Centerfield

I'm curious as to how exactly the US giving Israel a blank check helped them or us. In the wake of the conflict israel is left with a weakened diplomatic position and their aura of military invincibility in tatters. The US leadership is seen as delusional for the views expressed by the president that 'Israel and the US won.'

It'd be nice if all the devotee's of TR could ever remember and practice the first part of that quote ,"speak softly."

As far as bull moose goes, It is interesting being referred to as a 'leftist fundamentalist' and compared to the leadership of Iran for supporting Lamont. That doesn't sound very centrist to me.

Although sympathetic with some his views on things like welfare reform, I don't see how exactly the blogosphere needs him, given that similar posts can be found all over the place. He certainly doesn't lay out how exactly we're going to 'win' given that the administration isn't going to change anything unless forced to. His schtick got old back in '04.

I'm curious as to how exactly the US giving Israel a blank check helped them or us.

In the long term it would have meant more dead terrorists and hopefully the defeat of Hezbollah, in the short term you are correct. I think because of political pressure we did what we always do and asked Israel to back down. What the Moose is pointing out, correctly in my book, is that much of the world is never going to embrace Israel whether there is a cease fire or not. In my calculation, that will only mean more violence from Hezbollah in the future. In other words, we accomplished nothing but a temporary pause in the violence which seems to be the case with much of our diplomatic efforts in support of Israel throughout its short history.

I didn't forget the first part of the quote, I just feel that "speaking softly" with Hezbollah is futile. There has been nobody that has slammed the lack of diplomatic effort of this administration more than I have. However, the fact that "the Party of God" is not disarming only proves my point. If there is anyone we should be speaking softly to it is the rest of the world, in support of taking Hezbollah out and sactioning those countries, such as Iran, that are clearly in support of them.

The Moose is needed because the ideologues out number bloggers in the middle. His experience as a former Christian-right Republican, turned middle of the roader, is representative of many of us who have felt abandoned by both political parties over the years. I disagree that his perspective is well represented in the blogosphere, although I agree many hold his position on Israel, especially amongst the right. I wrote about it because we have yet to have the post cease fire discussion on this blog and I am interested in what others think.

That doesn't sound very centrist to me.

Oh goodie. We can argue some more about what "centrist" means. Can I para-quote Potter Stewart? :-)

Mathew,

A few objections.

I don't understand all this talk about how Israel showed restraint in the recent war. I don't see how bombing Lebanon's infastructure and killing hundereds is showing restraint. I think the world opinion was upset at Israel for those reasons.

This doesn't mean I support Hezboallah or think that Israel should just sit back and let a terrorist group lob rockets into its territory. But the thing that started this was the kidnapping of two Israeli solidiers. Israel could have mounted a commando raid ala Entebe to get the soliders. Yes, there might have been some kevetching, but not as bad as it has been. People can understand a rescue mission to save two brothers in arms from thugs than they are when women and children are terrified.

Israel tried to use a hammer in dealing with Hezboallah and it didn't work. All that Hezboallah had to do is not allow Israel to win, which it did. Israel had to basically wipe Hezboallah out which is damn near impossible.

The choice here is not between talking with Hezboallah or bombing them to hell. It's about fighting smart or fighting dumb. You can't talk to a terrorist group, but you can't really destroy them either. Israel chose the latter and is suffering the consequences.

I don't know what is the best way to do that. I don't think Israel can do that alone. It needs a broker to step in and find ways to basically dry up the swamp that creates Hezboallah and find ways to stregthen the Lebanese government so that it isn't so depended on a terrorist group to keep the peace. We need to find ways to isolate Iran. In short, the US needs to re-engage in the peace process instead of thinking Israel can handle this alone.

Just my two cents.

I don't understand all this talk about how Israel showed restraint in the recent war.

Israel is fully capable of turning the sub-Litani region into a smoking plain, without using nukes. They did not. They tried to finesse their way by using air power and a fairly small ground invasion. They could have gone in with many more troops, heavier equipment, greater damage, etc., and they didn't. They low-balled it.

It was in many ways a re-run of the 1993 and 1996 operations, which also failed to wipe out Hezbollah.

The largest impediment to U.S. engagement in peace talks is the stance of not negotiating with terrorists. The problem is that the terrorists are now becoming the governments. Granted Hezbollah is not like Hamas in government status. However, the fact that it is intertwined with the government makes it difficult.

The biggest problem is that these groups are winning the hearts and minds of the people on the ground becuase they are providing the social services that the government can not. This improves their status and then allows them to get into the government. We may be forced to engage these groups on a diplomatic level. I would not be surprised to see Hezbollah become a much stronger force in the Lebanese government after this. They won the war where it matter most to them, in the eyes of the Labanses people.

I see there are two of us here. I'm the optimistic warmonger one.

Agree with Tully that a lot of restraint was shown. Olmert could lose his job over it.

A couple of things:
One is our unwillingness to talk to "terrorists". Interacting in a non-violent manner, seems to be something this administration is positively not going to do. Talking/listening (not negotiating), doesn't give legitimacy to your adversary. Shutting out a lot of the major players in the region exacerbates the problem IMO. Kick the sht out of them when you have to, but they aren't going away any time soon. You gotta deal with them in other manners than militarily (not to exlude the military option). To them their viewpoints are legitimate. The US is exacerbating the problem by refusing to acknowledge that.

I don't see the present situation as as big a loss for Israel as most do. Getting intermediaries in southern Lebanon looks like a good thing to me. It's got a long way to play out yet, and undoubtedly there is going to be a lot of ordinance expended before an equilibrium is reached, but I figure that any peacekeeping force inbetween HZ and Israel are going to have to keep their heads ducked impossibly low. IMO we will see a gradual shift in world opinion as this plays out. The assumption here is that there will be a 'real' UN force placed in the region from countries that make a difference, and that there will be enough of them that not all will be able to dance out of the way of the misfires. It's looking like that might not be a valid assumption though.

Matthew:

In the long term it would have meant more dead terrorists and hopefully the defeat of Hezbollah, in the short term you are correct. I think because of political pressure we did what we always do and asked Israel to back down. What the Moose is pointing out, correctly in my book, is that much of the world is never going to embrace Israel whether there is a cease fire or not. In my calculation, that will only mean more violence from Hezbollah in the future. In other words, we accomplished nothing but a temporary pause in the violence which seems to be the case with much of our diplomatic efforts in support of Israel throughout its short history.

Israel would have faced fighting an entrenched enemy who had the support of the population. There is no question that they could have crushed Hezbollah eventually. However, they would have taken very significant losses among the 80% of their soldiers who are reservists.

Which countries in particular would you say will never support Israel? Outside of the middle east, attitudes have certainly changed over time. For example, prior to the mid 60's, the French were big supporters of Israel, even participating in the attempted seizure of the suez canal with the israelis and brits.

I didn't forget the first part of the quote, I just feel that "speaking softly" with Hezbollah is futile. There has been nobody that has slammed the lack of diplomatic effort of this administration more than I have. However, the fact that "the Party of God" is not disarming only proves my point. If there is anyone we should be speaking softly to it is the rest of the world, in support of taking Hezbollah out and sactioning those countries, such as Iran, that are clearly in support of them.

Prior to this recent conflict, hezbollah was slowly weakening. They were faced with a nearly united front of the other factions in lebanon to disarm eventually, and were in a poor position to respond given the lack of and Israeli hostile action. They now have a far stronger hand to play in internal lebanese politics.

At this point I don't think that our foreign policy team can speak in anything other than all caps unless the brits are filtering. The amount of boneheaded mistakes we've made diplomatically are astounding. A large number of these have been the result of our own demands and yelling. We managed to torpedo meaningful UN reform last year thanks to Bolton and the Human Rights Commission is just as much of a mess as ever.

The Moose is needed because the ideologues out number bloggers in the middle. His experience as a former Christian-right Republican, turned middle of the roader, is representative of many of us who have felt abandoned by both political parties over the years. I disagree that his perspective is well represented in the blogosphere, although I agree many hold his position on Israel, especially amongst the right. I wrote about it because we have yet to have the post cease fire discussion on this blog and I am interested in what others think.

Check out Quando for a similar views from someone who isn't a hack.

Fair enough regarding the discussion. The amount of admiration that the bull moose gets for basically taking the same path that thousands have taken over the last six years simply baffles me. Also, I'd say he's as ideological as anyone regarding foreign policy.

Tully:

Oh goodie. We can argue some more about what "centrist" means. Can I para-quote Potter Stewart? :-)

My only question is at what point do attacks upon a significant part of the population push a commenter out of the center?

Terrorists? According to this guy there are no terrorists here. The ones abroad don't want to hit us. Now I feel much better.

what Israel won and lost

My only question is at what point do attacks upon a significant part of the population push a commenter out of the center?

Attacks, Chris? How about criticism, or simple allegorical comparisons? Sounds an awful lot to me like you're complaining that no one can criticize the left and be centrist. Since either wing can almost always dismiss the rantings of the opposite wing with some justification, that's somewhat the same as saying no criticism of the left is ever legitimate, and no such thing as centrism exists. For us or against us....

The Moose warned of premature triumphalism. I'll go him one better and be specific. Two to one Lamont loses in November.

Prior to this recent conflict, hezbollah was slowly weakening. They were faced with a nearly united front of the other factions in lebanon to disarm eventually, and were in a poor position to respond given the lack of and Israeli hostile action.

Weakening? Heh. Eventually? ROFLMAO. And "nearly united" and "disarm eventually" are to laugh out loud--the Lebanese are as "nearly united" as the Haitians, or the Hatfields and McCoys, and their preferred method of "disarming" Hezbollah is to let them fire rockets at Israel while shipping in more from Iran via Syria. Better check up on the recent history of Lebanon, especially since the "Cedar Revolution." In the last decade Hezbollah has gone from under 10% of the seats in the Lebanese parliament to almost 30%.

Chris, when the topic is the war, you're going to find that the majority of commenters here are much harder on the democrats, because they feel that many democrats' position on the war is composed mostly of negative complaints and very few positive suggestions for realistic alternatives. You are entitled to believe that this makes some or many of us "not centrist."

I happen to agree with you that for at least some of our posters, defense of the war and criticism of its opponents veers towards being reflexive.(no moe reflexiuve than the oppostion, BTW) But in general, there's a VERY centrist component of our criticisms of the positions of anti-war democrats, which is that they really need to do much better than they have because their positions lack substance. We're all well aware that a majority of Americans is either opposed to the war or disappointed in our execution and results, or both.

From that point, we feel that people who hold such views should answer the question of "what sensible alternatives do you think our country should undertake instead." As Tully likes to say, "you complain, you volunteer."

Suppose we were to try to temporarily leave aside the issue of "what's a centrist" by presuming for the sake of this discussion that this web site manifests the answer. In other words, suppose the answer to "what's a centrist?" can be found by surveying the views of people who are either happy to call themselves centrists or find enough to like about this site to frequent it.

You'd find that our visitors divide into 2 basic camps. There are those who are convinced that the stakes are so high, that democratizing Iraq is so crucial that they entertain very little in the way of dissent, and basically insist that at the current time no alternatives to sticking with our current vision exist, and that open criticism is deeply harmful.

Some others are becoming more concerned that, regardless of the stakes, it's starting to look less and less likely that we'll be able to re-make Iraq into anything that closely resembles our loosely stated vision for a stable cohesive peaceful islamic democracy. Among such folk, there's still the "we broke it, we bought it" problem. Presuming we have little realistic alternative but to substantially lower our expectations, there's still the question of how we should do that without abandoning the responsibitities that became ours simply by virtue of invading and occupying the country.

It's this latter question that I personally feel is most centrist, and the one that many of us feel anti-war democrats have failed to address.

Welcome back, Moose. Whether we agree on everything or not, he's a good centrist voice to have.

and here's another