Neocons admitting defeat?

#1
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWIwZmVlNWUwZTdhOWVhNTllOTg5ZGE1ZThkMGZjMjM=

Hezbollah will have much rebuilding to do, and for a while will find it harder to operate. But it emerges from the conflict a winner. It scores an incalculable propaganda victory by having successfully stood up to Israel, and enjoys a surge of support from the Lebanese reaction against the Israeli bombing campaign. It lives to fight another day — and fight it will. Its patrons, Syria and Iran, can only be delighted. In addition to winning in Lebanon, Iran has the upper hand both in Iraq and in the contest over whether it will be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. If current trends continue, the Bush administration’s project in the Middle East will require the same sort of expedient we have just seen in the Israel–Lebanon conflict: a papering over of what is essentially a failure.

The beginning of the end for neoconservatism?
 
#4
The flag needs to be under threat for people to rally round it.
trouble has been brewing but has it really been imminent yet?

A strengthened Iran Syria flicking the bird to the US is different to sabre rattling, or AQ voicing discontent.
 
#5
I'd agree, I think Hezbollah will take more from this than Israel. The Israelis have failed to defeat Hezbollah who proved themselves to be a well organised enemy. The Israelis (with US and UK) support have been taking this approach for 50+ years and it does not work. Time for a long over due re-think. As for Iran they'll be happy with this "result" and given that they have US and UK forces directly to their west and east will see this as giving the west a bloody nose. In addition Israel's conduct in the conflict will have lost them a great deal of support in countries that have been generally sympathetic down the years.
 
#6
Hezbollah won.
No massive armourd thrust getting into the Enemy Army's rear administrative areas and carrying the day. No civilian infrastucture failing and dragging down the government, for Hezboll is only a minor part of the state assembly.
And what ammounts to Terror Bombing, did the Blitz, the Firestorms of Germany or the mass bombing of Japan, N Vietnam teach nothing. Didn't work then and does not work now.
Conventional armies can be defeated by conventional means and the Isreali's and Yanks are very good at that.
But armies made of men who do not 'Line' up and fight require unconventional methods.
john
 
#10
#11
Bush's final gamble: giving Iraq a dictator?

Andrew Sullivan

The news was buried in a New York Times story last week but it confirmed what others in the Washington chattering classes have been observing lately.

The context is that the White House has been inviting outsiders in to the Oval Office to discuss strategy in Iraq. The new chief of staff Josh Bolten has apparently been trying to pierce the intellectual cocoon in which the president comfortably resides. Bush family consigliere James Baker has already been asked to rescue the president’s failed Iraq policy.

But last week the new nugget: an anonymous “military affairs expert” attended a White House briefing and reported: “Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy. Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect, but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2320091,00.html
 
#12
jonwilly said:
Hezbollah won.
No massive armourd thrust getting into the Enemy Army's rear administrative areas and carrying the day. No civilian infrastucture failing and dragging down the government, for Hezboll is only a minor part of the state assembly.
And what ammounts to Terror Bombing, did the Blitz, the Firestorms of Germany or the mass bombing of Japan, N Vietnam teach nothing. Didn't work then and does not work now.
Conventional armies can be defeated by conventional means and the Isreali's and Yanks are very good at that.
But armies made of men who do not 'Line' up and fight require unconventional methods.
john
The last time I checked 'jonwilly,' we won the war, in Japan and the reason for the surrender, was the bombing of the two cities with the Atomic Bomb! So, I think that worked! They would have fought to their deaths without the bomb! :roll:

Oh, also your quote "But armies made of men who do not 'Line' up and fight require unconventional methods." Didn't the American Army teach the British Army, that this tactic didn't work in the Revolutionary War? To bad we forgot it, in the civil war and used European tactics again on both sides.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
jonwilly said the 'mass bombing' - by which I think he means the conventional bombing done *before* the atomic bombs were dropped. and you can hardly claim North Vietnam as a victory now, can you?
 
#14
Oh My Buddha, Lord above save little old me from Bush's iriots.
john
Yeah I'll also go with this new idea that King George's way out will be to install a dictator. Means ta say 'I know hes a son of a bitch but he's our son of a bitch.'
Worked before din'it, Batista, The Shah, Hey say Thems two cuntry we hate now.
 
#15
Taz_786 said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2317980,00.html
Good piece of work Taz. A very good article.
 
#16
maguire said:
jonwilly said the 'mass bombing' - by which I think he means the conventional bombing done *before* the atomic bombs were dropped. and you can hardly claim North Vietnam as a victory now, can you?
Did I ever even mention Vietnam, North or South? No I did not! Actually, the mass fire bombing in Japan, killed more Japanese then the two nukes! Effective? Perhaps on civilian morale and some industry.

The fact is that the dropping of the two nukes, caused the Japanese to surrender and the Allies to win that war! What else matters? :roll:

We won that one... right?

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japanbom.htm
 
#17
Taz_786 said:
Bush's final gamble: giving Iraq a dictator?

Andrew Sullivan

The news was buried in a New York Times story last week but it confirmed what others in the Washington chattering classes have been observing lately.

The context is that the White House has been inviting outsiders in to the Oval Office to discuss strategy in Iraq. The new chief of staff Josh Bolten has apparently been trying to pierce the intellectual cocoon in which the president comfortably resides. Bush family consigliere James Baker has already been asked to rescue the president’s failed Iraq policy.

But last week the new nugget: an anonymous “military affairs expert” attended a White House briefing and reported: “Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy. Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect, but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2320091,00.html
RNC chair, Ken Mehlman has abandoned the phrase "Stay the course" in favour of the new catchphrase "Adapting to win". Of course, his main job is making sure that Republicans are re-elected in November.

Of course, as far as I can recall, not one person in the Administration or Congress in the last 3 years has been able to articulate an operational definition of "winning".
 
#18
Win a quick clean War and they'll Luv Ya.
Ah Maggei, stuck ya neck out, didn't ya.
Leave a cluster**** and they will get someone eles ta sort it out.
john
But why oh why is King George building the largest 'Embassy' in the world in down town Bagdahd ?
 
#19
So then we have gone through all of that to reinstall Sadamn V2.0, fair enough, shame the realisation that Democracy is a luxury not a necessity took so long.
 
#20
Why not just re-install Saddam V1.0?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top