The Right State

Just when we thought it was safe to fly again, here comes news of another terrorist plot using airlines as flying bombs.

A MAJOR plot to commit “mass murder on an unimaginable scale” by blowing up several flights from the UK in mid-air has been foiled, Scotland Yard has said.

Senior sources said terrorists were believed to be planning to blow up as many as nine aircraft in a simultaneous attack. Police believe that the plot involved liquid chemical devices. The targets were flights leaving UK airports to the US.

According to reports, most of the arrested suspects were British citizens, but were also of Pakistani origin.  Big surprise there.  Officials also point out that this plot seems to have been hatched by al-Qaeda, the same terrorist group who attacked the US on 9/11.

This plot is eerily reminiscent of the foiled Bojinka terrorist plot which was to blow up eleven airliners in January of 1995.  These terrorist organizations are always on the lookout for ideas which have a large showing like the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

There is another twist to this plot.  It seems the plot was well into its advanced stage, but not imminent.  Administration officials say they did not think this group would wait until the anniversary of September 11 to set the plan into motion.  So that makes me wonder about the comments made by the Iranian President who hold the reins of many terrorist groups.

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time—Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as “by the end of August,” but Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement was more precise.

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

The west has been thinking Ahmadinejad was talking about his country displaying evidence of their nuclear arsenal on August 22, but what if what he was really hinting at was another major terror attack like the one thwarted by MI-5.  In this case the Iranian leader is really showing his hand for the world to see.  It would show Ahmadinejad wants us to know he was involved.  Either the Iranian President was talking about something else entirely, or he is incredibly stupid.  He saw what the US did to Afghanistan shortly after the September 11 attacks.  Doesn’t he know President Bush would not hesitate to respond to him the same way?  Unless he thinks we are stretched too thin with troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Surely he knows we would respond and forcefully.

Both Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs seem to want to force an Armageddon, bringing forth the new mullah who would conquer the world.  In an earlier post I quoted an NRO piece by Barbara Lerner in which she describes some of the thought processes of these mullahs and the significance of August 22.

Today, Iran’s emboldened mullahs are on a triumphant roll, waging a bloody, three-front proxy war against us, using the Mahdi army to assassinate dreams of peace and democracy in Iraq, using Hezbollah to blow up those same dreams in Lebanon, again, and using Hamas to make a grotesque mockery of them in the Holy Land. Now they threaten to activate Hezbollah terror cells, here in America and throughout the world, to kill and maim us at home and inflict more carnage on our allies. This week, they mocked our efforts to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power, announcing that nothing we do — in the U.N. or elsewhere — will stop them from going nuclear, and sharing their WMDs with other rogue states and Islamofascist terror groups at will. More ominous yet, they threaten to unleash an apocalyptic surprise on us on August 22, the night they believe Mohammed lit up the skies by ascending to heaven from the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

While this may not have been what Ahmadinejad was referencing, it does make me wonder, what if it was.  And if it was, what should be our response to Iran?  Iran is a dangerous country who has been engaged in a pseudo war with us for years.  How long do we put up with their terror, their wars, and their nuclear ambitions?  It time the US responded.

Tags: Terrorism, Nuclear Weapons, Iran, President Bush, War by Chuck
No Comments »

I just finished an article which is as scarey as any I have ever read. The NRO piece by Barbara Lerner paints a very bleak picture of how WWIV is playing out for the United States.

Today, Iran’s emboldened mullahs are on a triumphant roll, waging a bloody, three-front proxy war against us, using the Mahdi army to assassinate dreams of peace and democracy in Iraq, using Hezbollah to blow up those same dreams in Lebanon, again, and using Hamas to make a grotesque mockery of them in the Holy Land. Now they threaten to activate Hezbollah terror cells, here in America and throughout the world, to kill and maim us at home and inflict more carnage on our allies. This week, they mocked our efforts to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power, announcing that nothing we do — in the U.N. or elsewhere — will stop them from going nuclear, and sharing their WMDs with other rogue states and Islamofascist terror groups at will. More ominous yet, they threaten to unleash an apocalyptic surprise on us on August 22, the night they believe Mohammed lit up the skies by ascending to heaven from the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

Despite all this and more, we have yet to admit that Iran is at war with us, or to seriously consider striking back at her, and, in speaking of our own war aims, we never dare use the v-word — victory — anymore. Instead, we make head-in-the-sand happy-talk about “peace,” “democracy,” and “ceasefires,” rejecting any military action against Iran for fear of “widening the war” — as if Iran were not already at war with us — and rely on the U.N. and “the international community” to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions and to prevent her proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, from continuing to bring death and destruction to our smallest, truest, and most vulnerable ally, Israel. In doing this, we ignore two obvious realities: rather than restraining Iran, U.N. heavyweights Russia and China are busy arming her, and the perfidious EU will not even recognize the plain fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Instead, these old-Europe “allies” join with our Islamofascist enemies in demonizing our brave soldiers in Iraq, and damning Israel for daring to fight back against unprovoked aggression, pursued with openly genocidal intent.

Lerner’s conclusion is that we must strike now before they have a chance to attack us and we lose even more than we did on September 11^th. I would have a difficult time tearing down her conclusion particularly since Iran has been in an undeclared open war with us for the last 24 years. For much of that time we treated Iran like the Mouse that Roared. Unfortunately for us, like the tiny fictitious republic Duchy of Grand Fenwick, Iran has turned into a greater threat than we at first realized. They killed 241 Marines in Lebanon in 1983, they continue to send fighters into Iraq to undermine the Middle East’s new fledgling democracy, they threaten to continue to develop nuclear weapons and send them to every rogue nation and terrorist group in the world, and they are now threatening us with destruction. How long do we put up with such nonsense?

During the Cold War, our declared policy, well understood by the Kremlin, was that any attack on the United States or our allies by the Soviet Union or any of their allies would be seen as a direct attack upon the United States by the Soviet Union. Perhaps we should revise the old Cold War strategy. From henceforth, any attack on the US or allies by Iran or their allies (terrorists) would be considered a direct attack upon the United States by Iran. The response of the US must be swift and varied according to the kind of attack, meaning, in my view, the attacks on 9/11 fell into the WMD category.

It is time to quite pussyfooting around with these mullahs. They want to kill us! Its about time we as a nation understood the threat posed Iran.

Hat tip: BlackFive 

Tags: Iran, War by Chuck
No Comments »

The whole world seems to have turned on its ear.  Nothing is like it was, the Cold War may be over, but a new threat to world peace has reared its ugly head, terrorism.  Like the rise of communism in decades past, terror also has its sponsors, mainly Iran and Syria.  But the problems do not stop there, Iran is desperate for nuclear weapons, Iran has called for the destruction of Israel and continues to supply Hezbollah with munitions as the two battle each other.  The question has to be asked, is Israel ready?

Are we ready for a Cold War? This question continues to reverberate in Ynet’s special project on the issue of the Iranian nuclear threat. The subject carries many questions – political, economic, and human.

Will the world stop Iran or Israel can only trust itself? World leaders keep repeating the common need to stop Iran’s nuclear projects as long as the country cannot prove its peaceful intention. How to stop Iran? There is no one clear answer.

There is both a long answer and a short answer to whether Israel is ready for a new Cold War.  Neither answer is truly acceptable.

As long as Iran continues to supply Hezbollah, a confrontation between Israel and Iran is a real possibility.  Europe refuses to get serious with Ahmadinejad to end his country’s nuclear ambitions or his desire to destroy the state of Israel.  Under the threat of constant attack, Israel finally has the chance to send a message to the rest of the Middle East, attack at your own risk.  At the same time, Israel, as the IDF did with Iraq, can not allow Iran to develop nukes.  By the same token, neither can the US.

Israel faces many questions on how to proceed.  How far do they attack into Lebanon before allowing the UN or NATO to take over?   The US is locked in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Any president wanting to help Israel may face a Congress unenthusiastic about sending additional troops to another far away war.  I hope this country remembers that Israel is a friend and ally of the United States.  With the above mentioned problems with Europe, Israel may only be able to depend on themselves.

So far the US has been more than happy to allow Israel to fight Hezbollah while giving backup support.  With the present alignment, the US has yet another ally in the GWOT.  This is an ally we should not forget.

I know the long answer was not really acceptable, but neither is the short answer.  Is Israel ready for a new Cold War ….I don’t know, but I sure hope so, because it sure looks like it is coming.

Tags: Terrorism, Nuclear Weapons, Iran, Iraq, War by Chuck
No Comments »

I admit it, I like Donald Rumsfeld.  I like his gruff take no prisoners style of answering Senate blowhards.  When he testified before the Armed Services Committee yesterday, the Defense Secretary was wading into a minefield.  Democrats were eager for a bloody fight believing they were fighting the evil Bush administration by extension.  Rumsfeld had wanted to testify before a closed session, but Democrats acutely aware of their liberal base, decided to politicize the session, holding the meeting in the morning and before television cameras in order to have their faces plastered on the news during primetime.

One of the worst offenders at this political game was none other than the presumed Democratic front runner for president than Hillary Clinton.

Like a prizefighter, Clinton smiled and shook hands with Rumsfeld before attacking his policies. “You did not go into Iraq with enough troops,” said Clinton, ticking off her grievances. “You disbanded the entire Iraqi army … You underestimated the nature and strength of the insurgency, the sectarian violence and the spread of Iranian influence.”

Clinton, who voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion, has been under fire by some Democrats for her pro-war stance. She has recently softened her support of the war and burnished her party credentials by attacking Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush.

” . . . You are presiding over a failed policy,” she said. “Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?”

Consider that much of the failed policy in Iraq and Afghanistan was the result of inactions of both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton when there was a definite lack of leadership in their ‘co-Presidency.’  Consider than in 1996, Sudan offered Osama bin Laden to the US, but Bill was more interested in blues dresses than protecting America.

Rumsfeld’s responded on all counts flatly refuting all of Hillary’s allegations.

The defense secretary seemed briefly stunned by the intensity of her attack, exclaiming, “My goodness,” before launching into a point-by-point defense.  (emphasis added by TRS)

He rejected some of her specific criticisms as simply wrong and said the war against terror will be a drawn-out process.

“Are there setbacks? Yes,” said Rumsfeld. “Is this problem going to get solved in the near term? I think it’s going to take some time.”

I loved his response.  Without saying so to her face, Rumsfeld basically told the pompous freshman Senator from New York that she did not have a clue what she was talking about.  Point by point he dissected her comments, making Hillary look like a buffoon.

What Clinton is trying to do is to rally her base who has abandoned her because of her vote for the war against Iraq.  Her prepared speech beforehand was pure politics.  Like her poor excuse for a husband, Hillary could care less what happens to this country, just as long as she has power.

She knows as well as anyone that the Bush administration did not disband the Iraqi military, they disbanded themselves.  How could anyone have anticipated the Iranian influence?  But the way Hillary said it; it was like even if we had anticipated Iran’s interference, the US military have done something about it.  What could anyone have done other than threaten them?  As if that kind of solution has worked in the past.  What answer would have been acceptable to the cut-and-run Democrats?  The short answer, nothing.  The Democrats are not happy unless the US is weak and defenseless.

The Democrats have not seen a war they did not want to run from.  Some wars are worth fighting, especially those like the GWOT which are vital to the defense of the US.

As an example, look how far the Democrats have fallen, they can not even rally around one of their own fighting for his political life in Connecticut simply because this Senator, Joe Lieberman, voted for and continues to support the war in Iraq.  Are these the same Democrats who voted for war against Germany and Japan?  Are these the same Democrats who voted to protect South Korea?  No, those Democrats are long gone and almost forgotten.  In their place, a new breed of Democrat has been born, one bent on apologizing to the world for all of its problems as if we caused them, one willing to turn the control of this country to the UN, one which believes no wars are worth fighting.  The pro-USA Democrats are gone.  In their place are people willing to sell their souls and the security of the United States for power.  Just as we saw with Hillary Clinton, in the end, it is politics which really matter.

Tags: Democrats, Terrorism, Iran, Iraq, Politics, War by Chuck
No Comments »

It now looks like Hezbollah has over played their hand.  Everyone knew Hezbollah launches rocket attacks from civilian areas in an attempt to create ‘victims’ when the Israelis respond.  Everyone knows the IDF drops leaflets warning residents to leave ensuring they have enough time to escape.  But when 54 civilians died in an IDF bombing campaign,  world opinion turned against Israel; at least at first.  It turns out there are several inconsistencies with all of the deaths.  First is the fact that the building did not collapse for seven hours after the attack, and then the fact that several of the ‘victims’ did not have the usual look of those who died in a building collapse: concrete dust, blood, etc.  So were all the deaths at Qana staged?   Hmmm.

The IDF is looking into allegations raised over the past few days by several pro-Israel, Jewish and conservative Weblogs that Hizbullah may have staged aspects of the Kana tragedy on Sunday, in which some 60 Lebanese bodies were removed from a building that collapsed seven hours after being hit in an Israel Air Force strike. (snip)

Israel has acknowledged hitting the building, and said 150 Katyushas had been fired from the village in the previous 20 days, with Hizbullah hiding rocket launchers in civilian buildings there. Israel said it did not know civilians were inside the building and expressed sorrow over the tragedy. (snip)

Look at the differences between the two combatants: Hezbollah is intentionally targeting civilians while Israel expresses sorrow of civilian deaths.  It seems as if the terrorists want civilian deaths in Lebanon.  Otherwise why would they deliberately launch their attacks within civilian areas knowing the IDF would respond?  They WANT a high death count.  They are desperate for a reprieve from the fighting in order to regroup, ie, Hezbollah is losing.

All acknowledge the IDF attacked the building that collapsed, but there are inconsistencies aplenty. 

At a press conference on Sunday night, Air Force Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen. Amir Eshel said the building was struck by IAF missiles a little after midnight, but only collapsed seven hours later, at about 7 a.m.

Eshel said he could not explain what caused the structure to collapse so many hours after it was hit, and speculated, while stressing that he had no conclusive evidence, about whether Hizbullah had played a role in what had transpired, perhaps by firing on the building itself.

Another possibility that has been raised is that the building sustained damage from the original strike, but collapsed only later from structural damage or the impact of further IAF strikes nearby. Alternatively, the building may have contained Hizbullah weaponry that detonated after the strike.

MK Benny Elon (National Union) suggested Tuesday that Hizbullah may have played a role in the building’s collapse in an attempt to prevent an international force from entering Lebanon and to place blame on Israel.

“In general, Hizbullah prevents citizens from moving from places that the IDF is attacking. This time it was more,” said Elon. “It wasn’t just prohibiting citizens from leaving this time, it was bringing refugees that aren’t residents of Kafr Kana to areas that they know are going to be attacked. And to be sure it’s attacked, Hizbullah fires from the building next door in order to create the crisis and in order to create the pictures.”

One test to see if this could be true is to ask, ‘is it possible Hezbollah would place civilians in a weakened building and then detonate it for the publicity?’  And the answer is a resounding, ‘YES!’  If staged deaths would help in their struggle against Israel, they would definitely place even more civilians in harms way.

There is another possibility mentioned, that the dead were carried in after the attacks.  Remember that after every other attack in which there were a significant number of civilian deaths, a Hezbollah spokesman would be more than eager to bring in western news crews to photograph the scene.  Not so this time.

According to one of the Web sites raising questions about the affair, Israel Insider, “the accumulating evidence suggests another explanation for what happened at Kana. The scenario would be a setup in which the time between the initial bombing near the building and morning reports of its collapse would have been used to ‘plant’ bodies killed in previous fighting… place them in the basement, and then engineer a ‘controlled demolition’ to fake another Israeli attack.” (snip)

According to the blogs, perhaps the most suspicious element in the Kana affair was the fact that the dead children whose photographs appeared in the media displayed virtually no signs of blood, bruises or broken bones and, with one exception, were not caked with debris or pulverized cement.

For example, according to the antiliberal Conservative Yankee blog, “The child in the photo shows no signs of injuries - no blood, no disfigurement or crushing wounds consistent with a building collapse. The two men [carrying the child] show no signs of having been digging in rubble. Their clothes are unbelievably clean, especially the black fatigues that would so easily shown concrete dust.”

Israel Insider cited a CNN report that, it said, noted the victims had died in their sleep. It seemed highly improbable, the piece asserted, that people could have slept “through thunderous Israeli air attacks. Rescue workers equipped with cameras,” it went on, “were removing the bodies from the same opening in the collapsed structure.

Journalists were not allowed near the collapsed building… Israelis steeled to scenes of carnage from Palestinian suicide bombings and Hizbullah rocket attacks could not help but notice that these victims did not look like our victims. Their faces were ashen gray. While medical examination is clearly called for to arrive at a definitive dating and cause of their deaths, they do not appear to have died hours before. The bodies looked like they had been dead for days.”

Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 1983 because of a similar incident.  Whether these allegations turn out to be true only time will tell, but you can be sure Hezbollah remembers what caused the IDF to withdraw last time.  This can only mean one thing, Hezbollah is not fairing as well as they would like the rest of the world believe and are trying to stage another macabre scene which would lead to the world condemnation of Israel.

At the same time the world is a much smaller place with instant communication around the globe.  Pictures are transmitted to every corner even during times of war.  With this seemingly staged event, bloggers are on the scene examining every detail with their individual abilities.  Just like when the bloggers brought down Dan Rather at CBS News for the obviously faked National Guard memos concerning President Bush, they have now turning their attention to Qana and looking for inconsistencies.  And they have found plenty.  If there is a group of people who know what dead people should look like, particularly those killed in bombing attacks and collapsed buildings; it would be the Israeli people.  When they say the bodies do not look like they were dug out of a collapsed building, I would tend to yield to their expertise.  Of course we all know what the people looked like coming out of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.  The bodies I saw in pictures did not look anything like that.  Hezbollah’s reluctance to allow western photographers in to see the devastation for themselves only reinforces the bloggers perception that they have something to hide.

What does Hezbollah have to hide; a staged event, a desperate attempt at influencing world opinion.  Who know?  But with all these inconsistencies, Hezbollah may have overplayed their hand.  They may find world opinion a fickle thing.

Tags: Iran, War by Chuck
1 Comment »

Do you want more proof that the UN is impotent?

The U.N. Security Council passed a weakened resolution Monday giving Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Sounds good so far, right?  Iran has been given chance after chance to come clean with their suspected nuclear weapons program.  Instead of caving in to world opinion, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad consistently thumbs his nose at the UN.  And why shouldn’t he?  He knows Russia and China will not support sanctions against Iran.  I know what China’s problem is, it’s us, the United States.  The Chinese military sees the US as their future enemy, particularly since the Chinese want to extend their influence over all of the Far East.  This includes the democracies of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.  The Chinese will do anything they can to embarrass the US, even if it hurts them in the short haul.

Russia on the other hand, I do not understand.  President Putin has everything to gain from a healthy relationship with the US and nothing to lose.  Russia has been battling terrorism for many years in Chechnya and Iran is a prime sponsor of terror.  So I can’t figure out Putin’s angle.

As it stands now, neither China nor Russia are will to confront Iran.  Until these two countries stop blocking everything the US tries to accomplish, the UN will continue to be dysfunctional.

Tags: Iran by Chuck
No Comments »

Poor Kofi Annan.  His calls for a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah have been ignored and now he is pouting about it.  Maybe if he showed more leadership skills and was less anti-Semitic people would listen more.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Sunday repeated his call for an immediate halt to violence between Israel and Hizbullah, condemning an IAF airstrike that killed at least 54 people and telling the UN Security Council he was “deeply disturbed” that his previous calls for a cease-fire had gone unheeded.

Where was the Secretary General when wave after wave of suicide/homicide bombers killed women and children in Israel?  Kofi Annan is being ignored because he has shown himself to be a self-serving leader of an organization which is no longer relevant in the world.  This is no longer a fight between Israel and Hezbollah, but a war between Israel and Iran and Syria by their proxy fighters in Lebanon.  This is part of a global war on terror.  That is why the US refuses to force Israel to end their part of the fight.  George Bush understands the costs of inaction on the part of Israel, a price we paid dearly on 9/11 for our many years of inaction.

The Secretary General goes on with his diatribe and wanders off on to the ridiculous. 

In unusually frank terms, Annan said the council risked undermining its own authority if it does not take action. He said that was made clear by the attacks on UN headquarters in Beirut earlier Sunday.

“People have noticed its failure to act firmly and quickly during this crisis,” Annan said.

Where have I heard these words before…….?  Maybe against Iraq before the US invaded.  The UN sat by and did nothing even though Saddam Hussein ignored sixteen UN resolutions in during a twelve year period.  President Bush uttered these same words that the UN would lose credibility if the member nations sat idly by and did nothing.  Finally it took the US and other nations making up the Coalition of the Willing to bring down this evil regime.

And now Kofi Annan has the nerve to say the UN will lose credibility if it fails to stop this conflict.  Note to the Sect. Gen.; the UN has already lost any credibility it may have had with its failure to act in Iraq, its constant scandals, and with some of its member nations having human rights violations even worse than Saddam Hussein’s.  The UN is a corrupt dinosaur whose time has come and gone.  Its past time to say good-bye.

Today there are renewed calls for a cease-fire after an IDF air strike killed 54 civilians particularly by the very organization tasked to control the border between Lebanon and Israel.  The Israeli Ambassador pretty much sums up this horrible tragedy and places it in context with Israel’s hope of security.

Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman called it a “horrible, sad and bloody Sunday.” While he apologized for the airstrike that killed the civilians in Qana, he said there was no comparison between Hizbullah, which intentionally targets Israeli civilians and uses Lebanese civilians as human shields, and Israel, which tries to avoid civilian casualties.

“Those people including women and children who were killed in this horrible tragic incident may have been killed by Israeli fire but they are the victims of the Hizbullah,” Gillerman said. “They are the victims of terror. If there were no Hizbullah this would never have happened.”

Gillerman said Hizbullah must be disarmed before any cease-fire occurs. Otherwise, he said, Hizbullah will rise again - “not just against us and not just against the people of Lebanon, but against the whole region and civilization as we know it.”

Yes, indeed.  How soon we have forgotten the horrors of terrorism.  Hezbollah does not act any different than does al-Queda.  Too many Americans forget that it was Hezbollah who targeted and killed 241 US Marines in Lebanon in 1983.  All the US was doing in Lebanon was maintaining a buffer zone.  For their actions, the terrorist group Hezbollah murdered 241 Americans.  Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria are the aggressors in this current conflict.  Considering all of their past actions, we should let Israel finish the job they started and let them destroy this terrorist group.  We at least owe that much to the families of the Marines killed in 1983.

Webloggin has a good post on how the left views the war and how they are blaming President Bush for it.

Tags: Iran, President Bush, War by Chuck
No Comments »

This op-ed from the Jerusalem Post very articulately nails down why the UN and some in the west see the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in different way.  The difference can be likened to whether each side is playing by a particular set of previously agreed upon rules, or if the conflict is a matter of life or death with the rules thrown out the window.

Strategic interactions are of two main types. They either resemble a “game,” with each side making moves according to tacitly agreed evolving rules, or constitute a life-or-death “kill or be killed” conflict.

Thus, the cold war evolved rapidly into a “game,” with the exception of the Cuba missile crisis, when extreme American measures were necessary to reestablish relatively stable rules of interaction.

In contrast, the confrontation with Hitler was of the life-or-death type. The Western misreading of Hitler as a rule-following player - or at least as amenable to becoming such a player after “reasonable demands” were satisfied - resulted in very high costs. (snip)

Contemporary Western values, culture, economies, and politics are dense with factors that distort reality, making this critical task more difficult. Among these are the ill-founded beliefs that human beings are sure to prefer liberal democracy given a real choice, and that material interests necessarily reduce fanaticism.

Other Western handicaps are the lack of readiness to kill and be killed, even when doing so will likely to save many lives in the future; an unwarranted trust in partly outdated rules of international law; striving for so wide a consensus as to make effective action impossible; and worrying about energy sources and markets.

Some learning from mistakes does take place, especially in the US and England, though it happens the hard way - being hit by terrorism and facing obviously “evil” states. Still, the dominant trend, especially in Europe, is to cling to optimistic images of reality approximating the game model, despite stubborn facts to the contrary.

So when Hezbollah attacked, the Israeli response was considered an over-reaction and not proportionate.  The same things were said when the US entered Afghanistan, after all, we only lost 3000 people.  The US and Great Britain are just about the only countries to know civilization is in a life or death struggle with radical Islam.

ISRAEL, however, cannot permit itself such a short-sighted path of action. Hizbullah and Hamas, as supported by Syria and Iran, are life-or-death enemies likely, with time, to become more dangerous rather than to lose their fanatical nature. Therefore, Israeli counteraction must achieve the destructive capacity necessary to drastically reduce the growing threat; and to motivate bystanders to act against the fanatics and deter their supporters.

In particular, in view of the declared nature of the present Iranian regime as a total enemy and its growing power, including emerging nuclear capabilities, Israel must build (to be more exact, rebuild) credible deterrence, based in part on “rationality irrationality.” This requires a partial image of willingness and capacity to react unpredictably and with extreme violence to life-and-death dangers, even at high costs to itself. (emphasis added by TRS)

Harsh measures against Hizbullah and Hamas are a way to build such an image, in addition to being justified in themselves - all the more so as Hizbullah’s initial attack was probably designed to test Israeli determination.

IN MORAL terms, Israel confronts the tragic choice of either engaging now in a large-scale action, despite significant human costs, or wait until a much more costly war becomes unavoidable.

You can bet if Israel does not confront Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and Syria now, they will have to do so later at a much higher cost in terms of lives lost.  Israel understands the dangers of radical Islam, for the most part the US understands too.  Most of Europe does not understand.  Of course they come by this honestly.  Even with the dangers of WWII looming, the leaders sought to appease Hitler.  It was not until he had conquered a good portion of Europe that they finally understood the danger this madman represented.  Europe has a history of appeasement, and in WWII it almost cost them their freedom.  And now they do not understand the danger radical Islam represents to a free world.  In the end it may be the United States who pulls the world’s chestnuts out of the fire once again.

Tags: Democracy, Iran, President Bush, War by Chuck
No Comments »

I do not know how the US could handle the situation in Lebanon any better.  Rice has flown to Beirut in support of the fledgling government and has been encouraging Syria to stop supporting Hezbollah through the influence of moderate Muslim states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an unannounced visit to Beirut on Monday in a show of support for that country’s weakened democracy, which is struggling to contain the fighting between the Hezbollah militia and Israel.

Rice planned to meet with Lebanese Prime Minister Faud Saniora, other leaders of his government and members of parliament about the surge in fighting along the southern border in the last two weeks.

Her visit is intended to make a show of support and concern for both the Saniora government and the Lebanese people, administration officials said. She also plans to talk with Lebanese leaders about how the central government can gain control of the entire country.

And that is the real problem; the government of Lebanon is too weak to exert control over their entire country allowing terrorist groups like Hezbollah to operate as a quasi-autonomous government in the southern region.  Exploiting this weakness, Hezbollah, until recently, has attacked Israel with impunity.

With the IDF attacking into Lebanon to go after the terrorists, Condoleezza Rice is reluctant to call a halt to hostilities.  After all, for the last couple of years the US and Great Britain have been the only countries to really go after the terrorists.  So Rice has to play a balancing act of allowing Israel to proceed as long as they do not undermine the pro-west government of Lebanon.

At the same time the Bush administration is working to detach Syria from its ally Iran.  I am not sure if this is more of a move to separate and conquer or if its main purpose is to further isolate Iran.  Either way, we have some of the more moderate Muslim countries helping us out.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia are working to entice Syria to end support for Hezbollah, a move that is central to resolving the conflict in Lebanon and unhitching Damascus from its alliance with Iran, the Shiite Muslim guerrillas’ other main backer.

Arab diplomats in Cairo said the United States had signaled a willingness to re-engage Syria through Washington’s encouragement of the Egyptians and Saudis to lean on Damascus to stop backing Hezbollah.

With Jordan, Egypt, and Israel all confirming the existence of Iranian troops in southern Lebanon, it seems likely Washington is trying to isolate the Islamic regime, probably saving them to deal with later. 

The bodies of Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers who were killed by the Israeli army in Lebanon have been transported to Syria and flown to Tehran, senior Lebanese political sources told WorldNetDaily.

The information was confirmed by Israeli and Egyptian security officials. It follows scores of reports the past few days Iranian soldiers have been aiding Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon in their attacks against Israel, including help with the firing of rockets into Israeli population centers.  (snip)

Jordanian officials told WND they are “100 percent sure” Iranian Revolutionary Guard unit soldiers have fired rockets into Israel. They also said the Syrian army has provided Hezbollah with intelligence information on the locations of strategic Israeli targets to aid in Hezbollah rocket fire.

Any evidence of foreign interference by Iran and Syria should be displayed for all to see.  Syria could possibly come clean by ending their relationship with Iran.  As the smaller partner, President Bashar al-Assad can claim he sent help to Hezbollah at the request of Iran.  Iran on the other hand is a different matter.  The ruling mullahs believe they are supposed to export the Islamic Revolution.  Until the people of Iran rise up against the autocracy, not much will change.  The country will continue to support Hezbollah and other terrorist groups until a regime change occurs.

By sending Sec. Rice to Lebanon now, President Bush can exploit this window of opportunity to show the US wants peace in the region while giving Israel enough time to wipe out as many of the terrorists as they can.  Furthermore the trip can demonstrate to the Lebanese government that we still support them.  Either way, I see this trip as a win-win for the US.

Tags: Democracy, Iran, President Bush, Politics, War by Chuck
No Comments »

The people of Iran sometimes act like someone who just bought a car from a used car salesman.  When they wake up in the morning to view the new car and it turns out they had not bought was what they were promised.  During the 1979 Iranian revolution which overthrew the Shah of Iran, the people wanted and demanded more rights and a democratically elected government.  Since then, the run of the mill people of Iran are not very satisfied with what was become of those promises.  For the last few years, the mullahs have kept an ever watchful eye on everyday Iranians and with good reason.  The people still want more rights, not a more restrictive theocracy.

With the turmoil in Lebanon, you would think the Iranians would want to do anything they can to help their Islamic brethren.  Not so.  It turns out most of the Iranian people want their money to stay in Iran to take care of Iranian problems.

There is a huge amount of anger here about what is happening in Lebanon, but it is not all the result of Israeli bombs, missiles and artillery.

“Of course I am angry,’’ said Hamid Akbari, 30, a deliveryman. “All our income is going to Palestine and Hezbollah.”

For decades, Iran has been Hezbollah’s prime patron, helping create it as a Shiite Muslim militia and then nurture it with money, expertise and weapons. But now that Hezbollah is in the midst of full-blown fighting with Israel, Iranian officials have been adamant in insisting that they had nothing to do with the events that set off the crisis. (snip)

In interviews in central Tehran Saturday, person after person said the same thing: Iran should worry about Iran’s problems and not be dragged down by others’ battles.

“We Iranians have a saying,” said Ali Reza Moradi, 35, a portrait artist who works in a small booth downtown. “We should save our own house first and then save the mosque. A lot of people think this way. The government should help its people first, and then help the people in Lebanon.”

Maybe some of the anger in Iran will be directed not at Israel, but on the ruling mullahs who continuously defy the west with its nuclear program and its support of terrorist groups.  Iran can not hope to match the US dollar for dollar in this crisis.  As Iran sends more of their hard earned money into this conflict, the anger towards the Iranian government will likely grow.  I hope this is the beginning of the end for the Islamic theocracy in Iran.

Tags: Democracy, Iran, War by Chuck
No Comments »