Jim

Thank God for TIVO.

Did anyone see Lieberman on Face the Nation this morning? He was articulate, unflappable and, IMO, right. I'm wondering if he might one day be a legitimate independent Ross Perot-type Presidential candidate as an independent. I'd sure vote for him over any of the Republicans today. God, we need more statesmen like Lieberman who does what he thinks is fundamentally right on national security issues even if it means getting tossed from a party he has served his entire political life.

Sure I'd like all wars by western democracies against terrorists to be fought as bloodlessly and as effectively as possible. I just don't feel qualified to say what is possible from a military POV. I'm sure improvements will be made but there are inherent problems in trying to defang thousands of rockets hidden amongst a sympathetic civilian population within a few miles of your territory.

When someone is dead people have to come to terms with it and move on whereas a capture is an an ongoing act of aggression. Hezbollah has the power to return these men to freedom but it cannot bring its victims back to life. Capturing the enemy is a dramatic gesture of dominance. Having to let your people be in the custody of the enemy to be tortured or to have their living heart ripped from their chest, is an act of ultimate submission. The Aztecs built an entire religion, and one of the largest cities of the ancient world, around this brutal dynamic and sent their warriors into battle with war clubs so they could subdue captives for later sacrifice. In fact, their military hierarchy was built around capturing prisoners. You became an elite member of the miltary by capturing 4-5 prisoners. [This tactic didn't fare too well when the Spanish arrived with their western concepts of total war.] Hezbollah's actions tap into this ancient brutal dynamic. No, but if the enemy was across your border and didnt' recognize your right to exist and if you had the power to teach them a lesson, you would. This, my dear friends, is about survival and we are not so evolved as we think when survival is at issue. . No, they would submit to the aggression as did the other tribes to the Aztecs for hundreds of years. They would send tribute to survive, perhaps even more captives for the altars. Compare and contrast to the the do nothing altnerative of relying on the international community that even now is backpeddling in its commitment: Here is Victor Hanson's take on the silver lining for Israel:

Maybe Hezbollah would have launched 300 rockets/day with 400 the day before the cease fire but for Israel's action. Do we really know how many rockets Iran sent their way? Besides, who said the standard is that Israel must be "amazingly" good at defending itself? No one guaranteed that the task will be easy when fighting an enemy that hides rockets amongst civilians

I'm hoping the idea is meant to be funny. The only way it might happen is if, one of these years, Israel loses a war and gets wiped off the map. We might then have to do a Dunkirk to avoid a second holocaust.

What should be the remedy if FISA is found to have usurped power granted the executive in the Constitution? Here's a damning review of Judge Taylor's opinion. I've not read the opinion yet but if it's true that she didn't hear evidence on the TSP this opinion may have a very short shelf life.

Doing their best would include accepting the authority of the elected government and not attempting to create their own mini-state. Doing their best would be not taking orders from Iran thereby prompting a war just so Iran can deflect international attention from its nuclear program.

Isreal was in a race against the clock before international, and ultimately US pressure, built to a fevered pitch... as it ultimately did. An argument that they should have waited is an argument t that they should have done nothing.

We've had this debate before and I do not think that is a given. There is a small book to be written for each warrent under FISA.

Who do you want to be held responsible? How do you want them to be held responsible? This is a contest between the three branches of government and, even if the judiciary side with the legislative branch, the President was doing nothing more than what he was supposed to do in championing his own powers. My non-expert opinion is that there was a good faith legal dispute here that could go any direction depending on the composition of the supreme court at a given moment. I still think that the fundamental point of disagreement relates to what it means to be in a war and are we in one now. I don't think most people would chide FDR if he used this type of power in WWII.

That is quite a sweeping statement. I believe that the Muslim 1% of the US population still has some good will towards America even if they disagree with elements of her current foreign policy.

If the Lebanese people allow themselves to be duped and/or bought off again with Iranian oil money, they will be the losers every time. Israel gained (i) because they changed the calculation somewhat the next time Hezbollah and/or Iran consider a mission to grab a couple of Israeli soldiers as bargaining chips, (ii) they may have degraded Hezbollah's capabilities albeit only temporarily and (iii) they put the world on notice that this problem is not going away and requires concerted international effort. For Hezbollah, their capabilities were temporarily degraded but the long term impact is hard to predict. On the one hand, they can certainly benefit from the anti-Israel sentiment of the day; on the other, the world is now watching.

I couldn't agree more Pangloss. Well argued.

If her information is factual, it would seem to have everything to do with today's political landscape. The speculation about August 22 as a date for jihadist action does have an informed basis.

If the peace holds, Lebanon and Israel won.

I'm not too interested in what the combatants say. I'd just like to know what standard of civility you are using for warfare. Israel is not intentionally targetting civilians although it is true they are aware civilians are going to be killed. The reverse proposition is nonsensical. It is not in Israel's best interests to wantonly kill civilians without a military objective. Do you think it was it unethical for the allies in WWII to bomb industrial facilities in which slave labor was employed? I'd like to understand the standard we must apply to all wars in the future. I'm only trying to understand where you are coming from. The results of war are always unpredictable and hard to assess after the fact. You need to compare where we are now with an alternate universe where Israel had taken no military action and only attempted to negotiate for the prisoners. This would have probably meant nother 2:1000 swap which would have further emboldened Hezbollah. It's hard to compare this alternate future with the status quo.

Out of curiosity, can you name a war in which any combatant met the moral standards you are now applying to Israel?

With no bathroom breaks....

What was the deal with the jacket? My guess is that the note said something else. I only wish M. Wallace had some of his old horsepower. He really wasn't up to the job.