July 24, 2006 – Way to Long Between Updates

Sorry it has been so long between updates, but with Terri out of town life has been pretty boring. Boo Boo has snuck out a couple more times since then. I have been working in the yard a lot lately. I finally got most of the mulch laid out, and now all I need to do is set up two more sprinkler heads, and plant a couple of more plants and I will be set for a while. Dixie came into town last Friday and Alicia and the gang all got together for the occasion. Terri’s dad was in town on Saturday to finish cleaning out the condo so I helped him a bit with that. The bad part is now I have tons of boxes sitting around my living room taking up space. On Saturday my parents also showed up at the house with a truck load of mulch. So needless to say I was pretty worn out by time Sunday rolled around.

Sunday was a little more laid back then Saturday. In the morning I went to see my cousin Tracy’s new house up in Leander. On our way up there the car I was riding in was rear ended. There was just a little damage to my aunt’s bumper and the car that hit us was an uncle of mines. So it really was not a big deal. Then I helped George move the last of his stuff out of the condo and gave Boo Boo a bath.

Also last night I realized Terri is trying to change me into a tree hugger. Recently I replaced all our light bulbs with florescent lights, we have a recycling bin at home, and I am even driving her civic instead of the Xterra to save on gas. Don’t worry I won’t change too much. It just goes to show you people will choose a more environmentally friendly way of life if it is economically beneficial.

Today our old forgin exchange student from Germany, Patrick, is coming into town. He is only going to be here for about two days, so I am going to take a half day tomorrow and go out to the lake with him.

Ok one of the main reasons I have not written in a while is because it looks as though I might have been wrong in one of my previous posts. With the election of Hezbollah in Palistine I said it was not the end of the world while my friend Aldo assured us all that it is.

Here is something some one posted on a forum I like to read. It does a really good job of explaining the current situation, and what each side is hoping to do. Apperently the article came from www.stratfor.com which has a yearly $99 member ship fee. If any one is interested. It is a little too expensive for me, but if all the articles are this well written it looks to be a good place to get some perspective about what is going on in the world.

Special Report:Why Hezbollah FightsTo understand Hezbollah,it is important to begin with this point: Almost all Muslim Arabs opposed the creation of the state of Israel. Not all of them supported, or support today, the creation of an independent Palestinian state or recognize the Palestinian people as a distinct nation. This is a vital and usually overlooked distinction that is the starting point in our thinking.When Israel was founded, three distinct views emerged among Arabs. The first was that Israel was a part of the British mandate created after World War I and therefore shouldhave been understood as part of an entity stretching from the Mediterranean to the other side of Jordan, from the border of the Sinai, north to Mount Hermon. Therefore, after1948, the West Bank became part of the other part of the mandate, Jordan.There was a second view that argued that there was a single province of the Ottoman Empire called Syria and that all of this province -- what today is Israel, Jordan, Lebanon andthe country of Syria -- is legitimately part of it. This obviously was the view of Syria, whose policy was and in some ways continues to be that Syria province, divided by Britain andFrance after World War I, should be reunited under the rule of Damascus.A third view emerged after the establishment of Israel, pioneered by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. This view was that there is a single Arab nation that should be gathered togetherin a United Arab Republic. This republic would be socialist, more secular than religious and, above all, modernizing, joining the rest of the world in industrialization and development.All of these three views rejected the existence of Israel, but each had very different ideas of what ought to succeed it. The many different Palestinian groups that existed after thefounding of Israel and until 1980 were not simply random entities. They were, in various ways, groups that straddled these three opinions, with a fourth added after 1967 andpioneered by Yasser Arafat. This view was that there should be an independent Palestinian state, that it should be in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, extend to the originalstate of Israel and ultimately occupy Jordan as well. That is why, in September 1970, Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein in Jordan. For Arafat, Amman, Jerusalem and TelAviv were all part of the Palestinian homeland.After the Iranian revolution, a fifth strain emerged. This strain made a general argument that the real issue in the Islamic world was to restore religious-based government. This viewopposed the pan-Arab vision of Nasser with the pan-Islamic vision of Khomeini. It regarded the particular nation-states as less important than the type of regime they had. Thisprimarily Shiite view was later complemented by what was its Sunni counterpart. Rooted partly in Wahhabi Sunni religiosity and partly in the revolutionary spirit of Iran, its view wasthat the Islamic nation-states were the problem and that the only way to solve it was a transnational Islamic regime -- the caliphate -- that would restore the power of the Islamicworld.That pedantic lesson complete, we can now locate Hezbollah's ideology and intentions more carefully. Hezbollah is a Shiite radical group that grew out of the Iranian revolution.However, there is a tension in its views, because it also is close to Syria. As such, it is close to a much more secular partner, more in the Nasserite tradition domestically. But it alsois close to a country that views Lebanon, Jordan and Israel as part of greater Syria, the Syria torn apart by the British and French. There are deep contradictions ideologically between Iran and Syria, though they share a common interest. First, they both oppose the Sunnis. Remember that when Lebanon firstunderwent invasion in 1975, it was by Syria intervening on behalf of Christian friends and against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Syria hated Arafat because Arafatinsisted on an independent Palestinian state and Syria opposed it. This was apart from the fact that Syria had business interests in Lebanon that the PLO was interfering with. Iranalso opposed the PLO because of its religious/ethnic orientation; moreso because it was secular and socialist. Hezbollah emerged as a group representing Syrian and Iranian interests. These were:Opposition to the state of IsraelAn ambiguous position on an independent PalestineHostility to the United States for supporting Israel and later championing Yasser ArafatHezbollah had to straddle the deep division between Syrian secularity and Iranian religiosity. However the other three interests allowed them to postpone the issue.This brings us to the current action. Three things happened to energize Hezbollah:First, the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon under pressure from the United States undermined an understanding between Israel and Syria. Israel would cede Lebanon to Syria.Syria would control Hezbollah. When Syria lost out in Lebanon, its motive for controlling Hezbollah disappeared. Syria, in fact, wanted the world to see what would happen if Syrialeft Lebanon. Chaos was exactly what Syria wanted.Second, the election of a Hamas-controlled government in the Palestinian territories created massive fluidity in Palestinian politics. The Nasserite Fatah was in decline and a religiousSunni movement was on the rise. Both accepted the principle of Palestinian independence. None made room for either Syrian or Iranian interests. It was essential that Hezbollah,representing itself and the two nations, have a seat at the table that would define Palestinian politics for a generation. But Hezbollah was more a group of businessmen making moneyin Beirut than a revolutionary organization. It had to demonstrate its commitment to the destruction of Israel even if it was ambiguous on the nature of the follow-on regime. It had todo something.Third, the Sunni-Shiite fault line had become venomous. Tensions not only in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and Pakistan were creating a transnational civil war between these twomovements. Iran was positioning itself to replace al Qaeda as the revolutionary force in the Islamic world and was again challenging Saudi Arabia as the center of gravity of Islamicreligiosity. Israel was a burning issue. It had to be there. Moreover, in its dealings with the United States over Iraq, Iran needed as many levers as possible, and a front in Lebanonconfronting Israel, particularly if it bogged down the Israelis, would do just that.Hezbollah is enabled by both Syria and Iran. But precisely because of both national and ideological differences between those two countries, Hezbollah is not simply a tool for them.They each have influence over Hezbollah but this influence is sometimes contradictory. Syria's interests and Iran's are never quite the same. Nor are Hezbollah's interests quite thesame as those of its patrons. Hezbollah has business interests in legal and illegal businesses around the world. It has interests within Lebanese politics and it has interests inPalestinian politics. As a Syrian client, it looks at the region as one entity. As an Iranian client, it looks to create a theocratic state in the region. As an entity in its own right, it mustkeep itself going.Given all these forces, Hezbollah was in a position in which it had to take some significant action in Lebanon, Israel and the Islamic world or be bypassed by other, more effective,groups. Hezbollah chose to act. The decision it made was to go to war with Israel. It did not think it could win the war but it did think it could survive it. And if it fought andsurvived, it would have a seat at the Palestinian and Lebanese tables, and maintain and reconcile the patronage of Syria and Iran. The reasons were complex, the action was clear.Hezbollah had prepared for war with Israel for years. It had received weapons and training from Iran and Syria. It had prepared systematic fortifications using these weapons insouthern Lebanon after Israel's withdrawal, but also in the Bekaa Valley, where its main base of operations was and in the area south of Beirut, where its political center was. It hadprepared for this war carefully, particularly studying the U.S. experience in Iraq.In our view, Hezbollah has three military goals in this battle:1. Fight the most effective defensive battle ever fought against Israel by an Arab army, surpassing the performance of Egypt and Syria in 1973.2. Inflict direct and substantial damage on Israel proper using conventional weapons in order to demonstrate the limits of Israeli power.3. Draw Israel into an invasion of Lebanon and, following resistance, move to an insurgency that does to the Israelis what the Sunnis in Iraq have done to the Americans.In doing this, the U.S.-Israeli bloc would be fighting simultaneously on two fronts. This would place Jordan in a difficult position. It would radicalize Syria (Syria is too secular to beconsidered radical in this context). It would establish Hezbollah as the claimant to Arab and Islamic primacy along the Levant. It also would establish Shiite radicalism as equal toSunni radicalism.The capture of two Israeli soldiers was the first provocation, triggering Israeli attacks. But neither the capture nor the retaliation represented a break point. That happened whenHezbollah rockets hit Haifa, several times, presenting Israel with a problem that forced it to take military steps -- steps for which Hezbollah thought it was ready and which it thoughtit could survive, and exploit. Hezbollah had to have known that attacking the third largest city in Israel would force a response. That is exactly what it wanted.Hezbollah's strategy will be to tie down the Israelis as long as possible first in the area south of the Litani River and then north in the Bekaa. It can, and will, continue to rocket Haifafrom further north. It will inflict casualties and draw the Israelis further north. At a certain point Hezbollah will do what the Taliban and Saddam Hussein did: It will suddenly abandonthe conventional fight, going to ground, and then re-emerge as a guerrilla group, inflicting casualties on the Israelis as the Sunnis do on the Americans, wearing them down.Israel's strategy, as we have seen, will be to destroy Hezbollah's infrastructure but not occupy any territory. In other words, invade, smash and leave, carrying out follow-on attacksas needed. Hezbollah's goal will be to create military problems that force Israel to maintain a presence for an extended period of time, so that its follow-on strategy can be made towork. This will be what determines the outcome of the war. Hezbollah will try to keep Israel from disengaging. Israel will try to disengage. Hezbollah sees the war in these stages:1. Rocket attacks to force and Israeli response.2. An extended period of conventional combat to impose substantial losses on the Israelis, and establish Hezbollah capabilities to both Israel and the Arab and Islamic worlds. Thiswill involve using fairly sophisticated weaponry and will go on as long as Hezbollah can extend it.3. Hezbollah's abandonment of conventional warfare for a prepared insurgency program.What Hezbollah wants is political power in Lebanon and among the Palestinians, and freedom for action within the context of Syrian-Iranian relations. This war will cost it dearly,but it has been preparing for this for a generation. Some of the old guard may not have the stomach for this, but it was either this or be pushed aside by the younger bloods. Syriawanted to see this happen. Iran wanted to see this happen. Iran risks nothing. Syria risks little since Israel is terrified of the successor regime to the Assads. So long as Syria limitsresupply and does not intervene, Israel must leave Damascus out. Looked at from Hezbollah's point of view, taking the fight to the Israelis is something that has not happened in quite a while. Hezbollah's hitting of Haifa gives it the position it hassought for a generation. If it can avoid utter calamity, it will have won -- if not by defeating Israel, then by putting itself first among the anti-Israeli forces. What Hezbollah wants inIsrael is much less clear and important than what it opposes. It opposes Israel and is the most effective force fighting it. Fatah and Hamas are now bystanders in the battle for Israel. They have no love for or trust in Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is doing what they have only talked about. Israel's mission isto crush Hezbollah quickly. Hezbollah's job is to survive and hurt Israel and the IDF as long as possible. That is what this war is about for Hezbollah.

So if you are still with me congratulations. There are a few things that this article sort of brushes over. For example it suggests that the British mandate after WW I that established Israel took land away from Arabs and gave it to the Jews, and this is what started all the fighting. Actually there was already a large Jewish community living in the region. Back in the 1881 there were a lot of Jews that migrated to the area and bought land from Arabs while following the teachings of a guy named Moses Hess, who wrote about a Jewish nation. Anyway after these Jews bough the land they formed large farming communities. It was at this point that the current conflicts between Jews and Arabs began. I am not exactly sure what started these conflicts. My guess is that neither side is 100% blameless. But it is my understanding that back then most Arabs were merchants and nomads, and the Jews were settlers. It sounds a lot like the conflicts we had here in the US between Indians and Pioneers. Any way it really dose not matter how it started, because to be honest the things they are fighting for today have nothing to do with it.

Now the scary part is everyone know Hezbollah is basically a puppet organization of Iran and Syria. How long will it take terrorist organizations like Hezbollah to get there hands on nuclear weapons if Iran is allowed to develop them?

Another interesting question is, is it a mistake to be pursuing democracy in the Middle East? Would it not be more beneficial for us to emphasize nonsectarian government? Emphasizing democracy has so far played into the hands of radical fundamentalist. Hezbollah was elected into government in democratic elections in both Lebanon and Palestine, and Iran is a Democratic Republic. While on the other side almost all our allies in the Middle East are monarchies. i.e. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Dubai, and the list goes on. The big differences being there governments are nonsecular.

Ok I know this post is going to upset some of you because it is so long. Sorry.