Antiwar.com Blog

As Israel ravages Lebanon, with the fulsome endorsement of George W. Bush, here’s a pointed reminder that Israeli and American interests, far from being identical, are often radically divergent.

This four-part investigation by Carl Cameron broadcast by Fox News in mid-December, 2001, was taken down from the Fox web site days after it appeared, and in the past the company has gone after anyone who has posted it online, but now, due to the miracle of YouTube, it’s available again – and more important than ever.

I wonder how long it will be before “the Lobby” gets it taken down.

For more information on this subject, go here — and here.

Bloomberg reports:“The U.S. pledged $30 million in aid to help war-ravaged Lebanon avert a humanitarian crisis as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Israel to confer with leaders after a surprise visit to Beirut. The U.S. will contribute the money to a United Nations relief fund and will also immediately supply 100,000 medical kits, 20,000 blankets and 2,000 plastic sheet rolls, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch told reporters traveling with Rice.”

What a night on the town this is shaping up to be: The Israelis will dine out at the Café Beirut, have a nightcap at Club Syria, camp out at the plush 5-star Iranian Inn – and we’ll get the bill. $30 million up front – and much more as the Israeli rampage continues. It’s a sweet deal for them, and a rotten deal for us. Hasn’t it always been?

Kevin Drum wants to know where all those troops are going to come from if the U.S. isn’t providing any for the “robust” international force the administration is proposing to police Hezbollah-land. Citing this report in the Forward,– which informs us the internationals will be charged with policing Lebanon’s border with Syria, as well as keeping order in southern Lebanon – Drum writes:

“This is fascinating. At a guess, something this ambitious would take a minimum of seven or eight combat brigades plus associated support and logistics. Call it 40,000 troops in round numbers. “The United States has previously said that it won’t be able to participate in this because our troops are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN can’t help since it deals only in peacekeeping missions, not combat missions. None of the troops can come from Middle Eastern countries, of course. NATO troops are largely committed to Afghanistan, and Europe has in any case been notably reluctant to commit combat troops to either the Middle East or Africa.“What’s needed here are (a) large numbers of (b) quickly deployable (c) combat troops. Offhand, I can’t think of anyplace this could come from. Am I missing something?”

Drum is missing at least two things, the first being that government officials don’t always tell us the truth – shocking! – and I’d bet the ranch American soldiers will be assigned to this international force for the reasons Drum states above. What’s the alternative? Besides which, there’s something a bit fishy about Condoleezza Rice’s official denial of American participation:

“We are looking at what kind of international assistance force makes sense, but I do not think that it is anticipated that U.S. ground forces are expected for that force.”

American forces may not be expected, but they may show up anyway. That, it seems to me, is the clear meaning of Condi’s convolutions, a classic non-denying denial if ever there was one. Translated into plain English, this means they’re going to have to get Israel to okay the plan, before they spring the idea of sending U.S. troops to defend Israel on Congress and the American people. If they hope to get it through without much congressional opposition, the administration must first run it by the Israelis and get them on board. The Israel lobby will do the rest.

Secondly, Drum dismisses the possible participation of troops from our Arab allies — Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — on the grounds that … well, just because.  Yet there is no reason why the Jordanians, for example, could not provide security — or the Egyptians. I can’t see the Israelis agreeing to the presence of Saudi troops, but the others would be preferable to Hezbollah. Let Arabs take bullets meant for the IDF! And don’t forget the religious overtones: Arab Sunnis would be fighting Arab Shi’ites, Iraq’s civil war would go regional, and the Sunni card would be played.

In the meantime, as I pointed out in today’s column, by the time the Western allies agree on the nature and tasks of a multinational army of occupation in southern Lebanon – I give it three to four months, and that’s going at warp drive 10 — the Israelis will continue to pound away at the whole of Lebanon. And you can kiss Beirut goodbye….    

A special summer symposium issue of The American Conservative magazine is out, and the subject is interesting and timely: thirty contributors, including myself, inquire into the meaning of “left” and “right” today. Is it useful to even talk about “conservatism” and “liberalism” anymore?

Those interested in reading my offline work might want to check it out, and even if I hadn’t written one of the pieces I’d still get myself a copy. It’s a great line up: Andrew Bacevich, Jeremy Beer, Austin Bramwell, Patrick Buchanan, John Derbyshire, Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher, Mary Eberstadt, Nick Gillespie, Paul Gottfried, Jeffrey Hart, Nick von Hoffman, Michael Lind, John Lukacs, Scott McConnell, Heather Mac Donald, Kevin Phillips, James Pinkerton, Lew Rockwell, Claes Ryn, Kirkpatrick Sale, Phyllis Schlafly, Fred Siegel, Taki Theodoracopulos, Philip Weiss, Chilton Williamson, Clyde Wilson, and John Zmirak.

Check out your local news stand or bookstore, and get yourself a copy. The American Conservative is so consistently interesting, no matter what your ideology, that you might want to think about taking out a subscription.

Frida Berrigan on “Democracy Now” radio:

“Israel’s relationship with the United States is unique in a number of ways. And one of those ways is that essentially the United States provides 20% of the Israeli military budget on an annual basis, and then about 70% of that money that is given from the United States, from U.S. taxpayers, to Israel is then spent on weapons from Lockheed Martin and Boeing and Raytheon. Most other countries don’t have that sort of cash relationship, where they go straight to U.S. corporations with U.S. money to buy weapons that are then used in the Occupied Territories and against Lebanon.”

In short, the U.S. is paying for Israel’s brutal invasion of Lebanon — and American war profiteers are making piles of money. It is militarism as an economic system, what one might call “war capitalism” — which is, in reality, totally state-controlled and politically determined, as far from the system of free enterprises as a nation could possibly get, short of Lenin’s “war communism.”