Bingo: The Path to a Wider War

If the US sends troops to Lebanon as peacekeepers and/or as a force to disarm Hezbollah, we will see a quick escalation. Any attack (and it would be inevitable) on US forces by the Hez would be seen as a direct attack on the US by Syria and Iran. This would lead to an immediate expansion of hostilities (to include an EBO against both countries as a means of punishment). From that point on, the situation would be beyond repair. Given this, read the analysis of Ray Close, a former CIA analyst:

My source confirmed in detail the fact that intelligence being produced for the Bush Administration by the Pentagon strongly supports the thesis that Hizballah operations are directly controlled and closely managed from Teheran..... It is a dangerously one-sided point of view that furthers Israel's long-standing objective of luring the US into a violent confrontation with Iran. The ultimate consequence could be that everyone in the USG --- Democrats as well as Republicans --- from the President on down --- will, by such dangerously oversimplified logic and careless rhetoric, accelerate America's momentum toward:

(1) officially defining and treating Hizballah's actions against Israel just as if they were atrocities by international terrorism aimed directly at the people of the United States, and thereby:

(2) making it almost inevitable that both political parties in the US will talk themselves into a "moral" commitment to aggressively confront those who encourage, support and harbor Hizballah terrorists (i.e. Syria and Iran), and thereby:

(3) making impossible the establishment of any constructive dialogue with either Iran or Syria in which other critical issues, such as Iraq and nuclear proliferation, for example, might be dealt with by means short of violence. In other words, this widely-supported urban legend is rapidly becoming another potentially disastrous conflation of biased intelligence analysis, simplistic political bombast and lunatic fringe right-wing Christianity that could drive us toward another major military confrontation --- whether or not that was really our carefully considered and intelligently reasoned objective.

I do not think I am overstating the danger here. Once momentum starts moving in that direction, we might soon find ourselves in another situation where stubborn pride, as much as anything else, would make it hard for us to modify our rhetoric and admit our inability and that of our Israeli allies to disarm and dismantle the military arm of Hizballah. It's a proxy war right now, but if our surrogates (the Israelis) fail to achieve their objectives, they will attempt very purposefully to broaden the conflict into a much larger one directly involving the United States and Iran.

Comments

[Ken Hagler]

What amazes me is how obvious the Busheviks are being about wanting into the war. When I first read about the notion of US troops going into southern Lebanon as "peacekeepers," my first thought was, "Who do they think they're kidding?"

[Josh Koenig]

The savvy response for us citizens stateside must then be to make it politically unacceptable to deploy US Forces as peacekeepers (or anything else) in Lebanon. I'm sure a position could be drafted along the lines of "we won't participate in anything less than a truely multinational coalition, where our forces make up no more than 50% of the total personnel..." or the like.

I'm skeptical that anything can rein in the Bush administration, but with an election coming up there might be enough lobbying power to juice congress into blocking any such attempt. They'd need to allocate funds for any major deployment.

[Steve Kimbrough]

I'm prepared to believe that you've discerned the desires and even intentions of the Bush/Cheney administration. Questions remain, however. First, what substantial country would be so foolish as to commit its troops to a US-led expedition in Lebanon? Even the Brits are balking, it seems. Second, what are the strategic counter-measures available to these substantial countries (Brazil, India, France, Germany, China, Russia...)? At the very least, they can stay out and watch the US overextend itself. Or perhaps like the Shiites and Sunnis, they will be driven to make common cause together. If even a substantial number participate the economic costs to the US can be made unbearable, I would think. Even if it cost these countries economically, they might well reason that it's cheaper than fighting a hot war with the US, or for the US. It seems to me that Bush has a weak hand and the danger is he will grossly overplay it.

[Josh Koenig]

On the other hand, it would appear the IDF is backing out.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

Perhaps we all just dodged a bullet. (knock on wood)

[Bob Morris]

Yes, except that the Israeli tail doesn't wag the US dog. They are the client state, not the US.

In my view, the Bushies clearly want to invade Iran. That's why the recent capture of the two soldiers (something both sides have been doing for years) was used as the pretext for invading Lebanon.

[Ali T]

I quite agree with Josh's comment. I believe the current war against Hizbollah has been carefully planned to ultimately attack Iran. I think the plan is to weaken Hizbollah as Iran's arm first, and then either create a situation where Iran would make the mistake of getting involved or Israel/US would make it look like Iran is directly involved in the attacks. In either case, "retaliation" and therefore attacking Iran's nuclear plants would be justified. So, I guess I'm trying to argue that the final goal is to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with some sort of excuse to avoid criticisms from the international community.

[Ali]

Sorry, I meant I agree with Bob's comment.

[John Robb]

Exactly:

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/04/collapsing_iran.html

[John Robb]

Which will get us this:

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/07/an_attack_on_ir.html