July 27, 2006

The Israel Non-Sequitur

Carroll Andrew Morse

The foreign policy non-sequitur of the week seems to be believing that Israel would not have been attacked by Hezbollah if the United States hadn’t deposed Saddam Husein. Sheldon Whitehouse more or less says this directly to John E. Mulligan and Scott MacKay in today's Projo...

Whitehouse said that the Bush administration's failed policies in Iraq have created some of the problems in the Middle East and made it more difficult for the U.S. to spearhead a peace process in the volatile region. What he called the Bush administration's "disasterous strategy and decision to invade Iraq has cast a pall across the entire Mideast."
I don't see the connection. If Saddam Husein was still in power, Syria would probably still be overtly occupying Lebanon, Arab Sunni and Shiite radicals would feel better about cooperating with one another than they do at the moment, and Hezbollah would have even a freer reign in Lebanon than it does now. Hezbollah’s tactical postion against Israel would be much stronger.

The only way that you reach the conclusion that Hezbollah wouldn’t be launching rocket attacks and kidnapping soldiers across the Israeli border from its stronger tactical position in a Saddam-is-still-in-power universe is if you believe that not just actions, but intentions of states and militias are essentially reactions to the United States. In other words, believing that Hezbollah wouldn’t attack Israel if the United States was more quietist in tolerating dictatorships and violence requires believing that a more passive American policy could cause Hezbollah to change its very reason for being.

The key operating assumption is that the goal of destroying Israel and spreading violent revolution shouldn't be treated as innate to an organization like Hezbollah or the current regime in Iran, because violent goals are only created as a reaction to the actions of the United States. This assumption is a restatement of blaming-America-first.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Actually, I think it's "blaming-Bush-first" more than it is "blaming-America-first."

Liberals like Sheldon hate Pres. Bush so much that they can't see straight.

Every world problem or crisis seems be the direct product of some Bush flaw or failure.

What will Sheldon and his un-Bush friends do if they win the Senate?

Why . . . they won't be Bush!!

Surely . . . . . . THAT will solve all of the world's problems.

Posted by: brassband at July 27, 2006 10:26 PM

Sheldon Whitehouse wants the immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, a position to the left of most Democrats to include Hillary Clinton.

This "cut and run" approach in Somalia is one of the things that gave al-Qaeda the confidence to attack the World Trade Centers to begin with.

Please, please don't allow this guy to become a US Senator!

Posted by: Anthony at July 28, 2006 10:01 AM

What will Sheldon and his un-Bush friends do if they win the Senate?

Why . . . they won't be Bush!!

Not if! When Sheldon and the Democrats take back the house and senate. Coming to your town this fall. I've talked to so many republicans and independents that are voting straight Democratic tickets this year. Time to be nervous you facist republicans. The people are taking back the government.

Posted by: Rino Cooke at August 1, 2006 4:21 PM