Right Wing Nut House

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?

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.

War? What war?

British police say they have disrupted an apparent plot to blow up planes in mid-flight, prompting authorities to raise the nation’s threat level to “critical.”

The highest possible alert level, raised on Thursday by the British Home Office, means “an attack is expected imminently,” and authorities have said no hand luggage would be allowed onto planes from UK airports. (Full story)

Major delays are expected at key airports around the world, with Brussels Airport in Belgium among the first to cancel flights to the UK, news agencies reported.

London’s Heathrow airport was closed to most European flights Thursday morning following a heightened terrorist alert, officials said in a report from The Associated Press.

That’s the problem with this “so called” War on Terror. Just when you’re all comfy, and smug, and self satisfied about how you’ve ferreted out Shrub’s plot to become King by ginning up fear over some guy cowering in a cave who couldn’t hurt a flea, the real world reaches out and bites you in the ass:

The explosives would have been smuggled aboard six airliners as hand luggage - and could have been missed during x-ray screening.

Speaking at Scotland Yard, Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson said he was confident the police had disrupted a plot “to cause mass murder on an unimaginable scale”.

He said 21 people arrested in London, Birmingham and the Thames Valley were still being held - the culmination of a covert counter-terrorist operation lasting several months.

As is their wont, the Brit media identifies the culprits only as “British born Asian men.” Even with the Sword of Allah poised above their necks, the British media refuses to help their fellow citizens face up to the threat by identifying the true nature of their would be executioners; radical, fundamentalist Islamists.

Yeah, I know. Timothy McVeigh, right? Put a sock in it. He and Terry Nichols, whose mail order Filipino bride may have introduced him to members of a Philippine offshoot of al-Qaeda, (McVeigh’s attorney hinted as much while no one has bothered to explain Nichols’ trips to the Philippines in the year before the bombing that coincide with the movements of al-Qaeda members ) were amateurs, playing at being revolutionaries. These guys in London are the real deal.

And if the McVeighs of the world worry you more than the fanatics who tried to pull this off, I would like to point out that for every potential Timothy McVeigh there are probably 100 Islamic mass murderer wannabes out there itching for an opportunity to martyr themselves.

No. I am sick to death of tiptoeing around this issue of the true nature of our enemies. That kind of “sensitivity” may be fine when speaking about groups with legitimate grievances against society. I am not necessarily totally against the notion of what we on the right sometimes mis-identify as political correctness.

But the time has come to put away childish things and grow up. Our enemies will not give us much leeway to indulge us our puerile need to universalize this threat lest we offend someone. They have no such problem in identifying who they see as the enemy. Why should we?

I’ll be updating this post as more information becomes available today.

UPDATE

For starters, hit Hot Air. Allah must have been up all night getting every scrap of information available from the MSM. And bloggers are starting to weigh in too.

The French are if nothing else, a consistent bunch. Faced with the choice of standing by the Israelis who are after all, representing the West in this war with Islamists or groveling before the Sheiks of Araby, the French have chosen to diplomatically betray the US and Israel by abandoning the formulation of a “cessation of hostilities” with the IDF remaining in place until an international force was deployed to a position advocated by the Arabs:

The French-American alliance at the United Nations over a Mideast cease-fire agreement is crumbling, sources tell FOX News.

The French U.N. delegation has joined with Arab nations and is now calling for a complete and immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as a condition of any cease-fire, the sources said.

In addition, the French have reportedly agreed with Arab demands that the Lebanese force be accompanied only by UNIFIL, with no international force to be deployed.

This is a total and complete surrender to the Arab/Hizbullah position on the resolution. In fact, Hizbullah has stated from the beginning that there will be no cease fire until the Israelis leave Lebanese soil.

Very well, says Prime Minister Olmert. Be careful what you wish for:

Israel’s Security Cabinet on Wednesday approved a wider ground offensive in south Lebanon that was expected to take 30 days as part of a new push to badly damage Hezbollah, Israeli Cabinet minister Eli Yishai said.

The decision was made with nine ministers in favor and three abstaining. The Security Cabinet authorized troops to push to the Litani River some 18 miles from the Israel-Lebanon border. Currently, some 10,000 soldiers are fighting Hezbollah in a four-mile-deep stretch from the Israel-Lebanon border.

Yishai said the proposed operation was expected to take 30 days. However, an internationally backed cease-fire was expected to be imposed well before then.

“The assessment is it will last 30 days. I think it is wrong to make this assessment. I think it will take a lot longer,” he said.

It seems clear that no cease fire resolution will be voted on this week. In fact, I daresay that as long as the French and the rest of the Security Council are insisting that Israel leave Lebanon and that no international force be deployed, any cease fire passed by the Council would not be honored by the Israelis. (It is likely we’d veto any such resolution anyway).

Deploying the Lebanese Army is not enough for either the US or Israel. The fact that their loyalty to the government of Prime Minister Siniora is an open question is one thing. More importantly, they are ill trained, ill equipped, barely better than an armed mob. They could not hope to stand up to Hizbullah if the terrorists sought to reclaim positions in southern Lebanon abandoned as a result of the IDF offensive.

I find it extremely significant that the cabinet believes this operation to the Litani River and beyond will take at least 30 days. One must assume that Olmert would not have even considered combat operations lasting that long without at least getting the US Administration’s opinion on it.

And my guess would be that he’s no longer dealing with Condi but rather the President himself:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has become increasingly dismayed over President Bush’s support for Israel to continue its war with Hezbollah.

State Department sources said Ms. Rice has been repeatedly stymied in her attempts to pressure Israel to end strikes against Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon. The sources said the secretary’s trip to the Middle East last week was torpedoed by the Israeli air strike of a Lebanese village in which 25 people were killed.

“I’ve never seen her so angry,” an aide said.

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.

In the past, Secretary’s rarely allow this kind of dirty laundry in public. And when it is aired, it is usually done with their blessing. Condi may have been shunted aside in this crisis and the Cheney faction is once again ascendant in foreign policy.

While this will lead to more dreary charges by the left that Cheney runs the government, I think that this is a case where Bush may have already decided that in order to bring the Iranians down a peg or two, Hizbullah must be defanged. And if the UN isn’t going to do it, perhaps Israel is the only bunch that can.

We haven’t heard what Bolton thinks about this yet because the resolution is still being considered by all sides. But I’ll bet he’s steaming at the French for their blatant about face in order to curry favor with the Arabs. So be it. If France wants to end up on the losing side of history once again, let her continue with her fantasies that as a player on the world stage, she actually matters.

Bush better be prepared for some truly nasty invective tossed his way over the next 30 days. I admire his stubbornness in this regard but Condi may have a point of sorts. Will there be anyone standing with us by the time a cease fire is in place?

Only the Anglo-American alliance of Britain, the Aussies, and us. It can get very lonely when you’re the only one in the world who thinks you are doing the right thing.

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.

As I recall from the Gulf War, parading prisoners for propaganda purposes is against the Geneva convention. If I am right, this is a clear violation of these prisoner’s rights:

According to Convention III Article 13, “Prisoners of war must be protected against insults and public curiosity.” I believe this was the cite used by our military during the Gulf War when Saddam showed our captured soldiers blindfolded and on television.

Ah! But you might say that the Hiz are not a “warring party” and therefore not subject to the strictures laid down by the Geneva Convention.

Au contraire, mon ami:

Article 4, Section 1: “Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.”

Hizbullah is recognized as a militia by the Lebanese government. They were formally recognized by the Lebanese parliament as “the resistance” last year. I think you’d have a hard time making a case that their prisoners do not fall under the Geneva Convention protocols.

The IDF also made a video of the interrogation that they’ve already shown on Israeli television. This violates the same strictures against “public curiosity.”

So, am I off base here? I don’t think so. Even if it is not a direct violation of the protocols, it nevertheless is beneath a civilized, humane country to parade its prisoners blindfolded for the cameras as well as making a TV program of their interrogation. It’s something more in keeping with a third world banana republic than a great nation.

Besides, why give your enemies even the slightest opening to cry “foul!” Even though you and I would find their complaints laughable given the fact that they spit on the Geneva Conventions on an hourly basis, it is unfortunate that much of the rest of the world hears what it wants to hear and believes what it wants to believe about Israel.

Yes, it’s a small thing. But we haven’t seen the captured IDF soldiers paraded before the cameras or their interrogations on TV. I see no reason why - even though they are terrorists - that we should see Hizbullah fighters treated in such a way.