Cheney's "Clean Break" strategy
Or "All is now going according to plan":
The notorious policy paper, "A Clean Break: New Strategy for Securing the Realm," was presented to Benjamin Netanyahu when he became Israeli Prime Minister in 1996. Its authors included Richard Perle, former DoD official Douglas Feith, and neo-con fanatics David and Meyrav Wurmser. That document called for a "clean break from the slogan 'comprehensive peace' to a traditional balance of power." Indeed, it urged Israel to "seize the initiative along its northern border," against Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, including "striking at select targets in Syria proper".
Netanyahu came back from his June 17-18 meeting with Cheney and announced that Israel must reject any form of negotiations with the Palestinians, and instead reassert its military "deterrence." This policy has been embraced by Israeli PM Olmert, who enjoys many of the same U.S. financial backers as Netanyahu.
The Palestinian militants June 25 capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in the Gaza Strip, served as a pretext to launch Netanyahu's policy of "rebuilding Israel's deterrence" against the Palestinians, by destroying Hamas. After rejecting political negotiations with the Hamas government of Palestinian PM Ismail Haniyah, as well as President Abu Mazen, the Gaza Strip was reoccupied, and chunks of its infrastructure were destroyed, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe.
Now a second front has been opened on the Israel-Lebanon border. Contrary to media reports, Hezbollah members did not cross into Israeli territory to "kidnap" two Israeli soldiers, as the media spin claims. The captured Israeli soldiers were part of a group patrolling inside Lebanese territory. Like Shalit, their capture became a pretext to launch a large military operation against Hezbollah. Surprisingly, the high-alert status that the northern border had been under since the capture of Shalit three weeks ago, was lifted only three days prior to the Hezbollah capture of two Israeli soldiers.
According to a July 13th report in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, Israel's military had approved a plan for a major exercise along the Israeli-Lebanese border, based on a scenario of a Hezbollah capture of Israeli solders, after which Israel would respond with a heavy air and land assault into southern Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah. It is this plan which is now being carried out. Israel has begun to mobilize its reserves, including a full division, to be deployed on the already heavily fortified northern border.
The Israeli military has similar contingency plans for a strike against Syria. These plans have been the basis of exercises for the last two to three years. While Israel has bombed targets in Beirut and put the entire country under siege, Hezbollah forces have hailed rockets into northern Israeli towns. Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has declared that the Israeli soldiers will be released only in an exchange of prisoners.
The conflict is now vectored to escalate and spread to Syria. Israel's intention to attack Syria and Iran has been mooted by several Bush's toadies who blamed Syria and Iran. Bush himself, during his
The most obvious proof that BushCo wants a new war does not lie in it's bellicose statements against Iran, Syria, Hamas, or Hezbollah, but in the fact that it has not lifted a finger to stop, or even mediate the crisis. Through it's so-called UN Ambassador, the non-confirmable neo-con zealot John Bolton, BushCo is even preventing the issue from being brought before the UNSecurity Council.
Be assured that BushCo will most likely continue this course, and attack Iran as an "October surprise", unless they decide to pull Bin Laden out of wherever they already know he is. But, since their Mideast plan is now dead on track, Osama is most likely still someone they "don't spend alot of time on". . .
With our troops already stretched way past "thin", look for tactical nuclear strikes against Iran just before the 2006 elections. That's my prediction; I pray that I am wrong.
posted by John Good @ 7:39 PM
12 Comments:
John,
While I have no doubt the neocons will do nothing but make the situation worse I do think it's unfair to pin this one on them. The Clinton administration had very intense negotiations w/ Israel and the PA while Arafat was there. Clinton himself said in his autobiography that Arafat sabotaged the entire peace process and he felt then that the Palestinians would never get that kind of compromise again.
There is little use for this administration (or Israel) to negotiate w/ Hamas and Hezbollah as those organizations only wish to destroy Israel - it's their raison d'etre. The only negotiations I see possible could be in the form of a multinational force to control the Southern Lebanese border.
The real question everyone should ask themselves is:
1)Are Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist organizations?
If the answer is yes, then I just don't see how there can be any foundation for a reasonable negotiation. They are identical to the Taliban - Islamofascists that need to be eradicated. This, not Iraq, is the REAL war on terror and I think Democrats should be careful not to lose sight of that...
John - "The most obvious proof that BushCo wants a new war does not lie in it's bellicose statements against Iran, Syria, Hamas, or Hezbollah, but in the fact that it has not lifted a finger to stop, or even mediate the crisis." Yes it is obvious. Just another connection the MSM does not relate.
Jeff - I think you are missing something here. This ever growing War is by design. The Bush Regime and the Sharonists planned it. Now they are carrying it out.
I think the real question for you and others - Just what is the cause and effect here? Did you know that Israel prior to the latest West Bank invasion(and the taking of one IDF member by Hamas) rained shells down into the West Bank for 2 months? Did you know the Palestinians have suffered under a brutal occupation for decades?
Just because CNN and Fox does not depict or otherwise tell you, it does not mean it has not happened.
If using "Terrorist” definitions is a way to conduct foreign policy, why does the Bush Regime support Terrorist Nations? How many dictatorships does the Bush Regime have as friends?
I think you fail to realize cause and effect.
BTW - I'm not a Dem and never voted or supported Clinton. However if you remember when we had a President that was elected we had - A much more Peaceful World. A Treasury surplus and International respect.
By design the carnage will grow.
Peace. It is possible. Just not with theses sick bastards in power.
Are Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist organizations?
If the answer is yes, then I just don't see how there can be any foundation for a reasonable negotiation. They are identical to the Taliban - Islamofascists that need to be eradicated. This, not Iraq, is the REAL war on terror and I think Democrats should be careful not to lose sight of that...
Mr. Pruitt: define "terrorist organization," please.
I would suggest that, applying your principle to any reasonable definition of the term, the US government would be unable to negotiate with not only Hezbollah and Hamas, but also with itself and the Jerusalem regime.
Also, what does "Islamofascist" mean? In what functional way is it distinguished from "Judeofascist" or "Evangelicofascist?" I am coming to the conclusion that the only useful purpose served by the use of "Islamofascist" is: "Don't pay any attention to what I write or say, since it is nothing more than regurgitated War Party propaganda."
I don't think this war was by design at all - you give the neocons too much credit. They actually believed that establishing a democracy in Iraq would cause an overthrow of the Iranian mullahs, which would then lead to the evaporation of support for Hamas/Hezbollah, thus finally bringing Israel and Palestine to a 2 state solution. Silly? Perhaps but their statements do show that was the train of thought.
Please don't lecture me about CNN or Fox News - I rarely watch either and they are not my sources for information.
A terrorist organization blatantly and openly targets civilians in order to achieve their military goals. They do not do this as a last resort or after debate - it's usually their raison d'etre. By this definition, the US nor Israel are terrorist organizations - to suggest so is incomprehensible. Have these two countries killed civilians - yes, at times even deliberately. However, I don't think everything is black and white and I think people (including yourself) can see the difference between the US and Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is a rogue terrorist organization whose goal is a destruction of the Israeli state and the US as well. I, and many other americans will sleep better when they are finally eradicated from the planet. Are you suggesting that we should negotiate peace w/ Hezbollah? Do you think they are a honorable organization that would change everything they stand for because we ask? Maybe a better question would be "When is the use of military force acceptable?" Was the attack on the Taliban justified?
Islamofascist, IMO, accurately describes modern radical Islam - not the religion of Islam itself. These people want to use terrorism to establish a authoritarian system that denies basic human/polital/religous rights. They want to control the state through the use of fundamentalism.
Human and Bartleby - Jeff is one of the "good guys", I was totally unaware of this scenario until yesterday myself. I researched it and did my best to present it here.
Jeff - I would encourage you to check out the links in my post, do a google search for "Clean Break", or check out Greg Palast's latest book. All will be far more informative than my attempt here.
A terrorist organization blatantly and openly targets civilians in order to achieve their military goals. They do not do this as a last resort or after debate - it's usually their raison d'etre.
Not to be difficult here -- really -- but how can you possibly know whether Hezbollah or Hamas debate about targeting civilians, or whether it's their last resort?
By this definition, the US nor Israel are terrorist organizations - to suggest so is incomprehensible. Have these two countries killed civilians - yes, at times even deliberately.
Well, prepare for a little incomprehension. Have you been following the news of the last few weeks in Lebanon (or 1982 in Lebanon), or the past several years in Iraq? Any organization that chucks the sheer tonnage of high explosives into densely-populated urban areas that the US and Israeli regimes have is a terrorist organization. And they do it much more "blatantly and openly" than your typical Muslim outfit does. Those folks often wear masks in an effort to blend in with the civilians -- our "homicide bombers" march in parades and collect veterans' benefits, if they're lucky enough to get home afterward.
However, I don't think everything is black and white and I think people (including yourself) can see the difference between the US and Hezbollah.
Yeah -- the US guys have much better equipment, snappier uniforms, and considerably longer life expectancies.
Hezbollah is a rogue terrorist organization whose goal is a destruction of the Israeli state and the US as well. I, and many other americans will sleep better when they are finally eradicated from the planet. Are you suggesting that we should negotiate peace w/ Hezbollah?
No. I suggest that Americans get their butts home and mind their own business -- none of which is found within numerous time zones of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Afghanistan, etc., etc. As for the Israelis -- speaking of "none of our business" -- I have no suggestions, other than "get used to living without $3 billion + of yearly welfare from American taxpayers, and start building your own military toys."
Do you think they are a honorable organization that would change everything they stand for because we ask?
It shouldn't matter what they are -- not to us, anyway. Again, we don't live there.
Maybe a better question would be "When is the use of military force acceptable?"
Click here for an answer at length.
Was the attack on the Taliban justified? No. (See above.)
Islamofascist, IMO, accurately describes modern radical Islam - not the religion of Islam itself. These people want to use terrorism to establish a authoritarian system that denies basic human/polital/religous rights. They want to control the state through the use of fundamentalism.
Yes, yes, whatever. Again, how does "Islamofascism" differ from "Judeofascism" and "Evangelofascism?"
John, I don't want to ugly up your comment threads -- just dump this if you want. I'm sure you're correct in saying that Jeff is a good guy, and I've read some very true things he's written here and there. But this "Islamofascism" claptrap grates on me, as does the casual acceptance of American involvement in the slaughter of the innocent -- whatever part of the political spectrum they come from. Yes, no doubt it is just "the price of war." Well, then, the price of war is entirely too high. We can't afford it.
John, I don't want to ugly up your comment threads -- just dump this if you want. I'm sure you're correct in saying that Jeff is a good guy, and I've read some very true things he's written here and there.
No concerns at all here! I enjoy an honest and open debate as much as anyone. And that is what I see happening in this thread. Please carry on.
I've never heard anyone use the terms "Judeofascims" or "Evangelofascism" before you did so I suppose I can't speak to how they're different from Islamofascism. I suppose if there were radical organizations of those faiths using the same means as Hezbollah/Hamas to promote their authoritarian worldview then the titles would fit and there would be no difference.
As to the rest of your response, I will only say that I disagree w/ all of it and I find it offensive that you equate the United States with Hezbollah...
Jeff - Islmo-Fascist was a term coined by Rush. It has been picked up by the sick far right. There is no such thing. Theocratic yes. Even Bush used this term.
You can pretend someone occupies the moral high ground if you want.However Israels brutal 35year occupation and the U.S. unquestioned support of it are known to the World.
John- You'll have to define "good guy" to me.
John- You'll have to define "good guy" to me.
Normally Jeff and I are in agreement on most issues. Apparently not on this one. I'm still wondering if he hasn't read the particulars on this one yet. .
Rush did NOT coin the term Islamofascists - it came from an article in The Independent back in 1990 and was used repeatedly by Christopher Hitchens (probably where I heard it first).
John,
I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. I see Hezbollah (much like the Taliban) as our enemy - and the enemy of my enemy is my friend...
I see Hezbollah (much like the Taliban) as our enemy - and the enemy of my enemy is my friend...
I agree that they are an enemy. My point it that they are merely being played as a pawn in a much larger game.
Post a Comment
<< Home