History Forum / General / British History / July 2006

We will and we have., several times in the past

The US has failed in every attempt to get rid of Hizbollah.

Israel have been trying for the past 20 years and have also failed even
after invading and occupying the country.

The Bush Doctrine is working ?

I'd hate to see what constitutes as a failure if Iraq, Afghanistan and the
so-called non-existant 'Road map for Peace' in Israel/Palestine are
considered a success.

Poor Mr Hines.

Yet again he chooses to simply ignore the bare facts and evidence slapping
him in the face. No wonder he was hoofed out of Intel and ended up in the
Navy Housing Office.

Intelligent, Prescient, Perspicacious & Provocative...

Well-Founded, Both Realistically & Geostrategically.

Mark Well & Ponder...

Remember -- The Bush Doctrine is working -- but arrant fools and Angry-Left
Bush-haters fail to see it.

DSH
--------------------------------------------------------

OPINIONJOURNAL FEDERATION

"Shaken and Stirred"

"By liberating Iraq, the U.S. set the stage for the destruction of
Hezbollah."

BY JOSH MANCHESTER
Wednesday, July 26, 2006

"The U.S. invasion of Iraq has so shaken and stirred the Middle East that
some exceptionally strange things are happening. More importantly, these
things unequivocally favor the U.S. in influencing the outcome of the
Israeli-Hezbollah War now taking place in Lebanon.

Bingo!  -- DSH

What sorts of strange things? Well, consider an Arab League meeting in Cairo
over the weekend, where a fight of sorts broke out. Jed Babbin described it
best:

 This meeting began with the Lebanese foreign minister Fawzi Salloukh
proposing a resolution condemning Israel's military action, supporting
Lebanon's "right to resist occupation by all legitimate means" . . . The
Lebanese draft also called on Israel to release all Lebanese prisoners and
supported Lebanon's right to "liberate them by all legitimate means." . . .
The Syrian foreign minister, Walid Moallem, strongly supported Lebanon and
Hizballah. But an historic obstacle was raised that blocked the Lebanese
endorsement of terrorism.

 The Saudi foreign minister, al-Faisal, led a triumvirate including Egypt
and Jordan that, according to the AP report, was " . . . criticizing the
guerilla group's actions, calling them "unexpected, inappropriate and
irresponsible acts." Faisal said, "These acts will pull the whole region
back to years ago, and we simply cannot accept them." . . . The Arab leaders
are frightened that the acts of the terrorists they have coddled for decades
might have consequences for them. And they are very frightened of what Iran
may do next."

These regimes would most certainly not be afraid of what Iran may do next if
Saddam Hussein still ran Iraq, providing for the Arab world a deterrent
against Iran.

In fact, this leads to the second strange event of late: Saddam's own
comments, as reported in Deutsche Presse-Agentur, about the war in Lebanon:

 Toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has issued a warning to the Syrian
leadership "not to go too far in its alliance with Iran," blaming Tehran for
the current flare-up of violence in the Middle East, the head of Saddam's
defence team claimed Tuesday  . . . "I am convinced that the Iranian and US
agendas have met in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world and Arabs are now
placed between the US-Israeli hammer and the Iranian anvil," Duleimi quoted
Saddam as saying.

This is a man whose prized dictatorship was overrun by U.S. forces, who was
captured by U.S. forces, and who as a result is on trial for his life. He
blames Tehran primarily for the current flare-up, not some Zionist-U.S.
conspiracy in the standard rhetoric of the region.  Remarkable.

In fact, Saddam is quite astute when he notes that the Arabs are placed
between the U.S.-Israeli hammer and the Iranian anvil.

Remember That.  The Bush Doctrine is working -- but arrant fools and
Angry-Left Bush-haters fail to see it.  -- DSH

Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq was the geostrategic pivot of the Middle
East.  All of the fault lines in the area's politics converge there.  The
Sunni-Shia split; the Arab-Persian split; the Ba'athist-Wahhabist split; and
the Muslim-Israeli split: each of these ran through Iraq via its ethnic and
religious makeup; its geographic location; and its former interests,
alliances, and enemies.

The "big bang," as invading Iraq has sometimes been called, was meant to
reorder the nature of politics in the region.

Indeed -- and it's having that desired effect.  -- DSH

This has been accomplished in a fundamental way. The idea of dividing an
enemy force into its constituent parts and then dealing with it piecemeal is
at least as old as Caesar's actions in Gaul.

It applies no less to U.S. strategy in the Middle East.

Every faction there has been made to reconsider its relationship with every
other. Rather than there being a monolithic clash of civilizations, thus far
the U.S. is dealing with the area in pieces--in whatever way it sees fit to
do so--whether making it tacitly clear to Syria that what happened in Iraq
could more easily happen to it, or threatening Iran on behalf of the region
and world, or seeking cooperation with the Saudis in hunting down al Qaeda.

Far from being a bit of belated triumphalism about the invasion, all of this
has immediate and direct consequences.

While the success of Iraq's democracy hangs in the balance from an
operational perspective, the strategic advantages created by the invasion of
Iraq are working very favorably for the U.S. in the current Israeli-Lebanon
crisis in very tangible ways.

Were Saddam still in power, the Arab world would not feel nearly as
threatened by Hezbollah, the Frankenstein's monster of Iran's creation.

Instead, they would have sided with the Syrian foreign minister's strong
support for Hezbollah. Saddam himself might even have offered cash rewards
to anyone attempting martyrdom against the Jews.

Instead, they came to no consensus. The leading Arab League states, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, call Hezbollah's actions "inappropriate and
irresponsible." This lessens the urgency of calls from the international
community, whether the G8, U.N., or EU, for a ceasefire.

That lessened urgency creates something very precious indeed: a moment in
time and space wherein Israel has the most fleeting of opportunities for
decisive action against Hezbollah, an avowed foe, a terrorist organization,
and a constant threat to the security of its populace.

Precisely!  As I have been pointing out for days, it gives Israel more time
to kick Hezbollah arse.  -- DSH

Decisive action is what has traditionally been missing from the wars of the
Middle East. Land changes hands, blows are exchanged, and peace eventually
is negotiated. But the underlying dynamic never changes because the sides
are rarely faced with a decisive defeat, the only condition that can force
the most avowed of men to abandon the ideas they hold dear.

Right!  So Israel must be given more time to kill Hezbollah jihadists and
cripple the organization.  -- DSH

Israel now has the chance to destroy Hezbollah. Only time can tell what
Israel will do with the opportunity it possesses. Opportunities forsaken are
opportunities lost forever, as Douglas MacArthur was sometimes rumored to
say.

But let there be no mistake: this moment would not have been possible
without the invasion of Iraq, and the destruction of Hezbollah is very much
in the interest of the United States and that of any other nation that
abhors terrorism."

"Josh Manchester is a TCS Daily contributing writer."
--------------------------

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Deus Vult

Sholem Aleichem