Bush's foreign policy is in shambles

[joemurphy]

After encouraging a "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon which ended in the withdrawal of Syrian troops and democratic elections that resulted in Hezbollah taking a role in the Lebanese Parliament, the U.S. is now anomalously backing an Israeli attack on a newly rebuilt Lebanon.

Israel has now attacked southern Lebanon again (it occupied it for years in a disastrous and ultimately unsuccessful effort to create a buffer zone for Northern Israel). Oddly, although Israel's quarrel is with Hezbollah, the brunt of its attack is on Lebanese infrastructure -- bridges, airports, fuel depots, power stations. Although the attacks are nominally about revenge for Hezbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, this is a sham. The attack has been in the planning stages for 5 years. Israel is also broadening the battle zone to Gaza after the kidnapping of a soldier there as well.

Where are we in this? We're watching Lebanon (who had no responsiblity for what Hezbollah did) being bombed. Bush is saying nothing. Why?

[pdxmom]

1. What can he say? Israel is doing exactly what Bush did when he

went into Iraq. Had to get those terra-rists. He invaded a sovereign country, saying it was being done to protect our future interests. Israel is bombing Lebanon, because that's where the terra-rists are. They're only protecting themselves and their future interests.

He can only do something if he wants to look even more like a hypocrite than he already does.

[joemurphy]

3. I think he's in favor of this action.

I can't believe that Israeli could implement this without American approval either express or tacit.

The only true nascent "democracy" in the Middle East is Lebanon. We are now watching that democracy collapse into chaos with American complicity and arguable support.

This is totally nonsensical and Bush has completely lost his bearings. We have no Middle East policy.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Here's your answer from Suskind's new book, et al.

From Ha'Aretz:

--snip--

This atmosphere of cooperation, Suskind states in his book, has reinforced the sense that President George Bush wants to assist Israel and was not disturbed by the military operations that Ariel Sharon's government authorized in the territories. Suskind quotes Bush as saying during his first National Security Council meeting that the U.S. must refrain from active mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To then secretary of state Colin Powell's argument that such behavior could be interpreted by Sharon's government as a green light to apply force, Bush responded that sometimes a show of force can clarify the issue at hand.

--snip--

  Bush has also been badly burned trying to influence Israeli military action. Specific references to this can be found in "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". (Requires AcroBat Reader)

PB

[mom cat]

4. It all does seem to be a part of a larger conquest of the Middle East

that the neocons crave.

[Poll_Blind]

5. Like Al Quaeda, what we percieve as a global NeoCon conspiracy is...

...much more likely a loose confederation of motivationally-different groups working claw in claw for conditions which allow them to more-easily pursue their goals.

PB

[applegrove]

6. I don't think so. Read "Wilhelm" Kristol today. He seems quite happy

at this turn of events.