Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Slaughter in Iraq. Human history predicts much more to come.



History is the only guide that we have to predict future events. Government, religion, politics, and law are all based on the past. There are reoccurring themes. Slaughter and mayhem in World War I and WWII led to the creation of the European Union. The cost was fifty million dead and unimaginable destruction.

When the blood lust was satisfied and all alternatives to war were exhausted, a power of uncontested strength and a demonstrated history of willingness to use that power stepped forward. The US provided the security for a willing Europe to make a meaningful change. That is history. It happened because all parties wanted it to be.

That formula does not exist in the Muslim world. They have not killed enough of each other yet. They will.

50 men 'executed' in Iraq terror carnage
David Byers and agencies
Gunmen have executed up to 50 Sunnis in an ethnically divided Iraqi town, in what appeared to be a horrific revenge attack for the slaughtering of 75 mainly Shia Muslims in a double-truck bombing only hours before.

In signs that the sectarian conflict in the north-western Iraqi community of Tal Afar is rapidly spiralling out of control, dozens of men were randomly shot in the head by rampaging gunmen in an overnight attack at the Sunni district of al-Wahda.

Police and military sources claim that the gang, some of whom may be off duty Shia policemen,
stormed through the neighbourhood, firing at their victims at close range and leaving bodies piling up in homes and on Tal Afar's streets.

A doctor at the town's main hospital - still overwhelmed with casualties after the earlier double suicide bombing - this morning confirmed that all those who died had been shot in the head in deliberate execution style.

In the first of yesterday's bombing attacks, one of the bombers was reported to have lured victims to buy wheat loaded onto his truck before blowing himself up. The second exploded was in a used car lot. The death toll from the blasts was still rising this morning, as many of the injured are reported to be in a serious condition.

A doctor at Tal Afar's main hospital said that he was rapidly losing control of the situation.

"I wish you can come and see all the bodies. They are lying in the grounds. We don’t have enough space in the hospital. All of the victims were shot in the head," he told Reuters.

"No less than 45 people were killed. I’ve never seen such a thing in my life." Police and military officials later put the casualty figure at around 50.

The attacks follow an upsurge in violence in Baghdad and outside the capital in recent days which has showed no sign of abating.

US and Iraqi security forces have deployed thousands more soldiers in the Iraqi capital to try to stem a sectarian war threatening to tear the country apart, and the US has increased its own troop deployment in a controversial troop 'surge.'

The Tal Afar carnage is all the more ironic because George W Bush last year used the town as an example of the progress being made in Iraq after US-led forces freed it from al Qaeda in an offensive in 2005.


52 comments:

  1. 2164th: "The Tal Afar carnage is all the more ironic because George W Bush last year used the town as an example of the progress being made in Iraq after US-led forces freed it from al Qaeda in an offensive in 2005."

    It's whack-a-mole. Petraeus can peel off a battalion to secure Talafar again, and the civil war will shift to Ramadi. The terrorists have the initiative. We have to defend everywhere, so we are weak everywhere. Let's step aside for a year or two, let the assholes have their civil war, then come in again when they beg us to, so there's no more of this talk of an "occupation".

    ReplyDelete
  2. "T", you said "IT"!

    We are in DEFENSE not OFFENSE, and that's our problem. We have to become the real bullies in the ME and around the world, as it relates to the Terrorists.

    As discussed here many times the administration is not willing so the slaughter and carnage will continue.

    The "Warmonger" who is willing to bash heads early on will save more lives than the "Peacemonger" who delays the inevitable and enables more slaughter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tis better to whack a mole than to kill a terrorist.
    Support the long war.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chertoff would better serve this country cleaning toilets in Hollywood, thereby reducing the demand for illegal maids.

    Security agency lobbies for 'open' borders
    Homeland Security effort demonstrates USA 'a welcoming nation'
    Michael Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security chief

    The federal department assigned to make the United States borders secure and prevent the admission of terrorists who could create another national catastrophe like that of 9/11 in which thousands of innocent Americans were killed now is promoting open borders.

    The Department of Homeland Security's website features a section that is called "Secure and Open Borders," where it provides information about a visa waiver program to make it easier for people to travel across national borders with less documentation, as well as a program called US-VISIT.

    That program is a "top priority" to enhance security and ensure integrity of the immigration system but it also "facilitates legitimate travel and trade" and "protects the privacy of our visitors."

    "US-VISIT is helping us demonstrate that we remain a welcoming nation and that we can keep America's doors open and our nation secure," the department says.

    The pronouncements follow the vision brought to Homeland Security by Secretary Michael Chertoff, who said recently that a visitor's first impression of the United States is lasting.

    "We lose a lot of ground if people come to this country and have a bad experience. And so, when we protect our borders, and I'm second to none in my determination to make sure that are borders are protected, we have to protect them in a way that doesn't close them…"

    "We want to have safe borders but open borders," he said. "Now, how do we do this? Well, earlier this year Secretary [of State Condoleeza} Rice and I, at the State Department, announced a series of initiatives to promote easier and more welcoming flow of people into the United States."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also better to construct an artificially large Strawman out of Iran than to address the fact that the Sauds, Jordanians, and Syrians are responsible for enabling the impossible situation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bush's Royal Trouble

    Why Is King Abdullah Saying No to Dinner?

    Adds an admirer who tracks Rice's intentions and assessments in the Middle East: "Condi is doing everything she can. But she is dancing with a corpse that just keeps flopping over in another direction every time she tries to move it."

    A few months ago, Bandar was championing the confrontational "realignment" approach in Saudi family councils: Iran's power would be broken, the Syrians would have to give up hegemonic designs on Lebanon, etc., etc. Now the Saudi prince visits Tehran and Moscow regularly. He helped set the stage for the Palestinians' Mecca accord, which has caused Israel to reduce what little cooperation it felt it could extend to Abbas.

    And he delivered the king's regrets about dinner. (The White House declined all comment about the April 17 dinner and Bandar's visit.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. That would be less than pleasant:
    Dancing with a flopping corpse.
    Even Condi deserves better.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If the POTUS would call a news conference over at Walter Reed and in front of an audience of nine hundred and eleven family survivors of 911 and nine hundred and eleven wounded veterans and would say,
    " I ask all Americans to voluntarily buy a car that will get 30 mpg and use it so that as a nation we will no longer import any Opec oil."

    How many would respond? Americans did in WWII.

    If the president promised a seven year interest free loan, would that increase their level of patriotism?

    ReplyDelete
  9. 2164 asks: If Bush would say: "I ask all Americans to voluntarily buy a car that will get 30 mpg and use it so that as a nation we will no longer import any Opec oil." How many would respond? Americans did in WWII.

    The Marines are at war. America is at the mall, spending those tax cuts Bush gave us. The only sacrifices Bush has asked us to make for the war on terrorism are:

    - The lives of 3,600 troops, and no timeline for ending the slaughter.

    - Borrowing $500 billion dollars from China, to be paid back by the very same boys and girls who are dying in Iraq, when they are in their 40s and 50s.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Liberals want the NO Oil economy.
    (but they'll keep their SUV's)
    "Conservatives" consider unnecessary consumption a measure of our freedom.
    (even as we enslave ourselves to fascists)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Realistically, as Trish and 'Rat have noted, the opportunity for the correct response to 9-11 was lost early on when W was too compassionate to act on the anger of the American Populace.
    (to be kind)

    ReplyDelete
  12. President Marks End of Ramadan at White House Ceremony
    Remarks by the President in Honor of Eid Al-Fitr
    The Diplomatic Reception Room

    1:12 P.M. EST 17 December 2001

    THE PRESIDENT: Welcome. It's good to see everybody. Thank you all for coming. We want to thank you for coming to the White House to celebrate Eid. It's so nice of you to be here. It reminds us how much we all have in common, how similar boys and girls are, no matter what their religion may be. So thanks for being here today. We're really thrilled you're here.

    Eid is a time of joy, after a season of fasting and prayer and reflection. Each year, the end of Ramadan means celebration and thanksgiving for millions of Americans. And your joy during this season enriches the life of our great country. This year, Eid is celebrated at the same time as Hanukkah and Advent. So it's a good time for people of these great faiths, Islam, Judaism and Christianity, to remember how much we have in common: devotion to family, a commitment to care for those in need, a belief in God and His justice, and the hope for peace on earth.

    We also share a custom I know all of you are excited about, and that's giving gifts to children. And after this is over, I have a little gift for you, from the White House. This season is meant to be a time of rejoicing, as well as a time of generosity. I'm proud that our country, during Eid, is helping the people of Afghanistan. And I'm proud that the children of America, through America's Fund for Afghan Children, are giving food and clothes and toys to the children of Afghanistan.

    The people of Afghanistan have suffered so much, and we're committed to helping them in their time of hardship and in their time of need. These are challenging days for our nation, but holidays like this one remind us about how much we have to be thankful for, and that God delights in joy and generosity of men and women and children. People of every faith are welcome here in the people's house. People of every background are welcome to come here to the White House.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That scared the living shit out the jihaadis.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yeah, but Karen Hughes had 3 Orgasms.
    Fascist are welcome at the WH:
    What could be sexier than that?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "It reminds us how much we all have in common, how similar boys and girls are, no matter what their religion may be."
    ---
    Would that be before, or after your mother teaches you how to become a suicide bomber?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rice's Amnesia

    The hollowness of the description of the current process as "initial" is made clear by another comment of the secretary yesterday, in which she spoke of actions that the Palestinian Authority could take to "contribute significantly to the fulfillment of their people's longing for a better life and a state of their own — steps that must begin with abandoning terrorism." Fifteen years after Madrid, 13 years after the White House handshake, an American secretary of state is still urging the Palestinian Arabs to "begin" by abandoning terrorism.

    Hope springs eternal, and peace sometimes takes a long time to cultivate. Some day perhaps the Palestinian Arab leaders will abandon terrorism. But more than 13 years into an attempt to negotiate with a terrorist gang called the Palestine Liberation Organization, it is no longer a moment to talk about steps being "initial." If there were any logic to the effort, America would have long since dropped its attempts to negotiate with the PLO, or to pressure Israel to do so, and embarked on a genuinely new beginning of sponsoring negotiations between Israel and non-Arafat Palestinian Arabs. Those would be discussions that Ms. Rice could describe as "the initial step on the path to peace" without embarrassing herself or appearing to have come down with a case of amnesia.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ___SFC Thomas Nichols is also a fellow blogger and posts at JACK ARMY as well as guest blogging: VA JOE.



    “I do think that many people speak before listening, though. What I mean is that they take one news article or commentary and run with it, forming opinions and making political statements without gathering more information and opinions. I wish more folks would read more and listen more to the folks that are fighting this war.”

    “There is a segment of our country that is engaged in an all-out war against the current administration and the current commander-in-chief in particular. I don’t know why exactly, but it is destructive and demotivating, to say the least.”

    Interview With A Warrior

    H/T to the Rottweiler

    ***

    Reporting bad news is not the same as enjoying the reporting of bad news.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wonkette comment:
    "Dear Tony,
    I Hate You!
    signed,
    God"

    ReplyDelete
  19. Should we be silent about the Bush family taking millions from fascist anti-semites, Allen?

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's demotivating to know that warriors and innocent Iraqis are dying because truth has become a stranger to the narative of the WOT.

    "Terrorists and State Sponsors of Terror"

    Cowboy Up!
    (actually, Canuck, Frum)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Liebermann:
    "Democratic Presidents have policed Civil Wars before."
    (Bubba)
    Or, just deny it is a Civil war.
    (legalistic)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gonzo Must Go
    ---
    WHITE HOUSE, U.S. Attorneys
    THE EDITORS: Alberto Gonzales should resign. “Time to Go

    ReplyDelete
  23. "While we defended him from some of the outlandish charges made during his confirmation hearings, we have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability.

    Nor has his conduct at any stage of this controversy gained our confidence."
    ---
    Yeah, but he's a good old Texas Bud.
    (that covers up child molesters)
    What more could you want?

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Sunni Civil War
    Al Qaeda 's campaign against the Sunni tribal and insurgent leaders who oppose al Qaeda, or are considering it

    ReplyDelete
  25. 2164th wrote:

    "If the president promised a seven year interest free loan, would that increase their level of patriotism?"

    Interesting concept of patriotism - Patriotism for sale here, special new price!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Important notice:

    New Century Mortgage Corporation and Home123 Corporation are unable to continue the origination or funding of mortgage loans, and no new loans are being accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  27. doug,

    re: silence on Bush family connections to fascists

    Did I say that? No, I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Do not fear, tiger.
    I'm made of tougher stuff than habu's ravings can dent, not with name calling and cussin'.

    As I suggested yesterday, the Dems are now "going slow". Seems an Easter vaction is in order, up there on the Hill, starting Friday.
    Before there is a conference committee to reconcile the differences in the House and Senate Bills.

    The Congreess returns about the same time the money runs out.
    Mr Bush will get the Bill on the Deadline, HE will defund the troops with the veto. Then the debate on the Hill renews, after the money pool is dry.

    How does the President defeat that timeline? I realize Mr Bush has trouble with schedules, target dates and timelines, not without cause. But he will lose the inititive, again.

    Perhaps Mr Rove has lost his "touch", to long from the mailroom to have the "feel" for the public. Perhaps not. Maybe Mr Murtha and Ms Pelosi will be shamed into giving the President what he wants, thse two and JFKerry, et al.

    Any bets?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ash,

    I want to make patriotism as painless as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Here's another General, this one retired. Let's see what he has to say:

    Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, former president of the National Defense University, likened the Iraq situation to that of Vietnam at the end of 1967. ...
    ...
    Gard expressed concern that Iraq was depleting the capabilities of America's military at a time when the nation faces serious challenges elsewhere.

    "This war has ripped apart the active Army and Marine Corps, as well as the National Guard and Reserves, who are no longer in a position to perform the emergency kinds of operations that may be necessary in this country," he said.

    "It took us 10 years to recover from Vietnam. We can't afford to have to rebuild an Army and Marine Corps for 10 years given what's happening in the world today," Gard said. "Spending the vitality and the readiness of our armed force on a sideshow war of choice is irresponsible."


    Those Generals, so caustic and snide.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This fellow from the American Enterprise Institue sees it this way:

    Playing chicken on war funding
    By John Fortier
    March 27, 2007
    The game of chicken has begun. All previous efforts to express dissatisfaction with the war mean nothing. The real political game is the Iraq supplemental. If it is vetoed or killed in the Senate, someone will be blamed: Republicans for stopping it or Democrats for connecting it to a troop withdrawal.

    This gentleman thinks the President will prevail, that his communication skills will break through the MSM and reach the US public.

    In the end, Democrats are not likely to prevail against President Bush in a veto fight. After all of the political combat, the supplemental that will eventually pass into law will not have a definite date for withdrawal; it may have a recommended timetable, benchmarks, and words of disapproval, but it will not absolutely force the president’s hand.

    Ultimately, the course of the war in Iraq will be determined more by the election results in November of 2008 than by the 2007 supplemental vote.


    Which, if an accurate analysis, the GOP will be handed its' head.
    No matter the names of the candidates they field.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mr Dick Morris has a suggestion for dealing with Iran. Many will not like his idea, Nanntz is not left a glowing sheet of glass

    We should pass — and the president should sign — the Dodd-Lantos bill mandating economic sanctions on any foreign company that aids Iran’s energy industry. Domestic companies are already prohibited from such investments.

    This Democratic bill, cosponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.), is a bold piece of legislation that strikes at the core of Iranian vulnerability.

    And, in a singular act of courage and dedication to principle, Republican presidential candidate Congressman Duncan Hunter (Calif.) has added his name to the legislation as a cosponsor. Hunter’s action is particularly admirable since the bill is designed to force the Bush administration to impose sanctions passed in the 1990s but disregarded by both presidents, Clinton and Bush, ever since.

    The Dodd-Lantos bill would omit the national security waiver Clinton used twice to stop the sanctions from taking effect. The waiver was inserted at the insistence of then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (before he started stealing documents in his socks). For his part, President Bush has not even waived the law, he just hasn’t applied it at all.

    The original sanctions legislation provided a variety of punishments that the president had to impose on foreign companies that invest in Iran’s oil and gas industries. These ranged from barring their participation in underwriting Treasury issues to prohibiting them from receiving export-import financing, as well as certain government contracts. The sanctions were so effective that they triggered howls of outrage from European governments that objected to what they called “extraterritorial” assertions of American power.

    Presumably neither Bush nor Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants to rekindle the war of words with European governments, so they have not applied the sanctions that remain on the books. They probably worry that to do so would shatter Western unity in the face of Iranian aggression and the threat of nuclear-weapons development.

    But as Dodd, Lantos, and Hunter all realize, once the president and the secretary of state are stripped of the ability to waive the sanctions, they become a potent tool to stop European companies like Royal Dutch Shell, BNP, Total and Repsol from helping Iran tap its massive oil and gas reserves. The Bush administration people can plead that Congress is forcing their hand and foreign governments would just have to live with the consequences. Like the old Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which forced presidents to deal harshly with the Soviet Union as long as it barred Jewish emigration, the Dodd-Lantos bill would be a very effective tool in bringing Iran to heel.


    Is Mr Morris more "in touch" with reality than Mr Rove?

    ReplyDelete
  33. While all Mr Bush would have to do, if politics were really not "part of the program" is to reach agreement with Mr Maliki on Mr Maliki's November '07 target date. Withdrawal would not have to coincide with the handover of the security mission, but would cetainly send a message that the War was coming to a successful conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It's begun

    Mr Bush will packaged as, not the decider in chief but the
    Forbidder in Chief.

    Somewhere or other Mr Bush must have said "I forbid", in reference to the Emergency War Funding Bill.

    He will be further portrayed as an "Imperial President" not the head of a co-equal branch of government.

    What to do, to counter that perception?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ah, the ole EB.
    As many former participants said yesterday, it's a drive by blog now.
    Apogee reached and oxygen in very short supply.

    Far too many better blogs to utilize.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Habu, it is hard to take you seriously when you blatantly contradict yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ash: Interesting concept of patriotism - Patriotism for sale here, special new price!!

    Patriotism for sale. Isn't that implied by the $122 billion Emergency Appropriations Bill floating through Congress right now? Aren't the two GOP senators who voted for an "unclean" bill considered unpatriotic by the right wing blogosphere now?

    ReplyDelete
  39. 2164th: I want to make patriotism as painless as possible.

    Painless patriotism not true patriotism. There's no crown without a struggle. Would you have cheered so strongly for Rambo if he had not been tortured by the Russian guy on those electrified bedsprings first?

    ReplyDelete
  40. bobalharb,

    re: Bush speech

    Good catch!

    That speech was delivered one year ago. Nevertheless, it and Fitzgerald's question are more haunting now, than then.

    Knowing a Saudi prince is not the same as knowing Islam. The same could have been said of the Czar and the Russia of 1918.

    ReplyDelete
  41. By Hugh Fitzgerald

    And that can only be achieved, in Tel Afar as in Baghdad or Basra or Kirkuk, by getting out, and stopping the squandering of American resources, and doing such damage, incredible damage, to the military. That damages begins but does not end with the morale of the civilian army, that is falling apart because those who have served in Iraq, however inarticulate some may be in expressing their views, know that the "mission" makes no sense and that the "Iraqi people" are not wonderful, are not grateful, are in fact on the whole deeply hostile. It is madness to sacrifice American soldiers, such as the boy from Maine blown up the other day while he was -- in what is a grim metaphor for the American winning of unwinnable hearts and minds -- handing out candy to Iraqi children, the ones still young enough (below the age of 10) not to be taught, quite enough, to hate the Americans.

    Basta with Bush and the dream-palace, in Ajami's phrase, of his imaginary Arabs, and his imaginary Islam, and his imaginary Iraq.

    Posted by Hugh at March 28, 2007 11:32 AM


    Now, for those that do not know:
    Basta is spanish for "enough"

    Jr. still has that old "shout out"
    "Kill the Hadji!"
    but has mellowed the past two days, now that he's aware that his Marine brothers are being prosecuted for murder, for doing in Haditha just what they did in Fallujah, a year eariler.

    ReplyDelete
  42. For those that missed the small print, in Mr Morris's missive

    Hunter’s action is particularly admirable since the bill is designed to force the Bush administration to impose sanctions passed in the 1990s but disregarded by both presidents, Clinton and Bush, ever since.

    The Dodd-Lantos bill would omit the national security waiver Clinton used twice to stop the sanctions from taking effect. The waiver was inserted at the insistence of then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (before he started stealing documents in his socks). For his part, President Bush has not even waived the law, he just hasn’t applied it at all.


    Mr Bush does that alot, it seems.
    No hard actions against those that aid Iran. Softly, softly is the policy.
    No enforcement of work place identification of irregular working residents.
    A sieve for a southern border.

    All the while following Sandy Burgler's policy reccomendations.

    Who'd have ever guessed?

    ReplyDelete
  43. The anticipation of the power vacuum surrounding the pending American withdrawal from Iraq (and the region) is almost palpable. The Sauds and the Hashemite King shun Bush's invitations to Washington and Al Qaeda in Iraq ups their operational tempo. The Sauds gather all the Arab leaders to set the direction as the Americans step back. And what is that direction? Why to get rid of the source of all problems in the middle east - the Jewish State.
    A British newspaper has today reported that Israel will face war if it rejects a current peace plan initiated by the Arab world currently meeting in Saudi Arabia.

    In an article in The Daily Telegraph, entitled 'Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told', Prince Saud, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister has warned that the "lords of war" will decide Israel's future if it rejects a peace plan "crafted by the entire Arab world".

    Under a Saudi backed initiative, based on Crown Prince Abdullah's initiative in 2002, all Arab countries would formally recognize Israel if they support a return to pre-1967 borders with a Palestinian state comprising of the entire West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and Gaza Strip.

    Speaking in Riyadh on the eve of the Arab League Summit, Prince Saud, the son of the late King Faisal, said that Israel should "accept or reject this final offer" and that every Arab country will almost certainly endorse this plan when the Riyadh summit concludes on Thursday.


    So Israel has two choices 1) withdraw to the indefensible pre-1967 borders and allow Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad etc into East Jerusalem and the West Bank, or prepare within its current borders for another war for its survival against as many Muslim Nations as the Sauds can rally . Six of one, a half a dozen of the other.

    Ironically, the Muslims may be so pre-occuppied killing each other in Iraq, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia and Iran, supporting their proxies in the killing, that the destruction of Israel may have to be put on the back burner for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Stoutfellow: Ironically, the Muslims may be so pre-occuppied killing each other in Iraq, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia and Iran, supporting their proxies in the killing, that the destruction of Israel may have to be put on the back burner for a while.

    Certainly Olmert seemed to put actually fighting the war on a back burner when war came to Israel in 2006, but he seemed to be taking his cue from Condi/Bush. The last time the Iraq War resembled an actual war was Dec 2004, at the battle of Second Fallujah. As a result of all this hand-wringing by the Bush Administration and timidity on the battlefield, the center of Iraq is hurtling toward disintegration, and we'll have 150,000 troops right in the middle of the train wreck when it happens, just in time for the November 2008 elections when the Democrats can run commercials listing their GOP opponent's numerous votes to block any pullout. By that time America will be polling three to one for an immediate withdrawal and hardcore Bushite bitter-enders like McCain will be getting Ralph Nader numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Stoutfellow: So Israel has two choices 1) withdraw to the indefensible pre-1967 borders and allow Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad etc into East Jerusalem and the West Bank, or prepare within its current borders for another war for its survival against as many Muslim Nations as the Sauds can rally.

    It will probably be option 1. It is not apparent, after the IDF's performance against Hezbollah, that the Israelis have the same fire in the belly for their own survival that they had in May 1948, when a mere six hundred thousand Jews stood against the whole Arab world, and lost 1% of its population, the equivalent of the United States losing 3 million people in a war.

    ReplyDelete
  46. teresita: It will probably be option 1.

    Agreed, unless the Israelis decide to elect a new government that has a clue about the urgency of the situation. The problem is that the Israelis prevailed against their enemies (5 Arab armies IIRC) in the Six Day War. But that was conventional warfare against armies in uniform. It is doubtful that they can beat both an assymetric threat from Hamas, Hizbollah, Fatah etc. etc and a simultaneous conventional assault from Arab armies. They need the slight additional defense-in-depth that the West Bank offers.

    Lots of good reading here.

    ReplyDelete
  47. teresita,

    Mr. Bolton does not agree with either you or me about the administration's take on the Lebanon war. He places blame for inaction squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Olmert et al.

    For the first week, I believe Mr. Bolton is correct. When it became apparent that Mr. Olmert did not have the brains and/or brawn to take advantage of a green light, the US fell into its usual routine.

    At some point the Israelis will have to come to the conclusion that there will never be peace with the Arabs; otherwise, Israel is doomed. In years gone by, I would have said that Israel's nuclear arsenal would provide a shield to extermination, but a weapon is useless unless used. I don't see the current crop of Israeli leadership going radioactive. There is, after all, always Florida.

    ReplyDelete
  48. DR,

    re: [H]e's aware that his Marine brothers are being prosecuted for murder, for doing in Haditha just what they did in Fallujah, a year eariler.

    There will be Courts Martial.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Same Shit; Different Day!

    Rat bitches

    Rat whines

    Rat Snarks

    Rat wanders off into something totally irrelevent to anything.

    Rat pontificates

    Rat pisses

    Rat moans

    Shit!

    ReplyDelete