In domestic US politics, or in foreign policy with regard to allies like Israel, political realities are always acknowledged and taken seriously (e.g. Dems can push for single-payer healthcare because industry lobbies are too powerful; the GOP has to play immigration policy weakly because two key members of its base, business and the nationalist right, are at odds; it's hard to ask Israel to stop bulldozing Palestinian homes because it feels threatened as the odd-state-out in the region; etc. etc.).

But when it comes to people we don't like, political realities don't count. Tim's post here suggests that there should be no doubt about the disarmament of Hezbollah. But look at the facts on the ground: Lebanese are returning to homes destroyed by Israel, who they already don't like for reasonable historic reasons, and in this context someone is going to go in there and disarm the only people who defended them this time and in the 80s?

Say what you like about Hezbollah, but the Bush administration screwed itself by letting the attack on Lebanon continue. Asking the Lebanese government or the UN to actively force disarmament after what just happened is a surefire way to ensure civil war.

Now that Eyeraak is democratized lets disarm and democratize Hezbollah. Hope springs eternal! If anything, Israel created more hatred against itself, just as GWB created more terrorists by invading Irak. Lets hope that he does not use the same stupid stunt against Ieran. Remember there are more than 1 billion Muslims in thwe world and some of them have A Bombs. And some in the administration can't shoot quite straight.

The kind of thinking that Anonymous describes is exactly what created this current crisis in the first place. Hezbollah are "the only people who defended [the Lebanese] this time"? How, by lobbing rockets into Israel and forcing Israel to respond militarily? With friends like those...

Until the region gets tired of defending the terrorists who live among them just to invite the sort of disproportionate response we saw from Israel "this time", then the Lebanese better keep their car engines running, because they'll just have to evacuate again. Unless Hezbollah is disarmed (I'm not hopeful about that happening any time soon either), this crisis will only be repeated.

And no, Anonymous, political realities do not count. "Political realities" is just an euphemism for weak leadership. I hope more Americans will join the Connecticut Democrats in refusing to accept "political realities."

While we will never agree about whether Israel's terrorism at 30,000 ft. is somehow less evil that Hezbollah's poor-man's terror, let's at least agree on known facts. Hezbollah's barrage of missiles happened only after Israel started bombing Lebanon indiscriminately. I realize listening to US news, that's hard to figure out, but it is a fact. In fact, here's the series of events:

1) Israel kidnaps two political members of Hamas in Gaza, who were in elected government

2) Gazans kidnap an Israeli soldier to negotiate the return of their political leader

3) Israel starts bombing the shit out of all of Gaza, almost certainly committing war crimes by targeting civilian infrastructure, like water processing.

4) Hezbollah takes advantage of the carnage and kidnaps two soldiers hoping for a prisoner exchange, like has happened many times before.

5) Israel bombs the shit out of Lebanon – not just Hezbollah

6) Hezbollah starts raining down missiles on Israel.

And I'm not defending Hamas, or Hezbollah; I'm just describing events. And if you believe that stating fact are the same as supporting terrorism, well then you have undermined your own argument that political realities don't matter.

telsblack wrote:

And no, Anonymous, political realities do not count. "Political realities" is just an euphemism for weak leadership.

Anonymous reply:

And if you believe that stating fact are the same as supporting terrorism, well then you have undermined your own argument that political realities don't matter.

I think, Anonymous, that you're misinterpreting telsblack's argument. Stating facts - like political realities - doesn't matter to him. He doesn't know what the facts are, he doesn't want to know what the facts are, he just wants a "strong leadership" to tell him what to believe. He equates truth with weak leadership - in his own words.

So Rice and the administration have finally grasped the idea of planning. Or have they? After recognizing that a plan is needed first, she goes on to refuse to speculate about Hezbollah not disarming. So, in other words, her plan only considers the scenarios she would like to see, none, apparently, that are realistic.