Rice and Christopher – Competing world views

The current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah demonstrates the past failures of the UN, and Warren Christopher type diplomatic solution to these problem.

In today’s Washington Post, Warren Christopher wrote a column explaining the folly of Secretary Rice’s “wrongly focused diplomacy.” He goes on to explain his “successes” in 1993 and 1996 dealing with, in general terms, the exact same problem. Both times a quick cease fire was called for and Syria was engaged diplomatically.  The fighting stopped- for a while. Yet here we are again. That template that has been used for dealing with this crisis has produced a temporary secession from major combat, but it does not change the entrenching, arming, and continued attacks by Hezbollah on Israel.

The template used by the two State departments of the Clinton administration for dealing with international crisis management produce only short term results if any. Christopher’s own article incriminates his own policy. We are now faced again with the exact problems that he so “successfully handled”. Let us not forget North Korea, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Balkans, and Rwanda. Each one of these was dealt with by the Clinton Administration, and yet all of these became bigger problems or so much time passed as to allow the issue to die (Rwanda where the genocide ran its course before any action took place).

I don’t pretend to know the answer to this whole problem, but I think it is time to try another path from the Christophers’ of the world.  Bush and Rice are allowing Israel to neutralize the threat. They want to push the stop button, not the pause button. Charles Krauthammer’s piece says it well. Read it here.

In response to the cease-fire now crowd – we already know what doesn’t work, lets try something else now.

This brings me to the UN. The recent bombing of a UN post in Southern Lebanon, reminded us of the efforts of UN to resolve this on going, repetitive conflict when they issued resolution 1559. The unarmed, military positions, like the one that was hit, were to report on violations of this resolution. This resolution was to result in the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, disarming of Hezbollah and the elimination of the control of Southern Lebanon by Hezbollah. The only thing that was accomplished was the withdrawal of Lebanon by Israel. The arming of Hezbollah was significantly increased, and Hezbollah is now essentially a state within a state stronger politically and militarily than the government of Lebanon.

This is just one example of the incompetence of the UN. A few other examples are Rwanda, Somalia, and oft forgotten Oil-for-Food and Sex-for-Food scandals.

In fairness, the UN does a great job of supplying immunizations, rice and grain.

Keep these in mind the next time Annan, Christopher, or Albright indignantly lectures the US on how to operate our foreign policy.

“Apparently deliberate”

“Apparently deliberate,” is how Kofi Annan described the bombing of the UN post in Southern Lebanon. This is diplo-speak for, “those bastards just blew up my UN post.” The entire quote was, “I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN Observer post in southern Lebanon.”

But alas, there is more information on this “apparently deliberate targeting.”

Brit Hume quoted an interview by retired Canadian General Lewis Mackenzie, who received an email from one of the UN observers who died in this attack, said, “Hezbollah fighters were all over his position, and the IDF were targeting them” (if you follow the link there is a link to the audio of the interview the General gave to the CBC).

The email in its entirety can be read here. Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener (the Canandian soldier who died and wrote the email) stated, “This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.”

The New YorkSun, and the Wall Street Journal (OPJ) both reference this same information.

If you still doubt then take a look at a picture that wasposted at Michelle Malkin’s site.

Missile Defense Baby!

Drudge posted the AP story of the how the U.S. Military may have a plan ready by this fall for use of the U.S. missile defense system.

Hey Carl Sagan, “how do you like them apples!”

Even though this system is not what was originally envisioned by Reagan, with satellites and lasers shooting down missiles from space, it is a real world realization of a true missile defense system that can be directly attributed to President Reagan’s dream.

This could change the world folks! If we could reliably defend against a missile attack with this system, or a future version of it, under-endowed/over-compensating leaders of foreign governments [read Kim Jong-Il, and Ahmadinejad] would be neutralized to a point that would change the discussion permanently.

Currently, a poorly trained and/or under-equipped military can hold the free world hostage with the threat of just one “____”-tipped missile. If we were to deploy these defensive systems in the regions of threat, these evil regimes would be reduced to regional threats from regional powers. There is a big difference between the two!

The option of asynchronous warfare (terrorism) will always exist, but it is better to fight evil when they carry RPGs rather than WMDs.

A Conservative Straw-[wo]man for TV

Drudge posted this article today about a new television series staring Calista Flockhart as a conservative pundit.

Gee, I wonder if she is going to be a typical network representation of a conservative. “West Wing” and "Commander and Chief" were great examples of network television creating the image of conservatives being feeble minded straw men who lack the ability to spar with the liberal giants in Washington. I fully expect this effort to maintain the status quo.

Maybe, just maybe, ABC has realized that there is a large conservative market that will boost their ratings if they make an effort to realistically present a conservative personality. However, to do that ABC will have to hire a conservative writer to insure that Calista has witty, thoughtful, and  mostly conservative lines.

Uhmmm, fat chance.

Fatwa against Hezbollah

I was discussing the current situation in the Middle East with a co-worker who had not heard that a leading Saudi Wahhabi sheik issued a fatwa against Hezbollah.

Here is the article for reference in case you have the same discussion.

Hereis another article discussing the Jordanian and Egyptian responses.

It is good to see more moderate views being voiced by these Muslim states. Even though it may be explained away by pointing out that Hezbollah is a Shiite group supported by Persians, it still could result in greater support for US policy in the region as an offset to Iran.

Must read!

Another great column by MarkSteyn here.  If he is not part of your daily reading, make it so.

Excerpt:

Beautifully stated….