Israel’s broken heart

The New Neo Posted on by

A piece by Israeli journalist Yossi Klein Halevi entitled “Israel’s Broken Heart,” in the current New Republic (subscription only), places the blame squarely on the Olmert administration for mishandling the opportunities of the last month.

Israeli public opinion was united as never before; only the furthest reaches of the far left failed to see this war as an existential one–and that’s “existential,” not in the sense of some arcane Satrean philosophy, but in the original sense of “a battle for its very existence.”

In such struggles, it’s useless to pretend that one can fight halfheartedly, or with one hand tied behind one’s back because of PC considerations. Halevi describes a political cartoon that appeared in Maariv showing Olmert as a boy playing with a yo-yo inscribed “Israel Defense Forces.” Halevi writes:

None of Israel’s wars was ever fought with greater micromanagement by a government, and no government was ever less qualified to manage a war as this one.

But it wasn’t just Olmert. In recent years, Israel experienced cutbacks in its defense forces much like the US did in the Clinton years. Lulled by Oslo and Camp David and a vision of its own strength, as well as the dream of peace that seemed close at hand, the state of military readiness that Israel had maintained for so many years seems to have softened.

And who can blame them, really (oh, I know; many people can blame Israel for just about anything and everything)? As others have stated before, Israel was tired, bone-tired and weary, of being Sparta all the time.

The immediate post-World War II generation in Israel had no such illusions. They were used to the idea that they would have to struggle against the world merely to be allowed to exist. Subsequent generations lost some of that edge. But events are conspiring to force them to resharpen the swords they were so eager to beat into plowshares.

Halevi ends his article on a note of hope; he believes that this is only one round in a lengthy battle, and that Israel will ultimately be victorious.

But what does “victory” mean in this context, I wonder? How bad will it get before this is over? Will it go nuclear on Iran’s part? And how much time is left before it does? If so, what sort of preemption is necessary, what sort is effective, and what sort is possible?

The ultimate in piercings

The New Neo Posted on by

This is beyond description. So I won’t bother to describe it.

I’ll just add this commentary: what hath the Sixties wrought?

And this caveat: please, readers, DO NOT try this in your home! Or anywhere else, for that matter.

Tet Two, Brute?

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s what Powerline has to say about the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon so far, and the present ceasefire:

So Hezbollah goes out on top. My guess is that the IDF has had quite a bit of success in killing terrorists, but that will go largely for naught as no one knows about it, and Hezbollah’s claims of victory will be deemed credible.

Tet, anyone?

There was a famous comment by an NVA Colonel in Vietnam during the final negotiations of that long ago but still hugely influential war, which I wrote about in this segment of my “A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change” piece. I offer the quote once again:

“You know you never beat us on the battlefield,” I [Harry G. Summers Jr., American negotiator] said to Colonel Tu, my NVA counterpart.

“That may be so,” he said, “but it is also irrelevant.”

My observation:

Lessons learned from Vietnam: all that is necessary to win a war against the US is to turn domestic public opinion against it, even if you are militarily outclassed, even if you are defeated in every battle. It’s a lesson that was not lost on our current opponents.

Nor on Israel’s current opponents, as well. Although in the present case I would emphasize “international public opinion” rather than domestic.

Lebanese army receives its marching orders: from Hezbollah

The New Neo Posted on by

The Lebanese army received its marching orders today.

Actually, it received two sets of marching orders: one from its own commanders, and then another from Hezbollah, superceding the original command.

Though we hardly needed any more clarity on the impotence of the Lebanese government, we’ve gotten it. Hezbollah has pulled rank on the Lebanese.

The Lebanese army was ready to head south to form a large force in a buffer zone south of the Litani River, but the two Hezbollah Cabinet ministers took control of a Cabinet meeting and made it clear to the de jure (but not de facto) Lebanese government that the troop movement just wasn’t going to be happening.

The result? Humiliation of the Lebanese government and its armed forces. Its lack of power cannot be denied in any sort of face-saving move. And humiliation is an especially negative and intolerable emotion in the Arab world’s shame-based culture.

Captain Ed believes this dynamic will work to force a civil war in Lebanon (another one; the country has had more than its share of civil wars, I’m afraid):

The humiliation traveled from the generals to the troops, as everyone understood exactly why their orders to move out got countermanded. Government officials finally gave voice to the conundrum that all of us knew existed during this entire conflict, complaining that the Hezbollah “political party” would not abide by government decisions.

Hezbollah is a shadow ruler in control of Lebanon, and it’s coming out of the shadows, emboldened. Heretofore it had a great deal of support among many Lebanese, but has that changed? I’ve written about this possibility before, here, based on Michael Totten’s predictions that the Hezbollah/Israeli war would be followed by a Lebanese civil war against Hezbollah.

I question whether this ceasefire will hold and, if it does hold, whether it will further the cause of a probably illusory “peace process,” or merely serve to give Hezbollah more cover to burrow ever deeper into Lebanon.

If one studies the rise to power of Hitler in Germany, it becomes clear that his ascendance was far from inevitable. There were many forces arrayed against him; unfortunately, they were all incompetent, miscalculating, double-dealing, or just plain unlucky.

But it’s clear that when Hitler came to power he did not have the support of the majority of Germans. Nevertheless, come to power he did–and the rest, as they say, is history. And if you read the linked article, please note the role of paramilitary groups such as the Storm Troopers in his rise, as well as the fatal flaw of an extremely weak central government in Germany.

The combination of the paramilitary Hezbollah troops taking the ascendance in Lebanon and the weakness of the Lebanese government bodes ill for the future of Lebanon and the world. Like our parents and grandparents before us, who watched the events of the 1930’s unfold, we do indeed live in “interesting times.”

[More:

The [Lebanese] army’s equipment is poor, and no match for the Israelis. Lebanon has no air force or navy. One soldier said Hezbollah was better armed and organised, and that he was reluctant to confront “the resistance fighters”. Another soldier said his brother and a cousin were fighting for Hezbollah. “I can’t turn a gun on the resistance, because they are family,” he said.]

Crafts, mountains, friends

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday I made one of favorite my annual treks to get away from it all, driving a few hours to the western part of New Hampshire to the Sunapee Crafts Fair.

That website doesn’t even begin to do it justice, nor do the words “Crafts Fair,” which conjure up macrame planters viewed by granola-chumping strollers in Birkenstocks.

No, not this one. The crafts are as sophisticated as they come, and as beautiful (also, alas, as expensive–I spent part of the day trying on the most spectacular suede coat in the world, priced at $1450, and then sadly bidding it adieu. A person can dream, right?).

The setting is a state park in the mountains near a lake. The weather was unusually glorious–and, just as unusual, somewhat chilly. The exhibitors (all 200+ of them) are set up in a series of huge tents: fiber artists and jewelers and printmakers and iron forgers and furniture artisans of indescribable flair and grace. One picture is worth a thousand words, but the photos at the website don’t express how stupendously and splendiferously beautiful these wares are.

There are also the usual overpriced sausage sandwiches and pizza slices, not all that lovely–I had one of the former. And I managed to purchase three gifts for others (wedding and two birthdays), all wonderful, all unique.

I noticed once again, as I’ve noticed many times before, that craftspeople at this level tend to look quite striking. Visually and artistically inclined, of course, as well as individualistic, they pay attention to colors and textures and uniqueness. Many of them have a calm and centered quality that must come from the Zen-like concentration required to work this way, day after day.

This is in contrast to what I’ve noticed when groups of writers get together (bloggers, of course, are in a different category altogether). About 20% of writers seem to be visual people, as well, and pay some attention to how they look (I count myself among their number). The other 80% appear to have emerged from their garrets resembling nothing more than a bunch of moles blinking from the unaccustomed light of day. Their clothes are thrown together from a ragtag grab bag–styleless and formless and shapeless; their bodies something only tentatively inhabited, poorly tended housing for their vast and overworked brains.

Okay, maybe that’s an exaggeration. But it’s not really all that far off; I’ve been to a bunch of writers’ workshops in my time. And a more colorless-looking lot of people you’d be hard pressed to find.

But I digress; back to the Crafts Fair. Best of all, I always meet my old college roommate there (we always joke about that word “old,” too, especially as the years go by and we edge closer to being just that). She lives in western New Hampshire, and I don’t get to see her all that often, so the Fair is a good venue for a get-together.

There’s nothing, nothing, nothing like a friend for life, a best friend, a true friend. We’ve been there for each other through all the considerable ups and considerable downs of the last–well, who’s counting?–years, through sickness and health and through not-all-that-rich and poorer and through love and marriage and kids and even changes of politics.

Afterwards we ate in a dreadful restaurant with a beautiful view on the shores of Lake Sunapee, until the sun set and we went our respective ways, she to the northwest and me to the northeast. But the friendship remains.

Insider tip, eavesdropped phone call

The New Neo Posted on by

As some of the details of the airplane attack case are revealed, it seems clear that the investigation proceeded slowly and painstakingly over a period of months. But several interesting facts stand out so far.

The first is that breaking the case involved a strong degree of international cooperation, especially between the UK and Pakistan, as well as the US. Although for some this may conjure up thoughts of James Bond, the work no doubt was decidedly unglamorous. It started on a tip from someone in the Moslem community in Britain following last year’s London bombings, the informant being an example of one of those “good Moslems” many people search for, Diogenes-like (it’s my contention that they are not so very hard to find).

The investigation seems to have picked up steam as a result of a phone call from Pakistan to a plotter in the UK, intercepted by the police, on the arrest of his brother in Pakistan. Both were British citizens, as were all the conspirators arrested in Britain so far. I’m curious to know whether this phone call was monitored as the result of a search warrant. At any rate:

This telephone call intercept in Karachi and the arrest of Rashid Rauf helped a lot to foil the terror plan,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

No need to imagine: these terror attacks were deja vu all over again

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday I wrote that the word “unimaginable” makes no sense in terms of the thwarted terror attacks. After 9/11, they were not only imaginable, but eminently so.

But it turns out it’s even worse than that. Not only were they imaginable, there was even something vaguely familiar about them. It didn’t take long to realize that the plot resembled what is known as Oplan Bojinka, an aborted 1994-95 al Qaeda plan to blow up a group of airliners in flight.

On further study, it turns out that the details of the most recent plot were not just vaguely similar to Bojinka. The resemblance was far greater than that: take a look.

Oplan Bojinka was conceived by our old friends Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, both now in custody and the designers, respectively, of WTC attacks #1 and #2. The details? Blow up eleven airliners using nitroglycerine packed into contact lens solution bottles. It is estimated that, had the plan gone into operation, about 4,000 people would have died and air travel would have been disrupted for weeks.

The similarities to the current plot are profound, but the apparent differences are interesting, as well–the main one being that the Bojinka operation was to be carried out by the higher-up planners themselves rather than by underlings, and that they would not be committing suicide–although there’s evidence that at least one part of the plot involved suicide: a terrorist pilot would commander a plane and crash it into the headquarters of the CIA (sound familiar?)

Bojinka was meticulously planned: the bombers would plant the explosives in life vests and then disembark from the planes at scheduled stops, before nearly simultaneous detonation over the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The timers for the bombs were in Casio watches.

To give you an idea of Bojinka’s scope, here are the airports that were to be affected:

* Kai Tak International Airport, Hong Kong
* New Tokyo International Airport (Now Narita International Airport), Narita, Chiba Prefecture, Japan, near Tokyo
* Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Pasay City/Paraé±aque City, National Capital Region, Philippines, near Manila
* Chiang Kai Shek International Airport, Taoyuan, Taiwan, Republic of China near Taipei
* Singapore Changi Airport, Singapore
* Gimpo Airport, Gimpo City, South Korea (Now a part of Seoul)
* Bangkok International Airport, Bangkok, Thailand
* Honolulu International Airport, Honolulu, Hawaii
* JFK, New York, New York
* LAX, Los Angeles, California
* Portland International Airport, Portland, Oregon
* San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California

The plot was foiled through what might be called a “work accident.” The bombers’ experimentations started a fire in their apartment and they fled while authorities were on the way, leaving behind a precious laptop with all the information about the plot. A confederate who was later sent to retrieve it was caught, and his cell phone led to the capture of some of the others.

The entire story reads like a movie. But if it does, it seems to be a movie that wasn’t viewed very often or with much attention. Because the question remains: how, with all of this history, could the present-day attacks have been called “unimaginable” by the British police? And, semantics and hyperbole aside, why weren’t bans on carry-on liquids in airplanes instituted long ago?

Oh, I know; it’s a risk-benefit ratio. Passengers don’t like being inconvenienced; I don’t like it myself.

One reason all of this may have been ignored is that the way the perpetrators of Oplan Bojinka were caught made them seem like a pack of bumblers. The same was true of the first WTC bombings in 1993. The result? No one took them seriously.

But after 9/11, Bojinka needed careful attention and thoughtful revisiting. All of the previous modi operandi used by al Qaeda should have been studied in great detail, and policies instituted to circumvent them in the future.

It’s a well known fact that Al Qaeda has a marked propensity for recycling its ideas, and it appears that the present-day plot was tantamount to deja vu all over again. It wouldn’t have taken a particle of imagination for authorities to have known that. All it would have taken was the study of history–which, like al Qaeda, has a tendency to repeat itself.

“Unimaginable” terror attack foiled: denial

The New Neo Posted on by

A planned terrorist attack to destroy airliners in flight through explosives hidden in carry-on luggage has been thwarted in Great Britain.

The police described the plot as involving “mass murder on an unimaginable scale.” My reaction: unimaginable to whom? Folks, where’ve you been for the past five years?

Of course, you might say it shouldn’t have been “unimaginable” even before 9/11. But for most of us, it was. At the time, it was easier to be in denial of the intent and the capability of the jihadis because they’d never managed to pull it off before.

But at this point, the use of the word “unimaginable” is either a case of rhetorical hyperbole, or the reflection of an attitude of unfortunate denial in the face of clear and uncontrovertible evidence and statements of intent. Nothing of this sort should be unimaginable these days, and one doesn’t even need a very active imagination to envision it.

It’s also true that some still find it almost impossible to do so. One of my first thoughts on hearing the news–after I’d heard some of the details of what, where, how, who (I didn’t need the “why” since we’re all-too-familiar with that)–was to wonder how long it would take for someone to imagine the whole thing a conspiracy by the authorities to scare the public.

Preliminary reports aren’t saying all that much about the perpetrators, except that they are “home-grown” and part of the Pakistani community. This is the trend in terror attacks lately–not foreign nationals but locals, which is especially worrisome to authorities and, I would imagine, to the local communities as well, who could experience a backlash against them by the public at large. Not that the perpetrators care; it’s not “unimaginable” to me that generating such a backlash might even be desirable to them. After all, if their own community feels more oppressed, it could gain them more dissatisfied and disgruntled potential jihadis to martyr themselves in the cause of blowing up innocents.

[ADDENDUM: Dean Bartlett wonders about that word “unimaginable” as well.

And Alexandra has a nice list of reactions from the Left that are about as predicted.]

Paleodems

The New Neo Posted on by

Lieberman’s been drummed out of the Democratic Party, the party he refused to abandon on his own.

I wrote here about how difficult it is ordinarily to change party affiliation, quoting Zell Miller’s remark that it’s almost like trying to remove a birthmark. Lieberman seems to have undergone a sort of radical surgery to remove that birthmark against his will.

Today, people such as Lieberman–Democrats who are foreign policy hawks– must align themselves more closely to Republicans than Democrats on those issues, leaving them open to charges of party disloyalty. But ’twas not ever thus. One only has to think of such Democratic luminaries as FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK to realize how different mainstream Democratic thought on these issues used to be.

But that was before the watershed experience of Vietnam, which changed the Democratic Party. Following that era there originated the term “Scoop Jackson Democrats,” after Henry M. (“Scoop”) Jackson, a Democratic Senator who was hawkish in the mold of Harry Truman. He’s also considered by some to be the father of neoconservatism, although he remained a Democrat his entire life.

I hereby propose a new term for Democrats who remain in the party but are hawkish on security and foreign policy matters: paleodems. It lacks the heavy baggage of “neocon,” and it’s more descriptive as well, because such people are not conservative in most senses of the word (nor am I, by the way). It also retains a reference to the Democratic Party, reflecting the 20th century history and tradition of that party as muscular on defense.

Of course, I may be too late, because paleodems are becoming an endangered species. If extinction occurs, the “paleo” prefix becomes even more apropos.

A historical note of interest on Scoop Jackson himself, with some resonances to today:

Coincidentally, Jackson in 1970, like Lieberman in 2006, faced a primary challenge from left-wing Democrats unhappy with his support for a controversial war; Jackson fended off Spokane lawyer Carl Maxey in a fiercely-contested primary, and went on to win the general election by a record margin.

Hmmm.

No shelter for hawks under the shrinking Democratic tent

The New Neo Posted on by

Joe Lieberman was defeated last night in the Democratic primary in Connecticut, thus proving (as if it needed any proving) that the Democratic Party has veered to the left.

The Democrats seem to have abandoned the “big tent” concept–the idea that a party shouldn’t position itself so far to either side that it becomes marginal and exclusive.

Who is Ned Lamont? A deep-pocketed novice–very deep-pocketed indeed. We’ll see what happens in the statewide election. I haven’t yet been able to locate what the polls say at this point on Lieberman’s chances of winning as an Independent–only this:

It will be days before the polls can measure a three-way race with accuracy. A Quinnipiac survey in mid-July suggested Lieberman would head into the campaign in a strong position, finding 51 percent support for him, 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for the Republican.

With his primary victory, Lamont almost certainly will gain support, at least intially, in a three-way matchup. In defeat, Lieberman will lose it, and the next poll could produce far different results than the last.

If Lieberman does go on to win as an Independent, the Democratic Party will have shot itself in the foot. And if Lamont wins? Will the Party go the way it did post-Vietnam, perceived as soft on security issues? Or will antiwar sentiment trump that perception?

And now for some good news: Cynthia McKinney is toast. You know you’re in trouble when even a supporter says, “She makes us look bad.”

Reuters and CYA journalism: the mystery of the disappearing terrorists

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that Reutergate has caught our attention, it’s informative to look at certain other questionable aspects of Reuters policy.

For example, Reuters is famous for refusing to use the word “terrorist” in its copy or headlines.

Two years ago, Reuters made an amazing admission about this practice. I missed it at the time, but now it takes on greater significance. I had always thought that the failure of Reuters to use the “t” word was based on some abstract principle of “innocent till proven guilty,” combined with an incomprehensible bias in favor of those in the Mideast with grievances against the West.

But it turns out I was wrong. Reuters’s motivations are not even that lofty. They could best be described under the general rubric “CYA.”

Oh, but let me present it in Reuters’s own words–that is, the words of Reuter’s managing editor David A. Schlesinger. Back in September of 2004 when CanWest, the owners of a large Canadian newspaper chain, decided to substitute “terrorists” for “militants” in Reuters’s mealy-mouthed articles, Schlesinger said CanWest would be required to remove the Reuters label from such demonizing pieces:

“Our editorial policy is that we don’t use emotive words when labeling someone,” said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters’ global managing editor. “Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline.”

Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to “confusion” about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.

“My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity,” he said.

So, it’s Eason Jordan all over again. The words “editorial integrity” used to mean telling the truth; at least I thought so. But truth? Fahgetabout it, says Reuters. What does matter, instead? Press access: Reuters’s ability to bring you all the news that’s not fit to print.

How has it come to this? Oh, believe me, I understand the need for journalists to live to write another day. But if telling the truth is too dangerous, then it’s time to get out and tell it from another place.

Because you’ve outlived your usefulness as journalists if you compromise that much. You’ve become the tools of terrorists–and I doubt even Mr. Schlesinger had that particular goal in mind when he chose his profession.