It looks as if the Israeli's have gotten themselves into a bit of a guagmire in Lebanon. They've been fighting for a month now, and they say they need another month. In the meantime 12 more children were killed and a hospital was shot up by IDF forces today. What's next schools and retirement homes? Peace

"The old middle east had its rules of a tit for tat "cycle of violence" which always worked to the terrorists' advantage - no more."

Uh, Israel did the same exact thing 24 years ago, only they went deeper into Lebanon and occupied it.

Maybe before you make such grand statements that Bush has transformed the middle east so that such an unprecedented action could take place, you should brush up on your history.

Israel has done this before when they invaded Southern Lebanon in 1982 in retaliation for an assassination attempt. Short-term, it defeated the PLO militants in southern lebanon, long term is help create Hamas and Hezbollah and the current situation in which they are again invading southern lebanon... talk about a cycle of violence.

“The old middle east had its rules of a tit for tat "cycle of violence" which always worked to the terrorists' advantage - no more.” Mark

“On Tuesday, a roadside bomb destroyed a bus packed with Iraqi soldiers near Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad. All 24 people aboard were killed. Fourteen people also died and 37 were wounded when a car bomb exploded at a bank in Baghdad where police and soldiers were picking up paychecks.”

Is that how Bush makes the Mideast “better”?

Tom, the mistake Isreal made with the PLO is that they let them leave, and re-arm. Somehow, I doubt they will make that mistake again.

As for the Iraq bombing, no one said it would be easy Blarney, and the amazing thing is, more Iraqis keep coming forward to join the fight against the terrorists. Have you even noticed that?

Is that how Bush makes the Mideast “better”?

Things are a hopeless mess there Barney. I just wonder how much worse Bush can make it in the next 2+ years. Isn't it funny how Iraq has slipped into the background?

Kjstrouble,

How exactly will Israel stop Hezbollah from leaving? Their current military operation is to take out their artillary and create a buffer zone for the UN to be stationed in the event of a cease fire. Their aim is not to kill or capture all of hezbollah. Beside, Hezbollah's popularity has risen with this war. I doubt they will have problems finding recruits.

Israel and the US missed an opportunity to isolate Hezbollah more from the rest of Lebanon when Israel continued the attack after a week or so (and the US did not call on them to stop). These continued attacks are embedding arab hatred of israel. As long as that hatred exists, you will have groups like the PLO in the 80s, Hamas, Hezbollah.

Stopping them from rearming starts with talking to Syria, isolating Hezbollah from the rest of Lebanon, bolstering the Lebanese government and aiding them in disarming the militias.

That all could have been done after a week. Tell me, what exactly has been accomplished over the past couple weeks of bombings? Aside from making that task harder?

what exactly has been accomplished over the past couple weeks of bombings?

Al Jazeera, no friend of Israel reports this (quoting Olmert today):

He added that Israel's offensive had already destroyed much of the group's military ability.

"The infrastructure of Hezbollah has been entirely destroyed. More than 700 ... command positions of Hezbollah were entirely wiped out by the Israeli army. All the population which is the power base of the Hezbollah in Lebanon was displaced," he said.

Seems like an accomplishment to me.

Tom,

That is ONE version. Another might be that they will keep Hizbollah from leaving by burying them there. That would be MY preferred scenario.

What good are observers if they won't (or can't) report anything or do anything? And... screw sending our guys there. So, just who do you think would be willing to go in there with the idea they might need to kill som e Hizbollah if they try to return? France? Russia? Italy? Spain? Canada? Maybe China or India? I just don't see it happening.

Yes, Scar, that is what has been accomplished.

Much like the PLO in the 80s, they defeated them militarily, only to see other groups spring up in their place... which perpetuates the cycle of violence.

If you really want to get rid of groups like hezbollah while discouraging others from taking their place, you do so by isolating them. You help those in the country that is home to the radical militias get rid of them. If hatred for Israel persists in the middle east, their always going to be a demand for groups like hezbollah and hamas. The actions of Israel over the past few weeks have helped ensure that hatred is not going anywhere soon.

There were far more people sympathetic to Israel after their initial response than there are today. The bombings are counter productive. There could have been a real effort, led by the US and UN, to aid the Lebanese government in disarming Hezbollah.

That still may happen, but it will be harder, and the impact of Israels attack on Lebanon the past couple weeks will be lasting. The continued assaults by both sides have done nothing but damage chances for a stable peace.

That is ONE version. Another might be that they will keep Hizbollah from leaving by burying them there. That would be MY preferred scenario.

If there is a merciful God, Kahn I hope he forgives you for saying things like this.

“Things are a hopeless mess there Barney. I just wonder how much worse Bush can make it in the next 2+ years.”
Posted by: Ash at August 2, 2006 10:41 AM

A hopeless mess? Really? Have you really given up hope? Were you of the uninformed notion that everything would go well and be done with within 100 days of our initial deployment? Are you ready to turn your back on our military who are now making positive differences for the people of Afghan, Iraq and others, those who rely on our military to see this through to successful completion? Are you suggesting that we pull out? Seem like that would ensure the death of tens of thousands, perhaps millions of a people who have little hope of achieving freedom without help and at the same time energize those who would make those deaths a reality and who wish to enslave the world. Are you ready to succumb to the will of the terrorist? They’re not at your back door at this moment but they easily could be (see 9-11 as well as other similar events). Do you lack the courage and backbone to see this through to victory? That would be victory for freedom – world freedom. How would your wife / daughter / mother / granddaughter feel if they were delegated to third class citizenship, required to wear covering from head to toe, stripped of education, enslaved in their own house except when accompanied by a male from their own family or beaten for any of a hundred reasons? Do you understand how encompassing the simple word “FREEDOM” is and what it means to have it or better yet what it means to not have it? I dare you to dwell for a moment what YOUR life would be like without the freedoms you apparently take for granted. Is that what you want for the rest of the world? Is everything ok as long as things don’t interfere with your day-to-day life?

Oh, I see… you state yourself so clearly on this. It’s Bush’s fault. Everything always is.

You have no positive ideas, no positive direction, no hope and can only find it in yourself to blame someone else - such a pathetic existence. I find your statements disgusting.

Tom,

You don't understand - if Israel does this right, then Hezbollah in southern Lebanon will have to formally surrender and enter Israeli captivity.

There is nothing quite so determinative as a surrender - for war, it is the equivalent to cash transactions in business. Its done, when that happens. The Islamists who have fought Israel for 60 years have never had to surrender...they may very well be forced to.

What? Kill armed terrorists or even uniformed soldiers during war? What a concept.

If you are truly a pacifist - then so be it. (If you are, can I have your wallet after a play with your wife?)

Bang bang bang. Thats an even better way to discourage them than Tom's stupid isolation.

100 plus rockets a day down to ten or so. I guess thats a good indication of how successful the idf is. Maybe you guys could root for the good guys once?

Ash, Tom, Barney, et al,

Please tell what your alternative is to what's happened in the Iraq, Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East. I hear all the problems that we're having in Iraq and with what Israel is doing in Lebanon, but in all the reading that I've done in the couple of months I've been following this blog, I've never once read a solution to resolve the terrorism that exists. It's easy to sit on high and criticize but so much harder to actually make the decisions that might accomplish something. This terrorism and hatred against the U.S. and, especially Israel goes back a long time and for many years and administrations nothing other then the obligatory bombing of an aspirin factory, etc was the only reponse emboldening our enemies to the fact that the west was weak and, worse, unwilling to do anything about the attacks that took place in the '80's, 90's and up to now. Finally, an administration said "enough" and we're going to hunt you down and, if necessary, kill you on the spot. Was it the right decision, history will decide, but as been said, it lets those who kill innocents in the name of terrorism know the the principal of 'proportionate response' is a thing of the past. I'm not as smart as most of you, but I for one think it's about time that we had leaders that acted in this manner.

Thanks for all your posts. They make for challenging responses.

Much like the PLO in the 80s, they defeated them militarily...

The ability for them to build back up or others to form and get arms will depend on a couple of things. First, Israel knows better than anyone what the price is for allowing that to happen - they've seen it over and over again. I detect a new attitude there now, which I think is taking hold in Israel that says, "Don't let it get to this point again." I don't think Israel will. Secondly, their current push North is to capture and hold a band of land in Lebanon about 20 miles wide the full length of the common border. Their reason? They want to be able to had it over to the eventual peace keeping forces as a buffer zone.

Olmert stated today that he intends to honor a cease-fire only when:

"...the international force will be an effective force made of combat units, then we will be able to stop fire when the international force will be on the ground in the south part of Lebanon..."

So that is different than last time for sure. Those blue helmets that stood by and watched the murder and kidnapping of the Israeli troops by Hezbollah and subsequently did nothing is a thing of the past. I would also expect that the combat units will prevent any re-arming of Hezbollah's remnants. If not, I suspect we'll see Israel back in Lebanon cleaning clocks again.

If you really want to get rid of groups like hezbollah while discouraging others from taking their place, you do so by isolating them.

Exactly what Israel has done to Hezbollah. And now that they're isolated, they're killing them in large numbers. They're capturing their weapons and destroying them. They're arresting the leaders as they find them and taking them back to Israel.

You help those in the country that is home to the radical militias get rid of them.

As I stated above, that seems to be part of the plan. But previous attempts have failed through no fault of Israel, e.g., 1559. Had that been enforced we would not be watching this bloodbath now.

If hatred for Israel persists in the middle east, their always going to be a demand for groups like hezbollah and hamas.

If the Israelis thought that to be true, they'd probably just nuke their enemies and be done with it. Hatred of Jews in that region is not going anywhere and its been around for centuries.

There were far more people sympathetic to Israel after their initial response than there are today.

Sympathy and a couple of bucks will get you a Frappacino at Starbucks.

The bombings are counter productive.

That is their function, you know.

There could have been a real effort, led by the US and UN

Up until then, I thought you to be serious. The UN? Hahahaha!! Darfur? Rwanda? UN anybody?

to aid the Lebanese government in disarming Hezbollah.

Never happen. Unless Hezbollah is reduced in power dramatically. Enter Israel.

...the impact of Israels attack on Lebanon the past couple weeks will be lasting.

The nature of war, you know...

a stable peace.

Tell that to Mahmoud Ahmadineramalamadingdong and Bahser Assad. Whisper it in bin Laden's ear. See how Zawahiri thinks about the idea of peace. Get back to me when you have a consensus.

hat? Kill armed terrorists or even uniformed soldiers during war? What a concept.

Your terrorist is their resistence fighter.

If you are truly a pacifist - then so be it. (If you are, can I have your wallet after a play with your wife?)

I didn't say I was a pacifist. In fact I have stated elsewhere that Israel has a right to defend itself. I should hope no one takes the same glee you do in burying a fellow human beings. If you want to find out where I draw the line, touch any of my loved ones.

Tell that to Mahmoud Ahmadineramalamadingdong

The Journal of Psychatric Disorders lists infantile name calling as one sign of Delayed Agent Orange Syndrome.

Tell that to Mahmoud Ahmadineramalamadingdong

The Journal of Psychatric Disorders lists infantile name calling as one sign of Delayed Agent Orange Syndrome.

Resisting what? Israel didn't come in until AFTER they attacked.

But, as a soldier... that person would die with honor and glory and good for him. Better them than us.

Resisting what? Israel didn't come in until AFTER they attacked.

I think this thing has been planned out by both sides for quite a while.

Now just try to see it from their perspective- resisting U.S. imperialism, of which they see Israel as a tool.

Now please don't get me wrong, I don't agree neccesarily, but to understand how a long term settlement can be made, you must put yourself in their shoes for a while. They have seen what the U.S. has done in Iraq. They have heard all the sabre rattling by W. So their "attack" could be seen as a preemptive strike (our concept).

Sometimes I am thinking out loud.

I like the way Michael Ledeen sums-up the Bush administrations foreign policy in the Middle East. Did I mention that Michael is a leading neocon at the National Review?

“The greatest failure of our leaders, with rare exceptions, is their refusal to see the war plain, which means Iran and Syria (might as well call them “Syran,” since they operate in tandem, with Tehran pushing most of the buttons). It was never possible to “win in Iraq” so long as we insisted on fighting in Iraq alone. You can not win a regional war by playing defense in one country. It was, and remains, a sucker’s”

That’s got hurt Bush

That’s got hurt Bush

English a second language for you? Bush is constantly devastated and destroyed by political pundits. You can see it as he has to struggle out those words like, "Stay the course." Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, chasing some floozy around some joint on the road, sez, "What war?"

Trivia Fact of The Day:

When Bill Clinton mouthed the now-famous (infamous?) words, "I did not have sex with that woman," he wasn't lying as most people think now. He was talking about Hillary. Do you blame him?

Ash,

Even if we grant that, there's still nothing like forcing a surrender in the open field to convince a person he's beaten...

The Japanese were no less fanatic in their determination to resist Yankee aggression...but after the surrender, they stopped. From what I've read of the post-war occupation of Japan, hardly a Japanese even looked cross eyed at an American.

I'm not saying we'll get that with a Hizbollah surrender - but we'll be on the path to it. To win this war it will be necessary to humiliate the enemy. They have to be shown that Allah is not on their side and that He will not bring them victory in spite of all odds.

"I think I can say with certainty that the terrorists never envisioned America sticking it out in Iraq in to the fourth year"

That's funny, the neocons didn't think it would take this long either. Well, small minds think alike, I suppose.

Is that how Bush makes the Mideast “better”? Posted by: Barneyg2000

No, that's how Muslims (members of the "Religion of Peace") slaughter each other. If Muslims would stop killing each other, there would be peace in Iraq.

WS: You are over estimating the power of so called "neo conservatives." The resolution for the use of force was passed over whelming by the House and the Senate. Long before the Bush Administration was elected, government officials were talking about the threat posed by Iraq. While there have been some snags, to blame it all or most of it on neo conservatives obscures the issues we do face.

As I see it, the biggest problem is we did not use enough troops for Iraq. Its a pity that we don't have people in government decision making positions like some of the so called neo conservative commentators who write very insightful articles. If we did we would have corrected the troop shortage issue long ago.

"These continued attacks are embedding arab hatred of israel. As long as that hatred exists, you will have groups like the PLO in the 80s, Hamas, Hezbollah."-Posted by: Tom Shipley

Tom, Islam itself embeds Muslim hatred of Israel. And you're right, as long as that hatred exists, there will be groups like the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah springing up all over the Middle East. The only way to have peace is for Israel to resoundingly destroy these groups; and for the West to utterly destroy other Islamic groups like Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, Abu Sayaf, etc. etc. etc. Until Islam is finally rejected by the Muslim people, Islamic terrorist groups will continually arise and attempt to destroy Israel and the West. It's commanded by their religion. Read the Hadith below as reported by a NRO article on the Hamas Charter:

Highlights from the HAMAS Charter:mideastweb.org/hamas:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
*****************

NRO-"The Genocidal Hamas Charter"
And then there is the Hamas slogan, which has inspired countless jihadist bombers: "Allah is its goal, The Prophet its model, the Qur'an its Charter, jihad its path, and death for the cause of Allah its most sublime belief" (Article 8).

Hamas is committed to continuing jihad against "the Jews" until Allah's victory is implemented. The land of Palestine, it affirms, must be cleansed from their impurity and viciousness. Muslims are obligated by order of the Prophet to fight and kill the Jews wherever they find them. This call to genocide is justified by a hadith which concludes article 7 of the charter:

The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to implement Allah's promise, whatever time that may take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until the Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them), until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! Oh Abdullah!, there is a Jew behind me, come on and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

This controversial hadith — related by the eminent compiler al-Bukhari in the 9th century — has since become a commonplace belief among Islamists.

Anyone who wants Peace in Iraq, raise your hands. Immediately reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran and that will happen. Peace

Sometimes I think out loud...posted by Ash 1:59p.m.

Most of the time you don't think at all....

Link to the Al-Bukhari Hadiths:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts

Mark: "There is nothing quite so determinative as a surrender - for war, it is the equivalent to cash transactions in business. Its done, when that happens. The Islamists who have fought Israel for 60 years have never had to surrender...they may very well be forced to."

I await the capture or death of Nasrallah and his lieutenants. Then again, I won't hold my breath. Face it, there will be no surrender -- not even if Nasrallah and ALL of his lieutenants are captured and/or killed (although that would help on a tactical level). Surrender has no meaning in this conflict, short of genocide. Short of genocide, only some form of accommodation is possible. And I won't hold my breath on that account either.

"Short of genocide, only some form of accommodation is possible."-Posted by: Ricorun

What are you talking about? Eliminating terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Abu Sayaf, etc. isn't genocide, it's war. We don't need to "accomodate" these Muslim terrorists. We need to destroy them.

We also need to replace Islamic Sharia theocracies with secular democracies-like we replaced Nazism and Imperial Japan with secular democracies following WWII. That is the way to deal with the Muslim populations of the Middle East.

Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.
Theodore Roosevelt

We need to destroy them.

You have precisely defined the mission. Here are the realities:

The radical form of Islam wants the death of America. Nothing short of that will do. They don't want peace, accommodation, tolerance, prosperity, or any of the things we find important in the West. They are consumed with the fanaticism of a religious fervor that demands they offer themselves to the cause and the same fervor glorifies their own death in battle. One Hezbollah fighter recently said that the big advantage his people had over the Israelis is that they want to die.

There is no "country" to which we can point and say, "We declare war upon you," unless we just say that about all Muslim countries in the Middle East that support jihad. As a result, there is no country that we can bring to the table to sign a surrender and admit defeat.

Traditional efforts to deprive the enemy of things we find as important, like the safety of their loved ones are laughed at by them. They herd their women and children into harm's way for use as a propaganda tool. They do not value their family over their religious fanaticism.

The fact that no country has been made to answer (besides Afghanistan and Iraq) for these terrorists, encourages them to provide money, shelter, arms, and all the necessities of a terrorist campaign without any of the danger normally associated with becoming an ally of our enemies.

They removed a large percentage of the normal efficacy of the massive power of most traditional military forces by simply refusing to stand and fight and their penchant for using the civilian population as human shields - not caring one whit about what happens to those civilians while we, their enemy, does care, making us much more careful to avoid civilian casualties.

They use terror tactics instead of military ones. If you add the numbers of people they've killed up and categorize them, they've killed far far more civilians than military opponents. They have no taste for a real fight - they know they lose those every time. So they blow up people in shopping centers - and let the media do the dirty work for them, which they gleefully do. Our misbegotten Left then moans about the "children" and the "death tolls" and blames it all on ... us. That plays into the terrorist hands and is the intention of their plan. What the terrorists promise to those like the Left who support them is, "We will kill you last." But they lie because there were plenty of Leftists in the WTC and the Pentagon. There were plenty of Leftists in Spain riding those doomed trains. But still the Left believes the lie.

So it boils down to either killing every jihadist in the world (what some would call a genocide) or finally declaring war against any and all who support the jihad and using our full military capabilities to destroy those countries who resist. The US will not move in that direction until we have another massive attack, as bin Laden promises - even worse than 9/11. Until then, we will play "Whack-a-Mole" with the terrorist fighters to no real avail.

This report shows that it is indeed a game of "Whack-a-Mole" and even the terrorists are admitting that's what they are now...

August 3, 2006 -- A son of Osama bin Laden has gone from Iran to Lebanon with the mission to organize terror attacks against Israel, it was reported yesterday.

Saad bin Laden, 27, one of the terror mastermind's eldest sons, was released by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard last Friday, according to the German daily Die Welt.

"From the Lebanese border, he has the task of building Islamist terror cells and preparing them to fight with Hezbollah," the paper said, quoting intelligence sources.

"Apparently, Tehran is counting on recruiting Lebanese refugees in Syria for the fight against Israel, using bin Laden's help," it added.

The young bin Laden was supposedly under house arrest in Iran.

House arrest? Hahahahaha!

Freedom1: "What are you talking about? Eliminating terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Abu Sayaf, etc. isn't genocide, it's war. We don't need to "accomodate" these Muslim terrorists. We need to destroy them."

"Accommodation" was a badly chosen word. Sorry about that. The idea is that terrorists are not born with a big "T" on their foreheads. They are born innocent little babies, just like everyone else. Then they develop like mold in a hate-filled petrie dish. Sure, once the growth in the dish gets big and fuzzy, you can reduce it -- perhaps even quite a bit. But if you don't do something about the medium in the petrie dish you'll have to keep coming back to pluck the new fuzz out of it.

And by the way, it would have happened in post-WWII Germany and Japan as well if something wasn't done about their petrie dishes. It wasn't just war weariness that caused the populations in those countries to change, it was offering them something better in the mean time. War weariness fades after a while. So if the conditions don't change, eventually you'll have to come back... and back... and back...

You seem to understand that, Free, in the sense that you said, "We also need to replace Islamic Sharia theocracies with secular democracies..." That would certainly help to starve them. So how do you propose doing that? Do we have to reduce every single one of them to rubble first? That would get awfully expensive, in lots of different ways.

Scaramonga said, "One Hezbollah fighter recently said that the big advantage his people had over the Israelis is that they want to die." But later in the same post he added, "They have no taste for a real fight - they know they lose those every time." That suggests to me that they aren't all that willing to die. Maybe it's just they figure they're worth more to the movement alive than dead. Funny how popular that attitude appears to be.

War is one way to suppress bad behavior. But it comes at a considerable cost -- to both sides. Sanctions can also suppress bad behavior. And while they tend to be less effective, they also tend to be considerably cheaper -- at least to one side. Of course, for sanctions to work they need broad international cooperation. Then again, even war works best when there is broad international cooperation. Otherwise you risk generating new enemies, or at the very least enhance things for those that stand by and watch. Usually it's both.

That suggests to me that they aren't all that willing to die.

You may take it that way, but that is just your reading of it. My point was that the "military" wing of these jihad groups know they cannot stand up any decent army, so they avoid those kinds of conflicts. And when they are foolish enough to try to take on a modern army like the US or Israel, they lose bigtime. And in that loss there is some death, for sure. But many more are captured and spend years in Israeli prison camps - humiliation - which they cannot tolerate. And they see these direct conflicts as always - and I do mean always - costing them land, territory that they can ill afford to give up. Their aversion to direct military conflict is not based on a fear of dying - but of losing land and face.

The ones who the "movement" are able to brainwash are the ones that delight in strapping on a bomb vest and walking into a marketplace, pulling the fuse ignitor, and screaming "Allah Akbar!" They desire this kind of death. They are treated as heroes by those left behind. Saddam paid $25,000 "rewards" to their families. But you don't see Nasrallah blowing himself up. Or bin Laden. Or the fanatic clerics urging others to give their lives to Allah. What that should show is that those behind this are using their brainwashing techniques on the foolish younger generation to self-immolate - something the brainwashing mullahs would never consider for themselves. But those splodeydopes are the ones that Hezbollah leaves behind to fight the Israelis as they advance. And they will fight to the death or blow themselves up if they think it will hurt the Israeli forces. Meanwhile Nasrallah hides in the Iranian embassy in Beirut.

War is one way to suppress bad behavior. But it comes at a considerable cost -- to both sides.

Suppress bad behavior? OK, I guess. War, as it has been fought throughout the ages is far more than that. What we (not me but "modern" society) has done is to eliminate "Victory" from the vocabulary of war. They've done it in their incessant demands for cease-fires, their insistence that war is evil, and by the general thrust of the graying '60s generation who are trying to relive their "cool" pasts. Victory is one Hell of a suppressor. Look at how it suppressed Japan. Hitler blew his own brains out when looking at the inevitable American Victory in WWII against his destroyed nation. I guess you could call that suppression.

Sanctions can also suppress bad behavior. And while they tend to be less effective, they also tend to be considerably cheaper -- at least to one side.

Three words: Oil ... For ... Food
Three more: Baby ... Milk ... Factory

Of course, for sanctions to work they need broad international cooperation.

Sanctions on Iraq were broadly accepted - approved by the UN and everything. How'd they work? Sanctions are a fool's game.

Then again, even war works best when there is broad international cooperation.

Or not.

Otherwise you risk generating new enemies,

Lebanon is a good case in point. Soon after Israel attacked Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Lebanese government said, "We are united with Hezbollah in our fight against the Israelis." Guess what? They always were. War exposes these phony acts and forces people and countries to take size. The hokey stories that Lebanon couldn't disarm Hezbollah are just that. They didn't want to. Now they are paying for that decision - in spades. When the fighting stops this time, what will be Lebanon's tune be? Different, I'll bet.

or at the very least enhance things for those that stand by and watch. Usually it's both.

War exposes phonies by the trainload. We find out who are friends are and who are enemies are. The rest, like France, for example, or the UN, just don't matter.

Scaramonga: "The ones who the "movement" are able to brainwash are the ones that delight in strapping on a bomb vest and walking into a marketplace, pulling the fuse ignitor, and screaming "Allah Akbar!" They desire this kind of death... [snip] ... "But you don't see Nasrallah blowing himself up. Or bin Laden. Or the fanatic clerics urging others to give their lives to Allah. What that should show is that those behind this are using their brainwashing techniques on the foolish younger generation to self-immolate - something the brainwashing mullahs would never consider for themselves. "

It sounds to me like you just proved my point rather than disputed it. You're concentrating on the fuzz in the petrie dish. And like you said, they just keep growing back. And they will as long as the roots of the colony remain and there is sufficient medium. My question had to do with... how do you get rid of the root colonies and the medium? Now, if the Israelis want to bomb the Iranian embassy in Beirut, I don't have any particular problem with that. But I can't imagine they haven't already thought about it. They obviously have the means and the opportunity. But so far it's still standing. Perhaps they realize an attack like that would do more harm than good. And by the way, where's OBL?

While not attacking the Iranian embassy the Israelis did target multiple banks. Obviously, they're going after the medium.

"Suppress bad behavior? OK, I guess."

Do you like "war weariness" better? Or "sapping the will to fight"? It's the same thing. I just chose to use the BF Skinner term for the effect of punishment. I mean hey, I can throw around psycho-babble as good as the next guy, lol! Actually, I liked your Maslow's hierarchy idea.

"What we (not me but "modern" society) has done is to eliminate "Victory" from the vocabulary of war."

Saddam may not have ended up with a bullet in his head like Hitler (not yet anyway), but you might say a spider hole was even more humiliating. And Emperor Hirohito, well... at least he had to go visit Gen. MacArthur rather than the other way around. Anyway, there was Gen. Schwartzkopf's little pow-wow back in 1991. That looked like a "victory moment". But of course even then many were of the opinion that it was an incomplete victory. Then came the "Mission Accomplished" moment back in 2003. But again, that hasn't worked out so well so far. Some claim it's just a matter of time. Well, how much time? And of course if it doesn't work out, we can always blame Iran. In fact, that might actually be justified. And thus, some have suggested that we should invade Iran. But what do we do if Iran turns out like Iraq? Blame someone else? By that time that might be justified as well. Heck, by that time heaven knows what will have happened in Afghanistan. Or Pakistan. Or Syria. But I'd put my money on Russia and/or China. And in the mean time the human and economic cash register keeps ringing.

"Three words: Oil ... For ... Food
Three more: Baby ... Milk ... Factory"

Okay, I think you lost me at "Baby ... Milk ... Factory". Is that an allusion to the presumed biological weapons site that was bombed during Desert Storm? If so, I don't see how it applies. But as far as Oil ... For ... Food goes, what's your point? Are you saying sanctions against Iraq didn't work? Or are you just saying that they didn't work perfectly, and may have eventually disintegrated? If it's the first part (they didn't work perfectly) I have to ask... what does work perfectly? According to all the official reports, sanctions appear to have worked well enough. Or are you denying that? What sort of shape was his military in? Are you one of those that claim Saddam's Iraq was crawling with WMD and for some reason he elected to bury them and/or spirit them away for safe keeping rather than use them? Safe keeping from what? If it's the latter part (sanctions may have eventually disintegrated), then I'd say you are again operating on a pre-9/11 mentality. I'm not saying that you may have been right eventually, I'm just saying it wasn't wasn't an option in 2003.

Likewise, sanctions have worked in other contexts as well. South Africa, for example. Libya is a more complex an example, but sanctions didn't hurt in that regard either. Sanctions against Rhodesia worked well in toppling that regime (although the successor is arguably worse -- but that's sometimes true of war, too: ask Poland, or Czechoslovakia, or Hungary, for example). Sanctions, in addition to an aggressive bombing campaign, drove Milosevic from power. Sanctions drove Aristide from power in Haiti, too. But again, the aftermath was not well attended to. But they worked.

The reality is that while sanctions are rarely perfect, they do sometimes yield desired results. The reality also is that wars are also rarely perfect, and they don't always yield desired results, either. What I'm arguing here is to look at things with a level of complexity that is consistent with the true reality. I don't blame Israel for attacking Hizbollah. This isn't exactly the first time Hizbollah has invaded them and kidnapped soldiers. the last time (I guess it was 2000?) the three soldiers ended up dead, and Israel got their bodies back by releasing some prisoners that Hizbollah wanted them to release. Now they do it again? I don't think so. However, I do hope the Israelis know what they're doing in great detail. Likewise, I hope even more that we know what the Israelis are doing in great detail.

"Soon after Israel attacked Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Lebanese government said, "We are united with Hezbollah in our fight against the Israelis."

Do you have a citation for that? Apart from that, do you really believe that? If so, why? My impression is quite the opposite. My impression is that one of the things that got Hezbollah's shorts in a bunch was the fact that the impasse that has existed in the Lebanese government since early spring is finally starting to dissolve (the Christians, Druze, and Sunni factions were coming together), and Hezbollah found themselves on the short end of the stick. Besides, didn't Iraq's Prime Minister Hariri say something very similar to what you claim for the Lebanese gov't in the same time frame? In that case, shouldn't Israel attack Iraq? No wait...

I just re-read that last post. And boy, the sentence structure is a mess. Sorry about that. I hope it's at least readable.

Posted by: Reverend Scaramonga at August 3, 2006 11:23 AM

Reverend Scaramonga, that was the best military assessment of the global war that I've ever read.

"The fact that no country has been made to answer (besides Afghanistan and Iraq) for these terrorists, encourages them to provide money, shelter, arms, and all the necessities of a terrorist campaign without any of the danger normally associated with becoming an ally of our enemies."-Rev S.

Exactly. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. The USA needs to enforce this.

"So it boils down to either killing every jihadist in the world (what some would call a genocide) or finally declaring war against any and all who support the jihad and using our full military capabilities to destroy those countries who resist. The US will not move in that direction until we have another massive attack, as bin Laden promises - even worse than 9/11. Until then, we will play 'Whack-a-Mole' with the terrorist fighters to no real avail."

Grim, but accurate. It's so frustrating! It's so frustrating to know that most likely another 9/11-perhaps a nuclear 9/11-will have to take place before the US and our surviving allies take this global jihad seriously.

"...finally declaring war against any and all who support the jihad and using our full military capabilities to destroy those countries who resist"

We will need to confront the strongest Islamic nation first to instill the most fear into the other, weaker jihad-supporting Islamic nations. If these weaker Muslim nations finally understand what terrible price their global jihad will cost them, then maybe these other weaker Muslim nations will give up the jihad. (This last could simply be wishful thinking on my part.)

"Accommodation" was a badly chosen word. Sorry about that. Posted by: Ricorun

Just checking, Ricorun. I didn't think you actually meant that, which was why I immediately challenged you on it.
:)

Also, I agree with you on the "petrie dish" analogy. Islam's the disease. Freedom and democracy is the cure!

You seem to understand that, Free, in the sense that you said, "We also need to replace Islamic Sharia theocracies with secular democracies..." That would certainly help to starve them. So how do you propose doing that? Do we have to reduce every single one of them to rubble first? That would get awfully expensive, in lots of different ways.-Ricorun

A combination of the carrot and stick approach. The USA needs to reward nations like Iraq (brand new democracy!) and Afghanistan-nations whose governments have given up the global jihad. The USA also needs to do what Reverend Scaramonga said by "...finally declaring war against any and all who support the jihad and using our full military capabilities to destroy those countries who resist". IMO, it's too expensive and too difficult to do it any other way. This is a matter of the survivial of Western Civilization. We MUST be VICTORIOUS!