Right Wing Nut House

I’ve taken The Weekly Standard’s Editor Bill Kristol to task before on this site. His rah-rah attitude toward foreign military adventures can be wearing, especially when the United States is preoccupied in Iraq. It’s not that Kristol doesn’t think these things through, it’s just that he appears to be quite cavalier in his attitude toward expending American power. He seems to believe it is a bottomless well.

Kristol has written an editorial at The Weekly Standard that essentially says the United States should jump into the fray in the Middle East and help Israel.

The first part of his editorial actually makes good sense:

What’s happening in the Middle East, then, isn’t just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What’s happening is an Islamist-Israeli war. You might even say this is part of the Islamist war on the West–but is India part of the West? Better to say that what’s under attack is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States.

An Islamist-Israeli conflict may or may not be more dangerous than the old Arab-Israeli conflict. Secular Arab nationalism was, after all, also capable of posing an existential threat to Israel. And the Islamist threat to liberal democracy may or may not turn out to be as dangerous as the threats posed in the last century by secular forms of irrationalism (fascism) and illiberalism (communism). But it is a new and different threat. One needs to keep this in mind when trying to draw useful lessons from our successes, and failures, in dealing with the threats of the 20th century.

Here, however, is one lesson that does seem to hold: States matter. Regimes matter. Ideological movements become more dangerous when they become governing regimes of major nations. Communism became really dangerous when it seized control of Russia. National socialism became really dangerous when it seized control of Germany. Islamism became really dangerous when it seized control of Iran–which then became, as it has been for the last 27 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Indeed, Kristol has it pegged exactly. Israel is fighting for its existence not against pan-Arabism but rather against an extremist ideology that feels emboldened not out any strategic or political calculations but out of a divine sense of mission. I leave it to the reader to decide which is more dangerous.

If Kristol was only going to write about the nature of this challenge to Israeli national security, he would have been better off. It is when he tries to wed US interests entirely to the interests of the Jewish state that he loses me:

For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

The right response is renewed strength–in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions–and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

International “tests” of the kind that Kristol claims Iran and Syria are giving to the United States have very little meaning. Do either of those nations believe that they can stand up to the US militarily? Of course not. And they need not test our resolve. They only need to look next door in Iraq. We have 140,000 American boys and girls proving our resolve to “stand” with the Iraqis every day and several thousand more youngsters in Afghanistan doing the same thing.

Not bombing Iran is not the same as weakness. And answering Kristol’s question about Iranian nukes is a fruitless exercise at this point. Whether or not the Iranians will give up their nuclear program peacefully is not a question that has to be resolved at this time. More importantly, Kristol’s advocacy of taking out Iranian nuclear sites right now points up the fallacy of the entire thrust of his editorial.

No Bill, this is definitely not “our” war.

This is Israel’s war. Great powers do not allow small powers to dictate when and where they expend their military might and the lives of their young men. If we must confront the Iranians, it will be at a time of our own choosing and for reasons having to do with our own national interest, not the interest of a small ally.

I wish Israel well in their efforts to protect themselves from aggression by Iran and Syria as well as their proxies. And I applaud the response of the United States government to this point. We have correctly said that this is a security matter for the Israelis and we are rightly asking them to limit civilian casualties. We have commiserated with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora while urging him to act against the terrorists who attack Israel with impunity from within his borders. The fact that much of the Lebanese government also wants to rein in Hizballah may mean that if Israel can finish the job of dismantling the terrorists fairly quickly, they may end up doing the Lebanese government a huge favor, acting where there was no political will to act on the part of Siniora’s ministers.

But dragging the United States into this conflict by taking the opportunity to bomb Iran is, frankly, a ridiculous notion. Why now? Is it because there’s a shooting war going on between Israel and its blood enemies and Kristol thinks no one will notice if we go a-bombing in Iran?

There is no strategic advantage to bombing now compared to a year or two years from now. It’s not like the facilities are going to get up and walk away. They will still be there unless we can convince the Iranians that they will never build a nuclear weapon as long as the United States has anything to say about it. And since I actually agree with Kristol that the likelihood of that happening are about as close to zero as you can get, it very well may be that some day, Iran’s turn will come. But why it should happen now except as an adjunct to what Israel is doing?

Glen Greenwald:

It should go without saying that one can believe that Israel is within its rights to defend itself against Hezbollah without also believing that the U.S. should become involved in this extraordinarily flammable conflict. But these neoconservatives don’t recognize that distinction. As they are now expressly arguing, Israel’s enemies are America’s enemies, and this war being waged by Israel ought to become America’s war — and the sooner the better.

I believe it is obvious to most Americans, who have turned completely on the war in Iraq, that it is sheer lunacy to expand that failed war effort to now include American war on even more countries — including more powerful ones with more powerful allies, such as Iran — let alone to do so as part of, and in the middle of, an Arab-Israeli war. But if there is one lesson that we ought to have learned over the past several years, it is that there is no militaristic proposal too crazed or extremist to be undertaken by this administration. And anyone who thinks that these neoconservatives now lack real influence within the Bush administration is sorely mistaken.

First, Greenwald may want to inform his readers about all those “militaristic proposals” that are “too crazed or extremist” that have been “undertaken” by the Administration. Of course there are none. Greenwald, Mr. Hyperbole, is a serial exaggerator and unless I’ve missed a war or two in the past 6 years, he can safely be dismissed in this instance as a partisan hack.

However, the rest of his point has validity. Neo-conservatives badly miscalculated in Iraq and our boys have been paying for it for three years. And now that the end of a massive US presence in Iraq is actually in sight, we should take a step back and examine what the neocons have wrought with their policies (policies that I originally supported but believe were carried out in some instances with monstrous incompetence). Iraq will be a wary partner for the foreseeable future but useless as an ally as their military might will be directed for years against both al-Qaeda in Iraq and a diminishing Sunni insurgency at home. This means they will have zero impact on our strategic plans except as a base for operations against Iran. And it’s no means certain that the Iraqis would allow us to use those bases for an attack anyway. As a military player in the Middle East, the Iraqis are a decade away.

If the neoconservatives had a track record of success, I might be more inclined to listen to Kristol, John Podhoretz, and Michael Ledeen who have all come out in the last 2 days advocating American military action in support of Israel. As it is, we should look at policy alternatives that take into account our interests first. Israel is perfectly capable of taking care of itself as they have proven time and time again. If they want or need any help, I’m sure they won’t be shy about asking for it.

If true - and it just now cleared the wires - this will probably mean some kind of general Middle East war:

The London-based Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Saturday that “Washington has information according to which Israel gave Damascus 72 hours to stop Hizbullah’s activity along the Lebanon-Israel border and bring about the release the two kidnapped IDF soldiers or it would launch an offensive with disastrous consequences.”

[snip]

The source said that Israel has indicated that it “will not end its military activity until a new situation is created that will prevent Syria and Iran from using terror organizations, such as Hamas and Hizbullah, to threaten its security.”

Is al-Hayat reliable? I guess we’ll soon find out.

If true, this could mean that Israel is going for the gold; the elimination of the threat posed by Syria and Iran to the Jewish state as well as the destruction of their proxies Hamas and Hezballah.

The logic of the Israeli action is inescapable; why remove the stone from your shoe when the boulder threatens to fall on top of you?

The source for this story is an unnamed “official” in the Pentagon. His motivation for leaking can only be guessed at but one possible reason could be the Pentagon’s extreme concern for American troops in Iraq if, as expected, Iran were to openly declare support for Syria. One clear way to put pressure on Israel would be for Iran to release its militias in Iraq and get them to attack American military targets. If that were to happen, it would get very bloody indeed - especially for the militias. But could the nascent Iraqi government keep from flying apart if al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army and the Badr Brigades (who after all are the military arm of the largest political party in Iraq, the SCIRI) were to openly attack Americans? Unknown.

At the very least, the Iranians would be counting on the pressure from their militias in Iraq to force the Americans to intervene and work hard to stop the Israelis in their tracks. Since they are unable send any real assistance to Syria, their best bet would be to practice a little asymmetrical warfare.

And lets not forget that Iran has several hundred missiles capable of hitting Israel. If Iran goes to war, they’re conventional military forces would be no match for the Israelis which would leave them few options to strike at the Jewish state except their stockpile of missiles.

Washington may not have any say in whether or not Israel actually goes through with an attack on Syria (and Iran?). But what I found significant in what the Pentagon source told al-Hayat was that Israel would keep attacking until a “new situation is created that will prevent Syria and Iran from using terror organizations, such as Hamas and Hizbullah, to threaten its security.” This is a specific warning to Iran and Syria, putting them on notice that both are in the crosshairs.

Do we support Israel in their preemptive attack against Syria and Iran? We can hardly do any less. But for the sake of the world, I hope that Israel wins quickly and decisively. Otherwise, the consequences for the entire world would be dire indeed.

UPDATE

If this story holds up, I imagine I’ll be updating this post all day long.

Chris at Jawa Report:

Syria will not restrain Hizbullah and may be unable to do so without Iran’s agreement. Iran appears to be the major sponsor now.
If the report above is true, Israel will attack Syria for supporting the terrorist group.
Iran will be forced into the war in order to maintain its credibility in the region and to honor the mutual defense agreement it made with Syria in June.

The war will be much wider soon. The big question is: how much support will the US provide to Israel when it is facing the Palestinians, Hezbullah, Syria and Iran? Will we use this opportunity to strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities?

UPDATE II

Ed Morrissey has been on top of the Syria angle for the last 24 hours and reports that a statement issued last night by the Baathist party in support of Hizballah was formulated apparently without the help of Baby Assad, calling into question just who the hell is calling the shots in Syria at the moment.

I’ve written many times since the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon how unahppy the political and military elites were with Assad both with the humiliating retreat as well as the loss of huge amounts of revenue that Syria had been milking from Lebanon for 15 years. This may be one more indication that Assad is little more than a figurehead while the day to day business of government is managed by some kind of “Super Cabinet” of three or four people. This was speculated on when the UN report on the Hariri assassination implicating Assad’s brother in law in the plot first came to light last December.

Ed adds this regarding the ultimatum:

Syria may believe that the mutual defense pact they have with Iran will cause enough nations to rein in Israel before the war escalates into a regional conflict. However, they may find their bluff insufficient. First, most of the West believes that this has already become a regional conflict, and that Syria and Iran have deep involvement in Hamas and Hezbollah. All Israel’s ultimatum accomplishes is to add significant risk to Syria directly for their proxy war. Second, the Iranians will find it quite difficult to march to the aid of Syria with 135,000 American troops blocking their way, and the US Navy in the Persian Gulf.

Israel has decided to raise the stakes on Syria. Will Syria blink?

Good question. A better one is can Baby Assad afford another humiliation?

UPDATE III

Haaretz is quoting an IDF official who is denying the ultimatum story:

Responding to a report in a pan-Arab daily newspaper that Israel presented Damascus with an ultimatum, an Israel Defense Forces officer said Saturday that targeting Syria is currently not on Israel’s agenda.

We’re not a gang that shoots in every direction,” the officer said. “It won’t be right to bring Syria into the campaign.”

The London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported Saturday that Israel issued an ultimatum to Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to which a regional war would erupt within 72 hours if Damascus does not prevent Hezbollah attacks.

The officer is not identified nor do we know if he would be in a position to issue that kind of denial.

The day of reckoning for Hizballah has arrived. Prime Minister Olmert:

Israel will not halt its offensive in Lebanon until Hizbullah is disarmed, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Friday.

Olmert made the comments during a telephone call with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Israeli government officials said Friday. Olmert agreed to allow a U.N. team come to the area to try to mediate a cease-fire, an official close to Olmert said.

[snip]

Olmert said he would only cooperate with the U.N. team if its mandate would be to free the captured Israeli soldiers and force Lebanon to comply with a U.N. resolution that calls on it to deploy its forces along its border with Israel, moving Hizbullah guerrillas out of the area, the official said.

Unless there is some kind of intervention - serious rhetoric from Washington warning the Israelis to halt their incursion into Lebanon - it appears that Hizballah’s days are numbered as a fighting force. As this short entry in Foreign Policy blog points out, this is a cause for celebration in many Arab capitols as well as Tel Aviv and Washington:

You’d think the last thing citizens of a country that suffered decades of civil war would want is an all-out attack by one of the most advanced militaries in the world. But some Lebanese and other Arabs around the region (including the Saudis), while obviously not in favor of the Israeli assault, are seeing this crisis as a death knell for Hezbollah and quietly cheering it on. The WaPo ran an analysis piece on the subject today, and ynetnews.com - the English version of the most widely read Hebrew daily in Israel - also has some analysis. A year after the Lebanese successfully booted most of the Syrian influence out of the government, some are realizing that allowing minority parties, like Hezbollah, to make decisions that affect the entire nation does not make for a functioning state.

Ever since the Cedar Revolution succeeded in kicking the Syrians out of Lebanon and electing a majority government, the question of what to do about Hizballah has alternately roiled and vexed Lebanese politics. The fragile coalition of religious, secular, and nationalist parties threatened to fly apart several times as the Lebanese cabinet struggled to come to grips with a seemingly insoluble conundrum; the fact that Hizballah is both a terrorist and political organization with real power both in the government and in the Lebanese street.

Any attempt at negotiating a solution that would have enabled the Lebanese to comply with UN Resolution 1559 that called for the disarming of all militias as well as the extension of Lebanese sovereignty over all of Lebanon was met with either a stonewall or doubletalk by Hizballah’s charismatic leader Hassan Nasrallah. He steadfastly refused to endorse UN assistance in disarming as well as rejecting out of hand any attempt by the Lebanese army to supplant his militia as the recognized “resistance” to Israel. This effectively meant that Nasrallah saw Hizballah as an independent force in both the military and political life of the nation, something that was proven when his cadres attacked Israeli troops and kidnapped two IDF soldiers.

It is unknown whether Hizballah’s aggression against Israel was planned or whether it was initiated by some local commander who saw an opportunity to inflict some pain on the Israelis:

Hezbollah and Israel stand along this border every day observing each other through binoculars and waiting for an opportunity to kill each other. They are at war. They have been for 25 years, no one ever declared a cease-fire between them. … They stand on the border every day and just wait for an opportunity. And on Tuesday morning there were two Humvees full of Israeli soldiers, not under observation from the Israeli side, not under covering fire, sitting out there all alone. The Hezbollah militia commander just couldn’t believe it — so he went and got them.

The Israeli captain in charge of that unit knew he had really screwed up, so he sent an armored personnel carrier to go get them in hot pursuit, and Hezbollah led them right through a minefield.

Now if you’re sitting in Tehran or Damascus or Beirut, and you are part of the terrorist Politburo so to speak, you have a choice. With your head sunk in your hands, thinking “Oh my God,” you can either give [the kidnapped soldiers] back and say “Oops, sorry, wrong time” or you can say, “Hey, this is war.”

It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that the Hezbollah commander on the ground said Tuesday morning, “Go get two Israeli soldiers, would you please?”

This may be true although it is not beyond the realm of the impossible to believe that local commanders had Nasrallah’s blessing to act if they saw an opening. However the events unfolded, Nasrallah embraced the action and is now paying an enormous price for it:

Hizbullah leaders and operatives were leaving Beirut on Saturday following a massive IAF strike on an 11-story building that served as the organization’s command center, initial intelligence indicated.

Channel 2 reported that the move appeared to be made under heavy security.

Earlier Saturday, IAF jets attacked targets in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli, some 90 kilometers north of Beirut, marking the deepest Israel has struck inside Lebanon since the onset of Operation Just Rewards.

The jets also hit bridges and gas stations in eastern and southern Lebanon, and dropped tens of thousands of fliers over Lebanon trying to convey the message that Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah has taken control of their country and is bringing them disaster.

There are also reports of severe clashes in the south around the disputed Shebaa Farms region which would indicate that in addition to taking out as much Hizballah infrastructure as possible, the IDF was trying to degrade the combat capabilities of the terrorist group as well.

In short, Israel is doing to Hizballah what the Lebanese government lacked the power and political will to do for itself; Hizballah is being systematically disarmed.

It is unclear whether Israel’s intervention will be met with grudging assent by the Lebanese people or if the they will rally around Hizballah in sympathy. My own guess is that it will depend on how far Israel goes in Lebanon. If this operation takes many weeks and costs hundreds or thousands of Lebanese lives, I doubt very much that the people will feel anything but hatred for the Jewish state. It therefore becomes a matter of urgency that the Israelis do as much damage as they can to Hizballah as quickly as possible without “collateral” damage to either Lebanese infrastructure or the civilian population. This is what President Bush and Condi Rice have been asking and it makes perfect sense. Any Israeli action that allows Hizballah to become ascendant in Lebanese politics or in the government would be an unmitigated disaster.

Nasrallah may have had no choice but to embrace the actions of his subordinates. But it will be tough to spin a victory that will be believed by the Lebanese people with his entire infrastructure in ruins and his men scattered to the four winds.

You’ll get no argument from me that Israel’s punitive campaign against their Hizballah tormentors is long overdue and should continue until the terrorists are severely crippled in their ability to harm Israeli citizens.

But “Operation Just Reward” is also imperiling almost a year’s worth of hard, slogging work done by a few heroic individuals in Lebanon who have braved assassination threats (and attempts), risked their political hides, and at great personal cost, carefully tried to maneuver through the minefields of Lebanese politics in order to give this tragic country a real shot at something all of us here in America devoutly wish; a secular, free market democracy in the Middle East.

While our attention here has been rightly focused on the struggles for democracy and security in Iraq, Lebanon has been going through a wrenching process of self examination and national dialogue that at times has threatened to shatter the fragile coalition of disparate groups who came together in the wake of the assassination of the former Prime Minister, the beloved Rafiq Hariri. Much more comfortable fighting each other than planning an electoral coup, these groups representing all religions, clans, regions, and interests were able to drive millions into the streets to protest Syria’s stranglehold on their country. Their unity led to the premature withdrawal of Syrian forces and a surprising electoral victory for their coalition, the March 14 Forces, a year ago.

Things have not gone very smoothly since then. Wrestling with a bloody past, trying to get beyond a civil war that lasted nearly a quarter of a century, the factions have squabbled over ministry appointments, failed to unite in an effort to oust the Syrian stooge President Emile Lahoud, nearly dissolved over a new electoral law that would do away with much of the artificial sectarian divisions in politics, and most importantly, failed to confront Hizballah and their allies in government over a multitude of sins.

Israel’s raid into Lebanon to retrieve their captured soldiers and their call for the Lebanese government to rein in the terrorists who operate within their borders are making Prime Minster Fouad Siniora’s life extremely difficult. A Sunni Muslim and long time friend of the Hariri family, Siniora has guided his quarrelsome government with competence but, many critics allege, without much imagination. This may be an unfair criticism because most of the stickiest problems facing Lebanon can be traced to the divided loyalties of some of its most powerful factions.

Syria’s departure left a power vacuum that Hizballah was only too ready to step in and fill. It’s simplistic to refer to them as a terrorist group given the fact that they have become a symbol of resistance to the Israelis as well as a huge provider of government services in southern Lebanon. Their spiritual leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is one of the most popular political figures in the country, although that popularity is being sorely tested thanks to his unilateral decision to commit aggression against the Israelis. Their influence on the majority Shia population extends far beyond their rather meager representation in Parliament. And, when it comes right down to the nitty gritty, they’re one of the only ones with guns in the country. It is widely thought that they are Syria’s representatives in government which doesn’t seem to hurt them politically as much as it should.

There is also divided loyalty found in in the army as several officers have been implicated in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. President Lahoud, himself an ex-general, may even have been involved in Hariri’s killing. In this atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, the Lebanese government is almost totally helpless.

Walid Jumblatt, the canny, old Druze warlord and head of Lebanon’s Progressive Socialist Party, pointed to Hizballah’s divided loyalties as part of Lebanon’s larger dilemma:

“They don’t make independent decisions,” he said. “Lebanon is being squeezed on one side from the Israelis and on the other side by the Iranians and the Syrians through proxy. Unfortunately, now Lebanon is a battleground.”

The other part of Lebanon’s dilemma is that the government’s writ simply doesn’t run in the southern part of their own country. Asking the Lebanese government to prevent Hizballah from carrying out attacks simply isn’t feasible. The army is not powerful enough to take them on. Nor is the political will there to force them to disarm. Hence, Nasrallah has skillfully played his role as both independent operator and aligning Hizballah with the March 14 Forces by participating in the political process. And he was strengthened last February when another independent player, former Prime Minister Michel Auon, formed an alliance with Hizballah outside the national dialogue that is proceeding at a snail’s pace to reform and reshape the government. The larger than life Auon has been critical of the March 14 Forces for trying to force Hizballah to disarm. Auon also has his eyes on the Presidency and having a force like Hizballah on his side certainly doesn’t hurt his cause.

But the ultimate question has to be who controls Hizballah? Much has been made of Iranian and Syrian support for the group but some analysts see Nasrallah’s aggression against Israel as triggered by domestic politics more than foreign instruction. Nasrallah had been delaying any serious talks with the government about disarming his militia for almost a year, dangling the prospect of folding Hizballah into the armed forces in some way. He has also maneuvered in Parliament by having the legislature declare Hizballah “The Resistance” rather than identify them a a militia. But pressure had been building for Lebanon to comply with UN Resolution 1559 that calls for the disarming of all militias and the extension of control by the Lebanese government over all of Lebanon. If Nasrallah was feeling the heat, he may have initiated action against Israel to solidify Hizballah’s position.

Instead, if in fact Nasrallah took the soldiers - an operation planned for months - thinking Israel, tied down as they were in Gaza, wouldn’t seriously retaliate, he has gravely miscalculated. The Israelis are visiting ruin upon the terrorists and could weaken Nasrallah’s army to the point where the Lebanese army could move in and occupy positions in the south:

After a cabinet meeting Thursday, the government said it had a right and duty to extend its control over all Lebanese territory. Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat said the statement marked a step toward the government reasserting itself.

Other government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, went further, calling it a first move in possibly sending the Lebanese army to the border, a U.N.-endorsed proposal that Hezbollah has rejected. The officials described the meeting as stormy and contentious but said both sides — Hezbollah and its government critics — were especially wary of public divisions at a time of crisis.

“It is becoming very clear that the state alone must bear responsibility for the country’s foreign policy,” said Samir Franjieh, a parliament member who is close to the Hariri bloc. “But our problem now is that Israel is taking things so far that if there is no help from the international community, the situation could get out of hand.”

One wouldn’t expect Nasrallah to concede without a fight unless he literally had no choice. And that’s why the government, angry at the Israelis as they are, may not be too broken up at the prospect of a vastly weakened Hizballah. In effect, the Jewish state may be helping to solve their problems for them. While it won’t bring the two nations any closer, substituting the Lebanese army on the Israeli border for Hizballah will go a long way to ease tensions between them.

At the moment, no one knows whether this latest crisis will lead to a stronger central government in Lebanon or whether the pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian forces will become ascendant and set back the cause of Lebanese democracy for years. Either way, Israel’s intervention in order to punish its Hizballah tormentors couldn’t have come at a worse time.

On today’s show, we’ll be taking your calls at 1-888-407-1776.

We’ll be talking about:

1. News and analysis of the latest from the Middle East

2. Whither Lebanon?

3. Carnival of the Clueless - on the air!

4. Plame suit.

Join me by clicking the “Listen Live” button on the left sidebar from 7:00AM - 9:00AM Central time.

I suppose I could make all sorts of classical references to the rebirth of the Carnival of the Clueless. You know - “the Phoenix is rising” or “the ghost in Hamlet walks the parapets again” or even “Ben Affleck is making another comeback.”

But that would be pretentious of me. And beside the point. The Carnival is not so much being reborn as it is being thrust down my readers throats as part of a gimmick to promote my radio show. And since I will do anything in the name of self-promotion, I thought why not reshoulder the burden of a weekly Carnival highlighting the absolute total cluelessness of so much of the human race. I need the links. I need the traffic. I need the adulation of the crowd.

I think I need a vacation.

We had several candidates for Cluebat of the Week. Your usual collection of idiots, nincompoops, scurvy rats, and just plain numbskulls. A late entry was Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, “Spiritual Leader” of the terrorist group Hizballah, who today is actually celebrating a “victory” over Israel even as IDF jets pound the holy living crap out of Hizballah positions in southern Lebanon. Maybe someone should tell ole Hassan that you don’t win wars by dying for your country. You win wars by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his. Then again, if we were to make it a group award, clearly the Palestinians would be close behind the Reverend Nasrallah.

But for sheer stupidity, not to mention her very existence being an affront to God, to Man, to Rational Thought, and snack food vendors everywhere, our Cluebat of the Week goes to Cindy Sheehan.

I don’t know about you but if I were ever to go on a hunger strike, I would, like, you know, GO ON A HUNGER STRIKE. Mama Sheehan’s idea of a hunger strike is, shall we say, unique. Slurping on smoothies and gobbling up ice cream sounds like a terrific way to lose a little weight. Fasting, it’s not.

So for demonstrating the kind of utter cluelessness we’ve come to expect from her ilk, we proudly award Cluebat of the Week to Cindy Sheehan.

Check out the 18 posts below. I’m sure you’ll find something to tickle your fancy. If not, let me know and, if you’re lucky (and female), I just might tickle it for ya…

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe.”
(Albert Einstein)

“Got dat right, dog.”
(Me)

************************************************************

In the most public demonstration of cluelessness in the history of the human race, French soccer legend Zinedine Zidane, in front of 67,000 fans at the Olympiastadion in Berlin and another 1 billion people watching on television, head butted Italy’s Marco Materazzi in the chest, leading to his ouster from the game and dooming French chances in the ensuing shootout that gave the game and World Cup championship to Italy.

Fausta (who no longer has “Bad Hair” and now blogs at Faustasblog) notes the French media reaction as well as the antics of certain “black-white youths” who will use any excuse to make a bonfire out of a car.

What’t this? Ferdy the Cat on a hunger strike? Heaven forfend! No cheese balls for you, sweetie. In fact, Ferdy has taken the pledge: “Until Democrats in Congress stop saying stupid things about the War in Iraq, I, Ferdinand T. Cat, along with my pet human Bruce, swear to stop eating Sargento’s Mozzarella Cheese, and we will restrict ourselves to generic cheeses and other name brands.”

Those perky pachyderms at Elephants in Academia compare our Cluebat of the Week Cindy Sheehan’s “hunger strike” with the courageous stand taken by a freedom fighter in Cuba who is in his fifth month of a true hunger strike - you know, where you like, actually get hungry and stuff. Inspiring post.

Mr. Right channels Don McLean in penning this brilliant satire sung to the tune of “American Pie. “Don’t Cry Ms. American Spy” will do for Valerie Plame what “You’re so Vain” did for Mick Jagger.

Buckely F. Williams assures us that the Super-Animal world is not taking the launching of missiles by Kim Il Jong lying down. The Amazing Frog and his young ward Dormouse Boy are just two of the Super Animals who have taken up freedom’s cause. Let’s hope they’re not too late.

Fred Fry is warning Hamas to be careful what you wish for. And Fred thinks a little reality check for the PA is in order; They want to be in control, but they also want to play the same old games as before when they were simply a militant organization. The actions of Hamas are the actions of the Palestinian Government.

Much to their detriment the Israelis have figured that out already.

Don Surber reports on a suit filed by a female cheerleader over a male rah-rah’s sexual harassment. It appears the female cheerleader is all grown up and knows how to play the deep pockets game because she’s not suing the starving college kid but rather the school, the coach, and anyone with more than $10 bucks to their name.

Progressive What the Blog gives us the real difference between a geek and a nerd. To be honest, I always though a nerd was someone who never missed an episode of Star Trek while a geek tries to build a working model of The Enterprise. But then, what do I know? I was one of the cool kids in high school.

Conservathink has some shocking news regarding Senator Joseph Biden and his future as a pitchman. You know the Senator; “My hair line is completely natural, and pigs can fly!” Yep, that’s the guy.

Politico at Partisan Times has an interesting post about the cluelessness of Representative Murtha and the Democrats on the Iraq War.

Wenchypoo highlights the cluelessness of celebrities who think that by gallivanting around the planet “raising awareness” of third world poverty that they are actually making a difference.

What do you get when you mix politics, dead bodies, and Democrats? Canine Pundit supplies the answers.

Vox Poplar has an in depth interview with student leaders Rainbow Rockford and Phoenix Fillmore. And by in depth, he means “in-depth.”

King Allah has an interesting letter to his linguistics professor.

Clip Frenzy has a video of a drunk getting tasered. Not once, but several times. Can we accuse a drunk of being clueless? In this case, let’s make an exception.

A Different River asks the question of the hour; Would you donate your virginity to science?

Our favorite hippie chick Peace Moonbeam is hanging out with Cindy Sheehan and trying to stop the war while starving to death - or something.

The gentle folk at The Common Room teach us a valuable lesson about the cluelessness of some people and their expectations regarding government.

The fast moving situation in the Middle East will take up most of The Rick Moran Show today. I’ll have news and analysis concentrating on the following topics.

1. General news updates

2. An analysis of the situation in Lebanon

3. An analysis of the situation in Gaza

4. An overview of what the Iranians and Syrians are up to

We’ll take your calls all morning at 1-888-407-1776

JOIN ME FROM 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM CENTRAL TIME.

You can access the stream by clicking on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar.

Welcome Hugh Hewitt Readers! Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00AM Central time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio. Click the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar to access the stream.

We’ll be talking about the situation in the Middle East all morning and taking your calls. Join the discussion at 1-888-407-1776.

***************************************************************

The news out of the Middle East today is grim and getting more grim by the hour. Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran are nerving themselves for a confrontation that could turn into a general war if things were to get out of control.

First, visit my friends Kit and Heidi at Euphoric Reality. They will have regular updates throughout the day and night. Their sources appear solid and their analysis is sharp. Also, they will be on WAR Radio tonight from 10:00 PM - 12:00AM Central with their thoughts and reactions to the days events.

And these events seem to this observer to be slowly spiraling out of control. This is not the sudden spasm of war as we experienced in 1967 and 1973. This is like a slow motion explosion, almost a steady, determined march toward the battlements by Israel and its enemies as the IDF put more and more pressure on Hamas and the Palestinians to relent and release their captured soldier. It was perhaps inevitable that Hizballah, believing the Israelis tied down in Gaza, felt it an opportune moment to pull the tail of the lion thinking that they would be relatively safe from retaliation. This morning, the terrorist group launched dozens of rockets and mortar shells into the disputed Shebaa Farms region in southern Lebanon killing several IDF soldiers. They then kidnapped two surviving IDF men which precipitated the massive raid by Israel involving planes, helicopters, gunboats, and tanks. So far, the Israelis are making Hizballah wish they had stayed in bed.

Meanwhile, the United States is pointing the finger right where it belongs; Syria and Iran. If not aware of Hizballah’s attack prior to its launch, there is little doubt that the terrorists felt they would have the support of their two major backers in case things got sticky. Given what the IDF is doing to Hizballah pretensions of being a viable military outfit, things couldn’t get much stickier for them than they are right now.

Israel is calling up reserves and sources have revealed that unless the kidnapped soldiers are returned, Israel will escalate even further:

The IAF on Wednesday began to issue call up orders in preparation for retaliatory air strikes against Hizbullah targets in Lebanon, Channel 2 reported. The air force will target power stations and Hizbullah outposts inside Lebanon.

The army was also calling up reservists. Only weeks ago, an entire reserve division was drafted in order to train for an operation such as the one the IDF is planning in response to Wednesday morning’s Hizbullah attacks on IDF forces along the northern border.

A very high ranking military officer said that if the soldiers were not returned in good condition, Israel would turn Lebanon back 20 years by striking its vital infrastructure.

Clearly, the Israelis have had just about enough of Hizballah and their constant provocations and are giving the Lebanese government pretty much of an ultimatum; rein in the terrorists or suffer the consequences.

It appears that Israel may have reached a point that, surrounded as they are by peoples that wish to wipe them off the map, they feel that confronting their tormentors now rather than later is strategically advantageous to them. Hence, the IDF raid into Lebanon to retrieve the two captured soldiers (and pay a visit to Hizballah) is not only a challenge to Syria (who view themselves as Lebanon’s “protector”) but also Iran who may be eager to flex their regional muscles on behalf of their Syrian allies.

And Iran’s most powerful proxy in the region is Hizballah. It may be too much to believe that the Iranians urged Hizballah to take action in order to relieve pressure on Hamas - another Iranian proxy - in Gaza but it’s a possibility that can’t be dismissed. More likely, Hizballah’s leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah initiated the military action as a result of a combination of internal Lebanese politics and a belief that he could bargain for the thousands of Lebanese prisoners (many of them Hizballah terrorists) languishing in Israeli prisons.

Nasrallah has been under increasing pressure from the March 14 coalition to get on board the democracy bandwagon and disarm his militia. He has played games with the Lebanese government for months, dangling the possibility that he would fold his militia into the Lebanese armed forces all the while insisting that Hizballah be called “The Resistance” for their confronting Israel over Shebaa Farms, a small village claimed by Israel, Syria, and Lebanon. It could be that Nasrallah saw the opportunity for a quick “victory” over Israel by taking the soldiers and then exchanging them for Lebanese prisoners. If so, he has miscalculated monumentally. The Lebanese government has disowned his actions, the Israelis are shelling Hizballah positions unmercifully as I write this, and after all is said and done, the Lebanese people could blame Hizballah for the misery their actions inflict on the country.

And the Israelis aren’t letting the Lebanese government off the hook that easily. They are blaming them for the attacks. And why not? The attacks were initiated from Lebanese soil. The downside to this is that the Lebanese government may feel compelled to defend Hizballah even though they really don’t want to. This kind of thing could set back efforts to achieve Lebanese stability and democracy many months.

Iran, of course, has its own agenda. If Syria feels some kind of military demonstration is in order (and as Lebanon’s protector, Assad may feel he absolutely must do something or lose credibility in that regard), Israel may feel compelled to respond to any attack or demonstration with a strike of their own. Escalation would be virtually automatic after that happens.

This doesn’t help Baby Assad in Syria. Relatively speaking, Iran is a long way away and it is doubtful that Syria’s larger but vastly inferior armed forces could stand up to Israel long enough for Iranian intervention to make a difference. But the Iranians may have other plans which could include missile strikes on Israel’s cities.

God help us if the Iranians are stupid enough to initiate a missile exchange. Could the IDF be absolutely sure that those missiles contained conventional warheads? Would they wait to find out or would Israel go with a “launch on warning” policy where they just assume that any missile launched from Iran contains WMD?

Unthinkable.

None of the players want war (save possibly Iran). But the longer Israel remains in Lebanon, the shorter the fuse of war will burn. Let’s hope that Israel can get their captured soldiers back very soon. The alternative would be devastating to everyone involved.

UPDATE

First, Allah has a massive round-up at Hot Air, a dizzying array of links and commentary including a link to a Debka article that confirms some of my speculation - which worries me a little given their reputation for exaggeration and publishing outright rumor. For what its worth, they say that the attack by Hizballah was indeed meant to take the heat off Hamas and was approved by Iran. They also say that Syria is beating the war drums and that the Iranians also are on high alert.

Yikes.

Also, Kit and Heidi are reporting that Israel will declare war tonight.

Judging from the information contained in their updates, this looks like the real thing folks. If, as ER is reporting, Israel goes after Hizballah hammer and tongs, do not expect Syria and Iran to stand idly by while their number one proxy in the region is ripped to shreds. Right now, the only question is how severe their response will be. Will they take the risk and confront Israel directly? Or will they stop short of that and settle for demonstrations?

Time will tell.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Is this a great country or what?

Where else can a lecturer with marginal credentials, deep paranoia, and a self righteous streak a mile wide, play upon a gullible press eager for controversy to become an instant celebrity and a recognized “expert” on a subject so far removed from his own academic discipline it may as well be on the surface of the moon?

A University of Wisconsin-Madison part-time lecturer Kevin Barrett will be allowed to teach a course entitled “Islam: Religion and Culture” next term. If that were all the course was about, I would say so what? What’s one more leftist loony bird teaching our impressionable young about the grievance culture of Arabs, all the while dissing western civilization, and refighting the crusades?

The kids will probably fall asleep during class anyway.

But Mr. Barrett will apparently not stop with teaching the usual anti-western bromides and Arabian sob stories about colonialism and its deleterious effects on Islamic culture. Instead, this self described “Islamologist and Arabist” will take a week of class time to teach aspects of physics, metallurgy, thermal dynamics, engineering, and aviation.

Or not. You see, Mr. Barrett plans on teaching “alternative” theories of how the twin towers fell on 9/11. And in the name of academic freedom, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has given him the green light to do so - as long as he teaches “other viewpoints” (presumably what really happened) along with his theory that 9/11 was “an inside job” involving the American government.

Obviously, in order to present his theories, he must have a firm grounding in many scientific disciplines as well as some knowledge of engineering in order to debunk the established theory that two 737’s filled with hundreds of thousands of pounds of jet fuel plowed into two 110 story buildings at more than 500 miles per hour, igniting and burning the fuel at several thousand degrees causing support structures to weaken until the weight bearing beams holding up the top several floors gave way allowing the entire edifice to pancake down to the ground. But Mr. Barrett has so far not shown that he has any expertise in anything, much less his possessing the specialized and collective knowledge of The American Society of Civil Engineers whose brilliant analysis of why the towers fell is generally accepted in the scientific community as the best theory available about how the disaster happened.

This obviously won’t stop Barrett from prattling on about subjects of which he knows little and scientific concepts of which he knows even less. But it does raise an interesting question: Does the cherished ideal of academic freedom allow for teachers to have the absolute right to make gigantic fools of themselves?

Barrett wouldn’t be the first academic to stray from their own tiny corner of the ivory tower and branch out into silliness. Perhaps the most famous case involves the Nobel Prize winning physicist William Shockley whose startling discoveries along with his team at Bell Labs in the early 1950’s led to several breakthroughs in transistor technology which, in turn, gave us the ubiquitous silicon micro-chip and the modern world.

In his later years, Shockley settled in to teach physics at Stanford University, a job that he enjoyed and was evidently very good at. But something happened to this brilliant, stubborn man that caused him to start espousing not only theories that were for the most part scientifically untenable but also socially unacceptable.

Shockley began to espouse the “theory” of eugenics as a key that would save mankind from overpopulation. He began by giving speeches about overpopulation, an issue coming to the fore in the early 1960’s. Then in May of 1963, Shockley gave a speech at a Minnesota college suggesting that the people having the most babies in the world were the one’s least able to survive while those with the best attributes were practicing birth control and having far fewer children.

The idea was incendiary and based on poor science to boot. The theoretical notion that poor people are less capable of becoming productive has been proven to be false as even extremely modest investments in things like education and sanitation will cause the productivity of the poverty stricken to skyrocket.

But Shockley didn’t stop there. A year later, he gave an interview to US News and World Report in which he pointed out that African Americans as a group scored much lower on IQ tests while suggesting the cause was racial.

To say the good professor set off a firestorm would be an understatement. He was condemned from one side of the country to the other. In debates with opponents, his lack of specific knowledge of genetics would lead to him looking ridiculous as fellow scientists skewered his faulty conclusions. Even in later years after he immersed himself in the subject of bio-genetics, it was apparent that his theories were half baked and with little to recommend them to the scientific community.

Shockley was allowed to continue to teach at Stanford to the end of his life despite the raging controversy surrounding he and his cockamamie theories, a noble example of academic freedom in action. By the time he died, his reputation was in tatters and he had become something of a laughingstock.

But in Barrett’s case, is it really a question of academic freedom? Or is it a question of allowing someone without the specialized knowledge to give students even a rudimentary grasp of the concepts involved in the subject matter to, in effect, spout nonsense from the classroom of one of the most respected universities in America?

Why shouldn’t a Comparative Literature teacher now agitate to be allowed to teach a course in political science? Or chaos theory? Or any subject for which he has a passion? The idea that Barrett is going to be allowed to delve into subjects for which he has no formal knowledge is startling in its implications not only for the concept of academic freedom but also the very practical matter of short changing students who presumably have come to the University of Wisconsin-Madison to get an education.

Barrett may believe that the twin towers came down as the result of the US government placing explosive charges in the buildings prior to 9/11 and that the government destroyed them so that we could start a war against Islam and the Arabs. He can believe anything he wishes and should not be penalized by the school for it. But in order to “teach” such a theory while exposing his students to enough information so that they can make up their own minds about the viability of competing viewpoints, Barrett would need to give the students a solid enough grounding in the scientific principles at work in building collapse so that they would be able to judge whether the buildings fell as a result of implosion or the stresses outlined in the ASCE paper.

It should go without saying that he will be unable to do so in one week’s time. This calls into question his entire rationale for teaching the controversy in the first place in a university class devoted ostensibly to learning about Islam. What’s the point? If he’s simply going to spout his loony conspiracy theories without giving any context, any background, how on earth can this kind of shoddy scholarship be accepted by the University as proper course material?

There are many remarkable facts at large in the telling of this story, not the least of which is an eerie parallel with arguments made by proponents of Intelligent Design who wish to teach ID alongside evolution; that students somehow benefit when “other viewpoints” are revealed to them about an issue. This statement from University Provost Patrick Farrell could have been lifted from the ID vs. Evolution debate:

We cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas,” Farrell said in a written statement. “That classroom interaction is central to this university’s mission and to the expansion of knowledge. Silencing that exchange now would only open the door to more onerous and sweeping restrictions.”

The problem is that there is usually a good reason that ideas are unpopular, especially scientific ones; they tend to be wrong. One wonders if some evangelical professor wanted to teach creationism “alongside” evolution whether we would hear such ringing calls for tolerance and academic freedom from liberal academics and university officials.

That example is relative to the Barrett imbroglio. There is as much scientific validity in creationism as there is in the twin towers implosion theory. Perhaps more given the circumstances of conspiracy. One could debunk the theory of government culpability in 9/11 simply by using Occam’s Razor. Is it more likely that the towers fell as a result of planes crashing into them or some gigantic plot involving certainly dozens, maybe hundreds, perhaps thousands of people all of whom have kept their mouths shut about their involvement? Anyone who has perused the pages of The American Thinker over the past two years and read in horror about the numerous leaks from the anti-Bush factions in our intelligence community would be justified in wondering why leaks about this government “plot” have not been forthcoming.

If this were just a question of academic freedom, I suspect most of us would simply roll our eyes and shrug our shoulders, chalking it up as one more example of the looniness the academy is prone to these days. But for many of us, this attempt to alter the historical narrative of 9/11 with the support of a respected university’s administration is very troubling. It goes to the heart of the the university’s mission to search for truth.

Is there truth to be gleaned from teaching that little green men live on mars? Or that Elvis is alive and well and living in Traverse City, Michigan? Or that the stork is responsible for procreation? These examples are admittedly extreme but they highlight the problem the University of Wisconsin-Madison has created for itself; where does “the free exchange of ideas” end and outright stupidity begin? And shouldn’t the intellectual mettle of a university be taken by where they draw that line?

Rigorousness in scholarship should be the hallmark of any university. The fact that the University of Wisconsin-Madison is failing in this basic academic barometer by allowing a crackpot to teach material that he is not qualified to pass judgement on is a travesty in education that the state legislature should examine thoroughly. It could be that the present administration of the school is incompetent to deliver the kind of education to their children that Wisconsin parents might expect from an institution with such a stellar reputation for learning.

Join me for The Rick Moran Show today from 7:00 Am - 9:00 AM central time. You can access the stream by clicking the “Listen Live” button in the left side bar.

Today’s show will feature a long discussion of what’s going on in Iraq as we examine the report given by Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s to the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). It is an eye opener with both good news and bad.

We’ll also look at the controversy surrounding the Flight 93 memorial as well as some good old fashioned political prognostication as I give my assessment of Senator Lieberman’s chances in Connecticut.

I’ll be taking calls after the 7:30 newsbreak. You can reach WAR radio at 1-888-407-1776.