Mallaby: Do What's Expedient Not What's Right
The Wisdom Of RetreatSo Mr. Mallaby advocates for the spineless approach. By golly, we'll just show them our backsides and the Hizbollah problem will take care of itself. Unfortunately Mr. Mallaby, the world doesn't work that way. It is precisely because the Bush administration is shying away from attacking Damascus and Tehran that those two nations feel free to engage in "terrorist adventurism" the way they do.
Three Lessons From Its Own Record Should Guide the U.S. on Lebanon
By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, July 31, 2006; Page A15
Even before the death toll spiked yesterday, the Bush administration's diplomacy on Lebanon looked like a long shot. The goal, as laid out by administration officials, is to secure a cease-fire that removes the threat that Hezbollah poses to Israel. But Hezbollah's central function is to threaten Israel; that is the purpose for which Iran and Syria sustain it. Hezbollah is unlikely to renounce its reason for existence in the course of a negotiation. And the promised international peacekeepers will be hard-pressed to contain a militia that has proved capable of resisting Israel.
If its diplomacy fails, the Bush administration will have to face the dilemma that it's now avoiding: whether to support an indefinite cease-fire that goes beyond the 48-hour suspension of airstrikes announced yesterday but does not neutralize Hezbollah. To support such an outcome would be to retreat publicly. It would boost the prestige of extremists in the Middle East and encourage Iran to defy the West over its nuclear program. Yet refusing to support an imperfect cease-fire would be a greater error, for it would involve disregarding three lessons that emerge from the administration's own record.
The first lesson is that allies do matter, and so does the global public opinion that creates, or fails to create, a political climate in which governments feel able to work with the United States. The Bush administration has at times skated past this truth, correctly believing that doing the right thing can matter more than doing the popular thing. But it has learned, slowly and painfully, that doing right gets to be impossible if your unpopularity becomes toxic. To address any major foreign policy challenge, from Iran to North Korea to Darfur, you need international backing.
In supporting the bombardment of Lebanon, the administration appears to be forgetting this lesson. It has embraced a military operation that puts pictures of bloodied civilians on the world's TV screens, harming the United States' image and disrupting vital U.S. policies. American allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, which fear Shiite militancy, have switched from criticizing Hezbollah to criticizing the U.S.-backed retaliation. American enemies are seizing the opportunity for a propaganda victory. Al-Qaeda has rushed out a new video, complete with a fresh, studio-quality backdrop. China has hinted that U.S. blocking of an anti-Israel resolution last week at the United Nations would justify Chinese resistance to U.N. action against Iran's nuclear program.
If the people of Syria and Iran were forced to pay the price of their governments actions in supplying Hizbollah with anti-personnel rockets and missiles, then perhaps Basher al-Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would cease their unsocial behavior. It sure worked when Reagan did it to Muammar Gaddafi.
Bullies only respect strength. As far as I can tell, there has never been an exception to that truth. I have never heard of or seen a bully nation backdown as the result of their victim being really really nice to them. Never!
Perhaps it is time to play Gaddafi Duck with Bashar al-Assad. He has proven himself to be a coward at heart. It probably wouldn't take much to cow him. Mahmoud on the other hand is a psycho and therefore probably needs to be eliminated completely.
As to our so-called allies, as William Penn once said:
"Right is right, even if everyone even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it."
Personally, I would rather do right though it might cost me dearly than wrong if it was free.
Why are Liberals such cowards?
You got my permission Mr. President.
Full Story: Doing What's Easy, Doing What's Wrong
What do you think?
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
posted by Will Malven at 9:38 AM
18 Comments:
If there's a bigger bully than GWB I'd like to meet him! It was his swaggering, John Wayne, we don't need the worlds help we'll take on all commers with one hand tied behind our back attitude that got us into this mess! ONE kid might not be able to beat up the playground bully, but a couple can take him down and because he's offended EVERYONE the others will just stand by and watch. Hammas and Hezzbolah cannot be bombed out of exsistance. These people are fighting in the name of their God and for every ONE you kill, FIVE will replace him. If they COULD be bombed out of exsistance, there would have been peace in the middle east DECADES ago.
Oh courageous "ANONYMOUS",
I see that you have no moral compass. Right and wrong don't matter to you. The terrorists are "justified" in your eyes. George Bush is the bad guy.
You are truly a pitiable individual. You lack the courage of your convictions by not signing your name.
As to the one for five argument, then we just kill the next five, and yes, before you ask, the next 25. Eventually they will learn the lesson, or they will all die. Makes no difference to me. Their goal is the elimination of Israel, and then us. Better them than me.
I DO have a name. It's JGrice and I live in Pensacola FL. GWB is an IDIOT plain and simple, and you should learn to read an entire entry before you open your pie hole, but from those towing the GWB line I don't expect any better. I never said the terrorists were justified. Israel has been bombing, and they've been comming back for almost 60 years now. It's time for a different tactic. And as for this current problem, you can bomb Lebanon off the map but until Iran is dealt with, Hezzbolah will continue to rise from the ashes like a Phoenix
Well then JGrice,
If President Bush was truly the bully you suggest, Iraq would be pacified, Iran would be glass, and Syria would be suing for peace at any cost. It is precisely because President Bush has tried to be "reasonable" and "restrained" that we are having the difficulties we are. Ditto the Israelis.
For too long we have listened to the "cooler heads" and allowed them to prevail. The Soviet Union did not fall because Ronald Reagan unilaterally disarmed, they fell because President Reagan took an inflexible hard line approach.
How would you propose we Iran, play nice and ask "pretty please?" The last President who tried that was Carter and it resulted in 442 days of internment for our Tehran diplomatic staff.
YOU CANNOT DEAL WITH TERRORISTS! How many times does that have to be proven to you appeaser?
USSR fell because it went BROKE. It fell apart internally. Reagan had nothing to do with it, he just made a good sound bite with "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" GWB bullied his way into Iraq who was no threat to us and now the entire regoin is in danger of collapse and Iraq is on the brink of civil war. GWB is an ignorant illmannered lout who should have read a history book before even LOOKING hard at Iraq. If he had, he'd have found that Iraq was a thorn in Englands side BACK IN THE 1920's and Churchill was completely frustrated by the same nonsence going on now. Shitte's fighting Sunni's and the Kurds wanting their own state which is the LAST thing Turkey wants because it has problems with its OWN Kurdish population. Do you have any idea WHY Israel is where it is? Pick up a history book! The land that is present day Israel belonged to the British. After WWII (1948)the UN GAVE that chunk of land to the JEWS, gave them some old weapons. They displaced THOUSANDS of Palestinians who were never compensated by the UN or anyone else and they're still pissed. Apparently you can't BOMB terrorists out of existance either because they're STILL here and and giving US AND Israel a run for our money. This situation needn't have gotten so out of hand GWB chose to ignore Iran and the problem grew like Kudzu. Same with North Korea.
If you believe that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, then you are truly a clueless Kool-aid drinker. Reagan had everything to do with the fall of the USSR. SDI had a lot to do with the fall of the USSR. Confrontation rather than appeasement caused the fall of the USSR. Had we followed the advice of the unilateralists, the USSR would still be there.
Israel is where it is because it is the traditional homeland of the Jews. There have always been Jews in "Palestine." Palestine is the Roman name for the area. There are no "Palestinian people," they are a construct. Those people are Arabs who come from all around the region (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon).
Yes the lands were taken and no compensation was ever given. That is a wrong that Israel should have righted, but under Israeli rule, there are over 2 million Arabs living in Israel plus a large number of Christians. You cannot say the reverse about any of the Muslim states surrounding Israel.
Saddam Hussein was a threat to us. He was a threat to the stability of the entire region as well. He was one of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the area. He also had weapons of mass destruction. The combination of the two makes him a major threat to America.
The gravest nightmare America can have is a WMD in the hands of a terrorist. Apparently people like you are incapable of understanding that simple concept.
As for your claim that you can't bomb terrorists out of existence, I will simply repeat my former statement about Gaddafi. Reagan's attacks made him a changed man.
If yoy're dumb enough to believe TAHT B.S, you're stupid enough to believe ANYTHING! Pick up a history book and read for yourself and stop depending on propaganda for your info! Reagan was a "B" movie actor and nothing else. I'm more imperssed by the way JFK stared down Khruschev. You're too wrapped up in propaganda to realize that you can't compare the situation in the middle east with the cold war. BOTH sides in the cold war knew that to throw a nuke would reasult in bilateral anhilation, and the Russians didn't want to die any more than WE did. These Islamic extremist DON'T CARE. Kim Jung Il DOESN'T CARE
Is that what you're doing reading some jerk's opinion of what happened. I have lived through all of those events and I know what happened. I don't have to rely on some Liberal college professor's imagination to know what happened.
You are absolutely clueless. As for JFK, he wouldn't have had to "stare down Khruschev" if he'd been doing his job correctly. His week-kneed abandonment of the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs is what put American in a weakened position diplomatically and internationally.
So you're saying that because the Islamicist and Kim Jung Il don't care, then we should turn tail and run. That's BRILLIANT! Of course we just give them everything they want and they'll leave us alone...RIGHT! Go peddle your Kool-aid somewhere else. Sanity reins at this website. I know the lessons of history and never, NEVER has appeasement worked in a situation such as this.
Oh yeah and you're kidding yourself if you believe that the Islamic extremists and Kim Jung Il don't care. How many of the Islamic leaders have you seen strap on a suicide bomb lately. They value their lives just as much as we do ours. Gadaffi was an Islamic extremist before Reagan sent him a message from God, moonbat.
No, stupidity reins at this web site. I'm 54 years old. You should learn to read before you open your trap! I NEVER said or insinuated that because the Islamic extremists and Kim Jung Il are froot loops we should turn and run, just that we need to fully think out and plan our actions with that in mind. You can win the battle and still loose the war. The Bay Of Pigs may have been a disaster, but he had the guts to stand up in front of America and accept responsibility for it. Unlike GWB. If the Cubans wanted Castro out of power badly enough, they could have done something about it themselves. JFK realized it's not our place to invade other countries to interfere in THEIR internal struggles. He was comming to that conclusion about Viet Nam. He is quoted as saying at a press conference that since US and USSR had to share the same planet and breathe the same air we were going have to learn to live with each other, but since his brains were splattered all over Dely Plaza we'll never know. It doesn't matter how many Islamic leaders aren't strapping on bombs because they have thousands of followers who are more than willing to do it in the name of Allah. Kim Jung Il doesn't care how many of his own people are killed. The USSR did. Reagan didn't have squat to do with Gadaffis change of heart. We have something he wants so he's decided to play the game; nothing more. There's an old saying-beware of a handshake that hides a snake. Only a total ass would believe that Gadaffi's a changed man and trust him as far as you can throw him.
You haven't a clue, have you?
Kennedy did not abort the airstrikes on Cuba to support the Bay of Pigs invasion because he:
"realized it's not our place to invade other countries to interfere in THEIR internal struggles."
He did it because he lost his nerve, he chickened out like the true blue Democrat he was. The missiles should never have gotten into Cuba. Probably if Jack the drug addict hadn't been so stoned he might have avoided ever having to face down Khruschev. His incompetence brought this nation and the world closer to the brink of total destruction than any President in history. Maybe he should have had his mind on his business instead of his girlfriends.
Besides his actions belie his own words. The USSR didn't back down because of the genius of Kennedy's and Rusk's diplomatic negotiations, they did it in the face of overwhelming force. They knew they were bluffing all along. That is the reason for the massive build-up in their weapons arsenal for the next decade. DUH!
If ethics had been the final decider, he would not have pursued so many other attempts at unseating Castro.
Kennedy was bad as a President, but he doesn't hold a candle to Carter or Clinton, both of whom personified incompetence. Democrats haven't made a competent choice for their Presidential candidate in nearly 60 years.
You probably believe all the lies about Joseph McCarthy too. Too bad for the Left it turns out he was correct on almost everything he said.
You Kool-aid drinkers are really hysterical. You build up these mythologies about your fallen "heroes" and then you actually believe your own lies.
Kennedy's recipe for handling the USSR that you allege was a recipe for disaster. You Lefties will never learn the lesson of Chamberlain will you?
If you're 54 then maybe it's time began thinking like an adult rather than one of those left-over hippies who have proven themselves to be sooooo wrong.
Enemies of freedom never negotiate in good faith. They only understand strength and fear. Until those on the Left understand that simple truth, they are destined to remain the gravest threat to our nation.
As to Gadaffi, I don't care what's in his heart. I only care how he is acting and since Reagan's little love tap he has exercised due restraint. After wittnessing President Bush's willingness to invade Iraq, Gadaffi decided to play the game. It wasn't because of our sweet nothings diplomacy I assure you.
Say what you want, continue to ignore facts that don't agree with what you've already made up in your pathetic little mind to be true. All you can do is name call. That's a childs way out. Hopefully come November, enough people will have wised up enough to vote these incompetent thieves out of office. One final word DUBAI PORTS DEAL!
Re Gadaffi, we didn't care what was in Bin Ladens heart either when we armed him and trained his little band to to fight the Soviets.
You are the one wrapped in his own fantasies. Everything I stated has been thoroughly documented.
It is fact that Kennedy was addicted to prescription narcotics.
It is a fact that he was a gross womanizer.
It is a fact that he bailed on the Cuban expatriots and abandoned them to their fate.
It is a fact that he altered the plans just prior to the invasion thereby increasing the likelihood of failure.
It is a fact that his negligence brought the world and us closer to the brink of destruction than any other President ever has.
It is a fact that is wasn't his negotiating skill or that of Dean Rusk that forced Kruschev to back down.
It is a fact that Kruschev knew that he didn't have the capability to take us on toe to toe and it was that fact more than any other that led to the Soviet build up of nuclear missiles over the next decade.
Need I go on embarrassing you?
As to us "arming Osama..."
That just shows how little you know. We didn't arm Osama bin Laden, he wasn't part of the Afghanistan Mujahideen to whom arms were provided by the US, he is an Arab and the Arab fighters had their own sources of funding.
Besides, the enemy of my enemy is my ally. We achieved what we needed in aiding the Mujahideen.
It was our short-sighted failure of GHWB's administration in then abandoning the newly liberated Afghanistan.
Most of all, it was Democratic President Bill Clinton's refusal to take bin Laden into custody when the Somali government offered him up on a silver platter that later caught up with us.
NO, the enemy of your enemy is your enemys enemy. There's and old saying "beware of the handshake that hides a snake." You haven't embarrassed me in the least. That Kennedy was "addicted" to pain killers, I won't argue as he was NOT a healthy man. He had advanced Addisons disease, and was in chronic pain due to a back injury. THAT was documented at autopsy. However, I don't like the word addicted when refering to someone who's in physical pain. As a nurse I witnessed way too much suffering caused by a nurse or doctor who didn't want the patient to become "addicted". If someone's been diagnosed with a terminal illness, or someother illness or injury causeing chronic pain, let him have all the medication he needs but I digress. I won't disagree that he was a womanizer, but that was between him and Jackie. It's none of my buisness, or anyone elses, who screws whom as long as it's consentual and doesn't involve kids, animals, or dead people. No, the Bay of Pigs wasn't our proudest moment but he stood up in front of the American people and took responsibility for it. Iraq's been a complete debacle. I'm still waiting for GWB to stand in front of the American people and admit that Iraq has NOT gone the way the administration thought it would,(though God knows they were warned) and take responsibility. We invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 which I supported, then all but abandoned it when GWB decided to invade Iraq. Personally, I would have totally and completely cleaned house in Afghanistan, got Bin Laden, and dealt with Sadam later. We aided the Mujahideen and opened the door for the Taliban, which I'm sure Afghanistan is STILL thanking us for. We DID arm Bin Laden just like we armed ANYONE who professed not to like the USSR. We trained the Iranians, Saudis, Iraqis, Jordanians, Syrians, most of the middle east; I was stationed at Ft. Bliss Texas when we did it! They didn't like us back then! They were arrogant, disrespectful, and had an aversion to soap and water, not to mention deoderant. You blame Clinton for not taking Bin Laden when the Somalis "offered" him, but it was GWB who let him get away at Tora Bora, AFTER 9/11. The cold war stayed "cold" because BOTH sides were even. You keep braying that the USSR never attacked us, but we knew that to attack THEM would result in our OWN anhilation. If you would be so kind as to explain to me the logic behind the Dubai Ports deal and why we're being so buddy buddy with China. Talk a handshake that hides a snake!
So it doesn't bother you that the man who's finger was on the Nuclear button was stoned out of his mind all of the time? The man was addicted to mind-altering chemicals which could and apparently did affect his thinking. As to his personal life being between him and Jackie, wrong! Anything which distracts the President from doing the job for which he was hired concerns the entire nation. You "anything is alright with me" Democrats are willing to accept any kind of behavior as long as it doesn't have anything to do with protecting the country. Then it's a bad thing.
Yes Tora-Bora was mishandled by our military, but it still doesn't hold a candle to Clinton's failures. Had Clinton accepted Somalia's offer, 9-11, Tora Bora, Afghanistan would never have occurred.
Clinton, like Democrats in general was a disaster. I give you Darfur where Madelleine Albright used her influence to prevent the UN from acting to stop the death.
I give you Somalia, where Les Aspin failed to provide the military with the equipment it had requested and which eventually led to Black-Hawk down.
I give you Osama bin Laden who was offered to Clintin without strings by the Somalis.
I give you North Korea who hornswaggled both Clinton and Carter and accepted the aid while it continued to build its arsenal.
I give you China to whom Clinton provided the our most advanced missile technology.
The simple fact is when it comes to defending America and its interests, Democrats don't.
Democrats in Congress bailed on the South Vietnamese people by cutting off the support which they were guaranteed to receive in the peace accords.
Democrats, this time in the form of Jimmah Cahtah, caused the down fall of the Shah of Iran and was directly responsible for the rise of the Ayatollah Khomieni and the seizing of the hostages, about which he was then impotent and incompetent to do anything about.
Face it Democrats are the most disasterous influence on our nation in the last 80 years. From the pervasive infiltration by Soviets of our federal government to the declining educational and moral standards of our society, Democrats were the prime movers.
Kennedy should never have been allowed to be President, but even flawed as he was he was so far superior to today's Democrat field that he wouldn't even recognize his own party today.
JFK was flawed, as we all are, therefore I'll leave GWB's problems with alcohol out of it. I give you Iraq where Rumsfeld sent in too few troops inspite of being told we'd need more man power. And then not giving them the proper equipment. Our fighting men and women should NOT have to write home asking for money to buy shock absorbing pads for their helmets. Not to mention some of those guys are owed 2 and 3 months back pay! Brook Army Medical Center, one of the biggest active duty hosptials in the country CAN'T PAY IT'S LIGHT BILL? That's just plain ridiculous! Yet they continue with the tax cuts. The Shah of Iran caused the downfall of the Shah of Iran. If you're doing right by your people it's hard to be over thrown. I was stationed at Ft. Bliss TX when we were training the Iranians and others to use our Nike/Hercules missle system and his own troops weren't exactly sad to see him go. Taking medication for medical reasons is a bit different fron using a substance such as alcohol. If the stress is getting to you get a 'script for xanax. Booze is not the answer. We'll have to agree to disagree about the personal life. What goes on between man and wife is no ones buisness. Ike had a mistress for years! North Korea is going to be a HUGE problem until Kim Jung Il is erased. They were still building, but we knew what they were doing and it showed the rest of the world we were acting in good faith. To quote Michael Corleone, keep your friends close but your enemies closer. Nixon was in office when we pulled out of Viet Nam. Blame a democratic congress if you want but he could have pushed it through had he wanted to. Please tell me what the DHS is doing with the BILLIONS it's getting. We haven't done SQUAT to secure our ports, airline security is a JOKE, instead of forcing the airlines to put in cockpit doors that can't be kicked in, if a pilot has to relieve himself, 2 flight attendants place a food cart in front of the door and stand guard. Not much of a deterrent. Hurricane Katrina proved that DHS and FEMA can't handle a storm that we knew was comming DAYS in advance, how in Gods name can we expect them to handle a suprize.
Difference-President Bush was up front about his past alcohol problems, in addition those problems were past problems. He is not an active alcoholic, he is in recovery.
President Kennedy was taking his mind-altering substances while he was president and making life or death decisions. We had to wait decades after his death to find that out. Records show JFK variously took codeine, demerol and methadone for pain; Ritalin, a stimulant; meprobamate and librium for anxiety; barbiturates for sleep; thyroid hormone; anti-spasmodic drugs to control colitis; antibiotics for a urinary tract infection; and increased amounts of hydrocortisone and testosterone, along with salt tablets, to control his adrenal insufficiency and boost his energy.
Quite a cocktail, no?
As for the difference between taking medicine for medicinal purposes and for recreational purposes, only intention is different, the effects on the body and the mind remain the same.
The difference is vast, unless you can find some substantive proof that Bush is still actively drinking-I mean aside from the usual democratunderground or dailyKos Kool-aid press.
The rest of your rant is irrelevent but since you seem to be obsessed with the DuBai Ports World deal, I was in favor of it. It was much ado about nothing. It had nothing to do with our national security, it was just a lot of hyperventilated grandstanding by politicians and Bush haters.
Only the ill=informed, blind moonbats, and Kool-aid drinkers actually believed that the deal was a threat to national security. The US Coast Guard supported the deal and they are the folks who are in charge of port security.
Funny how all you moonbats like to change the subjects everytime your arguments are reasonably challenged and answered. You truly are one of the elite Kool-aid drinkers. Got your tin-hat on? Remember they can hear what you're thinking.
Stop being an ass! I expected better of you. Truth is no one knows for sure if he's still drinking or not, and his behavior at times makes OTHER WORLD LEADERS wonder. JFK was not a healthy man. Neither was FDR. Eisenhower had a heart attack while in office, and Reagen was forever having skin cancers or colon polyps removed. As for the Dubai deal, IF our ports were secure, as opposed to being in much the same state they were PRE 9/11, there wouldn't have been the uproar. There may have been nothing wrong with the deal, and maybe to put these things together out of the public eye is SOP, but they HAD to have known that once it got out that an Arab country would be taking over our ports the people would have a fit. You're dead wrong about medications effect on the body being the same whether your sick or not. I've got rods in my back thanks to a jeep accident while on active duty. I take Lor-Tab. Doesn't get me high, takes away he back pain so I can function. I take welbutrin. It doesn't affect someone who's taking it for smoking sessaion the way it affects me(taking away depression)I also take a host of other medications for Lupus. Oh, and the Coast Guard is NOT in charge of port security. Once those containers are unloaded the Coast Guard has nothing to do with them. The Coast Guard doesn't inspect them. Security falls to The Port Authority and local companies There're NO federal guidelines from DHS or anyone else, and neither of the above actually inspects the cargo. 95% of containers don't even get looked at, and since there's been much bitching about cost we have no way of screening for radioactive materials and wouldn't know anything was wrong until people started glowing in the dark.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home