I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

What can Israel do?

Hez murdering Lebanese who disagree and calling them "spies of Israel" means they continue to rule wide areas.

The lack of publicity about how Hez uses civilian areas as mobile strike zones, and thus civilians as human shields/ PR weapons, is terrible.

Their strategy is clear: wear no uniforms, attempt murder from civilian areas, run away, when Israel tries to strike back, mostly civilians will be hurt -- Israel loses in the Hez strike, Israel loses in the PR aftermath of their response.

What should Israel do?  (I wish they had been more careful earlier; I wish they had tried a massive anti-Hez strike then a much more targeted response.)

Maybe: 48 hr truce -- get all civilians out.
Next Hez rocket attack, full blitz of Hez land until the Lebanon gov't agrees that it will disarm Hez, and only allow people with uniforms who work for the Lebanon gov't, or multinational/NATO peacekeeper force, to have guns.

But somebody must protect the Lebanese people who speak out against Hez.  If such people are murdered, as looks likely, Hez wins.

Yet another thing Israel could do would be to allow women and children of S. Lebanon to be refugees inside of Israel -- preparing nice camps for them, and feeding them and treating them well.  I would guess Hezbollah would be strongly against this, since it would allow Shia to see how Jews are actually people -- but that just makes me think it would be a fine publicity offer -- so Israel could win if accepted (contacts) or win in PR if rejected (Hez stops peaceful contacts).

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/31/06 09:34 | link | comments (1)
israel palestine

Terrorists winning thru -- Terror murders

Terrorists kill those who oppose them, or those who disagree, or those who do not obey.  Without trial.

But the ENFORCEMENT of these "laws of the terrorists", creates a defacto legal code of conduct.  Since the terrorists don't wear uniforms nor have titles, it is not clear who is really running things.  But such terrorists can win -- they can compel all non-terrorists into behaving as the terrorists demand.
We in the West don't yet know how to fight this, or stop it.

The Left is not helpful.

Previously there is a story of Hezbollah murdering so-called "Israeli spies".  This is more likely murder of those who oppose Hezbollah.

But the Leb gov't seems to be finding Israeli spies, too; picking up 40 of them.
Why can they find Israeli spies, but not Hezbollah terrorists?

Looks to me like Israel will lose another round as the unilateral truce becomes spun as Hezbollah victory.
I hope that Israel is preparing a blitz attack, but I doubt it.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/31/06 09:20 | link | comments (1)
israel palestine

"Civilians" committing murder - Hezbollah

Here are photos of Hezbollah setting up war in suburbia, no uniforms.

This was via Michael J Totten, who thinks Israel should pay reparations to Lebanon.  But I doubt that he'd agree with my initial view: no reparations for soldiers, only civilians -- no S. Lebanon men/boys from 16 - 56 are "civilians".  Israel targets fighters, kills some civilians, some 1/100th of Hezbollah targeting civilians.
Hez & Lebanon pay $10 000 000 (ten million) per Israel civilian; Israel pays $100 000?

Reparations are an important point; so is justice; so is moral issues of who is targeting who.  And if you disagree with these numbers, what numbers do you agree with?

--- UPDATE
Michael has updated his site with a note that "reparations" are a bad word.
Which I agree.

Germany and Japan surrendered.
If Lebanon surrenders, which I've called for, I fully support shifting US aid from Egypt to Israel so as to allow Israel to help rebuild Lebanon.

Reparations is certainly the wrong word.

The US gave nothing to Vietnam, after the N. Viet commies violated the Paris Peace Accord and beat the crap out of the corrupt S. Viet forces, who were relying on a personal guarantee by Pres. Nixon (who became ex-pres. Nixon).

Support for rebuilding AFTER surrender; in this case, AFTER Hezbollah disarms. Which I don't see happening.

Also, a S. African news site claims Hezbollah is murdering Lebanese who they call "Israeli spies".

Such is the method of terror, and the law of the jungle, law of those with guns, law of the most ruthless.  Obey or die.  Disagree and be labeled a "spy" and be murdered, which will be accepted -- and those who disagree will be murdered.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/30/06 20:54 | link | comments (1)
politics, islamofascism, israel palestine

Linker blog - Hypocrisy not so bad

Joe at Evangelical Outpost notes that Linker Blogs may be more important than Chief blogs.
I've been trying to be a deep thinker, briefly, for years now.  But mostly have only produced ... legends in my own mind.
Maybe time to try more, shorter links.

So Jeremy Lott has written a book, In Defense of Hypocrisy, which I think is similar in important messages to my own complaints about Unreal Perfection. "“Moral wiggle room is needed in order for real progress to happen, and that wiggle room is provided by hypocrisy.”

I think this is correct.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/30/06 20:41 | link | comments
blogs, unreal perfection

Israel half-losing

After reading a bunch of stuff, like Michael Totten, "More Opinions than People" in Lebanon, it's not clear to me how Israel, alone, can win.  Michael Young looks more at Leb, Waiting for Nabih Berri, hoping to find a moderate Shia to split the 40% Shia from total Hez "death to Israel" support:
"another party official, Mahmoud Komati, stated that Hizbullah had been surprised by Israel's reaction to the capture of two soldiers on July 12.

Komati's admission was troubling for four reasons. It was probably untrue, since Hizbullah almost certainly factored in what the Israelis might do when it planned the soldiers' abduction; the admission was designed to shift blame away from Hizbullah, since if it had known about the Israeli response, hundreds of thousands of displaced Lebanese would hold the party accountable for their fate; and if Komati was telling the truth and Hizbullah did not know, then the party is guilty of having provoked a national catastrophe based on deficient planning.

The fourth reason was more prosaic: It was contradicted by what Nasrallah later said."

I'm reading all this knowing that Bush & Blair call for a Cease-Fire, one with disarming Hezbullah: "It's unknown whether Hezbollah would participate in the proposed cease-fire and Blair said the multinational force wouldn't "fight their way" into the region."

The great Lebanese Political Refugee writes very personally about the forbidden relations. "It's very difficult being moderate. I'm battered for fraternizing with Israelis. I'm assaulted for having friends who actively support Hezbollah. Both sides know where I stand. I don't lie to anyone, and I hold my ground in argument (sometimes - okay, most of the times - a bit too vociferously)."

Well, I think calling for ceasefire WITH disarmament is a fine stalling tactic, since I don't believe Hizbullah will accept disarmament for real.  Yet getting close to a ceasefire may increase pressure on Israel to accept onewithout disarming Hez.  Which means Israel loses.  This is seen in many of neo-neocon's posts, including Disarming Hezbollah: either way, the punishment is war.


Donald Sensing clearly says Israel is losing; Why Hezbollah is Winning. "my own observation that Israel was carrying out a spasm, not a strategy. Nothing I have learned about Israel’s conduct of the war so far causes me to change my mind."

Belmont Club has much more, including Asymetrical Warfare and Humanitarianism.
And Pajama's Media has much more., including the bad prospect of Hezbollah fighting in companies, really a little army, by Bill Roggio.  This has to be bad news.

Both bigger pictures from Debka, and more details of Lebanon from UNIFIL, show maps.  The UNIFIL one implies how useless the UN has been.
And a skillful anti-Israel, anti-American, cynical study from Aqoul,Skillful Asymetry and Spin. He also notes the 50th anniversary of the Suez Canal war.

Donald Sensing has another note on Hezbollah's Political Gambit, and the need for Israel to race ground forces over the area before the diplomat mouths make them lose.

Because I hope so much that Donald is wrong, it's clear to me I don't know -- but he also didn't quite convince me.

If this campaign achieves Hez disarmament, or an on-going process of disarmament, I'd say Israel wins. Because Hez disarmament, not destruction, is the real goal.

Since Israel can NOT disarm Hez unilaterally on the ground (at an acceptable cost in Shia "civilians" plus Israeli casualties), the issue becomes more honestly political: will an international force WITH the Lebanese Army be willing to use the violence required to disarm an unwilling Hezbollah?

Only Iraqis could "win in Fallujah", perhaps only Lebanese can "win in S. Lebanon".

I fully agree that Israeli strategic bombing has not been a success, and am certain it's been costly in terms of Leb support for anti-Hez feeling.

Yet I think, but know I don't know, that Israel's calculation of less ground, now, is the better decision for mid term (6 month - 6 years) disarmament, and victory.

I'm sure you're right about Israel "needing" to move quickly in order to win militarily before they lose politically; I called for Lebanon to surrender last week!

But I didn't think it would happen. And am beginning to think Olmert will accept another half-win/ half-loss negotiation.

But if Israel goes back to the status quo, on the ground, at least it will have shown an ability to go into spasm mode. "Disproportionate Response."

Israel needs to push to get explicit promises of UN/ multinational responsibility; which I don't they'll get. I'd even suggest specifying 50 000 troops as an active peace-keeping, shoot to kill terrorists force, with some 100 or so in the 500 biggest S. Lebanese villages.

Learning the language and talking to the people. And actually enforcing the law about free speech toleration, so that Shia Hez critics can criticize without fearing for their lives or the lives of their families.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/29/06 14:40 | link | comments
wot, islamofascism, israel palestine

War in Lebanon

Michael said that 35% of the Leb Army is Shia, among other great things.

Here's what a more fierce anti-Hez Leb people/ gov't could do: call for new volunteers/ draftees of non-Shia folk who would swell the 70 000 (?) or so up to 100 000; with all 30 000 new Sunni Christian Druze folk being trained to disarm terrorists.

I saw the lovely Lebanon babes of last year in MJT pictures; and Spirit of America; and the big crowds against Syria followed by huge crowds for Syria followed by even more huge crowds against Syria.

How many of the young men under 40 have tried to join the Leb Army in order to disarm Hezbollah? I don't think very many.

I don't think Israel will be allowed to "do it", because "it" would mean killing too many not-fully guilty Shia who are not provably Hez supporters.

But hopefully the anti-Hez Lebanese people will be able to when Israel leaves.

See Wretchard at Belmont Club.

He speculates that he has a hopeful answer: the IDF kills many of the Hez cadres, which, unlike missiles, are irreplaceable in the short term. He speculates that the IDF have a plan; what it is; why it might work.

He calls his post: Pulp Fiction. I hope it's true.

I think Israel is, slowly, losing the non-Leb political battle. They could improve their political battles with more pictures of bunkers, and missiles, and pictures of the locations of missiles in or near civilian houses. They could complain more loudly about UN implicit support for Hez -- by being there for 6 year, but NOT disarming, nor even accurately describing what they saw Hez doing. Now the UN is acting like human shields to protect Hez fighters and supporters.

Non-fighting Hez supporters are the problem, just as Sunni Iraq supporters of terrorists are the Iraq problem. (The Shia death squads can be dealt with quickly, I believe, once the Sunni supported terrorists stop murdering Shia.)

I support a "sustainable cease-fire". I'm afraid Israel is lowering the goal-posts, but haven't followed their official statements. I think they've always officially maintained very limited operations.

I strongly believe Israel made tactical mistakes by too many anti-Christian, anti-Druze, anti-Sunni attacks. But I'm humble enough to know I could be wrong -- it depends on the future answer to this question: Who is to blame?

If Israel can successfully blame Hez, they win the future. If Hez successfully blames Israel, Israel doesn't win. I know the freedom state I want, but not how to get there if the Shia people support Hez.

I can also believe that, even if Israel "loses" this, by leaving without stopping Hez, they come come back and destroy more Hez assets in a future "loss".

Only if Hez actually stops killing Israelis does Israel "win"; and if, after this, Hez keeps killing Israelis, that will be proof the Israeli response was NOT "disproportionate".

I have to admit I was hoping Israel would suck in the Syrians into an attack to save Hez, so that Israel could defend themselves some more by bombing Syrian gov't installations in Damascus -- but Syria isn't saving Hez with the Syrian army, yet. Will they? Who knows.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/28/06 08:47 | link | comments (3)
israel palestine

Everybody better than average

Grim’s Hall has very interesting disagreement with Bill Whittle’s new essay, The Web of Trust.

Grim makes the point that people are increasingly NOT interchangable.

One of the important issues is "average", and the strange fact that some 90% of drivers think they are better than average. In fact, of course, only about half of them are.

Almost everybody, however, IS "better than average" -- at what they actually do. Take the illegal immigrant gardener. He is almost certainly "better than average" at gardening, even if he's in the bottom 10% of gardeners. Virtually all gardeners are much better than non-gardeners at gardening. And so on for most stuff.

I do NOT believe in that level of genetic manipulation soon; but likely in my lifetime. First will be the overcoming of genetic defects.

Important ethical stuff coming.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/28/06 07:47 | link | comments

Marc Cooper being a coward

What I like about Marc Cooper is that usually he criticizes whoever, fairly fearlessly.  But not on Israel-Lebanon. where he's an uncharacteristic coward on the Israeli response to Hezbollah murder and kidnapping.  So I respond.

Marc: “I have been quite discouraged by the dialogue of the deaf that has taken place on this blog and elsewhere as the war in Lebanon deepens".

then, after a reasonable post by Samuel Stott, how Israel could kill all the people in S. Lebanon but hold themselves back in restraint,  Marc again in comments: “Sott: Ur post cannot be taken seriously as it reflects not facts but rather articles of belief.”

The “fact” that Israel has nukes, and many other weapons that it is not using; that it could murder everybody but is restraining itself? You deny this?

“Come back when you are willing to be intellectually honest.”

“There is absolutely NO assumption that any of these parties desire peace, by the way.”

When Israel pulled out of Gaza, leaving some greenhouses and other buildings, the “poor” Palestinians didn’t try to use them. Destroy, destroy, destroy. They are not so poor as to use anything the Jews built, not when they can destroy it.

Israel wants peace, and has taken actual, factual steps to get peace. The Palestinians don’t want peace “enough,” they don’t want it enough to stop firing rockets into Israel from Gaza. Hez doesn’t want it enough to build S. Lebanon, rather than prepare for more attacks.

What’s next for Israel to try? More force — since less force hasn’t worked.

Fact: neither Egypt nor Jordan agreed with a Palestinian state on Gaza and the West Bank at peace with an Israel and having pre-67 borders.

That would be OK with me if they weren’t firing rockets. Their non-recognition PLUS agression means they are wrong.

I don’t think there will be peace until after some Arabs surrender.

Those ‘67 & ‘73 defeats were huge. Huge, embarassing, humiliating defeats of the “Arab Armies” — but there was no surrender by any of the anti-Israeli agressor regimes. Under the cold war, with Soviet anti-American influence, surrender wasn’t much a reasonable goal. Perhaps now it is.

I think Israel should keep fighting until Hezbollah surrenders — or there is some other way for Israel to feel that Lebanon territory won’t be used as a “safe haven” for terrorist murderers.

Finally, your silly “intellectually superior” assertion is laughable: “Perhaps that’s why some muscular diplomacy from the world’s only superpower might have come in handy.”

And do you support Bush’s muscular diplomacy in Iraq? No … coward.

And why, exactly, do you want US involvement? — because you know, as do we all, that anything short of Hezbollah surrender means the border is not going to be peaceful, and in the next few years some more Israelis will be murdered; and you want to blame it on Bush, either through action or inaction. But you don’t write it so I can quote you (at least I use your actual words in quotes, unlike most of your commenters who decide to rephrase what I say before childishly insulting me about it, rather than put forth an alternative — alternatives are so much more work!) — why? Because on this issue, you are a coward.

I believe my “Lebanon should surrender” solution is unrealistic — but would result in a peaceful border (at least 2 years with no organized, unpunished rocket attacks by Hez). I don’t believe you’re willing to claim support for any “solution” to stop the murders of Israelis; but I’d be happy to hear if I’m wrong.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/25/06 09:05 | link | comments (3)
islamofascism, israel palestine

Prayers, Storms, Firefox death

It's been really hot and dry here in Slovakia; so on Sunday there was a prayer for rain.  Yesterday it rained, a bit; then a huge storm.  When it was over, I wrote a long, 2 hour post about "Sustainable Ceasefire", with lots of links to BBC, Chicago Trib, Fox -- but then lost it with Firefox needing to close.  Usually I do long posts in Word, then copy; or in comments and copy to word and copy here.  Plus I'm really busy this week, doing progress reports for the HIV project in Africa, plus helping my wife translate a book, One Hundred Lamps for the Soul.

Oh well. It's a fine book.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/25/06 06:37 | link | comments (2)
blogs, greys

Without surrender, more war

All the ceasefires for the last hundred years haven't seen the Arabs having to surrender -- and the people, whose leaders surrender, will blame those leaders for the deaths and loss.

Without the surrender, the blame for the deaths and loss in the fight will remain with the enemy -- leading to more fighting.

Israel must blame Hezbollah, and the West should be blaming Hezbollah, for the initial attacks and the continuing attacks against Israel.  Israel wants peace (and victory); Hezbollah wants to exterminate Israel, and maybe peace afterwards but more likely going after America next.

Napolean surrendered; the Nazis surrendered; the Imperial Japanese surrendered -- peace, after a bitter war, comes fastest after a surrender.

It probably won't happen, I know, I've said before.  But it should happen.  And the fact that it doesn't happen is because so many people say it should not happen, or say something else should happen.  Like "ceasefire", which means more time for Hezbollah to recover and prepare to murder more Israelis.

Israel should be demanding an End to war -- Hezbollah must surrender.
The war ends when Hezbollah surrenders, gives up its hostage, lays down its weapons, and builds houses instead of bunkers and missile launchers.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/22/06 12:21 | link | comments (8)
islamofascism

No peace without surrender; little friendship

The more I think about WW II, and the surrender of Germany and Japan, the more I think that the Mid East needs a war where there is a loser who surrenders.

All the wars the Arabs fought with Israel, and "lost", were ended in some kind of armistice, like the 1948 war that Lebanon and 5 other Arab countries declared against Israel, or a ceasefire.  The Peace with Egypt that Jimmy Carter purchased for some $2 bill/ year also did not end the hatred against the Jews in Israel.

I suggested that Lebanon surrender.  If the Lebanon Army tries to defend Hezbollah, Israel will be more justified in claiming Lebanese guilt -- and I think it's time to rethink collective guilt, and collective presumption of innocence.  The terrorists act in such a way as the non-supporters must act like supporters, or else they are murdered. 

There is no easy answer to terrorist violence.  Ceasefires, like those of the last 20 years, only allow the murderers to prepare more murders. 

So many thoughts:
Arabs don't really care about civilians, see the Syrian suppression of terrorists (in the 80s?) where the gov't killed some 30 000 -- no big uprising against the gov't after that. 
See Darfur -- no big Arab complaint about the murders of Muslims there.
See Congo -- no big Arab complaint about the killing there.
Even the Iraq-Iran war of the 80s, not so much Arab complaining about the killing.  But, like Leftists, if Israel or America is taking action and fighting evil, and civilians are being killed, that's a big reason to complain about "that way" of fighting evil. 

It is a sad and terrible fact that fighting evil means some civilians will be killed.  Not murdered, but killed.  Well, the evil terrorists will probably murder civilians, too -- and it's so easy to avoid mentioning that fact.

The evil terrorists are evil, because they commit murder.  The imperfect, "good guy" Israelis, are defending themselves ... and this defense is killing murderers and some civilians.

Was Zarqawi a civilian?  I don't think so, but I'm sure many such terrorists as he was are counted as civilian dead among the dead.

The Iraq military never surrendered -- they just faded away... ran ... became civilians ... became terrorists ... murdered and pretended to be innocent.

The non-Hezbollah people of S. Lebanon are not really innocent, even if they're not guilty.


I'm afraid that the Arab people must lose before they accept that their suffering is due to their following leaders who proclaim hate.  They must lose, dozens, or hundreds, or dozens of hundreds, must be killed, with the constant message that the deaths are due to Hezbollah.  The deaths are due to Hezbollah being wrong, and continuing to fight instead of surrender.

Anything less than surrender by Hezbollah means more fighting in the future.  And the demographic future is looking poor for Israel.

The Germans and Japanese became friends with the Americans after they surrendered.  I don't think most Arabs will be able to be friendly with Israel unless they surrender, first.  The failure of prior peace plans is because nobody was forced to surrender, first.

And force must certainly be used.  What is the minimum Israeli force needed to force Hezbollah to surrender?

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/21/06 20:34 | link | comments (18)
human rights, israel palestine

A ceasefire is not Peace

When will the UN and the “international community” accept the obvious, a cease-fire is NOT “peace”.

Lebanon should surrender. Blair should be supported in trying to get an international force, a BIG one, to occupy S. Lebanon and disarm Hezbollah, the group that commits war crime after war crime but whose war crimes are so seldom mentioned.

Why can’t Leftists even write that Hezbollah firing rockets towards civilians is a war crime? And a violation of prior “ceasefires”? and is NOT peace?

I sure thought Israel overreacted, but it’s not clear that they would get real peace from any lesser reaction.

I think Rummy is wrong about the size of the US military and it should probably be increased; but this is so expensive I can see why he doesn’t want to. The US military is designed to win battles, not to occupy and rebuild a failed state/ post-war state.

I’ve long thought the US no-loan gifts for rebuilding Iraq was a mistake; if US cash is an issue, and it always is in the long term if not immediately, US aid should be in loans to be repaid — but controlled by the local decision makers, not Bush friends.

The mess in Iraq is actually still pretty good, and while the 6000 in two months is high, and possibly getting worse, its still less than Darfur, for instance. The Iraqis need to learn to live with politics w/o killing each other — and only an Iraqi security force can give Iraqis security if a large number of Iraqis want to kill. While Rummy & Bush were obviously wrong about the cakewalk with respect to the guerrilla war, the responsibility for the deaths in Iraq has to be given to … Iraqis.

I know, I know, letting non-Americans have any responsibility for murder is something the Left has a huge problem with — everything is Bush’s fault, or else it’s not news: like Darfur, Congo, Zimbabwe; and Hezbollahland till the US proxy/ally Israel decided it wanted peace after the Hez war crimes. Peace thru victory.

I hope Bush continues to resist “ceasefire” calls until Hezbollah surrenders, and gives back the kidnapped soldier. Until then, S. Lebanon is more the responsibility of Hez, than Israel.

After an injustice, the amount of force used to create a “more just” situation in morally unclear. Justice is not peaceful. Ever. (Response to Marc Cooper)

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/19/06 16:33 | link | comments (3)
israel palestine

Pinochet a murderer & a Lebanon note

Powerful, interesting story about Chile on Ventolera:  Her husband would randomly break out into song, singing the greatest hits of all these artists. When we finally mentioned Victor Jara, he started singing "El Cigarrito" and a distressed look came over Eliana's face as she mentioned something in Spanish. "And the worst part is, I know his killer. I know the man who murdered Victor Jara."

Marc Cooper has a Chilean wife, and is also angry at Pinochet.  I'm much less so, despite my anger at injustice and at Pinochet's injustice. I understand around 4 000 Chileans were murdered by Pinochet's direct, or indirect, orders; this is a large number.

On the other hand, it was his "Chicago Boys" reforms that has made Chile the best economy of Latin America; and in the calculus of death, both Columbia and Nicaragua suffered far more deaths in their own twisting "modernization & globalization" paths.

Few would say having a talented person you know murdered is worse than having a 100 people murdered who you don't know. Still; I compare complaints about Pinochet with complaints about N. Vietnamese "Paris Peace Accords" violators and murderers of some 600 000 S. Vietnamese (most US allies they could find...). In comparison, Pinochet was far far less bad than the N. Viet commies -- yet many complain far more about him, than about the commies.

Pinochet's murders are horrible, and unjustified. What is justice? Why for him, but not for Castro, or others?

MintBloodFlowers answers!  just a part is here: Why is there a need to compare what Pinochet did with what the North Vietnamese did? What about a distinction between right and wrong instead of a distinction between right-wing politics and left-wing politics? It's pretty sickening how some people are willing to condemn dictatorship and torture in some cases while supporting them when it favors their cause.

"What about a distinction between right and wrong" --
Pinochet was wrong to kill people, and order people killed, in the way he did.
Pinochet was a dictator, and didn't allow as much human rights as I think he should.

Pinochet left gov't; as did the general the US supported in S. Korea.

Why compare the real Pinochet to other real dictators? Because I am enraged at what I call Unreal Perfection as the unspoken comparison to what is real. "right and wrong" is essentially a perfectionist critique.

Pinochet did bad stuff; criminal stuff. Also good economic policies. The Left hates, has hated, and continues to hate Pinochet; yet not so much criticism for Castro (still there) nor for the Viet generals (still a commie dictatorship).

Why? One of the reasons was that so many relatives escaped Chile -- rather than entire family clans being murdered (as Jews in Germany, or Vietnamese who were US allies).


You're probably right that I wouldn't comment so much if it was a Castro story. It's the Left that I want to be more fair in comparing real results to real results.

Like, if Israel accepts some ceasefire in Lebanon, that means almost certain death in the next few years for some Israelis who will become the targets of more Hezbollah rockets. I truly am interested in how to minimize Lebanonese deaths WITH gaining peaceful security for Israel.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/19/06 16:20 | link | comments (6)
politics, israel palestine

Why doesn't Lebanon surrender?

Fantasy Lebanon surrender:

We, the elected government of Lebanon, being too weak to implement UN SC 1559 and disarm Hezbollah, a militia residing in Lebanon, being too weak to stop Hezbollah from illegally firing rockets targeting Israel, being too weak to stop Hezbollah from illegally murdering Israeli soldiers, being too weak to stop Hezbollah from illegally kidnapping Israeli soldiers, being too weak to force Hezbollah to return the soldiers;

We, the weak government of Lebanon, cannot resist Israeli will,

Therefore, in order to minimize casualties and damage, in order to most quickly cease further fighting,

We, the duly elected representatives of the Lebanese people, surrender, unconditionally.

We call on all Lebanonese to accept Israel as the occupying and controlling power, and declare any resistance to Israeli rule as illegal.  Control of the Lebanese Army will be given to the Israel selected Occupation governor, as will ultimate control of security forces.

We call on Israel, as an Occupation Power, to speedily establish order and security throughout Lebanon,  to use minimum force in ending any illegal resistance, and to prepare Lebanon for fair and free elections as soon as the whole country is secure. We call on them to accept cooperation with UN forces, NATO forces, and the forces of any democracy which supports peaceful, democratic development of Lebanon -- forces sufficient to disarm the illegal Hezbollah militia forces.

We offer the current Lebanese government, and members thereof, as available for giving advice, or accepting limited responsibility.

Signed ... current members of the Lebanese government.

----
I greatly doubt that this fantasy will occur, but why not?  Isn't the basic problem exactly the weakness of the democratically elected Lebanese gov't, and their inability to stop Hezbollah?  Why not let Israel have a free hand in rooting out Hezbollah, and doing the dirty work that the Lebanese gov't can't, or won't, do?

Since I think it's an excellent "outside the box" thought that I haven't seen others note, I thought I'd take this opportunity.  Of course, it's also good training for the "world community" in what to do about failed states; and S. Lebanon was a failed state.  I support a NATO based Human Rights enforcement group.  Especially focused on US and India cooperation.

Unconditional Surrender was a successful WW II ending; most since have been far less successful.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/17/06 00:17 | link | comments (15)
democracy, world cop, israel palestine

US should offer to police Lebanon

I think the US and India should ally to become a Democracy-based World Cop. 

The US should offer to police Lebanon with a multinational democracies based big military force, probably starting with the consent of Israel and then with the agreement of Lebanon, as becoming sovereign over Hezbollah controlled land.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/14/06 23:56 | link | comments (9)
terrorism, world cop

War with Iran, before or after nukes

War with Iran before they get nukes? Or after?

One of Marc Cooper’s commenters said: "we pushed Iran into the hands of the most militant forces " -- what a convenient excuse for blaming America. Bah. Like Iran is full of little mindless animals and everything that is anybody's "fault" is America's fault.

America has influence, not control. Like Israel over the Palestinians; influence, not control. Perhaps you think it was American/ Israeli control that "made" Arafat a greedy corrupt parasite on the Palestinian people? Marc, why not find out how many millions Arafat's widow is getting?

The Palestinians oppress themselves, and blame Israel -- like a wife beater blaming the friends of the beaten wife.

M. Leeden, who wants immediate action (invasion?) of Iran, but is also an expert on their activities, says the Gaza & Lebanon murders & kidnappings have been long prepared by Iran.

I think if Israel had merely "negotiated", the Hex rockets would have increased in size and destruction.

I think a "proportionate" response is the minimum which causes a peaceful result: a border where rockets don't cross. Israel is right to think that they need to destroy Hezbollah, FOR the weak Lebanon gov't, and give S. Lebanon back to that weak gov't, but with such a weakened Hex that the weak Lebanese can handle them. (If Israel thinks this.)

Solutions that don't stop the rockets aren't solutions.

I suspect Israel is ready for Iran to escalate, rather than surrender; so I won't be surprised if Syria gets involved. And very, very rapidly loses its air force.

The US vetoed a resolution condemning Israel; similar to how China protects N. Korea -- thus, Israel is not yet violating "international law" meaning UN SC resolutions.

I think in a year, the Lebanon gov't will be much stronger, and more in control of Lebanon than most Lebanese believed possible, last year.

I, too am sorry for the civilians that have been killed -- but I blame it on Hezbollah for ... pushing Israel into the hands of its most militant forces.

One of the key ideas I try to express is one of good and bad points of different alternatives. What I like about Marc Cooper is that he's usually pretty honest about the bad points of both alternatives.

What's a drag there, and most places, is the lack of comparing both bad and good points.

I'm really glad that the USA hasn't suffered another major terror strike. I'm also really glad Iraq has had 3 elections, and now has an elected Iraq gov't -- and I suspect is on track for long, slow, successful nation building.

No Leftists here, or elsewhere, seem willing to offer numbers. What unemployment rate would look good? What's the average of the G-7?

It's kinda easy to complain about "results" when one denies that the official results (4.8 unemployment) are accurate -- why should I believe some other estimate?

I've been paying over $4/gal for gas for years here in Slovakia -- but high, higher, and ever higher prices are the "peaceful" way to change people's behavior. Which is what prices do in a "free market". In accordance with classical liberal (in Europe) = libertarian thought.

It's pretty hard to accept that the Left cares more about the poor on minimum wages, when it's clear most on the Left do NOT want to allow the really really poor Mexicans to offer to work for $5/hr, or $4, or perhaps even less.

Similarly, it's increasingly hilarious to me that the Left refuses to make the minimum wage unnecessary, by offering higher paid jobs! Oh yeah, the Left doesn't offer jobs to poor people, or almost anybody -- they want to gov't to do it, or the rich, or somebody else. Lazy anti-peaceful unsustainable solutions.

War with Iran before they get nukes? Or after?

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/14/06 23:14 | link | comments (1)
wot, iran

Iraq gov't getting stronger, slowly

Iraq the Model has the news about Iraq taking more control of itself. Great news -- but slow. Nation building is long, slow, and not fully in control of the builders.

"Third, as this institutional foundation is strengthened, the Iraqi government will be in a position to reestablish the state's monopoly on force, which is a central task of state building. "

Build institutions before privatization, please! (Learn from the half-success/ half-failure of V. Klaus in former Czecho-Slovakia)

Enhancing the state's legitimate monopoly on force is one pillar; the economic development pillar will follow if the state can enforce "rule of law" -- meaning punishment for criminals, and mass acceptance of what is criminal.

I note that a mistake of America in Vietnam was in trying to do too much, allowing the S. Viet "leaders" to be corrupt, yes-men, free riders. I'm glad that mistake has been corrected.

The deaths of Iraqis to terrorists must be blamed, over and over, on the terrorists, not the US. As long as Iraqi leaders blame the US, enough Iraqis will believe it -- since they WANT to believe it's not some Iraqi's fault. I don't think Bush or Rumsfeld is emphasizing this enough, neither in the US nor in Iraq.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/14/06 23:07 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

I owe, I owe -- so off to work I go

Too busy to do much blogging.  Will have some Iran - Israel comments later. 

I'm not really ready for WW III.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/14/06 17:59 | link | comments

Some Iraq optimism and reality

What about Iraq's future? -- in a democracy, it's up to the voters. I'd expect them to vote in greater and greater power for the police, and harsher police state actions, as long as the "insurgents" keep murdering Iraqis with bombs and killings.

Strategy Page note:  Some Sunnis are ready to give up and go for some kind of peace, rather than dueling death squads. The central Iraq gov't has started to go after Shia death squads, a bit. Maliki's police powers will keep increasing until most insurgency stops, and it becomes comparable to Lebanon (or Israel?).

What about the Iraqi people? see Iraq Body count: between 39 000 & 44 000 killed so far. How many before the Iraqis decide killing others is not worth it? -- it is up to the Iraqis, not Bush or the US. That's what "Iraqi sovereignty" means. Yes, with leaders influenced by Bush; influence is not control. I think it will be far less than 100 000 more Iraqis killed, before they "stop" killing each other more than 10/week in bombs/kidnappings. Naturally, Leftist intellectual cowards refuse to offer their own numbers, either in prediction or in alternative valuations. (Let me know if I missed any, I skimmed a lot of the usual BS).

Marc Cooper comments include a long Dreyfuss article; it was interesting to see Leftist steps towards recognizing that Bush is continue to act as if he's going to win, and thus increase the likelihood of functioning democracy in Iraq.

I find Bush hate criticism based on Iraqis killed, as written by Leftists, particularly hypocritical and galling: compare Darfur (no US action) and Iraq (liberation) -- looks like US Liberation is a better option. For the local people, over the long term.

Let's remember: 600 000 murders by victorious N. Viet commies after the anti-war policy was followed in Vietnam. Where is the moral accountability for actively supporting this result? Where was the Leftist outrage against the N. Viets they accepted as victors when their cut and run policy was enacted? What a disgusting joke -- to Leftists, dead foreigners are merely useful as sticks to beat on America, or else essentially ignored.

I waste my time on a mixed anti-Bush blog because I'm so angry at NOT fighting evil in Vietnam & Cambodia; and I see the same delusions by anti-war Dems today. Also the same lack of real concern for dead foreigners, which I point out in Darfur - Iraq comparisons.

Naturally anti-Americans try to place Darfur blame on the US, but in fact had the US Dems been more supportive of Bush & Iraq liberation, there might be more support for US liberation in Darfur. Yeah, I blame the Dems, and Amnesty & HRW -- who talk human rights but refuse to support imperfect human armies trying to stop evil human rights violators. (See Totten/ Callimachus on Hungary 1956) I certainly think those who support "human rights" are hypocrites if they oppose enforcement against regimes who violate the rights.

Also, next door Iran and the nukes of the Mullahs. Which is worse: a) let the mullahs get nukes, or b) bomb the Iranian nuke making targets?

Keeping US troops in Iraq is huge military advantage in negotiations with Iran against them getting a nuke. Cato unbound, Libertarians quite anti-war; fairly anti-Bush, plus pro-Bush folk in good discussions. http://www.cato-unbound.org/

Finally, from Iraq the Model, optimism:  "But what really makes me feel optimistic about this new Iraqi way of thinking is that it shows how Iraqis are beginning to distinguish between terrorism and rightful acts of resistance not only in Iraq but also on a global level and are showing decreasing tolerance for extremism and this in my opinion is what builds peace in the region or any given region of this world."

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/11/06 10:54 | link | comments (1)
iraq

When will Iraqis stop the murders? It's not up to the US

Marc Cooper gets upset at another Baghdad Butchery day.

All future paths include Iraqis supporting the murder of other Iraqis, with some additional murders of US & coalition soldiers.

I've long held that if Bush gets democracy in Iraq with less than 2500 US casualties, he gets an "A" -- he's working on "B" now. I doubt he'll drop to 5000 "C". I've yet to see Marc, or Balter or Turner, quantify any measure of success or failure.

The US needed to stay for at least 15 years more in S. Vietnam to create another S. Korea type Asian country -- with some elected strong-man the US would support. 15 years is a long time; but a LOT less then that we could "never win."

I totally agree that Bush made mistakes -- proportional representation (party list voting) being one of those which I claimed would lead to a bloodbath.

Sorry, Marc; 200 murders a week of Iraqis is not quite a bloodbath -- more than 2000 a week have been dying in Darfur, and the UN (& Marc Cooper & Amnesty & Human Rights Watch) does almost nothing. I call 1000/week for over 4 weeks a bloodbath, half a single-day Srebrenica massacre. Did 0, zero, Americans die? I think the US armed services/ public opinion can handle that level of casualty for many years. Even 10/week; not sure 100/week.

M. Balter -- "ultimately it is up to the people of a particular nation whether they want to live under a dictatorship or not. This is the point that Vaclav Havel made after the fall of Communism,"

Yep, I've also long said only IRAQIS can win in Iraq. The US sticks around until the Sunnis surrender and turn in the Sunni terrorists, and then the US helps pro-Iraq Sunnies stop the ever-growing Shia death squads (who murder against the will of Al-Sistani, but the lack of justice is intolerable).

I came to Czecho-Slovakia in 1991; but we in Slovakia split with the Czechs because we didn't want to live under Czech domination; and Havel pardoned all the commies (that the Czechs had voted for post WW II, the Slovaks not); Havel had shut down the arms trade (Tanks from Slovakia, not planes or pistols from Czechs); but mostly because of the Proportional Representation system and only Czech or Slovak parties.

Once the party lists include an ethnic element, the most radical "pro-us / anti-them" seem attractive and gain more votes. [Meciar is back in gov't; but as a junior to his prior ally Nationalist Slota; plus new Social Democrat populist Robert Fico as PM (Meciar junior?)]

Bush is NOT in control in Iraq -- that's why the death squads are in operation. Liberation, not occupation. When will the Iraqis decide how to take control? It's up to the Iraqis. (I think Leftists hate that Bush and the US are NOT in control.)

But let's be honest -- the deaths are due to Iraqis not wanting peace enough to turn in the killers; not willing to risk becoming a target enough. The police are corrupt and infiltrated (no surprise -- where was the Dem plan to avoid that outcome), but the Iraqi Army is more ready to protect civilians.

M. Turner was amusing with a "pleasant nightmare" of Iran's nuclear umbrella -- but I don't believe it at all. More likely is that the violence will get greater, until it becomes more clear to the Sunnis that they really have lost. They haven't surrendered, and they need to.

Up to 100 000 MORE Iraqi deaths in the next two years is a huge cost, to Iraqis, for the Sunni failure to surrender, and Sunni failure to work for peace instead of for violence. (Marc, can you tell me how many is "too many" -- and tell me when you're going to be calling for war in Darfur after that number has been passed?)

Much of this Iraq violence is likely a response against Al-Maliki's offer of amnesty to Sunni insurgent groups to join, rather than fight. As Sunnis who act are killed, more will be pushed to give up rather than fight and die.

If the violence continues, look for central Iraq power with Al-Maliki to keep growing so as to stop the murders.

Posted by: TomGrey at 07/11/06 10:49 | link | comments
iraq, darfur