Hitchens on the Baker Commission and Lebanon; Update: Report: Hezbollah training al-Sadr’s militia

posted at 10:56 pm on November 27, 2006 by Allahpundit

Call it what it is: surrender.

Barely five years after the eviction of the Taliban, three and a half years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, and a year and a half after the Syrian army was forced out of Beirut by a show of mass popular and democratic unity, the memory of those brave fingers marked with the purple ink of the franchise has almost vanished. Tribalism and gangsterism are back, in a big way, with heavy state support from across the frontiers. And the United States, it seems, cannot wait to confirm the impression that it would rather deal with the aggressors. If the latest assassination in Lebanon caused any embarrassment to the enthusiasm of the Baker-Hamilton team for direct talks with Damascus and Tehran, the embarrassment wasn’t evident…

The objectionable thing about the proposed Baker-Hamilton “talks” is not that they are talks but that they give the impression of looking for someone to whom to surrender

Those who blame the violence in Baghdad on the American presence must have a hard job persuading themselves that the mayhem in Beirut and Afghanistan—and the mayhem that is being planned and is still to come—is attributable to the same cause. But the instigators are the same in all cases: the parties of god and their foreign masters. If we cannot even stand up for Lebanon in this crisis, even rhetorically, then we are close to admitting that these parties have won.

Re: those “brave fingers marked with the purple ink,” Christopher Orlet retorts in AmSpec, “[T]here is more to liberal democracy than voting one day and slitting your neighbor’s throat the next.”

To his credit, as of this moment, Bush is still refusing to talk to Iran and Syria. Instead, he’s going to talk to everyone else.

[T]he United States wants Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt to work to drive a wedge between the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri Kamal al-Maliki, and the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army has been behind many of the Shiite reprisal attacks in Iraq, a senior administration official said. That would require getting the predominantly Sunni Arab nations to work to get moderate Sunni Iraqis to support Mr. Maliki, a Shiite.

If the Iraqi Sunni parties back Maliki, he won’t have to depend on Sadr’s group for his majority in parliament and can crack down on the Mahdi army in earnest. That might be the one silver lining in the dark cloud of al-Sadr’s rise to power: he’s such a force now that he’s starting to scare the shinola out of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors, who are already worried about Iran and Hezbollah. Civil war in Iraq is in no one’s interest except the Shiites’, so this might be the Sunni powers’ last chance to roll back the tide before their enemies control another part of the region. Incentive enough to want to help out.

They’d better move fast. Talabani was in Tehran today and he was kissing more than Ahmadinejad’s cheek.

talabani.jpg

Update: Like I was saying, the Sunnis don’t have much time here.

A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.

The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.

Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said…

The new American account is consistent with a claim made in Iraq this summer by a mid-level Mahdi commander, who said his militia had sent 300 fighters to Lebanon, ostensibly to fight alongside Hezbollah. “They are the best-trained fighters in the Mahdi Army,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity…

While Iran wants a stable Iraq, the official said, it sees an advantage in “managed instability in the short term” to bog down the American military and defeat the Bush administration’s objectives in the region.

They suspect the Mahdi army fighters traveled to Lebanon through Syria. There are, supposedly, also reports of Syria having met with the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Lebanese arch-terrorist Imad Mugniyah to plot further mayhem in Iraq.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Since when did kicking the shit out of the bad guys become a bad thing?
When did we get scared of winning?

Iblis on November 27, 2006 at 11:14 PM

They make a sexy time, yes? We like. Yak shi maja

Psycotte on November 27, 2006 at 11:15 PM

…if you don’t even acknowledge the existence of good and evil, surrender is a value-neutral way out of anything.

Many in the Left and among the “cut ‘n’ run” crowd, all afire about our “unjust” war, don’t think that there is such a thing as evil. They believe that ethics are situational.

If you don’t believe in standards — good and evil — you end up thinking in situational terms. In short, things aren’t either good or evil, you’re facing a series of situations where you merely have to judge proper conduct according to the formula “what we can get away with”. If it isn’t evil, it’s permitted. You just have to get people *USED* to the idea.

Mind you, to succeed you may have to get those who *DO* recognize the reality of good and evil to compromise their values…but, if you can recruit enough folks with the same squishy standards you have, you can skate by on sheer numbers.

It took the “peace-now” crowd a couple of years to label the war a “quagmire”, but — in the absence of actual news coming out of Iraq — they’ve pretty much succeeded, and so this whole Baker Commission thing is understandable.

As I’ve written on at least one other thread here on HotAir, the Baker Commission is an abnegation of leadership. We gather together enough unemployed former civil servants, talk up their pedigrees and resumes, and attach an inordinate amount of buzz to their opinions in the press, and *VOILA’*, you have something folks who are charged with leadership can point to as they drop the ball.

We don’t have leadership. We have blue-ribbon panels. We don’t have an electorate. We have demographics and focus groups…and a legion of pimps ready and willing to sway ‘em.

We’ve pretty well gutted democracy.

Puritan1648 on November 27, 2006 at 11:19 PM

It’s true, Iraq in 2006 is a democracy without the democratic citizens.

But so were Japan in 1947, and Germany in 1949, when their respective constitutions came into effect.

Niko on November 27, 2006 at 11:47 PM

we’ve got a lot of trouble here

Defector01 on November 27, 2006 at 11:52 PM

Who is stopping our US military from killing the bad guys? Their name should be out in public so we can hound them to their grave for tying our military’s hands behind its back.

retired on November 27, 2006 at 11:59 PM

Niko, very well said. But back then multi-culturalism and PC were not invented yet. Countries, Presidents, generals and some politicians had “balls”. Today entire societies are eunuchs.

Soon enough they will get what they didn’t know they wished for. By then it will be way too late.

Entelechy on November 28, 2006 at 12:23 AM

Just a reminder of why we’re fighting. Maybe it should be shown more often.

Scot on November 28, 2006 at 12:25 AM

well retired, i personally blame the terrorist supporter democrats from stopping our U.S. Forces from killing the bad guys

Starblazer on November 28, 2006 at 12:26 AM

Who is stopping our US military from killing the bad guys? Their name should be out in public so we can hound them to their grave for tying our military’s hands behind its back.

retired on November 27, 2006 at 11:59 PM

Um, Bush. Uhh, Rumsfeld. Uhh, the military leadership. Congress. America. The “international community”. The State Department. The U.N. The IAEA. Academia. The ACLU. Guilt. Altruism. Self-sacrifice. Agnosticism and self-loathing. Multiculturalism and political correctness. Moral relativism. Nihilism. Immanuel Kant. William James. John Dewey. “Just War” theory. Noam Chomsky. Ward Churchill. Cindy Sheehan. The guy I just swung a dead cat at. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg…

Lazarus on November 28, 2006 at 1:11 AM

The Baker report will be the most weirdest thing ever written.
Hitchen’s analysis addresses the complexity of the issue that the baker commission is trying to explain away.

Ouabam on November 28, 2006 at 2:05 AM

But back then multi-culturalism and PC were not invented yet. Countries, Presidents, generals and some politicians had “balls”. Today entire societies are eunuchs.

Exactly. “Eunuchs” is a much better term than Steyn’s “feminization”.

Niko on November 28, 2006 at 3:12 AM

Today entire societies are eunuchs.

I still have the balls to endorse or order most anything that seems required, and I very simply don’t see the problem with total war, once one has identified an incorrigible enemy. I endorse eradication of villages and cities that fail to be utterly pacific. I endorse the production and use of all the weapons of mass destruction one seeks to deny to others. I endorse supplanting recalcitrant native populaces with one’s own colonies. I endorse forcing imams and ayatollahs to blaspheme at gunpoint whenever doing so serves a useful purpose. I endorse the destruction of the mosques of radical imams. I endorse the employment of every act one seeks to punish. I endorse the acquisition of a monopoly of terror. I don’t endorse being worse than one’s enemies; I endorse being better than one’s enemies: stronger, deeper, more evil–and more beautiful, too.

Kralizec on November 28, 2006 at 5:39 AM

George Bush is president of the US. He has now reunited the great persian shia empire through his ineptness. We have been at war with Iran since they invaded our embassy….which is our country. Stop blaming everyone but the leader who is to blame.

LZVandy on November 28, 2006 at 6:24 AM

Our record of fighting Politically Correct wars:
Korea: lost
Viet Nam: lost
Iraq: lost
Does anyone see a pattern here?
“There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth”.
God (not allah) help us.

mountainmanbob

mountainmanbob on November 28, 2006 at 8:08 AM

This is a must
read.
Plus, Savage has been right all along.

LZVandy on November 28, 2006 at 9:25 AM

According to Islam, those two should have a wall toppled on them.

RushBaby on November 28, 2006 at 9:29 AM

If you don’t believe in standards — good and evil — you end up thinking in situational terms. In short, things aren’t either good or evil, you’re facing a series of situations where you merely have to judge proper conduct according to the formula “what we can get away with”. If it isn’t evil, it’s permitted. You just have to get people *USED* to the idea.

Who is stopping our US military from killing the bad guys? Their name should be out in public so we can hound them to their grave for tying our military’s hands behind its back.

Both of these statements seem utterly out of place. Puritan, while I don’t disagree with your statement, it does no good here. The violence in Iraq is not good vs evil; it is Sunni vs Shia. You cannot label the Sunni good and the Shia evil or vice versa, they are merely different. It would be a lot easier if this conflict fit nicely into your good vs. evil, dark vs. light Star Wars fantasy world but unfortunately Iraq is a lot more complicated. The problem isn’t that our troops aren’t allowed to kill the bad guys; the problem is finding the bad guys. And then there is that pesky problem of who is a bad guy. The Sunni shopkeeper who killed a couple of Shia who were breaking into his store…the Shia who killed Sunni thugs who raped his daughter…the lines…they’re so blurry…so gray…

Oh, f*ck it, it’s so much easier (and more fun) to just kill ‘em all.

JaHerer22 on November 28, 2006 at 10:27 AM

“Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don’t want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men.”

Gen. George Patton

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 28, 2006 at 10:50 AM

Kralizec, amen. I especially like the part about destroying mosques, particularly when they have been used to cache weapons, foment terror, etc. But a couple of other things I would propose to add: We should not respect international boundaries. If terrorists run/drive across a border into Syria or Iran, we chase them and kill them–with soldiers, planes, tomahawks, or whatever it takes. I have had it with national sovereignty when our safety and security is on the line. And the other thing is no deals. Pakistan can do what we want, and do it our way; i.e., purge the Taliban/Al Qaeda (in a hammer vice maneuver with the US, or a straight frontal assault). If they can’t bring themselves to do that, then we have no interest in respecting their borders either. Basically, I have always just wanted us to run amok. Chase the enemy wherever they go, allowing them no quarter anywhere on this planet.

urbancenturion on November 28, 2006 at 10:52 AM

Osama bin Ladin would have done well to consider that infidels can read, too. Urbancenturion and I have been schooled by sura 9, verse 5, of the Koran. These are the orders to which I wholly consign myself in all things.

“I have become what I beheld and am content that I have done right.” In addition to everything else, when the situation warrants it, I endorse even the quotation of Kevin Costner.

Kralizec on November 28, 2006 at 1:49 PM

al-Sadr? Ya mean “Mookie”? Didn’t we kill him like three years ago.

No wait a minute, now I remember … we SHOULD HAVE killed him three years ago!

Tony737 on November 28, 2006 at 10:09 PM

I wish people would stop calling these armed groups like al-Sadr’s group “militias”. They aren’t militias. A militia is “an army composed of civilians called out in time of emergency”, specifically, called out by the civil authority. These groups like al-Sadr’s are groups of insurgents, terrorists, and guerrillas.

The militia is time honored and noble. The real militia would fight AGINST these insurgents, terrorists, and guerrillas. The old main stream media and anti-gun-rights crowd are trying to – and sadly succeeding at – sullying word “militia” in an attempt to demonize the militia and the Second Amendment. Destroy the image of the militia by equating it to these insurgents, terrorists, and guerrillas, and it becomes easier to destroy the image of those of us who support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and who prepare in the event the militia needs to be called out.

Call these bad guys what you will, but don’t call them a or the militia!

Woody

woodcdi on November 29, 2006 at 12:29 AM