Author: Scott H

Why are we in Iraq? (DeWine quotable)

NBC’s Meet the (de)Press(ed) today included conservative host Tim Russert interviewing the two candidates for a US Senate Seat in Ohio – a slot until recently thought to be an easy repeat for current Republican Senator Mike DeWine. The interview sections on foreign policy were awful – in terms of substance – with DeWine and challenger Democrat Congressman Sherrod Brown constantly berating each other with half-sentence short hand barbs and sounding frankly like little brats throwing sand at each other: “I can’t believe you said that; no I didn’t; yes you did; no, you’re wrong; yada, yada, yada.”
I miss the days when Meet the Press would have one political figure or expert guest interviewed by multiple, different journalists and the whole affair was conducted respectfully in civil tones. Alas, call it the CNN “cross-fire effect,” where the TV “news” media feeds us more vapid cock-fights than substance.
I woke up from my disgust with the MTP format when Russert asked about the growing majority Iraqi sentiment in favor of prompt US military withdrawal from Iraq. Read carefully Senator DeWine’s reply: (this is from the NBC transcript)

MR. RUSSERT: Here’s two poll questions that I think caught the attention of a lot of Americans. Let me start with Senator DeWine.
“Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout.” “Most Iraqis.” “A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.”
And then this poll. “Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops. About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces … [according to] the poll done for University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes.”
Senator DeWine, if they want us out, and they’re in favor of attacking us, why are we still there?

SEN. DeWINE: Tim, I was shocked by that as well. But you know, on reflection, this is their country. There’s a lot of things going wrong. You blame someone who is there. Still does not change that we’re not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We’re in Iraq for us. We’re–have to do what we have to do, and it goes back to what the three generals–three military leaders said. It would be a total disaster for us to leave. It is in our self-interest, the interest to protect American families, that we are in Iraq. That’s why we’re there.

Come again? Its “their country” – but, if they don’t want us there, then oh never mind, “we’re not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We’re in Iraq for us.”
Let’s see now, whatever happened to promoting democracy? Was that just for us?

Continue reading “Why are we in Iraq? (DeWine quotable)”

WP Ahmadinejad Interview & the Stealth Dialogue

Today’s Washington Post includes a remarkable interview with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, conducted by senior WaPo editor Lally Weymouth.
Ahmadinejad’s visit to the US, to speak at the UN, was intensely controversial in the US media, given the Iranian President’s harmful hard-line comments regarding the existence of Israel and the Holocaust. Columbia University felt compelled to withdraw an invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak (blaming “logistics”), and the Council on Foreign Relations downgraded a “sparring” session they hosted with him.
By the way, I urge CFR to post a full transcript of Ahmadinejad’s actual comments at their session, instead of their current report with its characterizations by critics of what was said. Whose sensitivities are being protected?
Ahmadinejad is quite the controversial figure inside Iran as well. A major Iranian reformist paper, Shargh, was suspended recently, ostensibly for running a cartoon that satirically alluded to reports of Ahmadinejad’s own mystical take on his visit to the UN last year.
All that said, I have a hunch the recent and important re-organizationof Iran’s foreign policy advisory system, authorized by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenehi, has resulted in an upgrading of the Iranian President’s understanding of international realities – and of the need for more diplomatic rhetoric.
Ahmadinejad certainly hasn’t been shy. In recent weeks, he’s given several long interviews with western media sources, including Anderson Cooper on CNN and Mike Wallace of 60 minutes. You know he did “well” by the magnitude of the vituperation being aimed in neocon circles at Mike Wallace. Just as Iranian reformists underestimated Ahmadinejad last year, so too have recent interviewers.
Ahmadinejad apparently was so emboldened by his perceived media success that he challenged Bush to a public debate – one that Bush understandably declined. (As perhaps his advisors recognized, he’d likely get “gored” – pardon the seven-year-old pun.)
Yet Ahmadinejad’s fiercest critics persist in the cardboard characterizations of Ahmadinejad as another “Hitler” – a madman with whom we cannot do any business. Robert Blackwill, a former Bush II national security official, characterized his encounter with Ahmadinejad at CFR rather bluntly, “If this man represents the prevailing government opinion in Tehran, we are headed for a massive confrontation with Iran.”
Similarly, Richard Hollbrooke, a former Clinton Administration Ambassador to the UN, today on CNN characterized Ahmadinejad’s recent statements and interviews as expressing “nothing new.”
I disagre. I think its worth examining just what Ahmadinejad has been saying – carefully – before throwing out the standard “devil” or “Hitler” hand grenades or summarilydismissing them as Hollbrooke and others have done.

Continue reading “WP Ahmadinejad Interview & the Stealth Dialogue”

Nasrallah full text “we won”

    Preface note: For the past several decades, the British and US governments, via the BBC and the former US Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) – now re-organized as the “open source center” (OSC) – have quietly collaborated in producing very valuable translations of speeches, articles, and key documents from the Middle East. Identical translations of materials, such as the following full text of Nasrallah’s speech on Friday, are usually released simultaneously. BBC versions often have helpful summaries and sub-headings inserted editorially (as below). I have reason though to suspect the US OSC side of the arrangement is being increasingly politicized, an old chronic problem, but perhaps worse lately. (The following Nasrallah translation is still not in the WNC data base — what the public can view via “depository” and subscribing libraries) As such, here’s the BBC version. In the comments, I’ll append additional reactions to the speech from Lebanon, Israel, etc.
    On substance, Nasrallah’s isn’t here giving any “red meat” to neocons about presumed “mistakes.” (e.g., “if he had known how Israel would respond, he would not have so and so….”) Instead, Nasrallah’s emphasis here is on characterizing Hizbullah’s “victory” as a triumph for all of Lebanon – one that defended Lebanon against threats from abroad and within. (comments aimed at “divide and conquer” analysis.) Note the reference to Hizbullah’s resistance as a “model” for Iraq. Consider also what is not said – esp. re. Iran. Nasrallah is no “dummy.” — Scott


—————————–
I seek God’s protection against the cursed Satan; in the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate; praise be to almighty God; blessings and peace be upon our master and prophet, the last of the prophets, Muhammad; his good, righteous, infallible family members; his noble companions; and upon all the prophets and messengers;
O beloved and honourable ones; O most honourable, pure, and generous people, may God’s peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you; [applause].
Praise be to God, who fulfilled His promise to us and who granted us, Lebanon, and the people of Lebanon victory over the enemy of Lebanon. Praise be to God who made us proud, enabled us to hold fast, and gave us security. Praise be to God, on whom we relied and to whom we turned repentantly. As He promised, He has always been the best protector. Praise be to God for His victory, assistance, and support.
Brothers and sisters, Ladies and Gentlemen.
On 22 September, you once again surprised the world and truly proved that you are a great, proud, loyal, and courageous people. [Applause]
Rally involves risks
For some days now, many people have been waging a psychological war on this rally, just as they waged a psychological war on the Resistance. [Boos] They said that this square would be bombed and that this podium would be destroyed in order to scare people and keep them from coming. On 22 September, you prove, by crowning the victory rally, that you are more courageous than [you were on] 12 July and 14 August. [Applause]
Standing before you and amongst you involves risk for you and me. There were other choices, up until just half an hour ago, we were discussing [my participation]. However, my heart, mind, and soul did not allow me to address you from afar nor through a screen. [Applause]
The utmost one expects is for the enemy to make a mistake or commit a crime. However, does this enemy not know who we are? We are the sons of that imam, who said: Are you threatening me with death? We are used to death and our dignity is derived from the martyrdom God grants us. [Applause]
You are all welcome – from the fighting and resisting south, to the steadfast Al-Biqa, to the loyal north, to the proud mountain, to the Beirut of Arabism, to the [southern] suburb of loftiness and dignity. You are all welcome – from the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon; you are all welcome – from Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, and every country that came to us to celebrate and rejoice.
God’s peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you; peace be upon your martyrs and the families of your martyrs; peace be upon your wounded people and their bleeding wounds; peace be upon your prisoners; peace be upon your blood and tears; peace be upon your orphans and widows; peace be upon your demolished houses; peace be upon your burnt property; peace be upon your souls and strong will, which is stronger than the mountains of Lebanon.
“Strategic, historic, divine victory”
Brothers and sisters,
We are today celebrating a big strategic, historic, and divine victory.

Continue reading “Nasrallah full text “we won””

Patrick Lang: “The Best Defense…”

On 9/11, the Miller Center at the University of Virginia featured a talk by Colonel Patrick Lang – who returned here by reputation as a voice of reason, experience, “independence,” and wit regarding the Middle East. He did not disappoint.
Miller Center lectures are a rather unique phenomena here. First, they are popular. For this one, I arrived five minutes “early” (e.g. very late) – to be escorted to the fourth and last overflow room. Not bad for forums that ordinarily are simulcast on the net. Yet Miller audiences are hardly filled with bright-eyed students; the Miller Center is off the main “grounds” (campus) and students rarely comprise more than a handful amid the throngs. Instead, these sessions draw from the extraordinary community of retired policy professionals who seem to be flocking here to Hoo’ville.
Colonel Lang himself is “retired” from full-time government service, having served with distinction in the U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret) and then at the highest levels of U.S. Military Intelligence. His training includes a Masters Degree in Middle East studies from Utah, and he served in the mid-1970’s as the first Professor of Arabic at West Point. Today, he combines ongoing consulting and training projects with frequent media appearances, ranging from PBS to CBS to BBC. For more, see his bio and publications highlights, via this link on his blog.
Colonel Lang “sticks out” in Washington for his informed willingness to take on what passes for “received wisdom” regarding the Middle East. His publications include the memorable “Drinking the Koolaid” in Middle East Policy. It’s still an important, sobering read. Quite far afield from Graham Allison’s realist “rational choice” decision-making model, Lang attributes the disastrous decision to invade Iraq to a loss of nerve among policy makers and analysts. Instead of honorably sticking to their convictions, even if it meant “falling on their swords,” career-preserving senior policy makers were more inclined to drink from a Jonestown-like vat of poisonous illusions. “Succumbing to the prevailing group-think” drawn up by the small core of neoconservative “vulcans,” Lang’s former intelligence colleagues “drank the koolaid” and said nothing, leaving them henceforth among the “walking dead” in Washington.
Speaking here on 9/11, Lang’s comments were wide-ranging and stimulating; he didn’t stick narrowly to his talk title on Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah, but he had much to suggest related to all three. I offer a few highlights here:
On Military Options against Iran:
Here Lang summarized his now widely cited National Interest article from earlier this spring. (Issue #83 – no link available). Even though Lang and co-author Larry Johnson seem to accept standard worst-case assessments of Iran’s nuclear aspirations, their article makes a compelling case that there are no “realistic” military options to attack Iran, by land or air, conventional, or exotic. Air assaults, whether by Israel or the US, are a “mirage” – unlikely to succeed for long, while incurring the risks of severe retaliations by Iranian assets.
To Lang, these dangers are obvious. Yet spelling them out serves the purpose of going on record so that neoconservatives in the future cannot claim – as they did with Iraq – that the disaster could not have been foreseen. This time, we’ve been warned.
On the greatest source of conflict within Islam:
If I understood him correctly, Lang was not as concerned about a battle between extremists and political pietists, deeming the “pietists” overwhelmingly still in the ascendant. Instead, Lang’s “bigest concern” for the Muslim world was over the “revolution” in the Shia-Sunni equation. The old order of “Sunnis rule and Shias survive” is now in question. Lang depicted Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear option as the latest extension of a long-forming Shia effort to resist domination from the Sunni realm.
Yet Lang did emphasize that Muslims of all stripes come together in resentment towards Israel — as a direct affront to the well being of the faith. To accept the existence of Israel means having to admit that the Islamic world has been truncated, that part of the “realm of God” had been given back. Hizbullah thus has become widely popular among all Muslims, not just among Shia, for its demonstrated capacity to resist both Zionists and the modern day crusaders.
Iran’s support for Hizbullah:
Lang deems Iran’s support for Lebanon’s Hizbullah as “first and foremost” useful for Iran’s pursuit of respect and leadership within the Islamic world. Yet Iranian financial assistance for Lebanon has shrewdly earned friends among Arab Christians and Sunnis too. In this light, Iran’s low-key strategy has been quite successful; hardly a rat-hole, such “success” draws more support.
On Why Hizbullah beat Israel:

Continue reading “Patrick Lang: “The Best Defense…””

A Different Face on Iran

I admit to having been “busy” of late; perils of being a long term Iran watcher. Yet I, for one, am delighted at the prospect of the former Iranian President visiting Charlottesville and Thomas Jefferson’s legacy here this week – hopefully more than once.
Speaking of TJ, I have also been “busy” this past week starting my studies as a “Fellow” at the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies, at Monticello, where I will be researching and writing about just what Thomas Jefferson meant in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence by “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.”
Imagine that…. a “decent respect” for the opinions of humanity. (!)
Much more on both subjects, TJ & Khatami, in upcoming posts, as well as on the (over)-loaded subjects of Iran’s nuclear aspirations and Iran’s not so simple relationship to Lebanon….
For the moment though, I begin my own Iran reflections by highlighting a compelling, if all too easily missed, essay found in yesterday’s Washington Post – in the Travel Section – written by Steven Knipp.
Knipp’s nicely written account of multiple ironies he encountered during a recent fist journey inside Iran mirrors my own experiences, travels that began fifteen and a half years ago. Never mind that he is an experienced international journalist, well accustomed to reporting from the most difficult venues, Knipp begins with the admission of “being slightly uneasy about going to Iran.”
I know that feeling well; I first went to Iran in late January 1991. Back then, the diplomatic hostage saga had “only” ended a decade before, Iran’s devastating war with Iraq had stopped just over two years previously – and the effects were still widely visible. Adding to my jitters, American bombs were falling – the first time – on Saddam’s Iraq. So even though I had long studied Iran, I too worried that I might face hostile treatment for being a citizen of “The Great Satan.” (Shatan-e Bozorg)
Yet like me, Knipp encounters just the opposite:

Everywhere I went — from the traffic-choked streets of Tehran in the north to the dusty desert town of Yazd in central Iran, to the elegant cultural centers of Isfahan and Shiraz — I was overwhelmed by the warmth and, dare I say it, pro-Americanism of the people I met.
Ponder the irony of that last statement for a moment. While much of the rest of the world seems to be holding their collective noses at us Americans, in Iran people were literally crossing the road to shake an American’s hand and say hello. Who knew?

Knipp then recounts how he was initially coy about where he was from – America. He marvels at how Iranians time and again would react warmly to discovering that he was from America, and observes, “For better or worse, Iranians are avid fans of America: its culture, films, food, music, its open, free-wheeling society.”
I too learned the same lesson on my first visit, while at the shrine to Ayatollah Khomeini. I had lost track of time as I stood very close to Khomeini’s remains – mesmerized by the ornate setting, the families on picnics, and by the many earnest pilgrims leaving donations and requests in the lattice structure surrounding the coffin.

Continue reading “A Different Face on Iran”

Bernard Lewis Watch

Bernard Lewis, where are ye when we need ye?
(Irony alert)
At a time when nattering bloggers, columnists, traditional conservatives, and even neoconservatives are openly questioning our rightly guided President’s mental and psychic faculties, we need you, oh wise and venerable Princeton high priest of neoconservative orthodoxy, to really show us the true straight path to enlightenment, to rally our troops around the “doctrine” that bears your name and directed us so brilliantly in liberating and controlling Iraq.
We cannot think of anyone who has been so astonishingly consistent in his prediction accuracy about what would happen after the US invaded Iraq. Even as you now counsel patience, we can see that your vision of secular democracy, imposed forcefully and creatively from without, is now flourishing everywhere in the Middle East. It is simply miraculous that with a track record like yours, you retain such a bipartisan following among US political leaders.
We are of course most grateful that two weeks ago, you capped off your distinguished career by giving us clarity for today – August 22nd. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, you drew from your vast experience to declare that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad – indeed all of Islamic Iran – was the real crazy threat to the world and must never be permitted to have nuclear anything. Islamic Iranians are, well, just too, too, too…. Islamic, to be permitted the luxury of a MAD nuclear capacity.
In your essay, you selectively invoked a 25 year-old quote from Iran’s revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, to inform us that Islamic Iranians really can only think in terms of a cataclysmic choice between annihilating the rest of the world, or joining hands in martyrdom. Never mind that this quote came in the context of perceived global support for Iraq’ invasion of Iran, and no, you never mentioned that Khomeini himself interpreted his own model for Iran’s relations with the world, “neither East nor West,” as meaning ties between respectful equals, rather than the old “lion vs. lamb” patterns.
You instead keep it brilliantly simple for us – and especially for our much challenged President. Its either us, or them. Let’s not be confused with the quarter century of subsequent smokescreen meant to conceal Iran’s true intentions. So if they’re not with us, they must be against us.
From your ascended status, you specifically prophesied for us that today, August 22nd could “possibly” be the day the end of the world will be made manifest by Iran. You were suspicious that the Iranian President had chosen today for Iran’s response to the latest round of European proposals to rein in Iran’s nuclear program. Given that some Muslims commemorate this as the day of the Prophet Mohammad’s miraculous flight to Jerusalem, you warned that, “this might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world.”
You didn’t even need to cite any evidence of such actual thinking; your steadfast WSJ editors have such faith in your genius. Yahr!
So if you have not yet taken flight yourself, we beseech you now to help us mere mortals fathom how Iran’s announcements today simply comfirm your divinations of the end of the world. As such, how should we then live? How shall we respond in unison to any suggestions to the contrary? And which stocks of companies on the plains of Armageddon do you advise for us to sell short?

Haunting Images from Israel

Maybe I’m still too human. I resist viewing the many available web pictures of death in Lebanon and Israel in the recent carnage – even as my head tells me I must. As noted here before, the American viewing public had a profoundly sanitized version of the Israeli pounding of Lebanon, while the rest of the world witnessed a steady horrific stream of Lebanese civilian corpses, like the 3 dozen or so children who perished (again) at Qana.
My hesitance stems from analytical awareness of the power of such images to change thinking, unfairly at times, if we do not know the context of a sensational picture. Inevitably, images can be powerful tools, for good or ill, shaping international opinion of a given event. Contrary to Tony Cordesman, that’s why “smart” combatants today energetically endeavor to promote, repress, or sugar coat horrific images to suit their side’s agenda.
Never mind the cerebral level, the pictures from the past six weeks in Lebanon remain – a testament powerfully tugging at the heart and soul, for those with the courage to look. Such a waste!
Yet it wasn’t images of carnage that awoke me last night – like Jefferson’s “firebell in the night.” Instead, I am especially haunted by the memory of very different type of photo that I first saw here and then here.
No, they are not of dead children soaked in blood or caked in chemical ash, and they’re not the images of the broken “ragdoll” bodies of someone’s now departed, beloved child.
The pictures that eat at me even worse than the sight of death are of otherwise cherubic Israeli children writing messages and drawing images on Israeli shells bound for Lebanon.
One side of me still wanted to believe that there has to be an explanation, that these have to be doctored, or even fabricated, or explained away. I wish.
From the checking I’ve done, the photos are indeed legitimate, and different versions of the same scene apparently were taken by different photo services (AP, AFP, Ha’aretz, etc.) on July 17th.
While I am far better at searching for texts and documents via venerable tools like Nexus and Dow, I have a hunch that the original publisher/owners of these photos are shy, at best, about these photos, as I’ve encountered several no longer functioning photo links. Yet I am also learning that several reputable photo web site blogs have featured the photos and now store them in “permanent” links, such as via “Flikr.” See here, here, and here.
I’ve read claims that these photos have been the focus of scores (or more) of blog write-ups. However, it is my sense that the US mainstream media, TV and print, has generally ignored the photos. (Readers please chime in if you have any examples to the contrary.)
Responding to an internet buzz about the photos, no less than the Jerusalem Post (on-line only) on July 23rd sourced Israeli officials to confirm that the “graffitti incident” really did occur, that the photos were of an actual event. Indeed, the Associated Press photos were apparently taken by an Israeli photojournalist, Sebastian Scheiner.
According to the Jerusalem Post, the Israeli army did not condone the children’s shell decorating session. Then again, they obviously did not stop it. The Post cited an un-named official close to Israel’s public relations campaign who said that there was “no way” to frame the incident in a positive light. “Some people are simply irresponsible,” said the official.
That hasn’t stopped some from trying to “spin” it.

Continue reading “Haunting Images from Israel”

Chuck Hagel: Thinking

I have long been interested in Senator Chuck Hagel, a self-styled “Eisenhower Republican” from Nebraska. Still mulling a run for the Presidency in 2008, Hagel’s latest bout of independent “free thinking” deserves greater attention and scrutiny.
Senator Hagel, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, presents a “problem” for the widespread media and academic characterizations of an unprecedented “polarization” in American politics between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy, and Iraq in particular. No less than the New York Times on July 30th ran a breathless story that began,

“No military conflict in modern times has divided Americans on partisan lines more than the war in Iraq, scholars and pollsters say — not even Vietnam. And those divisions are likely to intensify in what is expected to be a contentious fall election campaign.”

The cited distinguished experts, including Duke Professor Oli Holsti, essentially reduce Americans to mere pawns of their party affiliations, with Republicans being staunch defenders and Democrats as intense critics of the Iraq war. The subsequent defeat of “pro-war” Senator Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut’s Democratic primary ostensibly would seem to support that line of analysis.
But the New York Times writers and the scholars they quote either forget or consciously ignore Senator Hagel and what he represents — a growing, if still timid, spread of dissident “independent” thinking within Republican ranks.
In the days before the Times story about “unprecedented polarization,” Hagel was out criticizing the Bush Administration, first in a July 28th speech before the Brookings Institution and the next day in a blistering interview with his home-state paper, the Omaha World Herald.
At Brookings, Hagel’s careful remarks emphasized the need for a multilateral approach to the Middle East, for sustained intense diplomatic engagement, with both friends and adversaries, and for the US to be genuinely seen as “fair” in its Middle East dealings – “the currency of trust” and the “wellspring of building consensus.”
While Hagel asserted that “The United States will remain committed to defending Israel….

it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice. Achieving a lasting resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is as much in Israel’s interest as any other country in the world.
Unending war will continually drain Israel of its human capital, resources, and energy as it fights for its survival. The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle East and the world. Neither can allow themselves to drift into an “us against the world” global optic or zero-sum game. That would marginalize America’s global leadership, trust and influence, further isolate Israel, and prove to be disastrous for both countries as well as the region.

Ironically, given events, Hagel also called for the revival of the 2002 Beirut Declaration approach to peacemaking, a Saudi/Arab League plan to recognize Israel’s right to exist – and simultaneously to establish a recognized and viable Palestinian state. (a plan then opposed by Israel)
In the follow-up interview with the Omaha World Herald, Hagel called conditions in Iraq “an absolute replay of Vietnam,” where U.S. soldiers have become “easy targets” in a country that has descended into “absolute anarchy.” Hagel was particularly disturbed by reports that the Pentagon was calling for an additional 5,000 US troops for Iraq: “That isn’t going to do any good. It’s going to have a worse effect,” Hagel said. “They’re destroying the United States Army.”
Hagel’s candor has one Nebraska blogger marveling,

My God, a Republican Senator talking about the reality of the situation in Iraq – not just wagging a purple finger in the air, not just tossing-off meaningless platitudes about staying the course.
Though it’s undeniably too simplistic to draw too close a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, it’s comforting to know that Hagel – a man who actually lived through the horrors of war – keeps an actual eye to the lessons of history rather than just irresponsibly reading from the Bush Administration’s talking points.

At the end of July, on the floor of the Senate, Hagel repeated much of his Brookings speech, prefaced with a harsher criticism of the Bush Administration’s then 3 week old non-approach to ending the Israel-Lebanon confrontation:

“How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon, is going to enhance America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East?”
“The sickening slaughter on both sides must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease fire. This madness must stop.”

Before Fox Fire
Hagel’s criticisms at the end of July were largely ignored, until the Senator appeared yesterday, August 20th, on Fox News Sunday, with Chris Wallace. In the following section, I will be quoting from the transcript extensively, and with emphasis added on especially interesting quotes.

Continue reading “Chuck Hagel: Thinking”

Quotes for the record:

All too much rhetorical nonsense relating to the Lebanon crisis is afoot. Where to start? Many of the themes I raised here weeks ago are finally being taken up meekly by reporters and commentators. No comfort in that.
I do not think I have ever been more embarrassed and worried for my country – and I say that as one whom my former colleagues at Houghton would have accused of being quite the conservative, patriotic type. Maybe I got converted somewhere. Or maybe I’ve been quite free of ideological straight-jackets all along. Ah never mind, let the facts – and the quotes below – speak.
So as I craft essays on, among other things, Iran and Hizbullah, here’s a selection of particularly memorable quotes re. Lebanon related matters from the past week or so, with my own brief comments inserted:
Retired Israeli army Col. Gal Luft, first quoted in Washington Post essay by Wright & Ricks on 19 July:

“Israel is attempting to create a rift between the Lebanese population and Hezbollah supporters by exacting a heavy price from the elite in Beirut. The message is: If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land.”

Or in the “open ended” words of Israeli chief of Staff, Brigadier General Dan Halutz, “Nothing is safe (in Lebanon), as simple as that.”
Dr. Martin Accad, academic dean of the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary of Lebanon, writing on 25 July in Christianity Today (an influential “evangelical” weekly)

“Seven hundred thousand out of a total Lebanese population of 3.5 million, 20 percent of the population, mostly Shiites, are now being cared for and given refuge by mostly Christian schools, churches, and
other humanitarian organizations. This is the story of the Good Samaritan at a mega scale! And to think that this is the outcome of a strategy that meant to rouse anti-Hezbollah feelings among the Lebanese population and government. Talk about a failed strategy! Of course, this has happened so many times before that any thoughtful
tactician would have learned the lesson by now, but military muscle is always too hedonistic and narcissistic to listen to the voice of reason and history.”

Fascinating – considering the source that published this quote. Lately, it seems that one wi’ll find more “balance” in some “evangelical” Christian sources – home of “dispensationalism” – than you will on CNN domestic, especially “Blitzer-world”…. (CNN International is more like BBC – but very few Americans can get it.)
Zbigniew Brzezinski, from a speech on 20 July 2006

“I hate to say this but I will say it. I think what the Israelis are doing today for example in Lebanon is in effect, in effect–maybe not in intent–the killing of hostages. The killing of hostages. Because when you kill 300 people, 400 people, who have nothing to do with the provocations Hezbollah staged, but you do it in effect deliberately by being indifferent to the scale of collateral damage, youÕre killing hostages in the hope of intimidating those that you want to intimidate. And more likely than not you will not intimidate them. You are simply outrage them and make them into permanent enemies with the number of such enemies increasing.”

And from the same session’s Q&A:

Secretary of State Rice’s trip to the Middle East will be like “sitting in front of a mirror, talking to herself” if she does not deal diplomatically with the major players.

Continue reading “Quotes for the record:”

Is it “helpful” and “appropriate” to seek peace yet?

Spokespersons for the Bush Administration have been doing linguistic gymnastics to explain how the US is both “mourning” the loss of innocent life in Lebanon, but not yet showing any signs of actively pushing for a cease-fire. When asked repeatedly (July 20) about Secretary of State Rice’s plans to travel to the region, her spokesperson Sean McCormack’s evasive replies included this classic double-speak gem:

She wants to go to the region to — when she believes it’s helpful and useful — to help — work on a lasting and durable political solution to end the violence.

Golly whiz. Just when will, or might that have been? Five years ago? Or how about when this latest round of violence first flared up? But no, that’s apparently not what the Administration now has in mind. Instead, according to McCormack,

“You’re not going to see a return to the kind of diplomacy I think that we’ve seen before where you try to negotiate an end to the violence that leaves the parties in place and where you have status quo ante. Whereby groups like Hezbollah can simply regroup, rearm, only to fight again another day and to be able to, as I said before, at a whim, cause violence and instability in the region. I don’t think anybody wants — nobody wants that. Maybe Hezbollah and its backers want that, but certainly I don’t think you’re hearing that from anybody else.”

In short, the US publicly is backing Israel’s position that no cease fire is needed until after Hizbullah is no more. Anybody who thinks differently is castigated as a “backer” of Hizbullah. Earlier this week, Tony Snow darkly dismissed Helen Thomas’ probing questions as “presenting the Hizbullah view,” — all the more demeaning since the 86 year old Thomas is of Lebanese heritage.
America’s Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, was even more blunt in questioning whether a ceasefire would be effective or even possible:

“Any ceasefire is going to have to be accompanied by a qualitative change in the situation…. The simple reflexive action of asking for a ceasefire is not something that is really appropriate in a situation like this. Because you have to know who the parties would be to any cessation of hostilities. How do you get a ceasefire with a terrorist organization? I’m not sure it’s possible.”

With apologies to John Lennon, all John Bolton is saying is give war a chance.

Continue reading “Is it “helpful” and “appropriate” to seek peace yet?”