Right Wing Nut House

Join me from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM central by clicking the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar for The Rick Moran Show.

Today, we’ll talk about Lebanon - it’s history, the civil war that went from 1875-1990, and what’s happening today.

We’ll also talk about the deteriorating situation in Iraq as well as the future of NASA.

You can call into the show with toll free your comments and questions at 1-888-407-1776.

UPDATE

After a somewhat forgettable show (I was distracted when talking about the history of the Lebanese Civil war by my cat among other things) the Commissar has put me on trial for “spreading foul lies over the airways.”

I wish I could get upset with our Fearless Leader but at the moment, a few days in the Lubyanka sounds swell. Could I have a little sour cream with the borscht?

This is so outrageous that I’m going to take a break from what’s happening in the Middle East long enough to spout off about this piece of jaw dropping idiocy from the New York Times.

It seems that in one of the newspaper’s online slide shows of photos from Iraq, a photographer for the paper snapped a few Polaroids of he and his buddies in the Mehdi Army killing American citizen-soldiers:

The caption under the picture reads - incredibly - “A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.” Assistant Managing Editor for Photography Michele McNally comments:

“Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”

Goldstein nails this idiocy:

Incredible courage? Well, far be it for me to question such self-congratulatory enthusiasm, but it seems to me that actual “incredible courage” would have entailed, say, Joao Silva getting word to US troops, or his bumrushing the sniper and beating him unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens.

Hinderaker adds:

It would have required courage to hang out with the Mahdi Army, if there were any likelihood that a member of the Iraqi “insurgency” would regard a representative of the New York Times as an enemy.

Apparently this Mr. Silva has an entire book of these photos of him cozying up to the jihadis entitled Me and Mookie’s Boys or maybe its called Moral Relativism for Fun and Profit.

Whatever the real name of the book, I will not identify it nor will I link to it. And perhaps some clever reporter type may want to do an indepth interview with Mr. Silva. If he did, I’d love it if he asked the photographer the Dierks Bentley question; “What were you thinking?”

For a little perspective, let’s imagine it’s 1944 in France. Here’s the “courageous” Mr. Silva covering the invasion - from a unique vantage point.

GERMAN SOLDIER PLAYING CATCH WITH AMERICAN GI

Given the cluelessness exhibited by his editor in being so profoundly touched by his “courage,” I doubt very much if Silva or the Times gave much thought to the mother or wife of that American soldier the fanatic was killing at the time he snapped the picture.

Maybe we should ask Mr. Silva to stop by the widow’s or the mother’s house and explain himself while looking her right in the eye.

Now that would take courage.

UPDATE

Dan Riehl:

I’m not sure which is more disgusting, a New York Times employee observing snipers targeting our military, or the lofty prose with which they are surrounding the pictures in a new book.

Here’s what he’s talkng about. It’s a blurb selling the book:

“This photographic body of work, recorded over twelve months, richly captures the Shi’as’ intense commitment to their faith and their indomitable spirit of sacrifice.”

“Indomitable” indeed.

UPDATE II

In my haste to compile this post, I neglected to mention that the folks at Little Green Footballs were the ones who ferreted this stupidity out in the first place.

I apologize to all Lizardoids who may have been wondering how I possibly could have forgotten them.

“A bad peace is even worse than war.”
(Publius Cornelius Tacitus)

The offensive against Hizballah is continuing with no sign from the Israelis that they plan to let up on the pressure they are applying to the Lebanese government to rein in the terrorists who continue to fire rockets willy nilly into northern Israel. In this, Prime Minister Olmert is apparently dead set; Hizballah will cease to be a threat to the citizens of Israel. He will break a lot of china in Lebanon in order to ensure that goal.

But time is not on his side. Air strikes in southern Beirut are killing dozens of civilians - women and children - while the IAF desperately tries to destroy as many of the 15,000 rockets stockpiled by the terrorists in houses and apartment buildings as they can before the death toll stirs the world community to action. The cowardly tactics of Hizballah, who use civilians as human shields to protect their arsenal of Iranian and Syrian bought missiles is once again being given a free pass by the world’s press. Hence, while Israel may be delivering massive blows to Hizballah, the “guerrillas” (as most are calling them) are winning the propaganda battle.

This is Olmerts big gamble. That he can dramatically weaken Hizballah militarily without strengthening them politically inside Lebanon. That he can do this quickly enough to forestall Syrian and Iranian assistance from amounting to much, thus humiliating them in the Arab world. And that by scrambling the politics of Lebanon, he can alter the security situation in the north by forcing the Lebanese government to finally establish sovereignty over their own border by moving army units to take up positions abandoned by the terrorists.

The problem, of course, is that each one of those elements could get wildly out of control. Hizballah could become the dominant political force in Lebanon. Syria and Iran would thus be strengthened enormously. And Lebanon could dissolve back into a state of civil war if Hizballah refuses to give up their sanctuaries bordering Israel.

Olmert has made it clear that the war will change the situation on his northern border permanently:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the fighting in the north would have “far-reaching implications” on how Israel would relate in the future to the northern border and the entire region.

Olmert, in his first public comments on the situation since Wednesday, opened Sunday’s cabinet meeting saying this is a difficult morning for Israel, and by characterizing the situation as “a wicked war by Hizbullah against the people of Israel.”

“Israel cannot accept this situation,” he said. “We have no interest in harming the Lebanese or Palestinian people. We want to live our lives quietly and as good neighbors. But unfortunately, there are those who interpreted our desire for peace in the wrong manner.”

How might the Israelis accomplish this ambitious goal?

The very first targets for the IAF in Lebanon were major bridges both north and south of Beirut. The destruction of these bridges will prevent the large scale movement of Hizballah fighters into some of the bigger cities including, it is hoped, Beirut itself. It also prevents Syria and Iran from resupplying the terrorists.

Does this presage a massive ground assault by the IDF? Not necessarily. But if Olmert and the cabinet choose that option, they have certainly set the table for it. Lebanon is locked up as tight as a drum. And not only is Hizballah prevented from taking refuge behind civilians in many population centers but their ability to concentrate forces has also been degraded significantly.

Ultimately, Israel would like to kill as many Hizballah fighters as possible. That would seem to be the only way to significantly degrade their capabilities as rockets and missiles can be replaced relatively quickly.

With Hizballah weakened, the Lebanese government, with the help of the international community, could move their forces into the border region with Israel and thus make the lives of Israelis much more secure. In a speech to the nation yesterday, Prime Minister Siniora tearfully asked the international community - specifically the UN - to help them in moving their forces south. Even with the cover of UN peacekeepers, it is unlikely that Hizballah will take such a challenge to their independent status lying down:

According to Nadim Shehadi of the London-based Chatham House think tank, the Lebanese government lead by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora “has not accepted” the abduction of Israeli soldiers as legitimate. On the other hand, Hezbollah and the Amal faction are fully supportive of the move the sparked the conflict with Israel.

[snip]

In December, 2005, the Shi’ite ministers left the cabinet over the role to be played by the International Criminal Court in the case of murdered former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

The conflict between the parties, so far successfully avoided, seems inevitable right now, Shehadi said Saturday. Lebanon would be hard pressed to function normally under such circumstances, according to the analyst.

Would conflict between Hizballah and the Lebanese army mean that the civil war that tore the country apart for 15 years be automatically reignited? No one knows the answer to that question, least of all Olmert whose gamble in this respect is his biggest. Unlike the last civil war go around, Hizballah are presently the only ones with the guns outside of the Army. Clearly, with better trained and armed men, Hizballah could run the table in Lebanon, especially if in the face of sectarian conflict, the army disintegrated as it did 30 years ago.

Such a prospect - a terrorist state with close ties to Iran and Syria on Israel’s borders - would negate any positive outcomes from the war Israel is waging against Hamas in Gaza. In short, it would be an unmitigated disaster for Israel and the west.

Finally, there must be a clock ticking somewhere in Olmert’s head regarding how much time he has to accomplish these ambitious goals. How patient can Washington afford to be? How long before Syria and/or Iran would feel compelled to intervene (if ever)? The Prime Minister has already warned the Israeli people to be prepared for a “difficult time that won’t end quickly.” How long? How quickly? Surely Olmert hears the clock ticking not only on his window of opportunity militarily but also with the Israeli people. Right now, they are united in their support for his actions. But how long before the carping, the criticism, and the backsliding occur? These questions must occupy Olmert’s thoughts as decisions are made about escalating the conflict in order to go after his Hizballah tormentors.

The only sure thing about this war is that it will eventually end. At that point, the Israelis will have to take a hard look at what they’ve gained and lost on the battlefield and at the conference table. Whether the use of force will improve their security situation in the short term is not in doubt. Whether it will have salutary effects in the long term is what Olmert’s gamble is all about.

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

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

The first part of his editorial actually makes good sense:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glen Greenwald:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

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

Chris at Jawa Report:

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

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

UPDATE II

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

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

Ed adds this regarding the ultimatum:

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

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

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

UPDATE III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’ll be talking about:

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

2. Whither Lebanon?

3. Carnival of the Clueless - on the air!

4. Plame suit.

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

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

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

I think I need a vacation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Got dat right, dog.”
(Me)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King Allah has an interesting letter to his linguistics professor.

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

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

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

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

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

1. General news updates

2. An analysis of the situation in Lebanon

3. An analysis of the situation in Gaza

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

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

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

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