George Bush When He's Right

George Bush is very right on the war in Lebanon.  He deserves to have that said.  Policy discussions should be separated from political arguments.

I disagree with his veto of funding for stem cell research (although I certainly knew he would do that when I voted for him).  I think that execution by Homeland Security has been abominable. I know first hand that some Bush appointees appear to be deaf to reason or criticism.  It appalls me that he can’t (or won’t) pronounce “nuclear” correctly.  Something, although not everything, went badly wrong in Iraq.

But President Bush and the more articulate Secretary Condi Rice and Ambassador John Bolton are right to point out that a “ceasefire” in Lebanon now means nothing but recognizing the right of Hezbollah to maintain a private army accountable to no state. This private army is maintained in defiance of the UN  resolution meant to cement Lebanon’s independence from Syria and ability to exercise sovereignty over its territory.

Even the usually steadfast and sensible Tony Blair quickly jumped on the ceasefire bandwagon with UN Secretary Kofi Annan. President Putin is against “over reaction” – except in Chechnya, of course.  France, as usual, deplores.  But Bush is steadfast and deserves praise for that.

On the evening of 9/11/2001 Bush promised not only a war on terrorists but also “those who support them”.  That was his best speech and the high point of his presidency.  The war hasn’t been prosecuted perfectly; it has led to more abridgement of civil liberties than I’m comfortable with.  “Democracy building” was a worthy sub-goal but is clearly not a panacea.  (We may need to exclude countries which are at the mercy of private armies from the definition of democracy even if some leaders of the private army get into the government democratically).  But we are at war with terror and the inclusion of “those who shelter them” was critical.

Terrorists shelter in civilian populations.  It is the terrorists and not those who hunt them who are responsible for civilian casualties although civilized countries like the US and Israel try to minimize “collateral damage”.  I can’t imagine what families must go through in trying to evaluate the immediate danger of refusing to tolerate terrorists in their midst and the only slightly longer-term consequence of doing so.  Clearly, Lebanon cannot exist and prosper AND be a missile launching site for Hezbollah.  Ditto for Gaza and Hamas.

I think George Bush understands the history lesson that prolonged stalemates mean prolonged suffering, death, and destruction.  Whatever else you think of him – assuming that you agree with that argument – you might want to support his position on Lebanon.

I posted previously how I went from thinking the Israeli action was an over reaction to thinking it was overdue.

Comments

[Bushy]

I can't understand your reasoning Steve. If there is a war we should only think about dead people? Shouldn't we think why there are dead people anyway. Would you just sit there if you are being attacked by terrorists? What would you do? It is always easy to whine that people are dying and everyone is doing wrongs things to prevent this.

Is it our fault that Lebanon has a goverment consisting of religious morons? No it is not, if they can't put a murdered behind the bars then this is where all the problem starts.

Debating something like George Bush is responsible for death of hundreds of innocent people is totally invalid in this situation.

Somebody lights forest on fire. It is going to burn down in 7 days. Some important political guy comes out and decides that the best way to prevent forest from burning down is to do dig up lot of ground around the fire. Now comes the Greenpeace saying that this political guy is an moron. If they postpone the idea of digging around the fire the forest would burn down, if they would react now they would save the forest.

As you can see this is pretty much fucked up situation which causes lot of debating if it is right or wrong... at the same time only person who is responsible for this crap is the person who set the forest on fire.

Regards

Allan

[Steve]

The only problem with your point of view is that you are advocating the killing of hundreds of innocent people - a hundred children, a hundred women. Your point of view might change if you were related to these innocent people, or if you were to see pictures of their dead bodies. It is convenient to talk about high level geopolitical strategy and avoid the reality of lots of real people who are dead.