Don't follow your leaders

I will readily concede that some of my notions are "idealistic" and may even be called "naive." So thank God I'm not in charge of the most powerful nation in the world! But, with all that is going on in the world today, I shudder at the thought that the ones leading this nation are more foolish than I...


SHIITES RALLY FOR HEZBOLLAH IN BAGHDAD

By VIJAY JOSHI, Associated Press Writer

In Saudi Arabia, hundreds of Shiites, who make up about 12 percent of the predominantly Sunni country's population, have marched over the past three days in al-Qatif municipality in the Gulf coast region.

Under the watchful eyes of anti-riot police during a demonstration Thursday, protesters chanted: "No Sunni, no Shiites, only one Muslim unity" while others waved posters of Nasrallah chanting "Oh Nasrallah, oh beloved one, destroy destroy Tel Aviv."

Israel launched its military campaign after Hezbollah guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers and killed three others in a cross-border raid. Saudi rulers issued a statement chastising the group for "uncalculated adventures," and a popular Sunni cleric even issued a religious edict that Muslims disavow Hezbollah.

But with the death toll of Lebanese civilians now in the hundreds and some 1 million people displaced, the Saudi government has backpedaled on its stance, even allowing rare demonstrations in favor of Hezbollah.

Support for Hezbollah has spread among Sunnis, despite tensions between the sects over Iraq and the rise of Shiite-dominated Iran.

...More evidence proving the utter failure of "the West's" Middle East policy...

With all the grandiloquent, "visionary" rhetoric the Bush administration spews; with all the "big picture," "grand scheme" perspicacity Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accuses the media and liberals of not having; with all this "freedom" and "democracy" talk---you would think that the U.S. government would have some clue about the nuances of the Middle East. You would assume they would have incorporated vital bits of information, like the fact that most of "the people" in the nations we call our Muslim "allies" (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and soon-to-be Iraq) hate their governments, and this hatred is mainly because these governments are our allies, let alone because they are oppressive---you would assume that these "realities" are part of their "comprehensive," multi-tracked plan. And, you would assume, that every event which took place in the Middle East that required some sort of response by the U.S. government would be measured and weighed by its effect on "the people," who must be at the "heart" of any such "democratic" and "freedom-spreading" plan. Right? Isn't the opinion of the Muslim world worth a damn when you give them the right to vote and choose their own leaders? Isn't this "noble" goal the reason we went to IRAQ? HA!

[From the same article...]

...their numbers [number of protestors in other Muslim nations] were dwarfed by the huge Shiite turnout in Baghdad, organized by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Crowds of al-Sadr supporters from across Iraq's Shiite heartland converged on the capital's Sadr City district, chanting "Death to Israel, Death to America" in the biggest pro-Hezbollah rally since the conflict began July 12. Demonstrators, wearing white shrouds symbolizing willingness to die for Hezbollah, waved the guerrillas' banner and chanted slogans in support of their leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah.
"Allah, Allah, give victory to Hassan Nasrallah," the crowd chanted before burning Israeli and American flags.

In response to the protests, FOXNEWS' John Kasich asked: "Should America keep fighting for these people?" [emphasis mine]

This is an example of the stupidity of thinking you can make the people of a region love you by bombing them (what I call "my buddy" imperialism). It also shows the Bush administration's lack of understanding of the Middle East---its culture, its history, its people, and their will.

What do you expect the Muslim world to think when the U.S. supports Israel's destruction of a Muslim country?

The truth is, the Muslim world scoffed at the Bush administration's rhetorical justifications for war in Iraq (it was hard not to). The war plan was based on a foundation full of holes. And now, as the REAL issues the Bush administration did nothing to ameliorate (i.e. the Israeli-Palestinian/greater-Muslim-world conflict, which is the root of Muslim hatred toward the West)---as these festering problems begin to flare up again, neo-conservative ideologues find it hard to believe that the Muslim world is rooting for "the other guy," and they still think we were fighting "for" the Muslim world rather than for ourselves.

Talk about naieve and idealisitic foolishness.

Rationale for War...

Many apologists for Israel's indiscriminate killing of Lebanese civilians rationalize Israel's actions thus:

Israel must confront Hezbollah now and defeat it once
and for all, lest they allow Hezbollah the opportunity to
regroup, rebuild, and threaten Israeli civilians in the
future. Therefore, a "ceasefire" will only yield future
"firing." Moreover, because Hezbollah reportedly hides
weapons and its fighters among civilians, Israel is left with
no choice but to strike civilian targets---and only after
dropping leaflets warning civilians to flee. (pardon
my paraphrasing...)

Granted.

Let's give Israel the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that every precaution possible is taken in order to avoid civilian casulties. Let's say that if an Israeli F-16 pilot has his sights on a target and is ready to "engage," but then sees civilians in the immediate vicinity, he is ordered to "abort." And let's say that all the civilian casualties that Israeli bombing has wrought is accidental.

Israel still loses.

Take the first point of the rationale: "If Israel doesn't stop Hezbollah now, Hezbollah will grow stronger and will attack harder later."(pardon the "paraphrase of my paraphrase!")

The point is, the facts on the ground, though murky and in flux, show that Israel's bombardment of Lebanon has NOT weakened Hezbollah's capability to make war as substantially as Israeli war planners had imagined.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1825569,00.html (though this article is more than a week or so old, it still holds true: Hezbollah continues to fire rockets into Israel unabatedly; just today they shot a record number of rockets and killed a record number of Israelis)

So, if Israel's military goals are not being achieved, why should it "stay the course"?

The tragedy that exists here is that Israel is not only NOT achieving their military goals (see "poem politics" below), but its tactics are strengthening Hezbollah in the hearts and minds of the Muslim world (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1826492,00.html), which is where Hezbollah's---and Islamic extremism's---true power comes from.

So, even if Israel was achieving its military goals, the question must be, "At what cost?"

And further, "How many innocent people will die before either Israel and the U.S. decide 'Hezbollah has had enough' or before Hezbollah 'says uncle.'

"Defeating" Hezbollah militarily does not mean it will be defeated. The problem with Islamic extremism, and the problem with Israel's and the United States' strategy against it, is that it is as much an ideological war as it is a physical war---and much more so than the Cold War.

Do you think that a child who survives this war, twenty years from now when the details of history (who started what, etc.) are saturated by the realities of everyday life---do you think a child whose face bares the scars of shrapnel from an Israeli missile, and whose parents and siblings were killed by a "precision guided bomb" will have anything but hate in his heart? Will he care that Hezbollah "started it"?

In a culture whose "extremists" value death more than life, and believe that the greatest glory is fighting and dying in the name of their religion and their land, military defeat is meaningless.

"Crush them!" they say. "Israel has to show the world that it's tough!" they say. "Israel has to show that they will respond to terror!" they say (as if anyone had any doubt, especially the militants they constantly are responding to!) "If not now, then when?"

How about now, but differently.

This cycle of violence will continue ad infinitum unless there is a philosophical and moral revolution in the world. Muslims believe in their religion so passionately and obsequiously that there is no chance of this happening in the Muslim world to a substantial degree within our lifetime. But, we in the West can change the way we deal with these people.

How do you defeat people who are not afraid to die? You try to help them improve the way they live, as you should always attempt to improve the way you live. Cooperation and honest debate mixed together is the antidote to bloodthirstiness.

Why does Hezbollah enjoy such loyal support from the Shiite Southern Lebanese? Because they are not just a militia which claims to be these people's only defender, but they also provide healthcare, educational services, and other such humanitarian assitance to them. They do so because they are smart. They know how to "play politics." And the simple fact is that these people are "loyal neighbors," living together in "tightly-knit" communities (the majority of Hezbollah is NOT foreign, though the Iranian Revolutionary Guard probably exists within its ranks). And besides, who in these poor, desolate, war-torn regions of Southern Lebanon---who of the non-Hezbollah-member "serfs": the workers, the mothers, the children---who out of "the people" would dare oppose Hezbollah?

The point is that an ideological movement, especially one based on organized religion and steeped in a "tribal" culture, cannot be defeated with bombs; ideas and revenge are more powerful.

And this is true no matter what country grows this breeed of man: it could happen anywhere, though it may take on a different shape.

But what else could Israel have done?

What might have actually "destroyed" Hezbollah would have been if Israel had sent in the full "force" of its special forces, amassed a large and threatening military presence on the Israeli-Lebanese border, and had airstrikes on Hezbollah military positions (bunkers, headquarters, launching stations, as well as air support)---in other words, a few degrees cooler of a response ---all this while threatening a full-scale invasion if the Lebanese government, the U.N., and the United States couldn't find a diplomatic solution which would free the prisoners and enforce U.N. Res. 1559. There would have been enough pressure, and Israel would have still had the moral high-ground, to call for an international force to be deployed along the Israeli-Lebanese border with a mandate to disarm Hezbollah (Israel's stated goal).

How could the U.S. and U.N. put pressure on the Lebanese government to confront Hezbollah?

I have been a subscriber of "The Daily Star," an English version Lebanese newspaper, for about a year now. I have been an avid follower of Lebanese politics since that time. I can tell you, with some certainty, that Hezbollah's brazen cross-border attack against Israel could have been a wedge used to divide the Lebanese people from Hezbollah through the fear that Hezbollah would get the people of Lebanon into the type of "trouble" they are facing now---which was slowly taking place anyway. The fear of that "trouble" could have "killed" Hezbollah; the realization of it has given it a new lease on life.

The only justification for Hezbollah's existence was a percieved Israeli threat, which is linked to Israel's occupation of the Sheeba Farms. The Lebanese people, especially the Christians, but also Sunnis, Druze, and some Shiites, were beginning to see Hezbollah as less a "defender" against Israel and more a "proxy" for Syrian and Iranian interests. The momentum was shifting toward the "liberals," toward the "moderates," and against Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and Islamic extremism.

And then Hezbollah struck.

And Israel's response was fourty-fold.

And what did Israel's response do?

It made the Lebanese people whitewash the fact that "Hezbollah started it" and forget the fact that they were turning away from Hezbollah because they "feared" it more than they "loved" it. Instead, it united them behind Hezbollah simply because they said: "at least they're defending us from the bombs that are falling onto our cities and killing our women and children." This is how Hezbollah will "win." They don't need to win on the battlefield; they win because the struggle will continue. Hezbollah, or a group of some other name, will always hate and attack Israel as long as Israel plays into the hands of those who are better "propagandists" than Israel is. Killing innocent civilians will only strengthen the "forces of hatred," and that's the easiest way to make sure Israel and "the West" lose.

It's as simple as that.