"Real" Problems; Israel wary of toppling Lebanese gov't

[ProSense]

"Real" Problems

By Matthew Yglesias | bio

Snip...

Nevertheless, obviously, removing him from power hardly resolved the situation. The "real problem" in essence, was not Saddam. So why do we care about this years-old talking point?

We care because it's eerily similar to arguments currently being mounted about Syria and Iran. And, much as with this aspect of the argument about Saddam, the factual story has some truth to it. Damascus and Teheran really do support Hezbollah and Hamas, etc. But the story that these nations are the "real problem" is, like the story with regards to Iraq, a fairly serious piece of self-deception.

I recall from Hebrew school that they were teaching us kids a much more generic version of this story way back when. The "real problem," according to our liberal Reform teachers, was the leaders of the various Arab states. These autocrats presided over fairly crappy polities that did poorly by their own citizens (true). One strategy they adopted to maintain power was to cast attention away from themselves and onto the Israelis and their treatment of the Palestinians (true). The lack of good-faith concern for the fate of Palestinians could be seen by these governments' shamefully bad treatment of Palestinian refugees (true). Ergo, the "real problem" in Israel/Palestine was the leaders of the Arab states stirring up trouble (false).

As I say, that was the generic version of the story. Then we got the Iraq version of the story. Now we're hearing the Syria/Iran version. It all amounts, however, to a failure to admit the obvious -- that Palestinian rage is, whether or not you think it's justifies in any or all of its particulars, perfectly authentic. The "real problem" is exactly what it superficially appears to be -- Palestinians by and large want things that Israel won't give them and won't be made happy by concessions of the sort offered at Camp David or by "unilateral disengagement."

more...

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/jul/16/real_problems

Whither America?

joshtpm's picture
By Josh Marshall | bio

There is no shortage of things to shudder at and lament in this current spiral of death in the Levant. But what stands out to me right now is the seeming irrelevance and marginality of the United States.

Where is America? Whoever you believe is right or wrong in this mess, I doubt very much that the powers directly involved have the will and ability to de-escalate the situation. Some want to. Others don't. But take the region as a whole and the differences between will, desire and ability fade into insignificance. (Here's an interesting article from the Jerusalem Post on Israel's aims vis a vis the Lebanese government, based largely on an interview with a high-ranking IDF officer.)

Some might say that the Bush administration's silence is acquiescence or approval of the Israeli raids into Lebanon and Gaza. But I think it's more than that. This is silence born of over-extension and policy exhaustion. Thinking back through the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s -- with key crises in each decade -- I don't think there's any example where an American administrtion has so thoroughly marginalized itself or shown such impotence and irrelevance.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/jul/15/whither_america

From the link in the previous article :

Jul. 16, 2006 2:07 | Updated Jul. 16, 2006 8:19Israel wary of toppling Lebanese gov't
By ORLY HALPERN

Snip...

Despite the missile strikes on the home and offices of Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the official said that assassinating Nasrallah was not the goal.

"We wanted to send him a message that he is not immune and we can get him anywhere," he said. He added that the army's goal was not to dismantle Hizbullah.

"It's not realistic to dismantle Hizbullah," he said, "or to chase them out of Lebanon until there are no Hizbullah gunmen there." The goal was rather to weaken Hizbullah and to distance it from the Israeli border where it had built up an infrastructure, he said.

The official said Israel was always willing to use indirect channels for solving the problem, like using foreign mediators "as we have done in the past."

In the end, the military cannot solve the security problem Israel faces, he said."There is no military solution. It's always diplomatic."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886010029&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A World on Fire... And the Failure of Bush's War on Terror

by Matt Stoller, Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 07:18:11 PM EST

I've noticed some clucking in the right-wing wrongosphere about silence from the major left-wing blogs on the situation in the Middle East. There hasn't been silence, but there has been humility in the face of a fast-moving situation that is difficult to understand. I know I believed awhile back that the foreign policy course Bush pursued was disastrous, but I didn't know how that disaster would unfold. In other words, we may be watching an unfolding new war in its initial stages, or perhaps cooler heads will prevail, but either way I have no special insight on which direction this crisis will roll. I do know that the Friedman's and right-wing pundits who talked of freedom on the march are idiots, and shouldn't be listened to, and those who recognized that Bush's war on terror was always a fraud and based on a disastrous strategy were right.

It's quite stunning how pathetic Bush is. Right now, the State Department he runs is so demoralized and incompetent that it cannot even give information to Americans trapped in Lebanon. And Bush's weakness now means that American citizens are being bombed by Israel, and the military is unable to provide a safe exit. American citizens are in this war zone, and Bush can do nothing. That is weakness.

For progressives, the strategic problems here are worth understanding, especially as they apply to our domestic political arguments about foreign policy. Steve Clemons has an extraordarily interesting post on the unfolding situation, and how there is ample reason to believe that Israel's outsized response is aimed at America, not Hezbollah.

Snip...

Bush's impotence has never been on clearer display than it is right now. When you unleash grand forces of mechanized warfare in unstable and strategically critical regions, it's impossible to predict what will happen. And that means that there's no obvious path forward policy-wise, except that realists like Condoleeza Rice need to get an upper hand within the Bush administration over lunatics like Bolton and Cheney. Politically, though, the path forward is to get rid of Bush and his enablers like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Lieberman, etc.

more...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/7/15/191811/094

[sam sarrha]

1. Bu$h is so incompetent i am sure he has someone else wipe his butt for him

or he would mess that up too..

[bigtree]

2. they are ensuring that anti-Israel candidates support will increase

with their violence exploding on the Lebanese population

[TheFarseer]

3. Yes, that would be bad

the Lebanese president seems halfway reasonable based on my limited knowledge. It would be much worse to create a power vacuum that terrorists could potentially fill.

[JDPriestly]

4. Some neutral third party will have to intervene.

I am a strong supporter of Israel. But, I heard something on, I think it was Rachel Maddow, last night that made me stop and think. An Israeli peace activist said something to the effect that we everyone has to stop thinking about who is right and who is wrong. At this point, it doesn't matter. There has to be peace. With the U.S. presence in the Middle East growing and the technology making it possible for the parties to kill more and more civilians, the price of continued war is too high.

When two children fight on the playground, a teacher or an older student has to intervene and separate them. Otherwise, they will fight until one of them can't fight any more or runs away. After all these years of fighting, we have to realize that none of the fighters in the Middle East are going to run away. They have to be separated. The separating has to be done by a powerful country or entity that both sides respect and trust. The Palestinians do not trust the US. Israel cannot trust the UN or Germany. Neither country is likely to trust the British who held the protectorate over the area after the Turks left. We have to identify a country or perhaps several countries that both the Palestinians and the Israelis would trust and get that country or those countries to disarm the parties and impose a truce. Then cooperative efforts to work together could begin -- involving just those Palestinians and Israelis who are willing to work together to establish tolerance, prosperity and peace. In my view, at this time, that is how the world should proceed. Instead of passing sanction resolutions against one side or the other, the UN should enforce peace on both sides. No more shelling, no more bombing, no more violence by either side. Place all prisoners under neutral guard until they have been tried and sentenced for whatever they are accused of doing.

[Laotra]

5. As US is impotent

That third party should be EU acting unilaterally, on it's back yeard, with decisive measures of stick and carrot, addressing the grievances of all sides. Should, but not likely.

[ProSense]

6. Even in Iraq, All Politics Is Local

July 13, 2006Op-Ed Contributor

Even in Iraq, All Politics Is Local

By RORY STEWART

Kabul, Afghanistan

A GREAT many of the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq arise from a single problem: the American-led coalitions’ lack of trust in local politicians. Repeatedly the Western powers, irritated by a lack of progress, have overruled local leaders, rejected compromises and tried to force through their own strategies. But the Westerners’ capacity is limited: they have little understanding of Afghan or Iraqi politics and rely too heavily on troops and money to solve what are fundamentally political and religious problems.

The coalitions cannot achieve political change in the absence of strong local support. And when they try to do so, they undermine their local allies. Iraqi and Afghan national and regional leaders have a far better understanding of the limits and possibilities of the local political scenes; they are more flexible and creative in finding compromises; and unlike the coalition officials, they are elected. They must be given real power and authority. This may seem an obvious prescription — but in fact the coalitions are not allowing it to happen.

I walked for several weeks across northern Afghanistan shortly after the coalition invasion, and I was struck by the strength and vibrancy of local politics. For four days I walked through blackened villages of ethnic Hazaras that had been torched by Taliban fighters in a last bid to impose central control. Yet within a few weeks of the Taliban retreat in these remote areas — some a 10-day walk from the nearest road in the winter snow — political councils had re-emerged to balance the demands of the community and the realities of local power.

There was a different political system in almost every village: one was controlled by a feudal chief who could recite a genealogy stretching back 15 generations; another by a mullah who had been backed by Iranian money during the Afghan civil war. In western Afghanistan, a former guerrilla leader named Ismail Khan was turning Herat into the most secure and prosperous city in the country.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/opinion/13stewart.html