Focus turns to U.S. support for Israel's attacks

RAW STORY
Published: Sunday July 23, 2006

As Israel's attack against Lebanon continues unabated, attention has shifted to American support for that attack and what the Bush administration might hope to gain from it, RAW STORY has learned.

An article in the San Francisco Chronicle by Matthew Kalman titled "Israel set war plan more than a year ago," lays out in detail the long-range planning behind the incursion:

In the six years since Israel ended its military occupation of southern Lebanon, it watched warily as Hezbollah built up its military presence in the region. When Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week, the Israeli military was ready to react almost instantly.

"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."

More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail.

Middle East expert Juan Cole adds further observations on this story in his blog, Informed Comment, stating:

That this war was pre-planned was obvious to me from the moment it began. The Israeli military proceeded methodically and systematically to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure, and clearly had been casing targets for some time. . . . That is why I was so shaken by George W. Bush's overheard conversation with Tony Blair about the war. He clearly thought that it broke out because Syria used Hizbullah to create a provocation. The President of the United States did not know that this war was a long-planned Israeli war of choice.

Why is that scary? Because the Israeli planning had to have been done in conjunction with Donald Rumsfeld at the US Department of Defense. The US Department of Defense is committed to rapidly re-arming Israel and providing it precision laser-guided weaponry, and to giving it time to substantially degrade Hizbullah's missile capabilities. The two are partners in the war effort.

In Cole's analysis, Rumsfeld's view of the world is that Hizbullah and Syria are both acting on behalf of Iran, Iran is the primary source of instability in Iraq, and thus encouraging Israel to destroy Hizbullah will necessariy further U.S. political and economic plans for the region. Cole states:

What is scary is that Cheney and Rumsfeld don't appear to have let W. in on the whole thing. They told him that Bashar al-Asad of Syria stirred up a little trouble because he was afraid that Iraq the Model and the Lebanese Cedar Revolution might be such huge successes that they would topple him by example (just as, after Poland and the Czech Velvet Revolution, other Eastern European strongmen fell). . . .

No one told Bush that this war was actually an Israeli war of choice and that al-Asad had nothing to do with it, that, indeed, it could only happen because al-Asad is already irrelevant.

That is why Administration hopes of using the Israeli attempt to destroy Hezbollah as a wedge to convince Syria to give up rejectionism and detach itself from Iran are crazy.

Another blog, Billmon's Whiskey Bar considers a slightly different aspect of the situation, beginning with the Daily Telegraph's statement that, "White House aides have said they consider the Lebanon crisis to be a 'leadership moment' for Mr Bush and an opportunity to proceed with his post-September 11 plan to reshape the Middle East by building Sunni Arab opposition to Shi’a terrorism. Yesterday Mr Bush cited the role of Iran and Syria in providing help to Hezbollah."

He calls this statement "astonishing," and says:

Either way, it boggles the mind that anyone who isn't a certified graduate of the Minitrue School for Outer Party Members could write an English sentence even suggesting such a thing. Is that why America crushed the most powerful Sunni regime in the neighborhood? Is that why Democracy Boy cheered as an Iran-friendly government took power in Baghdad? Does it explain why the Iraqi Interior Ministry was turned over to the tender mercies of an Iranian-backed militia movement?

This is the closest thing I’ve seen yet to a flat-out admission that the Iraq War was a disastrous strategic mistake. Or conversely, if you’re a true Orwell disciple, it’s simply another meaningless switch in an endless war whose real purpose isn’t to defeat the enemy, but to keep the prols docile and the ruling party firmly in power in this country. You can take your pick, I guess.