All Hank, all the time.

[SlaveNoMore]

I pretty much agree with everything this guy says. It's a scary prospect. Smoke 'em while you got 'em (or they ban 'em)

THE MIDEAST'S MUNICH
By ARTHUR HERMAN

August 16, 2006 -- HISTORIANS will look back at this weekend's cease-fire agreement in Lebanon as a pivotal moment in the war on terror. It is pivotal in the same sense that the Munich agreement between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain was pivotal in an earlier battle against the enemies of freedom. The accord in October 1938 revealed to the world that the solidarity of the Western allies was a sham, and that the balance of power had shifted to the fascist dictators.

Resolution 1701 shows that, for the time being at least, the balance has likewise shifted to the terrorists and their state sponsors. Like Munich, it marks the triumph of the principle of putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today. Like Munich, it will mean not peace in our time, but a bigger war in our future.

In that sense, the cease-fire may be even more momentous than Munich, and a greater blunder. In 1938 Chamberlain and other appeasers had the excuse that they were trying to prevent an armed conflict no one wanted. Today, of course, that conflict is already here. Historians will conclude that by supporting U.N. Resolution 1701 and getting Israel to agree, the Bush administration has in effect declared that its global war on terror is over. We have reverted to the pre-9/11 box of tools, if not necessarily the pre-9/11 mindset. From now on, the worst Iran, Syria, and North Korea will have to worry about are serial resolutions in the United Nations. Terrorists will be busy dodging Justice Department subpoenas, not Tomahawk missiles.

Our enemies know better. They know the war is only entering a new stage, and they know who the winners and losers were last weekend.

The clear losers were the United States and Israel. Israel has sacrificed lives and treasure, and had its honor dragged through the mud of international opinion, for no purpose. America squandered its political capital at the start of the crisis by getting moderate Arab regimes to condemn Hezbollah instead of Israel. They did so because they thought Hezbollah was about to be annihilated. However, they soon realized their mistake. They now know Tehran and Damascus will set the agenda in the Middle East, not Washington. The Arab League's support for this U.N.-brokered deal is just one more measure of our strategic failure.

The other loser is Lebanon. The price of peace in 1938 was de jure dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, as Germany annexed the Sudetenland. The price of Resolution 1701 is de facto dismemberment of Lebanon. A large, well-armed terrorist army acting at the behest of a foreign power now controls the southern half of Lebanon, and pulls the strings in the other half. The facade of Lebanese self-government has been preserved. As a territorial state, it may even last longer than Czechoslovakia did (Hitler gave the Czechs five months before he annexed the rest of their country).

But other states in the region will have learned their lesson. Faced by an internal terrorist organization, especially one with links with Tehran, they will have to make accommodations. No white knight in the guise of U.S. Marines will ride to their rescue; no Israeli tanks and F-16s will do their dirty work for them. Appeasement will be the order of the day.

That includes Iraq. The disarming of Sunni and Shia militias, the necessary first step to ending sectarian violence there, will be postponed - perhaps for good. On the contrary, this crisis has taught Iraq's Shia minority that extremism pays, particularly the Iranian kind.

For everyone in the Middle East knows Iran is the clear winner. Only the diplomats and politicians, including the Bush administration, will pretend otherwise. Iran has emerged as the clear champion of anti-Israeli feeling and radical Islam. The Iranians have their useful puppet in Syria; they have their proxy armies in place with Hezbollah and Hamas. They have been able to install missiles, even Revolutionary Guards, in Lebanon with impunity. Sunni regimes in the region will move to strike their own deals with Iran, just as Eastern European states did with Germany after Czechoslovakia. That includes Iraq; the lesson will not be lost on Russia and China, either. And all the while, the Iranians proceed with their nuclear plans - with the same impunity.

Finally, the other winners are the conventional diplomats at the State Department, especially Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns. In a narrow professional sense, appeasement is their business. They never saw the point to a "war on terror they are delighted to take back the initiative from the hawks at the Pentagon and the White House.

The war in Iraq has clearly sapped the moral strength of the Bush administration. The men of Munich acquiesced to Hitler because another world war like the first seemed unthinkable. The Bush administration clearly feels it cannot face another major confrontation even with a second-rate power like Iran. Yet by calling off the war on terror, it has only postponed that conflict.

"We have passed an awful milestone in our history," Winston Churchill said after the Munich agreement was signed. "Do not suppose this is the end . . . This is only the first sip, the first foretaste, of a bitter cup that will be proffered to us year by year." Despite the failure of appeasement, Churchill still believed the Western democracies would make the "supreme recovery" and take up the banner for freedom again. The United States and the forces of democracy will recover from this debacle - even with a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic president in 2008. The reason will not be because Bush's opponents have a better strategy, or a clearer vision, or even a Winston Churchill waiting in the wings. It will be because our enemies will give us no choice.

Less than a year after Munich, Nazi panzers rolled into Poland. Instead of fighting a short, limited war over Czechoslovakia, the Western democracies ended up fighting a world war, the most destructive in history. The war with the mullahs of Iran is coming. It is only a question of whether it will be at a time or on a ground of our choosing, or theirs - and whether it is fought within the shadow of a mushroom cloud.

Arthur Herman is the author most recently of "To Rule The Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World." He is completing a book on Churchill and Gandhi.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
My right-inclined friends call me a nihilist every . .

Nihilist! Fuck me.

I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, but at least it's an ethos.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Which half are you in?

So Cal Fo Life

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I pretty much agree with everything this guy says. It's a scary prospect. Smoke 'em while you got 'em (or they ban 'em)

Including this part?

The war in Iraq has clearly sapped the moral strength of the Bush administration. The men of Munich acquiesced to Hitler because another world war like the first seemed unthinkable. The Bush administration clearly feels it cannot face another major confrontation even with a second-rate power like Iran.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Including this part?

Pretty much, yep.

The Bush Admin brokered this absurd cease-fire, allowing Hezzbollah, Syria and Iran to claim victory, to let France look like a superpower, and assuring a larger conflict down the road.

Sure looks to me like a goverment lacking confidence.

Rudy '08

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Do terrorists want short flights (which have very little fuel)? I guess I don't know what the plan was for using the liquid explosive, and what kind of damage it would have caused. Perhaps security is different for longer versus shorter flights? Possibly not administrable, but I'm trying to think outside the box. Maybe it's a gift? Or dad is going to visit, oh, like me and do some repairs around the house? And doesn't want to check luggage? I mean, what in-flight utility does a bottle of shampoo or conditioner have?

ETA this would not be about me, as I was outfitted with a set of tools culled from the parental set around when I got my first house. I think they were driven to me.

On 1: The issue is the amount of delay relative to the length of flight, which approximates the distance of the flight. In the US at least, most people make a decision whether it's more efficient to fly or drive (or train or bus). That's principally driven by time/cost. Obviously driving is a viable alternative to short-distance flights, but not cross-country flights (for most people). So, if you increase the time or cost of flying a short distance, more people will drive. In other words, you increase accident rates and waste people's time.

On 2: Sure, shampoo isn't needed for inflight use, but people also carry-on luggage to avoid checking it. How many people carry-on everything? Many, so it's an inconvenience. More generally, a screwdriver isn't something most people need on a plane or when they get there, so it's reasonable to be a little more suspicious of a screwdriver. I'd at least want to ask the person why they want it. Shampoo--not so concerned, unless it's a bomb.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So Cal Fo Life

Huh. I thought you were in SV.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
On 1: The issue is the amount of delay relative to the length of flight, which approximates the distance of the flight. In the US at least, most people make a decision whether it's more efficient to fly or drive (or train or bus). That's principally driven by time/cost. Obviously driving is a viable alternative to short-distance flights, but not cross-country flights (for most people). So, if you increase the time or cost of flying a short distance, more people will drive. In other words, you increase accident rates and waste people's time.

On 2: Sure, shampoo isn't needed for inflight use, but people also carry-on luggage to avoid checking it. How many people carry-on everything? Many, so it's an inconvenience. More generally, a screwdriver isn't something most people need on a plane or when they get there, so it's reasonable to be a little more suspicious of a screwdriver. I'd at least want to ask the person why they want it. Shampoo--not so concerned, unless it's a bomb.

On 1: Duh, which is why I was wondering whether terrorists don't really want to do shit to shorter flights because there's not enough fuel to make a big big BOOOOOM!!! If they do not want shorter flights, then it might be possible to abbreviate security procedures for shorter flights. Which would change (or, kinda leave the same, if we assume that security will be more extensive for longer flights) one factor in the glaringly obvious calculation everyone goes through when deciding whether to fly or drive. Or take a bus.

And, no WAY!!!!! Driving is not as safe as flying? Holy shit. Who knew? Oh, right, pretty much everyone who flies. Because airlines shove it down passengers' throats.

(it irritates me when people respond to something totally different than what I said)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

(it irritates me when people respond to something totally different than what I said)

I responded to what you said, not what you didn't say, which you've now said.

Are you going to set up separate security lines? All short flights go from terminal A, and all long flights go from terminal B, and you have to go through security again to go from one terminal to the other? (remember, Atta got on a commuter flight in Portland before getting on the Bos-LA flight)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Sounds more to me like the Stevens side of SCOTUS

SCOTUS' job is to make rules. But a district court's job is to apply them.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I responded to what you said, not what you didn't say, which you've now said.

Are you going to set up separate security lines? All short flights go from terminal A, and all long flights go from terminal B, and you have to go through security again to go from one terminal to the other? (remember, Atta got on a commuter flight in Portland before getting on the Bos-LA flight)

The "Perhaps security is different for longer versus shorter flights?" is obviously currently untrue, clearly related to the comment about El-Al flights all being international and not headed for countries close by, on the whole, and therefore would be read as a possible suggestion for avoiding your issue of drive vs. fly equation for short flights. Then I immediately noted that it might not be administrable. Because, duh.

I probably should have done a new paragraph before the gift comment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
SCOTUS' job is to make rules.

Finally. A dem admits they think this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Wikipedia describes it thus:

• Passengers are asked to report three hours before takeoff. In Israel, they are checked at a security barrier on the road to the terminal. Inside, they and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures also require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats with probing questions such as about their origin, goal and occupation.

Bear in mind that El Al has only international flights, and those flights are of relatively long duration (they don't fly to most of the neighboring Arab states [or aren't allowed to]). So, implementing such a scheme on US flights wouldn't easily translate. All domestic flights? Well, that pretty much kills anything short of New York/Chicago or NY/DC, or NY/Bos. People will drive or go private, if you need 3 hours in advance.

If you were going to implement something like this, you'd have to do pre-screening, and provide for "safe traveller" passes, that would allow people to avoid the lines.

Let smart people decide who poses the most threat, and focus their energy accordingly. I am less enamored with the blanket rule of screening everyone than I am with the type of screening they do.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Finally. A dem admits they think this.

rules aren't the same as laws.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Rudy '08

Maybe if he runs as a Democrat. Can you imagine him winning a GOP primary?