Readers’ Responses to Our Question (158)

What you fail to remember in your short liberal memory, is that the Irish, Poles, and others who came to my nation (America) are all of Western Origin. Latin Civilization is not compatible with the west, just as the Muslim civilization is not. No past immigrants flooded in illegal, no one from Ireland claimed 57% ownership to the American Southwest, and none of them today are calling for the secession of the southwest to create a new nation of Aztlan. No these new invaders come here unwelcome by 80% of Americans, and no other time in world history has a nation survived going down the path way are on, War is coming, millions of us True Americans are preparing for it, not in Iraq, or Iran, but in the streets of L.A., the deserts of the Arizona, and eventually Mexico city its self. If you stand against us, like I think you will, we will lay you out in a shallow grave along with the rest of you liberal traitors. Long live the American Republic!

Long live the American Republic!
Death to the Traitors of Democracy!

http://DrugsHome.com

The American influence in the Middle East was never at its stongest. USA virtually controls the centre of the Arab world and has more or less close cooperation with the major oil producing states of the Gulf. Moreover the "American way of life" is widespread-especially in the upper class of the Muslim world.
It seems unlikely that this military, political, cultural and social influence will disappear any time soon. Moreover the Iranian state due to historical and religious reasons(Being Shia Muslims) will not be under any circumstances the leader of the Middle East which is mostly Arab and Sunni Muslims.
However on the long-term, should the American policy becomes accustomed into not taking into account the historical background of the region and most importantly find itself incapable of resolving the Palestinean issue; then USA might find itself under heavy criticism and perhaps into conflict with some of its current allies. The above is not likely to happen before the current Arab youth reaches mature age and be able to dictate its terms under the inluence of today's grievances for Iraq. Approximately in 20-25 or one generation from now. Coupled with the emerging Chinese power and Indian one the year 2030 will be much influenced by the real prospect of USA retreat from the Middle East and other peripheries of Eurasia.

War? What War?
War against "Saddam's Iraq" was over long ago.
Call it what it is...a failed police action.
Or, just a battle (lost) in a "war" on terror.
Whatever you call it , we must look at the big picture going forward.
I think we must pull back, but not out of the region.
My goal would be to build a massive international police force.
Our lame duck President could get the ball rolling by reinstituting the draft by executive order. Going it alone, again...Of course, he would have to have a chat with the people, and tell them that we must be serious about curing the world of this terrorism cancer.
Big Action is needed Now!
Terrorists and (terrorist supporting states) must come to understand that we are bigger and better equipped for any "Jihad" they wage against us. They cannot win.
We are peace seekers, but we will do what is neccesary to stop criminal activity.
We may have lost a battle, but we will never lose this "war" to a bunch of thugs.
We would basicly "pull out" of Iraq cities. Secure the borders by building stategic bases near Iran and Syria. From these bases we would maintain security for the peoples oil, and also serve as training and support bases for Iraqi soldiers and police. If all goes according to plan, these bases would be turned over to Iraq in the future.
Now, just imagine what would happen to the geopolitical situation if my plan were to be instituted.
I have thought this through some more, but I will leave it at that for now. I know I am right. You should read this twice.
I think it is what Reagan would do...and , maybe Muhammad Ali would sign on...sorta like the "rope a dope" stategy. If you know what I mean.

The time for america does not have to end. if justice is spoken over the past goverment for supporting in the 80, saddam hussein. Like he got a sentence so do lot of people in the american goverment for supporting him while knowing he was doing a his bad things to his people and iran.

Shiloh:

Yea, I agree, and it would be a great gesture of peace if Israel moved back on its own accord (not to mention a legal gesture) but I don't expect it.

The problem is that the squabble may continue for another 40 years even if Israel moves on her own, thus Israel probably needs some assurances...of course, this assumes Israel would LEAVE the West Bank in the first place!

Right now, I see that Syria and Iran control the peace process for the Palestinians, so really only two countries need to be persuaded since Hezbollah and Hamas are proxies for for Syria and Iran.

Correction: "meminisse" (sp). Aneas was commenting on a shipwreck, saying "maybe someday we may look back on this with pleasure," indicating that worse things can happen.

Tom:

Easier said than done. One actor, Israel, returns to '67 borders only if all other sovereign actors (at least 6) agree to recognize Israel. That would require a "Middle Eastern Alliance to Create Unified Leadership in the Palestinian Authority" or a great MEA CULPA from the Arab States. That kind of mulltilateralism is like asking a family of six to unanimously agree on one thing for dinner or what to watch on TV - virtually impossible. It takes a unilateral decision maker; in this case, Israel acts unilaterally to withdraw or the squabble continues unabated for another 40 years. By then, regional oil output will be on the decline, global warming and tides will be on the rise, and the issue may be simply a semitic family spat of little consequence to the rest or the world. As Virgil said in the Aeneid: "Forsan et haec olim miminisse juvabit."

Shiloh:

The 2002 Saudi plan offers recognition for Israel, and in return, Israel must return to the 1967 borders (number four in my previous post). There are other stipulations in the Saudi plan. Olmert has shown interest in the offer.

In any peace plan Israel must return to the 1967 internationally recognized border which, to me, is the only possibility for peace. Iran, Hezbollah (Lebanon), the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, and all other representatives of the Palestinian people, and Syria must recognize Israel's right to exist. Other stipulations offered by the Saudis must be negotiated.

Although this is probably not the right time because of the recent war in Lebanon, Israel (or Iran and Syria) needs to reach out through diplomatic channels to jump start the process. Israel will not be able to get peace by dealing only with the Palestinian Authority. In my opinion, the only lasting peace is a REGIONAL solution. All regional "players" must be willing to give up something for a peaceful solution.

If I am a Palestinian, no peace without the disengagement of West Bank settlements, and Israel should not move the boundaries if Hezbollah (Lebanon), or the PA, Hamas or other Palestinian representatives, or Iran and Syria refuse the recognition of the state of Israel.

Recitations, Wonacott, are not resolutions. Isn't it time to concentrate on solutions rather than hammering at the positions? What would you suggest to that end?

AM

1. For 40 years, the Arabs have been attacking Israel, targeting civilians to try to push Israel out of the West Bank, etc. The startegy has not worked. The Israelis are not inimidated by that strategy, and in fact, have continued to build additional settlements. The walls, which are the result of terrorist attacks, have decreased terrorist attacks significantly. Israel will not return to the 1967 borders because of terrorist tactics.

2. That you believe that Hamas is justified in attacking Israel (by targeting civilians), then you must realize that Israel is JUSTIFIED in responding to those attacks, because to not respond would certainly encourage more attacks. Israel has always responded with attacks of their own, and the result is usually more devastating to the Palestinians. "Classic resistance" does not target civilians.

3 From the Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION

"...Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population
The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57..."

Targeting civilians is illegal under the Geneva Convention. That you support this type of warfare surprises me. If the Palestinians are the weak in this conflict, and the Israelis are the powerful, then, clearly, the women and children must fall into the area that you normally would support, that is, the weak.

4. World opinion is on the side of the Palestinians. Ceasing hostilities, recognition of the 1967 boundaries, and then allowing world opinion to drive Israel back to the 1967 borders would result in peace, with the exception of terrorist organizations and states such as Al Qaeda and Iran(?), respectively.

5. In the current hostilities between Hamas and the Palestinian Authorities, Abbas must realize that no peace agreement is possible without support from Hamas, and, of course, Syria and Iran. He certainly is trying to restore the loss of payments brought on by the election of Hamas, which is a good idea, but peace is impossible without Hamas's support, the elected representative of the Palestinian people. Hamas, supported by Syria and Iran, will undermine any agreement that Abbas negotiates.

To Taylor:

While I certainly appreciate the idea behind diplomacy, there is nothing for the US to gain from discussing Iraq with the Iran (especially), in fact, a successful democracy would undermine their regional ambitions, thus they will oppose it at all cost (which they are).

Thanks for the reply.

Tom W in Boise,

In your response to my post of the other day, you say:

"There is nothing to gain for the US talking to either one of these countries (Iran and Syria) until they change their regional behavior."

If we in fact choose not to talk with them, then American leadership (rather than "American era") will truly be at an end. It could well be that many Americans no longer want the US to play this role in any case, and that is a subject for public discussion. I grow plenty weary of the mendacity, ill-will and protracted conflicts for sure. But I don't think anything productive or beneficial will come from shutting off talks with the antagonists. It would not isolate Iran and Syria from "the world." it isolates the US, and the West, from them and their world. In fact, I would argue that such a policy ultimately reduces the number of options open to us.

James Stepp's vision of a regional Shia-Sunni conflict could well be in train this very moment. As another rift in the region, it poses a question to the West and the US similar to the one posed by Syrian and Iranian actions and rhetoric: "What do you want to do about it?"

In my view we need options and the way to get them is to be aggressive and to talk.

(And James,, you probably already know that a portion of the Palestinian community has been Christians for centuries.)

Well, the "WEST" will eventually realize that this "Israel" that they have been brainwashed for years to consider as a holy manifestation of the a bible prophecy is percieved in my world nothing mote than " A BIG COLONY" that is a reminant of their "great colonization era". Then they will have to decide if they should take this to the "relegious level". The islamic countries are there and will stay there. what they think of how this country was formed (with a secret strategy to replace existant inhabitants in a way similar to a silent ethnic cleansing, not even to share the land with it's natural existing inhabitants) is going to stay no matter what you do. Israel will always be a western colony in the east until the israelis themselves become mature enough to state their confestions of who is the real land owners and start taking real measures in reconcieling with the Pals and their neighbours and "LOOSE THE STUPID DREAM OD A PURE JEWISH NATION, BECAUSE THE LAND WAS NOT THEIR LAND IN THE FIRST PLACE". Israel the clock is ticking out and what nowadays might be acceptable by the surrounding islamic oceans may not be acceptable at all in the Future.

Hi Fareed, I read your articles religiously.

What I believe is that we have the nasty beginnings of a internecine Muslim conflict with the Sunni on one side and the Shia on the other. On one side will basically be Iran and its satellite countries and the Sunni countries with Saudi Arabia and Baaths on the other.

They may hate us but it's only a fraction as much as they hate each other. As Machiavelli said "all politics are local". The losers are, as always, going to be the people themselves. Yet, at the same time, we can do almost anything we want to except save Iraq from the Iraqi's. At what point do we consider it a lost cause and just get our soldiers the heck out of the way?

Oh, it's so nice to see other people coming to the realization of what Israel is doing over there. Our blind support of Israel's territorial ambitions has to end. Especially since they want the territory but not the people living on it. I mean, what if the Palestinians were Christian? Would they do it to Christians instead? Would we still support them if they were taking that land from Christians? Has anyone here ever even seen a map of the apartheid wall they are building and how much of the land the Palestinians are left in control of? The little islands of the worst land that the Palestinians would be left with? Our support of it makes me sick to my stomach.

Nice to see people waking up to this fact.

AM

A good and, hopefully, workless saturday morning.

From a Washington Post Editorial posted this morning:

"...IRANIAN President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presided over a convention of Holocaust deniers in Tehran this week, rousing them with yet another speech predicting the extinction of Israel. In Lebanon, the pro-Western government of Fouad Siniora hung by a thread, literally besieged in the center of Beirut by the extremist Hezbollah movement — whose attempted coup has been egged on by Syria's dictator, Bashar al-Assad. In Gaza, attempts by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to reopen the peace process with Israel continued to be blocked by the most militant leaders of Hamas — who happen to be harbored in Damascus — and by a Hamas prime minister who just returned from Tehran..."

What could be more telling of the "tangled web" that controls the Palestinian future?

Has the Mideast ever had a time where they weren't invaded and intruded on?? I think not. If it's not the Romans, than the Turks, or the Jews, how about Arab on Arab?? Not it's America. I guess we or I mean our politicians did not read and learn the history of this region. It's time for all foreign nations to leave and let them alone. They will still sell us oil. They will still kill.

To Taylor, Washington

"...Like many, I am extremely disappointed in the current administration's overbearing and tendentious conduct in the region. It is easy to overlook the fact that the attitudes of the people in this administration are not shared by most Americans, or even other important leaders in the president's party..."

Over 70% of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, and yes, the numbers have reversed, but that is because of the length of the conflict, not because most Americans don't believe the Middle East could use some democracy or that Saddam didn't need to be removed from power.

As far as Republican leaders go, McCain and Guliani are front runners for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008, and both continue to support the war in Iraq.

"...I hope we see conversations with Syria and with Iran. I would start and stay with Syria first and foremost and hold them to the claims they make toward accommodation, such as those Ignatius reported today from the Syrian foreign minister..."

From Ignatius's column this morning in which he interviewed Walid Moallem, Syria's foreign minister:

"...He said Syria wasn't shipping arms to Hezbollah, that it would "continue our cooperation" with the U.N. investigation of the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri..."

Those statements are a joke. Syria and Iran supply arms and financial backing for Hezbollah and Hamas, the two terrorist organizations that started the war with Israel in Lebanon. Many innocents were killed. Syria uses both Hezbollah and Hamas to harras Israel at every opportunity. Syria and Iran are undermining the democracy in Iraq, and have no desire to see peace in Iraq while under US guidance. Their desire is strictly to gain regional power. Syria is also the prime suspect in the murder of Rafiq al-Hariri.

These two terror-sponsoring countries represent the worst of the worst. Did you not notice the Holocaust denying symposium? Iran continues to threaten Israel with anhilation, while developing nuclear weapons. Now Hezbollah is trying to overthrow the Lebanese government. Wouldn't that be a nice gift for Syria?

There is nothing to gain for the US talking to either one of these countries until they change their regional behavior.

I wouldn't consider the recent and current era an "American" one at all, but rather an era dominated by 1) the Western and industrial world's need for energy, and 2) the political changes that came in the wake of WW2. The US has without doubt been at the point of all this, because of its military power, its non-imperial history in the region, and its willingness to assume the role of mediator or conciliator, however uneven and infuriating its conduct of those roles has been.

The American role and position in the ME will fluctuate and will change, as how can it not? Those changes will come from reaction to its presence in the region; reaction by Americans and by the countries and factions in the region. I won't equate the current debacle in Iraq with a shuttle diplomacy initiative, or sending foreign aid to regional states, but each of those activities has had some level of effect on our own fortunes and those of the region. To say the least.

The focus in these comments has been driven unavoidably by the uncertain outcomes of the US military presence and operations in Iraq. While this could well move the US role in the region past some tipping point, there really is no way to tell that now. Even if we pull out, mass exodus from the butchery begins and Iran comes in, to mention one set of circumstances. There will still be oil to produce and sell.

Like many, I am extremely disappointed in the current administration's overbearing and tendentious conduct in the region. It is easy to overlook the fact that the attitudes of the people in this administration are not shared by most Americans, or even other important leaders in the president's party. And that a new set of attitudes are in place now and will be reinforced by 2008. It is too early to know if or how US actions in the region will be affected by these changes. We do know, however, that it is the possibility of change that is the all important factor that defines US policy and relationships.

I hope we see conversations with Syria and with Iran. I would start and stay with Syria first and foremost and hold them to the claims they make toward accommodation, such as those Ignatius reported today from the Syrian foreign minister. We still remain at the point in such a role, which, despite the damnations, threats and accusations, I don't see us choosing to step away from.

Saul lives on in the archived previous blog.

The disappearance of Saul Singer may have been at his choosing or he may have tacitly been declared a nonperson, or in Newspeak, unperson by the Post because of bellyfeel duckspeak.

MY GOD! THE POST HAS CLOSED THE SINGER BLOG. Because the posts were nearly unanimously ANTI-ISRAEL. IT'S FAR WORSE, THE POST BIAS, THAN ANYONE DREAMED. AS OF THIS HOUR THE NEW YORK TIMES BLOGS ARE STILL UP.
We wondered how the Jewish lobbies would handle the seismic evidence that AMERICANS DO NOT SUPPORT ISRAEL...but none among us dreamed the American media, the Post ,would dare to just shut off discussion.
Note this...it is serious and it is not over.
The Singer blog, the one in question, was just put up yesterday...

I hope the era of U.S. dominance, not just in the Middle East, but globally, is over. It isn't, not quite yet, and won't be for a while, but American power is thankfully declining. We get little or nothing out running and dominating the world save blood, tears, taxes and suffering, and it has NEVER been worth it.

AM

What makes you an interesting person to discuss issues with is that you consistently support human and minority rights. I am not quite so consistent in that regard, but where I try to be consistent is how I define a terrorist. A state or organization that targets civilians (women and children) for political change is a terrorist state/organization. That doesn't limit the definition of a terrorist to just that philosophy, but to me, you are always a terrorist if that is your preferred method for political change.

Some more thoughts:

1. Syria more than any other country in the Middle East in the 1970s believed that the Arabs must be unified against Israel. When Egypt broke from other ME countries and signed the Camp David Accords, that effectively broke that Arab unity. Other moderate countries followed Egypt's lead.

Today, we see the same situation involving Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah. Although they're composed of Sunnis and Shiites, they are, clearly, aligned against Israel. In my opinion, there will be no agreements that does not involve Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria. Hamas will not negotiate an agreement that does not involve the other three, and visa versa. Iran is the wild card in this group as their actions speak loudly at trying to eliminate Israel. Hezbollah, Syria and Iran all have a bearing on the Palestinian issue, and to think otherwise is naive.

There will be no agreements unless there is a regional deal. The only one offered to date is the proposal by the Saudis which appears to be equitable (without knowing the details). If you are banking on Israel returning to the 1967 boundaries on their own, then indeed, war will probably continue for a long time. It would only encourage those who want to wipe Israel off the map (Iran, for example). Look at the last time Israel withdrew from an occupied area. Fact is, sooner or later, when the time is tight, everyone in the ME will need to sit at a table across from eacn other, and hash out some agreements.

2. Olmert ABSOLUTELY needs to put a freeze on new developments in the West Bank if he is to gain any credibility that he is interested in peace. The wall can come down when an agreement is reached, since the wall is for security. I have no idea why the wall was built on the Palestinian side.

3. Al Qaeda is also something to be dealt with, especially if a peace agreement is ever attained. Not because they do or do not get along with the current leadership in Hamas or Hezbollah, but because they are violently opposed to any deal that might be negotiated. There are certain to be Palestinian sympathizers with Al Qaeda that would be complicit in an Al Qaeda attack on Israel which could undermine any agreement. As I mentioned, a Palestinian state must provide security to Israel with the same voracity as the Saudis have rooted out Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia.

Sorry these post are so long winded.

Shiloh posted,

"China is too busy maintaining order among its 1.5 billion people to get involved in protracted foreign wars and recognizes that the economic cost of foreign ventures has a way of getting out of control."

"I think the 'rise' of China will be due more to the west 'sinking' in the quagmire of foreign misadventures, i.e., a rise by default of the west in the manner described by Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall'. That kind of passive emergence of China over time is in keeping with the storied inscrutability of the eastern mind. China seems to take George Washington's caution about "entangling alliances" more seriously than the US."

Shiloh,

It seems however that making note of such a trend might not be thoroughly undertaken without first noting China's proxy wars designed directly to speed up US foreign policy exhaustion. China is not so much showing deference to the words of George Washington as Sun Tzu, realizing that victory obtained without direct confrontation, or at least direct confrontation on one's opponents terms is the best economy. Put in plain language, to win your objective with minimal costs is what, in theory Chinese strategists would like to do. China is very much interested in regional and global power, contrary to President Bush's strikingly naive Nixonesque aping of popular Beltway views to the contrary. China will continue to seek this power while standing on the shoulders of midgets as well as giants.

Also, before romanticizing too much ancient Chinese wisdom, it should be noted that the Communist Party of China is not a historic bastion of traditionalism. That said, they will certainly try to take advantage of whatever well-worn theories have served the nation in the past, but spotted application, of course.

www.blogbat.us/mt

Tom Wonacott, Boise, Idaho at December 14, 2006 01:03 AM

Yes, the path to choose is the difficult choice.

Hamas and Hizballah are two different issues:

1. Al Qaeeda has no role to play. Even their statement of suport to Hizballah last summer was irrelevant. After all, Al Qaeeda are Sunni and Hizballah are Shia, and as we know they are not the best of friends. The statement was to get their name in front of the masses who admire Hizballah for withstanding the Israeli attack.

2. Hizballah is a Lebanese resistance group that was created when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 (if I recall the date correctly). The solution there is for Israel to vacate Lebanese territory - the area where the 2 Israeli soldiers were captured in July. But that still has no bearing on the issue of the Palestinians.

3. Hamas is a resistance group against the Israeli occupation of the West bank and the Gaza strip. As long as they are occupied, yes Hamas is justified in attacking Israel. That is classic resistance. The solution is to end the occupation. No occupier ever left out of the goodness of his heart.

If Olmert is sincere about withdrawing from the West Bank, the first step is to freeze all construction activity in the 'settlements'. They are nothing other than a land grab. Not only are existing ones being expanded, but new ones are being built. The second step is of course to stop building the 'wall' and to schedule the dismantling of it. It is not being built on the Israeli side of the international border, and also represents a further land grab. It actually separates people from their fields! (If Israel wants to build a wall, it is certainly entitled to do so on its side of the border).

The 'viable partner' line is, frankly, nonsense. As long as Israel occupies Palestinian land and treats the Palestinians they way they are, there will be no partner to Israel's liking. Anyone who negotiates with Israel, and grants what Israel wants as a pre-condition for negotiations, would be unacceptable to me, if I was Palestinian.

Until June of 1967, Israel's concern was the armies it was facing. Since then, it is the occupied peoples. That is when the 'terrorism' started. I put that in quotation marks because EVERY resistance movement has been called 'terrorist'. That is why I maintain that the solution is to end the occupation.

Lastly, who there wants peace? I believe the majority of the Israelis and Palestinians do (and I know several of each side). And if a leader comes along with the vision to pursue peace, we will all be surprised. That leader, given the realities of the ground, can only come from Israel: That is where the power lies and who occupies the territory. A group like Hamas can hint at its intentions. I believe the cease fire they declared and observed for 2 years was such a hint. Unfortunately, Israel continued the assassinations, and when Hamas won the elections Israel made no attempt whatsoever to explore the possibility of a reconciliation.

Instead Israel, with the US as a faithful puppy dog, has declared Abbas the hoped-for partner. He, however, was unacceptable until Hamas won the elections!

What a tangled web we weave ...

Lebanon always maintained democratic traditions even when not in fact truly democratic, but there's always freedom of speech and press, some say to a fault. President Bush tried to jump on the band-wagon and make Lebanon one of his examples for democratic Middle East at a time when his credibility there is very low especially after the Iraq war, and failure to stop Sharon in Palestine, and mitigate the Israel attacks on Lebanese infrastructure in summer of 2006. That actually may have weakened the position of the Lebanese Council of Ministers headed by Siniora who whole-heartedly works for Lebanese interests. But this may have been just the excuse needed by Syria's and Iran's allies in Lebanon to force their will on most of the Lebanese people. Nevertheless, in a democratic system, those who can form the largest block in Parliament, form the Ministers Council. Hizbollah needs to have common grounds with other Lebanese so it can be a part of the largest block looking for Lebanese interests in peace and economic development - instead of isolating itself with a narrow agenda such as blocking or limiting the International court, or carrying out Irans's Khameini agenda with presidency-hungry General Aoun who has lost most of his popularity in Lebanon and especially among the Christians who had voted for his block. Until its ministers resigned recently, Hizbollah was a part of Ministers Council because the majority block wanted to work with them for Lebanon, and wanted to be inclusive. But Nassrallah wants everything: The Presidency which he already has in Mr. Lahoud, the Presidency of the Parliament which it also has in Mr. Beri, and now effective control of the Ministers Council. How can Bush and the USA help, or can they?

Lebanon always maintained democratic traditions even when not in fact truly democratic, but there's always freedom of speech and press, some say to a fault. President Bush tried toi jump on tha band-wagon and make Lebanon one of his examples for democratic Middle East at a time when his credibilty there is very low especially after the Iraq war, and failure to stop Sharon in Plaestine, and mitigate the Israel attacks on Lebanese infrastructure in summer of 2006. That actually may have weakened the position of the Lebanese Coucil of Ministers headed by Siniora who whole-heartedly works for Lebanese interests. But this may have been just an execuse by Syria's and Irans' allies in Lebanon to force their will on most of the Lebanese people. Nevertheless, in a democratic system, those who can form the largest block in Parliament, form the Ministers Council. Hizbollah needs to have common grounds with other Lebanese so it can be a part of the largest block looking for Lebanese interests in peace and economic development - instead of isolating itself with a narrow agenda such as blocking or limiting the International court, or carrying out Iranss Khameini agenda with presidency-hungey General Aoun who has lost most of his popularity in Lebanon and especially among the Christians who had voted for his block. Until its ministers resigned recently, Hizbollah was a part of Ministers Council because the majority block wanted to work with them for Lebanon, and wanted to be inclusive. But Nassrallah wants everything: The Presidency which he already has in Mr. Lahoud, the Presidency of the Parliament which it also has in Mr. Beri, and now effective control of the Ministers Council. How can Bush and teh USA help?

Ethics? World leadership? Are you out of your mind? Let's see. After a thorough investigation of the Foley scandal, even though witnesses told the investigating committee that they had informed the House leadership of Mr. Foley's "odd behavior"...a bipartisan committee found no evidence of wrong doing. Ditto, of course!, for Mr. Jefferson's being caught on tape taking bribes and a freezer full of cash. And, our Vice President can deny on national television and before Congress that he receives money from Halliburton any longer and later investigations show he receives more than 2 million dollars a year from them. Our idiot President has business ties that are awarded no bid contracts in Iraq. Iraq has more contract workers, more than 200,000 in fact, than U.S. soldiers - the train wreck that is Iraq is a dead horse upon which the flies of U.S. corporations feed. The newly elected Democratic Congress has an agenda for their first 100 hours in office that doesnít even mention Iraq, even though every post election poll, every subsequent poll, shows that three quarters of the American people want us to pull out immediately. Our mad man President - you know, the one who talked about bring democracy to the Middle East? That one . Evidently ìdemocracyî doesnít apply to America and wishes of the American people because this scumbag, this Commander of Thieves, wonít even discuss a change of the failed Iraq policy, much less just getting out. So how many more American youth will die in some worthless cause, one already lost, before this idiot pays attention or is made to pay attention? Or, perhaps his friends arenít quite through with that dead horse yet? And the Clinton's ties to Wal-Mart and Tyson aren't even looked at. Oh, and don't forget the money flowing to both parties from the outsourcers - Boeing, handling the new border security contract with *all* of the work being done in India, IBM, Apple, the "Big Five", Microsoft, etc. all tossing cash into the hogs trough our politicians feed in. Oh, and don't forget our religious leaders, Evangelicals caught in homosexual liaisons, liberals preferring protecting illegal immigrants to the cost of American poor and involvements in their own sex for favors scandals, the press (and including the Washington Post) who writers publish utter crap, completely made up stories, about illegals only taking jobs Americanís don't want and ho-rah nonsense about invading Iraq (later changed to blame anyone else for this mistake), and businessmen who are more concerned about money and profit than they are about the very existence of this country. And those same businessmen sell our most sensitive technology, our most strategic weapons and security technologies, to foreign governments. Have I forgotten anyone? Oh, yes, American consumers demanding gas hogging SUV's, inefficient plasma screen televisions, who vote in greater numbers for candidates in Dancing With The Stars than they do for Presidential elections, turn on the pornography after the kiddies are in bed, and demanding bargain prices so they encourage the outsourcing of even more jobs. Ethics? Please, just give us all a break. We live in a cesspool, a stinking open outhouse pit of a culture, where no one genuinely cares about anyone else, citizens don't know the meaning of the terms "citizenship" and "community" and "sacrifice" and "right" and "wrong". The succor in all of this is that it is about to come crashing down around their ears, and unfortunately around me ears, too, because a service economy, a society that simply consumes, a society without morals or standards, cannot survive. Hell is too good a place for what America has become. We have no business telling the rest of the world what it should do.

To Tom Wonacott

I appreciate your latest note.

Still remembering we should not take ourselves too seriously here, I cannot resist posting what could well be elements of a possible answer to your question as to "why world leadership cannot (will not) be assumed by (some)others" (I am paraphrasing). Here are excerpts from Lao Tsu's and Chuang Tsu's Writings. They are very paradoxical, yet possibly deserve a moment of reflection. Regards.

"Does anyone want to take the world and do what he wants with it?
I do not see how he can succeed.

The highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware.
Next comes one whom they love and praise
Next comes one whom they fear
Next comes one whom they despise and defy

Good walking leaves no track behind it
Good speech leaves no mark to be picked at
Good calculation makes no use of counting-slips
Good shutting makes no use of bolt and bar
And yet nobody can undo it
Good tying makes no use of rope
And yet nobody can untie it

True leader

Spreads his teaching without talking
Leads the people by putting himself behind

Not daring to be first in the world
He wants to remain behind
But finds himself at the head of others

Does not try to override the world with force of arms
It is in the nature of a military weapon to turn against its wielder

You win the world by letting alone

True leader

Is self-effacing and scanty of words
Does not make a show of himself
Does not justify himself
Does not boast of his ability
Does not brandish his success
Does not compete with anyone

When his task is accomplished and things have been completed,
All the people say, "We ourselves have achieved it!"

To know when you have enough is to be immune from disgrace
To know when to stop is to be preserved from perils.

When you have done your work, retire!
For to be over-developed is to hasten decay
And this is against Tao
And what is against Tao will soon cease to be.

It is only to whoever cares not to rule the world, that we can give the world to rule."

On China: Speaking in Beijing this week to the graduates of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, George H.W. Bush said:

"I am a friend of China and I do not believe China today is seeking hegemony over its neighbors.

"China does not have a history of aggression against other countries."

The Dalai Lama of Tibet (in exile) might disagree with Bush, who also disremembers the 1979 Chinese invasion of Vietnam and seems unaware of the 1627 & 1637 Manchu invasions of Korea.

But overall, most Chinese wars have been internal - not surprising in a widespread and highly populous nation. I think the government of China is too busy maintaining order among its 1.5 billion people to get involved in protracted foreign wars and recognizes that the economic cost of foreign ventures has a way of getting out of control.

I think the "rise" of China will be due more to the west "sinking" in the quagmire of foreign misadventures, i.e., a rise by default of the west in the manner described by Gibbon's "Decline and Fall". That kind of passive emergence of China over time is in keeping with the storied inscrutability of the eastern mind. China seems to take George Washington's caution about "entangling alliances" more seriously than the US.

Why is the U.S. dithering about Iran?. Some of Teheran's nuclear facilities were reportedly built by Washington, so surely they could either blast them or ask the Israelies to do it such as they did with Saddams. Once the nuclear facilities are gone, Iran has nothing to bluster about because it knows that if its armed forces dare to challenge either the U.S. or Israel they will be "wiped off".
That would send a chilling message to the Islamic world that it should back off or else...

To Robert Rose:

"...Now to be perfectly clear, when I turn to the role we, in the West, play in the world, on each and everyone of those points, what I am seeing us do I do not find encouraging. I do not see, from what we do, that we are exercising true leadership..."

It is really easy to critisize the West (the US, in particular), but I don't see many other countries stepping into the role of world leader. Look at the "world" failures in Africa. No one, including the US, will step into those conflicts, yet the killing of millions, has happened right under our noses. Where will the leadership come from? Most in the world EXPECT US and/or NATO intervention. Of course, in Sudan, Muslim extremist would play that to their advantage, and the Muslim world would be outraged, and the US/NATO would be accused of increasing world terrorism. Where are the Saudis, or Jordan, who clearly, could play a more nuetral role?

This would be an excellent time for China or India, both rising world powers, to step up with some postive steps toward bringing peace in Africa, and elsewhere. Where is Russia?

I agree with your post, but wonder why world leadership cannot be assumed by others, as well as the "West". Could it be that the world has depended so long on the West (US, in particular) for intervention and solutions?

Thanks for your reply.

AM:

As always, the discussions are interesting. We cannot agree on the direction to get to peace, but we agree on the end result.

First of all, Israel did not bring their tanks into Gaza for a tune up. The Palestinians were firing rockets into Israeli. Is that ok? Of course Israel will respond to attacks. They always have.

Olmert probably represents the Palestinian's best chance, to date, for returning to the 1967 borders. Quote of Olmert from the Jerusalem Post (date unknown):

"Israel will need to carry out a large-scale withdrawal from the West Bank after disengagement, whether or not a viable peace partner emerges on the Palestinian side."

Israel pulled out of Gaza under Olmert's leadership. Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000. They were attacked by Hezbollah and Hamas (really, Iran and Syria) from those very same areas which led to the recent war in Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah can read. They never even gave Olmert an opportunity to implement his policies. Do they really want peace?

That Olmert made any offer to Hamas considering recent events, and Hamas's refusal to recognize Israel at even the 1967 borders is totally amazing considering how hardened Israel is on negotiating. How hard is it for Hamas to say, we recognize you at the internationally recognized 1967 boundary ONLY. We will continue to attack you until then. Yes, Olmert probably knew what the answer would be, but considering that he needs to have the Israeli people behind him on this issue, and considering the war in Lebanon, he probably needed a concession to jump start the process.

Olmert also has shown an interest in the 2002 Saudi (and others) proposal to Israel as I have mentioned before. Full relations and recognition in exchange for Israel's return to the 1967 borders.

If peace was really the goal for Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas, then the Saudi offer seems really reasonable to me. Peace at 1967 borders or continued attacks. Put the ball in Israel's court. Clearly there are two agendas that make the Saudi offer untenable.

1. They want Israel's destruction. Consider Iran's symposium on the Holocaust which was completed today with such celebrities as David Duke, and their continued development of nuclear weapons against international law. Both of these developments fly in the face of Israel.

2. All the above players are gaining in power BECAUSE there is NO peace. Hamas elected to leadership, Hezbollah withstood Israel in the war in Lebanon and is now attempting to overthrow the government, Iran and Syria have gained in power, in part, because of Iraq.

Iran's spreading influence and power even concerns the Saudis (NYT, this morning). In a recent post you suggested that a Palestinian-Israeli agreement would undercut Iran's spreading influence which tells me that Iran is not interested in peace because they are growing in power at the EXPENSE of the Palestinians.

Finally, It would be a great gesture on the part of Israel (also a legal requirement) to dismantle their settlements, and return to the 1967 border, but I don't expect it because:

1. Security, which the Palestinians cannot provide against Al Qaeda and related organizations/countries which are trying to destroy them. The Palestinians need to provide security in the same fashion as the Saudis.

2. What would Israel gain? Since, in my mind, Israel's destruction is the primary goal, they will still be at war, and quite possibly, against Hezbollah, Hamas (or other disgruntled Palestinian terrorist groups) and Iran (Syria(?)), as well as others.

3. There are powerful elements within Israel that are opposed to dismantling the settlements. Can Olmert overcome this even under the right conditions(?)

4. There are elements within the Arab world that are opposed to an agreement (including Al Qaeda and related organizations) . These might include the major players mentioned above.

All in all, the situation is bleak for peace.

Assuming the premise, which could be debated at this time, there seem to be a couple of powers that will move in to fill any void left by a US absence.

First, it seems likely that those who filled the void before US entry will seek to reclaim their power, i.e. the regional powers of Iran and Syria. But I think its also important to consider Russia's longstanding and expanding interest in the region. Of course it has long used proxies in the region, Syria most notably, but certainly a relationship with Iran predates the era of the Shah.

With a declining Dollar and rise in oil market costs, Russia itself a significant producer may seek to deny Western attempts to push down that cost. It may also feel increasingly more able to insert itself as the US faces the cost of military drawdowns, a falling dollar and the effect both have on the US ability to project itself.

Indeed, what we are already beginning to see is a much more robust Russian presence particularly in Lebanon. Russia has been caught sharing intelligence with Hezbollah and providing equipment, Russia's "advisors" obviously doing more than rebuilding a war-torn country. But Russia has also, as we know, been as generous with Tehran and Baghdad during the Saddam era. But aside from oil, Russia has another big reason to show an interest in the region, aside from it being at its back door and often falling within its "near-abroad": some are saying that by 2040 Russia could be a majority Muslim country. What that portends in actuality for the state remains to be seen; however, Russia may see the need to act in more favorable ways rather than simply using various Islamic states as proxies for its own aims.

No one can predict the future, but Russia is a big wild card, and one which may also influence the Arab-Israeli balance of power, to say nothing of what Moscow has done for Iran.

www.blogbat.us/mt

Daniel:

Put very simply, all I am saying is that we should avoid (like Gandhi... and other great human models — many of them from the East!) being so hypocritical as to demand that others be holier than we are.

To Robert Rose from Daniel. The U.S. (or "we" as you put it) imitate Gandhi? Gandhi was successful because of a particular condition: Britain in decline, unwilling to act against a people which really had no other power other than to play the martyr.

Not even India right now is playing Gandhi...they are ascending...

Or are you suggesting Gandhi regardless of political conditions, that people should simply imitate him out of goodness, as strictly the way to go and not out of a type of political manipulativeness over enemies...which arguably is exactly what Gandhi was doing in the first place...

I will have to examine more clearly the history of Gandhi.

This blog has obviously become as confused, relativistic, chaotic as any piece of confusion that has ever existed. Personally where I stand is that I will continually strive to write better than any Muslim that has ever existed and specifically challenge Muhammed and put forth a book better than he put forth. I can see now exactly the weakness of Islam—the way Islam will be definitively beaten: We must go directly to the source and put forth works superior to the Koran. There are many books in Western Civilization superior to the Koran already. We must write many more. I can see that all the Muslims or liberals or whoever are having a fine old time with the problems the U.S., Israel, etc. are having. Well enjoy yourselves. The battlefield is everywhere and even if I am the last Westerner standing I will be there with a manuscript in my hand to present to the Islamic conquerers and I will say "this book is better than your Koran". I see nothing of insight presented from those criticizing America. Only hatred and the most common nonsense. Just a common mob uprising.

This is not to say I do not see America's faults. In fact I have stated that America in its support of Israel is supporting a people that are so few they cannot interbreed with the Palestinians nor can they allow neighbors to become so strong as to destroy them. In this sense Israel resembles a particularly powerful cult, one in fact in transition between the ideal of being composed of large numbers and extremely powerful and the negative of being few in number and incapable of defending against enemy.

That said, still I support Israel against Islam. And the reason why is because the Jews are intelligent and civilization. The Islamic nations are a blight on us all with their religious nonsense, hatreds, pettinesses, and "right by sheer screaming numbers".

I believe the U.S., Europe, Russia, China, Japan, Israel—the most secure and solid powers—must work against the Islamic peoples and against enemies of civilization everywhere.

And I believe the best way to do so is to continually churn out works which establish civilization—that the forefront in the fight is books—because although this of course is not enough—force is needed—still at the end of the day if force expires civilization remains through books whether barbarians choose to recognize this or not.

I have been writing for years trying to accomplish something exceptional. Now I directly state I challenge Muhammed and will write a book better than the Koran.

The U.S. Army might tuck tail and return from Iraq but I will be here aiming directly for the heart of Islam.

The weakness of Islam is Islam—being founded on a single book. And it must not be combatted by only force let alone attacked by the Bible as Christians want to. It must be surpassed by knowledge, spirit, will, courage, insight and imagination.

I will do my part. Unless some Muslim can give me a clear vision of reconciliation between Islam and the West.

So far I see nothing but hatred, "eye for an eye", whether in action or word. certainly no Muslims or American liberals for that matter—or Republicans for that matter—have convinced me of much of anything except that you all are low people.

In that sense I suppose I write against all of you. But then again I have always been doing so...

I shall continue, and may some lord other than your own guide my way.

HA! THE POSTERS WHO DOMINATE THIS BLOG HAVE RUSHED TO THE NYTIMES blog on Jimmy Carters new book. Their (same old) stuff reeks (all too easy to identify) Ah, but they've gotten an education! Let's see if they still think Americans approve of Israel's apartheid and brutality.
Be interesting to see if this tired old blog, dominated by same few, changes.. Carter's book will be an historic watershed.
Blog is LEDE, by the way.

A very intersting poll regarding Iraq snd Israel/Palestine problem

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/

Tom Wonacott, Boise, Idaho at December 12, 2006 09:07 AM

Good afternoon, and sorry for the long delay.

To be sure, "Israel must move back" to the (May) 1967 borders. The major stumbling block are all the (illegal) settlements that Israel built in the occupied territories. At no point did Olmert stop them, at least in the West Bank.

Olmert may be sincere in his recent proposal to Hamas. (Unfortunately we cannot know ahead of time). He, however, got carried away in the Gaza strip, where Israeli attacks have not stopped. What greater proof of sincerity than for Olmert to drop the pre-conditions and actually sit and talk to Hamas? After all, you do not negotiate wth those who agree with you, but those who do not. He will still have the tanks, airplanes, and helicopters. Again, to repeat what posted earlier: The powerful show magnanimity.

There's a fascinating conversation on a NYT blog ...the LEDE. Want to know what Americans think of Israel's actions in Palestine? Even Times readers led to criticize President Carters new book on Israeli apartheid? The Times did a short blob on how Mr. Carter's book, noting "...strong criticism of president Carter's book..." They got an earful. Very pro Carter.
Took it off the front page...though you can still get the conversation going through the blog LEDE. VERY INTERESTING. And certainly appropos to the conversations here.

With the Baker report suggesting America talks with its staunch adversaries Iran and Syria, and the public's apparent support for Baker's findings. It is beginning to look like Bush might finally be forced into —unthinkable for him— acts of history validated common sense. Since talking to Iran and Syria was first suggested by Blair after he gave evidence to the Baker Commission, analysts have been questioning the end of U.S domination in the Middle East.

The question should be: did the U.S ever dominate the Middle East? Sure, unconditionally supporting Israel ensured their influence in that conflict, IDF style; bombing and shooting the Palestinians into agreement with the U.S —fad— peace plan at the time. The U.S exerted little or no influence in Israel's often ill-advised and frequently illegal actions. Israel currently has little or no influence in Middle East affairs, it couldn't get by without U.S aid, let alone suppress the latest Palestinian Intifada.

There was a tradition of U.K and U.S influence in Iran's monarchical rule after we imposed a suitable Shah. The current stand-off over Iran's nuclear program, and its meddling in Iraq show how much things have changed, not only recently but since the Iranian revolution in 1979. The hostages taken in the U.S embassy during the revolution flipped the bird to U.S influence in Iran.

Iran currently showing disregard for U.S power is a facade to amplify its own strength and help their hegemonic aims.

Syrian diplomats have always adhered strictly to agreements reached with their U.S counterparts, but they have also been close to all-out war over the Israeli Lebanon conflict in 1983. The U.S, recognising that Syria plays a central role in the Middle East and in global Jihad, attempts to exert its influence and turn the "rogue state" from a supporter of terrorism to a supporter of democracy and U.S hegemony. They have and probably will never succeed in that aim.

The U.S has enjoyed 70 years of good relations with Saudi Arabia's monarchy, until 9/11 put a significant strain on the "special relationship". Saudi Arabia's condemnation of Israel and rhetoric of going to war with Israel for their crimes against the Lebanese shows that the U.S doesn't hold much influence over Saudi Arabia.

In Iraq's case, we all know the current scenario. The U.S has as much influence in Iraq now as any of the rival militia factions, the same influence it has recently had over every other Middle East country, very little.

The U.S has had reasonable influence in Turkey since shortly after World War II, with the exception of the mid-late 70's when Turkey invaded Cyprus. The U.S' influence in Turkey crumbled in the build up to the Iraq war. Turkey refusing U.S forces entry to hit Iraq from the North, showed that —unlike Saudi Arabia— Turkey's loyalty to their Iraqi Muslim brothers and sisters influenced their policy more than U.S relations. U.S aid was cut-off 2003, except a small military grant, which I presume was necessary for Turkey's involvement in Afghanistan. Relations fell apart in Mar. 2005, when the U.S ambassador to Turkey resigned after two years. Because Turkey's government came out in support of their President's decision to visit Syria in early April that year, despite the U.S warning against it. Also for ignoring the ambassador's calls for Turkey to join an international coalition concerning Syria.

The U.S weighs its relationship with and influence of Egypt perhaps higher than any other Middle East country, because of its leadership role in the region. A role which was set in the when Egypt was actively fighting Israel and sought military aid from the Soviets, several other Arab states shortly followed suit. U.S Israel relations improved after the 1979 peace treaty was signed with Israel. Since then the U.S has given billions of dollars in military and financial aid to sustain Egypt's moderate voice in Arab councils, persuade less moderate regimes of the benefits of compromise and to maintain the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. The latter has been more successful than the other two by far, as the U.S failed to realize that the feelings of Egypt's leaders toward Israel's treatment of their Arab Palestinian brothers didn't change overnight, more likely they realised they would be in a much better position to help the Palestinians in every way with a whole whack of U.S aid.

Jordan's monarchy has perhaps the best relationship with the U.S. The U.S began providing Jordan with economic and military aid in 1951 and 1957 respectively. Relations were slightly soured by Jordan's reluctance to participate in the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait. Relations improved throughout the 1990's as Jordan began to take a more favourable view of normalization of relations with Israel. Over the years the U.S has provided billions of dollars in aid to Jordan. In return Jordan provided logistical support in the Afghanistan war, and, informally the same in the current Iraq war, although the monarchy was publicly opposed. King Abdullah's policies of normalization with Israel and alliance with the U.S cause much unrest from Jordan's Islamic fundamentalist groups. Like the Jordan Muslim Brotherhood, an influential part of the political mainstream, also causing unrest in parts of the Palestinian communities, and in prominent professional and trade organizations.

The Middle East and its rich oil reserves have always been at the fore-front of U.S policy, so much so that they have taken their eye off the ball elsewhere. Allowing China to become the main influence in Asia and enter the fight for global supremacy, The North Korean nuke test is another example of the Bush administration taking their eye off the ball.

Given all this focus on their Middle East policy it is ludicrous that it has descended into such a farce.

Little wonder as it is largely the world's most backward foreign policy. Unconditionally supporting a country surrounded by enemies —Israel—, while hoping to exert influence over its enemies is like a boxer's coach shouting orders at the opposing fighter. Stupid. Previously however the U.S had tried to exert their influence over Israel's enemies by diplomacy in the main. Bush Jnr coming in with his complete ignorance of foreign policy and its relation to even recent history, and his policy of never talking to your adversary combined with the backward policies is one of the reason's why the Middle East is in its current state.

Something else I find laughable however is Bush Snr, responsible for another reason for the current mess. Coming in now and telling his son what he needs to do in Iraq. If he had honoured his statements to the Iraq's Shia and Kurdish populations by ordering U.S forces to go on into Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime in the first gulf war 1991. Embracing the uprising started by the Shia in the south and driving Iraqi forces into the Kurdish uprising in the North, both started because of Bush's suggestion of support.

Saddam would undoubtedly have been easily defeated, as he was 2003, but the occupying U.S or U.S/U.N forces would have probably had the support of the Kurdish minority and Shia Majority. Giving the Sunni's no choice but to join the new diplomatic efforts or be left out of Iraq's democratic future. As oppose to miss-trust of Bush Jnr by Shia and Kurd's after being lied to by his dad before him, and resentment because of the massacres his lies led them into.

I believe had Bush Snr done this Iraq would have been a stable democracy by now, certainly closer than has been for decades.

In closing, the U.S never really had much influence in Middle Eastern affairs. The little it did have from supplying heavy financial aid to needy countries in prominent positions. And U.S and Israel's superior military force were sufficient to secure the things they really needed and manipulate affairs to ensure no-one else gained more control.

The Iraq war in 2003 showing that U.S military force was useless against sporadic Jihad's guerrilla warfare; accelerated the rate at which the little Middle East influence the U.S had is disappearing. All that remains is moderate influence in return for heavy aid to countries with even less influence —than the U.S— in Middle East affairs.

The rich and influential Middle East countries are exploiting the exposed weakness to secure their own hegemony.

It will be interesting to watch the changing political and military landscapes in the coming months, especially if a serious U.S strategy shift in Iraq coincides with a policy shift in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Liam Bailey is a writer from the UK, he runs the War Pages weblog.
http://warpages.wordpress.com

With the Baker report suggesting America talks with its staunch adversaries Iran and Syria, and the public's apparent support for Baker's findings. It is beginning to look like Bush might finally be forced into —unthinkable for him— acts of history validated common sense. Since talking to Iran and Syria was first suggested by Blair after he gave evidence to the Baker Commission, analysts have been questioning the end of U.S domination in the Middle East.

The question should be: did the U.S ever dominate the Middle East? Sure, unconditionally supporting Israel ensured their influence in that conflict, IDF style; bombing and shooting the Palestinians into agreement with the U.S —fad— peace plan at the time. The U.S exerted little or no influence in Israel's often ill-advised and frequently illegal actions. Israel currently has little or no influence in Middle East affairs, it couldn't get by without U.S aid, let alone suppress the latest Palestinian Intifada.

There was a tradition of U.K and U.S influence in Iran's monarchical rule after we imposed a suitable Shah. The current stand-off over Iran's nuclear program, and its meddling in Iraq show how much things have changed, not only recently but since the Iranian revolution in 1979. The hostages taken in the U.S embassy during the revolution flipped the bird to U.S influence in Iran.

Iran currently showing disregard for U.S power is a facade to amplify its own strength and help their hegemonic aims.

Syrian diplomats have always adhered strictly to agreements reached with their U.S counterparts, but they have also been close to all-out war over the Israeli Lebanon conflict in 1983. The U.S, recognising that Syria plays a central role in the Middle East and in global Jihad, attempts to exert its influence and turn the "rogue state" from a supporter of terrorism to a supporter of democracy and U.S hegemony. They have and probably will never succeed in that aim.

The U.S has enjoyed 70 years of good relations with Saudi Arabia's monarchy, until 9/11 put a significant strain on the "special relationship". Saudi Arabia's condemnation of Israel and rhetoric of going to war with Israel for their crimes against the Lebanese shows that the U.S doesn't hold much influence over Saudi Arabia.

In Iraq's case, we all know the current scenario. The U.S has as much influence in Iraq now as any of the rival militia factions, the same influence it has recently had over every other Middle East country, very little.

The U.S has had reasonable influence in Turkey since shortly after World War II, with the exception of the mid-late 70's when Turkey invaded Cyprus. The U.S' influence in Turkey crumbled in the build up to the Iraq war. Turkey refusing U.S forces entry to hit Iraq from the North, showed that —unlike Saudi Arabia— Turkey's loyalty to their Iraqi Muslim brothers and sisters influenced their policy more than U.S relations. U.S aid was cut-off 2003, except a small military grant, which I presume was necessary for Turkey's involvement in Afghanistan. Relations fell apart in Mar. 2005, when the U.S ambassador to Turkey resigned after two years. Because Turkey's government came out in support of their President's decision to visit Syria in early April that year, despite the U.S warning against it. Also for ignoring the ambassador's calls for Turkey to join an international coalition concerning Syria.

The U.S weighs its relationship with and influence of Egypt perhaps higher than any other Middle East country, because of its leadership role in the region. A role which was set in the when Egypt was actively fighting Israel and sought military aid from the Soviets, several other Arab states shortly followed suit. U.S Israel relations improved after the 1979 peace treaty was signed with Israel. Since then the U.S has given billions of dollars in military and financial aid to sustain Egypt's moderate voice in Arab councils, persuade less moderate regimes of the benefits of compromise and to maintain the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. The latter has been more successful than the other two by far, as the U.S failed to realize that the feelings of Egypt's leaders toward Israel's treatment of their Arab Palestinian brothers didn't change overnight, more likely they realised they would be in a much better position to help the Palestinians in every way with a whole whack of U.S aid.

Jordan's monarchy has perhaps the best relationship with the U.S. The U.S began providing Jordan with economic and military aid in 1951 and 1957 respectively. Relations were slightly soured by Jordan's reluctance to participate in the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait. Relations improved throughout the 1990's as Jordan began to take a more favourable view of normalization of relations with Israel. Over the years the U.S has provided billions of dollars in aid to Jordan. In return Jordan provided logistical support in the Afghanistan war, and, informally the same in the current Iraq war, although the monarchy was publicly opposed. King Abdullah's policies of normalization with Israel and alliance with the U.S cause much unrest from Jordan's Islamic fundamentalist groups. Like the Jordan Muslim Brotherhood, an influential part of the political mainstream, also causing unrest in parts of the Palestinian communities, and in prominent professional and trade organizations.

The Middle East and its rich oil reserves have always been at the fore-front of U.S policy, so much so that they have taken their eye off the ball elsewhere. Allowing China to become the main influence in Asia and enter the fight for global supremacy, The North Korean nuke test is another example of the Bush administration taking their eye off the ball.

Given all this focus on their Middle East policy it is ludicrous that it has descended into such a farce.

Little wonder as it is largely the world's most backward foreign policy. Unconditionally supporting a country surrounded by enemies —Israel—, while hoping to exert influence over its enemies is like a boxer's coach shouting orders at the opposing fighter. Stupid. Previously however the U.S had tried to exert their influence over Israel's enemies by diplomacy in the main. Bush Jnr coming in with his complete ignorance of foreign policy and its relation to even recent history, and his policy of never talking to your adversary combined with the backward policies is one of the reason's why the Middle East is in its current state.

Something else I find laughable however is Bush Snr, responsible for another reason for the current mess. Coming in now and telling his son what he needs to do in Iraq. If he had honoured his statements to the Iraq's Shia and Kurdish populations by ordering U.S forces to go on into Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime in the first gulf war 1991. Embracing the uprising started by the Shia in the south and driving Iraqi forces into the Kurdish uprising in the North, both started because of Bush's suggestion of support.

Saddam would undoubtedly have been easily defeated, as he was 2003, but the occupying U.S or U.S/U.N forces would have probably had the support of the Kurdish minority and Shia Majority. Giving the Sunni's no choice but to join the new diplomatic efforts or be left out of Iraq's democratic future. As oppose to miss-trust of Bush Jnr by Shia and Kurd's after being lied to by his dad before him, and resentment because of the massacres his lies led them into.

I believe had Bush Snr done this Iraq would have been a stable democracy by now, certainly closer than has been for decades.

In closing, the U.S never really had much influence in Middle Eastern affairs. The little it did have from supplying heavy financial aid to needy countries in prominent positions. And U.S and Israel's superior military force were sufficient to secure the things they really needed and manipulate affairs to ensure no-one else gained more control.

The Iraq war in 2003 showing that U.S military force was useless against sporadic Jihad's guerrilla warfare; accelerated the rate at which the little Middle East influence the U.S had is disappearing. All that remains is moderate influence in return for heavy aid to countries with even less influence —than the U.S— in Middle East affairs.

The rich and influential Middle East countries are exploiting the exposed weakness to secure their own hegemony.

It will be interesting to watch the changing political and military landscapes in the coming months, especially if a serious U.S strategy shift in Iraq coincides with a policy shift in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Liam Bailey is a writer from the UK, he runs the War Pages weblog.
http://warpages.wordpress.com