As usual, U of Michigan's Juan Cole does an insightful job of deciphering and translating the complexities of the Middle East scene into plain English us Midwesterners can understand. Bravo, and keep up the good works!

The latter portion of his article on the risks and impracticality of an Israeli war strategy to oust the Shiite from southern Lebanon touches upon one of the biggest nightmare scenarios on the horizon that exposes again the utter insanity of Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq in the first place: indeed, what if Moktada's militia, and the other wannabe militia groups, and the masses in the streets, turn simultaneously upon the Green Zone garrison and all that it symbolizes?

US taxpayers of course pay good money for career colonels and generals to lay awake nights planning to avoid such a Dien Ben Phu debacle. The vulnerability of our ground forces hunkered down near Baghdad has been discussed candidly in print by military experts like William S. Lind, Andrew Bacevich and others, quite recently in a lengthy analysis piece in the Christian Science Monitor.

According to the Monitor, over 80% of the US occupation forces' supplies come from Kuwait by truck through 600 miles of southern Iraq that has been a comparatively "quiet" area compared to the Sunni triangle. Like the Kurds in the north, the Shia in the south sense that time is on their side, and some day Uncle Sam will go home. Solidifying their respective domestic agendas takes priority over forcing an armed insurgency confrontation with the United States right now. But this overland supply route is remarkably susceptible to disruption, even by fairly low-tech guerilla operations.

In the spring of 2004, US occupation forces briefly faced the prospect of a united-front insurgency when American forces approached Najaf (Shiite) and Fallujah (Sunni) simultaneously. Bush backed off until after the November elections, and then flattened Fallujah shortly after Ohio was declared for the GOP. The prospect that Israel's attack upon Hezbollah may cause mass demonstrations in Baghdad, with sectarian issues temporarily put on a back burner, coupled with coordinated retaliatory assault upon the US quartermaster lifeline to and from Kuwait, is a very, very real, real world military problem.

So how would the Bush regime react to such a crisis, focusing angry mobs around the Green Zone and resupply to be done by air in the stinger missle age? Given the neo-cons pig headed track record in the Mesopotamian campaign, we should shudder collectively at the prospects.

At a minimium, there would be a major push in the Congress, with the right wing media propaganda machine running full bore, to escalate overall US troop strength (conscription anyone?) to counter this sudden emergency, all of which was brought about by the evil doers' decision to widen the war on terrorism in the Middle East, lumping Zionism and Americanism neatly together.

It will be a real tough vote for the Dems. And right before the November elections, if not sooner.

By hyping the pity propaganda Juan Cole is doing everything he can to prolong the war and preserve Hezbollah. The alternative to the destruction of Hezbollah is to let them build up armaments until their missiles do even more damage to Israel. Hezbollah will not stop and they do not wish to negotiate. Their philosophy is war against Israel and they back this up with military action.

Hezbollah used to be a terrorist organization. Now they are a military organization.

The way to destroy the Hezbollah threat is to drive them out of south Lebanon and disarm them. This probably means a re-occupation of Israel over south Lebanon to the Litani River until the Lebanese Army can take over. The safest way to do this is to move the population. By calling this a "War Crime" Cole is trying to eliminate the best chance there is of destroying Hezbollah. What "Law" even allows Hezbollah to exist?

By emotionally putting the civilians of Lebanon as a human shield against the destruction of Hezbollah Cole is implementing the Hezbollah strategy he says does not exist: Using innocent Lebanese civilians as human shields to preserve Hezbollah.

I don't know why any one would take Juan Cole seriously. He's so biased and misinformed that he even tried to deny that Iran's president had called for the annihilation of Israel - http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/ .

Basically, he's little more than an ideologue claiming expertise he doesn't have.

There is no comparison between Lebanon and Poland. Lebanon started this conflict by their incursion into Israel and taking of prisoners. They continue to hold prisoners and fire rockets. The rockets were stockpiled in violation of U.N. Disarmament in which Israel was certified to compliance. This is a conflict which Lebanon started and has chosen to continue.

Lebanon has become the defacto Poland of the Middle East. So nice, so flat, so centrally located. Israel has the right to self-defense, but when the killing ratios are 20 to 1, or worse, the breast-beating mock-concern for civilian life rings hollow. Israel, sadly, has becoming nothing more than a client state of the proto-fascist Bushistas, in which the 'war on terra' justifies any butchery. Even now, we are express mailing more high tech ordnance to the Zionpanzers so they can rain more destruction on those ever so dangerous Lebanese and Palestinian children. And we wonder why the "Arab street" hates us? We ain't seen nothin' yet, bucko. We are sowing the wind. Guess what comes next? 'Tain't pretty.

A frustrated VanDenBerg sputters:

Huh! You know, I've heard people say that if you criticize Israel, there are people out there who will avoid discussing the merits of your argument and just revert to screaming "Anti-semite" and think that proves anything.

Ah. I see. Just because you say that what Israel is doing in Lebanon is on a par with Hitler, doesn't make you an Anti-Semite.

You compared Israel to Hitler. You said:

Pounding Lebanon into rubble is a despicable crime on par with anything Hitler ever did.

So, when I called you on it, you predictably shifted ground to the Palestinians. I could have written your response before you did.

You say:

You are living proof of all the worst stereotypes about people who are reflexively and hopelessly biased against the Palestinians.

Nice try. Sieg Hiel.

Do you think that just calling someone a Nazi or an anti-Semite is going to put one brick back atop another in Southern Lebanon?

Right back at ya babe! You were the one who started this garbage! Your words are public record, and now that I pointed out what a Nazi you are, you're all offended. So, not only are you a Nazi, you're a hypocritical one.

Why don't you read through my letters? I am perfectly content to have a rational argument with anyone who's rational. I am not the type to scream "anti-semite" because someone is critical of Israeli policy. I'm critical of Israeli policy. As I said before, I think Israel has been down this road, and what they're doing in Lebanon is not helpful. It's just going to fan the flames of the crazies like you.

You asserted a moral equivalency between Israeli policy and Hitler. So yeah, you are a crazy, psychotic Jew hater. Why not just acknowledge what you are, instead of trying to back away from what you said?

I can just see you fuming at your keyboard. "Oh, just because I called the Jews Nazis, now I'm the bad guy."

You make me laugh. You're way too easy to bait. By virtue of your psychosis, you are a better advocate for my point of view than I could ever be. You prove my point to any rational person. Israel is beset on all sides by psychotic homicidal maniacs just like you. I wonder who you think you're fooling.