Global Paradigms

Don't worry. There is no live fire here. Bill Kristol and David Frum are alive and well. We're talking here only about the War of Ideas. Dr. Strauss does a great job summarizing the hysteria in the neoconservative camp against the backdrop of the Mideast mess, "appeasement" of North Korea and Iran, Israel in Lebanon, George Will's attack on the Weekly Standard , Weekly Standard's call for joining Israel in war on Iran , etc., including many links and funny stuff. Most disappointing was this Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush's Foreign Policy article which suggests that most conservatives are neo-conservatives. There is no doubt that Will's view reflect a rising frustration among real conservatives about Bush's foreign policy. In any case, my sense is that we all these foreign policy crises are going to lead to very, very interesting times and bring about major changes in America's Middle East policy, an issue that I will discuss next week in ...

Hey, guys, you didn't get it. What he said was: "See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this SHIITE [Nasralla, that is] and it's over." How do I know? A friend of mine covered the Lebanese civil war in the 1970's and he recalls that an American war correspondent from Texas approached him once and asked whether he could tell him something about "these shits." It took my friend a while to figure out that the Texan was referring to "these Shiites."

Sorry, but I've been busy writing commentary and analsis for several newspapers and magazines as well as doing a few broadcasting interviews. But I'm pasting here something on U.S. policy in the Middle East which was I published a while ago and which was based on an address before a group in Washington. Too bad that George Will didn't read it then and wouldn't have to wait so long to come to similar conclusions (sort of). January 24, 2003 In the Wake of War by Leon T. Hadar Leon Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy at the Cato Institute. Following the end of the first Gulf War and the Madrid Peace Conference, there were high expectations in Washington that a new American-led order would be established in the Middle East. The Madrid Peace Conference and the ensuing Oslo peace process were supposed to lay the foundations for a New Middle East: Peace between Israel and a Palestinian state. And the integration of the region into the global economy. Ten years later ...

The following editorial which quotes me, distributed by the Freedom View was published in several newspapers: It’s important to step back and view the situation between Israel and Lebanon with some perspective. Despite the repeated images from the 24/7 cable news channels, which understandably emphasize destruction and explosions, Israel is not engaged in a full-fledged “two-front war,” at least not yet. It is dealing with guerrilla-style incursions undertaken by nonstate-sponsored terrorist groups that have some ties with governments (more on that later) but operate with a certain amount of autonomy — and mystery. Israel in the past has fought conventional military wars and prevailed. This time, we haven’t seen troops massed on Israel’s borders or bombers taking off with payloads meant for Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. The conflict could escalate into a more conventional war and even pull in outside powers. The activity Thursday suggested the conflict is beginning to escalate into a signifi...

I've been reading newspapers, watching television (including from Israel and the Mideast), googling the news, and it's quite difficult to get a clear picture of what's happening and predict what's going to happen. My sense is that the G-8 statement was more favorable to the U.S. position (and by extension to Israel) than I would have expected. It stressed Israel's right to act in "self defence" and seems to suggest that Hizbollah and Hamas should return the kidnapped soldiers as first steps and as part of the conditions for cease-fire. There were also clear indications that the leading Arab-Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt are hoping for Hizbollah's demise. I think that Israel could probably continue with the bombing for quite a while. I also don't think that the war would expand beyond Lebanon.

*O Jays Even some of the guys and gals I trust in terms of understanding what's up in the world seem to be confused about the recent Mideast Madness. Leading think-tanker Steven Clemons thinks that Some Questions Regarding Israel's Objectives: Is Israel Trying to Curb America's Deal-Making in Middle East? while veteran Mideast watcher Robin Wright concludes that Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants , while Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avnery suspects Israeli-American collusion with an unidentified Lebanese "elites." In fact, my online pal Michael Sharon suggests that Ehud Olmert and George W. concluded a "secret accord" to oust Hammas during the Israeli PM's visit to Washington. (in hebrew). And also check-out my earlier posts on which historical analogies we need to apply (1967? 1973? 1982?) to understand Israel's moves (well, neither and all of them...). Since my...

Ome my favorite Israeli journalists suggests that the The real aim is to change the regime in Lebanon and to install a puppet government. That was the aim of Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It failed. But Sharon and his pupils in the military and political leadership have never really given up on it. As in 1982, the present operation, too, was planned and is being carried out in full coordination with the US. As then, there is no doubt that it is coordinated with a part of the Lebanese elite. That's the main thing. Everything else is noise and propaganda. (read the rest) I'm skeptical about the idea that Israel wants to do a rerun of 1982 in Lebanon. Avnery seems to imply that there could be some collusion between Israel and the Lebanese "elite" with some support for Washington. Anything is possible. But it sounds far-fetched to me. I certainly agree with him that "another secondary aim is to rehabilitate the 'deterrent power' of the army...

Billmon advances it: Punching Above Its Weight Three days in, and it looks like Israel is losing the war. Not militarily, of course -- The IDF could turn Lebanon into a parking lot if it wanted to, and if it's willing to take enough casualties it can probably push Hezbollah away from the Israeli border and suppress the rocket attacks (or at least most of them.) No, Israel is losing this war the same way it "lost" the October 1973 War -- by not crushing its enemies swiftly and completely, and then rubbing their faces in their own impotence and humilation. Just the opposite: Today it was Israel that suffered the humilation of nearly losing one of its missile frigates to a warhead-carrying Hezbollah drone -- a threat the IDF apparently didn't even know existed. An explosives-laden drone, apparently launched by Hezbollah, hit an Israel Navy warship off the coast of Beirut, causing serious damage to its steering capability . . . Several hours after the vessel was hit, an I...

I was sitting down to write something about the topic (and it's starting to feel a bit undignified making once again the same point, that "I've told you so"). But then I read E. J. Dionne's Big Bang Theory In Ruins in the Washington Post who has basically written the commentary for me. So now I can go to the pool... Here is Dionne's item with some added comments by moi (in bold): The most intellectually honest case for the war in Iraq was never about Saddam Hussein's alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. It was the Big Bang Theory. [why do social scientists like to compare themselves to real scientists?) Not to be confused with theories about the origins of the universe, the Middle East Big Bang idea was simple and seductive. [simple, yes; not very seductive] Unlike other arguments for the war, it was based on some facts, though also [almost all] on some wishful thinking. The point was that the Middle East was a mess. A nest of authoritar...

...Over Gay March... And here are other reactions by Moslems and Jews to the Gay March: Arab MK: No gays in Muslim society. Rabbi Yosef: Move gay pride parade to Sodom. MK Vilan on gay parade: Remember King David. And why is the following story interesting? Four prominent members of gay community send letter to PM requesting that he retract his support for election of former Chief Rabbi Yisrael Lau as president following criticism of Gay Pride Parade, homosexual life style. I'll answer that with a question: What do Vice President Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have in common. Apparently, Olmert's daughter Danna who is a lecturer in literature at the Tel Aviv University, is a self-identified lesbian and lives with her partner in Tel Aviv. It seems that her parents, like the Cheneys, are accepting of their daughter's sexual identity and partner. Danna is also a anti-war activist and is seen below demonstrating against Israeli policies in Gaza. Not that t...

Time magazine's cover story The end of cowboy diplomacy has been mentioned, talked about, recycled, etc. in the print and broadcast media in recent days. You can guess what the article says even without reading it... Here are the last paragrphs. But in the span of four years, the administration has been forced to rethink the doctrine by which it hoped to remake the world. Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was revealing: Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action. Instead, the administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. The Bush Doctrine foundered in the principal place the U.S. tried to apply it. Though no one in the White House openly questions Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, some aides now acknowledge that it has come at a steep cost in military resources, public support and credibility abroad. The administration is ...

Aluf Benn had a very interesting piece, In Eshkol's Shoes in Haaretz over the weekend. Eshkol was the Prime Minister that led Israel during the 1967/Six-Day-War. A new book on the war, written by a well-regarded Israeli military historian and former government official (and based on newly published documents) portrays Eshkol as a weak political figure with no military background who was pressed by an activist IDF to attack Egypt. Benn seems to be concerned that PM Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, who like Eshkol were not part of the military/security establishment are being pressured by the Israeli military to act tough in Gaza. Benn also raises some interesting parallels between the U.S. role then (LBJ stuck in Vietnam gives Israel a "yellow light" to attack Egypt) and now (GWB stuck in Iraq (and North Korea, and Iran, and... gives Israel a "yellow light" to attack Gaza?) Worth reading. It's pasted here: Here is a piece of advice for Prime Mi...

Sorry, but since no one is paying me to write a review of the new book by neocon- pisher Peter Beinart, I'm not going to read it. But I do recommend two excellent reviews of this crap, by Nicholas von Hoffman in The American Conservative and by Andrew Bachevich in The Nation . Enjoy! And, hey, and too bad I missed this 2005 Festival of Ideas. The notion that "Festival" and "Ideas" associated with the two guys below:

Harry Truman wasn't a good friend of mine, (I actually didn't like him), But you, George W. Bush are not Harry Truman.... Dr. Strauss has a very interesting post on the neocons' effort to "Trumanize" (and "Rooseveltize" and "Reaganize" and even "Lincolnize") George W. which he describes (and rightly so) as "appalling and intellectually dishonest." Neocons? Appaling and intellectuall dishonest?

On this blog on February 24, 2006 , I posted ports in raging political storm in which I highlighted the interesting "coalition" between some neo-conservatives and some libertarians over the issue of the Dubai ports and discussed the topic. A few days later I received an email ("subject: plagiarism") from a colleague who mentioned that a certain conveyer of dreck has made the same exact arguments re: libertarians/neoconservatives/Dubai on March 3 and 11. I responded that I don't think that it was really an issue of "intellectual property rights" and more important, who really cares what this intellectual Amoeba writes anyway. Well, now my friend emails me that the same small-time nudnik referring to an article I published in The American Conservative on March 27 --- in which I reiterated the points I had made in my earlier post on this blog -- is now kvetching that these comments were plagiarized from her "work." Note how so, so pathetic...

The new face of terrorism: Toddlers in Kaqhistan "were thinking" about Bombing White House A terrorist plot to bomb the White House was broken up in its "very early" planning stages, U.S. officials said yesterday, with three suspects arrested in Pissville,the capital city of the central Asian country of Kaqhistan (a member of the Coalition of the Willing that has dispatched three janitors to Baghdad last July). They included two toddlers (see above) that the FBI said were al-Quaeda "sympathizers" and their nanny who is suspected of being the "leader" of the alleged terrorist cell. FBI officials, appearing in a press conference in Washington, DC, on Thursday (see below) said that they have been aware of the cell for about a year. "The planning or the plotting for this attack had matured to the point where it appeared that the individuals were about to do something," Larry Moron, the special agent in charge of the agency's chief liaso...

In case you've missed: Please read my recent Nationalism: The Last Refuge of the Political Loser: The GOP's nationalist agenda may lead to electoral victory . Also checkout Billmon's Chameleon.

Jim Henley, responding to my earlier post ,highlights the dilemma that we (classical) liberals/libertarians face on election day in this two-party system (yes, yes, I know that there is a libertarian party) when he points out that he dislikes (well, despises) Jim Webb's economic nationalist agenda while approving of his position on Iraq. This is when many of us fantasize about a multi-party system in this country (and yes, yes, I know why our sytem is more effective in preventing the rise of dangerous demagogues, is more stable, etc.). So here is my proposal for a new multi-party system (and note that I've chosen "fresh" faces to lead them, e.g., Sailer, and not Buchanan to lead the Nationalist Party). The Liberal Party led by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Supports free markets/free trade. Liberal on social-cultural issues (drugs, gays, abortion, etc.). Pro-immigration and anti-interventionist (although I can imagine a scenario when a few neocons influence the party's fo...

One of the leading Israeli architects of the late "Oslo Process," Yossi Beilin has an interesting item in Ha'aretz about the American "non-role" in the recent round Israeli-Palestinian violence: One of the most striking phenomena of recent weeks, given the stepped-up launching of Qassam rockets on Sderot, the painful incident at Kerem Shalom, and the abduction of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, is the absence of the American factor. True, there have been telephone conversations with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. ambassador in Israel receives updates, and the U.S. ambassador at the United Nations objects to resolutions calling on Israel to end its military operation in the Gaza Strip. But in terms of direct influence on the ground, there has been absolute American silence. He concludes that The United States was not even mentioned as an option. The White House spokesman on duty did take the time to inform the world that it was Israel's right to de...

A US combat commander suggested the United States could lose the war in Iraq if public support for it at home is sapped by negative media coverage. "My personal opinion is that the only way we will lose this war is if we pull out prematurely," said Colonel Jeffrey Snow, a brigade commander in Baghdad. "I would hope we get the time and support we need to finish this mission," he said in a video conference from Iraq. like we didn't know Yep, Take a look at the morning paper nowadays and it's clear that America has a lot of enemies. Two or three different brands of insurgency are operating in Iraq. North Korea has nuclear weapons and Pakistan is selling them. Our former best friend in Baghdad turns out to be an American spy. Al Qaeda, of course, is still out there. All this notwithstanding, some commentators on the right seem to have decided that the real enemies aren't the ones they read about it the papers, but the people who write them. read "The re...