For the record.

I am a moderate libertarian, according to the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

Ouch.

Not that I particularly enjoy linking Michelle Malkin, but this is really nasty.

In short: the NY Times revealed a secret program that monitored bank transactions to track terrorists. The program was not being abused, nor was it illegal. The editor admits this much. Now, the program is no longer useful for monitoring terrorists...since they know about it.

I'm all about whistleblowers when the government is breaking the law. I dont want to see our civil liberties removed in the name of finding terrorists. I don't want to hear about secret prisons, or having people thrown in jail indefinitely. I don't want our government to officially sanction torture and throw out the Geneva Conventions.

But there a line that distinguishes between noble and courageous journalism, and politically-motivated pestering. At some point, no matter whether you support Bush or hate him, Americans need to recognize that we are fighting some sort of a war here. It was bullshit that the NY Times was so eager to throw something anti-Bush out there that they recklessly exposed this secret. I mean, Bush messes up enough as it is; its not like there is a shortage of things to call him out on. So why go with something that was clearly borderline at the time, and in retrospect was outright wrong?

It was partisanship that drove someone in the Bush administation to oust Valerie Plame as a spy, which weakened America's intelligence gathering capabilities. It was also partisanship that motivated the NY Times to jump the gun in this instance. It seems that political victory is most important to some...perhaps for many. Whether we actually stop the extremists must be of lesser importance.

Iran threatens Europe.

The Iranian President has been out of the news lately, no doubt judging the international response to North Korea's nuclear test. Marking 'Jerusalem Day', which is apparently some sort of 'Death to America and Israel' type celebration, he had some words for Europeans:

"It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals (Israelis). This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow. The Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region. We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt."

Evidently Americans, being so far away, are no longer a target of Iranian fury. Thats nice to know. Ahmadinejad reiterated previous positions that Israel has no right to exist, and that its Jewish inhabitants should go back to the countries from whence they came. I'm sure that would go over well.

Sarcasm aside, his words are obviously designed to widen the trans-Atlantic rift. A united West is something that has proven resilient to the threats and actions of such men throughout the course of history. Free and democratic societies, when they band together against authoritarian and genocidal regimes, have proven to be an unstoppable force. It isn't surprising at all that the Mullahs would try to divide the West with such language.

The unsettling thing is that as I sit here, there is a debate in my mind as to whether or not such threats might work against the Europeans.

Time for talks.

Negotiations failed once in Munich many years ago. That does not mean negotiating with an authoritarian regime is forever destined to be a horrible mistake. The time is right to negotiate. Why? Because we are in a position of great strength, and NK is in a position of great weakness. We can get the best deal if we negotiate now.

Yes, Kim Jong Il is on the defensive now. He sees the world allying against him, and his rhetoric is becoming more heated, and more desperate. I mean, the guy is talking about going to war with the United States. That indicates one of two things. Either he is insane, which I dont believe he is. Or he realizes that he is in a position of great weakness right now, and he is trying to appear strong. I'm quite sure that he has read his Sun Tzu. Given that even China and Russia are lining up against him, I'd say it is very likely that Kim is quite nervous right now, and if he hasn't already, he will soon realize he's made a big mistake.

And that is our great opportunity. Someone that is on the defensive simply will not come out and ask for reconciliation. They would fear making obvious the true weakness of their position. However, someone on the defensive will eagerly take an outstretched hand. We need to offer Kim an honorable out from this crisis. We need to give him a way to stand down without looking weak. We should negotiate, because we're in about as strong of a position now as we ever will be - the entire world behind us. We have all the cards. We should play them.

And if Kim slaps our hand away, or if he does turn out to be insane, and picks a fight with the United States, what have we lost? Only the moral low ground.

This is our ambassador to the UN?

"We interpret it very simply. They popped off, we stood up, and they backed down." - John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations.

His words were in response to recent diplomatic activity by Sudan. The original position held by the Sudanese was that the pledging of troops by UN member states for a Darfur mission would be considered a hostile act (a "prelude to invasion"). Sudan then apparently reversed its position. Link here.

I've always despised this guy. Maybe its because he looks like a moron with his massive moustache. Honestly though, he couldn't have been less eloquent. No wonder world opinion has turned so strongly against us. Our diplomats are loud-mouthed uneducated assholes. We couldn't find someone else to better represent the US in the most important world body?

Equally disturbing is that the UN is still paralyzed, too intimidated to act against genocide. That is a tragedy. Perhaps it is a good thing that someone finally spoke with strong words towards the Sudanese government? No, its not. Unfortunately, the US isn't in a position to resolve that conflict unilaterally. We're already busy occupying one oil-rich Arab nation. If anything is going to happen in Sudan, its going to be through the UN. And so it doesn't help matters to be so abrasive, as Bolton did.

If however we weren't in Iraq, I'd be all about the quick and violent destruction of that genocidal regime in Khartoum. Never again.

The appropriate time for fighting words

is not now.

Fighting words should be reserved for those rarest of situations, when we are about ready to strike with military force. For such a situation to materialize, two conditions both have been met. The first condition is that the crisis is so grave that an armed response is absolutely necessary. The second is that we are capable of dealing with the full repercussions of our attack and are prepared to follow it out to an appropriate conclusion.

In other words, a nation must never attack unless it has no other option, and a nation must never attack if it doesn't know it can win the ensuing conflict - and pyrrhic victories are not satisfactory conclusions.

"North Korea must choose either to have a future or to have nuclear weapons "but it cannot have them both", top US negotiator Christopher Hill said." (BBC)

I'm really not thrilled that North Korea is going to test a nuke. But it doesn't make any sense to speak in threatening language. Consider the two possible scenarios:

1) The US is prepared to launch a military strike, and this is our warning.
This is stupid. We're going to go and attack a nuclear armed nation? Smart. And then what, when the North Koreans retaliate (hopefully in a conventional way)? Escalate the war? Invade? Nuke? Get out of here, these are all shitty options. America should not be responsible for starting a war.

2) The US is not going to launch a military strike, but is rattling its sabers.
Then why the fighting words? Hey, I don't know if anyone noticed, but Kim is one of those leaders that doesn't seem to care about the welfare of his people. He isn't going to back down to US military threats. So making such threats only makes negotiation with him (which is hard enough) even more difficult.

Everyone needs to relax. At the end of the day, we all knew North Korea had nukes. And North Korea is still more rational / deterrable / negotiable than the Iranians are. If North Korea tests its nukes, all its going to do is strengthen our diplomatic position and weaken NK's. If we attack them, the opposite is true. Let Kim test his nuke, and then watch the world stand with America in its strategy of containment, isolation, and sanctions. Eventually NK will crumble. Its a proven strategy. Look at the Soviet Union - did we ever attack them?

And, god forbid, if North Korea ever uses its weapons...nobody can say we didn't try. We can unleash everything we have and ensure the complete destruction of the North Korean government, and we'll have the moral high ground and the backing of the world in doing so.

Another catastrophic failure.

North Korea has announced that it will conduct its first nuclear test, although it has not specified when it will take place. Of course, this is a major setback and serious diplomatic efforts should be made to prevent this test. North Korea's acquisition of nuclear arms is another product of Bush's horrid foreign policy strategies.

We need a diplomatic president in office at a time like this, not a sniveling coward that masquerades as a tough guy.

Historical details of the North Korean diplomatic situation can be found here. A must read.

gogo Independents

Senator Lieberman explains why independents are the fastest growing category of voters.

His multi-millionaire challenger, Ned Lamont, is an opportunist; nothing more. A Lieberman victory is going to be a strong statement against petty partisan stunts.

Trent Lott:

"It's hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what's wrong with these people," he said. "Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion? Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."
-Link

I wouldn't consider those to be stupid questions if they were asked by my 11 year old sister, to be fair. Is this US Senator really so clueless about world history that he would ask why people kill in the name of religion? Why is he in office?

Here was the first part of that same press release:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush barely mentioned the war in Iraq when he met with Republican senators behind closed doors in the Capitol Thursday morning and was not asked about the course of the war, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said.

"No, none of that," Lott told reporters after the session when asked if the Iraq war was discussed. "You're the only ones who obsess on that. We don't and the real people out in the real world don't for the most part."

Maybe we wouldn't be losing Iraq if our leadership did obsess over it? Isn't that their fucking job? He went on to assert that real people in the real world didn't care about Iraq. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. We will be greeted as liberators. There is no insurgency. The insurgency is in its last throes. And now, the result in Iraq doesn't matter. Just the latest in a depressing series of profound miscalculations.

Terrorism:

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Our government is about to pass a law that will suspend Habeas Corpus. It also has an illegal wiretapping program, and officially tortures captured enemy fighters.

Oh, we citizens should not be surprised. It was fear that led us to support a bogus war against a false threat. We showed how scared we were last fall, we didn't stand up for our freedom of speech when it was being challenged by threats of violence. And even now, we pre-censor artistic expression because of threats that have yet to even materialize!

So why shouldn't the government suspend Habeas Corpus? The citizens of this country have shown that they don't care about their rights anyways. The government might as well get rid of them and make the job of fighting terrorists a little bit easier. Screw the moral high ground.

We are a bunch of scared, intimidated sheep. Embarrassing.

My, how things change.

Iraqis want us to stay.

It isn't a surprise that the Kurds want us to remain in Iraq. US forces have essentially given the Kurds their own country for the last 15 years. Without US troops, Kurds would be vulnerable to subjugation by Turkey, Iran, or Arab Iraqis. Further, the Kurds were worst off under Saddam's rule, so they were most excited to see us invade in the first place.

The interesting change is that now Sunni Arab Iraqis want US troops to hang around. Only a year or two ago, Sunni Arabs were in full revolt against the US occupation. They claimed that the insurgency was soley designed to get the "occupier" out of Iraq. Obviously that was BS; they wanted us out of Iraq so they could take over again. Now that the Shias have gained power, the Sunnis realize they can't win a civil war and aren't so quick to see us leave them to the mercy of the vengeful Shia death squads.

You'll notice that the Shia want us around still, too; otherwise their PM would have asked us to leave. All three groups want us to stay around; the reason is because no group in Iraq has a winning hand yet. If one thought they had the power to take over the rest, they'd be trying to get us to leave.

This is a potentially very dangerous situation, but there is an opportunity here. There are three apparently equally matched competitors; that would make for a really nasty civil war (worse than whats going on now, anyway). Alternatively, it also means that the US has some enormous diplomatic leverage since it could easily tip the balance and determine the winner. Why aren't we using that leverage to broker a peace?

And there is a reason I havent posted much. Medschool is a pain in the ass. But I'm enjoying it.

No censorship!

The founder of Wikipedia (my favorite website) is my hero. He has refused to censor politically sensitive articles at request of the Chinese government. This man has stood for what is right where others have sold out (Google being the largest example).

We should make it as difficult as possible for governments to control what their people see and hear...that is our best hope for the future. Hats off to Jimmy Wales for making the world a better place.

Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. Get over it. And, why Iran cant have nukes.

There are all sorts of liberals that are whining that Joe Lieberman "betrayed" the party. They complain that he won't campaign for any of them, endorse any of them, et cetera, and therefore he is disloyal and selfish. Who betrayed who? Those on the left turned on Lieberman because he wouldn't march foot in step with the rest of the party? Because he thought for himself instead of having someone else think for him?

Well, how are they surprised that he won't help Dems now? Lieberman is an Independent, not a Democrat; he owes Dems nothing. How ironic that the people that are making the loudest noise about Joe's "betrayal" are the same ones that catalyzed his primary defeat to an opportunist millionaire.

And it is equally funny to watch leftists scream and yell that the Republicans aren't supporting their candidate in Connecticut. Of course they arent! He sucks! The Republicans realize that their man has no chance of getting elected, and that Lieberman is far better than Lamont. So they figure if all of the republicans vote or Joe, plus moderates, plus some Dems who will still respect the name, Lieberman has a great shot at winning the general election. I really really hope he does win =).

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

There is something else that is on my mind. It is simply mind boggling that people can be in a panic about looming threats such as global warming, and yet be totally ambivalent about the prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons. I even feel like some (on the left) would actually prefer it if Iran got nukes. This thinking is so dangerous and so stupid, it is mind boggling.

In essence, we are dealing with a game of probabilities here. Nobody knows for sure whether global warming will be no problem, a small problem, or a big problem. However, it would be reasonable to place statistics on such scenarios. Some claim that even if Iran got nukes, it would never use them. Perhaps; but we can again look at statistics and claim that if Iran gets nukes, the probability of a nuclear war increases in the near future. How much of an increase are we prepared to accept? How much of an increase (in the chance of war) will there be? Consider:

-When one nation acquires nuclear weapons, then its major rival(s) feel extreme amounts of pressure to do so as well. Otherwise the balance of power is extremely upset in the favor of the nuclear armed nation. The result is a nuclear arms race; such a race greatly increase the probability of nuclear war. So when the US got nuclear weapons, you can bet that Stalin had his scientists working overtime to catch up. And they did, quickly.

Britain, being another rival of the Soviets, gained their nuclear weapons. The Chinese were rivals to both the US and USSR (in fact, China and the Soviets almost went to war); they acquired their nuclear weapons. And the French got them too, because they are French and wanted to feel significant.

But after all of the members of the UN security council had nukes, they agreed to try to stop their spread through the non-proliferation treaty. It should be very obvious - the more countries that have nukes, the greater the probability of accidental or intentional nuclear war. The world recognized this, and so most countries agreed and signed the treaty. Including other powerful nations, like Japan and Germany. The second and third largest economies in the world have decided to sign away their right to nuclear weapons because it was the right thing to do.

Look what happened after India tested its first nuke in 74. Its main rival, Pakistan, developed one as well. The probability of nuclear war drastically increased because there was a new arms race between two new nuclear armed nations. These two nations had already fought multiple conventional wars against each other...will a nuclear war be next? Probably not. Given that both of these nations are at least fairly stable, we can *hope* that MAD prevents a war from breaking out. But the thought of a nuclear armed India and Pakistan still makes me nervous. What happens if the Pakistani government is overthrown? What happens if rogue elements in the government steal a nuke? It is obvious; the probability of a nuclear war has greatly increased due to this extra proliferation.

So I am about to write about Iran, knowing that North Korea probably has nukes. Why am I not as concerned with North Korea? The main reason is because North Korea has no real rivals. Nobody is about to engage in a conventional war with the North. Think of it another way: essentially nobody in the world likes North Korea, not even China really, so their rivals are everyone, but nobody in particular. So a nuclear armed North Korea isn't something I like, but theres nothing we can do about it at this point, and it isnt going to start an arms race. Its more of a localized, one-time issue.

So why is Iran such a problem? Iran is a problem because Iran has a LOT of rivals. For starters, every Arabic country in the Middle East, save Syria (which has a temporary alliance of convenience with Iran). Keep in mind that Arabic countries are Arab Sunni Muslim dominated, while the Iranians are Shias and Persian. They dont get along. Heck, even Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs dont get along; look at Iraq. And now add the ethnic variable to the equation, and they're (Iran/Arabs) about as opposite as anyone can be.

Dont believe me? Think back to when the war between Hezbollah and Israel broke out. What was the initial response from Arabic countries, such as Saudi Arabia? It was to condemn Hezbollah. Thats right, the Saudis and some other Arabic countries condemned a Muslim Arabic militia (granted, a Shiite one) instead of condemning Israel. That is absolutely unprecedented.

Of course, they had to backtrack eventually because their populations got so pissed off at Israel. But the lesson is clear. Arab Sunnis are very nervous about Iran. If Iran gets nukes, it will very possibly start an arms race in the Middle East. The Saudis will want them. The Egyptians will, too. You can bet if Israel has them, it will make it known (as to deter Iranian attack) and build a hell of a lot more of them. Then Syria might want them if Israel shows they have them. God knows what Iraq will be doing. I'm sorry, but does anyone think an arms race in the middle east is a good idea?

Arms race aside, there is also the risk of Iran directly arming a group like Hezbollah with a nuclear warhead. They've given Hezbollah thousands of missiles. The Iranian leadership believes the apocalypse is coming soon; they've openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Why wouldn't they pass off nukes to terrorists?

The probability of a nuclear war breaking out amongst stable nations that are permanent members of the UN security council is low, but not low enough. Those odds have greatly gone up since India and Pakistan have both become nuclear armed. If Iran gets nukes, and sparks an arms race in the middle east, the probability of a nuclear war happening in the near future is good.

Those on the far left will scream and yell about the off chance that global warming could cause some flooding and droughts a century from now, when there might be an exponentially greater chance of a nuclear war a decade from now. Its absolutely nuts. Its nuts that the left, including the homosexual community, would not see the danger in a nation like Iran, who just a year ago publicly hung two gay teenagers for being such. Opposition to Bush no matter what is the message here. Its a common theme in this country, that frankly I am sick and tired of. I'm tired of ideology and party loyalty over common sense. This applies to everyone, but I personally think those on the left are more guilty of it, because theoretically they should know better.

Bah. Now I'm all riled up...I'm never going to get to sleep.

Nick

Only two more years!

If anyone wants a strong dose of optimism for the day, here it is.

I am not going to come out and say that I believe anything this guy says. However, I havent come to the realization that it is time to throw in the towel yet, either. The violence in Iraq is horrid, to be sure. But it isnt capable of bringing down the government, or even coming close. Granted, thats because the US military is still there (notice you dont hear anyone asking us to leave anymore?). But in a couple more years, I would imagine that the government could stand on its own two feet. There would still be violence for a while; but as long as no strongman attempts a coup d'etat, who knows...

Just a link

Nasrallah lives within me.

And the offical news from the Iranians: they're ready for serious talks. Oh well. I've had a night to sleep on it, and I'm not so pissed off anymore. Now I'll just psychologically prepare myself for the next big war that will be coming.

Cheers,
Nick

Taking matters into our own hands

The word on the street is that the Iranians will pursue their nuclear ambitions, according to their supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. This really comes as no surprise. Iran is confident that the Bush administration will be powerless to stop their program, either by military or diplomatic means. They are pretty much correct. Bush can do nothing right now.

The military option should be out of the question. The fact that the Bush administration would even consider it shows how weak our hand really is. Given that the Iranian facilities are so spread out and hidden, its doubtful that airstrikes would work well. Even *if* they were successful, it would only be a temporary solution to a long term problem. Not only that, but there are plenty of places the Iranians could retaliate; Iraq being the most obvious.

There will be no strong UN Security Council resolution. At best, there will be a slap on Iran's wrists, but even that would surprise me. The UN will be again paralyzed into inaction due to Russian and Chinese vetos. They have their own economic and energy interests at stake, and have no desire to anger a large oil supplier in the form of Iran. Besides, Iran and its proxies aren't threatening Russia or China, so they aren't worried.

The Bush administration won't be able to convince the Russians or the Chinese to do the right thing, but I bet the American people could. We Americans could wield our most powerful weapon against Russia and China - our power as consumers. If the Russians and Chinese refuse to back strict sanctions against Iran, then the American people should boycott as many of their goods as possible. They would quickly learn where their economic interests lie.

A strong Security Council resolution and sanctions is the only way that we can effectively deal with the Iranian government. The world - not just America, must diplomatically and economically squeeze Iran until it collapses. We must force the Iranian government to waste its resources on military equipment while denying it a strong economy that would also allow it to keep its population happy. We must continue to confront and isolate its allies, for instance ensuring that the UN follow through on its commitments and completely disarm Hezbollah. Finally we should increase support for Iran's enemies, both internal and external. Eventually, change will come from within; perhaps even before Iran is able to acquire nukes. This is the same strategy that defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War, without a shot fired. It can defeat Iran as well.

This is the only option that I can see. If we stand and do nothing, and allow the Bush administration to try to resolve the problem, we might end up in another war:

Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow in non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: "This won't drag on for years. There are two deadlines of sorts at the end of 2008. That is the earliest date by which some people think Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon. I think the date is more like 2010.

"And on November 2008, there is the US presidential election. President Bush will be inclined not to let this problem be passed on. There will be a growing mood in the US administration to take other action."

Asked if Israel's problems in disarming Hezbollah showed the limitations of air power and might therefore make an attack on Iran less likely, he replied: "Israel's actions make an attack on Iran more likely as it removes one of Iran's retaliatory tools, an attack on Israel by Hezbollah. This has now been pre-empted."

Hmph. If we were going to bomb Iran, we shouldn't even consider bombing their nuclear facilities. We should bomb all of their oil pipelines, and blockade the Persian Gulf. Sink every Iranian oil tanker that we see. They can't make nuclear weapons if they don't have any oil revenue. And that way, nobody could accuse us of going to war for oil.

...not that I'm confident that Americans would prefer 5$/gallon gas at the pumps to World War 3. But hey, I can dream.

*** Update ***

I've decided that I'm searching desperately for a good solution to this problem, when one probably doesn't exist. Nobody is going to boycott anyone, Iran isn't going to stop their program, and Bush isn't going to leave office with this problem unaddressed. Sigh.

A 'hero and victor'

As would be expected, Palestinians are celebrating Nasrallah (the leader of Hezbollah) as a new hero. Its a shame that the Israelis didn't manage to kill him. I highly doubt that the international community will force Hezbollah to disarm; this new ceasefire probably wont last.

The following is a summary of Arab military efforts by a reporter in northern Israel. Its completely true, and pathetically so. The rest can be read here.

“Hassan Nasrallah declared victory today,” I said. “What do you think about that?”

He laughed. And of course he would laugh. Everyone in the world knew Nasrallah would declare victory no matter what if he was not in a cage and if he still had a pulse. The Arab bar for military victory is set pathetically low. All you have to do is survive. You “win” even if your country is torn to pieces. The very idea of a Pyrrhic victory doesn’t occur to people who start unwinnable wars with the state of Israel.

Lieberman falls to a bum

Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut was beat in the primaries by millionaire Ned Lamont. There was a grassrootes left-wing movement to oust Joe, mainly because of his support of the war in Iraq. Lamont, of course, calls for an immediate pull-out of our troops from Iraq.

Daily Kos summarizes by saying "Democrats are united on the war. Lieberman is no longer a democrat..."

The funny thing, is that Dems are in fact not united on the war. Bill Clinton, the most popular Democrat in the country, gave a speech in which he stated that it was important for us to remain in Iraq for some time longer. Reasonable democrats will rise above partisanship and realize what is in the best interest of the country, and the world.

Austin Bay blog elaborates on my dream ticket: McCain/Lieberman 08.

More good news; Cynthia McKinney, a congresswoman from Georgia, was beaten in the primaries. Do we all remember her? She was the one who punched a police officer in Washington. Here is another 'great' quote by her:

We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11... Those engaged in unusual stock trades immediately before September 11 knew enough to make millions of dollars from United and American airlines, certain insurance and brokerage firms' stocks. What did the Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?

She will not be missed.

Morally suspect, strategically stupid.

Charles Krauthammer blogs on the current situation between Israel and Lebanon. Here is a historical analogy he makes, attempting to argue that Israel's attacks on Lebanon are morally justified.

When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cinders, and turned the Japanese home islands into rubble and ruin.

Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right -- legal and moral -- to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.

Is the state of Israel morally justified in this crisis? Even though they were clearly attacked first (kidnapping of two soldiers), I would say no; they do not have the moral high ground. Charles' analogy above is flawed, because the state of Lebanon did not launch an unprovoked act of war against Israel like the Japanese had against the US. It was a rogue element within Lebanon that started this crisis.

Hezbollah is not Lebanon. In fact, I'd say that Hezbollah is more Syria and Iran than it is Lebanon. Hezbollah should have been disarmed, according to UN resolution 1559, but was not. The international community lacked the foresight and the resolve to enforce this UN resolution (strange). Additionally, the Lebanese government didnt have the power to disarm Hezbollah itself. That is because Hezbollah is more powerful than the Lebanese Army, thanks to generous Iranian arms support.

So yes, Israel was attacked first. But by the Lebanese state? No. The Lebanese aren't responsible for Hezbollah's actions. If we want someone to blame, we can look to the UN, Iran, or Syria. Meanwhile hundreds of Lebanese civilians are dead, hundreds of thousands are displaced, and billions of dollars of damage has been done to Lebanese infrastructure. All of this has happened to these people, and they really had no control over it.

The only moral argument Israel has going for it is that perhaps 40% of Lebanese are Shiite Muslim and so they "support Hezbollah", therefore their action is justified. Well, Hezbollah may be popular, but if I had to put money on it, I'd wager that the vast majority of those Shiite Muslims want peace. I'm sorry, wanted peace.

Morality aside, in my last post I pointed out that Israel's actions were strategically stupid. I stand by that. It should be well known to Israelis of all people that their policy in the middle east is inexorably tied to our own. Right now, we the USA are tied up in Iraq, and are still in Afghanistan. The Israelis themselves were/are fighting Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza. We're also trying to contain Iran. We were fighting on four fronts between the two of us. Why would Israel go and open up a 5th front in Lebanon? Do we really need to galvanize worldwide opinion against us at such a crucial time? Did our troops in Iraq really need the majority Shiites all riled up because of what was happening in Lebanon? And what have we learned about unilateral over-reactions in response to terrorists? Apparently, nothing.

And so here we are. Israel certainly doesnt have the moral high ground; its neutral if anything. Strategically, this was the biggest mistake since Iraq. And these are things I would think while assuming Israel would still accomplish its main goal of severely crippling Hezbollah. It is not clear at all right now whether that will even happen. A stalemate here would be a victory for Hezbollah and a defeat for Israel. That would be the worst foreign policy disaster...possibly in Israeli history. Certainly, the peace process...at least what was left of it, was set back 1-2 decades.

Perhaps the Americans and Israelis should stop electing leaders that lack military experience yet are overly enthusiastic about using their nation's military to solve problems. General Powell was the only man in the Bush administration that knew anything about war, and he was against the invasion of Iraq. If only Ariel Sharon wasn't in a coma, Israel wouldn't be in their predicament, either.

The Israelis should learn from the Indians

The Indians have done things right. In response to the terrorist attacks, which were horrific, they didn't immediately condemn Pakistan and start bombing it. That would have made matters worse, and in fact erased all of the hard earned peace advances that had been made between the two nations. Additionally, this strategy gives India considerable moral credibility. To be attacked in such a violent manner, only to turn the other cheek, is quite commendable. Certainly, such restraint will garnish enormous respect from more moderate Muslims in both Pakistan and India.

When you consider that the Pakistani government doesn't have complete control of all of the Islamists, India's response looks even more intelligent. And yet the situation is very similar in the Middle East. The Lebanese State certainly doesn't have complete control over its more extreme elements. The Israeli over-reaction to a terrorists' groups provokation is a huge mistake. They should have done nothing, instead turning to the international community and said "See, look what Hizbullah has done? We are the victim!".

The Israeli reaction recently to Palestinian provokation has also been too elaborate. When Palestinians fire Qassam rockets into Israel, the Israelis should respond by targeting the launch site with heavy artillery bombardment, nothing more, nothing less. Sending tanks, airstrikes, etc is simply an over-reaction.

And now, the Israelis have painted themselves to the world as the aggressor. There is a time and a place for massive military action; a knee jerk response to extremists is not that time. If nothing else, Israel should have issued Lebanon an ultimatum demanding the return of their soldiers.

These recent weeks, the Israelis have lost much of the moral credibility that they had gained recently in my eyes. It was exactly the same with the USA. After 9/11, the USA was the victim; Afghanistan was justified. Iraq was an over-reaction, and thus the USA became the aggressor. If there is anything the West needs to learn in fighting terrorism, it is the folly of an over-reaction in response.