whitemajikman
11-24-2005, 11:23 AM
Where would we be without Israel?
It’s not surprising that an administration whose definition of internationalism is "Let’s drive to Texarkana for pork barbecue" needs a guide to lead it through the bloody intricacies of the Middle East.
It’s also no surprise that our faux flyboy president would fall under the sway of a ruthless, wily warrior from Israel.
As Israel desperately ups the ante with a bombing raid deep into Syria, the once taboo question of America’s relationship with Israel, especially with Sharon and the Likud, is no longer esoteric or irrelevant.
It becomes one of central importance.
The neocon blueprint for the Middle East promised to avoid and short-circuit the loaded question of moderating Israeli behavior by switching the focus to Iraq, Syria, and Iran. "Draining the swamp" would cause the Palestinian problem to wither away as Arafat, deprived of the support of "outside agitators", would be overwhelmed by a combination of internal reformist pressure, Israeli subversion, and US-led diplomatic isolation.
The Palestinian problem would take care of itself as we became beloved masters of the Arabian sandbox.
Of course it didn’t happen that way.
America has found itself unable to contain nationalist aspirations and anti-American sentiments even inside Iraq, where our occupation is replacing the rule of a widely despised and execrated despot.
No surprise that our adventure in Iraq has had zero effect on Sharon’s futile attempt to crush an indigenous, popular Palestinian independence movement opposing Israeli occupation.
In fact, it would seem that the Palestinian problem is getting worse, not better.
Conventional logic would suggest that the neocon theory had failed its first real test and should be carefully and openly re-appraised.
No such luck.
The neocon solution is just more of the same, with a new twist.
The neocons, stymied in the United States by the Iraq debacle (and reportedly hamstrung by the Rove diktat "No war in 2004") must turn to a leader stronger, more determined, and more ruthless than Bush to keep their careening plans for Middle East transformation on track — Ariel Sharon.
Although the road to Israeli security and its presumed doppelganger, absolute American dominance in the Middle East, may lie through Damascus, it doesn’t look like U.S. boots will be hitting the highway anytime soon.
So Israel will have to make the trip alone (for the time being; maybe Paul Wolfowitz is promising that a few hitchhikers from the 82nd Airborne can be picked up somewhere further down the road).
The first step was a bombing raid on a purported terrorist training camp near Damascus, supposedly in retaliation for a suicide bombing by a Palestinian woman that left 19 dead in Haifa.
Bush, by now truly a captive of his own failure, stupidity, and neocon cupidity, is supporting Sharon in the only military escapade that could possibly be regionally and internationally less popular than the invasion of Iraq.
When Sharon applies to Syria a policy that has failed for Israel on the West Bank, and for the U.S. in Iraq, Bush eggs him on with a creepy, fascistic call to defend the Homeland by any means necessary.
Perhaps Bush is hoping against hope, logic, and history that somehow Sharon will blast a tunnel through Syria, and the Middle East will wade through the bloody darkness to emerge in a promised land of peace and pro-American capitalism that will vindicate Bush’s failed policy of nirvana through unilateral aggression.
And Sharon, who has saddled his own demons and is ready to ride them straight into hell, knows that he holds the key to Armageddon in his hands.
He has a green light not only for military operations in Gaza and the West Bank; not only for targeted killings of Palestinian leaders; not only for the expulsion or execution of Arafat…
…he also has a green light for aggression against Syria and anybody else he declares a threat.
The scariest part of this (if you’re not Syrian of course) is not the fact that Israel may pursue a policy of regime change in Syria similar to what we did in Iraq…
…which is to overthrow a hostile ruler and leave the country wallowing helplessly in chaos, poverty, and anarchy, unable either to threaten its neighbors or care for itself…
…but that Sharon, the region’s only possessor of true WMDs (or, as Bush might say, "genwin nookular weppins") is aggressively pursuing a policy of unilateral, escalating military confrontation without any explicit, let alone effective, check from the United States.
Unfortunately, this is not a time for Sharon to show restraint or exercise discretion.
Sharon has every reason to believe that, if Bush loses the 2004 election — as suddenly seems possible — a Democratic president would put the neocon war machine up on blocks pronto.
In fact, if Colin Powell uses Plame-gate to put the neocons in cold storage, a more even-handed U.S. stance on the Middle East might reappear in a matter of weeks.
Better create some facts on the ground i.e. escalate the confrontation with Syria to the point of no return so Bush will have no alternative but to back Israel — and the neocons.
continued.......
It’s not surprising that an administration whose definition of internationalism is "Let’s drive to Texarkana for pork barbecue" needs a guide to lead it through the bloody intricacies of the Middle East.
It’s also no surprise that our faux flyboy president would fall under the sway of a ruthless, wily warrior from Israel.
As Israel desperately ups the ante with a bombing raid deep into Syria, the once taboo question of America’s relationship with Israel, especially with Sharon and the Likud, is no longer esoteric or irrelevant.
It becomes one of central importance.
The neocon blueprint for the Middle East promised to avoid and short-circuit the loaded question of moderating Israeli behavior by switching the focus to Iraq, Syria, and Iran. "Draining the swamp" would cause the Palestinian problem to wither away as Arafat, deprived of the support of "outside agitators", would be overwhelmed by a combination of internal reformist pressure, Israeli subversion, and US-led diplomatic isolation.
The Palestinian problem would take care of itself as we became beloved masters of the Arabian sandbox.
Of course it didn’t happen that way.
America has found itself unable to contain nationalist aspirations and anti-American sentiments even inside Iraq, where our occupation is replacing the rule of a widely despised and execrated despot.
No surprise that our adventure in Iraq has had zero effect on Sharon’s futile attempt to crush an indigenous, popular Palestinian independence movement opposing Israeli occupation.
In fact, it would seem that the Palestinian problem is getting worse, not better.
Conventional logic would suggest that the neocon theory had failed its first real test and should be carefully and openly re-appraised.
No such luck.
The neocon solution is just more of the same, with a new twist.
The neocons, stymied in the United States by the Iraq debacle (and reportedly hamstrung by the Rove diktat "No war in 2004") must turn to a leader stronger, more determined, and more ruthless than Bush to keep their careening plans for Middle East transformation on track — Ariel Sharon.
Although the road to Israeli security and its presumed doppelganger, absolute American dominance in the Middle East, may lie through Damascus, it doesn’t look like U.S. boots will be hitting the highway anytime soon.
So Israel will have to make the trip alone (for the time being; maybe Paul Wolfowitz is promising that a few hitchhikers from the 82nd Airborne can be picked up somewhere further down the road).
The first step was a bombing raid on a purported terrorist training camp near Damascus, supposedly in retaliation for a suicide bombing by a Palestinian woman that left 19 dead in Haifa.
Bush, by now truly a captive of his own failure, stupidity, and neocon cupidity, is supporting Sharon in the only military escapade that could possibly be regionally and internationally less popular than the invasion of Iraq.
When Sharon applies to Syria a policy that has failed for Israel on the West Bank, and for the U.S. in Iraq, Bush eggs him on with a creepy, fascistic call to defend the Homeland by any means necessary.
Perhaps Bush is hoping against hope, logic, and history that somehow Sharon will blast a tunnel through Syria, and the Middle East will wade through the bloody darkness to emerge in a promised land of peace and pro-American capitalism that will vindicate Bush’s failed policy of nirvana through unilateral aggression.
And Sharon, who has saddled his own demons and is ready to ride them straight into hell, knows that he holds the key to Armageddon in his hands.
He has a green light not only for military operations in Gaza and the West Bank; not only for targeted killings of Palestinian leaders; not only for the expulsion or execution of Arafat…
…he also has a green light for aggression against Syria and anybody else he declares a threat.
The scariest part of this (if you’re not Syrian of course) is not the fact that Israel may pursue a policy of regime change in Syria similar to what we did in Iraq…
…which is to overthrow a hostile ruler and leave the country wallowing helplessly in chaos, poverty, and anarchy, unable either to threaten its neighbors or care for itself…
…but that Sharon, the region’s only possessor of true WMDs (or, as Bush might say, "genwin nookular weppins") is aggressively pursuing a policy of unilateral, escalating military confrontation without any explicit, let alone effective, check from the United States.
Unfortunately, this is not a time for Sharon to show restraint or exercise discretion.
Sharon has every reason to believe that, if Bush loses the 2004 election — as suddenly seems possible — a Democratic president would put the neocon war machine up on blocks pronto.
In fact, if Colin Powell uses Plame-gate to put the neocons in cold storage, a more even-handed U.S. stance on the Middle East might reappear in a matter of weeks.
Better create some facts on the ground i.e. escalate the confrontation with Syria to the point of no return so Bush will have no alternative but to back Israel — and the neocons.
continued.......