[QUOTE=Nietzsche]
Couldn’t agree more. This is exactly what I was thinking when I mentioned the Camp David Accords in another thread. Money always buys one friends.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’m not sure I agree that this is always the case (look at how much money was wasted on North Korea, for instance…still not exactly our good buddies there), but I whole heartedly agree with your final statement: “But can someone tell me why the Americans always have to pick up the tab for others to be friends? I think the British and French should have to pick up the tab for this one since this mess is really their fault.”
Of course our Euro brethren convinently don’t see it that way…
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Not unless you go back before 1948!
[/QUOTE]
Um…are you under the impression that the problems in the region all stem from after that time?? Or that the Euro’s, er, involvement (snort) in the ME ended in 1948?!??
Syria and/or Iran get directly involved. Best case, things eventually return pretty much to status quo ante, only with a lot more dead people and angry mourners all round. Worst case, the US and/or other world powers get drawn in —>WW III—> nuclear armageddon
Israel decides it can’t acheive its objectives without putting ground troops into Lebanon and --stop me if you’ve heard this one – winds up in a long-term occupation of a territory with a hostile population, facing a constant low-level guerilla war with no apparent workable exit strategy.
Israel blows a lot of shit up for a few weeks and succeeds in substantially destroying Hezbollah’s military capacity without needing to occupy Lebanon. In the short term, this increases the safety of Israeli civilians while further stoking hatred of Israel among the Lebanese population, leading to a rematch in a decade or three.
UN troops occupy the south of Lebanon, protecting civilians on both sides while buying time for Lebanon’s civil society to strengthen itself to the point where it can elect a government which is both willing and able to prevent terrorists from using its territory as a base for attacks. There are lots of reasons why this probably wouldn’t work, but it is the only scenario that I see as offering any sort of hope for a positive long-term outcome.
[/QUOTE]
Comments:
Outcome #1 runs a lot of risk but it also brings the possibility of eliminating Iran’s nuclear capacity. Long term wise keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of religious nutjobs who have proven their willingness to provide weapons to terrorists is a good thing … I mean it is bad enough that Bush has access to a button! US pulled in, I can see how that can happen if Iran tries to fly over Iraq, but what world powers on the other side? Russia? China? France?
No one wants to run the risks of option #1, for good reasons, but WW3 is hyperbole.
#2 is looking more likely and I agree that it is a bad choice.
#3 is most likely, agreed. It does not destroy Hezbollah but the bulk of the people of Lebanon, while harboring no love for Israel, seem to recognize that Hezbelloh has brought this on them. How it ends up playing in the rest of the Arab world is an open question. Leadership in many countries no longer has as much need for an Israeli boogeyman as they have need to contain those who would desire to return the whole region to an isolated fundamentalist Caliphate … if that ever actually existed. Certainly this plays well for those forces “on the street.” But those who will be convinced that Israel is evil because of this action already felt so.
#3 does not preclude #4 and #2 and this combination seems to be Israel’s preferred option. Weaken Hezbollah enough, establish the buffer zone, and hand it over to an international force (not necessarily UN). Then let the international community bribe Lebanon back into the fold.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Or that the Euro’s, er, involvement (snort) in the ME ended in 1948?!??
[/QUOTE]
No, but you can’t blame them (or the U.S.) for the essential facts-on-the-ground after that date. The situation in the OTs resulted from the establishment of Israel in the first place interacting with the Arabs’ refusal to accept it.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Outcome #1 runs a lot of risk but it also brings the possibility of eliminating Iran’s nuclear capacity. Long term wise keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of religious nutjobs who have proven their willingness to provide weapons to terrorists is a good thing … I mean it is bad enough that Bush has access to a button!
[/QUOTE]
Never happen. When they get nukes, they’ll never give them to people they can’t control. If nothing else, what if the terrorists have a doctrinal disagreement with the Iranian leadership and blow up Tehran ? I really can’t buy the idea that any government would hand over nukes to a bunch of loose cannons. I’ve always regarded this bogeyman as pure scaremongering; terrorists are more likely to make one themselves, unlikely as that is.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, I’m not sure I agree that this is always the case (look at how much money was wasted on North Korea, for instance…still not exactly our good buddies there)…
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps it didn’t work quite as well, but I think the current rise in tensions was due primarily to the current US administrations abandonment of diplomacy and a resumption of a more hostile stance towards China and North Korea upon taking office back in 2001.
I’ve got an idea. The current German administration seems keen on closer ties with the US. How about instead of empty gestures of solidarity, they actually do something substantial? Say for example commit ground troops to the border to enforce a ceasefire? Or would the irony of defending the same people who fled persecution by the Germans against the hostility of the people whom they were imposed upon be too much?
Sounds good. Let’s get the good doc to fire up the DeLorean.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche]
I’ve got an idea. The current German administration seems keen on closer ties with the US. How about instead of empty gestures of solidarity, they actually do something substantial? Say for example commit ground troops to the border to enforce a ceasefire? Or would the irony of defending the same people who fled persecution by the Germans against the hostility of the people whom they were imposed upon be too much?
[/QUOTE]
Irony might not matter, but history in general does. I’m sure a plan that involves putting German soldiers in a position where they might have to open fire on Israelis would be impossible to sell in Berlin, Washington or New York. I know you were thinking in terms of them defending Israel from the Hezbollah, but a “peacekeeping” force can’t play favorites.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Irony might not matter, but history in general does. I’m sure a plan that involves putting German soldiers in a position where they might have to open fire on Israelis would be impossible to sell in Berlin, Washington or New York. I know you were thinking in terms of them defending Israel from the Hezbollah, but a “peacekeeping” force can’t play favorites.
[/QUOTE]
‘Peacekeeping’ is a useless when thought of in an ME context. For peacekeeping to be effective the conflict must actually have finished and there must be a genuine desire for peace on both sides. Neither condition will ever be filled.
[QUOTE=kezami]
‘Peacekeeping’ is a useless when thought of in an ME context. For peacekeeping to be effective the conflict must actually have finished and there must be a genuine desire for peace on both sides. Neither condition will ever be filled.
[/QUOTE]
Sometimes “peacekeeping” requires nothing more than a readiness to shoot anyone who threatens to break the peace. It’s a short-term quick fix, anyway, that can buy time while a more lasting settlement can be worked out. But only if “anybody” really does mean anybody.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Sometimes “peacekeeping” requires nothing more than a readiness to shoot anyone who threatens to break the peace. It’s a short-term quick fix, anyway, that can buy time while a more lasting settlement can be worked out. But only if “anybody” really does mean anybody.
[/QUOTE]
E.g., the UN Sinai Peacekeeping Force, aka the [url=]Second United Nations Emergency Force, from 1973 through 1979 kept the Egyptians and the Israelis off each other’s necks – not be actually shooting but by standing ready to do so. Without that, how could Carter have negotiated peace in the Camp David Accords? It was a precondition that there be no active fighting going on during the negotiations.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
[li]Israel’s getting far more support in the world this time around than it has traditionally gotten.[/li][/QUOTE]
Are they? the traditonally pro-Israeli Australian newspapers are absolultely slamming them. The last few days the front pages have been full of stories from Aussies fleeing Lebanon about Israeli atrocities. So there seems no love for them here.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
E.g., the UN Sinai Peacekeeping Force, aka the [url=]Second United Nations Emergency Force, from 1973 through 1979 kept the Egyptians and the Israelis off each other’s necks – not be actually shooting but by standing ready to do so. Without that, how could Carter have negotiated peace in the Camp David Accords? It was a precondition that there be no active fighting going on during the negotiations.
[/QUOTE]
Big difference. There was actually a desire for peace on bothsides and both parties were sovereign nations.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Exactly as many as the number of shells which were fired from Tokyo at Pearl Harbor.
[/QUOTE]
But the US didn’t want the Japanese Navy to dock outside of Hawaii’s terrortorial waters.
And in this case Israel wants the Lebanese Army to be in South Lebanon / at the Israeli border to fight Hezbollah. That is why Israel is engaged in a terror campaign against non-Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.
[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
And in this case Israel wants the Lebanese Army to be in South Lebanon / at the Israeli border to fight Hezbollah. That is why Israel is engaged in a terror campaign against non-Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.
[/QUOTE]
Come now, the Israelis can’t possibly be so irrational as to hope Lebanon will deploy a partly Shi’ite army against Hezbollah! Can they?
Not unless you go back before 1948!