Why The Middle East Crisis Matters

Today Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki met with President Bush at the White House. Tomorrow evening he is to address a joint session of Congress. The Democratic leadership in the Senate are up in arms because Maliki has  condemned the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. I have news for the Democrats: Duh!

CNN reports why the Democrats have their knickers all in a bind:

Last week, al-Maliki said that Iraq was urging the international community "to take a quick and firm stance to stop this aggression against Lebanon, to stop the killing of innocent people and to stop the destruction of infrastructure."

"What is happening is an operation of mass destruction and mass punishment and an operation using great force that Israel has — and Lebanon does not," he said.

They want him to take it all back. They want him to eat his words. Harry Reid was positively livid today:

In a letter to al-Maliki, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York called the Iraqi leader’s comments troubling.

"Your failure to condemn Hezbollah’s aggression and recognize Israel’s right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," the letter said.

The senators said some Democrats are considering boycotting al-Maliki’s speech before Congress.

"I want the prime minister to denounce what Hezbollah has done," Reid said at a news briefing. "I will lose a lot of confidence in al-Maliki if he does not denounce what Hezbollah has done."

I have news for Senator Reid. Prime Minister Maliki is not in the minority among world leaders to condemn the Israeli action in Lebanon. It is the United States that is in the minority. To expect an Arab leader to not condemn Israel for attacking Lebanon is a little much, don’t you think? It’s also a little disingenuous. When the Iraqi parliament speaker accused the US forces of "butchery" this week, where the heck was the Democratic leadership? Why aren’t they trying to boycott Mr. Maliki over his government’s position on the "butchery" of American forces? Yet, they are all up in arms when Maliki condemned (quite legitimately I might add) Israeli bombing.

I think its pathetic and its also par for the course. American national interest is being sold down the river for a few extra votes.

The real irony here is that the fact that Maliki won’t condemn Hezbollah should have been obvious to these clowns from the very start. I have written before about how Hezbollah and Maliki’s Islamic Dawa party are quite connected. Hezbollah in fact grew out of the Dawa party. Dawa introduced the world to the modern car bombing by blowing up the American and French embassies in Kuwait. The bombing of the American barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was committed by a precursor group of Hezbollah consisting of the Islamic Jihad offspring of the Dawa party. With such a history is it any surprise that Maliki and Hezbollah would have some affinity for each other?

The Bush Administration and our Democratic opposition in both houses of Congress have conveniently glossed over the history of the party they put in power in Iraq. Now they are reaping its consequences. Freedom is definitely on the march.

The Bush Administration has put in power in Iraq a Shia Islamist alliance with strong ties to Iran. This has helped Iran along in its quest for regional dominance. That dominance is now challenged by Israel’s actions in Lebanon. The Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are beside themselves trying to figure out how to stake out a position that is anti-Israel and yet does not give Iran even more regional power. Throw Syria’s shaky alliance with Iran into the mix and you have the makings of a regional powder keg. This powder keg has fuses in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Any one of these fuses can be lit to create a regional conflagration. The matter is very serious and has far reaching consequences for the region, the world and the United States.

Yet, are the most prominent liberal bloggers discussing it? With a few notable exceptions, the answer is no. It is as if the war in Lebanon was not happening. Some liberal bloggers have now come out to explain their silence. It would have been better if they had remained silent. Because their excuses are juvenile.

The excuse for not covering the Israel-Lebanon war from the liberal bloggers appears to be that it is "complicated", that it is "complex", that it not in the area of their expertise, and that it does not have any domestic impact. Like I said, it would have been better to remain silent.

If bloggers ever decided to not cover any "complex" issues, then they would have to stop blogging about stem cells, NSA wiretapping, the Iraq war, the Iranian nuclear issue, the search for WMD, al Qaeda, global warming, the CIA leak case, etc. (Did I leave anything out?). If bloggers stopped blogging about things that were not in their area of expertise then, well, I am afraid most bloggers should stop blogging. Most of these bloggers are citizen journalists, not "experts" – yet they opine on many things of interest to them. Finally, the suggestion that this war does not have domestic implications is simply laughable. The United States funds Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year. It is the largest recipient of US foreign aid in the world. Our tax dollars and our missiles are being spent on the bombing of Lebanon – that makes it a serious domestic bread and butter issue. Oh, and one look at the gas pump should also give you an indication that this war has domestic ramifications.

The most unconvincing defense I have read so far comes from The Poor Man Institute:

I’ve said nothing about war in Lebanon or Ethiopia because I have nothing to add, and also because – as you may or may not be aware – the United States is actually involved in a hugely bloody war right now, and this is more of a pressing concern to me personally. I don’t know the secret formula for unshitting any of these beds – I promise I wouldn’t be shy if I did – but I currently only have to sleep in one of them; and, as it turns out, that’s the one bed where I actually have some miniscule chance of influencing the situation. So that’s my concern.

He may have nothing to add. I am sure he might reconsider when the conflict widens to warrant his attention.

Just like the Democrats in the Senate today, a lot of our prominent liberal bloggers are acting as if they are running for something.

Sometimes silence is golden.

 

This entry was posted in Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Media, Middle East Conflict, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Why The Middle East Crisis Matters

  1. Aunty Ism says:

    What will I do come November? I live overseas, but can still vote. The invisible clothespin I usually wear when ticking the box (absentee voters still have a paper trail, photocopied as needed) is just not enough anymore.

    Is Shiva in the White House, promoting Revelation?

  2. Whut Crisis? This hyar is all a part of GW’s plan boy.

    He is gonna re-design the Middle East! Once all th’ terrorists fight themselfs out, we is gonna move in fer the sweet sweet crude that lays just beneath th’ sand…and liberate it!

    I almost git a little teary when I think about all that thar oil, jez waitin’ ta power my motorsickle…

    Plus, Israel wernt doin nuthin! They wuz jez a sittin thar mindin there own business when them Hezbollahs came and took them thar Soldiers..

    Them soldiers belonged ta Israel dangit! And thar guns belonged ta America! You aint gonna tell me that you thank it is OK ta let them Hezbollahs take our guns is ya?

    As fer Iraq, GW can always replace them thar terrorist leaders with a nice shah or sumthin…

    Remember how nice that thar Shah was in Iran? I loved that feller…That wuz so wrong wut them terrorists did ta him

    You jez havta unnerstand GW’s strategery…8-}

  3. Zebster says:

    “The Bush Administration has put in power in Iraq a Shia Islamist alliance with strong ties to Iran” and they should’ve seen it would be a Shia govt that would be elected.
    This outfit hasn’t a clue regarding the history of this region. That’s why they thought it would be easy.
    Rant on.
    I’ve also said that if an American politician on either side of the aisle voted for this war, then they can’t bitch about what that new govt says. Maybe next time you’ll think about the country instead of saying what you think will get you elected.

  4. Mash says:

    Aunty and Zebster, it’s politics uber alles. The Dems are so focused on getting elected, that in spite of the Republicans being so low in the polls, the Dems will be seen as weak kneed and pandering. If anyone can lose such a winnable election as this one, it will be the Dem leadership. They were falling over each other to get to the microphone the other day.

    I have to hand it to Rove and Co. This is the one issue that divided the Dems and they have siezed on it. The Dems are playing to script and self destructing.

    Kinda sad.

  5. But it _hasn’t_ divided the Democrats; the vast majority of the Stupid Party has leapt up and raised the “terrorism is okay if Our Boys(tm) are doing it!” flag in such a way that would make you think that it was a directive coming down from the Democratic equivalent of Karl Rove. I suspect that if you could talk privately with most of the people in the Democratic leadership, they’d express dismay at the brutal carnival of war crimes that Israel is engaging in, but when it comes to an opportunity to steal a march on the Evil Party, trivialities such as _principle_ just get in the way.

    The amazing thing about this little Kabuki play is how the Evil Party, just to differentiate themselves from the Dems, are hurrying to the defence of the puppet government. They won’t stop the pipeline of precision munitions to the IOF, of course, but boy they’ll back up the puppet government, even when they put on their “YOU SUCK” costumes and dance around singing “Death To America!”

    About the only logical explaination is that, as a general rule, Americans don’t think that anything actually exists outside the borders of the United States. Well, the UK probably exists, because they speak gutter English and have such a charming and obsequious prime minister, but the Near East? None of those people are real; they don’t even write the correct way.

  6. Mash says:

    David, you are right. They arent divided – they are cowed. Heaven forbid the Dems would say a word about protecting the Lebanese civilians from this rain of bombs. But, too much to ask when votes are on the line. 3:-o

Comments are closed.