The Redhunter

Great post.

If we lose this war, we lose all.
If we lose this war, it isn't just America who has lost it will be the world as a whole.

I wouldn't necessarily call the cease fire between Hezb/IDF a loss for the IDF. Hezb was "winning" it seemed the publicity battle. However, when they break the cease fire agreement (as they almost certainly will because they are either stupid or evil (your choice)) then ... that will not play so well on the public opinion front any longer. Middle East cease fires are typically very temporary things, so I don't think that so much need be read into the the cease fire long term.

Sorry Mark,
I disagree with your statement that if (or when) hezbollah breaks the cease fire, "that will not play so well on the public opinion front any longer."

Have you read anything about public opinion in the middle east? Crowds of pro-Hezbollah Shi'ite chanted "death to Israel" in Iraq. I dare you to do a news search of "Hassan Nasrallah" and any country in the middle east (inlcuding our 'allies' such as the UAE). Hassan Nasrallah is the poster boy on the 'arab street', people now sell shirts of his picture just like they did with OBL. It is naive to say he will lose public support if the cease fire is broken, just like it was naive to say this was "victory for Israel." If is unfortunate that we believe our own propaganda that the middle east is full of people yearning for 'democracy' and ready to wave flags for Americans, when in reality the region has many, many religious zealots who hate America and and don't want to be like us, similair to the whole clash-of-civilizations argument. That is to say there may be an irreconcilable difference between the west and middle east and that the people there do not think like us at all, contrary to all the "Democracy will solve the problem in the middle east" rhetoric.

Afghans have voted for a government which has effectively reflected Sharia law, not neo-liberal western society. In Iraq, the leading DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED parties (al-Dawa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) are "islamo-facist" parties with roots in radical Shi'ite militancy, just like Hezbollah. Al-Dawa was founded by Muqtada al-Sadrs father, who was then killed by Saddam. SCIRI's militia, the Badr Brigade, was based in Iran during Saddam's rule, and has now returned to Iraq, to kill, assinate and support SCIRI. Like Hamas and Hezbollah, the Badr Brigade has been trained and supported by Iran during their 20 years of exile during Saddam's rule, in which they were welcome guests of Iran (I imagine this is why they chose the same "Islamic Revolition in ___" name as the Iranian regime.) Let's pay attention, not just spout politically correct political slogans and sound bytes. The middle east is a tough, brutal place, and we are kidding ourselves thinking they all want liberal society and democracy, when the reality is often just the opposite.

Again, I point out that in Iraq, the democratically elected Shi'ite SCIRI/Badr Brigade is the same type of Iranian trained militia as Hezbollah. Is this another 'victory'?

Jason,

In Iraq, the leading DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED parties (al-Dawa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) are "islamo-facist" parties with roots in radical Shi'ite militancy, just like Hezbollah.

The alternative to democracy is another dictatorship. Would the American Left accept an Iraqi dictator selected by President Bush and Vice President Cheney more enthusiastically than they accepted a Prime Minister who won a free and fair election? How many Iraqis would join the Iraqi security forces if these security forces worked for a dictator appointed by a foreign power, the United States? Isn't it a reasonable bet that the insurgency against the Iraqi security forces and the American military in Iraq would be larger if the Iraqi government was not representative of the Iraqi people?

Also, have you noticed that the Prime Minister of Iraq hasn't called for the infidel American military to withdraw from Iraq? Have you noticed that the Iraq security forces and American military have been teamed up fighting the terrorism in Iraq?

There are no serious alternatives to democracy. Absent the legitimacy that comes from carrying a freely held election, the only way to hold on to power is by ruthless, brute force. And Saddam Hussain is in jail. So, all that money that Saddam was sending to suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine and using to pay terrorists like Yasim (the Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) is now going to fund the Iraqi health care.

Yep. I know. American liberals think it's wrong when America backs a dictator. But they really get angry when America topples a dictator and replaces it with the Arab world's first democratically elected government in history.

Thank you, everybody, for your comments. This sort of informed discussion is just what I was hoping for.

Mark, I understand your frustration with my lack of appreciation of the new democratic government in Iraq. However, the point of my post was to draw a parallel between Hezbollah in Lebanon and our democratic project in Iraq and the characters it has empowered. I think it is a double standard when the Right rants about how bad Hezbollah is (and they are admittedly a bad group of violent zealots) but then is so proud of the new government in Iraq, even though they are both effectively controlled by Iranian backed Shi’ite militias (just because the politicians in Iraq don’t say outrageous things in public, doesn’t mean the hands of the leadership [Department of the Interior] are not doing outrageous things in their prisons and with their death squads).

Yes, I agree that democracy and self-determination is the best long term solution for the middle east, even if that means these democratic societies chose to write laws requiring men to grow beards, call for the destruction of Israel, establish jihadi training camps, or chose death by stoning as a official form of punishment (I guess that is what comes with sovereignty and self-determination.)

In another of the Arab world democracies, Lebanon, a group known as ‘Hezbollah’ won 35 seats in parliament (out of 128) and at 27%, is currently the second largest bloc in the Lebanon’s democratic parliament. As such, Hezbollah party members were appointed to the positions of energy and water resources minister and foreign minister. It would also be repetitive for me to bring up Hamas, the democratically elected terrorists, oops, I meant to say ‘government,’ of the Palestinians.

So I find it troublesome when we decry Hezbollah (a democratically elected faction in Lebanon) and then help prop-up the SCIRI/Al-Dawa leadership in Iraq, even though they are all cut from similar cloth. In the long term, we need to realize that democratization of the Middle East will empower some nasty groups. The challenge that I see, is how we will deal with these democratically elected “islamo-facists.” This will be most important if there is a an eventual showdown with Iran, in which we need to realize that there is the possibility that these nascent democracies could ally themselves with Iran in a show-down with the U.S., especially since so many of the democratically elected parties have been funded, trained and harbored by Tehran.

I agree with you Mark, on the point that at least Iraq has a government that represents the people, not just Saddam and his thuggish offspring. This issue I bring up (and you seem to acknowledge) is that democracy will be far from perfect, and will (at least for a while) empower the very ”islamo-facists” the right so eagerly associates with ‘terrorists’. The question remains, can there be peaceful, representative Sha’ria law, or will these democratically elected “islamo-facists” simply use their representative power to build terror training camps for the next generation, with the support of their populations?