MOMENT OF TRUTH (Ralph Peters opines)

NEW YORK POST ^ | August 20, 2006 | RALPH PETERS

[kellynla]

IN the wake of Israel's strategic setback in Lebanon, where's the Middle East headed? (Hint: The road sign doesn't read "Age of Aquarius").

Powerful emotions intoxicate all sides. In the Middle East, only the Israelis have intellectual and moral integrity. Arabs and Persians rely on a culture of blame. The media obscure as much as they illumine.

So what should truly concern us? Bad news first.

Within the forces of terror, the balance of power has shifted. Sunni fanatics, such as al Qaeda's supporters, have suffered severe losses in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world. Still capable of doing serious damage, they're nonetheless being eclipsed in importance by state-backed Shia terrorists, with Hezbollah in the lead and Iran providing arms, money, training and strategic depth.

* A postmodern terrorist army - Hezbollah's - just achieved the first terrorist defeat of a powerful state on a conventional battlefield. The strategic echoes will embolden extremists throughout the Middle East and beyond.

* Iran, a state that openly sponsors terrorism, is well on the way to possessing nuclear weapons. And the world community pretends it doesn't really matter. Worse, military action to destroy Tehran's dispersed and bunkered nuclear program would require a massive, sustained effort - and still might fail. Iran's been playing poker while the West plays Old Maids.

* Iraq could fail - if the Iraqis fail themselves. It's still too early to pack up and leave, but if the people of Iraq will not seize the opportunity we gave them to build the region's first Arab-majority rule-of-law democracy, it won't be an American defeat, but another self-inflicted Arab disaster. Iraq is the Arab world's last chance - and the odds are now 50-50 they'll throw it away.

[kellynla]

"Things are going to get uglier east of Suez. And we're going to win."

[SE Mom]

Bingo. Peters is on the money (IMO).

[the invisib1e hand]

state backed terrorists are much easier to hold accountable, I would guess, from a logistical standpoint at the very least.

a terrorist group without an explicit state backing, but of the sort that can "win on a conventional battlefield" (if that's what you'd call it -- I would not) is also much easier to target.

So what's the problem?

[Caipirabob]

* A postmodern terrorist army - Hezbollah's - just achieved the first terrorist defeat of a powerful state on a conventional battlefield.

Was it really that bad?

Hezbollah still got slaughtered in the process. They took some Israelis with them although the Israelis final destination was significantly cooler and comfortable. Israel was able to disable a significant number of missle launchers.

But the logisitics between all of the nations supporting Hezbollah was better planned and in the end, Israel couldn't stem the flow of arms and foreign troops.

However the support of nations like Iran and Syria are beyond a doubt now. It would be justified to strike either nation based on their actions in this conflict now. They stand revealed.

So I don't consider this entirely a defeat. The next time Israel is hit, if they have a true war leader in place, they are justified in taking action necessary, regardless of complaint by their enemies at the UN, to destroy the enemies ability to make war on them.

If Hezbollah bleeding more than ever constitutes a victory, may such victories come fast a frequently. We like their blood flowing freely. We can paint happy faces with it.

[Jim Noble]

"Things are going to get uglier east of Suez. And we're going to win."

We're only going to win if somehow, improbably, our people manifest the will to fight.

[PGalt]

Things are going to get uglier east of Suez. And we're going to win.

?

[sono]

Paging Charles Martel ...

[dennisw]

Ralph Peters is right on mark 95% of the time. This essay is not an exception

[DugwayDuke]

"Crucial oil producers on the Arab side of the Persian Gulf grow more vulnerable each day. Iran intends to exert hegemony over the region through nuclear threats and the exploitation of Shia discontents."

I've often thought that Iran's nuclear program is more of a threat to other Arab countries than to Israel in the short run. Sure, Iran wants to destroy Israel, but often, religious fanatics are more concerned about those they consider to be religious heretics than their other enemies. I would not be surprised if Iran first, I said first, used their newly acquired nuclear weapons to enforce their own orthodoxy whithin the Arab world. Then, later, against Israel.

[photodawg]

But the logisitics between all of the nations supporting Hezbollah was better planned and in the end, Israel couldn't stem the flow of arms and foreign troops.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Couldn't or wouldn't? In the end the defeat of Israel occurred because they were unwilling to finish the job and attack a weak Syria to cut off the supply lines to hizbullah. If they didn't try to fight a war for world opinion they would have been able to force Iran to give up or enter the war merely by attacking Syria. Israel and the USA had no stomach for the real fight. Instead they settled for half measures which made them look stupid and ineffective. I am not privy to the reasoning behind this, but find it hard to believe its some ploy by the west to make Iran look bad to the world thereby getting tacit permission to be ruthless on the next violation.

The entire western world save Australia, America, and Israel is in favor of appeasement of all muslim behaviors including terriorism. Its just a police matter to most. This outcome will embolden the islamists and truly jeopardize Israel's security. Much of the west's behavior centers around a free Iraq. That is now the goal, and Bush doesn't want to risk alienating the new Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt in the hopes that a potential coalition with the west can be formed with moderate islam and split the jihadi factions. This appears to be wishful thinking, as muslim law draws only one distinction, muslim or infidel. In the end all will side with Iran and fight each other after they have taken over the west and destroyed the Jews and the Jewish state.
We ,so far, are indeed proving to be a paper tiger. The the crushing defeat of Saddam should have been followed up with a military occupation by our coalition with our army in complete control. Insurgency should have been met with warfare and absolute military authority over Iraqi citizens with all resistance eliminated by any means necessary. We chose not to fight this type of battle because we wanted to convince the world and the American left that we meant no harm to anyone. Under this premise, a military action should never have been initiated. I know hindsight is twenty-twenty, but don't start something you can't finish. The same can be said for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the bay of pigs, the Korean war, the Viet Nam war, and desert storm. We haven't learned that lesson, and it has cost us dearly. In all of those examples there is still unfinished business and peace has not been achieved with an absence of fighting. These "battles" become police actions which bog us down with politics and diplomacy before the war has been won and we establish total control. This approach has never worked, as my examples prove. Unfortunately more destruction to western institutions must occur before a sufficient number of us are galvanized to the point where we will take action. I hope that point comes soon.

[Dark Skies]

Iraq could fail - if the Iraqis fail themselves. It's still too early to pack up and leave, but if the people of Iraq will not seize the opportunity we gave them to build the region's first Arab-majority rule-of-law democracy, it won't be an American defeat, but another self-inflicted Arab disaster. Iraq is the Arab world's last chance...

Right. With all its power, the U.S. cannot hand victory to another party who doesn't have the desire or vision to win.

And as always in the middle east, it isn't the Iraqis, they are a fine people...it is that d@mn religion of theirs.

[MNJohnnie]

just achieved the first terrorist defeat of a powerful state on a conventional battlefield

Vast difference between a political and a military defeat. WE actually wish they would TRY to fight us on the Conventional Battlefield. If this is the lesson the Iran/Syria Axis is taking away from Lebanon, it will be a serious mistake on their part.

[MNJohnnie]

the odds are now 50-50 they'll throw it away Nonsense, Peters if full of drama queen hysterics as usual. try 80-20 on Iraq. 50-50 is pure nonense.

[Caipirabob]

Well said, although a sad thought, I agree with your commentary. The message that we are in a cultural war for our very existence simply hasn't hit many people yet. It will take far more damage than high gas prices. We have, for the most part, become soft as a people. We are so vastly wealthy and content, many people are not willing to concern themselves over this situation. At least not until the threat is knocking on their doors. I pray it doesn't come to that, but the lessons of history imply otherwise.

[dennisw]

If we scoot from Iraq a lot of oil will be off the world market as Sunni and Shiite battle it out.

[Graymatter]

One good oil substitute and this would all be over in a matter of months.

[Dark Skies]

I certainly don't think we should let go of the oil or even leave for that matter. But I don't think we should see ourselves as failures beause they are unwilling to seek a peaceful sectarian settlement.

[TheGeezer]

Bit by bit, the Western mood is turning from disbelief regarding the "terrorist threat" to hard-knuckled realism about extremist Islam. 9/11 taught the terrorists little of use and many wrong lessons. It may be hard for some of us to discern what's really happening, but the Islamists are resurrecting a militant, ruthless West.

The florid American master of horror fiction, H. P. Lovecraft, warned his characters, "Do not raise up what ye cannot put down." Islamist terrorists are reviving the West's thirst for blood. And this time it won't be slaked in Flanders.

Things are going to get uglier east of Suez. And we're going to win.

I guess this is optimistic.

[samtheman]

Bit by bit, the Western mood is turning from disbelief regarding the "terrorist threat" to hard-knuckled realism about extremist Islam. 9/11 taught the terrorists little of use and many wrong lessons. It may be hard for some of us to discern what's really happening, but the Islamists are resurrecting a militant, ruthless West.

A lot in the essay is good, but I have a big problem perceiving and believing in "the resurrection of a militant, ruthless West".

If the rats score election gains this year, the believability of this proposition will further diminish.

[white trash redneck]

After the post-war soul-searching and investigations are finished, failed leaders will be replaced and Israel will re-emerge with a renewed sense of mission, a stronger government and a powerfully reformed military - the next time the IDF goes to war, watch the way it devastates its enemies...

The future of the Middle East could go a number of ways, but we may find ourselves as bemused spectators, while our sworn enemies and phony friends kill each other...

Bit by bit, the Western mood is turning from disbelief regarding the "terrorist threat" to hard-knuckled realism about extremist Islam. 9/11 taught the terrorists little of use and many wrong lessons. It may be hard for some of us to discern what's really happening, but the Islamists are resurrecting a militant, ruthless West.

As long as the left remains as ascendant as it is in the US, Europe, and Israel, I think Mr. Peters is whistling past the graveyard.