Tammy Bruce: War with the Mullahs Is Coming

War with the Mullahs Is Coming

So says historian Arthur Herman in a piece for the New York Post. One (there will probably be more) of your must-reads for the day.

THE MIDEAST'S MUNICH

HISTORIANS will look back at this weekend's cease-fire agreement in Lebanon as a pivotal moment in the war on terror. It is pivotal in the same sense that the Munich agreement between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain was pivotal in an earlier battle against the enemies of freedom. The accord in October 1938 revealed to the world that the solidarity of the Western allies was a sham, and that the balance of power had shifted to the fascist dictators.

Resolution 1701 shows that, for the time being at least, the balance has likewise shifted to the terrorists and their state sponsors. Like Munich, it marks the triumph of the principle of putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today. Like Munich, it will mean not peace in our time, but a bigger war in our future.

Yep. Thanks again Condi.

And for those of you posting here and sending me emails about how this is not Secretary Rice's fault, that this is "realist" politics, and that the president is as much to blame, I obviously disagree. There was a significant change in the administration's attitude when Rice came on board. And while obviously foreign policy and WoT decisions are not made by one person, she is the leader, not just when it comes to influence with the president, but also because of her position.

And I have to say, I realize it's nicer to think that there's some super-secret-special reason for us to have supported the retreat of Israel, that there must be some secret plan to obliterate Hez and this failure is someone a weird tactic on our part to help make that happen. Some of you think that because you can't imagine otherwise.

Well, the history of the world, and Herman's remarks about Munich should remind you that politicians tend to not think like us, and have made more horrific, nonsensical decisions about life and death than we can imagine. I'm afraid we may have slipped back into that inexplicable world where the decent just siply have lost the will to do the right thing.

Can it change? Yes. But only if all of us pound at the doors of the administration and demand better.

Posted by Tammy · August 16, 2006 09:31 AM · Permalink
War on Radical Islam

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://tammybruce.com/mt/pings.cgi/855

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference War with the Mullahs Is Coming:

» Those Who Forget from The Jawa Report
The lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. There has been some discussion of who won the conflict in Lebanon. Hint: It wasn�t Israel. I�ve said this a few times but today Arthur Herman at the NY Post says... [Read More]

Tracked on August 16, 2006 12:12 PM

» Results do Count from Entrenched Meanders
I\'m not sure I\'m on board with her comments about Condi, but there is a bit of a toning down of the \"Kill the Terrorists\" rhetoric. [Read More]

Tracked on August 16, 2006 02:49 PM

Comments

I share your dismay at the terms of the,,, "postpone fire". But I think it may not be as poor a choice as you obviously do. Perchance Condi and Isreal are banking on the fact that Hezbollah will not, can not conform to 1701, and thus the tide of public opinion will turn when their hand is finally forced.

At least, that is my hope.

Posted by: Ramsic at August 16, 2006 12:05 PM

Bet on "public opinion"??????????????? How many armored divisions does "public opiniion" have?

Posted by: St. Thor at August 16, 2006 01:18 PM

No, not to bet on public opinion, but to gather up a little more empathy in the democratic governments. Opinion in non democratic nations is of no consequene, but it does matter in places where the leaders are elected, like say,,, the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy,,, Leaders who would stand with Isreal have been taking a beating in the world press. If they lose power, who then will stem the tide? It wouldn't matter how many armored divisions could help, if none would help.

Bush is known for being a poker player. I think he, via Condi, have called the UN and the Hezbollah oppologist. Now they have to turn the cards and disarm Hezbollah. If they can't, don't or won't they forfett the pot, the moral high ground, which wins elections for democratic leaders.

Posted by: Ramsic at August 16, 2006 01:32 PM

We dislike pure "realism" because it's amoral. On the other hand, pure morality may be unrealistic. The right thing isn't being done and evil is being tolerated in Lebanon, and a price will be paid for this. But what are the options? A decent resolution on Lebanon would require stronger action against Lebanon than Israel could muster. We couldn't get that through the UN. And who is going to send troops into Lebanon without a UN sanction? Our goal -- and maybe this is unrealistic as well -- is to fight one wildfire at a time. The goal of the bad guys is to set fires faster than we can battle them. Some argue -- and this makes a lot of sense -- that the entire timing of the Lebanon crisis is set by Tehran to distract from their own mischief, which is far more dangerous and malevolent. Lebanon is local; Iran with a bomb is global. From that vantage, Lebanon is a detail. Deal with Iran and Lebanon will eventually fall into line. But if we focus on Lebanon and get distracted from Iran, we may court doomsday. This, I'd like to think, may be Condi's driving logic.

Posted by: Talkin Horse at August 16, 2006 01:56 PM

Talkin Horse,

I think you are correct in what you said. Iran is the main focus, not Lebanon.

Here's my take on all this: Bush and Rice gave Israel the go ahead to do what was needed to destroy Hezbollah. They no doubt thought that the IDF would quickly and aggressively move into Lebanon (to that river who's name I can't remember) and then they could move south back towards Israel and wipe out Hezbollah as they went. This would have dealt a quick and severe blow not only to Hezzbolah but to Iran and Syria who orchestrated it. What Bush/Rice did not figure on was that the Olmert was a Mid-East version of Bill Clinton who was afraid to take a single casulty.

After a month it became obvious that it was pointless to let this go on since Olmert was unwilling to do what was necessary to destroy Hezbollah. At this point I'm not sure what else Bush could have done but to try the UN route as a stop-gap until the situation in Israel changes (i.e. a new leader).

I hate to disagree with Tammy because I consider her a very smart woman but I'm not ready to put the blame on Condi Rice and I don't think she's responsible for the change in the administration's policy on terrorism. In fact I don't think there's neccesarily been a change. I think the reality is that until we get Iraq more stablilized, we are not in a real position to do anything about Iran. That's why we are seeing a push to clean up Baghdad.

We also have to remember that following 911 Bush said that not only would this war go for a long time but that sometimes there would be things going on behind the scenes that no one would see.

Maybe this is one of those times.

Posted by: David at August 16, 2006 03:41 PM

Logic is compelled to answer only one question --
what is the right thing to do? In my view, the only logical answer to this logical question is to annihilate the terrorists.

Posted by: predoc at August 16, 2006 04:31 PM

This whole Lebanon-Hez affair is a direct result of Isreal's turning over of the West Bank. More important that the powers that be realise the folly of that surrender, take it back, and apologise on bended knees to the residents their own soldiers dragged out of there kicking and screaming. They were the real heros of Isreal.

Posted by: ahwatukeejohn at August 16, 2006 04:51 PM

Tammy ... I just hope that the administration's decision to call of the dogs in lebanon was a tactical retreat with an ulterior motive.

By appearing to back down to iran and the terrorists, perhaps Bush is hoping they'll let their guard down while they celebrate their great "victory." And while the mullahs and their slimy followers crow about their accomplishments, hopefully our special forces are planning some mayhem on iranian soil.

We have to have researched which economic soft spots iran has. And with more than 130k troops next door in iraq, we clearly have the ability to break a lot of stuff in iran. perhaps by taking out all of their domestic gasoline refineries, we can bring the iranian economy to a halt and hasten the day that regular iranians begin the revolution to topple the mullahs.

We can only hope :)

Posted by: ConnecticutBruce at August 16, 2006 05:03 PM

What if they enacted a cease-fire and one side refused to comply?

Hezbollah refuses to disarm or be disarmed. Hezbollah continues to fire rockets. Hezbollah has consistently expressed their desire to drive Israel into the sea, and stain the sea red with Israeli blood.

Hezbollah is using the cease-fire to rest up and re-arm. What do you think the Israelis are doing? And Israel has the better military, better equipment, and better resources. Israel can re-equip and re-order her forces in Lebanon far faster than Hezbollah could ever dream of doing.

Let us not forget, Hezbollah is not abiding by the cease fire. You need two to have a cease fire. There will come a day when Hezbollah instigates something so blatant even the hard left will be forced to issue rationalizations, at which point Israel will go to town.

Expect this phase of the war to end with Israel occupying the whole of Lebanon, and bringing forces up for the liberation of Syria.

Posted by: mythusmage at August 16, 2006 05:05 PM

To be fair to Condi Rice, her predecessor Colin Powell wasn’t any better. There is something crawling around the bowels of the State Department ( as well as the CIA and FBI) that sucks the life out of any public servant who might try to tame it. Call it entrenched political careerism if you will. For better or for worse the buck stops with the President and I don’t buy the premise that Bush is being led by the nose by Condi or any other subordinate into accepting this sham of seize fire. Most likely the Hez-bots will prove unstable and unwilling to abide by any terms and will start lobbing Katyusha rockets into Israel. This should give Israel a free hand to turn Lebanon into a parking lot hopefully with a new PM at the helm. My money is on Netanyahu.

Posted by: Bamagal at August 16, 2006 08:30 PM

Good comments,Talkin Horse.

Posted by: Vicki at August 16, 2006 08:51 PM

Has everyone read the full resolution? Does it not sound like a well-laid plan for sustainable peace? I think the resolution is awesome (with the exception of Israel releasing any prisoners, but that part it seems, is purposely obscure).

So now we have..

“Hizbollah now faces a clear choice between war and peace, and the world [will be watching] to ensure that the choice is the right one”. - Coni Rice

Will see if the UN has any credibility, perhaps that was the alterior motive.

One thing I do agree with the article is that we 'have the threat of a bigger war in our future'. But that has to do more with the middle east - namely Iran - getting nuclear weapons capability than the existance of Hezbollah. Once nukes are developed there will be a plethora of radical extremists goups to take responsibility for carrying out an attack. I believe that is our grave concern (no pun intended).

Posted by: Mr. G at August 16, 2006 09:08 PM

I never watch Charlie Rose's show, but stopped when I surfed by and saw he had Israel's Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, on last night. To me, she sounded a lot like Condi Rice! There were differing opinions in Israel's government on how to handle matters, with Livni wanting the fighting stopped sooner. And she readily admitted that she places her complete "hope" that the UN Resolution works by having "moderate" Arab nations and world opinion coalescing to force the disarming of Hezbollah, and the Lebanese realizing an armed Hezbollah in their midst does not bode well for their future.

Ms. Livni obviously knows her people and that region better than I, but I was slightly shocked at how much she sounded like our own State Department. I hope she is correct in her assessment, but am highly skeptical.

Posted by: Bachbone at August 17, 2006 02:32 AM

I am on the fence about the whole situation. I HOPE that the people representing US interests know what they are doing and have the ability to negotiate and persuade reluctant "allies" and world powers. But I am AFRAID they do not.

Posted by: jmh5711 at August 19, 2006 08:00 AM

By Category

By Month

War with the Mullahs Is Coming

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment