Centerfield

C3,
I think the primary reason for Israel leaving Gaza was about demographics. The State of Israel survives in part because Jews are the majority; the Status Quo was leading to a demographic disaster or a distasteful reproduction of the very same “citizenship question” that haunted Jews in Pre-Hitlerian Europe.

Most Israelis knew what would happen when they withdrew from Gaza. Yes, they were surprised Westernized Palestinians would elect a fundamentalist terror group for a government. Even so, this only made the outcome MORE obvious. I think the problem was with how Sharon said he would deal with rockets and terrorists. Did he fully anticipate the extent that Iran and Syria are prepared to incite confrontation? Does anyone now doubt that very shortly, drones, small rockets, perhaps radiological devices, clandestine launches, cyber attacks, civilian shield tactics won't appear closer to home? Radio controlled boats, subs, balloons are all part of the Terror of Asymmetry. Rice dubbed this “salami tactics” after the Iranian general Salami who is ready to "set the West afire".

Opponents to Sharon stated clearly that Hamas would build and launch rockets. Sharon knew that but could essentially “surround" Gaza. Iran and Syria have given Hezbollah the means to rain terror. The fact anyone is considering Syrian arguments after their flaunting the UN investigation on their assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister is ludicrous. You cannot “close” Hezbollah territory without Syrian participation. You cannot embargo Hezbollah while Iran smuggles them technology. This situation exists in Iraq. This makes Lebanon a different question than “disengagement” in Gaza. Israel would have to invade the entire Middle East to ensure peace through “occupation”. Not possible or desirable.

In all fairness to Sharon, he disengaged from Gaza knowing the possibilities. The response to his gift was an escalation of rhetoric by Iran, Iranian and Syrian supplies to Hezbollah, the green light to Hezbollah, the election of Hamas and their production of missiles, Hamas and Hezbollah's refusal to recognize Israel. The use of drones in Lebanon and in the Gulf by Iran. The presence of AQ in Gaza and attacks in Jordan and Egypt. All these things have happened recently and build a larger pattern than simply Israeli/Palestinian tension. There is a civil war simmering in Gaza. Who predicted that?

No, occupation is extremely costly. Just look at Iraq. Withdrawing, Americans should observe, DOES NOT mean the UN or anyone else will enforce non-aggression. We give our enemies time and they plan for the next round of terror. Sharon withdrew for demographic reasons and knew he would have to embargo and invade to crush terror if it happened. Hezbollah is a whole new apple. Withdrawal from Lebanon did not bring non-aggression. It bought time for Hezbollah.

Sharon probably didn't imagine that in July 2006, Iran and Syria with proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and others, would deploy new PMDs, openly declare to destroy Israel, fire missiles towards Tel Aviv, cross borders and capture soldiers, fire drones and longer range missiles. This has little to do with disengagement and re-entering and much to do about the essential observations of the White House (as opposed to anything the Democrats have uttered).

Lessons here may be learned in regard to conflict with Iran. I’m sure they have far better drones and missiles. Tiberius rocket attacks are fairly accurate and long range. There has been a knife at Israel's neck for a decade plus while a group of enemies prepare their strategy of aggression. Syria knows this and Iran and other extremist groups have been supporting this process. That is what makes today's mess, much larger than the simple calculus of Gaza and Hamas. The reaction by the world is far different than the reaction over Hamas's election and militancy.

Madrid in 2003 and now Lebanon 2006. Points where Democrats missed or are missing the boat.

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 15, 2006 11:26 AM

I was surprised that when Israel withdrew settlements from Gaza, they pulled back on all occupation. Occupation and settlement are two separate issues. Israel occupied Southern Lebanon for a number of years without creating settlements, and occupation is not illegal under international law the way that settling occupied land is.

I thin the settlements, including those in the West Bank that are isolated, should be removed, unilaterally. But occupation should continue under there is a bilateral or multilateral political deal.

Removing settlements would give sane Palestinians the idea that they can have an independent state, and will deal with the demographic problem of Muslims becoming a majority. But they can't have a state until they sign a treaty with Israel.

Posted by: Rick at July 15, 2006 11:54 AM

As an example of the deeper dynamics Israel is caught in and the threat this acceleration of planned hostility poses to US forces (and moderate Muslim regimes) I post this link

How many elite government sponsored special ops from NK, Iran, Syria are deployed? Where and with what? And how easily can these agents move anywhere, off any coast, shadowing our Global Strike with unknown capacities of their own? Several missiles fired at the Jersey coast would set the night on fire like the Lebanon airport blazed in Beirut last night. These terrorists can certainly strike regional targets if further allowed by their sponsors. New York City has government help protecting its habor below the visible waterline.

I asked the question here the day after an Iranian drone flew over a US ship in the Gulf how prepared are we? There are three reasonable aspects of a sound security solution. 1. destroy the progenitors and their agents while curtailing their technology and transfer 2. defend against the likely means of our adversaries to attack us(everywhere) 3. convince allies to unite in a common defense and attack (militarily and diplomatically) while trying to persuade our adversaries to yield and seek peaceful compromise regarding reasonable issues (stick and carrot).

I think there is plenty of ground and time to resolve these international issues, but I suspect ulterior motives are pressing some for conflict, while other Western leaders see that only through shock and fear will public opinion give impetus to swing “pro-action”.

In this light, we might keep underestimatimg diplomactic resolutions and keep up with the pace of the weaponizing and united strategies of our adversaries. I once posted a link here to both private sub manufacturers AND corporations that will retro fit it with stealth and the ability to stay submerged and silent for a week. Defense tech has pointed out the aspects of the emerging terrorist air force and the DOD has set out to fly a drone-killing Super Drone. The US did not create this military race any more than radio-controlled model plane flyers did. Technology, multiplies on its own given enough incentive and money. Iran and North Korea along with Syria, now possibly Chavez, Cuba and independent groups themselves have been racing the clock of Western denial. Pakistan proliferated secrets and materials to our worst adversaries and today homes several extremist groups including Bin Laden (most likely that is). Russia and China still use the issue vital to our very security to elevate their influence for profit. Despite the UN resolution today against North Korea (which after 13 years finally bans the import and export of missile related technology), who here thinks the US and in great part now, Israel (Yes, England, Australia, Japan and others stand too) are the only ones willing to sacrifice for a positive outcome in this emerging radical threat? And who the hell will enforce the UN resolution? The Chinese Navy or the Russian Air Force?

Can which enemies fire what missiles, how many times from what clandestine positions? Given the declared intention by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas to destroy Israel AND defeat Liberal Democracy (that will take far more time), how long should we wait (or Israel wait) until the instruments of fire surround us and extort our resistance into a growing list of capitulations?

Bobby recently asked what condition must be met in order for Americans to support the use of force against Iran, North Korea or even Syria? I thought a conventional provocation might be the trigger most centrists could agree on.

Bobby asked what response would such an aggressive condition cause? If one looks at merely the advancing deployment and development of our enemy’s military technology, the coordinated organization of these extremists and rogue regimes and the passage of time (in years and months), waiting is not much longer a prudent option. We need some man-to-man coverage of our enemies pronto. We need to learn more about their resources, surprises, and affiliations and we need a unified Western public that has a clue about what is coming our way given oil wealth, fanaticism, duplicity of partners, and the dangerous denial on our part.

Israel cannot afford such denial. And they will not survive without public sacrifice. Another aspect of national character we might need to work on. A major escalation might very well create a draft. I wonder how strong we are. Saddam was nothing and fighting sectarian militias is hardly the bigger picture we have a military for. Without Iran, Syria, North Korea and cells in Pakistan, Central Asia, the extremists would evaporate. Somehow I find it hard to believe this is all about Israel. And how many had hoped Israel would pre-empt Iran if necessary?

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 15, 2006 05:52 PM

a bit more on drone v missile

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 15, 2006 06:07 PM

Everyone must be having a nice weekend, but I thought I might post some updates. First, on another note North Korea was confronted by international unity. What happens is another story, but I think NK lost out with its behavior. Democrats were silent, although the world was clearer and took a harder line than the leading Democrats presently take.

Then Mumbai: another miscalculation by Islamic extremists and the Iranian follow up. Here are a few responses breaking the leverage Iran had over India and this No from India and Pakistan

Then there is almost a complete lack of Democratic comment on global situation. By next week the polls should reflect Democratic silence. Media, however, isn't staying silent, although Saturday the Times showed Lebanese dead on the front page with less than expected coverage of the wider import of the present dynamics. There was also less support of the American position at the G8.

Iran rejects the obvious

more focus on the real power play

Boston Globe with similar conclusions

warning from Israel

So many of our allies, US media (in general), McCain and the Bush Administration are taking a strong line against an international dynamic they have been promoting since 9/11 and the following disclosure of the Iranian secret nuclear program uncovered by the Iranian resistance movement. The Democrats still are undecided about taking their head out of their asses. They blinked after the Madrid bombings and they are missing the boat again. How is this not just as bad as the Republicans ignoring security in the late nineties while going after Clinton? I think the strategy of draping themselves in flags and campaigning on Iraq with the present situation possibly raging into the fall has thrown Democratic leadership and their Kossak enablers into a political conundrum. Clinton's silence is surprising given their New York affiliations.

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 16, 2006 10:54 AM

Max;
In a follow up to your post I was struck by Mark Shields comments on the NewsHour on Friday. When asked about the Middle East situation, he said there was a clear connection between the war in Iraq and the rise of Iranian influence. He further emphasized that we should have expected no less when we toppled Iran's tough next door neighbor, Saddam Hussein. Wow, Real politik from a Democratic pundit. Will we now hear more Dems longing for the years Kissinger foreign policy?

Posted by: c3 at July 16, 2006 11:15 AM

C3,
I watched Mark Shields on Friday too and was struck by exactly the same words. That’s funny. He looked as though he had just run into a brick wall and dazed, walked away shaking out the cobwebs and acknowledged there WAS A WALL after all.

Bush failed to see the dialectic leading to 9/11 despite a number of Clinton people warning him. The Democrats however, have committed an even worse intentional blindness in denying the NK, Pakistan, Iran, Syria nexus, wmd and the terror groups themselves. Behind the "Bush Doctrine" lies at least some sound centrist judgments and policies regarding the scope, evolution, and defense against the terrorist network and the expanding radical hegemony supported by a number of regimes.

Even now, the Arab street is quite angry. Feinstein was more Hawk than her Republican counterpart this morning on CNN. Kossaks are flattened in their tracks, North Korean rejection of UN SANCTIONS, Iran and Syria on the hotspot with Russia and China tipping slightly towards the West (those bigger oil service and export contracts). India is fuming and Japan might start building a first class air force soon along with laser air defense. Germany is butting up with Russia and France. Blair is enjoying some validation with Iranian involvement in Iraq becoming clearer. I think this is a big mistake by the radicals. They really think America is stretched and criticism against us an indictment of Liberal Democracy or American good faith. Bush appears moderate these days in the global spotlight and his former bravado seems a bit more like "I told you so".

Bush didn't force Iran to publicly put its head in its ass, nor the Democrats. Bush didn't force Syria to assassinate Lebanese politicians or allow the vast supply of weapons into Hezbollah controlled Lebanon (in violation of UN agreement). Shield sees the "issue of international law" being turned against Democrats (many voters and “some” leaders) as they reject internationalism, support of Israel, secret programs to track terrorists overseas, preventing civil war in Iraq, standing up to North Korea, building necessary military defense systems etc. etc. I have posted for three years on and off foretelling of the self destruction that would become Democrats if they reject Democratic centrism. I warned not to fail to see the network of terrorism and tyranny, fail to understand the speed by which technology enables asymmetric warfare, misread world reaction to American policy, remain clueless about the difficulty of convincing Russia and China while ACTING to confront terrorism and deploy a transformed defense and offense. I wonder now what the Democrats would have done. Just look at their reaction now. It's priceless.

The next few weeks should be both politically entertaining and globally scary. I am concerned about our intelligence abilities, our possible failure to suspect more "unknown" instruments of destruction and properly estimate the strength of both our coalition and the enemy’s. I fear more bad news might be necessary before world opinion becomes more mobilized to action. Unity does seem to have hope with or without Democrats. Thanks for letting me rant a thread.

I end with a few more connections for those just getting back from a sunny weekend (I hope)

France weighs in with Bush

Iran weighs in

Washington Post weighs in

Hezbollah claims it has a huge cache of missiles including advanced weapons that hit Israel anywhere. The Hezbollah leader claimed he could have ignited the oil depot in Haifa, but considered the civilians. They are in contempt of the UN agreement, the Lebanese agreement with Israel and has permitted a proxy terror group for Iran to stockpile weapons it stated WOULD BE USED against Israel. I think Shields could not escape the obvious logic. Did Bush not say that North Korea, Iran and Iraq were clearly set upon rejecting and threatening Western hegemony? For those whose dislike the concept of “invited hegemony”, I ask you if you prefer the Iran/NK/Syrian/Hamas/Hezbollah version of their hegemonistic dystopia? Yes, I suspect this weekend felt like a brick wall for many Democrats. It was beautiful in Central Park. I hope our plans aim to keep it that way

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 16, 2006 05:59 PM

Terrorists in control of of Lebanon. This supports Israel's claim Siniora is not in control. I don't think other moderate Arab regimes like this development as Iranian diplomats travel to the Saudi Kingdom. The more this escalates, the more the dynamics are revealed. I guess the UN hadn't solved this problem while demanding Israeli withdrawal many years ago. And making Hezbollah remain 20 miles from the border won't make sense as their missile ranges increase. C3 certainly hit the mark when considering the original disengagement from Lebanon as well as US pressure on Sharon not to destroy Arafat when he had a chance in Beirut.

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 16, 2006 09:02 PM

Israel appears to be cutting off all the Hezbollah supply routes from Syria. They are isolating them geographically into a confined battle space.

The big problem with the "Cedar Revolution" was that no one belled the cat--no one disarmed Hezbollah. Looks like that's about to happen. The hard way. Question is, will the Lebanese government take advantage of that, or continue to wimp out when it comes to Hezbollah?

For anyone who's missed it, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are pointedly NOT backing Hezbollah right now. Quite the opposite.

Posted by: Tully at July 16, 2006 10:43 PM

And I'll through in a deeper, long-term issue. Hezbollah, backed by the Shia's of Israel and now the Shia's of Iraq (Sadr) and Al Queda, until recently, lead by a rabidly anti-Shia in Al Zarquawi.

I think we're headed for some serious blood-letting among the radical muslims. Can hatred of the Great Satan keep them from each others throats?

Posted by: c3 at July 17, 2006 12:52 AM

I agree. That is a huge weakness in AQ's and the Mullah's position. A hole the West is pressing to exploit by laying low right now. The problem on the Arab street however, is that Sunni and Shia alike have been so programed to come together on the issue of Israel. This situation gets them to see each other up close. Our alliance is much more real than the Syrian/Iranian wmd pact. Hezbollah tried to launch long range rockets today. Hillary went pro active this afternoon as did Congress. I have heard some off the cuff remarks by the Democrats that were extreme, but here is Bush off the record with Blair as reported on CNN. The logic below has finally split the Democrats with most leaders (Yes, Lieberman) supporting (some ranting right of) Bush while many Liberal policy experts and blogs claiming that Bush policy has caused the present fight. Amazing that you have some former Clinton people advocating pre-empting NK and Syria and other Clinton experts declaring failed US policy behind Hezbollah attacks. Rice responds and stomps such a view as Bush fights stem cell bill in Congress. Strange politics because Congress will trump veto.

Anyway, an interesting exchange:

"Bush: And thanks for the sweaters - I know you picked em out yourself...

Blair: Oh yes absolutely - in fact I knitted it!!!

(laughter)

Bush: What about Kofi Annan - he seems alright. I don't like his ceasefire plan. His attitude is basically ceasefire and everything sorts out.... But I think...

Blair: Yeah the only thing I think is really difficult is that we can't stop this without getting international presence agreed. I think what you guys have talked about which is the criticism of the [inaudible word). I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is, but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral.

Bush: Yeah I think Condi's [US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) gonna go soon.

Blair: Well that's all that matters but if you... You see at least it gets it going.

Bush: I agree it's a process...I told her your offer too.

Blair: Well it's only if she needs the ground prepared as it were. If she goes out she HAS to succeed whereas I can just go and...

Bush: You see the irony is what they need to is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's all over...

Blair: Dunno... Syria....

Bush: Why?

Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing...

Bush: (with mouth full of bread) Yeah

Blair: Look - what does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine. If you get a solution in Israel and Palestine. Iraq goes in the right way

Bush: Yeah - he's [indistinct]

Blair: Yeah.... He's had it. That's what all this is about - it's the same with Iran

Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Assad and make something happen.

Blair: Yeah

BUSH: [indistinct] blaming Israel and [indistinct] blaming the Lebanese government...."

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 17, 2006 04:58 PM

It's an interesting conversation. Anyone care to translate it for me? I'm having a hard time filling in all of the blanks.

Posted by: Dennis at July 17, 2006 08:12 PM

see "crisis managment"

Interesting take on events and US options. "Trudy" and Washington Post editor state that America has no military options in the Middle East as it fights a losing war in Iraq badly over-stretched. She is an "expert"?

Then Bill Kristol delivers a view that Hillary exclaimed earlier in the day. Straight from the Euston Manifesto. This moment, he states, is an opportunity for the West to deal a crushing blow to the obvious intentions of Iran and Syria. He points out that moderate Arab governments who oppose Hezbollah are worried about Mullahs with the bomb. The world has moved closer in unity (thanks to US pressure) and Hamas and Hezbollah have made a mistake. Kristol pointed to the unity against Radical OverReach and the opportunity to exploit our enemies great mistake.

The Syrian Ambassador has been a riot. I wish Kristol had occasion to debate him. While I come from more of the opposite side of the middle, there is certainly morality and logic to his viewpoint. It does seem like a great Israeli chess move in response to a pre-emptive Iranian gambit.

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 17, 2006 08:40 PM

Dennis,
The full transcript including "yo Blair" is out there. I have more fun filling in the blanks myself.

It ends, "I'm not blaming Israel, I'm not blaming....."

I expect Daily Show might poke some fun.......Colbert will probably dwell on the s--t part. Frankly, one of Bush's better moments speaking.

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 17, 2006 08:45 PM

He points out that moderate Arab governments who oppose Hezbollah are worried about Mullahs with the bomb.

Me too! Posted by: c3 at July 17, 2006 09:40 PM

I had to post this article on this "thread" since I linked a Kristol comment earlier. When do I start paying rent? "Experts" weigh in on Bush strategy.

First, an unsupported discription of reality creating a false context in which to thrust a Kristol quote. Bravo...Thus, the neoconservative is formed and Pro Action is portrayed as Big Brother's psycho step brother. How much do Kosworldians pay to get this stuff distributed?

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 17, 2006 10:35 PM

The latest comments regarding a number of points the disengagement has spawned.

military expert on why Israel should let US eventually respond to Iran

Hewitt responds to George Will's claims about the Middle East

Israeli view of escalation and the increasing range of Iranian missiles supplied to Hezbollah

Israeli view of Iranian connection

a view from Europe concerning Syria

I find it interesting the Left Blog World is now focused on Israeli extremes, failed US diplomacy, overstretched military bogged down in a losing war, world opinion against the US........."focused" on certainly a different view I seem to be observing.

Truly amazing as Republicans over turn Stem Cell restrictions while leading Democrats jump on board the Middle East pro-action wing. Lieberman should slam Lamont in new ads. Kerry has what to say? Maybe he's busy calculating the cost of Dig ll.

In any case, the G8 did not call for a cease-fire.

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 18, 2006 08:16 PM