Interesting comment from geezer that is worth highlighting:
[…] does the unanimous vote of the multi-party Israeli cabinet (one abstention) to accept or endorse the cease-fire suggest that there was no coup afoot in Israel? Or that the White House is not furious with Olmert? Or that the WHite House did not perform badly here?
Fox News is reporting this morning that the cease-fire agreement is already in trouble because Hezbollah will not discuss disarmament. Might matters be forming up along the lines suggested by Major John? In that case who are the real winners here?
The rest of the world exists in the Big Lie: One Cosmos and will never support Israel. A cease-fire charade that Hezbollah will never honor might benefit domestic political support for Israel, perhaps?
In an update to my post yesterday I allowed for this possibility as it occured to me (after my initial knee-jerk fury) that Bush had used a similar tactic with respect to Iraq—namely, that he gave Hussein a last, public, and internationally-monitored chance to prove he’d disarmed, knowing (most likely) that Saddam would call the bluff and rely upon the caterwauling and disapproval of a couple of bought-off UN Security Council member countries to prevent an invasion.
So it’s possible that his administration has orchestrated, along witih Olmert, the same kind of plan here—knowing, as nearly everyone must, that Hizballah will refuse to disarm.
What I hadn’t counted on, however, was Nasrallah’s refusal to stop fighting long enough to get resupplied. Because now should he not, Israel will have international cover—and it will be a solid cover, as the US and Israel both capitulated to a much softer agreement than they came out for initially.
Which puts Israel (and the US) in the driver’s seat so long as the gamble pays off and Hizballah interprets the cease fire as a sign of weakness, and if—and this is the important bit—1) Olmert really isn’t the dithering feckless appeasenik he’s being portrayed as, or 2) the Israeli government is about to topple.
As Geezer points out, however, the unanimous multi-party vote—along with other signals (the confusion at Stratfor, Bush’s steady commitment to the fight against terrorism despite enormous political pressures; the fact that the cease fire agreement makes no sense for Israel, and would quite obviously weaken it)—suggests that something bigger is afoot here.
At least, that’s the conclusion I’m leaning toward now.
Which means that this Caroline Glick pieceis wrong—as was this piece by the (perhaps not terribly reliable) Israeli Insider, and this piece by Haaretz.
Or perhaps Israel is running its own disinformation campaign—giving off the appearance of a crisis of leadership while behind the scenes there are serious plans in place to take the next major step in the war on terror.
Is it wishful thinking? Am I being lied to by the delightful comforts of my new velour undershorts? Perhaps. After all, I’m not terribly used to being more confident in the Bush’s strategems than Powerline or Hugh Hewitt.
But nevertheless, my pessimism is a bit abated today, ironically thanks to Nasrallah’s apparent idiocy and his misreading of the situation (a misreading that I may be fairly accused of initially sharing, and one which could lead to the fall of the Lebanese government, not the Israeli government.
I sure do hope I was wrong then and right now, is all I can say.)
****
update: Looks like I’m on the same page as Captain Ed.
More here.
I’ll be happy to accept your apology, since you’ve just come round to the argument I made that made you go bugfuck yesterday.
Not to gloat or anything.
As the Israeli government begins to collapse next week, and it will, all bets are off. Peace
I won’t pretend to know any more about Lebanese politics than the next guy who is paying attention. But my seat of the pants Bullshit take is that Seniora (sp) rightly fears a coup attempt at this point. Sending Lebananese forces South out of Beirut on a fool’s errand will just embolden Nasrallah.
Imhotep, I am willing to bet at this point that Israel’s government will NOT fall. It would be insane to demonstrate disunity at this particular point.
I believe we may be thinking what we hope. That is not to say that something is not “afoot”. As with the ridiculous footsy playing with the UN, just to give Jack Iraq and his buddies cover, I fear timing is everything, we can be assured that world media will conclude that somehow Israel is the real reason this accord failed, because, I believe, the time to move forward and crush Hezbollah is now.
What is the likelihood that behind the scenes Israel, France, and the U.S. are negotiating to resupply the Non-Hizballah militias, Sunni, Druze, and Christian?
The delay of the meeting is a good thing–obviously there is nothing to talk about if Hezbollah refuses to disarm, and Israel gets more time to destroy them. And if Israel prevails, this obviously will help the Lebanese government, with terrorists in their midst, as Gillerman so aptly put in in the UN a few weeks ago.
As the Israeli government begins to collapse next week, and it will, all bets are off. Peace
If Israel’s government’s falls I certainly doubt there will be any peace.
when has imhotep ever been right? If I could see his betting ticket, I’d bet on every horse he didn’t bet on. Peace a horse meat.
Darth Rove strikes again.
Guys, just as an experiment: ignore everything every pundit has said. Just look at the text of the resolution, what we’ve heard directly from actul actors, and what has actually happened.
What do you get?
I get
– a mistaken attack prematurely inciting Israel going on a war footing
– major battlefield prep
– a reconnaisance in force, and reduction of (possibly unexpected) major fortifications in the south
– an opportunity taken to move forward, putting 30000 men into the south, including …
– a classic airmobile insertion of forces to encircle the HB from the north
and a “cease fire agreement” that we all could predict wasn’t going to be effective, but with the Israelis in much better tactical position than they were a week ago.
It’s as I was saying before: if you assume they know what they’re doing better than you do, what can you deduce from what they are doing?
No, it would be Democratic…see US Congress, Minority Party.
but on no account can disunity be a course of action!
Within the community of the reasonable, yes, they will have cover. But you give the international community more credit than it deserves. And it is this latter community that is substantially larger, more vocal, and more inclined to opine in opposition to Israel no matter what “cover” may be present.
Eventually, it’ll have to be accepted that this war will have to be fought from the minority position, and in the face of relenting criticism from the “world community” for which moral equivalency is the rule put into service for anti-western agitprop. This will be the case at least as long as Bush remains in office, as he is a convenient screen against which to project the Middle East’s ills, but will surely morph into a new focal point upon his departure.
But maybe I’m being too cynical. If you believe Howard Dean on MTP this morning, the people standing in those airport lines this week were not concerned about this war, but about North Dakota farmers, the eroding middle class, and universal health care. These are the REAL issues, folks. Never mind that they’re moot without a country to support them.
First off I don’t think this was thought out by Israel in advance, but Hizbollah’s incursion into Israel forced their hand.So Israel ran with it. I agree with the Capt. I think Israel is playing Hizbollahs political game, only better.
As I said before any cease fire that leaves a armed Hizbollah anywhere inside Lebanon is not a victory for Israel. Israel has to control the Bekaa valley in order for this to work.
Things are about to get interesting.
An Israeli official (sorry, wasn’t paying attention; didn’t get his name) interviewed on Fox about an hour ago may have given an indication of Israel’s exit strategy.
He said that, under the terms of the UN resolution, as the withdraw from the Litani back into Israel, they are allowed not only to engage in self-defense, but are authorized to disarm any Hizbs they encounter. He implied the withdrawal would take at least a week. That’s a long time to travel what, 18 or 19 miles?
Are the Hizbs too stupid to stay out of sight and allow Israeli troops to pass through peacefully?
You bet.
From Michael Totten:
It’s dead now anyway. Hez has fired rockets into Israel, so the Israeli army will keep moving.
Glad to see your pessimism abated a bit, Jeff. I think the key concept here is to realize that since Hez, and by extension Syria and Iran, don’t have the wherewithal to go toe to toewith the IDF, their only hope for winning this round was to win the political battle. That requires being able to wear down Israel domestically with rocket and other terror attacks and skew the international perception to Lebanon as the victim. They are losing the political battle for three reasons.
The domestic and foreign MSM no longer has uncontested control of the narrative.
The Israeli’s have the example of the US changing the equation in the political arena by the simple action of putting national interest ahead of international (UN) censure. No one but the US has had the stones or force to make any pronounciation or initiative by the UN work in over ten years and the US will not cross the line any longer and agree that Israel is the aggressor. Iran and Syria should have realized this watching the US snubbing Arafat a few years back when his attempt to get the US to call off Israel using the same old tired ploys tanked.
Israel has the US example changing the equation in the physical arena to forward projection of the defensive war against terrorism, a very different OOB, and a very different expectation of the price of direct assaults on civilians.
It’s still a chess game, but neither the US, Israel, the Brits, and quite a few others are being distracted by the bells and whistles of the Islamists and their progressive allies any more.
“The Dread Pundit Bluto.”
Everyone has these cool web cognomens.
Hell, I even use my real name.
I feel so inadequate.
Hmmmm.
@ Jeff
The reason why the vote was unanimous is because it’s difficult to change the government in the midst of fighting a war. With the war over, officially at least, the knives can come out and Olmert will pay with his political life.
So I wouldn’t read that unanimous vote being appreciation *for* the ceasefire but rather *for* the opportunity to politically disembowel Olmert.
In other words your first impression was correct.
Hmmm.
I understand completely. I use my name too and I’d feel inadequate except that, well, I was born in South Korea.
And everyone knows that ethnic South Koreans are perfect in every way.
*shrug* it’s a burden, but one I bear willingly for all mankind.
Charlie(Colorado), you and I may both be as bugf*k crazy as anybody named Abdul, but for me it’s a comfort that I’m not the only one thinking that way.
Brian, you’re right, but you haven’t thought it all the way through.
“World opinion”—meaning the Eurodrones and media—is always, at least for the near future, going to fall out the same way: Kill Jews. Anybody killing Jews is a hero; any case of Jews defending themselves is an outrage. And anybody capable of stage-managing an object lesson to those ends is a reliable news source.
That being the case, it doesn’t matter one whit what Israel does. If Israel cowers and accepts the rockets and bombs, Kill Jews! Look, it’s easy! If Israel responds effectively, Kill Jews! Look how vile they are!
It means they have an absolutely free hand to do whatever they please. And from what I see so far, it looks like they’ve finally tumbled to that.
Regards,
Ric
In other words, you hope both administrations have been lying to us. So do I. If they are, they’re being damned clever, and clever is a good thing to be in a war like this.
We need to win more than I need to know.
tw: served
Who else matters?
Charlie: you can read me under my own name, Al Brown, at Newsbusters.
The Dread Pundit Bluto remains the internet’s number one site involving lame wordplay from “The Princess Bride”.
Right. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Hence my lack of appreciation for getting the cover of the UN and world opinion on our side, because it’s a fool’s errand. It might look good in the history books, but right now it’s of little value.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why support of Israel is met with so much indignation; why the state of Israel and Jews worldwide are the focus of such derision. Israel is the canary in the coal mine. What is happening there (along with the plot foiled this week) highlights perfectly the war we’re engaged in, yet much of the world sides against Israel (or suspects puppetmaster Bush). I see it everywhere, even in extensions of my own family: the willingness to take what is clearly the wrong position and take the wrong side in a cultural and religious war happening right before our eyes.
I can understand people being opportunistic for political or PR purposes, but I’m talking about a force of opinion (a.k.a. world opinion) that is much greater than mere opportunism, but is rather casually and openly anti-western and anti-liberal, aided and abetted in large measure by people within the west.
Never before have I believed so strongly that I’m on the right side of history, but why the liberal west is having to fight itself in addition to an enemy that wishes to destroy it leaves me beyond flummoxed.
I am fascinated by this whole thing. One minute I think the US and Israel are being the foxes, and the next, I think we are the chickens. It really is a cipher.
For the last few nights, when I go to bed, I’ve felt like I just watched a mid-season virtual “24”. I just can’t wait for the next episode. A real life soap opera! Who could ask for anything more?
TW: Just what is the question?
Who could ask for anything more?
As long as Nasrallah gets to spend some quality time with Jack Bauer in the next episode, nobody.
Reports are that Nasrallah is already reneging on the ceasefire:
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=2297
Amen to that! My hopes are high, but all too often, Bush has not lived up to his Rovian reputation.
Israel now controls the South of Lebanon, which is Nasrallah’s base of support. He now has to deal with the rage of the North, not to mention that Israel was bombing Hezzbollah’s social “do-gooder” buildings in Beirut. They were also bombing their banking and crimanal buildings, as well. Israel gets to stay where they are at until the Lebanese army and the UN troops get there. Meanwhile, the south will be cleaned out by 30,000 Israeli troops.
Bloggers always overreact in the beginning. It takes awhile to see the lay of the land.
Who really relies on Hezzbollah to stop lobbing rockets at Israel? Israel only has to stop offensive manuevers, which is fine since they just acheived their offensive goal conviently after the UN vote. Now they can defend themselves against the army of Hezz terrorists they have encircled.
Strategery, it’s a fine wine.
Before the fighting began, Israel was aware of the following:
1. They would be the bad guys.
2. The world would demand a cease fire.
3. Hizballah would use the cease fire to re-arm.
4. Negotiation is useless.
5. Anything less than total victory is a loss.
So, how can you continue killing the enemy while placating the nations of the world by seemingly honoring the demands of a cease fire? Israel has shown the way. She has allowed Hizballah to break the terms of an agreement which the terror organization could not tolerate. Hizballah and its UN apologists and supporters have been snookered. Now Israel must maintain her courage. The question is, will she?
All spelling errors above should be ignored because only grammar hippies care about correct spelling or sentence structure.
A twofer? Illustrate yet again the worthless role France and the UN consistently play? The UN is an obstacle, and corrupt.
I’ve got to agree with you, ts9. The UN is nothing but a steaming pile of horseshit ready to be thrown at anyone with even an iota of common sense.
TW: clearly – a word disallowed at the UN
There is one big problem with your formulation Puppymax. The media reports that a UN ceasefire has been passed by the security council. But Israel continues to fight and reportedly continue to do so until 7:00 AM Israel time tomorrow. So, Israel continues to fight but are scoring a propaganda victory because HzB continues to fire rockets? Perhaps by the technical language of the UN resolution Israel is not violating it, but in the court of world opinion they are. But we shall see what happens tomorrow. And the day after.
Israel would have been better off to have reached the Litani a few days ago. But maybe they held off in order to obtain the UN resolution…seems the most plausible explanation.
I never bought the argument that “Cowboy” Bush lost his cojones in his second term because of his low approval ratings, pressure from screeching Europeans, scolding by face-lifted and/or alcoholic Democrats, etc.
Some blog or radio show had a quote from an army officer to the effect that Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld were playing a game of three-dimensional Vulcan Mind-meld chess that required strategizing so far into the future that none of us mere mortals could even begin to comprehend what was really going on.
That scenario makes a lot more sense than Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld suddenly deciding to utterly capitulate to the likes of Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad.
TW: “mans.” It takes real mans to do mans jobs.
Yes, they do the monkey doo, but I believe that they are actually active and willing participants in the problem.
One only hopes that both Israel and the USA are really as clever as you all seem to think. The one thing that we can always count on in addition to world wide anti-Semitism is the fact that the Arabs have “never missed an opportunity to miss and opportunity.”
Even if things go the way you suggest, you can be assured that the “international community” will always heap scorn and not approbation upon Israel for destroying Hezbollah.
mRed –
Of course they are. Kofi Annan is the Asshat of all asshats. But what do we exzpect? He is from Africa – the most corrupt place in the universe(after the Mid-East, that is).
By the way, the History Channel recently ran a program about the Iran-Iraq War. In a segue into current events, the narration said that Bush ordered Rumsfeld to design a campaign against Iran that could be implemented “at a moment’s notice.”
This order came down in late 2004.
LD
Corrupt, absolutely, but what occurs there is far beyond greed or desire to humiliate the US. The Un has become the international Chicago mob accepting payment for protection and cover. My only question is, just how active are they in participating in this world wide war to defeat democracy and freedom?
How does one implement a plan against Iran at a moment’s notice? By controling Iraq, which is one huge aircraft carrier. Thank you idiot leftists for continuing to not get it at all.
I will now contend with the Hezz like hoards at the Walmart grocery store. But since I am in Texas, I will not be supplying a battleground report. But I will be buying some fancy liberal cheese.
I have no question about that at all. As I see it, the UN is the biggest obstacle to peace in the whole world.
TomW, it would be interesting to know what kinds of weapons are being stockpiled in Iraq/Kuwait. But I have no need to know…lets just hope the NYT doesn’t find out.
Ah, but the question is, do you, like Jak Bauer, sleep with a pillow under your gun?
tw: one way to solve problems.
Jack.
Preview is my friemd.
Look at the nations they continuously place in charge of human rights and you’ll have your answer.
Is the NYTs a security council member or just supplying intel?
“But Israel continues to fight and reportedly continue to do so until 7:00 AM Israel time tomorrow. So, Israel continues to fight but are scoring a propaganda victory because HzB continues to fire rockets?”
– And at 7 AM, or shortly thereafter, the Hezzi-Nazi’s will try to sneak a last hail of rockets into the mix, and the IDF will respond accordingly, so this “cease fire” is wholly in Kofi “graft for food” Annon’s mind. Bush and company are forcing Nasrallah into a corner. Best to play him while he’s still alive.
TW: corner. Yes, you turing chucklehead. I said that already.
Let Dr. Sanity explain.
And Afghanistan. Just because Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have forgotten Afghanistan doesn’t mean Jack Bauer has.
I just heard a report on CNN that could be huge: The Syrians seem to be clearing lands in their mine fields and massing tanks. Anyone have any more information on this?
lands = lanes.
yeah, this has been rto’s assertion since the beginning. strategery.
– She was on FOX last night saying the same thing. A miltary analyst who was on with her, said he knew of no intel from any of the services that would support such a mobilization. Best guess is Iran is following the same script as Cuba used over the years to rally public support via phoney “defense excersizes”. Hard to tell. She also said that Iran was getting ready to strike Israel, which while not totally impossible, isn’t credible.
BBH, “she” is pretty nonspecific…gotta name?
Charlie (Colorado)—I think Jeff was just teasing us by acting out the control room scene from “Jews in Space” at the end of Mel Brooks’ History of the World: Part One last week…
Nah, he’s just young. I was young once.
I even remember.
Some of it. (It was the 60’s….)
Charlie,
I would say you are a good example of how someones triumph of being right (that is, I have been agreeing with you, the future will tell if we were right), is diminished by being an asshole about it.
A little humility goes a long ways.
A little arrogance goes backwards farther.
I’d slow down the self back-patting. It is unseemly, and misplaced, in my utterly unsolicited opinion.
Which doesn’t detract from the point that we have been on a similar track regarding these events.
Off topic, but someone else mentioned the Deaniac on MTP this morning. He evaded the question of whether there’s room in the Party of the Donkey for different opinions about the war in Iraq by saying the mistake Joe Lieberman made was “embracing the President.” [Capitalization mine]
So, since when is it a bad thing to support your President in a time of war?
And how blatant can you be about the fact that your only platform is “HATE Bush!”
Sorry… that had to come out.
TW: Stroking that velour has put Jeff in a much better mood than before.
Sorry…. only caught a small part of the convo on my way to do some chore. Maybe another poster saw the same vid, and can help. I think I do recall she was some sort of Arabic expatriot, possibly Iranian. After awhile, with so many talking heads on the tube these days, it tends to blur if you don’t pay close attention.
It’s good to see the shift to a more “big-picture” take on things, and here’s a couple ideas that seem overlooked by all the stratego/battleship/risk peeps:
* Hezbollah’s provocation was met with a response they did not foresee or plan for. A wonderfully disproportionate response. 9/11 was met with the occupation of two entire nations (inasmuch as the argument that “Sadaam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda” implies that our actions in Iraq are seen to be a “misguided” response to the 9/11 attacks.) Israel has continued the pattern, and this will make for a bit more back-and-forth at the next terrorist planning meeting, as well as raise the response-to-provocation bar should Hillary or Al or Barack ever be called on to actually DO something in response to terrorism.
* We committed to a diplomatic response and Condi and her team followed through. The French played ball on this one, allowing Israel at least a month of latitude, and by working towards the best UN agreement she could get, Condi kept faith with the French. OK that’s creepy, but does this in some way shame the French for their lack of faith and treachery with respect to Iraq? I think it does. More importantly, irrespective of whatever commitment people may think this shows to “working with the international community”, we have taken an opportunity to show that the US is a trustworthy partner in the run-up to a serious confrontation with Iran. That seems important.
So I’m an asshole. There is no greater pleasure than saying to someone “I told you so”, especially after he went to such great lengths to be an ass about it.
I’d take it a step further than that. Not only did Condi follow the diplomatic process, with great diligence and at great length, allowing Israel the 30 days that preparing the battlespace seems always to take (Major John, is that a good rule of thumb? It seems to come up over and over) but having done so, there’s a clear UN resolution in place that HB has already refused, the French have already shown themselves to be perfidious (again!) in a pretty public way, the Israelis are on record as being willing to take the “peaceful diplomatic approach” if they can, and in the mean time their tactical position looks pretty durn good to me — and from Totten’s conversation, maybe not so bad to the IDF either.
And for all the talk about Olmert’s government falling, his approval rating in Israel, I just read, has plummeted from its amazing (ever known any Israelis?) level of 73 percent to the unimaginably gloomy level of …
… 66 percent.
What the fuck are you talking about?
The only person being an ass is you.
I apologized for misreading your tone. And yet you kept on going. And keep on going. What the fuck is wrong with you?
You know what? Don’t answer that. I don’t care.
Everybody head over to Charlie’s site! He’s the big brain in the room. And I’m sure he throws a wonderful party!
The best advice is always found in the Hitch Hiker’s Guide – don’t panic.
Not to join in the “told ya so” dance – cause one, I don’t believe the Tecate swillin land lobster actually knows how to, per se, and what fun is it without a partner, plus second, if it was totally screamin obvious, now what good would that be?
Still, it seemed apparent after thinkin about it for all of thirty seconds a couple of days ago.
And I did have a chuckle at Krauthammer and Kristol on Fox this morning pronouncing Olmert as “toast”.
OTOH, we’ll have a better idea of who’s right on this one by, oh, say, Wednesday. Nothin I’ve seen makes me doubt how this will play out.
tw: green helmet dude? Didn’t Aquaman kick his ass?
– Looks like ole Charlie has a few “issues”, but since Charlies “issues” are not the topic of this thread, it would be ever so nice if he’d take them some where else.
– BOT – the Hezzi’z have declared “no disarming” period. So they’ve taken the first step in the wrong direction if they want to maintain in the PR war, but the right direction for Israeli interests.
I totally agree CC, but I guess I meant to put the emphasis more on the real, not proxy, confrontation with Iran – I’m not at all sure how much killing every last Hezbollahboy would really change the fundamental risk equation of the conflict we are approaching… but having a working relationship with Europe could definitely be an asset there – but please set me straight – I missed the French perfidiousness this time around – It looked to me that they did the best they could to move in our direction given the constraints imposed by being so weak and french and invested in the idea that France and the arab world are the Rose and Jack of geopolitics…
this is the problem with the internet…too many cooks and micromanaging things that the general public can only guess…we don’t know what W. has planned. Maybe he did second guess, maybe he was trying for a cease fire, only to have Hezbollah violated again.
France still has a monkey wrench in her quiver.
As I recall the ceasefire (Resolution 1701) calls for 10,000 French troops to be deployed.
Given the most recent apparent collapse of the ceasefire it seems at first glance that deploying French forces is off the table.
But the Resolution still gives the French the authority to do it.
Deploying those troops would make leaning forward pretty sticky for Israel.
I can’t say exactly why France might do this.
But they are awfully cozy with Iran.
Perfidy being a near synonym for French Nuance, I can’t help but be alert.
When France has the capacity to fuck things up how often does she pass up the chance?
Yeah, I bet you also;
Drive really slow
in the ultra fast lane
While people
behind you
Are going insane.
Well, Jeff, I apologize IF I misread your tone.
Wasn’t that satisfying?
Now, tomorrow, after you’ve had a night’s sleep. gop back and read over the thread, and see who “took umbrage” first and most. You didn’t start to piss me off until you started bitching me out because you misread my tone, and then you got all offended because I snapped back at you.
And hell, it’s your blog — you can be pissed off about anything you like. But you’re having this argument with a fictional character—a “Charlie (Colorado)” you made up in your head out of some notion that doesn’t even have a lot to do with the history of other posts I’ve done, or mail we’ve exchanged.
All because you didn’t like the way you misread my tone.
I’m not even mad any longer — it’s gotten too silly for that. I’ll grant I thought I was entitled to one gloat, since you came around in such a short time to the point I was making when you spun yourself up. But man, this is all out of scale here — I’m not She-Who-Shan’t-Be-Named, we’re just having a disagreement. Take a couple deep breaths for God’s sake.
I don’t think it actually says anything about the composition of the UNIFIL reinforcements; just France was one of the countries that offered.
(Which won’t be popular in Lebanon, by the way — the French weren’t real popular thanks to some colonial excesses.)
That’s actually what I suspect is another one of the “slow-walk” maneuvers: Israel doesn’t withdraw until the force is constituted, and takes control as the Israelis withdraw. Best case (for appropriate values of the word “best”) that’s another 10 days, and everytime HB so much as sneezes in the IDF’s direction, the IDF can kick ass and take names.
<sigh>
Needs less cowbell.
Stephen – you’re right about the inclination of France, but I’m kind of intrigued that they might actually be *responsible* for something. Leading the peacekeeping force – a role in which they would be accountable for answering any Hezbollah transgressions and policing Iranian/Syrian arms smuggling – could put the French in a position of real-world accountability that will expose them to a cacophany of international second-guessing and complaint that might be similar to what the US is accustomed to. They just might learn something, and with that many forces deployed they would definitely be every bit as “overextended” as critics allege the US is, which could have interesting domestic political implications for them. At the very least, overextended military resources could very well lead them to a new appreciation of the value of NATO.
About France and Iran – I think that ultimately the fidelity of France to Iran will ultimately turn on France’s assessment of the economics of the relationship. What will be interesting is that if France is leading a multinational forces aimed at constraining an Iranian proxy, we will definitely get a case study on the relative advantages of “dialog”: Will France be seen as being more effective in its peacekeeping duties by virtue of having direct relations with Iran?
Charlie —
You are carrying this on in public. On my site. Still.
Stop it.
If you feel the need to justify yourself further to an audience, put up a post on your site calling me a dick and explaining why and how you’ve been so terribly wronged.
Because honestly? I don’t care when you got mad or why. I only care that you are still talking about this, and that you continue to toot your own horn rather than apologizing for suggesting Malkin wants to see millions of Iranians turned into ash.
Nevertheless, we get it. All of us. You are the smartiest person in the world. And we are all secretly envious because we aren’t you. Really.
Well—except for the condescending lectures and the refusal just to shut up about an incident that to nearly everyone else not name Charlie is entirely insignificant. That would could do without.
Incidentally, the “blog sorbet” post? That was for you. Take a bite. Clear your palate.
See, you are doing it again. How about silence as an option?
Stephen M and Happytalk – My guess about French capabilities is that they could not “lead” a force that size. They couldn’t run the @#$&#xin;g Sarajevo Aerodrome without USAF forklifts and MHE. And that was in 1997 and on the Continent to boot! They haven’t exactly built up their forces since then…
Most people make a mountain out of a molehill. Charlie (Colorado) is making a chasm out of a ditch.
How does one implement a plan against Iran at a moment’s notice? By controling Iraq, which is one huge aircraft carrier.
And Afghanistan. Just because Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have forgotten Afghanistan doesn’t mean Jack Bauer has.
And which countries lie sandwiched between Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan?……………….Nah. Nobody in this administration could be that smart.
So what just happened out there?
1. Israel and Lebanon agree to a ceasefire.
2. Hizbullah violates the ceasefire by launching more rockets.
3. The ceasefire resolution having been broken, Israel has a valid excuse – and hopefully a free hand – to act against the Hizb.
The strategy is so blindingly obvious only an Arab terrorist could fail to see it.
TW: Any MOMENT now, Ehud, we’re waiting.
Hmmmm.
What?
Having it’s soldiers murdered and kidnapped from Israeli soil isn’t enough justification?
Having hundreds of rockets raining down specifically on civilian areas isn’t enough justification?
If the Israeli government agreed to this silly ceasefire because of concerns over legitimacy of their response, then they’re completely fucked.
I only wish you were correct in your assessment of the outcome of this UNSC resolution but it strikes me a wishful thinking. If I understand correctly, your idea is that Hezbollah will not abide by the UNSC resolution and then “Israel will have international cover” for a wider, more vigorously prosectuted war against the terrorists of Hezbollah. So let me get this straight…a terrorist organization invades your country across an internationally-recognized boundary, kills your soldiers and kidnaps two others, rains thousands of missiles down on civilian targets, but this was insufficient to “provide the international cover”. But after weeks of bombing, staged and unstaged civilian casualties, finally Hezbollah breaks clause 3A/subsection 2 of UNSC Resolution blah blah blah and then alas, the international cover will finally be provided for hard war against Hezbollah. We were handed the only justification needed on a silver platter over a month ago and refused to take ‘yes’ for an answer.
You use as support for this argument, Bush’s last chance resolution at the UNSC with Saddam Hussein. But this analogy fails. The appropriate analogy would be if, in 2003, Saddam Hussein killed and kidnapped American soldiers and then George Bush sought a new UNSC resolution to justify taking Hussein out. If the initial egregious provocation and violation of international law was not enough, a silly UN resolution will never be. Even on your own tems, if there was “international cover” for intervention in Iraq, I must have missed it.
The only optimistm that I have left for this administration is the prospect that it is us rather than Iran that is biding their time. If that is the case, then there may be longer term goal that justifies the current appearance of appeasement.