Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict

First of all, Israel had the right to defend itself when it was attacked by Hezbollah. Lebanon failed to do its job as a sovereign state of policing its own territory. If the United States was attacked by a terrorist organization in Canada or the United States, we would go all out in taking the threat out. When two American soldiers were kidnapped in Iraq, we did go all out trying to find them.

However, I believe Israel has gone too far and in the long term is shooting itself in the foot. Yes, Israel needed to take out the attackers. But, demolishing Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, power plants, roads, bridges, etc., was too far. There is now no road in or out of Lebanon. This means international aid, food and medicine, can't get in. Furthermore, in Southern Lebanon any moving vehicle is now a target. Southern Lebanon is also cut off from the rest of Lebanon. A few meager supplies were being delivered by hand across a fallen log over the Litani river. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14234194/) Hezbollah, which provides social services, has stepped up and is providing aid for those in Southern Lebanon. Consequently, this is going to result in converting all of them into Hezbollah supporters. In the first few days of the war, you saw on the news Lebanese who sympathized with Israel. At first many were angry at Hezbollah for bringing this upon them. But as their country was torn apart, that has changed. Support for the current Lebanese government will undoubtedly decline as its failed to solve the problem, and popular support for Hezbollah will grow. How will the Lebanese government be able to do any good now?

What is a state with a legitimate responsibility to defend its citizens suppose to do when the attacking force has mixed in with civilians? When weapons are stored in residential areas, hospitals, etc? Do they not attack and let the tactic work, or do they say its too bad but attack anyways. To be fair, Israel has warned people to leave certain areas, and not to drive, etc. But there is no way for many people to leave now. Hezbollah on the other hand is not targeting military targets, but civilian targets. Their attacks are random, at least Israel's attacks are aimed at Hezbollah, although its complicated by the fact that Hezbollah mixed in with civilians. I don't have the answer for this question. If you do have an answer, feel free to post it.

I'm not sure how the fighting will be stopped. It appears any plans that both Israel and Lebanon agree to are far off. I've never had much faith in the UN. I hope they can do something to stop the violence, but I'm skeptical. The United States really can't expect to be seen as an honest broker after so much support for Israeli and saying they didn't want the fighting to cease. At least we got the foreigners out though. That's all that really matters, isn't it?

Moderates Being Forced Out of Politics

Senator Joseph Lieberman, former 2000 Vice President candidate, lost the Democratic Primary in Connecticut to Lamont today. The primary was centered around his support for the Iraq war. He says he will petition to be on the ballot in November. There are allegations that someone hacked Lieberman's website, shutting it down.

This event shows how politics are becoming increasingly divided and moderates are being pushed out. People complain, on both sides of the aisle about politicians of the opposite party voting the party line. Here in Democrats say Anne Northup votes the party line. But the truth is people get upset when someone in their party doesn't toe the party line. They expect their representative to vote with the party, but they want people of the opposite party to be bipartisan. Moderates are doom to be hated by everyone it seems. We don't want our politicians to be bipartisan, in general we despise it.

This just shows the weaknesses of our two party system, and perhaps the fact that we have parties at all. Increasingly you are forced to take your personal political beliefs, discard, and choose what you see as the lesser of two evils. I'd venture, although I have no statistics to back it up, that many people's views don't line up for the most part to the Democrats or Republicans. (Maybe I'll conduct a phone poll. "How much do you agree with this statement?: I agree totally with my party's platform. I agree strongly. I agree slightly. I neither agree nor disagree. I disagree slightly. I disagree strongly.") George Washington when leaving office warned us to beware of political parties, and it would seem he was right. Although, its almost unavoidable though. People tend to associate with like-minded people, including in politics. The problem is there aren't enough exactly like-minded people to effect change. So, one is forced to compromise beliefs, values, ideas for the sake of a few of them. Perhaps the good thing is at least we have stability with a two-party system. In countries with many parties they have coalition governments which are unstable.

I wish Joe Lieberman the best of luck. I hope he wins his district. I wish there was a way to avoid the partisan nature of American politics, but I fear that is impossible.

the word - civil war

There is much debate in Washington over whether there is a civil war in Iraq. I heard Secretary Rumsfeld talking about this. It was amusing, if not sad. Look at what he said and his arguments.

"I guess you can decide for yourself, and we can all go to the dictionary and decide what you want to call something. But, I... it seems to me it is not a classic civil war at this stage, it is a ... it's certainly not like our civil war, it's not like the civil war in a number of other countries. Is it a high level of sectarian violence? Yes, it is. And are people being killed? Yes. And is it unfortunate? Yes. And is the government doing basically the right things? I think so." (August 2, 2006)

Well Rumsfeld, I did go to the dictionary, and Webster's Dictionary told me civil war is "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." I'm not really sure how going to the dictionary is deciding for yourself what to call something, as the dictionary is telling you what it means. Is there war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country? Yes, I think so. According to the dictionary, Iraq is in a civil war.

Wow, the fighting in Iraq isn't the American Civil War, that's new to me. Let's examine that claim. It was fought in the 1860s in America by different people who are dead now whereas the fighting in Iraq is well, in Iraq, and in 2006 being fought by totally different people who are alive now. And it's not like the English Civil War as the English aren't the ones fighting. So yes, you are right that it is not like our civil war or the civil war of other states. I never would have guessed that. But no two civil wars are alike it seems, as the American Civil War was not like the civil war in a number of other countries.

All this talk about whether or not Iraq is in a civil war, or state of civil war, or nearing such an occurrence or state thereof seems superfluous. Wouldn't it be better to talk about what to do in Iraq instead of how to describe what is happening in Iraq? But, it is Washington, what can you expect?

Has Democracy become an Idol?

I wonder if we have too much faith in democracy. We believe if we only democratic the world that it can solve all our problems, usher in a world of peace and prosperity. But the violence in the Middle East is taking place in democracies. Israel is a democracy, Lebanon a democracy, the Palestinian territories democratically elected Hamas, and Iraq for that matter is a democracy. (Hell, North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.) Democracies aren't supposed to attack fellow democracies! Some body needs to tell them about the Democratic Peace Theory.

So why doesn't democracy work everywhere? Russell Kirk said in his book "The Politics of Prudence," (which I would recommend to conservatives out there) that "A society in which men and women are governed by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society-whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society- no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be." Thus, democracy will only succeed where the people are ready for it. If too many of the people prescibe to radicalism then a "tyranny of the majority," in the words of Tocqueville, will ensue and we'll be no better off. If security is what we wanted in the Middle East, we may have been better of leaving Saddam in power. The United States thrusting democracy onto the whole world or any part thereof when its not ready won't do any good, and indeed do much harm.

It seems that many people put so much trust in democracy because they believe people are ultimately good. I share no such illusions. Man is naturally sinful, and no government can stop this, only restrain it. Just look at the world, its messed up. We seem to think we're progressing and that eventually we will be able to progress into world peace and prosperity. But we still have wars. What we have actually progressed in over the years is in killing more efficiently. Take the Soviet Union, its founding fathers thought mankind could establish a utopia, an Earthly Heaven, but they failed and instead brought about a Terrestrial Hell, the effects of which people are still suffering from. The results for a democratic utopia has no more chance than a communist utopia.

However, I'm not against democracy. It's because of man's sinfulness, not man's goodness, that I would agree with Winston Churchill, that "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others." Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's why it is generally better to put that power in the hands of many instead of just one or a handful of people. And that's why it's good to have systems of checks and balances and separation of power. But I'm only for democracy where the soil, the people, will allow a healthy version to take root and grow.

We can idolize just about anything in this world, including democracy.