Posted on 07/31/2006 5:09:06 AM PDT by SJackson
America and Israel are going to lose the war in Lebanon, and the American Left will have a lot to answer for.
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. Lest it be forgotten, this is a war that began with the Ayatollahs’ revolution in Iran in 1979 which established the first radical Islamic state whose masters’ war cry was “Death to America” and the establishment of a global Islamic empire. Nearly thirty years later, Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and its imperial war is now being waged on Iran’s Lebanese frontier by its Hezbollah proxy. 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.
The appeasers of Islamofascism, who have been calling for a ceasefire and bewailing “civilian casualties” in Lebanon and Gaza, will succeed. Hezbollah will agree to turn over its arms to the pro-Hezbollah Lebanese army. The pro-Hezbollah UN will establish a security zone on Lebanon’s southern border to keep the area clear of non-government militias, of which the Hezbollah “militia” is the only one. The credulous in the Western camp will greet this as a victory for the peacemakers. But exactly the opposite will be the case.
According to a recent poll in Lebanon eighty percent of the Lebanese Arabs support Hezbollah. In other words, just as Hamas, which was created by the same Muslim Brotherhood that spawned al-Qaeda, is now the Palestinian government, so Hezbollah will emerge as the government of Lebanon. The Lebanese army will become the new Hezbollah “militia.” Only it won’t be a militia. It will be the terrorist army of a sovereign power, with the right to openly negotiate its arms deals with Syria and Iran. The next battle with Iran, in other words, will be World War III.
In fact, the next battleground in the spread of Shi’ia fascism is already in progress and aflame. It is Iraq, where Iran’s Shi’ia armies are already in the field under the command of the sheik of Sadr City, the America-hating cleric Moqtadar al-Sadr. Al-Sadr, it should be noted, is alive and in the field because the appeasers in this country, beginning with the Democratic Party but extending into the Bush State Department, stymied the first battle of Fallujah when al-Sadr was trapped and could have been killed and his militia destroyed. The Bush administration had to delay the attack until after Kerry’s defeat in the November 2004 elections in order to avoid the political complications that would have attended the battle in the midst of an election campaign.
But the first battle of Fallujah is only one of many defeats inflicted by the appeasers and abettors of Islamic imperialism in the West. The aid to the enemy within the Western camp has taken many forms, beginning with the hysterical and reckless attacks on the commander-in-chief of America’s forces as a liar and murderer, and the source of the terror that the Islamists create. Are there terrorists in Iraq? There were none there before George Bush created them. Is Hezbollah a Nazi army? It’s because the Jews “occupied” Palestinian lands. Of course, this is two lies in one. All Israeli “occupation” is the product of four aggressive Arab wars against Israel. When Israel withdraws – as in Lebanon – it is attacked. The source of the terror in Lebanon, as in Iraq, is to be found in the Koran and in the despotisms of the Arab Middle East. But the appeasement camp cannot face the reality that its enemy is implacable and its hatred uncaused by anything its targets – Jews, Christians, “infidels” – have done.
The division of America is the greatest threat to our ability to prevail in the War on Terror – and the Left knows this and is incited by it. America is not divided enough for the American Left, which is now in full purge mode in Connecticut, where it is attempting to bring down the one statesman in the Democratic Party who might re-unite this country in the face of its enemies.
Those who in the midst of these wars clamor for ceasefires with an implacable foe, those who call for withdrawals that would leave sovereign states in the hands of the terrorist forces, those who decry civilian casualties caused by the only forces in this war who do not target civilians, those Blame-America-Firsters who exploit the Abu Ghraibs on our side and not their atrocities, those whose hysterical fear of the conflict we face takes the form of pathological denial and projects the rabid hatred of the enemy for us onto our own commander in the war, are destined to have a lot to answer for before this conflict is over.
Indeed, how many times do the leaders say they will not quit until everyone is Muslim?
What old rules are they, The Soviets never played by the rules, nor did we, whenever there was a chance to stir up trouble you would find the Soviets or there proxies there pouring in arms, money and advisor's, it was a very dirty war, in fact a lot of the problems we have today are a direct fall out from the original proxy wars.
And we have set up a radio net broadcasting into Iran called Radio Free Iran as well as some smaller ones run by Iranian dissidents , also A new generation of American diplomats and intelligence operatives are being trained up in the Farsi language and in Iranian history and culture.
I think the main problem with so many commentators in America and with the American people is you are so incredible pessimistic, you write reams of stuff about your self, you are to weak to greedy to soft and then believe it, coupled with that is the can do it, can do it today attitude.
Sometimes something will not take a day or even a year but will take a lot longer, it doesn't mean it wont succeed.
Iran is under a dictatorship, its leadership needs to maintain its grip on the nation through force and repression and it does not have the money or industrial potential like China to buy of its workers with work, increased pay packet and a better standard of living.
Israel has 600,000 fully trained reserves and 1.2 million fit males of military age. It has 1800 Merkavas, 700 M60s, 3500 Bradleys, 1000 older tanks, and 5000 M113s.
Israel can afford to fight as much as it needs to and as long as it needs to. The cost is quite irrelevant, it isn't a matter of also having paid vacation and nights out at the disco. If they live as soldiers half their lives, then live. They don't have to like it, but the Muslims impose it upon them. The alternative is to get on a plane, which I do not recommend.
The aftermath difficulty is purely a matter of pussyfooting. Pick the ground you want - Litani to the Jordan say - move everyone out of the way at gunpoint, then lay all the mines and wire you want, site machineguns and register artillery. Let no one in to Israel.
After that you can send artillery shells every day if they want some more. And do it again in six months if they want some more. Waiting around for the world to like them isn't going to help.
As for those countries falling to Islamic revolution, that is not in Israel's hands and won't turn on whether they pussyfoot around or not. As a fact, the mobs in those places are ruled by men with sticks who are willing to use them in a riot - it does not take much more than that.
Iraq isn't going to be a paradise because it has enemies as we have enemies, and war requires actually defeating those enemies. And since not all of them are geographically within Iraq, that is going to prove rather hard with the present nonsense about sanctuaries to Syria and Iran.
As for "able to handle its own borders", it'd be nice, but I'd settle for able to handle its capital.
And a win in Iraq - which on the ground has already happened - has not given the president any currency. He doesn't have the political capital to threaten Iran and not be laughed at for his pains. He does have the political capital to tell Israel "go ahead", so he is doing so.
But it isn't enough. Iran still makes progress toward nukes, and the diplomats make toothless threats of sanctions that are mere gestures, and the US is probably going to lose full control by hawks in about 4 months. If we scrape by there, we will have the staying power to try to finish up Iraq and then we will probably leave.
And Iran can see all this, and it knows the decisive field is western political opinion. And it continues to win on that field.
I don't like it, but I face it as the current situation.
Ok that will effect the economy, all those trained workers the skilled ones not in there jobs.
And while you may not think its important, it is a very important component in all countries mobilisation plan.
Army's are consumers not producers.
Ok lets say they invade Lebanon and occupy it.
1) What is the occupation policy.
2) What to do with the Lebanon population.
Dealing with Syria.
1) What is the occupation policy.
2) What to do with the Syrian population.
How many troops will be needed to sustain a viable occupation force in both Lebanon and Syria.
As for Iraq we have not won on the ground yet, but we are getting there, we have a long hard slog in front of us.
A victory will be when Iraq is stable enough to stand on her own two feet and be able to secure her borders.
I have nothing against limited strikes to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.
But that is another matter.
Move the population out of any area you intend to keep, at gunpoint, then formally annex the territory taken. Mine and wire the new border, and keep it closed.
It is really very simple.
"How many troops will be needed to sustain a viable occupation force in both Lebanon and Syria." Since the parts they decide to keep will have a population that consists entirely of Israelis, precious few. The border needs to be defended as a military line - but a line not an area. With prepared defenses.
"we have not won on the ground yet"
Sure we have. There are some nutters setting off bombs occasionally because we insist the new Iraqi government play pattycake according to Al-Grab rules, but that is self inflicted. There are brazen enemies like Sadr walking around free because we don't have much in the way of nerve, but that is self inflicted. There would still be random murder, there is random murder in Washington DC. Nobody pretends it means we haven't yet won the war to liberate Anacostia.
Victory is not the absence of violence. There is no absence of violence in this world. Victory is the absence of success for the initiators of it, and them being on the receiving end regularly. The rest is merely the ongoing duties of free men, to kill their enemies as those present themselves.
"A victory will be when Iraq is stable enough to stand on her own two feet and be able to secure her borders."
It also needs to be able to hold of Iran should it invade. Oops, it will still need our help for that. That was all Nam needed, and political defeat at home on an unrelated matter took it away. SVN was farther along than Iraq is, in terms of defending itself. In 1972 it defeated the equivalent of a full invasion by Iran, with just US air to help. But in 1975 the air wasn't there, and last I checked there is no south Vietnam on the maps anymore.
The moral of which is, only winning the whole war matters in the long run. And the political front is decisive for that objective.
As for stuff on the ground inside Iraq against the nutters, the Iraqis need to execute Saddam yesterday, and they need to shoot Sadr, and they need to break a few thousand balls every night in basements without a permission slip from a JAG lawyer. All of which are failures of nerve, politically, and none of which are unfinished military matters.
"I have nothing against limited strikes to take out Iran's nuclear facilities."
Nor do I, if they did so. But we aren't going to launch them - watch and see. And that I have something against.
And then what.
New borders to defend.
More refugees to further destabilize the Middle East, remember Lebanon was destabilized by an influx of Palestinian refugees.
With modern technology the terrorists and any other groups that will spring up and they will be sure of that will still hit Israel with missiles and rockets.
And a whole new border crisis to deal with as Lebanon it self will be demanding its territory back.
This means a border with Syria, what about hit and run attacks against Israel from Syrian land.
It will mean continues clashes with Syria.
What happens then a land invasion more displaced refugees, more occupation more border conflicts.
Your policy will just lead to a continuation of the existing problem with potential future problems. In other words more of the same.
You can be sure that Israeli military minds are thinking along the same lines. Iraq is another matter and we have not won yet, and that is not a defeatist or liberal take but looking at it from a military point of view.
If Iran was stupid enough to invade Iraq and I don't think they are it would be a great gift to us.
Every time they attack Israel, they lose more land. Permanently.
When Israel is the size of Texas, the rockets won't be such a worry.
Israel will always have to defend its borders, and bigger ones farther from Tel Aviv will always be safer than short ones right next to it.
Also, right now the muslims have this crazy idea that they can wage war with impunity as a ratchet, keeping things if they win and waiting for the diplomats to give them back anything they lose. Show them it isn't remotely so, and the borders can move both ways.
Israel's main mistake occurred in 1967, at the end of the war, when they pretended there would be a peace settlement and stood ready to give stuff back. Arab terrorism took off in direct consequence. It was not taken as a sign of willingness to make peace, but as a sign that Israel would in future contract but not expand.
Would the muslim world howl when e.g. they clear Jerusalem permanently? No doubt. Let them howl.
When Israel stops trying to be "fair" to people waging war on it, and instead explains very clearly that from now on it intends to be as unfair as possible in order to punish useless thugs - and for the pure pleasure of it as payback - then the muslim world may or may not think twice. They certainly don't have to think twice today. And if they don't think twice? Theh you do it. It will work infinitely better than this pattycake nonsense.
Will in "destabilize" neighboring countries? Well, here is a thought, who cares? Let them worry about their own stability. If they want to remain stable and not lose terrority to Israel, they can police up their nuts instead of letting them run around loose killing people. If they let nuts run around loose killing people, then their stability is not a high priority.
On Iran and what it will do, you aren't thinking of the move order I'm thinking of. They aren't going to attack directly while they don't have nukes and our army is right next door. They just send bombs and operatives now. No, see, after the US decides Iraq can stand on its own two feet as you love to say, and leaves, and after Iran has a nuke to deter action - and perhaps with Hillary in the White House - then they can go chop off those new Iraqi legs.
When it was New York, half the country didn't want much done about it. And the president's popularity is in the basement now - while it was high right after the ground war win - because the average middle American gave up on the whole region long ago, and sees no reason for Americans to die helping ingrates become free, when the use they make of that freedom is to set off car bombs in the marketplace.
Iran thinks we will get weary and go home if they are just annoying enough for long enough, and if they can raise the likely political cost. And guess what? They are right. It is a perfectly viable strategy, and it is working.
LOL I knew you were going to say that, so each time Israel occupies more land, displaces more people, has more borders to defend.
And where will these displaced individuals go Turkey Iraq, great lets destabilise those ares even more, what about Jordan and then Saudi Arabia.
Maybe move some to Egypt.
We will end up with a bigger mess than we already have.
You mention about Israel handing the territory back in 67.
Yes they did because they did not want to go into the occupation business with all the problems that will entail.
You think those individuals will leave there countries.
Do you really think Israel has the manpower to clear out whole cities with out a raft of miniature mini Stalingrad scenarios.
Its not about fair or unfair its a case of only biting of what you can chew.
Israel is never going to win this war by military means, Israel recognizes this.
The Palestinians and other Islamic groups are never going to defeat Israel military they have not yet recognized this.
We have a stalemate, and as with stalemates you have to open a new front political economic military some of all.
It needs a new initiative not more of the same.
Actually if you really new what was /is going on, you will know we will not be leaving Iraq fully we will be maintaining bases there as we did in Saudi Arabia as we will in Afghanistan.
Iran has a lot of problems of her own to deal with, her religious leadership is old, she has many dissident movements, and her own ongoing insurgency war in both her northern and southern provinces.
Her economy is in a state of nose dive, with massive unemployment amongst her young, she is suffering from a brain drain has her best and brightest flee the country.
Isn't David Horowitz a leftist, if I remember him correctly way back?
Anyway, America won't lose her war in Iraq.
Don't trust a leftist. I repeat: don't trust a leftist!
"The American Left would like to see Iran wipe us out.
And how they're going to do that?
I think you meant Iraq?
As for who will leave when given 48 hours, maybe few will. Then you clear blocks with artillery fire and ask again. If few still leave, it is their problem. Nowhere is it written that sullen anarchists have a right not to obey an occupying power. They have no such right. If they disobey an order to leave and Israel kills them for it, it is par for the course.
And it really doesn't matter how many pick which option. Entirely up to them.
As for "not wanting to get into the occupation business", um, hate to break it to you but that is how Israel got into the occupation business. You will notice they weren't in that business as a result of the 1947 war, despite the fact that they took territory in 1947, and kept it too. Depsite is actually the wrong term. "Because" fits the case rather better.
There wouldn't be a Palestinian anything if they hadn't been playing pattycake and running an occupation business - badly, into the ground - for the last forty years. It is a little too late for that one.
If you don't want to defeat your enemies and they want to defeat you, you will be defeated, pure and simple. If you expect to survive and win, you have to be willing to actually defeat your enemies, and to make those defeats expensive unwanted permanent and real. Israel has been playing games with public opinion and trying to placate the implacable instead. It doesn't remotely work.
Even if it ever was worth trying, it is clearly utterly bankrupt as a policy now.
Israel's continued existence does not depends on the stability of thuggish regimes around it, which aren't very stable to start with and certainly don't treat Israel nicely out of the kindness of their hearts. It does not depend on international public opinion, which wants Israel destroyed and its inhabitants exterminated or forced to flee to the west - and to the US in particular, not to their own countries. It does not depend on its standing with the "Arab street", which wants all Israelis exterminated.
It depends on one thing only - might, and the willingness to use it.
Please wake up. Thank you.
It will be the terrorist army of a sovereign power, with the right to openly negotiate its arms deals with Syria and Iran. The next battle with Iran, in other words, will be World War III.
Not so sure this is a bad thing. If a sovereign nation attacks Israel it would likely unite the west. We're already in WW III in my view but the west seems to be in their appease and accommodate mode confused as to who the real villain is or not willing to see a villain. I have no doubt that the west will act when they're hit directly. Iran is foolish enough to light the fuse. An all out war is inevitable. Who will strike first is the only question.
Hopefully Israel will be guaranteed security by the UN as part of it.
I hope you're right but somehow can't see the UN guaranteeing security to Israel. They'd find a way to cut and run while blaming Israel for their failure.
To me it looks like war with Iran is a certainty. We can't win in Iraq, Lebanon or Syria while Iran continues to pull strings and fund their proxies with limitless funds. As long as Iran appears to stay out of direct conflicts their hands are clean and they'll drain us dry. This can't continue. If it does we'll be fighting battles everywhere imaginable FOREVER While Iran developes their arsenal without interuption or challenge. We have to fight them now before it's too late.
how many times does Islam have to declare war before people listen?
I'm amazed.
So am I. It appears that the only thing that will we listen and believe is when we're hit big time again. I have no doubt that this NEEDS to happen or the west is done for. We can't win with the present tactics of appeasement and accommodation and offering carots to fascists who are bent on our destruction. They'll just take the carots and gouge our eyes out with them. They've said as much.
We're already in WW III. If we play the game we're playing we'll lose. If we wake up and react we have a chance only if we take the gloves off.
Isn't David Horowitz a leftist, if I remember him correctly way back?
He was a 60s radical leftist but if you've followed his life he woke up years ago alarmed at how far left the left was. He is now quite conservative.
Quote:"The American Left would like to see Iran wipe us out."
I went through college debating and beating to a pulp the brightest minds of my times and refusing to let them brainwash me and conform. They never succeeded to put me into transient or permanent lethargy. Been aware and awake about political/cultural issues and the role of organized religion vs the divinity of religion since my early teens.
The UN has had essentially unarmed observers in Lebanon.
The next time they won't be unarmed.
Don't forget that this is only part of it. Removing Syrian and Iranian support for Hezbollah is essential, without money and weapons they will be ground down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.