Right Wing Nut House

In the first post war maneuvering by the March 14th Forces, both Druse leader Walid Jumblatt and Future Party leader Saad Hariri lambasted Syria for her inaction during the recently concluded conflict between Israel and Hizbullah and for remarks made by Syrian President Bashar Assad that threatened those who criticized Hizbullah for starting the war.

Hariri was blunt:

Saad al-Hariri, the head of the al-Mustaqbal or Future, bloc and son of the slain former prime minister, Rafiq al-Hariri, said on Thursday that Bashar al-Assad had disdained Arab kindness towards Syria and his speech on Tuesday was like a “heavy strike” against Lebanon.

Al-Hariri was responding to a speech on Tuesday by al-Assad in which he accused Lebanon’s anti-Syrian groups of allying themselves with Israel, which bombarded Lebanon for 34 days.

Al-Assad had also accused the anti-Syrian bloc of wanting to sow discord in Lebanon by demanding that Hezbollah, the Syrian-backed Shia resistance group, disarm.

“Lebanon’s wound [inflicted by Israel] is deep and painful, but today it has faced a deeper one from a friend [Syria],” he said.

Hariri also had praise for the Lebanese people and the “resistance” (Hizbullah) and harsh words for Israel.

“The history of Israel is full of massacres, but our history is marked by its steadiness,” he said.

He applauded the resistance and the Lebanese people, saying that they were “much stronger than the Israeli aggression”.

“The Israeli aggression may be able to destroy Lebanon [physically] but it cannot touch the Lebanese unity, which is what will help to rebuild the country.”

Jumblatt, who has referred to the Syrian President in the past as a “clown,” mocked Assad’s inaction against the IDF by saying that the Syrian regime was “a lion in Lebanon but a bunny rabbit in Golan”. He also had some blunt words for Hizbullah:

Jumblatt hailed the unprecedented army deployment in southern Lebanon, but warned that “dangers could be looming … and Lebanon will remain a battleground” for regional conflicts unless Hezbollah is integrated into the regular army and respects the 1949 armistice agreement with Israel.

“Why can’t instead the army be responsible for holding the balance of power? Why can’t the rockets be under the command of the army?” he said.

He said the army’s deployment south of the Litani river was in line with an “ambiguous and unclear” formula because the military does not have the mandate to disarm Hezbollah fighters there.

Both men expressed outrage at the beginning of the conflict with Hizbullah’s unilateral decision to go to war with Israel. Since then, most of the democrats have kept quiet while Nasrallah took to the airwaves, giving several speeches and appearing to be in charge of the Lebanese government. His dominance over Siniora was made very plain as Nasrallah was clear about his veto power over any cease fire agreement.

During the conflict, both Hariri and Jumblatt concentrated on criticizing Israel and the United States. Hariri went abroad, visiting Arab countries to drum up diplomatic support as well as to ask for rebuilding funds. Both men saw that keeping a low profile during the conflict was their only political option.

But now that the war is over, they and other Lebanese democrats find themselves in something of a quandary. With Nasrallah ascendant and Hizbullah seen by many non-Shia Lebanese as fighters for Lebanese sovereignty, overt criticism of the terrorists for not disarming is both bad politics and could be dangerous to their health. Hence, their dual attacks on Hizbullah’s patron, Assad’s Syria.

Assad considers himself the “protector” of Lebanon although the Lebanese themselves have quite a different feeling about Syria altogether. Most Lebanese believe that if Assad had opened another front in the war by making a stab at the Golan Heights (Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1973), Israel would have been forced to confront Assad and eased up on the air campaign against Lebanon.

But what has Hariri and Jumblatt livid is that Assad’s “victory” speech last Tuesday included veiled threats of retaliation against the March 14th forces:

Assad also said that Israel’s supporters in Lebanon - an allusion to the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority in Beirut - also bears responsibility, accusing them of wanting to sow discord in Lebanon by demanding that Hizbullah be disarmed.

Lebanese Forces MP Antoine Zahra rejected the accusation, saying the March 14 Forces had “nothing to do with this war; on the contrary, we strongly condemned the Israeli aggression.” In an interview with the Central News Agency, Zahra said he didn’t see “any signs of Hizbullah’s victory,” adding that “through the Israeli offensive, Assad fulfilled Syrian interests, as Syria has always benefited from Lebanon’s losses.”

Couple Assad’s words with Nasrallah’s threats to “judge” those who criticized Hizbullah at the outset of the war and it’s no wonder that the March 14th democrats are walking on egg shells when they talk about Hizbullah.

Jumblatt pegged the reason for the conflict as an attempt by Assad to distract attention:

Jumblatt said the Iranians were trying to improve their negotiating position over their nuclear program “on the rubble of the (Lebanese) people.” Assad, he said, wanted “to avoid accountability through an international tribunal” in the Hariri assassination.

“This is the objective convergence between (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad and Bashar Assad,” he said.

An ongoing U.N. investigation has implicated high-level Syrian officials and Lebanese allies in the murder of former PM Rafik Hariri, a charge Damascus denies.

The Brammertz Investigation just received a one year extension to continue to arduous task of identify exactly who it was in the Syrian government that wanted the elder Hariri killed.

Brammertz’s predecessor, Detleve Mehlis implicated top Syrian officials in the assassination including Assef Shawkat, Syrian President Bashar Assad’s brother-in-law and head of Syrian intelligence; Bahjat Suleiman, a high ranking Syrian intelligence officer; and Ghazi Kenaan, the former Syrian Interior Minister and commander of Syria’s intelligence apparatus in Lebanon between 1982 and 2002.

The problem has been that the United Nations has been reluctant to proceed with any prosecutions against these top officials until the Lebanese themselves can decide on a forum. And once again, Hizbullah as at the bottom of a seeming intractable problem.

Most Lebanese support the idea of trying defendants in the Hariri assassination in an international forum independent of the Lebanese justice system. Hizbullah wants a special tribunal of Lebanese judges only. The reasons are probably due to the fact that Assad believes he may be able to control a trial made up of some of his stooges rather than take a chance with an international forum where the outcome would be uncertain. But until the Lebanese decide how they want to proceed and until the UN is finished with its investigations (which have been expanded to include the killing of 21 anti-Syrian politicians and journalists), no action satisfactory to the Lebanese democrats will take place.

If Jumblatt, Hariri, and the rest of the March 14th forces are to survive this period in Lebanese politics, they must be very careful in not being too declaratory in their opposition to Hizbullah. It could be that once the people realize what Hizbullah’s war has cost them that they will turn away from the terrorists. Until then, the democrats will seek to support Prime Minister Siniora’s government as much as possible and bide their time until things turn in their favor.

Judging by what Hizbullah is doing with rebuilding as well as the terrorist’s new found respect in the Arab world, they may have a long wait.

In the midst of a war where the forces of civilization have just suffered their first major defeat, it is quite natural to start pointing fingers and assigning blame. In Israel, they are already sharpening the long knives as MK’s are making room on their lodge poles for the scalps of several politicians and generals who, according to most observers, allowed Hizbullah this rather impressive strategic victory.

While the United States was not engaged militarily in this debacle, we nevertheless failed utterly in the only place where we really could have done some good for Israel; at the United Nations. The passage of Resolution 1701, mandating a cease fire in Lebanon, is already turning into our very own diplomatic nightmare. And the blame for this must rest squarely on the shoulders of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

Perhaps anticipating the heavy criticism that will be coming her way once it is apparent that Hizbullah will not cooperate in implementing the cease fire accord and that Israel will be constrained from taking any action to make them, Rice penned a dishonest Op-Ed in today’s Washington Post where she not only tries to spin her way out of trouble but also misstates several key parts of the cease fire agreement and downplays or glosses over others that she knows will never be implemented. And if she actually believes some of the tripe she has written, perhaps that is reason enough, along with the fact that she may have lost the confidence of the President, for her to resign.

Rice lists 3 components of the cease fire that she claims will be decisive in altering the “status quo” on the Lebanese-Israeli Border:

First, it puts in place a full cessation of hostilities. We also insisted on the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah must immediately cease its attacks on Israel, and Israel must halt its offensive military operations in Lebanon, while reserving the right of any sovereign state to defend itself. This agreement went into effect on Monday, after the Israeli and Lebanese cabinets agreed to its conditions.

The United States may have “insisted on the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers” but we didn’t get it. That is an issue to be determined later and will almost certainly involve a prisoner exchange, not “unconditional release.” of the IDF men. In fact, we insisted on many things in this resolution including an international force not part of UNIFIL operating under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which would have allowed this independent force to shoot if Hizbullah would not comply with the terms of the cease fire. What we got was a tepid augmentation of the UNIFIL force operating under Chapter 6 strictures which are much more defensive and will prevent the UN from enforcing the will of the Security Council with regards to Hizbullah’s weapons.

Here’s the second component of the cease fire agreement that the Secretary assures us will alter the status quo on the border:

Second, this resolution will help the democratic government of Lebanon expand its sovereign authority. The international community is imposing an embargo on all weapons heading into Lebanon without the government’s consent. We are also enhancing UNIFIL, the current U.N. force in Lebanon. The new UNIFIL will have a robust mandate, better equipment and as many as 15,000 soldiers — a sevenfold increase from its current strength. Together with this new international force, the Lebanese Armed Forces will deploy to the south of the country to protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area. As this deployment occurs, Israel will withdraw behind the “Blue Line” and a permanent cease-fire will take hold.

Either the Secretary has blinders on or she is being deliberately disingenuous and perhaps dishonest.

How will this resolution expand the authority of the Lebanese government? The resolution says much. It’s high minded words are soothing to the ear. But we are not dealing with people who plan on relinquishing their hard won gains at the conference table that they won on the battlefield.

Hizbullah and their leader Hassan Nasrallah are in the ascendancy in Lebanon. During the conflict, Nasrallah exercised veto power over what cease fire terms were acceptable to Lebanon. The sad fact is that Prime Minister Siniora is not in charge at the moment in Lebanon. With Hizbullah balking at disarming as well as moving their forces from the southern part of the country, Siniora doesn’t dare call a cabinet meeting to discuss the matter lest the Hizbullah ministers walk out and his government fall - a blow that could open the door to any number of nightmare scenarios. Siniora is trapped and no United Nations resolution is going to help him “expand the authority” of the Lebanese government until Hizbullah is disarmed.

And what about that little detail, Madame Secretary? In her Op-Ed, Rice is all over the map regarding the disarmament of Hizbullah. In the segment quoted above, she seems to be saying that the Lebanese army will deploy with the augmented UNIFIL force to “protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area.” So will Hizbullah be armed or disarmed? Here, she seems to be saying that UNIFIL will disarm the terrorists:

Finally, this resolution clearly lays out the political principles to secure a lasting peace: no foreign forces, no weapons and no authority in Lebanon other than that of the sovereign Lebanese government.

Clearly the two goals are incompatible, although she may be talking about a “lasting peace” in the context of further negotiations over other issues such as prisoner exchanges and the Shebaa Farms matter. However, surely she knows Israel’s ironclad position on Hizbullah disarmament; that the IDF will not leave southern Lebanon until the terrorists lay down their weapons. How can she reconcile her rosy resolution scenario with the completely useless Lebanese army being deployed alongside a UN force that has failed for 28 years to fulfill its mandate?

Just today, Secretary Rice said that UNIFIL would not be disarming Hizbullah, that this was a job for the Lebanese government:

“I don’t think there is an expectation that this (U.N.) force is going to physically disarm Hezbollah,” Rice said. “I think it’s a little bit of a misreading about how you disarm a militia. You have to have a plan, first of all, for the disarmament of the militia, and then the hope is that some people lay down their arms voluntarily.”

If Hezbollah resists international demands to disarm, Rice said, “one would have to assume that there will be others who are willing to call Hezbollah what we are willing to call it, which is a terrorist organization.”

If people are not going to call Hizbullah a terrorist organization after the thugs launched almost 4,000 rockets and missiles into Israeli towns and cities in order to kill as many civilians as possible then nothing on earth they do will change the laggard’s minds.

It is this kind of disconnect from reality that makes me question the Secretary’s fitness to remain in office. For there is much more in the Washington Post Op-Ed that calls into question Ms. Rice’s grasp of the situation as well as her honesty.

Her belief that the Lebanese army will be effective in doing anything at all is belied by this assessment from Janes:

Yet as things stand the Lebanese Army, which has operated primarily as an internal security force since the 1975-90 civil war, is incapable of undertaking any peacekeeping mission unless Hizbullah is completely disarmed.

It has been starved of funds for years because of Lebanon’s economic woes, it is poorly equipped and does not have the combat experience or motivation of Hizbullah’s battle-hardened Shi’ite fighters.

More troublesome is the composition of the army’s 11 mechanised brigades and half-dozen special forces formations along sectarian lines between Christians and Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims.

The Lebanese army has been a barracks army for 20 years. Calling them an “army” doesn’t make them so. And if this is the bunch that is being counted on to help disarm Hizbullah - something that Nasrallah has insisted isn’t going to happen voluntarily - then the world and Resolution 1701 are in deep trouble.

And what of this mythical arms embargo? As I write this, Iran and Syria are busy resupplying their client in Lebanon with no thought of complying with the resolution’s mandate that only the government of Lebanon be the recipient of any arms transactions. Why should Iran and Syria comply? Who is going to stop them?

Perhaps the augmented UNIFIL force will be able to help - if they ever get there:

A United Nations international force is expected to land in Lebanon within two weeks, but analysts said yesterday that U.N. troops will be unable to disarm Hezbollah against its will.

“We would like to see 3,000 to 3,500 troops within 10 days to two weeks,” Hedi Annabi, assistant secretary-general for U.N. peacekeeping operations, told reporters in New York.

“That would be ideal to help consolidate the cessation of hostilities and start the process of withdrawal and deployment of the Lebanese forces,” Mr. Annabi said.

[snip]

Mr. Annan has been working the phones since Saturday to get world leaders to commit to creating a robust international force, but there have been no formal commitments, Mr. Dujarric said.

C. David Welch, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said the U.S. would send a senior interagency team to the United Nations today and tomorrow to help shape the enhanced UNIFIL force.

The United Nations, he said, “is on a fast track to try and supplement and enhance” the force in Lebanon. “They are meeting every day in preparation for that.”

The current UNIFIL force has troops from China, France, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Ukraine. Mr. Welch said other countries, including Turkey, might participate in the enhanced force.

There is no doubt that Secretary Rice is sincere in her belief that she got the best possible deal for the United States and Israel at the UN. And despite her obvious spinning and outright dishonesty in putting the best face on the outcome, the fact is that Resolution 1701 - recognizing as it does a terrorist group as a legitimate combatant in a war with Israel - is an unmitigated disaster for the United States and almost as big a blow to the cause of freedom and democracy as Israel’s disaster on the battlefield.

Pretty strong stuff, I know. But if one were to examine the world prior to the Israeli-Islamist War and the world afterwards, several hugely significant differences have emerged that have further endangered Israel, complicated our efforts to deny Iran the nuclear weapons it wants so badly, pushed our allies in the Middle East closer to the Iranians, and perhaps fatally weakened the Lebanese government.

In Rice’s defense, it is not entirely her fault. Some of the blame must accrue to the President for not infusing a sense of urgency on Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert in the early days of the war against Hizbullah. Bush refused to call Olmert for the first few weeks of the military campaign - a campaign that unfolded with painful slowness and puzzling hesitancy on the part of the IDF. While Bush’s reticence with Olmert was rightfully interpreted as signalling a “green light” for Israel to carry out a wide ranging war against Hizbullah, once it became clear that Olmert wasn’t moving with boldness and speed, perhaps a call from the President would have alerted Olmert to the fact that his “green light” could turn amber or even red in the very near future unless he got a move on.

Finally, it is very possible that Rice has lost the confidence of the President. This piece that appeared in Insight Magazine is extraordinary for the candor of the Secretary’s people in describing how the President allowed Rice to be undermined by the Cheney faction in the White House during the war:

The disagreement between Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice is over the ramifications of U.S. support for Israel’s continued offensive against Lebanon. The sources said Mr. Bush believes that Israel’s failure to defeat Hezbollah would encourage Iranian adventurism in neighboring Iraq. Ms. Rice has argued that the United States would be isolated both in the Middle East and Europe at a time when the administration seeks to build a consensus against Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Instead, Ms. Rice believes the United States should engage Iran and Syria to pressure Hezbollah to end the war with Israel. Ms. Rice has argued that such an effort would result in a U.S. dialogue with Damascus and Tehran on Middle East stability.

[snip]

The sources said Mr. Bush’s position has been supported by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and to a lesser extent National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. They have urged the president to hold off international pressure and give Israel more time to cause strategic damage to Hezbollah as well as Iranian and Syrian interests in Lebanon.

Secretary Rice bears most of the responsibility for agreeing to a UN cease fire resolution with little prospect that it will do anything that it says it will. All it has done is prevented Israel from continuing an offensive that was just starting to make rapid progress in inflicting the kind of damage on Hizbullah that would have made Nasrallah’s claims of “victory” ring hollow. For this reason, her continued usefulness to the President should be called into question.

UPDATE: MORE “FIG LEAF DIPLOMACY”

Via the Washington Times, AP is reporting that the Lebanese cabinet has reached an agreement with Hizbullah to deploy the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon as long as Hizbullah keeps its weapons out of sight:

The government ordered the army, which has been assembling north of the river, to “insure respect” for the Blue Line, the U.N.-demarcated border between Lebanon and Israel, and “apply the existing laws with regard to any weapons outside the authority of the Lebanese state.”

That provision does not require Hezbollah to give up its arms, but rather directs them to keep them off the streets. “There will be no authority or weapons other than those of the state,” said Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said.

Hezbollah’s top official in south Lebanon said the group welcomed the Lebanese army’s deployment even as he hinted that the Shiite guerrillas would not disarm in the region or withdraw but rather melt into the local population and hide their weapons.

“Just like in the past, Hezbollah had no visible military presence and there will not be any visible presence now,” Sheik Nabil Kaouk told reporters Wednesday in the southern port city of Tyre.

I would wager that the UN will stipulate that Lebanon is in compliance with Resolution 1701 despite this cynical and transparent attempt by Hizbullah to circumvent its mandate and then dare the Israelis to break the cease fire.

This is no surprise. It was predicted by most opponents of the Resolution before it was even voted on. We should be ashamed of ourselves for signing on to this treacherous bit of UN lunacy. Before the truly evil thugs of the world, the United Nations is worse than useless; it becomes complicit with the evil in order to satisfy its own narrow minded and cynical membership who crave the appellation “peacemaker” when in fact they become little better than gravediggers.

This next round is on the UN.

UPDATE II

Bryan at Hot Air links a rather over done piece from the New York Post equating the cease fire with Munich but he’s nevertheless spot on with this assessment:

The Syrians and Iranians think they have hit upon a strategy to destroy Israel: Attack it with standoff weapons like Katyushas, goading it into fighting a ground war that frightens the world into halting Israel’s defensive actions. The end game is that Israel can’t defend its borders, it becomes demoralized and then the Arabs and Iranians move in for the kill. In response to the standoff attacks, Israel has the choice of non-response, weak response or brutal response–there’s no way to uproot an entrenched army of any size without using some very nasty tactics and weapons. I’m not talking nukes or anything like that–just weapons that make for bad TV. Which gets us back to underestimating the weakness of the left.

And you shouldn’t underestimate the ambitions of tyrants. You’d think we would have learned that lesson by now.

Indeed.

When I first read this, I wasn’t sure whether the government of Lebanon was being serious or whether Prime Minister Siniora was starting a second career as a stand up comic:

Hizbullah will not hand over its weapons to the Lebanese government but rather refrain from exhibiting them publicly, according to a new compromise that is reportedly brewing between Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Seniora and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

The UN cease-fire resolution specifically demands the demilitarization of the area south of the Litani river. The resolution was approved by the Lebanese cabinet.

In a televised address on Monday night, Nasrallah declared that now was not the time to debate the disarmament of his guerrilla fighters, saying the issue should be done in secret sessions of the government to avoid serving Israeli interests.

“Refrain from exhibiting” their weapons? What the hell does Siniora think this is? Some kind of modern art show where the prima donna artist needs to be coaxed into cooperating?

This is farce. And if the United Nations lets Lebanon get away with this transparent attempt to circumvent Resolution 1701, then only the most willfully self deluded lefty popinjay could possibly find any continued usefulness for this miserable excuse of a world body.

Of course, Israel won’t let Hizbullah get away with this nonsense which means a resumption of hostilities. And I would not be surprised to see the UN twist itself into logic knots trying to blame the Jewish state for its attempt to enforce the UN’s own resolution. Lebanon is trying, we’ll be told. All that is needed is a little more negotiation, a little more rope that they can hang us with. I’m sure we can come up with a better fig leaf than this. Perhaps we can put a sign up at the Israeli-Lebanese border “Pay no attention to those weapons behind the curtain.”

Or maybe we can alter Hizbullah’s designation from “terrorist militia” to something more catchy, like:

“Nasty Nasrallah and his Travelling Band of Prestidigitators and Puppeteers.
Featuring the World Famous Disappearing Weapons Trick!
Now You See ‘Em. Now you Don’t!.
Out of Sight! Out of Mind!
Performed Before all the Cracked Heads of Europe!

The irrelevancy and impotence of the United Nations in the face of Islamic fanaticism embodied in groups like Hizbullah and Hamas and countries like Iran should be obvious to even the most doe-eyed, peace-at-any-cost, why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along liberal loon out there. And to ask any country caught in Islamisms crosshairs to rely on the world body to protect it or to depend on it to somehow moderate the fanatic’s pernicious effects on human civilization is stupidity.

There is nothing new in Resolution 1701 as it relates to Hizbullah’s disarmament or the necessity of having the terrorist group allow the Lebanese government full sovereignty over its own territory. The very same strictures against Hizbullah were contained in UN Resolution 1559 passed in 2004. One wonders if Hizbullah fails to abide by this latest resolution if another will be forthcoming. And then another. And another, and another until the paper piles up so high that perhaps the UN expects to bury the terrorists under wads and wads of useless, pious, platitudinous, peace loving compositions better used to wipe one’s bum than try and rein in the murderous thugs who mock them.

Not all politicians in Lebanon have lost their courage:

Lebanon’s industry minister, Pierre Jemayel, a member of a majority anti-Syrian bloc in parliament, told Al-Siyassah daily, “Hizbullah has to deliver its weapons to the Lebanese army, and its light weapons to the police.”

“Its fighters are welcome to join the military force and the state will then quickly regain control of all Lebanese territories.”

“I’m not telling Hizbullah to surrender its weapons to Israel, or to the international community,” Jemayel told the daily. “(I am telling it) to surrender them to the Lebanese army.”

A reasonable request from a reasonable man. Unfortunately, the time for reason may have passed in Lebanon.

In fact, it may be time for the Lebanese democrats, those brave souls who poured into the streets last spring in order to take their country back, to carefully re-examine the question of whether or not they really want to be a free and independent state. How badly do they want it? Is it worth fighting for? Worth dying for?

Of course this would mean civil war. And it would be impossible to keep outside actors from the fray so that Syria, Iran, Israel, and the United States would all be meddling by supplying weapons to the various militias. But the meddling will occur whether or not there is civil war anyway. The question is could the same coalition that came together last March 14th of Christians, Druse, Sunnis, and secular Shias unite in arms to throw Hizbullah into the sea? This would be a different line-up of forces than the faction-ridden bloodletting of the 1975-90 conflict. It would be a war for Lebanon’s soul.

I don’t expect it. And I can certainly understand why so many would be reluctant to even entertain the idea. Of course, Hizbullah takes advantage of this. They are perfectly willing to fight anyone - including their own countrymen - for their goal of establishing another outpost of radical Islam modeled after their patrons in Iran. And realizing the reluctance of the state to enforce its will and sovereignty over the whole country not to mention Siniora’s fear of provoking the terrorists into battling his weak and ineffective government in the streets, Hizbullah can act with impunity in Lebanon, secure in the knowledge that since no one wants another civil war, they can do as they please.

In the meantime, the US frets, Israel smolders, and the UN dithers. Round Two of this war may be coming sooner than anyone thinks.

Shmuel Rosner, Chief US Correspondent for Haaretz took a shot at listing the winners and losers in the war, both nations and people. Never one to think of an original idea when a perfectly good thought is sitting right in front of me begging to be stolen, I have taken the liberty of coming up with my own list of victors and vanquished. Or, if not vanquished, certainly on the ropes.

Give the precarious nature of the cease fire, the ratings on this list may change drastically if hostilities start up again, especially before any meaningful international presence augmenting the UNIFIL force shows up. But as it stands now, here are my thoughts. I have tried to rank the participants with the biggest winners first tailing off to the biggest losers last.

WINNERS

HIZBULLAH

Pathetically, Hizbullah will be seen as a winner despite the fact that they lost 10 fighters for every IDF soldier killed, their infrastructure is a mess, and they’ve been kicked out of their base in southern Lebanon, at least for a while.

Why in Gods name are they a winner then?

The J-Post reports “At least 50 newborn babies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been named after Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah over the past month, sources in the Palestinian Authority Health Ministry told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.”

It makes you wonder how many babies in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, and other Arab countries are also being named for the terrorist leader. And it isn’t just the personality of Nasrallah that excites the Arabs so much. Hizbullah is seen as the most successful Arab army in nearly 1000 years. Young Egyptians marched in Cairo on Saturday waving the Hizbullah flag and carrying pictures of Saladin, the last great Arab conquerer.

It matters not to the Arabs that Hizbullah launched more than 3500 rockets into Israeli towns and villages attempting to murder as many innocents as possible. What matters is that their fighters didn’t run away and that they killed Israelis. All of the above plus it appears that no one is going to be able to disarm them. In the Arab world, that is enough to make Hizbullah the biggest winner in the war.

IRAN

Finishing a close second are the Iranians who may or may not have started the war but who certainly exploited every propaganda opportunity the conflict offered while making it clear that Hizbullah and Iran are joined at the hip. Their prestige and that of their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been enhanced enormously. Despite the fact that most Arabs hate the Iranians, what makes the Iranian victory so worrisome is that the differences between Arabs and Persians seems to have been subsumed by the recognition that Iran’s sponsorship of Hizbullah is the major reason for this victory. Haaretz’ Yoel Marcus said it best: “Neither a political accord nor a military victory will change the situation as long as Iran is around, controlling the height of the flames.”

In effect, Iran has emerged as Terrorist Central - not just for Shia terrorism but for most of the rest of the Muslim world as well. And no, they were not quite there before the war. But you can now expect every Israeli and American hating jihadist from the West Bank to Indonesia showing up at Iran’s door looking for assistance. And given that the mullahs are awash in petrodollars at the moment, they will be only too happy to oblige.

SYRIA

Not quite as big a winner as some others, Syria nevertheless got a shot of much needed prestige for backing Hizbullah.

Humiliated following their retreat from Lebanon and isolated internationally as a result of their suspected complicity in the assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri of Lebanon, President Assad emerged as a player in the Arab world because the UN came to him hat in hand asking for his help with Hizbullah. His role may not have been decisive, but expect the United States to start talking with Syria again very soon in order to see if they can pry Assad away from the Iranian apron strings he’s attached to.

Assad may be willing given the uneasy nature of his relationship with the radical Shias in Iran. His secular Baathists (Sunni) were forced into this marriage of convenience as a result of a process of elimination. There simply wasn’t anyone else to align Syria with to counter the American military sitting next door in Iraq. Talking to Assad may be a winning strategy for both Assad and the United States.

HASSAN NASRALLAH

As many people in Lebanon who look upon him with pride, there are probably almost as many who wish to see him humbled. This doesn’t mean that the Israelis come up smelling like roses, not by a long shot. But Nasrallah’s personal popularity probably didn’t increase very much. And in some quarters, he is now seen as a legitimate threat to the fragile democratic process that has been set back as result of this war.

As the dust settles in Lebanon, there may be a lot of bitterness directed towards Nasrallah by the March 14th Forces. And if the Hizbullah leader starts to throw his weight around by maneuvering for power, there is a chance that the Christians especially would take up arms against him.

Nasrallah is a winner outside of Lebanon but could end up being a loser inside his own country. If he doesn’t abide by the cease fire and refuses to disarm, it could precipitate a crisis in both the government and the streets. In that event, he would be a sure loser.

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

Who woulda thunk it? If the cease fire holds, there will be much self congratulation and back patting among the world elites who will be able to point to this betrayal of Israel as a singular moment of success in UN history.

The fact that everyone over the age of three who knows better will have to listen to this drivel sickens me. And the fact that the cease fire makes it that much harder to deposit this international outpost of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism on the garbage heap of history will be seen by historians as another indication of the myopia and pure cynicism of the people of the world in this epoch.

That is, unless the historians are radical, fundamentalist Muslims in which case the UN will be lionized for their foresight and courage.

THE ARAB LEAGUE

The who? That’s right, the Arab League comes out a winner in this conflict thanks to the French. The League’s Foreign Ministers came to New York last week and showed France the way to stick it to the Americans. The French abandoned the idea for an independent international force with rules of engagement that would have allowed them to disarm Hizbullah which France was on the verge of agreeing to last weekend for the current plan that adds 15,000 toy soldiers to UNIFIL supplemented by the Lebanese “army.” This will insure that Hizbullah is not disarmed and will be able to resume their attacks on Israel at any time.

The fact that the League was able to find its way to New York probably makes it a winner alone. But by playing messenger for Hizbullah and then having France accede to most of the terrorists demands, the Arab League comes out looking pretty good.

LOSERS

GEORGE BUSH

I may have a little different take on how Bush comes out of this than most others but to my mind, the President’s rating here should almost be a “push.”

In the end, he caved in and aligned the United States with what I consider to be a betrayal of the interests of Israel. But I think that was a direct result of his standing fast for 30 days while the entire world ganged up on the United States. By giving Israel a green light for a month, the President lost a lot of influence that we could have wielded at the United Nations. In the end, France abandoned us as did the Arab world (despite their own misgivings about Hizbullah).

Some will ascribe it to stubbornness, but I think it took courage to run interference for an ally as long as he did. For that alone, I hate to put him on the losing side but feel I must as result of what happened in the Security Council.

FOUD SINIORA

The Lebanese Prime Minister is a clear loser although he doesn’t come out as badly as some other Lebanese politicians whose days on this earth may be numbered for coming out strongly against Hizbullah for starting the war. He generally got high marks from the Lebanese people for leadership in a poll taken last week. And his appeal to the Arab League for diplomatic assistance did some good.

But his utter weakness in the face of Hizbullah will hurt him in the long run. In fact, his days as Prime Minister may be numbered if Nasrallah has anything to say about it. In the end, Siniora was reduced to being Nasrallah’s messenger boy, giving the terrorist veto power over any cease fire proposals.

CONDI RICE

By some accounts, Rice was a hindrance to the Israeli war effort. She apparently insisted on the temporary truce following the Qana tragedy and reportedly advised against any massive incursion by the IDF into southern Lebanon. For this, she was widely criticized in the Administration; so much so that her deputy handled the shuttle diplomacy between Beirut and Tel Aviv following Qana and she was marginalized to the point of being banished to the UN to work on the cease fire resolution.

We know how that turned out.

Rice lost prestige in the Administration because she has temporarily lost the trust of the President. And that makes her a big loser.

IDF

If you’re talking about the individual and small group performance of the Israeli army, no blame can befall them. But if you want a loser in this war, look no further than Chief of Staff Dan Halutz.

Very late in the game, when it was apparent that there would be post war inquiries regarding the sub-par performance of the army, Halutz cynically sent his Deputy to replace Northern Commander Udi Adam which scrambled his command and made Adam and his staff livid. They felt that Halutz was trying to deflect criticism from himself.

The first IAF man to be Chief of Staff, his reliance on air power to take out the rocket launchers that were pounding northern Israel proved in the end to be a colossal blunder. And He apparently failed to pass along General Adam’s plan for an offensive in the middle of July that was eventually used just prior to the cease fire.

He will not survive in his position much longer.

EHUD OLMERT

Olmert was the anti-Midas in this war; everything he touched turned to crap. He was timid, indecisive, and squandered the overwhelming support given to him by the Israeli people with his hesitant prosecution of the war. Everything he did, he did late. From initiating ground operations to calling up reserves, he was always one step behind. And in the meantime, he left his friend George Bush swinging in the international wind, bearing the brunt of his incompetence.

Olmert may survive only because there is no real apparent successor. But if the post war inquiries by the Knesset reveal more stupidity, Kadima may have no choice but to replace him. Or, there’s an outside chance new elections may be called in which case he would almost certainly be supplanted as party leader.

UNITED STATES

Finishing third as the biggest loser in the war is the United States. Thanks to Israel’s inexplicable lethargy in prosecuting the war, our influence and prestige dribbled away week by week until our only choice in the end was to capitulate to the French and Arabs at the United Nations while trying to change the cease fire resolution at the margins. In this, we were only successful in preventing the UN from ordering a humiliating retreat by the Israelis from Lebanon.

ISRAEL

Is Israel any safer than it was a month ago? Is their prestige enhanced? Were they successful in achieving any of their war aims? (It remains to be seen how long Hizbullah is prevented from moving back into their positions in southern Lebanon). Was Hizbullah disarmed? Is there the prospect that anyone will do so? Did they eliminate or even seriously degrade the ability of Hizbullah to fire rockets into northern Israel? Did they get their captured soldiers back?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, I’ve got some good bottom land in Florida you might be interested in buying.

LEBANON

Their country is in ruins. Their politics a mess. The government is being held hostage by a terrorist fanatic who could lead them back into war at any moment (or initiate another ruinous civil war). Their army is a joke. They are being pulled every which way from Sunday by Iran, Syria, the west, the Israelis, and the Arabs. And their prospects for the future are bleak.

I would say that makes Lebanon the biggest loser of all - unless you count those dwindling numbers of us who still believe that defeating Islamism is the most important task facing civilization today.

Anything that makes the terrorists stronger and the rest of us weaker is a huge loss. And at this moment, it’s hard to see where a victory in this war will be coming from.

UPDATE

Karol Sheinin (blogging at Malkins while Michelle is on vacation)can be put in the “gloom” column about the outcome of the war:

It’s interesting to apply this lesson to the Iraq war: if we leave too early, without finishing the job, and the country is once again turned over to thugs and terrorists, how can we tell the families of dead American soldiers that they fought with good reason, that their sacrifice was not in vain, that the cause was noble, but we just couldn’t stomach seeing it through to completion?

Was Osama right? Do we not have the stomach for taking on he and his fanatical cohorts for the long haul?

I can’t believe that. I don’t want to believe it.

But is it true?

“Hold fast to dreams. For if dreams die. Life is a broken-winged bird That cannot fly.”
(James Langston Hughes)

The resolution passed by the United Nations mandating a cease fire between Israel and the terrorists of Hizbullah was approved unanimously by the Lebanese cabinet yesterday with “reservations:”

Lebanon’s Cabinet late Saturday unanimously accepted the UN cease-fire plan to halt fighting between Israel and Hizbullah fighters, moving the deal a step closer to implementation, the prime minister said.

“It was a unanimous decision, with some reservations,” Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said in announcing Lebanon’s acceptance of the resolution after a four-hour Cabinet meeting.

Hizbullah’s Mohammed Fneish, minister of hydraulic resources, said the two Hizbullah members expressed reservations, particularly over an article in the resolution that “gives the impression that it exonerates Israel of responsibility for the crimes” and blames Hizbullah for the month-long war.

“We will deal with the requirements of the resolution with realism in a way that serves the national interest.”

Will they? Will Hizbullah “serve the national interest?” Or do they have something more sinister in mind?

“We believe that the resolution that was taken last night was unfair,” Nasrallah said. “But if there is an agreement on the cessation of hostilities between the Lebanese government and the enemy, we will observe it without delay.”

He said that Hizbullah would support any decision by the Lebanese government to end the war. “We will not be an obstacle to any decision that it finds appropriate, but our ministers will express reservations about articles that we consider unjust and unfair,” he said.

Nasrallah also expressed his support for plans to deploy Lebanese army and additional UNIFIL troops in southern Lebanon. “Regardless of our reservations and political positions, we will cooperate when the Lebanese soldiers and UNIFIL forces are deployed,” he said.

Nasrallah described the decision to dispatch Lebanese soldiers to the south of the country as an “achievement” for Hizbullah and Lebanon, saying it resulted from the steadfastness of the Lebanese people and the “heroes” of his organization.

Nasrallah is pushing himself away from the table and will be able to carry off most of his winnings thanks to the inexplicable timidity of the Israelis and the myopia of the Security Council. If his only reservation to the cease fire is that he is uncomfortable with the idea of being blamed for the war in the first place, he has indeed won a great triumph.

The question on the minds of most Lebanese today is what he will do with this victory. Nasrallah demonstrated by starting the conflict that he not the government controlled the destiny of Lebanon. Indeed, treating Prime Minister Siniora like an errand boy, a middleman in negotiations with the UN, the Hizbullah leader demonstrated that he had veto power over any and all decisions made by the Lebanese cabinet having to do with the cease fire.

He forbade the Prime Minister from accepting any cease fire that would have placed an independent foreign force on Lebanese soil, seeing quite rightly the potential that such a force could force him to accept the stipulations in Resolution 1559 that called for the disarmament of the terrorists and the loss of his autonomy in the south.

Instead, he got exactly what he wished for; an augmented UNIFIL force along with the Hizbullah-friendly and incompetent Lebanese army standing between he and Israel. Nasrallah correctly believes that such a force will not be able to keep him from returning to his bases in the south, much less “disarm” him in any meaningful way. In a few months, he will be able to marginalize this force as easily as he intimidated UNIFIL. At that point, his victory will be complete.

Meanwhile, Lebanon bleeds:

Lebanon today lies ravaged, its inhabitants suffering the consequences of Hezbollah’s hubris and Israel’s terrible, wanton retribution. Since July 12, when party militants abducted two Israeli soldiers and killed three on the Israeli side of the border, Lebanon has been under a virtually complete Israeli blockade. At the time of writing, nearly 1,000 people have been killed, mostly civilians. Predominantly Shiite areas in the south, Beirut’s southern suburbs and the northern Bekaa Valley have been turned into wastelands; Beirut seems empty. Businesses, when they do open, close early; store owners have cleared out their showrooms. The mood is one of ambient disintegration. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of refugees have moved into the capital, even as many of its residents have headed for the mountains. The economy, already precarious before the conflict started, lies in shambles, as does public confidence in the country’s future.

Michael Young is opinion editor at the Daily Star of Lebanon. His piece quoted above in the New York Times Magazine is an absolute must-read if you wish to understand the history of Hizbullah and the cultural and political reasons it plays such a large role in Lebanese society.

The post war situation in Lebanon looks bleak. Nasrallah ascendant, a massive rebuilding task facing the government, continued Syrian and Iranian meddling that led to the war in the first place, and the unthinkable prospect that once again the factions will take up arms and engage in a ruinous civil war.

The dream of a stable, prosperous, and free Lebanon embodied in the ideas of the “Cedar Revolution” are now shattered, its promises broken on the jagged shoals of cynicism and self interest. It is hard to see how the Lebanese democrats can retrieve the situation given the growing influence of Hizbullah in the councils of government. Because Nasrallah’s men still have their guns and with little or no prospect that anyone will be able to take them away, there is the real possibility that the Hizbullah leader will be able to hold the government hostage indefinitely.

Michael Young sees some signs for hope:

[The] starting point is the assumption that Lebanon really must be governed through mutual concessions and dialogue. Amid the general sectarianism, this may sound absurd. The ideal of Lebanon as a mosaic of separate but collaborating communities has been shattered so many times that it is difficult even to know what collaboration might mean. But it is also true that grounds for hope exist. Over the past half-century, the once-marginalized Shiites have steadily integrated themselves into Lebanese politics and society. While Shiites today largely accept Hezbollah’s claim to be their representative and protector, in the future new forms of Shiite politics and expression may emerge — must emerge.

Even before the war, the cynicism of factionalism reared its ugly head on more than one occasion. As far back as the parliamentary elections last year, Druse leader Walid Jumblatt actually aligned his party with several pro-Syrian politicians in order to counter the strength of Christian leader and former anti-Syrian Prime Minister Michel Aoun. This angered some of his allies in the revolution, especially in Saad Hariri’s Future Party. Aoun himself then showed how cynical politics in Lebanon could get by signing a Memorandum of Understanding with Hizbullah about disarmament discussions taking place only in the context of the National Dialogue, a roundtable of Lebanese leaders charged with solving the thorniest problems in Lebanese society.

Aoun allowed his personal ambition to be President to override both his natural anti-Syrian inclinations as well as common sense. Making common cause with Hizbullah - a group who wishes to establish Lebanon as an Iranian style theocracy - seems the height of stupidity for a Christian Maronite like Aoun. But when Lebanon’s parliament was constituted, Aoun found himself on the “outs” with the largest bloc of democratic reformers. By allying himself with the second largest bloc in parliament - the Hizbullah-Amal alliance - he found a vessel for his ambitions.

So in a sense, when the war came along, the leaders of the revolution had already failed in many respects to unite in a meaningful way in order to take on Hizbullah and re-establish Lebanese sovereignty over the entire country. They are now paying for their disunity and weakness. Michael Young explains:

Meanwhile, Siniora also had to handle relations with Hezbollah. Five of the ministers in his cabinet were Shiites, either members of Hezbollah and Amal or named by them. Members of the parliamentary majority affirmed their desire to see Hezbollah integrated into the armed forces and to see the state regain control over all the national territory — meaning Hezbollah must no longer rule over the border with Israel. But desiring Hezbollah’s disarmament was one thing; achieving it, another. When it came to such matters, the parliamentary majority was reluctant to act like a majority. Hariri was especially diffident, probably because his Saudi sponsors advised him to avoid precipitating any Sunni-Shiite showdown that might boomerang in the kingdom. But the chief obstacle, of course, was Hezbollah itself. The militia realized that without its weapons, it would lose its reason to exist as a militant movement, lose its élan and lose its value to Syria — as well as its ties to its main financier and advocate, Iran.

I have pointed out on numerous occasions that Nasrallah simply cannot afford to give up his guns. Without them, he is head of a minority party in a secular government, not a good jumping off position to precipitate his Islamic revolution.

With no one willing to disarm him, Nasrallah could be emboldened to strike back at the Christians, Druse, and Sunnis who heaped criticism on he and his group at the outset of hostilities with Israel. In an interview with al-Jazeera that went largely unnoticed in the west but which sent chills down the spines of several Lebanese politicians, Nasrallah threatened payback against those who didn’t support him:

As the violence continues, retribution is in the air. Israel has focused its attacks on Shiites, leaving Sunni, Christian and Druse areas (though not their long-term welfare) relatively intact. Amid all the destruction, many a representative of the March 14 movement has denounced Hezbollah’s ‘‘adventurism,’’ provoking Shiite resentment. As one Hezbollah combatant recently told The Guardian: ‘‘The real battle is after the end of this war. We will have to settle score with the Lebanese politicians. We also have the best security and intelligence apparatus in this country, and we can reach any of those people who are speaking against us now. Let’s finish with the Israelis, and then we will settle scores later.’’

This essentially repeated what Hassan Nasrallah told Al Jazeera in an interview broadcast a week after the conflict began: ‘‘If we succeed in achieving the victory . . . we will never forget all those who supported us at this stage. . . . As for those who sinned against us . . . those who made mistakes, those who let us down and those who conspired against us . . . this will be left for a day to settle accounts. We might be tolerant with them, and we might not.’’

It goes without saying that the assassination of Mr. Hariri, Mr. Jumblatt or other prominent politicians who opposed Nasrallah’s war could set off another round of sectarian blood letting:

Meanwhile, the country has sunk into deep depression, and countless Lebanese with the means to emigrate are thinking of doing so. The offspring of March 8 and March 14 are in the same boat, and yet still remain very much apart. The fault lines from the days of the Independence Intifada have hardened under Israel’s bombs. Given the present balance of forces, it is difficult to conceive of a resolution to the present fighting that would both satisfy the majority’s desire to disarm Hezbollah and satisfy Hezbollah’s resolve to defend Shiite gains and remain in the vanguard of the struggle against Israel. Something must give, and until the parliamentary majority and Hezbollah can reach a common vision of what Lebanon must become, the rot will set in further.

The continued powerlessness of the government in the face of Hizbullah’s brazen independence does not bode well for the future. And unless the sides are willing to fight it out once again in the streets, it seems unlikely that there will be any attempt to rein in Hizbullah and set a steady course for national reconciliation.

How far the politicians go to avoid a civil war will determine how much power Nasrallah will be able to exercise. And given the trauma the last conflict engendered, it would seem that the current government will go very far indeed before fighting the terrorists in their midst for control of the country.

The state of Israel awoke this morning to the realization that their world has suddenly become a lot more dangerous.

And that’s saying something. Given that their country is surrounded by enemies that wish to annihilate them, it is hard to imagine how their precarious situation could have gotten any worse. But the sad fact is that the forces representing anti-modernism, anti-Semitism, and genocide are in the ascendancy today over those who represent freedom, tolerance, and civilization.

Welcome to the new Middle East, a place where purposefully ordering the launching of thousands upon thousands of lethal rockets into towns and villages with the sole and exclusive goal of killing as many civilians as possible makes one a hero to the overwhelming majority of its people rather than a monster to be stoned in the street on sight. It is also a tactic that has been green lighted by the United Nations in that they have given these gleeful, murderous, rocketeers the opportunity to start their bombardment all over again just as soon as the international community loses interest and moves on to the next outrage that the world body also will be unable to do anything to stop.

A true United Nations, one that would live up to one tenth of the noble sentiments contained in its charter, would have voted to join with Israel to destroy Hizbullah. In fact, their actions have now enabled the terrorists to look forward to round two in their genocidal war against the Jews.

For make no mistake, this “cease fire” is nothing of the sort. It is a pause in Hizbullah’s undeclared war on the Jewish state that has been going on since Israel voluntarily left southern Lebanon in 2000. The aggression from Hizbullah didn’t start with their incursion into Israel’s territory on July 12. It has been going on for more than two years with nary a peep from this same international community that now seeks to dictate to Israel how it should best defend itself. Where was the outrage when Hizbullah carried out unprovoked attacks on IDF outposts? Where were the tears from these slobbering humanitarians when Hizbullah infiltrated suicide bombers across the border in order to kill Israeli children?

To those who truly wish for a just and peaceful international order, that kind of world just became much more remote with the shameful capitulation to the tactics of terror that the United States, the United Nations, and the rest of the international community agreed to in this cease fire resolution. It will come back to haunt all who worked for expediency over substance, all the while pretending that a “solution” to Hizbullah’s murderous designs on the Jewish state could be “negotiated” - as if the terrorists cared one whit about anything except their own survival as well as the killing of more Jews which is now guaranteed thanks to both the incompetence of Israeli leadership and the world’s timidity in the face of outright savagery.

The conduct of France in this affair has been one dizzying change of direction after another. Evidently, the French believed that if they kept churning their legs fast enough on the treadmill of international diplomacy, they would eventually get someplace. Beginning with a near agreement with the Americans on the need for a strong international force with a robust mandate to check and disarm Hizbullah, the French ended up groveling before the Sheiks of Araby by accepting their formulation of using an expanded United Nations force that has proven to be about as effective at stopping Hizbullah from attacking Israel as any United Nations force of its kind - which is to say it has failed utterly and completely.

In fact, I’m sure Hizbullah was overjoyed to hear that UNIFIL outposts would be augmented. It means they now have that many more locations to place their rocket launchers, safe and secure in the knowledge that no one will do anything to stop them from placing their Vergeltungswaffe next to locations that proudly fly the UN flag. (Funny thing about that flag. There don’t seem to be too many people willing to die for it although there is no lack of goons, thugs, and terrorists willing to use it for their own nefarious purposes. In that respect, it is something of an anti-flag.)

In this new Middle East, an emboldened Iran will be able to continue to thumb its nose at the international community as they go about the task of building their very own “Final Solution to the Jewish Question.” No need to bother with gas chambers and death camps this time around. Those crude instruments of mass extinction have been made obsolete both by science and the willful blindness of a world community that actually believes that if they pretend hard enough, ignore the extinguishing rhetoric emanating from Tehran, and blame Bush and the “Neo-Cons” in a loud enough voice, that the horror will either go away or only haunt them in their dreams and not be realized in the flesh.

Maybe they’ll be proven correct. Maybe Ahmadinejad is a rational actor and only wants to live in peace. Maybe all of his talk about the return of the 12th Imam is for domestic consumption. Maybe he really didn’t say that he’d “wipe Israel off the map” or that he didn’t really suggest transplanting the state of Israel onto European soil.

Maybe. Or maybe he means everything he says to the very core of his being in which case maybe someone should stop him before he carries out his threats.

But in order to stop Ahmadinejad, someone somewhere is going to have to stand up to his aggression. Israel tried and was slapped down for their effort. And since everyone knows that the only reason America would do anything to try and stop the Persians is to steal their oil, that leaves the fate of Israel and probably the world in the hands of those who preach “collective security” but in practice, carry out “collective surrender.”

Much has been made in conservative circles recently about events occurring now being reminiscent of events in the 1930’s and that mirror Hitler’s march to war. It is always problematic to try and graft one historical period onto another to glean “lessons from history” so that we don’t make the same mistakes again. I believe that kind of thinking dangerously simplistic and overwrought. Iran isn’t Nazi Germany. And America is not Great Britain or France. We see these parallels largely because of the nauseating anti-Semitism raising its ugly head not just in the Middle East but in Europe and America as well. That and the seeming paralysis of the world when confronted with the evil designs of evil men makes the simile an easy reach, almost a writer’s shorthand to explain it all in two paragraphs or less.

The differences between then and now are profound and obvious - so much so that I am not going to list them. But I would agree that the lessons from that time of world turmoil should never be forgotten regardless of whether there are historical connections to be made between the two epochs. Nations like Iran will not be deterred by diplomatic give and take. They will not be “contained” in any meaningful way by sanctions (especially the kind of sanctions being discussed at the UN Security Council).

They must be defeated. And by allowing their proxy Hizbullah to literally get away with terrorist murder, the UN has made the monumental mistake of legitimizing Hizbullah tactics while punishing Israel for exercising its right of self defense.

If there is a worse signal the world body has ever sent in its entire, miserable existence, I can’t think of one.

Facing increasing opposition at home as well as harsh criticism from the army, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will accept a US-French cease fire proposal that includes precious little of what he was demanding just a short week ago.

Until last weekend, Olmert was insisting that any cease fire include a strong international force, independent of UNIFIL with robust rules of engagement, immediate and unconditional return of the captured Israeli soldiers, the disarming of Hizbullah, and no withdrawal of Israeli troops until the international force arrived.

He settled for considerably less:

The draft, obtained by The Associated Press, would ask the UN force to monitor a full cessation of hostilities and help Lebanese forces gain control over an area that has previously been under de facto authority of Hizbullah.
It emphasizes the need for the “unconditional release” of the two IDF soldiers captured July 12, but does not make a direct demand for their freedom.

Additionally, it calls on Israel and Lebanon to agree to a long-term solution under which Hizbullah would be disarmed.
The Security Council was expected to vote on the draft at 1 a.m. (IST).

About 2,000 UN troops and observers are now stationed in Lebanon. The draft would authorize an increase to a total of 15,000 troops.

The text of the draft does not specify which chapter of the UN Charter the force would be authorized under. Instead, it says the force’s mandate would include several elements: monitoring the cessation of hostilities, accompanying Lebanese troops as they deploy and as Israel withdraws, and ensuring humanitarian access

Haaretz is reporting that in fact, the expanded UNIFIL force will operate under Chapter 6 rules which are considerably less forceful than Chapter 7:

Britain’s UN Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry said the resolution would give the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon an enhanced mandate to help coordinate the eventual withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces troops. But it would ultimately be deployed under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter - which Israel has previously opposed.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni spoke Friday morning with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Livni demanded that the international force be under Chapter 7 and not a modified version of chapter 6 as the French representatives offered.

Israeli officials familiar with the negotiations predicted Friday morning that the U.S. will hold firm in regard to this demand and will not compromise on the resolution. An Israeli official told Haaretz that if the resolution will be watered down to an unacceptable level Israel will not halt any military operation.

So Hassan Nassrallah will emerge from his bunker in triumph, probably to massive demonstrations of support in Beirut and elsewhere in the Arab world. The question of Hizbullah “disarming” and the Shebaa Farms will be held over until later along with prisoner exchange. And Olmert?

The long knives are out already and it is doubtful his government can survive this abject surrender. Israeli politics is about to become very interesting. Whoever emerges from the coming scrum will have a monumental job to do. He must rebuild the confidence of the people in their army and their leadership. He must clean house in the IDF. And he must prepare for Round Two of the Israeli-Islamist conflict. Because this isn’t a cease fire as much as it is a battlefield pause. Whether they resume fighting in 6 months or a year doesn’t matter. If nothing else, Iran will see to it that there will be another war. They gained so much from this one, the temptation will be great to follow up their triumph whenever they see an opening.

Lebanon will continue to limp along. The March 14th coalition will hopefully continue in power with a little more sober realization of the dangers of having a terrorist organization in their midst. But Nasrallah is untouchable for the foreseeable future. Any attempt to disarm him will either bring down Siniora’s government or start a civil war. And the democrats should expect no help from the UNIFIL force in disarming the terrorists. That’s not what they’re there for. They are there only until the Lebanese “army” sits down in the south to continue their existence as a barracks army. The real power will still be Nasrallah and his fighters.

The forces of freedom took a huge hit today. But there are defeats in every war and it is up to us to redouble our efforts to confront a now emboldened enemy. I have a terrible feeling that we’ll get a chance to redeem ourselves sooner rather than later.

UPDATE

Allah is on the ball, already rounding up MSM news and react. I expect he’ll have blog reaction as well just as soon as that starts trickling in. Check Hot Air often.

Within the last 72 hours, confusion and dissension has racked the IDF as the Israelis suffered their worst day of the war, losing 15 soldiers with an additional 38 wounded.

The situation couldn’t get much worse.

The furious finger pointing within the IDF is one thing. But there is also bitter criticism of Prime Minister Olmert for being too slow, too timid, and not listening to his commanders who have been telling him for three weeks that only a massive ground incursion into Lebanon will win the day by seriously damaging Hizbullah and recreating the buffer zone that will prevent the terrorists from attacking civilians.

What has many officers upset is the sudden elevation of IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz’s deputy, Major General Kaplinsky, as de facto commander in the north. This has angered northern commander General Udi Adam and many officers on his staff who see this move by Halutz as an attempt to deflect criticism from himself to Adam for the slow progress being made by the IDF on the battlefield.

According to the officers, Adam showed “loyalty to the system under the very difficult circumstances that were created. He gets alot of support from us, his subordinates, and for now he will probably stay at his job until the end of the war. But he has a bellyfull against Halutz and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and there’s no doubt that when things calm down, he’ll express his opinions.”

Adam said yesterday to his subordinates, “the important thing now is to win the war. We’ll have time later to deal with this saga.”

The officers added that “a smear campaign” had been directed against Adam over the past few weeks,”to blame him for all the failures of the war.” It was carried out, the officers said, in a way that was “mean and low.” They said the purpose was clear: “to cover all kinds of mistakes that other people made and to turn the GOC into a scapegoat.” According to the officers, “Adam may be accused of all kinds of things. But the claims that he doesn’t understand tactics, that he was lacking in knowledge and is not a real leader, are false.”

Given these circumstances, who should get the blame for the dramatic rise in casualties in the last 24 hours? If Kaplinsky came in thinking he should immediately light a fire under the men and officers under his command, could it be that the increased casualties are the result of more aggressive movement by forces under his command?

We can’t be sure, but it is a telling coincidence.

There has also been fierce, almost unprecedented criticism of Prime Minister Olmert:

According to informed sources, there is an almost total breakdown in trust and confidence between the General Staff and the PM’s office. They have described the situation as “even worse than the crises that followed Ben Gurion’s decision to disband the Palmach, and Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan’s cynical decision to place all the blame for the Yom Kippur fiasco on the IDF’s shoulders.

Senior IDF officers have been saying that the PM bears sole responsibility for the current unfavorable military situation, with Hezbollah still holding out after almost a month of fighting.

According to these officers, Olmert was presented with an assiduously prepared and detailed operational plan for the defeat and destruction of Hezbollah within 10-14 days, which the IDF has been formulating for the past 2-3 years.

In fact, General Adam presented Halutz with “detailed operational plans as early as July 23″ for the massive ground assault into southern Lebanon approved yesterday by the Security Cabinet.

Those plans called for airborne landings south of the Litani River, bypassing the deeply dug in Hizbullah positions near the border as well as seaborne landings of troops north of the river. In effect, the IDF would then have put Hizbullah in a giant pincers, hammering them from the north with the paratroopers in their rear while holding them in place with forces from northern command on the border. The result:

This would have surprised Hezbollah, which would have had to come out of its fortifications and confront the IDF in the open, in order to avoid being isolated, hunted down and eventually starved into a humiliating submission.

This was exactly what the IDF senior command wanted, as Israeli military doctrine, based on the Wehrmacht’s blitzkrieg doctrine, has traditionally been one of rapid mobile warfare, designed to surprise and outflank an enemy.

So what happened? Evidently, Olmert had other plans:

According to senior military sources, who have been extensively quoted in both the Hebrew media and online publications with close ties to the country’s defense establishment, Olmert nixed the second half of the plan, and authorized only air strikes on southern Lebanon, not initially on Beirut.

Although the Premier has yet to admit his decision, let alone provide a satisfactory explanation, it seems that he hoped futilely for a limited war.

[snip]

The decision to cancel the landings on the Litani River and authorize a very limited call up of reserves forced the ground forces to fight under very adverse conditions. Instead of outflanking a heavily fortified area with overwhelming forcers, they had to attack from the direction most expected, with insufficient forces. The result, high casualties and modest achievements.

Whatever his reasons for trying to limit the conflict (Condi Rice supported limited objectives for the Israelis from the beginning of the war), Olmert may be losing the unqualified support he’s been getting from George Bush. Although there’s not much chance, the President evidently wants diplomacy to play out at the UN before Israel commits to the offensive:

The troops were already rolling late Wednesday when they were ordered to halt. It appears heavy US pressure delayed the offensive to allow diplomacy to run its course. A senior minister said Wednesday that Israel might delay the expansion for 2-3 days for that purpose.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is ready to wait with the offensive until the weekend, said a senior government official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the issue with reporters. The offensive could begin earlier if Hizbullah launches a major attack on Israel, the official said.

Cabinet minister Rafi Eitan confirmed the government’s decision to wait. “There are diplomatic considerations,” he told Israel Radio. “There is still a chance that an international force will arrive in he area. We have no interest in being in south Lebanon. We have an interest in peace on our borders.”

Those diplomatic efforts to end the war appear to be bogged down by French insistence that there be an immediate cease fire followed by the deployment of the Lebanese army into the south, replacing the IDF as guarantors of Israeli security:

The word in New York yesterday was that France had made it clear to the U.S. that unless a new version of the draft proposal was reached that included the revisions it wanted, France would initiate a new resolution of its own. The two countries agree that the first version they formulated needed to be revised.

[snip]

France yesterday offered to redraft UNIFIL’s mandate, devised when the force was deployed in South Lebanon in 1978, to enable the UN to reinforce and authorize the force to exercise a more effective presence. The French also suggested to the Americans that a symbolic multinational force be stationed at Shaba Farms.

The U.S. reiterated its position that it would outright reject any revision to the draft resolution that undermined assurance of keeping Hezbollah from reinfiltrating South Lebanon.

Any cease fire without a strong multinational force to be deployed in southern Lebanon will be rejected by Olmert and probably the Americans as well. Anything less would be a huge defeat for the Israelis as Hizbullah leader Hassan Nassrallah would have his men almost certainly filter back into positions they have abandoned over the last 3 weeks. Getting around the poorly trained and equipped Lebanese army would be a simple matter unless there was a strong international presence to block them. Hence, any resolution offered by France that simply augments UNIFIL will be rejected out of hand by Olmert.

Some analysts think that many of the moves Olmert is making now are being done with an eye toward the post war political battles that are sure to break out as a result of the disappointing performance of the IDF so far. That may be. But unless Olmert wants an unmitigated disaster on his hands, the IDF has to have a clear cut victory in the south following this massive offensive or the war of perceptions will have been won by Hizbullah regardless of what happens at the United Nations.

One of the wisest old heads on Islam and the Middle East is issuing a shocking warning: Beware of August 22:

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to “the farthest mosque,” usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

Bernard Lewis is no tin foil hat nutcase. He is as sober and as realistic as anyone you’re likely to listen to about Islam. Here’s a good backgrounder on Lewis written by Reuel Marc Gerecht.

Lewis also makes a chilling statement about why mutual assured destruction (MAD) may not work with President Ahmadinejad:

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran’s present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

[snip]

A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.

The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians–but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent–the threat of direct retaliation on Iran–is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.

Lewis has fingered something that most other “experts” either refuse to acknowledge or are simply unable to grasp; the determined fanaticism of our enemy.

This weird and dangerous blind spot in many leading academics, diplomats, and even military and intelligence analysts is something I’ve noted before. By insisting that fanatics like Ahmadinejad can be reasoned with, or bargained with, or deterred in any “traditional” way, the experts are able to rationalize almost any policy or proposal except confronting the madness in an effort to totally marginalize it or destroy it.

We’ve all heard the “explanations.” The Iranian President is “playing to his domestic supporters” with his apocalyptic rhetoric. He really doesn’t mean it. He’s a “rational actor” on the world stage and can be trusted to keep any agreement he reaches because it is in his “interest” to do so. He won’t give nukes to terrorists because he is deterred from doing so by the prospect of a massive retaliatory strike by the US or Israel.

Like colonial Indian negotiators trying to end border predations, the diplomats believe that by offering nice, shiny baubles to the Iranian President - WTO membership, unlimited enrichment of reactor fuel, a place at the table of civilized nations - they can entice him to give up his dream of building a nuclear weapon and destroying the “Great Satan.” This attitude presupposes that the Iranian President is interested in any of those things except as a strategy that would lull the West into somnolence and assuage their fears for a time.

With almost a childlike faith in inspections and monitoring, the experts would then pronounce the fanatic “in a box” and made relatively harmless.

And we all lived happily ever after…

The idea that Ahmadinejad can’t be deterred, or bought off, or deflected in any way from his fanatical, religiously inspired goal is such an anathema to most of our “wise men” that perhaps it is a concept that simply escapes them. Like the theory of quantum mechanics escapes almost everyone, maybe there is nothing in these very smart, very able people’s life experience that would allow them to face up to and recognize that, like Hitler, Ahamadinejad is announcing exactly what he intends to do, so pleased he is with his grand designs that he simply must share them with the world.

It took American soldiers fighting in the Pacific only a few run ins with the Japanese army to understand the kind of fanaticism they were up against. The average GI being a practical sort of fellow and very interested in staying alive, realized very quickly not to trust the Japanese when they surrendered. This led to many incidents where the Japanese (whose martial code saw surrender as the ultimate disgrace) would only pretend to surrender in order to get the Americans to expose themselves. Not a few GI’s were killed as the enemy would reinitiate combat once the Americans were in range.

And the Japanese human wave attacks were enormously disconcerting at first to our men. These “Banzai charges” where the enemy was killed to the last man in what appeared to be a futile gesture but was actually part of the Bushido (”Code of the Warrior”), troubled the GI’s. But they adapted very quickly so that even the psychological impact of the charges were lessened over time.

Perhaps our experts simply have not been able to apply the necessary lessons of history to the present circumstances with Ahmadinejad. Perhaps, like most diplomats, they are so in love with the idea of “process” that the end result of any negotiations aren’t as important as the negotiations themselves. This is a mindset that seems especially prevalent with our Middle East diplomatic community. For 60 years, the “process” has dominated. But what have been the practical, real world benefits accrued over that time? To the United States? To Israel? During the cold war, this “process” kept the lid on the Middle East so that there would be no direct confrontation between the superpowers who might feel obligated to come to the rescue of one of their surrogates if things got too out of control.

We saw this in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War as the Russians, fearing a complete collapse of their Egyptian client, almost sent combat troops to assist Sadat. Nixon responded by going to a high nuclear alert. That disabused the Russians of any idea they may have had of intervening in the conflict and Nixon cancelled the alert within 48 hours.

The Russians, being rational actors, understood Nixon’s message and stood down. Would Ahmadinejad do the same? Bernard Lewis has his doubts. And when an old wise man like Lewis can look fanaticism in the face and speak the truth, we should listen closely. And we should hope that anyone anywhere who has anything to do with any potential negotiations with that dangerous fanatic is listening also.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

As I recline in my virtual hammock this lovely Midwestern midsomer’s day, feeling the warm, gentle breezes as they waft across my face (”God’s air conditioning” we call it out here), my thoughts turn to the currents and eddies of history that are churning just below the placid surface of the mundane, the day to day happenings in the world. Another war here. Some kind of dust-up in Africa. Is there no end to Asian “economic miracles?” And old man Europe, grown senile and oblivious to all but its ever growing number of pensioners, waits patiently, almost willingly, for the sword of Allah to smite them.

It is what’s happening behind history’s curtain that is actually what matters. Demographers call them “trends.” Historians might refer to them as “underlying forces.” Judging by what these trends or forces are telling us, there is absolutely no reason for an American living at this time in history to be optimistic about much of anything.

It could be that my “black dog” has a hold of me today and that tomorrow I’ll wake up and take a deep breath, ready to go out and face the dragons again with a sneer and a smile. Or it could be the melancholy thought that summer is nearly over and the prospect of facing another Chicago winter depresses me. (I used to wonder why older people in the Midwest moved to Florida and Arizona when they retired. No longer.).

But upon reflection, I think not. This is more than a passing wave of unease, more than a troubling flutter in the pit of my stomach. The world is changing in ways we can barely grasp. We are unable to discern the true nature of our discontent because in a way, it is hard to believe that things could change so quickly that our perceptions about events have become either obsolete or laughably false.

When in doubt, blame Bush. But truthfully, what is happening below history’s radar has been in motion since before the Berlin Wall fell. Some decisions we’ve made in the last decade and a half have exacerbated our dilemma. Others have simply put off the inevitable. All told, where we are today is the result of many things beyond our control - birthrates, political changes in other countries, an aging population in the west, and a flexing of political and military muscle by an emerging reaction to modernity itself. The world in the 21st century is moving too fast, leaving too many behind. And the rush to catch up is going to get very bloody.

We are not just facing Islamic fundamentalism as a foe. We are also fighting the unrealized expectations of most of the planet’s inhabitants. Those expectations have been raised to stratospheric heights largely as a result of the accomplishments of the west. In some quarters, this has bred resentment, a belief that our success has come at the expense of others who are more worthy, more deserving in the eyes of Allah. In many, these expectations have fueled dreams of freedom and a belief that anything is possible if you are brave, work hard, and have faith in the future.

I regret to say there are many, many more of the former than there are of the latter. As I write this, it has becoming enormously hazardous for the freedom seekers to preach their gospel of change and hope.

In Lebanon, the Cedar Revolution is becoming a distant memory. The coalition of well meaning but ultimately weak politicians were unable to face the prospect of confronting the evil in their midst. They thought that they had all the time in the world to deal with Hizbullah, to try and fit them someplace into their crazy quilt patchwork of a confessional society - not realizing that somewhere, a clock was ticking and that their ever vigilant and determined neighbor to the north could only allow so much provocation before taking matters into their own hands in order to insure their own survival.

Now as they survey the wreckage of their country and of their revolution, dark hints from Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah point to a post-war Lebanon where opposition to the terrorists means signing you own death warrant. How that drama will play out is anyone’s guess.

In Iraq, hope has turned to despair as a bloody cycle of revenge killings is spiraling out control, aided and abetted by the anti-American, pro-Iranian zealot Muqtada al-Sadr. The agony of the Iraqi people has been made worse by a strange paralysis that has gripped the government who seem unable and unwilling to disarm the militias and stop the killing.

Both Nasrallah and al-Sadr are being goaded on by the Iranians and their crazed but canny leader President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Caught with his hand in the nuclear cookie jar more than once, the world still seems unwilling to take the steps necessary to keep the most powerful weapon in the world out of the hands of the most irresponsible leader in the world. If ever a recipe for unmitigated disaster was staring us right in the face, it is a nuclear capable Ahmadinejad and his unhinged hatred for Israel and the United States.

In Somalia, where a group calling themselves the Islamic Judges is systematically turning that forlorn and war torn land into a future base for jihad to Darfur where the slaughter continues unmercifully, to Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, - good and decent men everywhere seem to be in the grip of some horrible debilitating disease that saps their strength and steals their hope.

Then there are the deliberately self deluded who are either too stupid or too cowardly to recognize the evil in the first place. With a cognitive dissonance that would be laughable in less serious times, they blame the violence on those who are responding to the violence. Perhaps the apogee of this phenomenon occurred when the Secretary General of the United Nations opined that it appears that the State of Israel had committed a war crime by accidentally bombing a building in Qana, Lebanon killing 28 civilians while never mentioning that Israel’s enemy gleefully launches barrage after barrage of murderous rockets at Israeli cities deliberately trying to kill as many innocents as possible.

Hizbullah and other terrorists are actually being cheered on by people all over the world who view both Israel and the United States through the same darkened prism of hate and envy. Thanks to the wonders of modern media, they see how those who practice the secular religion of western freedom and tolerance live apparently without want, without cares. Their own desperate poverty and hopelessness seems more a product of conspiracy carried out by those so much better off than the result of their own wretched politics and economic choices. In an almost childish way, they seek to graft 21st century western miracles onto the back of their 19th century lifestyle. The inevitable disappointment when the graft doesn’t take only enrages them further.

Just about half of the United States wishes to confront this evil head on. The numbers are much less elsewhere. And we are finding in Iraq and everywhere else that our military sophistication isn’t enough to bring victory. We can vanquish armies. But we can’t snap our fingers and rid the world of hopelessness and envy. It seems the more we do to protect ourselves and try to help others face the threat, the forces arrayed against us gain strength and influence.

The war in the Middle East could be a hinge of history that opens a door to reveal an entirely different world than the one we are living in now. It could be that the confluence of a perceived Israeli defeat at the hands of Hizbullah and the defeat of Republicans in November thanks in no small part to what is happening in Iraq could presage a much more cautious approach to dealing with our enemies.

I can think of nothing more disastrous. Our foes will not vouchsafe us breathing room to try and figure out what to do next. He will in fact redouble his efforts in Iraq and elsewhere, going for the kill, believing quite rightly that he has us on the ropes. What we will congratulate ourselves for - our forbearance and “understanding” - will be seen as weakness and a lack of resolve by the enemy. It will do nothing to deter him and will in fact embolden him in ways we can only dimly perceive.

The crisis in the Middle East has shown us that the enemy is playing for keeps. And if we are to safely cross the threshold of this doorway to a new world, we are going to have to remember that one salient fact. Otherwise, our enemy will remind us of it in ways that are too horrible to contemplate.