Jump to navigation
Calling Gerson, your whirlwind is on the way
The Stiftung ran into this evening alone the Bete Noire
of the Neocon imagination the past decade and a half. A true pleasure.
As we are fond of saying, van Creveld had it right from the beginning
. Note that van Creveld even then, years ago, predicted a fighting American withdrawal down essentially shooting gallery narrow logistical arteries.
It needn't be a calamity, although we suspect it may well be such or close to it. Not only for American forces but for the region and the refugee crisis. Some from deliberate domestic bait-and-switch, some from incompetence, inertia and not a little from instinctive American reliance on kinetic solutions. Which leaves the Stiftung a bit despondent tonight.
The rubble of the 'Vulcans' will clutter the Movement/Republican symbiotic relationship for some time, but no one 'serious' as they are fond of saying, would entrust them again with with a PTA meeting, let alone national security affairs. (It would be amusing to see how they would insist that First Graders are required to understand Ze'ev Zabotinsky's 'steel bayonet' theories). The McCain Campaign's death spiral is all the more encouraging in that regard. (And we say that after where we were and who we were with the night of the South Carolina primary).
Yet even the verbose Biden et al. have yet to come to turns to the pragmatic consequences of withdrawal — whether in “stages” or whatever AgitProp term is used, or not. Half-assed going in is no excuse for half-assed now. That should have been another Dean Wormer quote.
, Condi Rice
If Comment was neocon, we'd be hoping for Biden to win - He would be trainable by being presented options by people underr neolib cover and his failed solutions would lead to more war possibilities, while maintaining some partisan distance - which will allow for backstab propaganda to take hold and feelings of betrayal and revenge to take hold.
When do you think the next Lebanon war will start? We read on Lang's site that he thinks the Israelis will go up thur Syria and then take a left - while Gee Dubs deals with Iran. It all sounds so simple.
Potential middle east scenario, circa mid-November 2008:
US attacks Iran in order to keep the Turkish-Kurdish-Iranian problem from exploding. The Turks aren't dumb enough to invade Kurdistan if it means getting into a three of four way war. US attack will probably involve nukes.
Israel uses the cover of mass carnage in Iran to depopulate the occupied territories and create carve several chunks out of Lebanon and Syria.
The Christianists rejoice, believing it to be armageddon. Everyone else looks on in horror.
Can't find a copy of Terry Jeffries' “Nostradamus's Guide To ME Affairs” at the moment but there has to a quatrain on point. Maybe in that Orson Welles' Hal Lindsay movie from the 1970s with that great 1970s soundtrack, it was addressed.
Col. Lang's analysis as usual seems spot on regarding trends, and the IDF and its doctrine is far better suited to eliminate Syrian formations than the swamp of 4G in Lebanon.
As for timelines, we would defer to Col. Lang's expertise, our sense is no new Lebanon war during the Warlord's term absent something truly provocative from Nasrallah/Hez. Psychologically, the Israelis need to recover from 2006, buck ups from the Wurmsers notwithstanding.
We think the timeline favors Israeli incursion into Lebanon via Syria - before Gee Dubs leaves. The last Leb war is being described by some in Israel as an open file - not as an event that occured or a war that was lost. By going up thru Syria and taking a left, they might feel they can create cordon around the Hez, using the UN forces, somewhat against their will, as their coastal backup.
It all looks so simple on a map - so their are probably all sorts of problems with it. But the uncertainty of Gee Dubs leaving office with an open file and a new round of BS negotiations and waiting, etc may mean they'll see a need to act. Even though a good portion of the Arab elite would love to see Nasrallah bite the dust, the Israelis may feel it is important, for deterrence purposes, that they defeat him.
Possible time - after the Presidential election - or in the heat of the election, forcing a bipartisan assent.
When Dubya was getting serious about being President in '98 and '99, he did two key things:
1.) Joined his wife's church
2.) Bought a pig farm and called it a ranch and got the media to go along with this despite the fact there were no horses, no cattle, and no ranching.
The GOP/movement will never truly recover until they (along with their co-dependent liberal elite) either accept the fact they bought into a fraudulent life narrative and realize that Dubya was never “born again,” and he was never a “rancher.”
But maybe they will just continue to embrace this dying myth - and take comfort in for some reason. Interesting - there are several extant versions of Dubya's Billy Graham conversion narrative - sort of like shards of contradictory gnostic gospels found in caves.
Anyway - it's amazing to think that none of this post 9-11 mess would have happened if the mainstream media had not decided to embrace this Dubya-life-story
When Tony Snow says “focused on defeat,” isn't he implying someone was defeated? Isn't this an implicit way of saying 'Bush is defeated and the press is focused on it'? Or does he mean the press lost the war? There is a moron strain in the Bush base that really does think the press wins or loses wars - so it's possible that Snow is starting to tap into that instinctually.
“Then Susan and I had 40 minutes alone with the Leader of the Free World ... He was full of resilience and fortitude — as I’d taken for granted he would be — but he was also thoughtful ...”
How can someone as worshipful as Andrew Roberts manage to shift blame for everything in Iraq away from Gee Dubs - Lil' Andy Roberts might make a good character for Lil' Bush.
re Lang's analysis - Bush actually mentioned the allegations that Hezb is helping the Iraq insurgents in his speech today - He provided no evidence - It's likely that any Hezb invovment in Iraq is not what Bush is making it out to be or implying. It's probably more glancing and it's also likely that Hezb has just as good contacts with the Shia government.
So why would Dubya bring up this problematic allegation - Unless he wants to tie in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran? So that increases the odds.
Sounds like a plan, 236041727!
I hope Doc is right and Lebanon is too shell-shocked to engage, but I wonder. If they think it will help toward Iran getting bombed, and if Cheney still wants Iran bombed, and if President Moron is feeling petulant enough, who knows?