The problem with Condi, and it's not her fault really, is that she has been tasked to implement someone else's policies. Condi may or may no have fully agreed with those polices.
Until she voices her own opinions in public to a greater degree, I'm not fully sure what here personal views are or what her own policies would be like.
During the recent war between the Israelis and Hezbollah, Condi voiced concern for civilian deaths and the need for a ceasefire. I found that disturbing.
When your ally goes after terrorists, you don't trip them on the way out the gate. When they're engaged, you don't lament colateral damage.
What you should be doing is laying down a firm reason why they are taking the actions they have. You then support that action based on a set of principles that cross national, cultural and religious boundaries.
We fail our allies when we fail to implement this type of supportive function. Who else is going to defend what is right on the world stage if we don't. How is support for Israel going to grow if no one explains why they are doing what they are doing, and then supports them publicly on reasoned grounds?
IMO, we failed Israel once again. Sadly, it's very appearant that we learned nothing from the process either. Now that it's clear that Hezbollah won't disarm and nobody is going to make them, our leaders remain silent.
We were hosed on this ceasefire. I don't see anyone acknowledging it and promising it won't happen again. Huge mistake.
Condie was mixed up in this. I want to know to what extent she agree with this policy. If she was fully on board, I wouldn't vote for her. It would say too much about what her world view was.
Well that is always a problem - usually a problem that Vice Presidents have to face. Bush Sr. overcame it. Gore didn't.
I agree that the ceasefire hosed us, and was bad for Israel and the US. But I am not sure that it was the US that pushed that line or merely gave Olmert a way out. IMHO, Olmert handed the US a problem and said 'get me out of it'. I am not so sure it was the other way around.
I do think the US was not pleased at all with the execution of the war. Israel did not have good intel at all. I think they thought they could soften it with air power and then go in for a mop up only to find they didn't soften anything and got hosed on the front lines when they went in, foretelling a long bitter conflict that Olmert didn't want and probably the US didn't want. The US wanted Iran on the agenda and perhaps saw Lebanon as a dry run.
Whether the perception here now strengthens Iran or not remains to be seen, but hopefully we can see this as Israel being 'sacrificed' if you will for the sake of a united front against Iran. Lebanon was a distraction but also an opportunity to bring France on board with the US, UK, Germany and others vis a vis Iran.