Ceasefire fallout: All the wrong lessons (Update: Lebanese army ordered to “stand with” Hezbollah)

posted at 1:09 am on August 19, 2006 by Allahpundit

When asked this afternoon why he thought Islamism had become a force in the Arab world, a Palestinian ex-terrorist(!) whose name I forget told Fox it was because all the wars they’d lost to the Zionists had been fought under the banner of Arab pan-nationalism. Islamism was a response to that. Only by fighting under the banner of Allah, the theory went, could they finally reconquer Palestine.

By that logic, their devotion to God is partly a function of their desire to destroy Israel. Let that sink in for a minute. Also, how much it smacks of “magical” thinking: rather than take a scientific approach to victory, by focusing on military strategy and technological development, they’re essentially trying on different ideological sweaters in hopes of stumbling upon the one that finally “works.”

The irony is that Hezbollah achieved a moral victory precisely because they haven’t neglected the strategic side. The “party of God” knows how to wage guerrilla warfare and, thanks to Iran, they’re well equipped to do so. But that’s not how their victory’s being interpreted across the region. The glory goes to Allah, with the inevitable result that Islamism is on the march:

The widespread view that Hezbollah won has both propelled and been propelled by a wave already washing over the region. Political Islam was widely seen as the antidote to the failures of Arab nationalism, communism, socialism and, most recently, what is seen as the false promise of American-style democracy. It was that wave that helped the banned but tolerated Muslim Brotherhood win 88 seats in the Egyptian Parliament last December despite the government’s efforts to stop voters from getting to the polls. It was that wave that swept Hamas into power in the Palestinian government in January, shocking Hamas itself…

The lesson learned by many Arabs from the war in Lebanon is that an Islamic movement, in this case Hezbollah, restored dignity and honor to a bruised and battered identity.

Syria’s drawing the obvious military lesson. It sounds like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt may reap the political windfall at the polls. I said this a few weeks ago but I’ll say it again now: we desperately need a western army to defeat an Islamist military or paramilitary force, wherever and however and on whatever scale, if only to derail the growing conviction that fundamentalism equals invincibility. That’s an exceedingly bad belief to have taking root while democratic currents are swirling around the region. God only knows how many seats Hezbollah itself will pick up in the next Lebanese parliamentary election. They keep peeling off those hundreds and they might not need to stage a coup; Nasrallah might be elected prime minister straightaway.

This doesn’t help, either. Steyn’s always going on about the importance of strong horse/weak horse logic to the jihadist mindset. Well, you’ve got what appears to be a strong horse right now in Lebanon and a horse in Israel that’s looking weaker by the moment:

Soldiers returning from the war in Lebanon say the army was poorly prepared, slow to rescue injured comrades and suffered from a lack of supplies so dire that soldiers had to drink water from the canteens of dead enemies.

“We fought for nothing. We cleared houses that will be reoccupied (by Lebanese Hizbullah guerrillas) in no time,” said Ilia Marshak, a 22-year-old infantryman who spent a week inside Lebanon.

It’s all downhill from there. Hezbollah isn’t what any rational person would call “strong” vis-a-vis the IDF, but that’s besides the point. Perception is everything, because it’s the perception that’ll embolden groups like Hamas to start sending out new bombers. They’re not going to destroy Israel, but they can and might very well continue to bleed it. And until the Islamists take a beating the way the Nasserites took one in 1967, the Arab rank and file will be content to let them try. Writes Daniel Jonah Goldhagen:

Make no mistake; Israel has been fighting for its life. Unexpectedly. Because it faces a historically new kind of fanatical foe, political Islam, which combines three characteristics: a political-religious ideology calling for the annihilation of its enemies; indifference, even the celebration of its own people’s death (because such martyrs are rewarded with a place in heaven); and virtually unstoppable technology (missiles) and techniques (suicide bombing) of terror. The spectre of unending terror and unending war haunts and threatens to cripple Israel.

The thing is, it’s not necessarily unending. Which is why Caroline Glick wants to take the fight to Islamist HQ right now:

In the not so distant future, we will find ourselves at war with Iran. Today, the choice of whether we fight that war in our own time, and before Iran gets nuclear weapons is in our hands. If we hesitate, if we and the rest of the free world waste precious time with worthless diplomatic wrangling with the ayatollahs, war will come to us, but on the enemy’s terms. And we will have only ourselves to blame.

VDH thinks it’s not too late. It’s late — the “eleventh hour,” he calls it — but not too late:

In an amorphous war of self-induced Western restraint, like the present one, truth and moral clarity are as important as military force. This past month, the world of the fascist jihadist and those who tolerate him was once again on display for civilization to fathom. Even the most timid and prone to appeasement in the West are beginning to see that it is becoming a question of “the Islamists or us.”

In this eleventh hour, that is a sort of progress after all.

Bush says not only is it not late — it’s downright early. “Magical” thinking isn’t unique to Arabs, alas.

Update: Still more evidence that Nasrallah won’t actually need a coup to get everything he wants, and then some.

An internal Lebanese army statement, circulated among forces in the past week, has called for troops to stand “alongside your resistance and your people who astonished the world with its steadfastness and destroyed the prestige of the so-called invincible army after it was defeated”.

The circular has alarmed ministers in the Lebanese cabinet who had been calling for the army to disarm Hizbullah…

One defence analyst who asked not to be named said that, in the south, the army often acted as a subordinate to Hizbullah’s military apparatus. “All intelligence gathered by the army is put at the disposal of Hizbullah but Hizbullah does not offer the same transparency to the army,” he said. “In a sense, military intelligence in the south is operating on Hizbullah’s behalf.”

Another retired general, Amin Hoteit, now a professor at the Lebanese University, said: “The army sees Hizbullah as a group that is defending the country and so assists them as best it can.”

Israeli commandos staged a raid in the Bekaa Valley last night to stop Syria from resupplying Hezbollah in violation of the UN resolution. Lebanon’s defense minister has threatened to halt — not hurry — the army’s deployment as a result. Which, given the stuff I just blockquoted, is actually for the best.

Update: Resupplying Hezbollah constitutes the third violation of paragraph 8 of the resolution on the Lebanese side. I wrote about the other two violations here. The UN is finally on the case — and they’re blaming Israel, of course:

UN envoys have pledged to ask Israel to stop violations of Lebanese territory following an airborne commando operation into eastern Lebanon, Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Sallukh said.

“They promised to raise the issue with Israel to ask them to stop the violations,” Sallukh said after a meeting with visiting UN envoys Vijay Nambiar and Terje Roed-Larsen who did not wish to comment Saturday.

“If violations continue, the responsibility will fall on the UN Security Council which will have to ask Israel to stop such aggressions,” he said.

Update: Kofi makes it official: it’s Israel’s fault.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I say this with trepidation…it seems to me that until the rest of the West wakes to the fact that Islam IS a radical religion (the so-called “moderates”, a succinct minority, not withstanding), that Islam wants to take over nation by nation, that Islam wants to rule the world and that Islam and its laws is barbaric, repressive, tyrannical and bloodthirsty we will gain no ground. Once the rest of the civilized world wakes to these truths, and realizes that they have to fight to survive (a crucial step in the process), then and only then can we smash this menace. As long as England, France, Denmark and others cower in fear of Islam, try to appease it, bow to political correctness and other lunacy…Islam will continue to strengthen.

Bellicose Muse on August 19, 2006 at 1:36 AM

This is what I was trying to get hold of when Bryan posted the other day about establishing democracy over there. The latest batch of Brit homegrowns were *raised* in democracy and it didn’t matter. They’re more loyal to Islam and the potential power than to what they have in the here and now. Until that changes, they won’t.

Anwyn on August 19, 2006 at 1:43 AM

I said this a few weeks ago but I’ll say it again now: we desperately need a western army to defeat an Islamist military or paramilitary force, wherever and however and on whatever scale, if only to derail the growing conviction that fundamentalism equals invincibility.

AP, I’m not trying to snark or trip you up here, but how far are you willing to go to get this Islamic military/paramilitary force defeat? Do you have the stones to go as far as might be needed? Or more to the point, since you are not a soldier, do you have the stones to demannd that of them?

Islamists seem to be fighting a total war. Are you willing to fight one as well?

EFG on August 19, 2006 at 1:51 AM

I said this a few weeks ago but I’ll say it again now: we desperately need a western army to defeat an Islamist military or paramilitary force, wherever and however and on whatever scale, if only to derail the growing conviction that fundamentalism equals invincibility.

AP, I’m not trying to snark or trip you up here, but how far are you willing to go to get this Islamic military/paramilitary force defeat? Do you have the stones to go as far as might be needed? Or more to the point, since you are not a soldier, do you have the stones to demannd that of them?

Islamists seem to be fighting a total war. Are you willing to fight one as well?

EFG on August 19, 2006 at 1:52 AM

Olmert didn’t just hurt Israel by screwing up like he has, he hurt all of western civilization. Sooner or later someone is going to have to put the Islamists in their place forcefully enough they accept the situation. It just got a whole lot tougher.”

One of my Dogs wrote an excellent related piece a couple of days ago: Big Loss in Third Major War on Terror Campaign

bdfaith on August 19, 2006 at 2:26 AM

Do any Arabs live on the Golan Heights? I thought most of the population was Jewish now. Is there enough of a “friendly population” for an Arab guerrilla organization to survive there?

Lehuster on August 19, 2006 at 3:15 AM

As stated before, Islam is not a religion. It is a form of government. It must be outlawed in America because we believe in separation of government and religion. All mosques must be shut down, they are embassies. Embassies of hatrerd, racism, inequality and anti-American goals to destroy our way of life. All muslims should be placed in detention camps until we get control of this Islamic invasion into our free country. All muslim chaplins in the Army dismissed for they represent another government, not a religion. Of course, nothing will be done until one of cities disappears with millions dead.

LZVandy on August 19, 2006 at 8:03 AM

I said this a few weeks ago but I’ll say it again now: we desperately need a western army to defeat an Islamist military or paramilitary force, wherever and however and on whatever scale, if only to derail the growing conviction that fundamentalism equals invincibility.

Didn’t we do this with the Taliban? And while Saddam’s forces weren’t precisely Islamist, they still fought Holy War and way back in ’91, they actually attained a glorious victory against the invading infidel armies. They had a national holiday commemorating it and everything.

Beating an Islamist force is like beating cancer. The only way you know you’ve done it to go a long period of time without it coming back. Hizbollah’s “victory” is proof of this. They didn’t take anything. They didn’t gain anything. their losses were enormous. But because they weren’t wiped out, they “win”. Like cancer.

Pablo on August 19, 2006 at 9:19 AM

Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler and the Brits paid dearly for it, having suffered from the downpour of V2 rockets on London and other cities for months on end. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed.

Today’s world community has become the modern day Neville Chamberlain, putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today while appeasing a radical and barbaric Muslim enemy who’s religious mantra centers on killing and destroying western civilization as we know it.

All too soon, these fanatics will not have V2’s to threaten us, they will have nuclear weapons perched atop ICBMs capable of killing millions with a single launch. I am dumbfounded as I watch so-called diplomats sit idly by in their endless and worthless negotiating, letting this apocalyptic scene play out on the world stage.

Have we learned nothing? Have millions died in vain?

fogw on August 19, 2006 at 9:21 AM

Folks, keep your eyes on the oil; that’s their real strategic weapon. Nukes are just the umbrella under which they will do an anschluss on all the mid east. And we will just stand there watching with our fingert up our nose.

dhimwit on August 19, 2006 at 9:49 AM

And the Democratic Underground says to that,

Will we ever win back the trust of the world?

During times like this, I try to envision a post-2008 world. We are not at war anywhere, having successfully resolved our differences with the mideast. We have turned to compromise, not force, to resolve these issues. Our president goes to other countries, holds real press conferences and doesn’t lie. We stop trying to take advantage of oil-producing countries and stop preaching about democracy.

Hell, *I* wouldn’t trust us again. (nt)

My vote is hell no. We have gone to far this time.

Clinton did. I hope another reasonable, non-war-crazy Dem could too. -nt

Eventually.But we are gonna have to work at it. It’s gonna be expensive and we are going to have to show we are serious by bringing people to account for their misdeeds and perfidy

The problem is that democratic countries are sometimes schizophrenic.Carter –> Reagan/Bush I –> Clinton –> Bush II Doesn’t it look awfully like a mentally sick person who switches back and forth between “good” and “evil” personas?

The ‘terrists’ will spend decades seeking revenge, I fear.Bush* has planted deep seeds of hate throughout the world and they will take years to germinate.

Only when the current crop of war criminals are imprisoned or dead.We’re an outlaw nation … and only the corrupt governments (not the people) will ally with us.

And on, and on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×1942799

Honestly, what passes for a liberal today is nothing but a mental idiot, a coward, a traitor, and ultimately someone who will either get the whole of the free world enslaved or killed in the end.

Anyone who wants to view NUTS first hand need only go to

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/

once a day and read the mind numbing thoughts and attitudes of the heart of the Democratic Party as it exists today.

NRA4Freedom on August 19, 2006 at 9:57 AM

I said this a few weeks ago but I’ll say it again now: we desperately need a western army to defeat an Islamist military or paramilitary force, wherever and however and on whatever scale, if only to derail the growing conviction that fundamentalism equals invincibility. That’s an exceedingly bad belief to have taking root while democratic currents are swirling around the region.

You couldnt be more correct. This is scaring me on a grand scale. They are so empowered by this Israel misstep. And they DO believe they are fighting for “Allah”. Now the reports regarding Iran smashing satellites the day before they announce “war games”. Aug 22nd is looming.

labwrs on August 19, 2006 at 11:36 AM

Great post A/P. Some random thoughts: are the majority of Muslims falling in line because they share the military jihadist POV, or because it’s the path of least resistance, or because they see groups like Hez winning and are jumping on the bandwagon. (Winning in this case being the perception if not the reality). I think it matters.

It’s also critical how we communicate this: you really want to take on Allah? Don’t let these clowns define the conflict. We define it as a war between Islamic terrorists/terrorist states and the rest of the world. Barbarians against civilization.

We need a pan-Western effort across the board–military, propaganda, diplomacy, trade, intelligence.

All this to say that in the upcoming election, it’s key to elect someone who has the gravitas, the balls and leadership skills to make this happen. Also someone who can unite the country–instructive to look at the great war leaders i.e. Lincoln and FDR. Both assembled cabinets with significant opposition party participation. Seems sort of self evident, but obviously not.

honora on August 19, 2006 at 12:05 PM

I appreciate your views and opinions but here is an alternative assessment:

The war, in one form or another, between Israel and the Islamofacist is never going to end. Get used to it, this war has been going on for millinieum and will not end. The result is conflict in one form or another for as far as the eye can see. The survivor is the victor.

Perhaps many are reading way too much into this latest flare up in the ongoing war. The Israeli incursion into Lebanon is just another in a long series of battles. The result was not victory for the Islamofacist but rather a push by Israel at it’s border to remove a dug in enemy. A temporary tactical victory for Israel as it provides more security temporarily for it’s border with Lebanon – nothing more.

Israel will be the one who will deal with Iran, not the US. All we have to do is to give Israel whatever it needs and watch as the Israelis knock Iran, and it’s little dog too (Syria), into the stone age.

omegaram on August 19, 2006 at 1:09 PM

Hopefully, Olmert is toast. He failed Israel, the U.S., and more generally, western civilization. I believe that Netanyahu would win easily in any election held after the fall of Olmert. He understands that Israel’s survivial is at stake.

Meanwhile, Israel should look for any excuse possible to goad Hezbollah into attacking Israel. Next time, Israel will not stop until Hezbollah is broken with its two sponsors humiliated at the least and their military cpacities bombed to smithereens at best.

ptolemy on August 19, 2006 at 1:18 PM

So now there will be a U.N. force watchdogging Israel. Our world is screwed up. I think the first time a Lebanese army grunt takes a shot at an Israeli, we will officially be at WWIII.

Anwyn on August 19, 2006 at 1:36 PM

Honora said: “All this to say that in the upcoming election, it’s key to elect someone who has the gravitas, the balls and leadership skills to make this happen. Also someone who can unite the country–instructive to look at the great war leaders i.e. Lincoln and FDR. Both assembled cabinets with significant opposition party participation. Seems sort of self evident, but obviously not.”

Lincoln was a truly great Communicator; but he suffered greater opposition during the Civil War than any other U.S. President in history, by an anti-war Democrat Party. In Congress he was positively hated, so much for consensus. If they had conducted polls then, I suspect he would be lucky to be above 20% in approval rating in the North and add in the South and of course it would be in single digits. So, he could communicate but it was his core values, his determination to keep the Union intact and steely resolve to defeat the enemy that won that war.

Ronald Reagan, my President, was the Great Communicator; but he was hated in this country, mostly by the appeasement minded Democrat Party that opposed his every policy to defeat the Soviet Union. His polls at times were abysmal and the world did not love him. Yet, while not totally alone, even Gorbachev admits that Reagan won the Cold War without ever firing a shot. Why? It was his core values, his determination to end the Cold War and his steely resolve that won that war.

Bush has the balls of an Elephant to fight this war as you state the proposition and I believe he is for the most part, fighting it correctly; but he is a terrible communicator and that has cost us a lot of support, especially among the anti-war democrat Party. Nonetheless, he is no more hated than either Lincoln or Reagan, and the world did not love Reagan any more than Bush.

Billy Jeff was a very good communicator, loved by the world, loved by a majority of the country; and it was because he shared the world’s spirit of appeasment at any cost. He gutted our Intelligence community, let terrorists get away with murder and encouraged them that America was a weak-sister country with no resolve or the courage to stand up to IslamoFascist bullies; and so we had 9/11.

So, do we want a great communicator that believes in appeasement or a poor communicator that is willing to defeat our enemies? Or, do we really need a great communicator with the balls to fight and no taste for appeasement? You will not find the last choice among the Democrats!

Umnumzana on August 19, 2006 at 2:18 PM

Lincoln unite the country? Honora, it was Lincoln’s election that prompted secession. Gads.

Anwyn on August 19, 2006 at 2:30 PM

Honestly, what passes for a liberal today is nothing but a mental idiot, a coward, a traitor, and ultimately someone who will either get the whole of the free world enslaved or killed in the end.

Maybe we should start calling them what they are: Collaborators.

Collaboration was rampant in France during the Nazi occupation, mostly by cowards like the libs who refused to stand up for their country. And they did enjoy special treatment from the Nazis for a time, but upon liberation many found themselves at the business end of a bullet.

All muslim chaplins in the Army dismissed for they represent another government, not a religion.

And lets not forget that muslim chaplins are very active spreading the ideology of jihad in our prison system.

speed647 on August 19, 2006 at 3:31 PM

The very fact that Israel struck Lebanon again last night is proof that they have a sense of clarity on the direness of this situation. Lebanon is firmly behind Hezbollah, as is Iran and Syria. To think that the UN could ever accomplish anything of merit in the Middle East is laughable. Their track record speaks for itself. They have been anti-Israel from the start and become increasingly anti-US with each passing day. Israel is in a fight for their very existence here. They are a tiny island of Jews in a vast sea of Arab hatred. Israel will never be at peace as long as Islam exists. What concerns me the most is that one day Israel will reach their breaking point and light up the Middle East with nukes. Given the current state of affairs over there, I don’t think that day is too far off.

If anyone wants a good laugh, watch Neal Boortz take Randi Rhodes apart like a tinker toy on Larry King Live a week or so ago. Emotion on the left vs facts on the right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVDV7dVzso4

stm on August 19, 2006 at 3:43 PM

We define it as a war between Islamic terrorists/terrorist states and the rest of the world. Barbarians against civilization.

Honora, are you becoming a……red stater???? :)

Really, I actually agree with you that we need someone who can run an anti-islamicfascism propaganda war.

Bush has the balls of an Elephant to fight this war as you state the proposition and I believe he is for the most part, fighting it correctly; but he is a terrible communicator and that has cost us a lot of support, especially among the anti-war democrat Party. Nonetheless, he is no more hated than either Lincoln or Reagan, and the world did not love Reagan any more than Bush.

That’s the problem with Bush. He doesn’t HAVE the balls to fight the war. He’s too worried about what the NYT and the WaPo are going to say about him. If he’d had the guts, Hezbollah would have been annihilated now and we wouldn’t be too worried about Iran and NK.

Honestly, I don’t think ANY American President of either flavor (dem or rep) will have the balls to do what actually needs to be done.

pullingmyhairout on August 19, 2006 at 4:49 PM

If anyone wants a good laugh, watch Neal Boortz take Randi Rhodes apart like a tinker toy on Larry King Live a week or so ago. Emotion on the left vs facts on the right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVDV7dVzso4

Good grief, that chick is wacked.

“People are dying! I’m on the verge of tears right now!”

We’ve come a long way (in the wrong direction) from the Pioneer spirit that won the west.

speed647 on August 19, 2006 at 5:54 PM

pullingmyhairout: You are probably correct, let me amend my statement to say, he has more balls to do it than most politicians today!

Umnumzana on August 19, 2006 at 5:58 PM

Neil Gabler of Fox News Watch just said that Seymour Hersh has it right and his latest article from the NY Observer s/b published all over…it’s final, it’s all the fault of the U.S. for supporting Israel’s attack on Lebanon…

What a crazy world:

1. Hezbollah attacks
2. Israel responds
3. Lebanon get pounded
4. Hezbollah declares victory
5. Hezbollah pays moolah
6. Media buys into it: BBC, NYT and all on the right too, including media in Israel
7. Hezbollah gets elected to run Lebanon
8. The French go from ‘grand’ to sissy in 5 stages, in 5 days (nothing new)
9. Kofi and the U.N. (nothing new here either)

Call me crazy but I don’t get it.

Propaganda or news, or communication from Israel and the U.S. is simply non-existent!

Entelechy on August 19, 2006 at 6:52 PM

One of the huge disadvantages the west has in this war on terror/Islamofascism/Jihad is our failue to execute a guerilla warfare. All of the groups ( al queda/hamas/hezzbo,etc ) have members who look like regular citizens but have barbaric war practices. They know how to use this tactic very well..And our ‘free press’ spins the hel ot of it. Also, since Desert Storm, we are expected to fight a ‘clean’ war ( as if that is possible ).If we attack these ‘citizens’, we are looked at in a bad light….spin,spin,spin(ie – pallywood) The truth of the matter is that we need to trully excecute our war practices from our own revolution to WWII. Wipe out the enemy, limit the press, claim the land, and build it up from there. It worked in Japan and Germany. Until that is done, very willfully, we will be fighting for a VERY long time.

lsutiger on August 19, 2006 at 7:04 PM

Entelechy: I agree with you entirely, but there are several causes for this strange turn of events.

1. The global thirst for oil is causing the world to genuflect towards IslamoFascist terrorist demands.
2. Israel doesn’t have any oil!
3. A great deal of Europe, China, Russia, India and others are doing big business with Iran, Syria and other Islamic states; and business trumps everything, just ask Donald.
4. The Democrats and much of the United States do not have the stomach, patience or willingness to sacrifice in order to defeat the terrorists, so appeasement is the order of the day.
5. Israel has always been, is now and always will be the most hated nation on earth and the Jews the most hated people. There are many historical, economic and spiritual causes for this hatred; and in recent years it has been infecting most of the world, including the United States.

Like you said elsewhere, we better hold our noses and vote the Republicans back in power or it will only get worse.

Umnumzana on August 19, 2006 at 7:45 PM

I tend to agree with most of the sentiments expressed here. I wrote an in-depth analysis of the ceasefire and its consequences a few days ago on my own website: http://www.tomshakely.com/2006/08/17/595/

Tom Shakely on August 19, 2006 at 11:43 PM

Nice article Tom, I enjoyed reading it.

NRA4Freedom on August 20, 2006 at 12:51 AM

Umnumzana, that is a great summation of causes. We must address the alternate energy resource/s issue and others. The world has never been a simple riddle but we are at a huge corssroad. The alternative to your last statement gives me nightmares.

On a lighter note, I got this one (I hope mikeyboss reads this :)

business trumps everything, just ask Donald

Tom Shakely, it gives me hope that we have such intelligent, intense and clear-thinking conservative youth. Great article! I like the inspirations saying by RR. Never change and all the best for a challenging but bright future.

Entelechy on August 20, 2006 at 6:25 AM

Stand with hezbollah, die with hezbollah. Fight for freedom, live in peace.

Tony737 on August 20, 2006 at 9:32 AM

The ceasefire was not only a strategic and public relations victory for Hezbollah, it was a public relations victory for the Left as well.

Anything Israel now does for its survival will be broadcast as a “violation” of the ceasefire terms by the MSM.

Republicans should start demanding that Rice resign. With her approach to Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah, she is really putting our national security in jeopardy. For example, what is she going to do when North Korea tests a nuclear weapon? What threats will North Korea believe?

How about a Secretary of State with NO confidence in the U.N. and one willing to work outside the agency?

januarius on August 20, 2006 at 10:24 AM

Lincoln unite the country? Honora, it was Lincoln’s election that prompted secession. Gads.

Anwyn on August 19, 2006 at 2:30 PM

Yes and you may be aware it was Lincoln who united the north to win the war. My point is that both Lincoln and FDR reached out to the opposition in an effort to get the best minds and to attempt to lead the whole nation, not just their “base”.

honora on August 21, 2006 at 10:15 AM

Where to begin….

Lincoln was a truly great Communicator; but he suffered greater opposition during the Civil War than any other U.S. President in history, by an anti-war Democrat Party. In Congress he was positively hated, so much for consensus. If they had conducted polls then, I suspect he would be lucky to be above 20% in approval rating in the North and add in the South and of course it would be in single digits. So, he could communicate but it was his core values, his determination to keep the Union intact and steely resolve to defeat the enemy that won that war.

Well the fact that Lincoln won the election in 1864 would seem to obviate your poll point; and our course Lincoln had strong core values, values that allowed him to see beyond the traditional small-mindedness of partisan politics and bring Democrats into his cabinet. (Quiz: who was Lincoln’s Sect of War? What party did he belong to?)

Bush has the balls of an Elephant to fight this war as you state the proposition and I believe he is for the most part, fighting it correctly; but he is a terrible communicator and that has cost us a lot of support, especially among the anti-war democrat Party. Nonetheless, he is no more hated than either Lincoln or Reagan, and the world did not love Reagan any more .

I think you meant brain, not balls. Yes, what a brave fellow: let’s see, one veto (and that against stem cell), nothing on immigration, has taken to whining about the Iraqis not showing gratitude to the US (…there’s that brain thing again..). And he certainly has the Iranians and the North Koreans shaking in their shoes. Oh and Hezbollah. Oh and Chavez. Truth be told the only people who Bush really scares are the citizens of the US.

Billy Jeff was a very good communicator, loved by the world, loved by a majority of the country; and it was because he shared the world’s spirit of appeasment at any cost. He gutted our Intelligence community, let terrorists get away with murder and encouraged them that America was a weak-sister country with no resolve or the courage to stand up to IslamoFascist bullies; and so we had 9/11.

Ok so we’re clear: 240 Marines killed in Beirut under Reagan, no problemo. But Clinton “lets terrorists get away with murder”?

And I noticed you ignored my FDR reference–couldn’t be because that didn’t fit your cute little mantra of “anti-war Democratic party”, could it? And by the way, remind me who signed the Paris peace treaty (surrender)with the North Vietnamese???

Umnumzana on August 19, 2006 at 2:18 PM

honora on August 21, 2006 at 10:31 AM

honora: You better study more about WW-II and how FDR was dragged kicking and screaming into that war; and because he was tardy and unwilling take the political risks, many Jews, British citizens and innocent civilians and others all over Europe died at Hitler’s hands, people that could have been saved had he moved more swiftly and with force. Yes, he responded to an attack by the Japanese; but he was a very reluctant participant in Europe.

Billy Jeff allowed many attacks on our country on foreign shores during his eight years in office, without any meaningful military action; and at the same time he was gutting our intelligence agencies and emasculating our military, all of which contributed to 9/11. He was another leader of the Appeasement Democrat Party.

Yes, Nixon did sign the peace accords with Vietnam, after the anti-war left (Democrats) made it impossible to end that war with victory and honor. I know pal, I fought over there as did my brother, brother-in-law, father-inlaw and many friends, while you were probably either in diapers or not even born yet. The Democrat Party was the anti-war, cut-and-run party then, and they are doing all it all over again to cause us to leave Iraq in defeat, with our tails between our legs and give the terrorists all of the Middle East for their playground, including Israel. Which will provide them the base to attack us here at home and on foreign shores without any fear of our reacting in a meaningful way.

Again, you are grossly ignorant about Lincon and the Civil War. Yes, he was re-elected because at that time the North felt it was dangerous to change horses mid-stream, but it was not an overwhelming victory and he was positively hated by even a majority of those in the North.

As to Bush, your extreme left wing partisanship and allegiance to the party of appeasement have made you blind to the facts!

Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 11:56 AM

They didn’t gain anything. their losses were enormous. But because they weren’t wiped out, they “win”. Like cancer.

Pablo

And they do win, by their definition, because they live to be islamic and multiply.

Israel is a target now because:
1. it’s right next to them
2. It’s filled with Jews
3. there is specific documentation in their faith against Jews, with references to kill them
4. it’s a wholesome family activity

entagor on August 21, 2006 at 12:15 PM

honora: You better study more about WW-II and how FDR was dragged kicking and screaming into that war; and because he was tardy and unwilling take the political risks, many Jews, British citizens and innocent civilians and others all over Europe died at Hitler’s hands, people that could have been saved had he moved more swiftly and with force. Yes, he responded to an attack by the Japanese; but he was a very reluctant participant in Europe.

Billy Jeff allowed many attacks on our country on foreign shores during his eight years in office, without any meaningful military action; and at the same time he was gutting our intelligence agencies and emasculating our military, all of which contributed to 9/11. He was another leader of the Appeasement Democrat Party.

Yes, Nixon did sign the peace accords with Vietnam, after the anti-war left (Democrats) made it impossible to end that war with victory and honor. I know pal, I fought over there as did my brother, brother-in-law, father-inlaw and many friends, while you were probably either in diapers or not even born yet. The Democrat Party was the anti-war, cut-and-run party then, and they are doing all it all over again to cause us to leave Iraq in defeat, with our tails between our legs and give the terrorists all of the Middle East for their playground, including Israel. Which will provide them the base to attack us here at home and on foreign shores without any fear of our reacting in a meaningful way.

Again, you are grossly ignorant about Lincon and the Civil War. Yes, he was re-elected because at that time the North felt it was dangerous to change horses mid-stream, but it was not an overwhelming victory and he was positively hated by even a majority of those in the North.

As to Bush, your extreme left wing partisanship and allegiance to the party of appeasement have made you blind to the facts!

Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 11:56 AM

Logged

I object to your characterization of me as “ignorant”. If you must call names, kindly refrain from responding to my posts.

As to FDR, ever hear of Lend-Lease? Every hear of Lindbergh or American First? Some suggested reading: The Last Lion by Manchester, No Ordinary Time by Goodwin.

Lincoln won the 1864 election by 55% to McCellan’s 45%–a 10 point spread being a landslide. To put in perspective, the last election we think of as a landslide was Reagan versus Carter, where Reagan got 51% to Carter’s 41% with Anderson et al getting the remainder.

As for my extreme partisanship, I have voted for Bush 1, Reagan and Ford. I am a registered Dem because in my state you can’t vote in primaries if you are an independent. Care to share your non-extreme partisan credentials?

honora on August 21, 2006 at 12:27 PM

Umnumzana: PS my first husband served in Vietnam. What company did you serve with?

honora on August 21, 2006 at 12:30 PM

As to FDR, ever hear of Lend-Lease?

Honora, your point that FDR was not only forward looking concerning WWII is not only correct, but understated.

FDR clearly knew that the USA was going to be involved in WWII in 1940. Starting in the last half of 1940, America began to prepare for entry in the war.

The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 was enacted and became the first peace-time draft, more than a full year before the attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941.

In mid 1941, the government began drawing up plans for converting the US economy to a war time footing should WWII involve the USA. Within a month of Pearl Harbor, the War Production Board was established by executive order and began the transition of the economy from “butter” to “guns.”

In March 1941, the same month that the Lend-Lease Act was enacted, the Navy establishes the Support Force Atlantic Fleet to portect convoys in the North Atlantic and partnered with the Royal Navy in cross-Atlantic operations.

In the Pacific, the US Navy and Marines begin deploying assets during March 1941 in preparation for war with Japan.

Also in March, 1941, 850 German and Italian merchant marine seamen are interned with their vessels in US ports.

In April 1941, the USS Niblack (DD-424) rolls depth charges on a suspected German U-Boat while engaged in rescue operations after a Dutch freighter is torpedoed in the Atlantic in what is apparently the first US belligerant act against a German warship.

The US posture prior to Pearl Harbor was aggressive towards both Germany and Japan and a build up of the services and economic mobilization was in process.

FDR was NOT dragged “kicking and screaming” into WWII. In fact, his opponents were openly calling him a war monger and worse from 1940 on.

Further, the charges of personal incompetence in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor included a side show of charges of FDR’s duplicity in setting up the 7th Fleet for attack in order to drag the USA into WWII.

BTW, we see the same type of conspiratorial nonsense today with the morons who claim that Bush ordered the 9/11/01 and that the WTC towers were “imploded” and that the Pentagon was “attacked” by a US cruise missile and not a hijacked jetliner.

In any event, Pearl Harbor put an end to the dalliance over America’s involvement in the world war, which had started over 2 years earlier.

georgej on August 21, 2006 at 1:37 PM

georgej

Oh so now I see how this is going to be…you’re going to resort to FACTS!

(Stunned silence)

honora on August 21, 2006 at 1:48 PM

Honora said:

My point is that both Lincoln and FDR reached out to the opposition in an effort to get the best minds and to attempt to lead the whole nation, not just their “base”.

And look what reaching out to Mr. Lieberman, who offered only a fraction of a finger to the opposing party brought him? A reached out hand needs to meet a willing one to actually shake hands. Not possible from your end. Harping, harping, harping, not from you honora, from your party. That’s the problem. Mr. Bush certainly tried in the beginning but it led to absolutely nowhere.

Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 1:55 PM

Entelechy: I would argue that Bush did not reach out, but that’s a moot point at this stage. (Going back to my Lincoln and FDR examples, what Democrats did Bush bring into his cabinet/administration?)

The hard truth is “trying” ain’t gonna cut it. He needs to make it happen, and if he can’t, let’s vote in someone who can.

honora on August 21, 2006 at 2:00 PM

Honora: Calling someone ignorant is NOT name calling or demeaning in any manner, it simply means a lack of knowledge or complete knowledge of a particular subject, in the opinion of someone else. As touching many matters, I am grossly ignorant.

I served with Force Recon in the Marine Corps, and I was attached to NSG in Da Nang!

Who are you going to vote in that “can make it happen?” Kerry? Hillary? Biden? I cannot think of any of them who will not immediately cut-and-run!

Reaching out to people in the other party? Bush did that many times and got stabbed in the back every time! He reached out to Ted “I kill my dates” Kennedy, and got his ass handed to him when Teddy boy accused Bush of deciding to invade Iraq for oil profits, before he even ran for the White House!

georgej: There was a strong anti-war element in the United States prior to WW-II and Churchill came with hat in hand many times and FDR was simply not interested in any fighting for Europe. Support? Yes! Our direct involvemen? No! While I don’t question your motives, I think your facts are being used to engage in some revisionist history!

Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 3:03 PM

Honora: Calling someone ignorant is NOT name calling or demeaning in any manner, it simply means a lack of knowledge or complete knowledge of a particular subject, in the opinion of someone else. As touching many matters, I am grossly ignorant.

I served with Force Recon in the Marine Corps, and I was attached to NSG in Da Nang!

Who are you going to vote in that “can make it happen?” Kerry? Hillary? Biden? I cannot think of any of them who will not immediately cut-and-run!

Reaching out to people in the other party? Bush did that many times and got stabbed in the back every time! He reached out to Ted “I kill my dates” Kennedy, and got his ass handed to him when Teddy boy accused Bush of deciding to invade Iraq for oil profits, before he even ran for the White House!

georgej: There was a strong anti-war element in the United States prior to WW-II and Churchill came with hat in hand many times and FDR was simply not interested in any fighting for Europe. Support? Yes! Our direct involvemen? No! While I don’t question your motives, I think your facts are being used to engage in some revisionist history!

Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 3:03 PM

Ok, again, facts please: examples with back up of Bush reaching out to the other party on Iraq? I need references, links.

Re FDR, I am afraid you are mistaken. There was a strong anti-war effort which FDR foiled at many junctures. He realized (now here’s a quaint notion) that he alone could not take the country to war and that his job was to use the power of the Presidency to persuade the country–Pearl Harbor of course made that all moot.

Again, read The Last Lion (Manchester’s excellent bio of Churchill and read what Churchill says on this matter) or No Ordinary Time, Gooden’s masterful portrait of FDR during the war and his extraordinary alliance with Churchill.

Who would I vote for? Why do you assume it would a Democrat? I would vote for McCain, Romney, Biden. Can’t say I have given it a lot of thought, so much changes in a couple years.

honora on August 21, 2006 at 3:12 PM

“Even with all of these efforts of the American businessman to construct the German war machine with the full knowledge and approval of President Roosevelt, he kept repeating that the nation would continue its “neutral” position: it would remain out of the war. On September 1, 1939, when the war started, he was asked by a reporter whether America would stay out of the war and Roosevelt replied: “… I believe we can, and every effort will be made by the Administration to do so.”

So, by his own words, was FDR or was he not, as I suggested, reluctant and even tardy in committing the U.S. to the war in Europe? Yes, after he made that commitment, he and Churchill formed a mighty alliance and it was through our efforts, with FDR as our President, that the allies beat Nazi Germany. I am not condemning FDR by suggesting he was reluctant and tardy, simply that he was not the demi-god many made him out to be, and he was by nature of his political philosophy, in the appeasement camp for some time prior to our direct involvement.

That being said, the Democrats of his day were nothing like the Democrats of our day. I should add three more things:

1. FDR was the leader of the infamous, unconstitutional ‘court packing’ scheme. 2. He was behind the incarceration of Japanese Americans. which also violated our Constitution. 3. I cannot recall his reaching out to the Republicans during his administration, quite the contrary he held them all in contempt.

Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 3:38 PM

Umnumzana:

As I have addressed, FDR was playing a cat and mouse game with an isolationist Congress, he couldn’t come out and say he was pro-war. Your laundry list of grievances against FDR is eloquent evidence of what is wrong with politics today: you can’t imagine a multi-faceted politician, one who is a combination of good and bad, it has to be all black and white. Democrat=evil.

As to your point about reaching out to Republicans during his administration, Stimson (Sect of War) and Knox (Sect of the Navy) were Republicans.

honora on August 21, 2006 at 3:58 PM

Honora: I think you do not apply the rule “what is wrong with politics today: you can’t imagine a multi-faceted politician, one who is a combination of good and bad, it has to be all black and white,” to Bush!

Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 4:00 PM

Does your wife know about this crush you have on W?? Boy, the other Marines hear about this!!

honora on August 21, 2006 at 4:16 PM

Honora: The United States Marines, mostly, in our out of Uniform support G.W. Bush!

Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 4:22 PM

Umnumzuma, I wanted to put the argument you posted at 4:00 PM to honora, but yuo beat me to it :) Great one!

honora, there was bi-partisanship in support of the war, until things got tough. Your party is like rats, who abandon the ship at the first whiff of danger. I remember Mr. Bush negotiating so much bi-partisanship and U.N. bla, bla, that I thought I’d give birth to an elephant baby if the war wouldn’t start soon. The most joyful day was when the statue came down! Along with Lenin’s coming down sooner, and the German wall later :) I’m collecting them with joy!

To your question: Norm Mineta, as mentioned Mr. Kennedy in the beginning (Mr. Bush had a great bi-partisan record from Texas), a Roman Catholic Towey and a few others, some who came and left.

Before you come back with “so what”? Mr. Clinton had one so-called conservative, the ‘token’ Secretary of Defense.

Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 7:30 PM

I am still chewing on Lincoln’s 10 percent landslide of 1864. Since the south had left the Union, only the Northern states voted. He did have an electoral landslide however.

Like Bush, Lincoln was popular with the military. It is estimated he got 78 percent of the military vote. Now that is a landslide! Consider how many of his votes had already died on the battlefield.

The Democratic party convention of 1864 sounds like today’s DEMs. The platform called for cease-fire.

Like Bush, Lincoln was a religious nut. He ordered his troops to observe Christian Sabbath.

But then, look at how Churchill was accepted by the Brits before the war started licking their heels. And look at how he got the boot after the war was won and the appeasers got their courage back.

entagor on August 21, 2006 at 9:21 PM

Umnumzana, sorry to goof up your name, sincerely,

Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 9:44 PM

Umnumzana wrote:

So, by his own words, was FDR or was he not, as I suggested, reluctant and even tardy in committing the U.S. to the war in Europe?

Facts are stubborn things. The war started on September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland. But even before that, in July 1939, FDR had cut off trade with Japan, an act that everyone knowledgeable about foreign policy at the time knew would have serious reprocussions. Those reprocussions ulitmately took the form of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

So, the answer to your question is “no.” What he said for public consumption in 1939 was belied by has actions in 1939, 1940, and 1941 prior to Pearl Harbor.

FDR, the consumate politician that he was, was steering a public middle course between the isolationist sentiment in America and his personal belief that the USA would be going to war, regardless of what the isolationists wanted.

In addition, 1940 was an election year and FDR wanted to get reelected. So, he was careful about his public utterances, as all politicians try to be.

I have never considered FDR a demigod. In fact, my parents and elder relatives totally despised FDR and I grew up listening to a catalog of his many sins. But objective credit should be given where credit is due. And the facts are that the pre-war posture of the United States was hostile towards the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich, and that in the 18 months prior to Pearl Harbor, the United States implemented steps that not only prepared the nation for war, by Presidential executive order and legislation, but the United States committed what under “internation law” would be considered acts of war against Germany.

So your characterization is false.

georgej on August 22, 2006 at 8:04 AM

Does your wife know about this crush you have on W??

Honora, that was a cheap shot.

georgej on August 22, 2006 at 8:06 AM

Does your wife know about this crush you have on W??
Honora, that was a cheap shot.

georgej on August 22, 2006 at 8:06 AM

georgej: lighten up. The tell tale sign of zealotry is a complete lack of sense of humor.

Entelechy: I know Bush had a terrific record of bi-partisanship in Texas, more’s the pity. As to having folks from the other side of the aisle in his cabinet, let’s talk about key positions, not something like heading up faith based initiatives. Clinton had little use for conservatives in his administration, and shame on him.

honora on August 22, 2006 at 8:49 AM

Entagor: Lincoln had no use for organized religion. He had a strong faith in God, no doubt. And a 10% differential is considered a hardy win by any measure–Bush beat Dukasis (sp?) 53% to 47%. Do you think of that as a close election?? Of course, then there was the mother of all landslides, Johnson versus Goldwater, 61 to 39, but that’s the exception.

honora on August 22, 2006 at 9:04 AM

Honora: I spoke in each post of FDR being reluctant and tardy about Europe and you tell me how he prepared for war with Japan, which I said he had done. Like a good liberal you simply change the subject, engaging in obfuscation.

Also, while you defend FDR by telling me he was making statements for public consumption against our entering the war in Europe and he was deliverately lying for purely partisan political purposes. But, like you said facts are stubborn things and I gave you a direct quote to support my assertions and you give me political analysis!

Umnumzana on August 22, 2006 at 9:45 AM

Honora: I spoke in each post of FDR being reluctant and tardy about Europe and you tell me how he prepared for war with Japan, which I said he had done. Like a good liberal you simply change the subject, engaging in obfuscation.

I haven’t said jack about Japan.

Like a good right winger you insult me.blockquote>

Also, while you defend FDR by telling me he was making statements for public consumption against our entering the war in Europe and he was deliverately lying for purely partisan political purposes. But, like you said facts are stubborn things and I gave you a direct quote to support my assertions and you give me political analysis!

Umnumzana on August 22, 2006 at 9:45 AM

Let me get this straight: FDR was hiding his real intentions for purely partisan political purposes? And what purposes would those be? I thought he was keeping his intentions quiet because he was trying to position to go to war with Germany. By you this is

partisan

?

Holy moly!!!

honora on August 22, 2006 at 9:55 AM

Honora I’m sorry that was georgej! It was so bizarre and absent reason I naturally assumed it was you!

Actually, I enjoying debating you and for some reason I didn’t catch that it was someone else, it is quite early here and I was in hurry.

Umnumzana on August 22, 2006 at 10:19 AM

Honora I’m sorry that was georgej! It was so bizarre and absent reason I naturally assumed it was you!

Actually, I enjoying debating you and for some reason I didn’t catch that it was someone else, it is quite early here and I was in hurry.

Umnumzana on August 22, 2006 at 10:19 AM

Right back at ya my friend!! And many thanks for not making fun of my quoting catastrophe!!!

honora on August 22, 2006 at 10:48 AM

Quoting Umnumzana:

It was so bizarre and absent reason I naturally assumed it was you!

Perhaps you should study history instead of bloviating about stuff you know nothing about.

Read: The New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War Within World War II by Thomas J. Fleming.

Or try Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.

It is a FACT that on December 4, 1941, the anti-FDR Chicago Tribune revealed FDR’s war plans to invade German occupied Europe with 5 million men in 1943 and is prima fascia proof that FDR lied when he said he wasn’t planning for war with Germany. And it was a GOOD THING for America that he did, too.

georgej on August 27, 2006 at 8:21 AM