Sometimes we over-politicize and -analyze situations.  For example, no one ever actually "wins" in war.   Unless you measure post-war gains .... 

So, let's measure the Israeli vs. Hezbollah gains (as of Monday morning, when the cease fire goes into effect in Southern Lebanon):

Measure 1: With a force of approximately 30,000 troops, Israel claims to have reached the Litani River (their goal) and now encircle Hezbollah fighters trapped between the River and the Israeli-Lebanon border. 

The Israeli's may have just employed an age-old military strategy to counter Hezbollah's "hit and run" technique:  encircle the enemy and move to the middle.

Measure 2:  Israel will maintain this position (defending itself if attacked, per yesterday's UN resolution) until 30,000 Lebanese forces and UN peace-keepers (with guns, this time) replace them.  

The onus for controlling Hezbollah will then be on Lebanon and the UN.

Measure 3:  The Hezbollah leader has sorta-kinda accepted the UN resolution ... Hezbollah will honor the cease fire, but will continue to fight "as long as Israeli forces remain on Lebanese soil."  

OKKKKKK. 

Fighting should be fierce with casualties on both sides, but this sounds like a death wish for the entrapped terrorists. 

Sobeit. 

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

Did Israel move too slowly in achieving one of its original goals?  Seems like it, but I don't know (and few others know either) what obstacles had to be displaced before this goal could be met. 

Has the Israeli military fared well against a combatant whom others have failed to contain?   Seems that they have.  Hezbollah has been stocking and entrenching themselves in their own backyards for over six years.  [Just as the fanatics and militants have in Iraq .....] 

Will Israel survive? 

Israel has literally "won" every battle against intrusive Arab forces -- including, but not limited to Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the PLO.  At issue has been protecting Israeli land and people -- not the acquisition of other lands. 

Don't agree?  Then debate it amongst yourselves.  I prefer not to argue with history -- Biblical or military.  Especially when it concerns the Israelis.

Godspeed.

I'm just glad they're on our side.

 

I certainly have no inside information or expertise on the matter, but after  watching the Security Council vote 15-0 for a cease-fire resolution, Israel may have actually "won" a significant diplomatic coup this evening.

While my expectation was and will be that Israel maintains the right to peacefully [co]exist in the Middle East, I had misgivings about anyone's ability to actually decimate, i.e., physically "defeat" an entrenched terrorist militia. 

Those who expected Israel to achieve what larger, more powerful nations have been unable to do are likely disappointed.  Those who expected Israel to fail militarily, likely  feel that Hezbollah "won." 

Both perspectives are erroneous, in my opinion.

Israel won.  Hands down.  And so did the U. S. and it's pro-Israeli allies on the Security Council.  How?

1.  Israel will be allowed to continue to defend itself. This time, with U.N. sanction.  I have little to no doubt that Israel leaders will comply with this cease-fire resolution.
2.  Lebanon (now officially responsible for Hezbollah) must ensure that no further attacks occur -- something it should have done six years ago.  If Lebanese leaders fail to accept this resolution, their U.N. support should dwindle.
3.  As for Hezbollah -- their only "recognition" is for starting this mess.  Nothing more. 

Hezbollah leader Nasrallah and his benefactors in Syria and Iran must be terribly disappointed.  Not only did the west "win," via George Bush and Condi Rice -- Israel's right to defend itself has been confirmed!

They can thank Condi Rice for that. 

 

 

"When this UN Security Council resolution is passed,
we're going to know who really did want to
stop the violence and who didn't."

-- Condi Rice

 

I just feel like dancing.

... Awaiting the beginning of a lasting peace:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — After weeks of inaction, the United States and France appeared close to breaking a deadlock on a U.N. resolution aimed at ending the monthlong conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and a U.S. diplomat said there could be a vote on Friday.

....

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said she was flying to New York to "reinforce" Britain's efforts to reach agreement on a resolution, calling the situation "urgent" and saying "we need now to complete the task."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also was prepared to come either to vote "or, if need be, to work out any last-minute details," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

In Jerusalem, Israeli officials said they would hold off on expanding the current offensive in Lebanon to give diplomacy more time to work. The Security Cabinet has authorized Olmert to expand the offensive.

Israel Television reported that the latest draft resolution calls for the current 2,000-strong U.N. force in southern Lebanon to be enlarged to 20,000 troops, with Spain, German, Italy and Australia among the new troop contributors.

The Americans and the French want to make sure the resolution is acceptable to the Israelis and the Lebanese, who rejected their original draft circulated Aug. 5.

France is backing Lebanon's call for Israeli troops to start pulling out once hostilities end and when Lebanon deploys 15,000 troops of its own in the south.

Bolton said the United States believes Lebanon's decision to deploy the army "is significant, and we are going to take account of that in the resolution." But he said the strategic issue remains how to ensure that Hezbollah does not "re-infiltrate the southern part of Lebanon."

The United States is supporting Israel's insistence on staying in southern Lebanon until a robust international force is deployed, which could take weeks or months.

What's a few weeks when you've been waiting thousands of years?

Godspeed.

It really doesn't bother me that comparatively few read my views as expressed in this blog.  I neither solicit nor receive money for doing this.  I write for myself as a release for my own frustrations with most things political and because it is my right to write!  I write with sincerity and without drafts .... only recently (at the urging of my niece) have I begun using spell check on a regular basis. 

I do read other blogs, however.  Regularly.

A theme that piqued my attention today was the reaction to President Bush's use of the term "Islamic fascists." 

Immediately --- CAIR expressed their objection. 

"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group. "We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he told a news conference in Washington. "We urge him (Bush) and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves."

Ace offers the most succinct response to CAIR I've read today:

"Restrain themselves? That IS the restrained form of the descriptor. It is an attempt to separate peaceful Muslims from the jihadists, by differently describing jihadists as not simply "Muslims," but "Islamic Fascists."

If we drop that phraseology, you know what descriptor we're left with? Just plain old "Muslims."

What CAIR really seeks is for the world to stop noticing at all that the people forever jacking off to Al Qaeda murder-porn are all -- all -- Muslims.

Sorry. Reality is a little more important to me than "sensitivity" to a group that has not shown much "sensitivity" to non-Muslims' legitimate desire to not be murdered in large numbers."

Leftist scholars also took the Prez to task for misusing/abusing the word "fascist."  While scholarly discourse has its value and place (heck, even I have a doctorate), let's lighten up on the BDS-induced hysterics and hyperbole, Hairballs. 

Fascism: "a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government  (as opposed to a democracy)."  Simple enough?  Even though I have profound respect for the historical significance for the roots of fascism -- this definition works for me.  So give it a break, OK? 

And speaking of scholars -- skip over to sisu (after reading my post, of course) for an enlightening discourse on why Islamic jihadists and moonbats want to blame  nigh-on-to everything on the Israeli's:  "Success is anathema to the Left because it puts an end to victimhood; without victims the Left has no reason to exist ...."  If you follow the link above, you'll find an insightful review which explains why moderates (such as moi) often believe as we do:

In her book The New Anti-Semitism (2005), American feminist academic Phyllis Chesler writes: "The American and European Left have made a marriage in hell with their Islamic counterparts. The same Left that has still never expressed any guilt over its devotion to communist dictators who murdered millions of their own people in the service of a Great Idea has now finally, fatefully, joined the world jihadic chorus in calling for the end to racist Zionism and to the Jewish apartheid state."

Just to prove I'm not all highbrow <wink>, I'll slap low line hockey pucks at both CAIR and those elitist scholars from the left. 

Get off the ice. 

Enter BDS: The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.
  
Enter Left-Wing Lunacy.

Sorry, moonbats -- today's foiled terrorist plot to blow up several airplanes was not concocted by Republicans or Lieberman in retaliation for Lamont's slim win.  Nor can it be blamed on UK Muslims reacting to UK's support of Israel, U.S. foreign policies and the GWOT (global war on terror). 

The terrorist plot to blow up multiple airplanes carrying thousands of innocent civilians has been in the planning for months, if not years.  

Try again, Moonbats. 
The terrorists certainly will.

 

Recently posted at Whizbang by Gull: 

Beyond BDS ....

"One could hope that we could -- for once -- get beyond the Bush Derangement Syndrome and realize that, as a previous poster stated: terrorists want ALL of us dead.

Ahhhhhh ... to see bloggers working together: moonbats and wingnuts blogging keyboard to keyboard in a concerted war-of-words AGAINST terrorism -- instead of sniping at each other. We could be the Moonwing Marauders! The Batnut Brigade!!!

Seriously -- could it happen? Could we not find mutual goals? Common objectives?

Probably not. Now playing on monitors everywhere: the BDS soundtrack against undertones of left/right extremism -- with minimal moderation in a battle of woofers and tweeters.

Too bad. Our survival may depend on it."

Why not make an effort?  Every one of us should be united in our concern about 8 missing students who came to the US to study and have strangely disappeared.  Post their photos on your site and help locate them!

 

HELP LOCATE THESE "MISSING"  EGYPTIAN STUDENTS --------- Post their photos everywhere!!  If seen or recognized, contact local authorities.

 

IDES --  An acronym from the Internet, meaning "intimidate, demoralize, emasculate, subjugate."  It specifically involves immediate, wild, at times nonsensical, hateful, insulting personal attacks, without termination.  IDES is about using anarchy against those who might gain from anarchism.

Unless there is sufficient incentive to respond beforehand, the Iranian president Ahmadinejad will give the United States a "final answer" about its nuclear development on August 22.

The man is a lunatic.  A dangerous lunatic. 

What is the significance of Aug. 22?   Per the Koran and religious traditions, August 22 marks the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, indicating the final victory of the forces of good over evil. 

Be careful what you pray for.

This year, Aug. 22 corresponds to the 27th day of the month of Rajab. Many Muslims believe this date commemorates the flight of the prophet Muhammad, first to "the farthest mosque" (usually identified as Jerusalem) and then to heaven and back.

Warning to Ahmadinejad:  It would not be a false assumption to suspect that Israel already has nuclear warheads in its military arsenal.  

The re-writing of history and tradition is not uncommon ... Assuming that Ahmadinejad preports himself to be Muhammad, he should anticipate an extended detour enroute to Jerusalem -- through hell. 

But, back to lunatics.

Ahmadinejad is a dangerous fanatic.

France's diplomatic corps (more on these oil-grubbing, US-bashing, back-stabbing folks later) quickly distanced themselves from Ahmadinejad when he stated:  "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented."

What stage?  Might the final "stage" be revealed on August 22?  Is this a signal to let all hell break loose in Israel?  In the US?  England?  Australia?  Is Ahmadinejad buying time, i.e., using the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict as a smoke screen to allow Iran time to obtain nuclear weapons?  To mount an assault, as has been threatened, on Israel from all borders?  Egypt?  Lebanon? Jordan? Syria?  Gaza?  The West Bank? Golan Heights?

An immediate cease-fire?  Why?  Why not allow Hezbollah to continue the "softening" of Israel?  Ahhhhh .... Is this simply a "time-out" to allow Hezbollah to re-group?  To re-build bridges?  To re-supply?

Let's examine the historical significance of "cease-fire" jihad-style: 

"In jihadist ideology, a truce can be offered to the enemies of Islam only for tactical reasons - principally when the enemy is strong and the Muslims are weak. The truce period is to be used to change the balance of forces. When this is accomplished, and the stage has been set for a Muslim victory, the truce must be broken. This strategy follows the practice and teachings of Islam's founder, the Prophet Mohammed, who arranged a 10 year truce with the Quraysh tribe in 628, when his forces were not yet powerful enough to defeat the Quraysh. The truce has been known since then as the "Treaty of Hudaybiyah," after the site near the Quraysh city of Mecca where it was negotiated. Less than 2 years later, when Muslim forces were sufficiently strong, the Quraysh were defeated by the Muslims and Mecca captured. The Arabic term used to describe the truce with the Quraysh was hudna - the same word used by Hamas in their "truce"offers to Israel. Yasir Arafat, may his memory be erased, also described the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO as a "hudna" in a speech made to an Arabic audience shortly after the famous handshake on the White House lawn. This should have been a warning to Israel and the United States about the dis-ingenuousness of Arafat regarding long-term peace with Israel, but it was not heeded."

Ahmadinejad is a dangerous lunatic. 

Arabic leaders do not appear able (willing?) to restrain Ahmadinejad's obsession with annihilating Israel at any cost.  Possibly the only such restraint may be the person who is actually "in charge" in Iran -- Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  Pundits and world leaders may sometimes forget that Ahmadinejad  neither "officially" rules Iran nor controls its foreign and military policies.  He is permitted by Iranian clerics to serve as Iran's President.  Stability in the Middle East, i.e., the diverting of a lunatic's ambition to engage in a holy war, may well be in the hands of the lunatic's spiritual leader.

If the Khamenei does not intervene, we may all find ourselves in God's Hands -- literally.

 

Lebanon says, "We'll call up 30,000 reserves.  Ooops.  We don't have that many.  Make that 15,000 reserves."

And in the next breath (ummmmm -- noooo -- not to fight the IDF), but to patrol Southern Lebanon -- in lieu of a larg(er) U.N. peacekeeping force -- to monitor Hezbollah and secure the Israeli-Lebanonese border. 

And Israel (calling their bluff) says, "Great!  Come on down.  No matter that you're six years late.  But until you get here, we'll stay."

And back to the drafting table go France and the US. 

CONDI RICE:  "When this UN Security Council resolution is passed, we're going to know who really did want to stop the violence and who didn't."

Will the Lebanonese take charge of their country?  Unlikely.  Will Israeli forces leave S. Lebanon?  Only when a serious international peacekeeping force is in place.  Will such a force be sent to Southern Lebanon?  Likely.  Problem is:  Iran and Syria don't want a serious international force in place.  

No problem.   U.N. leadership is too busy garnering pay-offs and kick-backs to enact a serious peacekeeping effort.  

But NATO isn't.