Gooday peoplez
Found the following whilst Googling on the WWW ;-)
N-joy !!!!!!
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
----0----
AN OFFICIAL UNCLE WALLY DISCLAIMER:
NB: Comments here are made by someone else. Uncle Wally does not
necessarily endorse
the contents of the following article.....
www.zaman.com/
07.28.2006 Friday - ISTANBUL 06:24
[COMMENTARY]
Is World War III Coming to your Neighborhood?
by
Ronnie D. Lipschutz
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives,
calls it the =E2=80=9Cthird world war.=E2=80=9D Bill Kristol, editor of the
neoconservative Weekly Standard claims it is =E2=80=9Cour war.=E2=80=9D
And the Bush Administration is standing by=E2=80=A6and standing by=E2=80=A6=
and
doing almost nothing=E2=80=A6until what happens? The devastating and immoral
attacks by Israel on Lebanon=E2=80=99s people, infrastructure and land seem,
somehow, rather disproportionate to the insults and injuries inflicted
by Hezbollah=E2=80=99s border crossing two weeks ago. To be sure, the rocke=
ts
and missiles falling on Haifa and other towns and cities in Northern
Israel, and the resulting civilian deaths, are hardly moral or
justified. Yet, when was the last time one country destroyed another in
order to retrieve two kidnapped soldiers? And didn=E2=80=99t Israel just
recently kidnap a good fraction of the Hamas leadership during its
foray into Gaza? We need only recall various rescue missions mounted in
the past to rescue Israeli captives (e.g., Entebbe) to recognize that
Lebanon is the victim of something more than meets the eye.
So, what is really going on in the Middle East? President Bush has
merely observed that Israel has a right to defend itself and that Kofi
Anan should get on the phone to Damascus, while Secretary of State Rice
has asked Israel to show some restraint even as she has taken her time
to get involved diplomatically. Furthermore, the United States was
somewhat reluctant to evacuate its citizens from Lebanon, out of
concern that this might =E2=80=9Cexaggerate=E2=80=9D the ferocity of Israel=
=E2=80=99s
attacks. But, with reports that an =E2=80=9Cemergency=E2=80=9D shipment of
laser-guided bombs is on its way to Israel, it has become only too
clear that the American agenda extends far beyond destroying Hezbollah,
and includes Damascus and Teheran, as well.
It is helpful to recall that the United States has been stymied in its
efforts to destabilize the government of Syria and attack Iran. For a
time, in the early days of the American occupation of Iraq, many
neoconservatives were suggesting that Syria be the next target for
=E2=80=9Cregime change.=E2=80=9D And, earlier this year, The New Yorker=E2=
=80=99s Seymour
Hersh reported that plans were well under way to destroy nuclear
research sites in Iran (now there are reports that Israeli Special
Forces are on the ground in Iran looking for these sites). But the
catastrophe in Iraq suggests that it would be difficult to digest Syria
and that blowback would make the occupation even more violent and
unstable. And from the perspective of Washington, DC, any military
forays against Damascus or Teheran would be a public relations disaster
and likely turn American allies against the United States.
By contrast, an Israel =E2=80=9Cout of control=E2=80=9D can be a subject of=
what is
called =E2=80=9Cplausible denialibility.=E2=80=9D The President can say he =
knew
nothing of Israel=E2=80=99s plans to attack Lebanon=E2=80=94even though the=
se were
drawn up a year ago, when Ariel Sharon was still Prime Minister=E2=80=94and
has no control over what Israel does. Israel, of course, is largely
indifferent to international public opinion and diplomacy. The border
of the Golan Heights, annexed by Israel, is only a few miles from
Damascus, and Israel almost certainly has the capability of inflicting
major damage on Iran.
Indeed, if war should break out among the three countries, Israel is at
a decided advantage. As history demonstrates, Israel=E2=80=99s strengths are
in interstate warfare, as opposed to the anti-guerilla warfare of the
type seen in Gaza and, now, South Lebanon. The latter is difficult,
messy, and inevitably involves the killing of many women and children,
even if only by accident. The former relies on heavy bombing and
well-defined battlefronts with tank warfare and combat forces (ignore,
for the moment, the fact that Israel must cross Jordan to get to Iran).
And Israel has nuclear weapons. While no one can predict the outcome of
such a war, there are no countries willing or able to bring Israel to
heel, as the Soviet Union tried to do in 1973. Of course, there will be
hand-wringing around the world, and a resolution of condemnation in the
UN Security Council (which will be vetoed by the United States), but
not much else. No other Arab country will get involved, and some of
their governments might even (quietly) support Israel. The Arab people
are likely to be very upset but, at the end of the day, Israel=E2=80=99s
targets are mostly Shi=E2=80=99ia and Alawites, whereas most of the Arab
world is Sunni.
What would the United States gain from such an attack? First, the Bush
Administration would see two of its b=C3=AAtes noir thoroughly thrashed and
punished. Second, Washington could argue that, inasmuch as it has no
control over Israel, there are no grounds for retaliation against U.S.
forces in Iraq. Third, it is likely that many of Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear
research sites would be destroyed, which the United States has wanted
all along. And, finally, it might even facilitate =E2=80=9Cregime change,=
=E2=80=9D
especially in Syria. Kristol has argued (in The Weekly Standard, 24
July 2006), =E2=80=9CNo Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic
Republic of Iran=E2=80=A6No Iranian support for Syria=E2=80=A6And no Shiite=
Iranian
Revolution.=E2=80=9D And, according to Gingrich (in The Guardian, London, 20
July 2006), =E2=80=9CIn this crisis of civilization, with nerve and steady
focus it is possible to win a decisive victory.=E2=80=9D They, and others,
seem to think Israel can put an end to American troubles in the world.
Of course, they forget that that was what Austria-Hungary thought when
it issued an ultimatum to Serbia during the summer of 1914 after the
assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Ronnie D. Lipschutz is Professor of Politics at the University of
California, Santa Cruz (rlipsch@ucsc.edu).=20
07.27.2006=20
----0----
.
|
