Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

What is this all leading to?

Page: (1)2

11:59 / 01.08.06

Having recently returned from the information free media in the midwest of the USA, I've been in shock for the last week trying to assimilate what's going on in the world.

What's freaking me out the most is that the international community seems powerless to prevent any war if the USA wants it or supports it. It seems that the USA wants to set the mid-east alight- I think they're aiming for eventual war with Iran. Please, tell me why I'm wrong.

12:43 / 01.08.06

You're not wrong.

The US want this Israel-Lebanon clash to escalate as much as possible, for they believe it will produce the "smoking gun" they need to invade Iran before they manage to build themselves... DA BOMB!

Or at least that's what some political analysts are guessing right now.

We'll know for sure soon enough

13:01 / 01.08.06

Well, Ender was already wondering about this, Nobody's girl, and I said there that I can't see it escalating that far.

In all honesty though, I ought to admit that there is a certain probability of a nuclear strike or other attacks on Iran's enrichment facilities, even though the US military (well, everyone but the air-force) know the result would probably vary between failure and utter disaster depending on what exactly those attacks involved, and even though they have told the administration so in no uncertain terms.

There are also very influential people in the USA who would like to pursue exactly the course you describe, but it's not going very well for them, so far. For example you can see the cold sweat gathering on David Horowitz's brow as he stares into the Jaws of Defeat.

The United States and Israel and every sentient being in the path of the Islamist crusade are teetering on the brink of a massive defeat in Lebanon and thus in the war on terror. … One month into the fighting which began with the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on the state of Israel, the scenario for the West's defeat in this phase of the war is quite obvious and quite simple.

So, I'm sorry, it can all happen. I don't think you should worry too much just yet though, because, as far as I can see, we've bitten off more than we can chew, again. I'm quite sure that this Israeli-Hezbollah conflict will remain in Lebanon, but as I said the prospect of an attack on Iran by the USA remains open.

13:06 / 01.08.06

Holy fuck.

...So, are the goofy US pundits right, then? Is this the beginning of "World War Three"? Because it's really starting to look like it.

14:11 / 01.08.06

No World War III. That would mean other armies, then the ones in the middle east and the US and UK. No western government will follow the USarmy into another mission accomplished desaster. I only hope, Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney already understand this.

16:22 / 01.08.06

Syria has put its army on "full alert" (whatever that means).

CNN is calling this "breaking news," but I can't tell what it really means other than that hey, there are people lobbing missiles at each other in two of the countries next door.

17:04 / 01.08.06

Yeah, I read something a couple of days ago that said Syria had stated its' army would enter Lebanon if Israel expanded incursions into actual ground war.

I don't think talk of WW3 (or 'more like WW4' as one of the pundits they mocked on The Daily Show the other night had it) is really mitigated at this point. I think this is going to be an object (abject?) lesson in how 21st century imperialism works, through proxies, but most Americans - from what I can gather - do not anticipate this term of presidency will feature another war involving their troops.

18:12 / 01.08.06

most Americans - from what I can gather - do not anticipate this term of presidency will feature another war involving their troops.

Modern war without troops has terrifying implications, no? Y'know, big scary radioactive implications...

18:50 / 01.08.06

He did say involving their troops, not involving no troops at all, and made explicit reference to proxies. In other words, the US and Iran go war in Lebanon through their Israeli and Hezbollah proxy armies.

19:02 / 01.08.06

Has anyone any evidence that this conflict is a proxy war, that it wasn’t started and pursued primarily by Hezbollah and Israel, rather than Iran and the USA?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

19:28 / 01.08.06

I'm trying to keep my "conspiracy theorist" persona very far from my normal one at the moment, because a fundy Christian helping Israel bring about Armageddon is exactly the kind of thing that would press his buttons.

20:13 / 01.08.06

He did say involving their troops, not involving no troops at all, and made explicit reference to proxies. In other words, the US and Iran go war in Lebanon through their Israeli and Hezbollah proxy armies.

Yeah, pretty much; I don't anticipate the US completing their nuclear hat-trick with Tehran, or - whatever - Tabriz or Shiraz, nor was I suggesting this to be an imminent likelihood.

21:00 / 01.08.06

Has anyone any evidence that this conflict is a proxy war, that it wasn’t started and pursued primarily by Hezbollah and Israel, rather than Iran and the USA?

I don't think so, no, and I don't believe it is, as such, myself. I was just trying to clarify that an argument that a US war without US troops does not necessarily have radioactive consquences, as Noboby's Girl feared.

That said, while it's a bit of an oversimplification to call either Hezbollah or Israel a proxy of Iran or the US, respectively, it's not that far from the truth. Israel and the US have a weird sort of symbiotic relationship going on, but the US is the partner that provides the money and the diplomatic cover on the UN Security Council, so in many ways it can be argued that Israel is a client state of the US. However, unlike most client states, it's not a puppet regime, and it has and pursues its own agenda, occasionally at cross-purposes with Washington.

05:50 / 02.08.06

I agree that Israel and the USA make a very intimate couple, as, much less surprisingly, do Hezbollah and Iran, fabula dizerko. As far as I can see though, this conflict is clearly a case of the tail wagging the dog. That's not everyone's opinion though, and my question was quite serious. It would indeed make a big difference were this really a proxy war. Oh, thanks for the answer too.

Tryphena Absent

11:59 / 02.08.06

We're probably in more danger of the Israelis nuking someone. After all they've just launched a (to my mind) utterly incomprehensible ground attack on a country because a group of terrorists (not the government or the citizens or the Lebanese military) are bombing them across the border.

I haven't been in the midwest but I think I'm still in shock.

13:40 / 02.08.06

There's always reason to worry about Israel's nuclear weapons, and everyone does. For instance, asked as to the plausibility of Israel driving all Palestinians out during the Second Intifada, or specifically "but would the world permit such ethnic cleansing?," Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said,

that depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

13:43 / 02.08.06

Sorry, here's the source of that quote.

13:58 / 02.08.06

I get the impression Iran's president is saying, "Go ahead, knock that chip off my shoulder!"

sdv (non-human)

15:52 / 02.08.06

"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said that there will be no ceasefire in Lebanon until an international force is deployed in the south of the country. ..." (BBC) The implication being that Olert is saying that unless the Western European States behave as Colonial powers we will continue to engage in this colonial expansionism.

However (to respond to elene's point) it seems reasonably clear that Israel entered into this colonial adventure with the full support of the USA. The question to ask is in whose long term interests is it for Israel to continue to function as an increasingly militarized state ? Certainly not Israel - as this behaviour practically guarantees increasingly levels of local anti-israeli hatred (and don't we all know what will happen as the oil runs out) - only the immediate short term goals of the USA have been furthered in this action....

16:16 / 02.08.06

"Colonial expansionism?"

18:59 / 02.08.06

It's not colonial expansionism, IMHO, for I don't tjhink the Israelis have any intention to ocupy and exploit the region they are bombarding. their main goal seems to be to create an unpopulated (or at least internationally controlled) buffer-zone, and that's it.

So, colonial expansionism: NO; ethnical cleansing: YES

20:46 / 02.08.06

I don't disagree that Israel's aggressive stance can never bring it peace but I don't believe that it has this stance forced on it by the USA, sdv. Israel is concerned about Iran or any other country in its sphere of influence obtaining nuclear weapons, in part because it is vulnerable, still mores so because its people feel much more vulnerable than they are, but most of all because it is determined to attain and maintain complete control, to be hegemonic in the Middle East.

Israel attacked Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 and Israel tried to convince India to join it in an attack on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities about '83. In order to prevent Israel retaliating against Iraqi missiles with nuclear weapons during the Second Gulf War, America provided Israel with Patriot missile batteries, allowed Israel to designate 100 targets inside Iraq for the coalition to destroy, provided satellite downlink to increase warning time on the SCUD attacks (present and future), and promised to maintains Israel’s technical parity with Saudi jet fighters in perpetuity.

Israel has been worrying about the prospect Iran building nuclear weapons since at least 1992 and it's Israel that seeks to move the USA to action in this regard, not the other way round. And it's Israel that has always seen the Shiites of southern Lebanon as an arm of Iran.

Israel's lobby in the USA is hugely influential, as President Bush and Secretary of State Powell discovered in late 2001 when they were still trying to push the peace process (yes, they were). Sharon showed them where to get off, and Bush called him "a man of peace."

As far as I can see Israel has slowly brought US Middle East policy into line with its interests over the years, rather than it becoming a tool of the USA. It is hard to say where one begins and the other ends though. What short-term goals of the USA do you think Israel is pursuing in Lebanon at the moment?

20:54 / 02.08.06

If the buffer zone is to remain unpopulated then that is ethnic cleansing, Dead Megatron, because it was inhabited and it’s inhabitants were displaced by the IDF.

21:04 / 02.08.06

How do you percieve Hezbolah? are they an evil group of terrorists?

or

are they just people fighting an age old war for what they believe in?

In either case they have kidnapped and killed, and they are some mean mother fuckers on the battle field.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

23:39 / 02.08.06

What short-term goals of the USA do you think Israel is pursuing in Lebanon at the moment?

Given that the USA is currently in the hands of a Christian fundy, who's made no secret of his eschatological leanings...

...OK, I'll stop now.

01:06 / 03.08.06

Strictly speaking, Stoatie, Armageddon can't come until the Temple has been rebuilt and Antichrist has come forth from it.

06:26 / 03.08.06

I suppose you're asking me that, Ender. Well, Sayyed Nasrallah, the spiritual and military leader of Hezbollah said this in a recent speech,

The battle today is no longer a battle over prisoners or the exchange of prisoners. ... What is taking place today is not a response to a capture of their soldiers; it is a squaring of accounts with the people, resistance, state, army, political forces, regions, villages, and families that inflicted that historic defeat on that aggressive usurper entity that has never accepted its defeat.

Today, therefore, this is a total war that Zionism is waging to clear its whole account with Lebanon, the Lebanese people, the Lebanese state, the Lebanese army, and the Lebanese resistance, in revenge and reprisal for the victory they won on 25 May 2000.

I think it's quiet clear that they see themselves as people fighting an age old war for what they believe in and I see no reason not to respect that. Is there any reason to think of Hezbollah in diminutive or insulting terms, other than perhaps hubris and fear? I wish we could end such conflicts without violence and in all parties best interests, but we clearly have neither the means nor the will to do so, nor is it always possible at a particular time.

Hezbollah are in clear violation of international law when indiscriminately firing rockets into northern Israel, killing, endangering and terrorising civilians. That's a war crime. Hezbollah did trigger this conflict by killing and capturing Israeli troops. This is however very clearly a war, not a series of terrorist operations, and Hezbollah's opponent is employing terror on an even greater scale.

ONLY NICE THINGS

06:47 / 03.08.06

Well, it's not exactly an age old war, is it? I mean, it's a war that's been going on in some form or other, on and off, since either 1975 or, if you want to go further back, 1948, with Lebanon's participation in the Arab Liberation Army.

Other than taxonomically, I'm not sure whether it matters much whether the rocket attacks are terrorist attacks or war crimes. Given that Hizbollah do not represent the Lebanese government, it'sa bit hard to tie down their relationship to the sovereign nation of Lebanon.

07:25 / 03.08.06

The organisation the provides a region with infrastructure, hospitals, schools and defence is the state. Call Hezbollah a sub-state, a semi-state, a virtual state or whatever you wish, but Hezbollah are fighting a war with Israel, they are not carrying out terrorist attacks on Israeli paratroopers, tanks and infantrymen in south Lebanon.

I may be wrong but I imagine the only way international law, intended as it is to regulate affairs between nations, can be applied to this conflict is by treating it as a war between two states. I suspect that anything else would be playing with the scales to maintain bureaucratic order, or perhaps the status quo. I would like to think that international law does apply, however ineffectually, to this war.

As to the age old war, Ender only gave me two choices and that was by far the more appropriate, in my opinion.

08:35 / 03.08.06

See, I'm starting to wonder if characterising Hezbollah as a nation state isn't part of the problem here. What I understand of it is that Hezbollah were a political party that won seats in government in a democratic election in Lebanon. Rather like Sinn Fein, they're political and militaristic. The only solution I can see working in this situation is one similar to the peace process in Northern Ireland, I cannot see such a process occurring with the practically explicit consent of the USA and the UK for this murderous assault on Lebanon.

Honestly, I think that Israel have been itching to do this for some time and the USA has been egging them on as it is in their best intrests for the area to be further destabilised so that they can find a handy excuse for an attack on Iran. I suppose we'll learn the truth of my prediction all too soon.

Elene, I'm finding your point of view quite hard to follow. You say things like Hezbollah are in clear violation of international law when indiscriminately firing rockets into northern Israel, killing, endangering and terrorising civilians. That's a war crime., but to me all I can understand is that, yes, Hezbollah have been attacking Israel but Israel's response is insanely disproportionate to the point where I may have had sympathy for Israel until their war crimes began to heavily outweigh those of Hezbollah... what am I missing here? It seems to me that Israel are attacking a mad dog with an atom bomb, y'know?

10:00 / 03.08.06

I'm treating Hezbollah as a state, Nobody's girl, because I think that in effect that's what it is. It holds territory, provides essential services for the people in that territory and a large proportion of those people support it. I don't think Hezbollah is a mad dog and I do think it's engaged in a war with Israel. One of the military tactics it's employing is the firing of rockets at civilian population centres in Israel - yes, exactly as the Israeli's are doing in Lebanon - but such a bombardment of civilians is illegal. It's a war crime. It doesn't matter whether Israel, the USA, Nazi Germany, Britain and all their cousins have done such things and only the Germans have ever been punished, it remains a war crime.

I'm not very interested in who is supposed to be in charge of a country, what matters is who really is in charge because they are the only people worth negotiating with. Look at Somalia. It is supposed to have a government, the transitional parliament, but this government has recently fled and been replaced, not officially, but in effect, by the Islamic Courts Union. One can continue to talk about, and possibly to the transitional parliament (in exile), but you'll certainly be making neither war on them nor peace with them.

Lebanon was involved in a terrible civil war from 1975 until 1990, a war that, when it ended, left Hezbollah as the only armed militia in the country, parallel to the newly forming Lebanese army. Hezbollah was largely responsible for inducing Israel to finally withdraw from Lebanon in 2000. It's not at all clear that the Lebanese army could win a civil war against Hezbollah. I think, as a result of all this, that Hezbollah ought to be considered an entity equivalent to a state.

10:43 / 03.08.06

Thanks for all the info, I've been feeling rather lost in all the history of this.

It doesn't matter whether Israel, the USA, Nazi Germany, Britain and all their cousins have done such things and only the Germans have ever been punished, it remains a war crime.

Absolutely, my point was rather that two war crimes don't make it right, IYSWIM. I suppose I rather foolishly expect Israel to be more reasonable than Hezbollah in it's actions because it is officially a nation state.

For a while now I've had the feeling that we've be approaching "The War on Terror" from the wrong direction. It seems to me that sending in troops to catch terrorists just inflames the situation and lends more creedence to their cause. This is why I think Israel's response to Hezbollah's actions is self-defeating. This is also why I think it's a bad idea to treat Hezbollah as if it were a nation state.

11:47 / 03.08.06

... we've be approaching "The War on Terror" from the wrong direction. It seems to me that sending in troops to catch terrorists just inflames the situation and lends more creedence to their cause.

I agree. In spite of their strong ideological foundations, organisations like Hezbollah only become substantial forces in the presence of conflict and brutal oppression.

Hezbollah evolved from militias holding up the end of the Lebanese Shi'a during the early years of the civil war. Hezbollah was an evolution, mixing Iranian revolutionary ideology into the local concerns but with good connections to Syria and with fighters who had already been tested in brutal civil war. Every attack on Hezbollah since that time has strengthened it, perhaps partly through a natural selection of the best leaders and the best fighters and above all the best practices, both politically and militarily. It has successfully balanced it's relations with Iran, Syria and later the new Lebanese government, and it has constantly improved its internal security and military technique in combat with Israel. It is now too strong to simply ignore. Hezbollah is incomparably more secure, united and competent than the various Palestinian organisations.

Nevertheless, Hezbollah could have been pre-empted in the '70s, by ending the civil war in a just and timely fashion. It could never have been stopped by starting a war.

I'm no expert though, that's just an opinion.

12:05 / 03.08.06

Stoatie, MJ-12, making jokes about GWB and the End of Days is terrorism too, you know?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

15:49 / 03.08.06

Damn. You got me banged to rights, guvnor.

For some context, I'm not entirely joking. I'd hazard a guess that certain parts of GWB's support base support him largely because they can see elements of Biblical prophecy in the whole Middle East situation. (I'm not suggesting the prophecies are predictive- I'm an agnostic- but I can imagine how they could be taken to be prescriptive, if you see what I mean).

Page: (1)2