occupied Golan Heights. That is non-negotiable for Damascus. Since the Israeli Right is diehard opposed to making that deal, Israel will go on occupying part of Syrian soil. Syria cannot accept that outcome. Likewise, the Alawi regime in Syria faces a powerful challenge from the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. The high Baath officials would be afraid that if they made peace with Israel and got nothing out of it for Syria, there would be a mass popular Islamist uprising. A separate peace that leaves the Palestinians to the Israelis' tender mercies would also stick in the craw of the Syrian public. The administration plan will fail.

Because of their fetish for states, the Neoconservatives of the Bush administration are unable to see that the Levant and points east are now the province of militia-parties that dominate localities and wield asymmetrical paramilitary force in such a way as to stymie states, whether local host states, local adversaries, or imperial Powers. Hizbullah in Lebanon, Hamas and other groups in Gaza and the West Bank, al-Qaeda/ radical Bedouins in the Sinai, the Muslim Brotherhood in some Sunni areas of Syria, the tribes and gangs of Maan in Jordan, the Peshmerga of the Kurds, the guerrilla groups of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, Badr Corps and Marsh Arabs of the Iraqi Shiites, the Basij and Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Iran, the party-tribes of Afghanistan--whether the Tajik Jami'at-i Islami or the Pushtun Taliban--and the biradaris and ethnic mafias of Pakistan, are all arguably as significant actors as states, and often more significant.

By its assault on Middle Eastern states, whether it takes the form of military confrontation or of "pressure" to "democratize, Neoconservatism in Washington and Tel Aviv has increased the power and saliency of militia rule throughout the region. The transition under American auspices of Iraq from a strong if odious central state to equally odious militia rule and chaotic violence is only the most obvious example of this process. More people have been killed in terror attacks in Iraq every month since February than were killed on September 11, 2001 in the US, and since Iraq is 11 times less populous than the US, the 6,000 killed in May and June are equivalent to 66,000 killed in civil war violence in the US. Condi Rice echoes the old Neocon theory of "creative chaos" when she confuses the Lebanon war with "the birth pangs" of a "new" Middle East. The chief outcome of the "war on terror" has been the proliferation of asymmetrical challengers. Israel's assault on the very fabric of the Lebanese state seems likely to weaken or collapse it and further that proliferation. Since asymmetrical challengers often turn to terrorism as a tactic, the "war on terror" has been, at the level of political society below that of high politics and the state, the most efficient engine for the production of terrorism in history.

posted by Juan @ 7/23/2006 06:29:00 AM 19

This article is tripe, it sites only one person as the source for this Israeli presentation and it doesn't say what the source of this information does, how he obtained this information. It all speculation and leftwing nonsense.

Turn the tables around and you've got Judith Miller a few years ago, is that what you're saying?

I am not sure what you are refering too but regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on you should present some evidence or site some sources to validate your arguments. None of this is done. And if Judith Miller did the same thing then its right wing tripe.

Read this link

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html



When Bush came to power for the first time, the Neo-Cons laid before him a coherent plan for the extension of the American Empire in the Middle East.

It contained three chapters:

One, to conquer Iraq in order to take control of its immense oil reserves and place an American garrison at the critical junction between the Caspian Sea oil and the Saudi resources.

Two, to break the Iranian regime and return Iran to the American bloc.

Three, to do the same to Syria and Lebanon.

It was not yet decided whether Iran would come before Syria, or the other way round. It might have been assumed that the experience of the American adventure in Iraq would cancel the next chapters.

The Iraqi people did not receive the occupying army with flowers.

The pretext for the invasion ­ Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction ­ was exposed as a blatant lie.

The armed insurrection continues.

The future of the Iraqi state hangs in the balance, even after the recent elections.

The country may well break up into three parts, creating shock waves all around the Middle East.

Naive people believe that after all this, Bush would not risk more adventures of this kind. They are wrong. First, because a primitive and vain person like him never admits to failure.

When one of his adventures fails, this just drives him on to even more ambitious ones. Second, the failure does indeed cost a lot of lives and destroys the infrastructure of life in Iraq, but that doesn’t matter for the planners of the operation.

The main aim ­ establishing a permanent garrison in the country - has been achieved.

Outside of Iraq, nobody is demanding that the American soldiers leave.

And, whatever the acts of sabotage, the Iraqi oil is controlled by the US. The oil barons, who are the patrons of the Bush family, can be well satisfied.

The Europeans and Russian are trying to block Bush’s path. He is now going to pay a state visit to the EU and NATO, trying to convince them by sweet talk and threats to cooperate in his adventures. Therefore, one must take seriously Bush’s and Cheney’s threats to unleash the Rottweiler.

The moment they feel that the way is clear, they will give the sign to Sharon.

Sharon will do his duty, in return for an American agreement to allow him to gobble up some more pieces of the Palestinian territories.

Will military action cause the regime of the Ayatollahs to collapse? I doubt it. It is, indeed, a detestable regime, but faced with an attack from the outside, especially from “Crusaders and Zionists”, the Iranian people will unite behind it. A proud people, with a glorious history like the Iranians, will not break easily.

Syria is a different target. Unlike Iraq and Iran, it has no oil resources.

But without it the American Empire will not be contiguous and it is an obstacle to Israel.

In the 1967 war, Israel conquered the Golan heights, which until then were known in Israel as “the Syrian heights”. In place of many dozens of Syrian villages, which were wiped from the face of the earth, Israel settlements sprang up.

The Syrians have never given up their resolve to recover their territory. In 1973, they tried to do this by war but were routed, in spite of a remarkable initial victory. Since then, the balance of military power has tilted even more in favor of Israel.

Therefore, Syria is using another method: harassing Israel by proxy, by giving support to Hizbollah and radical Palestinian organizations, whose leaders reside in Damascus. In order to make permanent its rule over the Golan heights, the Israeli government must break Syria.

The neo-cons in Washington ­ surprise, surprise ­ have the same aim. The pretext: the fact that Syrian soldiers are stationed in Lebanon.

Historically, Lebanon is a part of Syria. Damascus has never resigned itself to the establishment of a separate Lebanese state by the French colonialists in the first half of the 20th century.

At the most, it accepts Lebanon as a client state. The Syrian army entered Lebanon in 1976, at the height of the terrible civil war there. The Muslims and Druze, with help of the PLO, were poised to conquer the Christian areas.

It was the Christians (please remember!) who called upon the Syrians to come and save them.

Since then, the Syrians have remained there.

Many Lebanese believe that their departure would cause the civil war to break out again. In 1982 Israel tried to dislodge them. That was the main objective of the army general staff (as distinct from then Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon, whose main objective was to drive the Palestinians out).

But the invasion did not achieve its aim: in the end, the Israelis were driven out and the Syrians remained. This week, the Muslim leader Rafiq al-Hariri, who lately joined the opposition, was assassinated in Beirut. It is not yet known who did it. The huge American propaganda machine, which includes the Israeli media, has pointed at the Syrians. If they are indeed guilty, it was an act of supreme folly, since it was obvious that it would help the Americans build up the Lebanese opposition and arouse a storm of anti-Syrian sentiment. It happened at exactly the right moment for anyone interested in starting a campaign against Syria, under the slogan “End the Syrian Occupation!”

There is something laughable about this demand, coming as it does from two occupying powers: the Americans in Iraq and the Israelis in Palestine. But Rottweilers are not renowned for their sense of humor, any more than those who parade them around on a leash.

OK this second article is just like the first it makes claims without citing any sources what so ever. If I ever did this in school I would get an F.

Yeah, i generally have a hard time believing things without factual cited sources. This is why i don't believe a word that the right wing talk show hosts say or list on their website. No sources.

If you strip away all the "left-wing" rhetoric all he is really saying is that Israel had a plan to deal military with the 11,000 missiles pointing at them from Lebanon and were just waiting for the right moment to execute it. It is painfully obvious that they felt threatened by those missiles. Who wouldn't be? Israel has 3 conditions for ending this war - return the soldiers, disarm hezbollah and deploy the lebanese army on the border. If it were about the soldiers, that would be the only condition.

Even Israel's strongest supporters realize it is not about 2 kidnapped soldiers.

Talk shows are that talk shows. Its their opinion just as is Air America, its their opinion on most things.

If you take a look at Randi Rhodes' website, she has a considerable amount of research. Most of it she never cites on air, she just refers you to the website. I often disagree with Randi myself, and I have no doubt you disagree on almost everything, but you can't say she doesn't do her homework. here is one example:
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/node/3593

Whenever I chose to post an article I always consider the author.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors...&name=Juan+Cole


You will find bio material at the above link or do a google and see others.


lenal

This absolutely means nothing since he is basically citing things that happened in the US and provides no reference or source for his information. His credentials means he can talk intelligently about the region they do not however preclude from providing sources for things as secret meetings which he bases his whole article on.

Cole cites an article which sources a military officer speaking on condition of anonymity. That is the same standard that every newspaper in the USA uses to establish a fact. The reporter themselves vouches for authenticity and no-one expects them to reveal a secret source without at least a court order.

On top of that, all he is declaring is a simple statement of common knowledge. Israel and the USA have had high level military contacts for over 50 years. If you want to argue with Cole, at least argue intelligently. It is essentially meaningless that an Israeli officer came to the USA to talk shop. Happens all the time. The decision was made by civilian leaders. What we really want to know is whether or not Olmert called Bush or Rumsfeld a few months ago and talked about this. The article does not allege that but that would be better proof of collusion than a routine military briefing.

Here is the specific quote I am referencing in this article for clarity.



This quote implies that this current action in the Middle East was pre-planned and the article in general implies it was premeditated. Do I doubt that Israel had such contingency plans, of course not. They would be foolish not too. Do they consult with the US on such things. Its highly likely they do, we are their biggest ally. None of these things I am questioning. Basically, this article is implying that the US and Israel are in some sort collusion to intentionally attack Lebanon based on no evidence provided to the reader.

Opinion is not fact no matter how many times anyone repeats it.

Israel is defending herself from attacks.

You can argue if it is overkill, but the fact is Hezzbollah has an armed faction that commits acts of outright terrorism. Hezzbollah provoked Israel.

end of story.


people link to blogs as if they were the word of god. They ain't. They are mostly links to links to links, and full of opinion. Nothing wrong with opinions. They are just no substitute for facts.

Yes that's true, that's exactly what the article is implying and they do present very little evidence of it.

My point is that even if that were true, it would not necessarily be a bad thing. That is where I disagree with Cole. Hezbollah has been building up rockets in South Lebanon for years. Those rockets are of little military use, but extremely effective at killing civilians. They obviously have been making their own plans.

The main thing I disagree with Israel on and the thing that they are really being justly criticized for is that they have attacked civilian targets - the airport, the roads, the suburbs of Beirut.

I can agree with that. I would say an airport is a justifiable target and I have heard reports that Hezbollah does liek to hide things in civilian areas so if they are attacked they can say the other side attacked civilians. I do not know if thats the case but I have heard that here and there. But I would agree Israel should make efforts not to attack civilian areas if possible. But if Hezbollah is launching rockets from civilian areas I think it put Israel in a no win situation.

I think they bombed the airport to prevent Iran from flying weapons in. Same reason they bombed the road to Syria. Nonetheless civilian casualties were inevitable and thousands of foreigners trapped. Definitely a no-won situation and terrible Public Relations.

The article was written by Juan Cole. Are you familiar with Juan Cole's credentials?

GOP guy, I must object to your posts.
Juan Cole's credentials are impeccable. You really must drop your objections to anything he says.

If members wish to believe hearsay as indicted in a post on this topic, instead of granting any credence to an article by a reputable source so be it.

I too have heard the allegations that Hezbollah stores its missiles etc in homes and schools but wonder why not an abundance, or any, evidence exhibited. Surely with satellite and GPS technology this could be validated. If someone finds this proof, please post it because so far I haven't seen it.

The main point of conflicts in the ME are that they are unwinnable militarily. The overwhelming air and sea power cannot accomplish it so ground efforts are fallen back on, and then the guerilla forces have the edge. The result is a stalemate and the long list of casualties inflicted on both side to civilian and military members.I see this as proven by the history of the region both past and present.

lenal

If the missiles are inside a school or home, they cannot be seen by a satellite (BTW this is why I didn't buy the WMD's in Iraq argument. They showed satellite photos of hanger-like buildings they called "missile silos" They turned out to be chicken coops with only real chickens in them).

I saw one picture of a hezbollah artillery gun, it was well hidden in some sort of building with only the tip of the gun sticking out. Don't know what kind of building it was, but if all their weapons are so well hidden then the only way to find them is to physically search every building.

But you are right that the conflict is unwinnable militarily. Only a political solution can stop the violence.

Credentials are fine, he obviously know the Middle East but if you are going to say that the US and Israel are in collusion to attack Lebanon and that the planned to this regardless of whether 2 soldiers were abducted you should site sources, every journalist has to do this to be credible. Else its an op ed peice. If someone on the right did this your reaction would probably be veyr similar to mine.

Meanwhile other commie radicals are calling for a cease fire...

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=45504



Hey come on Pope. Lebanese and Palestinian rights? Only the Israelis are good enough for that. Exceptionalism is all the rage!

Actually, it is an op-ed piece.

Matthew Kalman, a very consistantly Pro-Israel reporter, is reporting much the same...

Israel set war plan more than a year ago
Strategy was put in motion as Hezbollah began gaining military strength in Lebanon

Matthew Kalman, Chronicle Foreign Service

Friday, July 21, 2006

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...&sn=001&sc=1000

That's Cole's source. He himself has no inside track to Israel or the US military because he is not in line with their agendas.

Kalman is doing perfectly good journalism under these circumstances. It doesn't make it true, but it is consistent with what already know and GOPGuy has admitted to be true about military links between Israel and the USA in general.