George Will

August 16, 2006 -- FIVE weeks have passed since the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers provoked Israel to launch its most unsatisfactory military operation in 58 years. What problem has been solved, or even ameliorated?

Hezbollah, often using World War II-vintage rockets, has demonstrated the inadequacy of Israel's policy of unilateral disengagement - from Lebanon, Gaza, much of the West Bank - behind a fence. Hezbollah has willingly suffered (temporary) military diminution in exchange for enormous political enlargement. Hitherto, Hezbollah in Lebanon was a "state within a state." Henceforth, the Lebanese state may be an appendage of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is an army that, having frustrated the regional superpower, suddenly embodies, as no Arab state ever has, Arab valor vindicated in combat with Israel.

The "new Middle East," the "birth pangs" of which we supposedly are witnessing, reflects the region's oldest tradition, the tribalism that preceded nations. The faux and disintegrating nation of Iraq, from which the middle class, the hope of stability, is fleeing, has experienced in these five weeks many more violent deaths than have occurred in Lebanon and Israel. U.S. Gen. George Casey says 60 percent of Iraqis recently killed are victims of Shiite death squads. Some are associated with the Shiite-controlled Interior Ministry, which resembles a terrorist organization.

The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented 9/11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by The New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror."

In a candidates debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, loveable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law-enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

The President listened to then believed what Rice had to say

Case closed

PETER BROOKS

August 16, 2006 -- IGNORE Israel's and Hezbollah's boastful claims of victory in their bitter, but largely inconclusive war. The real winner of the month-long conflict is neither - it's Iran.


As Hezbollah's sugar daddy, Iran clearly profited from the death and destruction. In fact, though criticized at the conflict's outset for spurring Hezbollah into provoking a war, in the end, Iran actually burnished its image and elevated its standing in the Middle East - and the Muslim world

Result? An increasingly confident Iran is going to be one tough customer to deal with in the days and months ahead.

Think about it: Using its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, Iran was able to lash out at arch-enemy Israel, causing the Israeli Defense Forces to fight a two-front war in Gaza and Lebanon.

Tehran also benefits from the severe damage done to America's public image in the Muslim world, where Washington was (inaccurately) seen as supporting - and directing - the destruction of not Hezbollah, but Lebanon."

One of the things this has conclusively proven is that the President relies far too heavily upon his advisors.

His liberal leaning advisors.

Few staunch conservatives would have taken such advice from such as Rice and embarassed us by siding with the French.

Unless there is some grand scheme awaiting the light of day the war with the Hezzies might just as well have been run by the Clinton's. And because of the White House dropping the ball, on this as well as other hot-button issues, one of the Clinton's might very well get her chance.