Maria Cantwell hasn't had the best week staying consistent on various issues. Now, on Friday she offered us another foible. In this article in the Seattle Times she notes the following while discussing the problem of Hezbollah's presence in southern Lebanon:
In 2004, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Hezbollah disarm and allow the Lebanese army to take back control of south Lebanon. But, Cantwell said, the White House neglected to enforce the measure. "The administration kind of dropped the ball," she said.
Oh, really?
Cantwell is implying the U.S. should have taken a more active role in disarming Hezbollah. In case she hadn't noticed, that terrorist organization hasn't shown much interested in doing so voluntarily since that resolution. So what other options is she talking about?
Currently there are three, given that Lebanon's own military lacks the strength to do so without provoking another civil war. One, U.S. troops in Lebanon, a thought that does not provoke fond memories for most people (one can imagine the attacks from Democrats if such a force was proposed). Two, a substantial international force, perhaps including the French and the Turks, made possible only by recent events and equipped with the firepower to deal with Hezbollah when it inevitably violates any possible ceasefire.
Third, we could rely solely on the UN. Great idea! That includes the UN force in southern Lebanon ironically profiled in the Seattle Times the same day as Cantwell's errant comments. This would be the same force that has been in southern Lebanon since 1978, where of course there has been no fighting since that date. This would also be the same force described thus in the article linked above: "toothless, and ultimately futile...trapped literally and figuratively between the two sides." How visionary.
As any intelligent observer can tell, current and past tensions in the Middle East are just a tad more complicated than the current Democratic mantra Cantwell has fallen into that it's Bush's fault. Noted liberal thinker Peter Beinart ripped into his fellow Democrats recently for such an unserious approach to foreign policy. Then again, Cantwell already has experience taking unserious positions this campaign cycle so I suppose no one should be surprised.
Is Kofi culpable in any of this? Last I've heard he has over two thousand of those "do nothing and look the other way smurfs" over there in Labanon. You know, the guys that let in the 13,000 rockets.
Was Bush supposed to unilaterally send in the Marines?
Soldier on Maria!
Posted by: Fed Up on July 30, 2006 10:04 AMStep back and replay the optimistic words of PNAC hawks at the onset on Iraq. Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's, and Kristol's words before the scope of the Iraq mistake was made plain to all speak volumes about their detachment from reality and refusal to grasp the nuances of the region. Remember Kristol's statement "There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America, that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's been almost no evidence of that at all, Iraq's always been very secular."
Pop sociology?! Wrongo!
None of their talking points were true, resulting in a bold but tragically oversimplistic Middle East policy that strengthened and emboldened Iran & Syria while at the same time bound us down in Iraq with no credibility or moral high ground. This latest violence in Lebanon is the result. The Administration's seeming desire to allow it to continue and possibly escalate scares me. It should scare anybody with even a remedial grasp of world history.
Defending the Bush foreign policy by accusing the Democrats of oversimplification of a complex middle east is ludicrous in the face of the Administration's own words, policy and predictions. Is falling on this defense of accusing democrats of the same myopia that has wrecked our mideast policy one of the "last throes" of the failed and discredited neocon movement? I pray it is!
Posted by: bone on July 30, 2006 10:06 AMEnron scewed us on her watch.
She's blocking drilling ANWR.
She failed to get us road dollars and is part of the contributing factor to why we have a higher gas tax.
The only thing she can really say she's accomplished while in office is hating the Bush administration, but in Seattle, I guess that goes a long way for credibility. Just ask Darcy.
Posted by: Andy on July 30, 2006 10:56 AMIvan calls this intelligent discourse.
If I were McGavick I would send Maria Cantwell a thank you card. When your opponent campaigns for you like this, it's a really nice gift.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 30, 2006 11:24 AMIn Lebanon, Bush was quick to cheer the Lebanese election and the withdrawl of Syrian forces, but he didn't think much about the consequences of these actions or provide much followup. These consequences included a democratic sanctioning of Hezbollah, who picked up a number of parliamentary seats and several government ministries, plus a power vacuum when Syria withdrew. These made it even more difficult to manage the situation at the southern border with Israel.
You listed three simplistic options for dealing with this situation. Of course, there are others, but they would have required a more dedicated and nuanced engagement by the Bush admin. For example, the U.S. could have worked to strengthen the fledgling Lebanese government, including training and equipping its army and sending massive aid packages to help displace the influence Hezbollah buys with its social services programs. In time, the Lebanese government, perhaps with international help brokered by the U.S., would be able to disarm Hezbollah and maintain security in the south. The result would be a stable democracy on Israel's nothern border that was not overtly unfriendly to Israel.
Instead, we have the current catastrophe. Hezbollah does not appear to be weakened, it may even be strengthened in terms of popular support. The new government that Bush bragged about last year probably won't survive -- at the very least, it will be severely weakened. Lebanese attitudes against Israel have hardened and the U.S. finds itself more isolated than ever as we appear to be the only nation unconcerned with the terrible civilian death toll resulting from the Israeli attacks. We also have the public spectacle of Condoleeza Rice's ineffectiveness as she scampers in and out of the region with nothing to show for her efforts other than her callous statements of indifference to the loss of innocent life in Lebanon.
Posted by: scottd on July 30, 2006 11:26 AMAnyone who is serious about maintaining the fight, or better yet, increasing the fight with Islamic Jihad, will vote McGavick, and Cantwell makes this decision much easier when she frames the problem with yet another "It's Bush's fault."
Americans don't like whiners, complainers and blamers. We like those who take action. If the Democrats are so sure they have a better plan than Bush, let them tell us what it is.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 30, 2006 11:48 AMThus spoke iban, who has none.
"Peter Beinart is about as liberal as Alphabet Soup and True Soldier."
Sorry that the liberal author Peter Beinart is insufficiently lunatic fringe for your taste iban (you really must stop drinking from the toilet!), but I do thank you for your acknowledgement of the status of my ideology ;'}
It must suck to be you (even on a good day). It must smart especially to know that you and yours are so completely out to lunch on such a profoundly important issue. As much as I enjoy watching morons like you squirm, this is simply too important to mess with because the decisions that are made by witless fools like can't~vote~well, Fraudoire, Nipples, and Girly-kowski impact us all.
So iban, do what you Dhimmicrats do best - tuck your tail and run away!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 30, 2006 12:49 PMMike McGavick is someone who appears to strive to be a statesman. Lets see if the people of the People's Republic of WA are intelligent enough to vote someone in who will work for the betterment of the Government by the people and for the people...OR reelect the incumbent who will work with the Howard Dean and the mainstream whack-job Dumocrats to divide and conquer this country all before the world stage.
Posted by: KS on July 30, 2006 01:41 PMThe US has the weakest psotion in terms of international credibility that we have had since before the Civil War. Bush is presiding over the dismemebrment of the great american alliance built by his predessors.
In his world, we is alone.
Posted by: Steve on July 30, 2006 02:13 PMAll of this focus on what the rest of the world thinks is the morality of suicide. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks. We've built a prosperous and happy country, where the is more tolerance and freedom than anywhere else on earth. We need not apologize for our success. We must defend it vigorously. And unlike Hezbollah, we won't use or own people as human shields.
Steve, you are on the losing end of this argument, because every time your knee jerk is to appease, the Islamic terrorists attack again, making our point that defense of our Western world is what is moral and imminent.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 30, 2006 04:00 PMOn the contrary, while it is simple to describe the three solutions I noted, all are complex and difficult to carry out, mostly because Hezbollah refuses to disarm voluntarily. That last point makes your suggested solution of "in time, the Lebanese government, perhaps with international help brokered by the U.S., would be able to disarm Hezbollah and maintain security in the south" sound nice in theory but unrealistic in practice.
Even if the Lebanese military could disarm Hezbollah, it wouldn't try for fear of the kind of civil war that raged in the 1980's. Hezbollah has to disarm voluntarily or under the threat of force, hence the pending international force which no one had the stomach for until now, and which will have more punch than UNIFIL.
Until Hezbollah disarms voluntarily, all the "nuanced" options you might support are moot. Especially since their act of war in attacking Israeli soldiers across a UN-demarcated international border, thus starting this whole mess, reminds us all of what they're apt to do under their own devices.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 30, 2006 05:27 PMSilence in this situation speaks volumes!
Posted by: NoRinos on July 30, 2006 07:12 PMNo, Hezbollah will need to be driven out of Lebanon. I wouldn't mind Israel doing the job if I thought it would work -- but it won't. Hezbollah is strong and well-entrenched. The brutality of the attacks needed to dislodge them is creating more Hezbollah supporters than it is destroying. Israel has barely scratched Hezbollah so far, yet the horrifying consequences of these attacks are already forcing Israel to back off. All Hezbollah has to do to win is survive. Right now, it looks like that's not going to be too difficult for them.
The only acceptable alternative is for the Lebanese to drive out Hezbollah. Right now, the Lebanese govt lacks the strength to do so and, as you've noted, its own political situation is too precarious. Changing this situation would have taken years of careful diplomacy, support for the Lebanese government, and massive aid for the Lebanese people to displace the aid provided by Hezbollah. In the meantime, Hezbollah would need to be contained and Israel would need to be restrained in responding to inevitable border skirmishes. This would be hard work and take time, but that doesn't change the fact that there are few, if any, workable alternatives.
As difficult as this course would be, the Lebanese elections were a good start. Too bad, Bush didn't jump on the opportunity. Instead, Israel's attacks have set the clock back 20 years.
Posted by: scottd on July 30, 2006 08:21 PMAnd the fact that I haven't heard one word about the shootings from him is VERY DISAPPOINTING!
Posted by: NORINOS on July 30, 2006 08:40 PMYeah he remains silent.
Ronald Reagan would have never remained silent.
Yet, McGavick does.
But his silence speaks quite loudly indeed don't you think?
Posted by: NORINOS on July 30, 2006 08:42 PMYet, McGavick Remains Silent.
WHY???
Where does he stand on Israel? Heck, where does he stand on anything?
Posted by: Ari on July 30, 2006 08:45 PMCEO of Safeco or something like that.
Posted by: Sue on July 30, 2006 08:53 PMI don't really care about NORINOS position. He isn't the one running.
Posted by: Ari on July 30, 2006 10:13 PMCantwell condemns Bush for enforcing UN resolution 1441.
Perhaps the short version is just, Cantwell condemns Bush.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 31, 2006 12:18 PM