Right Wing Nut House

Despite the cessation of hostilities with Israel and the establishment of an international buffer force under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, the internal political situation in Lebanon has slowly metastasized into a cancerous growth that, if not excised, could lead to the downfall of the Siniora government and the reestablishment of Syrian hegemony over the tiny nation.

Prime Minister Siniora’s headaches actually began during the war with Israel. Deliberately initiating hostilities by kidnapping Israeli soldiers, Hezb’allah leader Hassan Nasrallah virtually took over the Lebanese government during the course of the conflict. It was Nasrallah who decided questions of war and peace, treating the Prime Minister as little more than an errand boy. In effect, Nasrallah claimed veto power over any efforts to negotiate an end to the war, thus making himself de facto head of the government.

In the aftermath of the conflict, with much of Lebanon’s infrastructure in ruins and tens of thousands of Lebanese citizens homeless, Siniora re-established his control over the government with both shrewd political maneuvering and a healthy infusion of cash from several Arab neighbors that helped alleviate some of the immediate suffering of the people.

The March 14th Forces who formed a coalition in the wake of the assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and helped throw the Syrians out of Lebanon after a quarter century of occupation, subsequently winning a legislative majority in Parliament, at first seemed stunned by developments. Remaining relatively quiet during the war while Hezb’Allah dominated the government, it was only after the conflict was over that the democrats got busy. They strongly denounced Hezb’allah’s warmaking and rightly pointed to Nasrallah’s role in superseding the elected government of Prime Minister Siniora.

But what Siniora and the March 14th forces didn’t count on were calls by the opposition in Parliament for the formation of a “Government of National Unity” within days following cessation of hostilities with Israel. And the chief troublemaker on this front turned out to be the leader of the largely Christian party the Free Patriotic Movement’s Michel Aoun.

The former General, head of the Lebanese armed forces, and Prime Minister has proven himself to be something of a thorn in the side of the March 14th forces since his return from exile in Paris just prior to the parliamentary elections in 2005. Refusing to ally himself and his party with the democrats- largely because they refused to endorse his desire to replace President Emile Lahoud - the FPM garnered 21 of the 128 seats in the elections and, in a surprise move, allied themselves with the opposition headed up by Nasrallah’s Hezb’allah. Their “Memorandum of Understanding” called for Hezb’allah’s disarmament - but only after several conditions had been met including the “return” of the Shebba Farms to Lebanon (the tiny enclave has never been part of Lebanon) and a settlement with Syria had been affected.

All of this was to take place in the context of the National Dialogue, a group of party and religious leaders representing all factions in Lebanon who have been given a mandate by Parliament to come up with solutions to some of Lebanon’s thornier problems. These include a new electoral law that will rid the nation once and for all of some of its more arcane sectarian political divisions as well as deciding the fate of the pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud. The agreement between Aoun and Nasrallah effectively cut the legs out from underneath the group and little in the way of progress was achieved.

Indeed, one of the most important issues facing the country - and the proximate cause for much of the current political unrest - cannot be addressed by the leadership group. The formation of an international tribunal to try those responsible for the assassination of Hariri as well as more than 20 other acts of terrorism and murder carried out since the February 14, 2005 death of the former prime minister threatens to precipitate a political crisis that would oust Siniora and bring to power a government under the thumb of Hassan Nasrallah and through him, Syria and Iran.

The United States has become so concerned about the potential for Syrian and Iranian troublemaking in this regard that it has taken the unusual step of issuing a warning to the two states to keep their hands off Lebanese sovereignty:

The United States has said there is “mounting evidence” that Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are planning to topple the Lebanese government.

The White House said Syria hoped to stop the formation of an international tribunal to try suspects in the killing of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.

Spokesman Tony Snow said any attempt to destabilise the Lebanese government would violate UN resolutions.

Aoun and Nassrallah’s calls for a national unity government are basically a smokescreen. Their real goal is for a new government that would feature Hezb’allah veto power over any important decisions made by the cabinet. By agitating for one third of the ministries to be awarded to the Nasrallah/Aoun coalition in any new ministerial lineup, the March 14th Forces would be stymied in their efforts to keep Lebanon out of the clutching grasp of Syria. And the prospect of nationwide political paralysis which could lead to another civil war would become more pronounced.

Quietly and without any fanfare, and important member of the March 14th Forces paid a visit to Washington this week for talks with Secretary Rice and other officials. The old Druze warlord and head the Progressive Socialists party Walid Jumblatt, who has become one of the more outspoken opponents of Nasrallah and Hezb’allah, may have had something to do with the US government warning to Iran and Syria. Jumblatt has been sounding the alarm for months about Nasrallah’s designs as well as never missing an opportunity to tar the Hezb’allah leader with being a cat’s paw for Syria and Iran:

Lebanese leader Walid Jumblatt has warned that Hezbollah’s advocated street demonstrations to topple PM Fouad Siniora’s government will paralyze the country and cause “chaos.”

Jumblatt ’s comments were made Tuesday during a panel discussion at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, at the end of a U.S. visit where he met with top U.S. officials.

On Hezbollah’s demands for the formation of a national unity government, Jumblatt said that the Shiite group and its Christian ally General Michel Aoun intended to form a new cabinet so they could control one-third of the government.

If the current government is overthrown, Jumblatt said, “the country would live in paralysis.”

He said that the reason behind this demand “is to cause chaos, stop the international tribunal” and interrupt the implementation of U.N. resolutions.”

Jumblatt, whose father was assassinated by Syrian agents and whose family has led the Druze for generations, may himself be in danger. More than once, Nasrallah has warned the March 14th Forces not to criticize “The Resistance” as Hezb’allah wants to be known. But this hasn’t stopped Jumblatt and others from resisting Nasrallah’s demands.

In a recent interview with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation, Secretary Rice referred to the possibility of political assassinations, including a “new list” of potential targets:

Now, in terms of — we know that Lebanon has unfortunately had too many assassinations, too many tragic circumstances. You know that better than any. And so the evidence is there that foreign influences have — ever since the assassination of the former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri — have tried to use assassination and intimidation against the Lebanese people. But the Lebanese people are very resilient people, and they keep coming back to their desire to have a democratic future and to live together, not to be driven again into civil war. We worry these days that –

QUESTION: But no specific information about the assassinations?

SECRETARY RICE: You get information from time to time that there are forces that would want to do this. But if there is specific information, of course, we will pass it on to the Lebanese so that they can try and guard against it.

QUESTION: We heard about new list.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we too have heard that there are people who would like to destabilize the government of Prime Minister Siniora. We’ve heard that there are people who would like to intimidate or assassinate again. They’ve done it before in Lebanon.

QUESTION: Well, what about (inaudible) –

SECRETARY RICE: Well, it’s not any great secret that there are concerns about what Syria, which once occupied the country, might try and do through continuing contacts in the country. But I don’t want to accuse any one place; I just want to make very clear that the international community believes there should be no foreign intimidation of the Lebanese people

And to go along with this kind of intimidation, Nasrallah himself has threatened to send his bully boys into the streets in order to foment violence that could threaten Prime Minister Siniora’s hold on power:

Hizbullah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, warned late Tuesday that Hizbullah and its allies will take to the streets “for as long as it takes … to either topple the government or hold early and new parliamentary elections,” if consultations to form a national unity government should fail.

In an interview with Hizbullah’s Al-Manar television, Nasrallah said it is a democratic right to demand the change of a government through “peaceful demonstrations.”

“Those who are currently in the government demonstrated in the streets last year until they toppled the Cabinet of Premier Omar Karami,” he noted. “Why aren’t we allowed to do the same? If we demand this right, they call us rioters?”

All of these political maneuvering and threats are taking place against the backdrop of the formation of an International Tribunal to try the perpetrators of the Hariri assassination. Evidence gathered first by UN Prosecutor Detleve Mehlis and his successor Serge Brammertz points the finger squarely at the highest levels of both the Syrian and Lebanese governments including President Bashar Assad himself who pointedly warned Hariri just days before his death that he would bring “Lebanon down on your head” if Hariri dared oppose the extension of President Lahoud’s term in office. Others, including Assad’s brother in law who heads up the Syrian secret police and Lebanese army officers were also implicated in the plot.

President Lahoud himself may have had a hand in the assassination or at least knew of the plot’s existence. With all of these figures at risk of being prosecuted by a non-Lebanese judicial body, is it any wonder that both Syrians and their allies in Lebanon are anxious to quash the formation of such a court by overthrowing Siniora and placing their own toadies in power?

Herein lies the danger for Siniora and the March 14th forces. In order for the international body to be seated, the cabinet must approve. Already, President Lahoud is setting up roadblocks in the form of a lengthy 32 page protest, couched in constitutional language, that would throw a monkey wrench into the entire process. Coupled with the threatened street demonstrations by Hezb’allah, Siniora will have his hands full trying to maintain control while getting his cabinet to agree on the composition and makeup of the tribunal:

Many political observers have commented that Syria is extremely nervous about the International Tribunal. This is why they say Syria is trying to destabilize the country by trying to dump Prime Minister Siniora and his cabinet through Hezbollah and its main ally General Michel Aoun.

One observer said “Lahoud is heavily indebted to Syria for forcing the Lebanese parliament in 2004 to change the constitution in order to extend his term by another 3 years”. It is obvious the observer added ” Syria told Lahoud what to do and this is exactly why he is trying to stall the tribunal”. The observer concluded ” what a shame for a country to have its president as a foreign agent” .

At the moment, the March 14th Forces are standing firm, united in their opposition to Nasrallah’s interference. But with the prospect that the National Dialogue will reconvene and have on its agenda the possibility of urging the formation of a National Unity Government, Prime Minister Siniora’s political skills will be tested as never before over the next few months.

Whether he can succeed in his efforts to remain in power while trying to keep Lebanon from descending into chaos will decide whether a weak an fragile Lebanese democracy - stretched to the breaking point during the war - can survive for much longer.

Regardless of whether the Democrats take over the House and Senate in November, it seems clear that our foreign policy elites have decided that the War in Iraq is a lost cause and the only viable strategy should be to get our troops out as fast as possible.

There is no other way to view the recommendations that will be forthcoming from the Iraq Study Group headed up by Bush family friend and foreign policy blue blood James Baker:

A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, “Stability First” and “Redeploy and Contain,” both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, “Stability First,” argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

As I wrote about here, this is hardly a “Study Group” at all. Their job? It isn’t what their legislative mandate says it is:

“The Iraq Study Group will conduct a forward-looking, independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and consequences for U.S. interests.

Instead, the Baker Commission, as it is coming to be called, was set up for the sole and exclusive purpose of giving both Republican and Democratic politicians cover for our retreat from Iraq. The Washington Post sniffed this out almost immediately:

The group has attracted little attention beyond foreign policy elites since its formation this year. But it is widely viewed within that small world as perhaps the last hope for a midcourse correction in a venture they generally agree has been a disaster.

The reason, by and large, is the involvement of Baker, 76, the legendary troubleshooter who remains close to the first President Bush and cordial with the second. Many policy experts think that if anyone can forge bipartisan consensus on a plan for extricating the United States from Iraq —and then successfully pitch that plan to a president who has so far seemed impervious to outside pressure—it is the man who put together the first Gulf War coalition, which evicted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991.

Our worst fears regarding the Commission seems to have been confirmed by leaks to the New York Sun about the two plans under consideration. Both plans explicitly reject the idea of winning through to what the President has defined as “victory:” A stable, democratic Iraq capable of defending itself from the murderous terrorists who are seeking to bring down the current government with the help of outside powers.

In short, the “Baker Solution” is a recipe for defeat and retreat. No amount of spin will change the fact that once we leave Iraq, the entire world will see that our enemies in Iran and Syria as well as al-Qaeda were successful in inflicting enough pain on the American people to cause our precipitous withdrawal.

The first plan especially, is maddening. It grants what appears to be about 75% of what under any circumstances would be considered “victory” and then yanks the troops from Iraq before they can finish the job:

The president also said he was not averse to changing tactics. But he repeated that the strategic goal in Iraq is to build “a country which can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself.” He added, “The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate.”

But the president’s strategic goal is at odds with the opinion of Mr. Baker’s expert working groups, which dismiss the notion of victory in Iraq. The “Stability First” paper says, “The United States should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory.”

Stabilizing Baghdad, and bringing the bulk of insurgent groups into the political process is by any definition, “staying the course.” Prime Minister al-Maliki has already successfully negotiated with more than a dozen insurgent groups, including tribal militias who are now battling al-Qaeda terrorists instead of American soldiers. And American casualties have skyrocketed the last three months because we have transferred the bulk of our combat forces to Baghdad in order to try and bring a modicum of peace to the bloody chaos in that tragic city.

Leaving the rest undone - training the Iraqi army and assisting the new government with some of its thornier problems having to do with militias and death squads - is almost incomprehensible. The problem, as the elites see it, is that Iraq has stressed the army, complicated our relations with our friends in the Middle East, roiled domestic consensus at home to fight the War on Terror, and been a general distraction from what they believe should be our goal - getting to the “root causes” of terrorism and solving problems like the Israeli-Palestinian question as well as the insularity and poverty of Muslim states.

But why bother with the rest if you’re not planning on finishing the job? It has been my contention for many months - spelled out most recently here - that if we are not going to attempt victory then it is immoral to ask our men and women to place themselves in harm’s way for some face saving solution. That’s the Kissinger Viet Nam formulation. I thought it stupid, wasteful and immoral at the time and still feel that way today. The only business government has in asking young men to die is in the cause of victory. Anything less is state sponsored murder. In a free society and even with an all volunteer army, national leaders should not use the lives of its young men to make geopolitical statements or “save face,” or prove how much suffering we can endure (as the Nixon-Kissinger logic went after they decided we couldn’t win).

Once it is determined that we cannot win (or in this case, do not have the national will to win), we should admit defeat and withdraw the troops immediately. Whatever failed state Iraq becomes we will just have to deal with it in the context of the rest of the Global War on Terror. Yes it will complicate our efforts enormously. But we should have thought about that before wasting the selfless courage and spirit of our military in a war that we were not willing to see through to a victorious conclusion.

Will Bush go along with anything the Baker Commission recommends? The ISG will release its report in December, after the November elections. I have no doubt that the President will find himself under enormous pressure to accept withdrawal from Iraq based on the Commission’s criteria. Although Bush has proven himself to be one of the most stubborn Presidents in recent history I doubt that he, Rumsfeld, and Cheney can hold out against the entire foreign policy and defense establishments as well as majorities in both Houses of Congress. He will have to reluctantly agree to some kind of withdrawal plan short of victory.

And that’s when it will become very tricky indeed. The Administration will be forced to sit down with both Syria and Iran in order to get those two states to stop funding and supplying the insurgents - a task made extremely difficult by the fact that neither country wants to do us any favors. So withdrawal will go foreword leaving a weak Iraqi government that will, as some analysts believe, morph into a military dictatorship or worse that will have a mandate to bring order out of the spiralling violence. And the dream of Iraqi democracy will die an ignoble death.

In fact, the Baker Commission sees this as probably the best near term solution:

If we are able to promote representative, representative government, not necessarily democracy, in a number of nations in the Middle East and bring more freedom to the people of that part of the world, it will have been a success,” he said.

That distinction is crucial, according to one member of the expert working groups. “Baker wants to believe that Sunni dictators in Sunni majority states are representative,” the group member, who requested anonymity, said.

It has become clear in the last few months that our democracy experiment in Iraq was in more trouble from defeatists and political opponents at home than it was from either al-Qaeda or the insurgency. Even the British, seeing the ascendancy of the anti-war Democrats in November and suffering from their own disillusionment, appear ready to leave. All that appears to be left to do is determine how fast we get our troops out of danger and what kind of spin will be given to this massive failure of American will which will attempt to salve our consciences and soothe our feelings about losing a war that should have been won.

In a rather plaintive post, Glenn Reynolds bemoans the loss of “momentum” in the Iraq War , wishing to “take the war to our enemies.” rather than “sitting on our bayonets.” He believes that the way to recapture the advantage is by going after the foreign support given the insurgency and that perhaps it is time to “revive the pre-emptive war” strategy and take the war to Iran and Syria.

I had to blink and shake my head after reading what Mr. Reynolds wrote. Was he perhaps stuck in some kind of time warp, believing that it is 2004? The idea that any kind of momentum is possible to recapture - or that we ever had it in the first place - is an illusion. And how we can win in Iraq by widening the war to include the two strongest regional powers arrayed against us is, well, mind boggling.

I have become disenchanted of late with Greg Djerjian and his spiteful, hateful, personal attacks on Mr. Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, Richard Fernandez, and others bloggers and commenters (Mark Steyn being a particular foil for Mr. Djerjian’s over-the-top barbs and rifled bric-a-brats). His disdain for the President and his advisors - unbalanced in my opinion - makes him a bore to read at times.

However Djerjian also offers clarity on many issues relating to Iraq and the War on Terror. And if there is one thing that he has been harping on for many months that rings true above all others is the crazy idea that taking the war to Iran and Syria is going to help the situation in Iraq.

The fallout from an attack on Iran would be especially suicidal. The Iranian backed militias in Iraq would almost certainly take up arms and challenge the Americans, complicating an already desperate situation enormously. And it would be expected that the Iranians would retaliate against our troops with rocket attacks from their stockpiles of long range missiles. And what of the delicate political dance al-Maliki is currently undertaking in his efforts to reform the police and army whose inaction allows Shia death squads to operate with impunity?

As for Syria, while Bashar Assad imperfectly implements our demands that he close off the border to foreign fighters entering Iraq, an attack will actually make the situation worse as he would be under no obligation to continue even the limited cooperation he has shown up to now.

Perhaps most importantly, we might want to ask what form our momentum establishing attacks would take? Would we initiate ground operations against the Iranian army? The Syrians? What would be the goals of such attacks? To punish? To interdict?

Punishment may make us all feel better but would hardly affect the efforts of either two countries to supply the insurgency in Iraq. As for interdiction of men and supplies, only more troops and vigilance on the borders can have an effect on the steady dribble of arms and terrorists that end up aiding the insurgents. A truck here and a bus there moving through a poorly guarded border crossing or making their way through the vast deserts of Iraq make poor targets for any kind of large scale military action.

As we know now (blessed with 20/20 hindsight), the egregious mistakes and numerous blunders by both civilian and military authorities that have led us to our current perilous position in Iraq were made in the context of false assumptions, wishful thinking, and a lack of understanding of the nature of the enemy. It just seems to me to be the height of stupidity to believe that we can improve what’s happening on the ground in Iraq by attacking Iran and Syria.

While attention in Washington has been riveted on the Foley mess, a significant development was occurring outside of the Capitol that makes the back and forth between the two parties seem very small indeed.

At a meeting of what is described as our “senior operatives and outside experts from the intelligence community,” it seems that a decision of sorts has been reached regarding stopping the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons; it can’t be done:

Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities was rejected on the grounds that the intelligence needed for successful air strikes was lacking. “We only have an imperfect understanding of the extent and location of the Iranian programme,” said one source with knowledge of the meeting. “Even if we got the order to blow it up, we wouldn’t know how to.”

The White House’s earlier enthusiasm for military strikes if all else failed has cooled after warnings from the Pentagon and intelligence analysts that the risk to reward ratio of taking action was too high. At best 80% of the targets are mapped out and then only sketchily. The “collateral damage” to civilians could be considerable, sources say.

“Unless you can be 100% effective and set the programme back by two decades, you’ll just get a short-term delay and you may not produce a result that is better than the current one,” an intelligence analyst said.

General John Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, has warned that striking Iran could cripple oil supplies, unleash a “surrogate” terrorist army and lead to missile attacks on America’s regional allies. The army is particularly concerned about Iran’s ability to destabilise an already chaotic Iraq.

Whether or not this is a case of “cooler heads prevailing” with regards to military action against Iran it certainly is welcome news. Even if you support bombing the Iranians, what the intelligence community has been trying to impress on the President and his men is that we have time yet to deal with Iran via diplomacy:

John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, has told President George W Bush that there is no rush to use force as Iran’s nuclear programme is beset with technical errors. “He has been saying, ‘Slow down, it’s not an immediate problem’,” said Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has staked her reputation on achieving a negotiated settlement with the help of the “EU3” nations of Britain, France and Germany.

“President Bush is not going to take military action against the advice of the secretary of state, US generals and the director of national intelligence,” Clawson said.

Actually, Clawson may be talking through his hat about Bush. I have no doubt that if George Bush feels it is in the best interest of the United States to bomb Iran, he will do so regardless of who tells him otherwise. This is one of Bush’s greatest faults as well as one of his greatest strengths. Certainly not Carteresque in his decision making as the ex-President would agonize for days, sometimes weeks, over minor matters that were best left to subordinates in the first place. Once Bush decides on a course of action, it is near impossible to deflect him until the goal is achieved. One sees immediately the strengths and weaknesses such a personality trait brings to the table.

Having said that, it would seem improbable that Bush could ignore the entire military/diplomatic establishment’s advice on such an important issue. The bombing option was always going to be a temporary solution anyway since the liklihood of degrading the Iranian program significantly has always been doubted. The most optimistic estimates were that it could delay their program by as many as 5 years. And that would be after weeks of sorties and probably many thousands of civilian casualties.

In other words, our intel professionals as well as most professional soldiers have come to pretty much the same conclusion; the costs of such a campaign would significantly outweigh the benefits. The sad fact is, we just don’t have much we can offer the Iranians or threaten them with:

Intelligence analysts concluded at last week’s meeting that there were no negotiating carrots or sticks, such as sanctions, capable of persuading Iran to halt its pursuit of nuclear know-how — which it maintains is for peaceful energy purposes.

“The sobering view is that even if there is a deal, the Iranians would cheat,” another source said.

“The conclusion is that America is going to have to live with the bomb unless there’s some miracle, such as a major accident, a major defector or an orange revolution,” the source added, referring to the people’s protests that brought reformers to power in Ukraine. None of these scenarios is considered likely.

Ted Koppel comes to the right conclusion but, like a typical lefty, for the wrong reasons:

If Iran is bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, let it.

The elimination of American opposition on this issue would open the way to genuine normalization between our two nations. It might even convince the Iranians that their country can flourish without nuclear weapons.

But this should also be made clear to Tehran: If a dirty bomb explodes in Milwaukee, or some other nuclear device detonates in Baltimore or Wichita, if Israel or Egypt or Saudi Arabia should fall victim to a nuclear “accident,” Iran should understand that the U.S. government will not search around for the perpetrator. The return address will be predetermined, and it will be somewhere in Iran.

Is it really too difficult for a liberal to understand that if a nuclear device detonates in Baltimore or Wichita (much more likely Washington or New York) that BY THAT TIME IT IS TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? Retaliation is meaningless. And, as Allah points out, Koppel would be one of the first to say so:

If a dirty bomb went off in Milwaukee and Bush answered with a nuke on Tehran, the left would start shrieking instantly about genocide, disproportionality, and the lack of evidence of culpability. Same playbook as their carping about “collective punishment” of Palestinians by Israel, only writ much, much larger. And they’d have a point: a dirty bomb could just as well come from AQ using material obtained from North Korean or Russian agents, with no assistance from Iran. It wouldn’t bother me if we held them responsible anyway. But I bet it’d bother Ted Koppel.

Nightline might even run a special two-hour episode where they read the names of some of the Iranian dead.

There has never been a country that pursued nuclear weapons and was deterred from getting them by anything but force or the threat of force. Only the Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor prevented Saddam from getting a nuke back in the 1980’s. And our invasion of Iraq along with the toppling of Saddam convinced Qadaffi to give up on his nuclear ambitions (we also interecepted nuclear hardware on its way to Libya which the frightened Libyan strongman believed gave the US an excuse to invade).

Israel, South Africa, and North Korea ignored international conventions, pressure, and pleadings on their way to building their own nukes. And now apparently Iran will get its chance to impoverish its people even further and try its hand at pulling the nuclear rabbit out of a hat.

Fortunately, the technical challenges are such that they are still at least 3 and more likely 5 years from having the ultimate defense against slanderous Muhammed cartoons. While diplomacy will probably be futile, the mullahs have more immediate concerns; the Israelis are most likely not going to be deterred as they see Iranian nukes as a threat to their national existence:

The biggest deterrent might come from the Israelis, not the Americans. Israeli defence sources are increasingly convinced that it will fall to them to stop a nuclear Iran. In their view Iran should not be allowed to get to the “point of no return” where it has the know-how to build a bomb.

“The Israelis are going to have to make a decision earlier than we do,” Clawson said. “That’s a real problem for us.”

Indeed. The tiny nation of Israel going up against a regional power with hundreds of missiles capable of reaching their vulnerable cities not to mention enemies who would strike at her back while she was engaged in the life and death struggle with Iran would almost certainly draw the US into the conflict in some meaningful way. And the fact is Iran is getting stronger every year, their conventional arms are being modernized thanks to their friends in Russia and China. Israel’s overwhelming material superiority is diminishing. The Jewish state is very aware of this and will almost certainly strike sooner rather than later.

And when that happens, will the American President, whoever it may be, stand behind Israel?

ESTIMATED CROWD OF 500,000 TURN OUT IN BOMBED OUT SOUTHERN BEIRUT FOR HIZBULLAH “VICTORY” RALLY

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah came out of hiding for the first time since the start of his unprovoked aggression against Israel on July 12 to declare victory to about 500,000 of his followers. The “Victory Rally” took place amidst the worst of Nasrallah’s handiwork; the bombed out buildings and shops in devastated southern Beirut.

The surroundings didn’t seem to dim the enthusiasm of his supporters:

Speaking to a sea of followers at a “divine victory” rally in south Beirut, Nasrallah said the Shi’ite Muslim group had emerged stronger from the conflict and also called for a new government in Lebanon.

“The resistance today, pay attention…has more than 20,000 rockets,” he told hundreds of thousands of cheering supporters in his first public appearance since the war broke out in July.

“(It) has recovered all its organizational and military capabilities…it is stronger than it was before July 12,” Nasrallah told the crowd in the Shi’ite Muslim suburbs which were heavily bombed in the 34-day war.

“There is no army in the world that can (force us) to drop our weapons from our hands, from our grip,” he declared.

That last statement would seem to indicate that neither can the government of Prime Minister Siniora. While the PM has received high marks from Lebanese citizens on his handling of reconstruction ($940 million and counting), his government has come under attack from two sides; Christian opportunist Michel Aoun and the Hizbullah/Amal bloc.

Strange bedfellows indeed, those two. Aoun heads up the Free Patriotic Movement, the largest Christian party, and has joined forces with Hizbullah in Parliament, making them the second largest bloc behind the reformist Future Movement. Aoun seeks the Presidency that will be vacated by Syrian toady Emile Lahoud next year, despite the firm opposition of many in the Future Movement who believe him to be too sectarian in his outlook. This so riled the former anti-Syrian Prime Minister and President that he signed a letter of cooperation with pro-Syrian Nasrallah last February that most observers believe meant that Nasrallah would throw his bloc of votes behind Aoun for President when the time comes.

Aoun has also been calling on Siniora to resign and for a “Government of National Unity” to be formed, savaging Siniora by blaming him for not being able to protect Lebanon from Israeli jets and accusing some of his ministers of corruption.

Haaretz is reporting that al-Manar, the Hizbullah TV station is saying that many Christians joined Nasrallah at the rally today:

Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television said thousands of buses, minivans and cars were streaming toward Beirut from the south and the eastern Bekaa Valley. Members of Christian parties and pro-Syrian groups in northern Lebanon were also traveling to the capital to participate in the rally, the broadcast said.

Al-Manar said late Thursday that Friday’s rally would be “the biggest referendum on the resistance choice.” It said “waves of humans” would pour into the bombed-out southern suburbs of Beirut to support the guerrillas.

Meanwhile, the Israelis point out the obvious:

Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mark Regev said Hezbollah is spitting in the face of the international community by refusing to disarm.

“Nasrallah is challenging not only the government of Lebanon, but the entire international community,” Regev said. “The international community can’t afford to have this Iranian-funded extremist spit in the face of the organized community of nations.”

Regev noted that according to the UN cease-fire resolution, Hezbollah “shouldn’t have any rockets.”

Nasrallah also boasted at the rally that he still had fighters in southern Lebanon despite the presence of UNIFIL and the Lebanese army. But please don’t tell Kofi Anan about either the fighters or the rockets. Such unpleasant truths would ruin his reputation as a peace maker not to mention the fact that he would actually have to direct criticism at someone besides the United States or Israel.

Ya Libnan spoke for the still majority of Lebanese who see Nasrallah as a threat:

The very same man who needed Lebanon’s government to negotiate an end to the conflict has come out of hiding to beat his chest and discredit the government. In a speech riddled with contradictions, Nasrallah made every attempt to present Lebanon’s Prime Minister and his allies in a weak light.

“The current government cannot protect, unite and reconstruct Lebanon,” Nasrallah said, adding “a strong state is built with the formation of a government of national unity.”

Ironically, it is the government who should be credited for rallying world support for Lebanon. Siniora gathered $940 million at the donors conference. Siniora offered $40,000 in support to each household impacted by the war. Hizbullah initially vowed to rebuild the destroyed areas, then ran into financial issues and had to call on its big brother Iran for financial support.

Nasrallah even admitted there is a real political crisis in Lebanon and urged all Lebanese not to transform such a problem into a sectarian crisis.

However the Hizbullah chief went on to make a comment that goes against any pretense of “national unity” by posing an open threat: “I will not tolerate any insults to my people.”

Nasrallah’s threats should be taken very seriously. Several prominent Future Movement politicians have harshly criticized Hizbullah for a wide variety of transgressions including charges that they seek to overthrow the government and that their refusal to disarm threatens the Lebanese state. The old Druze warlord Walid Jumblatt has been especially critical of both Nasrallah personally and Hizbullah in particular. One wonders if Nasrallah will make good on his threat made at the height of the war that he would “hold some accountable and forgive others,” for their criticisms.

One potential bright spot is the counter-demonstration being planned for Sunday by the Christian parties supporting the Future Movement. Lebanese Forces party headed up by the fiercely independent former Commander of the LF militia Samir Geagea hopes to outdraw Hizbullah with a massive demonstration of support for Siniora’s government. Geagea is a hero to many Lebanese for his refusal to leave solitary confinement where he spent 11 years if he would accept a deal offered by the Syrian backed government that he could be free if only he would curtail his political activity.

The question has to be is the government really in any danger of falling? The Future Movement has an absolute majority in Parliament so unless there were important defections from the coalition, Siniora would seem to be safe at the moment. However, Nasrallah controls the streets with his militia and given the political crisis in Lebanon right now, it would not take much to spark the kind of street violence that could lead to his downfall. This is Nasrallah’s ultimate domestic political weapon and he knows it. At the first sign of any wavering by important members of the March 14th coalition, he could engineer Siniora’s ouster.

For the moment, Nasrallah is basking in the adulation of his supporters. But the majority of Lebanese are still upset with he and his militia for starting the war, something they may very well prove on Sunday when they turn out in massive numbers to support the legitimate Lebanese government.

If ever one needed proof of the shallowness and intellectual laziness of the mainstream media, the hysteria they’ve managed to gin up over remarks by the Pope regarding the Islamic faith, taken wildly out of context, serves as a potent reminder of just how sorry is the state of journalistic ethics and integrity in the west.

Reporters and editors have a duty to reveal not only what is said but accurately tell us what is implied - especially when a hot button subject like religion is involved and when the words are uttered by eminent personages such as a Pope or President. By lifting one quote out of context made by Benedict in a long, thoughtful speech on religion and reason, the western media has once again inflamed the passions of intolerant, hypersensitive Muslims and caused even moderate Islamic governments to condemn the Pope and demand an apology lest more radical elements gain politically over what is certainly a non-issue.

Even a cursory reading of Benedict’s speech reveals the Pope to have a passionate and firm belief in tolerance. His elegant thoughts on God and reason have a beauty that transcends any individual faith and speaks to the spiritual in all of us. Not blessed with the towering intellect of his predecessor, Benedict nevertheless lays out a case for a God that, rather than being in conflict with science, in fact defines reason itself. The universe exists as it does because God is perfection. And being perfect, it is impossible for Him to exist in contradictory terms.

The Pope made a strong case that science and faith can exist side by side in the modern world, that there is nothing inherently wrong with exploring the mysteries of the universe because finding answers will ultimately reveal God as pure reason:

The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

This is the essence of the Pope’s address; a call for a new definition of reason that surmounts what he considers to be artificial barriers between science and faith. Truly remarkable in its depth and subtlety, the Pope has come down firmly on the side of tolerance and freedom.

Then why the reference to Islam’s violent history? Why speak at all of the “forced conversions” in the early years of Islam? If the Pope is guilty of anything, it is perhaps in choosing one school of Islamic thought to make his point about the difference between a God who is reason and a God who transcends reason:

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor [of the text where this debate appears], Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

(HT: Quote from the Pope’s speech courtesy of a grad student at a Catholic Seminary in an email to Michelle Malkin)

Juan Cole points out that there are other schools of thought in Islam that are in opposition to this thinking:

The pope says that in Islam, God is so transcendent that he is beyond reason and therefore cannot be expected to act reasonably. He contrasts this conception of God with that of the Gospel of John, where God is the Logos, the Reason inherent in the universe.

But there have been many schools of Islamic theology and philosophy. The Mu’tazilite school maintained exactly what the Pope is saying, that God must act in accordance with reason and the good as humans know them. The Mu’tazilite approach is still popular in Zaidism and in Twelver Shiism of the Iraqi and Iranian sort. The Ash’ari school, in contrast, insisted that God was beyond human reason and therefore could not be judged rationally. (I think the Pope would find that Tertullian and perhaps also John Calvin would be more sympathetic to this view within Christianity than he is).

And Cole points to forced conversions in the history of Christianity as well (some of them on this continent) which undercuts Benedict’s point about violence and reason to some extent.

Cole believes Benedict should get himself some new advisors on Christian-Muslim relations for making what he considers to be an ill-considered point. This is pure sophistry. As are western calls for the Pope to “apologize.” These calls echo those from what Malkin correctly refers to as “The Religion of Perpetual Outrage.” And for the western media to lazily fall into the trap of the professional grievance mongers in the Islamic world who are always ready to work themselves (and their ignorant followers) into a lather over “insults” to Islam only shows how frighteningly naive and truly shallow many in the media are - especially about matters pertaining to faith and religion.

Case in point; the New York Times:

The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue. But this is not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims.

In 2004 when he was still the Vatican’s top theologian, he spoke out against Turkey’s joining the European Union, because Turkey, as a Muslim country was “in permanent contrast to Europe.”

A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue.

The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.

It is indicative of the politically correct, nonsensical attitude of many in the media that the Times would have found the Pope’s historically accurate statement describing the vast religious, cultural, and political differences between Turkey and the western European nations in NATO a cause for friction between Muslims and Christians. It isn’t that the differences don’t exist mind you. One just doesn’t voice those differences in public. Such statements are considered impolite in the PC world occupied by the Times and other western media outlets and are best left unspoken.

As for the rest, the Pope, after all, is Catholic. And as we’ve discussed here before, it riles the Times and others that the Catholic faith refuses to change its dogmas and canons to reflect the enlightened views of the Times’ editors.

No, the Pope should not apologize. Instead, the MSM should be covering the wildly out of proportion response by militant Islamic nutters who are tearing up the streets in the Middle East and elsewhere to “protest” what they consider to be this insult to their faith.

If only they could get half as worked up over those who murder in Islam’s name, the world would certainly be a much more peaceful place to live.

UPDATE

Malkin also has a gruesome reminder from the internet jihadists about what happens to those who “insult” Islam.

UPDATE II: POPE APOLOGIZES

Ed Morrissey has the latest statement from the Pope where he “is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers.”

This probably won’t satisfy the Islamist nutters rioting in the streets (now that they have the media’s doting attention) but it was perhaps inevitable given the controversey that erupted over the taking of his words out of context.

Also, check out my favorite Catholic’s take on this. The Anchoress echoes some my themes while making this point about the apology:

Now, we read Benedict blunder shows he has failed to master media machine. This is Benedict’s blunder, you see. As if he has any control over how the press presents a story.

Indeed.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has to be one of the most ineffective international organizations in history. They have yet to prevent any nation anywhere who wished to develop nuclear weapons from doing so. In fact, one could successfully argue that many of their actions have contributed in no small way to the development of nuclear weapons in these countries despite the fact that the Agency is in charge of verifying that signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty abide by their commitments.

Part of the problem is the dual nature of their mission. Not only are they charged with verification of compliance with the NPT, they are also required to promote the “peaceful” use of nuclear energy. By definition, this means helping countries build reactors and nuclear infrastructure that, with some modifications, could be used to construct a bomb.

Of course, there are many steps between fueling a reactor and building a nuke and some of those steps would require forays into the international nuclear markets - markets that are closely watched for just such activity. The sale of fissile material for instance is one of the most regulated activities in the world. Despite this, Israel and South Africa (whose nuclear program while presently dismantled could probably be reactivated with little trouble) were able to gather enough nuclear technology and fuel to build nuclear weapons.

This points up the need for a real international nuclear watchdog. Not a poodle but rather a Rottweiler - preferably one with great big teeth and a nasty bite. Instead, under Nobel Peace Prize winner and Chief Nuclear Enabler Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA has proven that rather than confronting rogue states who wish to build the ultimate weapon, the Agency does everything in its power not to offend the thugs and potential mass murdering crazies who seek the means to make their nuclear fantasies come true.

Case in point is the reaction by the IAEA to the report issued last month by House Republicans on the Intelligence Committee who have had it up to here with ElBaradei’s wishy washiness toward the radioactive mullahs in Iran. In a letter to Chairman Hoekstra, the IAEA angrily pointed to 5 major inaccuracies in the report:

The agency noted five major errors in the committee’s 29-page report, which said Iran’s nuclear capabilities are more advanced than either the IAEA or U.S. intelligence has shown.

Among the committee’s assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that “incorrect,” noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring

[snip]

Among the allegations in Fleitz’s Iran report is that ElBaradei removed a senior inspector from the Iran investigation because he raised “concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program.” The agency said the inspector has not been removed.

A suggestion that ElBaradei had an “unstated” policy that prevented inspectors from telling the truth about Iran’s program was particularly “outrageous and dishonest,” according to the IAEA letter, which was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, the IAEA’s director for external affairs and a former Hungarian ambassador.

It should be pointed out that no Democrats on the Intelligence Committee signed off on this report and that it was written by an ex-CIA Committee staffer who may or may not have an ax to grind with ElBaradei. The CIA also came in for some scathing criticism in the report for its National Intelligence Estimate written last summer that stated the Iranians were a decade or more away from building a nuke. The Israelis believe that they mullahs could go nuclear in 5 years or less.

And someone else agrees with the Israelis; ElBaradei himself:

IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel’s assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.

If Tehran indeed resumed its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only “a few months” to produce a nuclear bomb, El-Baradei told The Independent.

And the allegation that ElBaradei removed a senior inspector is true. But the reason he did it is even more craven than indicated by the House report: the Iranians demanded it. The reason? The inspector believed that the Iranians were building nuclear weapons:

Iran has asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to remove the head of the inspection team probing Tehran’s nuclear program, U.N. officials said Sunday.

The inspector, Chris Charlier, has not been back to Iran since April because of Iranian displeasure with his work, the officials said.

However, Charlier remains the head of the team, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue was confidential.

The German newspaper Welt am Sonntag reported Sunday that Charlier had been removed from his post and assigned to other duties. It quoted him as saying he believes Iran is operating a clandestine nuclear program and suggested it was linked to weapons.

IAEA spokespeople in Vienna, Austria, declined comment Sunday.

Charlier, 61, has previously complained publicly that Iranian constraints made inspection work there difficult.

In other words, in order to avoid a confrontation, ElBaradei acceded to Iranian demands that the inspector be cashiered. The IAEA chief can spin it anyway he would like but the fact is his chief inspector isn’t even allowed into Iran to do his job and the Iranians appear to have a veto over IAEA personnel matters.

As far as ElBaradei having an “unstated” policy that inspectors not tell the truth about the Iranian program, just what the hell are we supposed to think when the Iranians can order him around like a poodle and pick and choose which inspectors will be allowed into their country? In fact, it would make sense for ElBaradei to have such a policy if only to prevent further erosion of his authority - if that’s possible.

As for the belief that there is Highly Enriched (HE) uranium at the Natanz nuclear site, I guess we can chalk this up to “naturally occurring” uranium enriched to weapons grade levels:

The U.N. atomic agency has found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country’s defense ministry, diplomats said Friday. The finding added to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities that could be used to make nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared close to or beyond weapons grade _ the level used to make nuclear warheads.

The IAEA has only recently revealed this fact and are casting about desperately to find an explanation for it - anything except the possibility that the Iranians are already able to enrich uranium not to the measly 3.5% they have demonstrated so far but rather to the 80% or 90% necessary to build a bomb.

While there is a possibility that the HE uranium is there as a result of the contamination of the equipment when it was being used in another country - Pakistan comes to mind - we haven’t heard a peep from the IAEA that what is going on at Natanz is anything other than what the House Committee speculates that it is; bomb making.

While there is little doubt that the House Committee exaggerated the shortcomings of both the IAEA and the CIA in the monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program, there is equally little doubt that both organizations are doing their best at bureaucratic CYA rather than aggressively confronting the mullahs over their nuclear program.

The fact is, I don’t trust either the CIA or the IAEA to do the job of monitoring Iran’s nuclear program and giving American policymakers enough warning to prevent the catastrophe of the fanatics in Tehran from getting their hands on nuclear weapons. But for the moment they’re all we have. And since they’re the only game in town, we are going to have to swallow our doubts about their shortcomings and hope that they can do their jobs in preventing the mullahs from acquiring the ultimate defense against cartoon blasphemy.

UPDATE

I find it a little amusing and very revealing that the left has swallowed the IAEA letter to Hoekstra hook, line, and sinker, without even batting an eyelash.

In fact, Kevin Drum is pouting because the House report made it to page A1 last month while the IAEA letter appears on A17:

Today, the IAEA — which, you may recall, turned out to be right about Iraq — wrote Hoekstra a letter complaining that the report contained “erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements.”

I’ve reproduced the Washington Post’s coverage of these two events below. Do you notice any differences? I’ve provided some subtle clues in case you’re having trouble figuring it out.

And, just for the record, the IAEA report was so full of qualifiers and spin that if it turned out Saddam had an underground nuclear arsenal they could have pointed to the report and still said ” See? I told you so.”

Would it have been too much trouble for Drum and others to point out the laughable discrepancies between the charges made in the IAEA letter and the truth?

The United States military and the Iraqi government are starting to get a foretaste of what the cost of victory will entail as coalition forces and Iraqi troops begin moving against the two headed monster of Iranian backed militias:

At least 100 people were killed across Iraq yesterday in a day of intense gun battles and suicide bombings, contradicting US military claims that the security situation in the war-torn nation was improving.

A total of 34 bodies, including seven civilians and 25 Iraqi government soldiers, were brought into the central hospital in the town of Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad, after fighting between government forces and gunmen of the Mehdi Army, a Shia militia loyal to the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Fifty militiamen were also killed in the gunfight, according to the Iraqi defence ministry.

In a separate development, a suicide bomber rammed a car packed with explosives into the Interior Ministry in Baghdad during the midmorning rush hour, killing 16 people, including 13 policemen, and wounding up to 62.

On Sunday, a further 60 people were killed in attacks across the country from Kirkuk in the Kurdish-held north to Basra in the south.

I understand the need to put the best face on what is going on in Iraq. I understand that the American and Iraqi people are beginning to lose hope that anything like a stable Iraq can emerge from our three year effort there and that keeping a stiff upper lip to bolster their resolve is tempting. I even understand the natural human impulse to engage in wishful thinking in the face of such horrific bloodletting.

What I cannot understand or excuse is statements like this:

Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the lead spokesman for the American military, said Monday that attacks and murders in Baghdad declined in August thanks to the deployment of about 12,000 additional American and Iraqi troops. He said several neighborhoods searched over the past few weeks under a new security plan were reviving, with stores re-opening, and children riding bicycles in the streets.

Yet Mr. Sadr and the Mahdi Army remain an obstacle. Prime Minister Maliki, a Shiite who depends on support from Mr. Sadr’s allies in Parliament, has not confronted Mr. Sadr publicly. Sadr City, a Mahdi bastion, has not been searched or raided in a thorough manner, even though it is one of the capital’s most violent areas.

The Americans have maintained some distance: even as the fighting raged in Diwaniya on Monday, General Caldwell told reporters he had not been briefed on the battle and could not comment.

“Children riding bicycles in the streets…?” ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Just a few miles from where those children were riding bikes, an entirely different scene was unfolding:

At least two dozen bodies, many bearing signs of torture, were found dumped in Shiite areas of Baghdad on Tuesday, and the government almost doubled the death toll from clashes this week between militiamen and Iraqi forces, saying 73 people had died.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales met with Iraq’s deputy prime minister in Baghdad in a visit he said was to promote “the rule of law.”

I am happy the situation has improved over the last three weeks or so. But three weeks is hardly a trend. Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that all the patrolling and rousting, and sweeps, can stop the Mehdi Army from killing whomever they wish whenever they want.

And the way al-Maliki is talking, it doesn’t sound like he’s ready to face the consequences of cracking down on the death squads. Al-Sadr will fight back - as he has already started to in Diwaniyah. That battle was sparked by the Iraqi Army arresting a suspected roadside bomber:

General Ghanimi and other Iraqi Army and police officials said several militias were involved, not just the Mahdi Army. But they said the seed of the violence on Monday was planted a week ago when a roadside bomb they believe was planted by the Mahdi Army killed at least two Iraqi soldiers. Two days later, the Iraqi Army arrested a member of the Mahdi Army.

Nasir al-Saadi, a spokesman for the Sadr bloc in Parliament, said the unidentified Sadr militant arrested by the army was tortured and may have been killed. According to Mr. Saadi’s account, the army started attacking a Mahdi-dominated neighborhood late Sunday night. He said the soldiers killed civilians and damaged houses while Sadr militants “did not participate” at first, refusing to return fire.

General Ghanimi, a Sunni, denied torturing the Mahdi detainee, noting that Sadr representatives visited him on Saturday and found him healthy. He said they asked for the accused bomber’s release and when the army refused, fighting broke out as the militias sought to free him from custody.

Sounds almost like al-Saadi’s statement was taken from the Hizbullah Media Playbook. Accuse an enemy of an atrocity in order to shift blame for initiating violence from your side. Nasrallah would be proud of the lessons his student al-Sadr has been absorbing of late.

In the meantime, al-Maliki remains indecisive:

But Mr. Maliki has yet to introduce any new policy, and has refrained from strong condemnations of Mr. Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army. Mr. Maliki relies on Mr. Sadr, who is enormously popular among poor Shiites, for political support against rival Shiite politicians. Mr. Sadr controls several ministries and at least 30 seats in Parliament, and he maintains close ties to Mr. Maliki’s political group, the Islamic Dawa Party.

Earlier this month, after the Americans called in air support during a raid with Iraqi forces in a Sadr stronghold in Baghdad, Mr. Maliki denounced the move by the Americans and said he had never given permission for it.

We can appreciate Mr. Maliki’s delicate position but frankly, the time for delicacy has long passed. Al-Sadr’s militia is the primary force behind the murder of thousands of innocent Sunnis. They have admitted as much. Their militia operates outside of the Constitutional justice system and knows no law but the Koran:

In a grungy restaurant with plastic tables in central Baghdad, the young Mahdi Army commander was staring earnestly. His beard was closely cropped around his jaw, his face otherwise cleanshaven. The sleeves of his yellow shirt were rolled down to the wrists despite the intense late-afternoon heat. He spoke matter-of-factly: Sunni Arab fighters suspected of attacking Shiite Muslims had no claim to mercy, no need of a trial.

“These cases do not need to go back to the religious courts,” said the commander, who sat elbow to elbow with a fellow fighter in a short-sleeved, striped shirt. Neither displayed weapons. “Our constitution, the Koran, dictates killing for those who kill.”

His comments offered a rare acknowledgment of the role of the Mahdi Army in the sectarian bloodletting that has killed more than 10,400 Iraqis in recent months.

Maliki has got to decide if he wants to do what is necessary or what is politically possible. Of course this means he’s between a rock and a hard place on the militia issue. But it also means he may have to risk the Mehdi bloc withdrawing from Parliament if he wants to drastically curtail sectarian violence as well as the war between the Badr Brigades and the Mehdi Army which threatens to destroy his government.

The Brigades are the military arm of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Their leader, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, will probably back Maliki in disarming al-Sadr’s thugs. But what his reaction will be when we start going after his own bully boys is open to question:

In an interview with The Associated Press, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the country’s largest Shiite party, called on the government to expand its efforts to reconcile Iraq’s ethnic and religious groups, but not so far as to include Islamic extremists or Saddam Hussein loyalists.

“It is obvious that Takfiris [Sunni extremists] and Saddamists can never conduct any dialogue and they are not ready for that. They are the real enemies of the Iraqi people,” the soft-spoken Hakim said in an interview in his downtown Baghdad home.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

“It is our duty and the duty of the government to continue contacts and make efforts to attract as many people as possible. Generally, we are very optimistic about the future,” Hakim added.

Is there a political solution to the militias? We thought so at one time. We encouraged the enlistment of the militias in the Iraqi police. This proved to be a disaster because the militia used their position as law enforcement officers to carry out murders of both insurgents as well as the political enemies of al-Sadr. And the Interior Ministry recruited members of the Badr Brigades into special police squadrons whose sole purpose was to kill their political enemies as well as carry out the worst atrocities against Sunni civilians.

If Maliki believes that a political solution to the problem is still viable, he may turn out to be worse than useless. We’ve already delayed this step for far too long. Any further delay would just make things bloodier and more difficult for our troops. Eventually, Maliki is going to realize that he’s not Prime Minister of anything as long as Muqtada al-Sadr draws breath. Killing him and most of his fighters is going to be the price for a more stable Iraq.

Stung by international criticism regarding their paltry offer to add a mere 400 troops to their force serving in the United Nations International Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Jacques Chirac promised to add an additional 1600 men to the French commitment:

In a nationally televised address, Chirac said France will increase its deployment from an already announced 400 troops, and hopes to retain command of the force. He said the United Nations had provided the guarantees France had sought involving the mandate of the force.

“Two extra battalions will go on to the ground to extend our numbers within” the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Chirac said. “Two thousand French soldiers are thus placed under blue helmets in Lebanon,” he added, referring to the colored headgear that members of UN peacekeeping forces wear.

“These 2,000 soldiers include the 400 military personnel already present on the ground,” he added after meeting with Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, as well as his foreign and defense ministers and military chiefs.

Italy has agreed to take on the thankless task of commanding the force which will have a mandate to “defend themselves” and civilians” in the likely event they get shot at:

Potential contributors to the force have expressed concern about the lack of a clear and strong mandate, which could hinder troops on the ground and leave them unable to defend themselves if they come under fire, like the existing UNIFIL force in Lebanon.

But the United Nations has now authorized the force to use weapons in self-defense and to defend civilians.

Evidently Bush has been busier than many people realized in pushing the recalcitrant Europeans to fill out the bulk of forces that will be sent to implement Resolution 1701:

In Rome, Prime Minister Romano Prodi said President George. W. Bush had told him by telephone of his “positive” view of Italy’s offer to lead the force. He added Bush was also leaning on allies to offer troops.

“I expect that reluctant or not, smiling or not, there will be an ample European contribution,” Prodi said in an interview with RAI state radio. “Bush is making a strong effort to put pressure on friendly countries in order to broaden the number of participants in the mission.”

The European commitment will become clearer after a meeting tomorrow in Brussels. It appears that the bulk of the 15,000 man force will therefore be made up of real soldiers and not drawn from the armies of nations that believe Israel has no right to exist:

Greece, Finland, Poland and Spain have all indicated that they will contribute, prompting European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso to say Thursday he was “confident that Europe will provide the necessary support to expand UNIFIL.”

In addition, Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia have said they will participate, though Israel is resisting the offer from the latter two because of an absence of diplomatic relations.

And someone should tell the Italians that they should get with the program and not try and disarm Hizbullah. Their Foreign Minister didn’t get the memo:

D’Alema said that the international force would “assist” the Lebanese Army in disarming Hizbullah and restoring the government’s sovereignty over the southern region.

He said some form of assistance could also be extended to help Lebanon control its border with Syria and stem the flow of arms destined for Hizbullah, but ruled out deploying the international force along the Lebanon-Syria border. “That would require an enormous number of troops and is not called for in the resolution,” D’Alema told a joint news conference.

Livni said Hizbullah could play a role in Lebanese politics but insisted on the enforcement of 1701 in order for “Hizbullah not to be an armed militia at the end of the process but to take part in Lebanese political life.”

D’Alema said that the disarmament of Hizbullah was “in large part” up to the Lebanese government

Will there come a point where someone, somewhere, insists that UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701 be fully implemented? Both resolutions call for Hizbullah’s disarmament in the clearest language possible. How many times will the UN “insist” the terrorists disarm before someone does it?

And what about the stipulation regarding the interdiction of Syrian and Iranian arms to Hizbullah? Are we just going to let that one drop? Are they hoping that Israel is going to forget that they agreed to a cease fire with that very important stipulation as part of the deal? Will they prevent Israel from doing their job for them?

Many questions and few answers as the new force is deployed. If past history is anything to go by, the force will not be effective at doing anything save hunkering down when the going gets tough. The UN has yet to deploy a force that has been able to stop determined adversaries from killing each other. And given the mandate applied to this one, I don’t expect anything different.

Well, the best I can say is that we’re still here.

The fruit and nut cake President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, did not “light up the sky” over Jerusalem as some of our more excitable blog brethren were breathlessly speculating in recent weeks. Perhaps some of us were hoping that rather than light up the sky, he would light up himself and disappear to join the prophet in heaven in a blaze of self-immolated glory.

No such luck.

In fact, it appears judging by the actions of the Iranian government today that it’s just more of the same for a man competing either for “Best Hitler Impersonation in 60 years” or the coveted title of “Most Outrageous Goofball on Planet Earth.” The former making him a dangerous man indeed. The latter still making him a threat but one that we can probably manage without overturning the apple cart in the Middle East.

But that’s the problem with this fellow. Do we take him seriously when he says:

If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.

(HT: LGF)

Or when he says:

Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved…

How to attain the goal of enjoying a world without America or Zionism? Here’s Hassan Abbassi, a Revolutionary Guards intelligence theoretician who teaches at Al-Hussein University and someone considered to be Ahmadinejad’s strategic guru:

We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization… we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.

Personally, I think that it would take far fewer than 29 targets hit to destroy what we now know as America but maybe the thug just wants to be certain. But I urge you not to mention this to the left. You see, by their way of thinking the fact that we have plans to invade Iran means that we are going to invade, no ifs, ands or buts. However, if the lefties see what Abbassi is planning they will be forced to make a 180 degree flip flop and say “Well of course, all countries have plans. That doesn’t mean anything.”

And they’d probably be right. With at least one of those theories. How long do you think it will take them to catch on that they can’t be right about both?

No matter. It is Ahmadinejad’s jew hating, holocaust denying rhetoric that has the sane world up in arms. That and the small matter of his nuclear program. Are we supposed to take the man at his word when he says it is for peaceful purposes only? If so, we are being asked to take the word of a serial exaggerator and liar. For if, as we are led to believe by some, Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric can safely be ignored since he’s only playing to the home folks, do praytell how one can divine when he’s propagandizing and when he’s telling the truth? In other words, who has insight into the man’s soul in order to tell us when he’s lying and when he’s not?

Our betters on the left, of course, Ye needn’t ask. That’s why any attempt to delay, impede, or otherwise destroy his nuclear enrichment capability is seen as just more of the same from the crazy neocons running our government. The dhimmi left has already decided there’s nothing to be done except believe Ahmadinejad because the alternative would mean that they were wrong and George Bush was right.

Never fear, however. We will keep talking to Iran - fat lot of good it will do. But from Iran’s perspective, it helps them play our useful idiots if they seem sincere about talking:

Iran’s semi-official news agency reported today that Tehran has “rejected suspension of its nuclear activities” as demanded by the United Nations Security Council but has proposed a “new formula for resolving the issue through talks.”

The details of the new formula were not immediately apparent.

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator delivered Tehran’s response to the ambassadors of Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and Switzerland and was briefing them on the substance, reported Iran’s Fars news agency.

Diplomats in Washington, Tehran and European capitals had said yesterday that the Iranian government is willing to enter negotiations and to consider a freeze of the program, but it will not accept a freeze as a precondition for the talks.

Now we’ll have another ring around the rosy at the United Nations as Britain, France, Germany, and the US struggle to come up with sanctions watered down enough so that China and Russia will accept them. Under discussion are sanctions of the harshest sort like denying Iranian leaders the opportunity to fly on foreign airlines and delaying the mullah’s entry into the WTO.

That’s showing ‘em.

In the meantime, Iran is making it very clear that they have a very good reason for keeping their nuclear program under wraps:

Iran turned away U.N. inspectors from an underground site meant to shelter its uranium enrichment program from attack, diplomats said Monday, while the country’s supreme leader insisted Tehran will not give up its contentious nuclear technology.

Iran’s unprecedented refusal to allow access to its underground facility at Natanz could seriously hamper U.N. attempts to ensure Tehran is not trying to produce nuclear weapons, and might violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, diplomats and U.N. officials told The Associated Press.

Speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, the diplomats and officials from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, described other signs of Iranian defiance.

They said Iran denied entry visas to two IAEA inspectors in the last few weeks after doing the same earlier this summer for Chris Charlier, the expert heading the U.N. agency’s team to Tehran. Additionally, they said, other inspectors were given only single-entry visas during their visits to Iran last week, instead of the customary multiple-entry permits.

And just in case we didn’t get the message to “bow and surrender” to the Iranian regime, they tried a little strong arm action today:

Iran attacked and seized control of a Romanian oil rig working in its Persian Gulf waters this morning one week after the Iranian government accused the European drilling company of “hijacking” another rig.

An Iranian naval vessel fired on the rig owned by Romania’s Grup Servicii Petroliere (GSP) in the Salman field and took control of its radio room at about 7:00 a.m. local time, Lulu Tabanesku, Grup’s representative in the United Arab Emirates said in a phone interview from Dubai today.

“The Iranians fired at the rig’s crane with machine guns,” Tabanesku said. “They are in control now and we can’t contact the rig.” The Romanian company has 26 workers on the platform, he said.

Grup had a contract with an Iranian oil firm whose activities were suspended last year due to corruption charges and (lefty tin foil hat alert) for having dealings with Halliburton. Evidently, the Iranians feel the rig is theirs even if they’re not paying for it.

Sounds to me like Haliburton is trying to engineer a confrontation between Iran and the West. If so, they did a lousy job picking Romania as the pigeon. I mean, you think they would have at least tried for a “B-List” European country like Spain or Portugal or maybe Monaco. Hell, Lichtenstein would have been a better choice than Romania for God’s sake!

Seriously, the western media will simply file this incident under “Outrageous Iranian Provocations” and let it go at that. How much longer they can keep pretending that “wiping Israel off the map” and “bow and surrender” is not really worth reporting on remains to be seen. Hopefully they will realize it sooner rather than later.

Otherwise, we’ll be the ones seeing a “light in the sky” someday.

UPDATE

Allah has a nice round up of blog and MSM react to the news that the Iranians want to talk but not if suspending their program is a precondition.

That nuke facility at Natanz shows activity that denotes centrifuge assembly. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth…