Ceasefire? Or Cease Fire!
Larry King's interview with Condoleezza Rice on Thursday offered little new to the ongoing Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. In response to a question about a potential ceasefire, King received a stock answer from the Secretary of State:
Well, I can't really discuss the particulars at this point. We are moving, Larry, toward being able to do this in phases that will permit first an end or a stoppage of the hostilities and based on the establishment of some very important principles for how we move forward.
Such a statement at least proves that Rice is becoming an astute politician (i.e., able to spout plenty while saying nothing), even if it does not provide much hope for a meaningful settlement in the region. But the interview did make me consider the two words "cease" and "fire." Some decades back, when THE ENEMY waved red instead of green flags, the United States had the influence with Israel to say "Cease Fire!" and get results (if the IDF was winning, and it usually was). Seems that people expect the same results today, but it just ain't so. Israel is stronger, and its enemies fragmented. The support of the United States is welcome, but far from an absolute necessity. Besides, if any nation in this world has earned its sovereignty, it is Israel. And the government of the United States would be foolish to even try to order these people to stop fighting. That should not be a problem, however, as the enemy is a common one. So now we must ask our friends to please consider a "ceasefire" -- hopefully after Hezbollah is eradicated.
In other news yesterday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah threatened to bomb Tel Aviv if Israeli bombs continued to fall on Beirut (speaking, of course, from a pre-taped video to avoid bombs falling on him). The Israeli response mentioned the total destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure should a single missile hit Tel Aviv. Later in the day, Nasrallah apparently offered to end missile attacks into Israel if Israel ended its bombing in Lebanon. Let us think that one through: missle stocks running low - resupply interdicted - missles not breaking Israeli morale - bombs certainly hurting Lebanese morale - missiles useless as close support for troops - Israeli bombs very effective in close support - resupply interdicted - resupply interdicted - offer deal. I will not bother holding my breath for an Israeli acceptance of that deal.
Finally, the State department yesterday announced that American tax dollars (more likely, deficit spending dollars) would equip and train a new Lebanese Army after the current conflict is resolved. My question is, are we not doing that in Iraq? And, WOW, that sure is working well! Still, I think it is a fine idea to give guns to Hezbollah -- I mean Lebanon. Why don't we hand a few MBT's to Syria while we are it? -- W. Dudley for (the vacationing) M. Palmer
Well, I can't really discuss the particulars at this point. We are moving, Larry, toward being able to do this in phases that will permit first an end or a stoppage of the hostilities and based on the establishment of some very important principles for how we move forward.
Such a statement at least proves that Rice is becoming an astute politician (i.e., able to spout plenty while saying nothing), even if it does not provide much hope for a meaningful settlement in the region. But the interview did make me consider the two words "cease" and "fire." Some decades back, when THE ENEMY waved red instead of green flags, the United States had the influence with Israel to say "Cease Fire!" and get results (if the IDF was winning, and it usually was). Seems that people expect the same results today, but it just ain't so. Israel is stronger, and its enemies fragmented. The support of the United States is welcome, but far from an absolute necessity. Besides, if any nation in this world has earned its sovereignty, it is Israel. And the government of the United States would be foolish to even try to order these people to stop fighting. That should not be a problem, however, as the enemy is a common one. So now we must ask our friends to please consider a "ceasefire" -- hopefully after Hezbollah is eradicated.
In other news yesterday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah threatened to bomb Tel Aviv if Israeli bombs continued to fall on Beirut (speaking, of course, from a pre-taped video to avoid bombs falling on him). The Israeli response mentioned the total destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure should a single missile hit Tel Aviv. Later in the day, Nasrallah apparently offered to end missile attacks into Israel if Israel ended its bombing in Lebanon. Let us think that one through: missle stocks running low - resupply interdicted - missles not breaking Israeli morale - bombs certainly hurting Lebanese morale - missiles useless as close support for troops - Israeli bombs very effective in close support - resupply interdicted - resupply interdicted - offer deal. I will not bother holding my breath for an Israeli acceptance of that deal.
Finally, the State department yesterday announced that American tax dollars (more likely, deficit spending dollars) would equip and train a new Lebanese Army after the current conflict is resolved. My question is, are we not doing that in Iraq? And, WOW, that sure is working well! Still, I think it is a fine idea to give guns to Hezbollah -- I mean Lebanon. Why don't we hand a few MBT's to Syria while we are it? -- W. Dudley for (the vacationing) M. Palmer
