| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Kissinger has a great analysis today of the geopolitics which can be seen in the actions of Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is, in fact, a metastasization of the al-Qaida pattern. It acts as an overt state within a state. It commands an army much stronger and far better equipped than Lebanon's on Lebanese soil, in defiance of two UN resolutions. Financed and trained by Iran, it fights wars with organized units against a major adversary. As a Shia party, it has ministers in the government of Lebanon who do not consider themselves bound by its decisions. A non-state entity on the soil of a state with all the attributes of a state and backed by the major regional power is a new phenomenon in international relations.
Since its creation, Hezbollah has been almost permanently at war. The first of three Hezbollah wars occurred when, in 1983, its attack on US barracks killed 241 Marines and convinced America to withdraw its peacekeeping forces from Beirut. The second was a campaign of harassment that induced Israeli forces to withdraw from southern Lebanon in 2000. The third was inaugurated this year with the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers inside Israel that led to the Israeli retaliatory attack.
We are witnessing a carefully conceived assault, not isolated terrorist attacks, on the international system of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity....The crisis in Lebanon is a classic case of that pattern. By the rules of the old international order, the war technically took place between two states - Lebanon and Israel - which, in fact, have very few conflicting interests. ...Yet by the existing international rules, the secretary of state was obliged to negotiate on the ceasefire with the Lebanese government, which controlled no forces in a position to implement it while the only forces capable of doing so have never formally accepted it.
...Everything returns to the challenge of Iran. It trains, finances, and equips Hezbollah, the state within a state in Lebanon. It finances and supports the Sadr militia, the state within a state in Iraq. It works on a nuclear weapons program, which would drive nuclear proliferation out of control and provide a safety net for the systematic destruction of at least the regional order. The challenge is now about world order more than about adjustments within an accepted framework.
Read the whole thing.
Hezbollah would be unthinkable if it were not for the current wish in the West of seeking to have tragedy-free war - "war lite," it might be called - in which as few civilians as possible are harmed - while, of course, those making war on the west seek a traditional tragedy-heavy war, in which as many civilians as possible are killed. If traditional war was waged on both sides, Hezbollah would have been decimated in the recent conflict with Israel, as would a larger number of civilians.
Kissinger advises:
A common Atlantic policy backed by moderate Arab states must become a top priority, no matter how pessimistic previous experience with such projects leaves one. The debate sparked by the Iraq war over American rashness versus European escapism is dwarfed by what the world now faces. Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best minds together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider war merging into a war of civilizations against the background of a nuclear armed Middle East. This cannot be done through ad hoc bargaining over Security Council resolutions; rather, the Security Council resolutions should emerge from an agreed strategy.
If Kissinger's approach isn't achieved, tragedy-heavy war is sure to follow.
#1
#2Kissinger is a ######## in the technical Australian meaning of the word.
What was Pinochet's thugs? Or the Shah in Iran in the 1950ies doing over emergent democratic nationalism? Were they ... god forbid state within a state arms of ... the USA military industrial complex?
No wonder he understands such concepts. Kissinger blessed Pinochet and Operation Condor. As some wag said, when he won the Nobel Peace Prize satire was made redundant.
The game's up Kissinger. You ARE one of the dogs of war, not a prophet, a mere profiteer.
Reading and believing something from Kissinger would be parallel to letting Dracula look after your children for the night.
It never ceases to amaze me that while the USA and Israel pursue every criminal that's supposedly caused them injustice, old henry (Cambodian Carpet Bomb Cleaner-Chile Democracy Destroyer)roams free and gives his five cents worth and the ignorant and gullible believe it.
Does Kissinger speak for the good of the world (there are countries outside the USA believe it or not)or as most suspect, little old hard done by Israel?