November 24, 2006

To Hell in a Handbasket?

A chilling essay by Raja at the Lebanese Bloggers:

The Syrians feel pretty secure about Hizballah's ability to hold its own against these waves of protest and fury. So they do what they need to, to gain any sort of advantage on the international playing field. Their message to the powers that seek to remove Lebanon from the Syrian orbit is obvious:

You see your precious little Lebanon... your example of democracy in the middle east... your prized example of religious co-existence (both christian-muslim and sunni-shi'a); I can light it up with the push of a button. And if you don't talk to me... if you don't deal with the Syrian state as the guarantor of peace in Lebanon, that's exactly what I'll do.

[...]

In such a tense and gridlocked situation, where all the major local parties are so intransigent towards each other, something is gonna have to give. An appropriate analogy would be two major tectonic plates pushing against each other incessantly until, at some point in time, all hell breaks loose - think of the Indian Ocean tsunami.
Read the whole thing.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at November 24, 2006 12:44 AM

Comments

It's about time the U.S. takes an even more aggressive stand towards Syria. They are nothing but trouble and are a major source of headache for the United States.

They are also the weak link and dealing with them is an easy way to dealing a blow to Iranian plans in the Arab world.

Posted by: Omega80 at November 24, 2006 02:51 AM

This is one of the more clear-thinking pieces I've seen on the subject, which means, unfortunately, pessimistic with respect to Lebanese independance. I entirely agree that Syria has little to fear from the West, and will continue to eat up all the diplomatic doggie treats thrown its way while doing everything it can to destabilize the situation.

I've also come to the same tentative conclusion that is expressed in the article, that a Syrian hegemony might not be the worst possible fate for Lebanon. A lot worse than an independant, secular state, but a lot better than, say, a Shia theocracy. This may be defeatist thinking, but it's also realistic.

Posted by: MarkC at November 24, 2006 02:52 AM

How can there be a Shite theocracy when Shia in Lebanon make up only 30% of the population at most, is just doesn't make sense.

Posted by: Omega80 at November 24, 2006 03:25 AM

hizbullah knows that its determination and willingness to sacrifice more than makes up for any numerical disadvantage. any opposition that tries to stand up against them will be eventually crushed. after bringing war to lebanon this summer and suffering no negative consequences as a result, who is there anywhere that will (and can) stand up to/withstand nasrallah? his fighters are ready to die for the privilege of sacrificing for nasrallah, as opposed to anyone else who wants "peace".

every member of hizbullah is willing to die for its cause, but not for lebanon. unfortunately, the rest of lebanon has neither the will nor the ability to overcome its terminal illness of hizbullah.

which is why nasrallah must go now. otherwise he will become a leading member of the lebanese government and even more untouchable.

Posted by: mike at November 24, 2006 04:41 AM

Apparently someone doesn't know it's really stupid to forge messages from the owner of the webserver.

Posted by: rosignol at November 24, 2006 05:35 AM

A more apt analogy than the Indian Ocean tsumami imho is Europe in 1914, with Iran as Germany. Same over-the-top rethoric, same strategic overreach, same paranoia, same obsession with getting 'respect' (ya gotta earn it, mullah-head). Germany had its industrial strength and its 'kultur', Iran is not as developed but it does have billions in oil revenues.

Posted by: NoSleep at November 24, 2006 06:07 AM

Yes Rosignol,

There's apparently no limit to the stupidity of the conspiracy-Syria-is-innocent crowd.

Posted by: JoseyWales at November 24, 2006 06:23 AM

BTW Raja, author of the linked piece,

If you read this, Excellent piece but can you please turn off comment moderation? What's the idea? Can't you just delete or block abusers?

PS Sorry for the side issue MJT

Posted by: JoseyWales at November 24, 2006 06:27 AM

The Lebanese are dreaming if they think Israel or the US is going to take on Syria militarily. For Israel there is zero possible gain from this. Granted, the best outcome for Israel is a stable democracy in Lebanon allied with the west. But "political engineering" is very difficult in the middle east and Israel is not confident at all that it can obtain the required results by meddling. One assasination changes everything. So as an Israeli, given the low chances of success and the high risks, am I willing to send our soldiers or participate in this kind of adventure? A large majority of Israelis will say no.

Is a civil war in Lebanon bad for Israel? I don't think so. HA will have to come out into the open and will be weakened. In the south they will have to work around UNIFIL which is another headache for HA. It is a fact that with HA busy with the Sunnis and Christians, it will have less time for Israel. Also, in a climate of civil war, there will be many Lebanese that would be happy to help Israel against HA.

Therefore, any kneecapping or other wishful thinking about an attack by Israel on Syria is misplaced. Asad is a selfish dictator ruling over a decaying country. No need to weaken him further or replace him with a highly motivated Muslim Brotherhood.

I am sorry for the extremely cynical view, but Israel has learned that it is quite limited in what it can achieve in Lebanon. In addition, the Israeli public will not support any war that is not clearly preemptive or for self defense. Let the Lebanese figure this one out for themselves. They know where to find us if they need something :)

e

Posted by: e at November 24, 2006 06:33 AM

e,

For Israel there is zero possible gain from this.

Really? I submit to you that Israel could have avoided the kidnapping of its soldiers, and the whole Lebanon war, and its (Israeli) dead, and rocket shipments to Hezbollah with a couple of yearly bombing raids on Syrian assets (better yet on the leadership itself).

Posted by: JoseyWales at November 24, 2006 06:51 AM

For the west to secure "peace in our time" Israel may have to give up land taken from Syria in exchange for the Syrian state to recognize Israel.
-won't happen.
Syria may be lock stepping its way into the abyss with their Persian puppet master.
As long as the French peacekeepers sleep safely at night in their beds while hezbo's resupply outside their widowsill, nothing changes as was UN mandated .

Posted by: Airedale at November 24, 2006 07:02 AM

Joesy Wales,

"Really? I submit to you that Israel could have avoided the kidnapping of its soldiers, and the whole Lebanon war, and its (Israeli) dead, and rocket shipments to Hezbollah with a couple of yearly bombing raids on Syrian assets (better yet on the leadership itself)"

I don't think so. More accurately, I don't know and lack the confidence that anyone in Israel can predict the outcome of such actions. Look, in all aspects of "political engineering" Israel has dismally failed in Lebanon and the US in Iraq. We lack intricate understanding of the players and are not ruthless enough.

Our worst nightmare is Syria turning into a failed state like Lebanon. At least the Syrian border is quiet and it is clear who is responsible and will pay the price if it isn't. Why should we change this?

Israel really doesn't need peace. We need security. Peace would be nice to have but not essential. We have what we need on the Syrian border and there is no need to shake the boat especially if you can't predict what will happen.

For Israel, Asad is excellent (relative to the alternatives). He is a selfish bastard that is intimidated by Israel. Yes, he hosts Mashal and other terrorists, and lets the Iranians move weapons into Lebanon. But he is a realist, unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and HA who are bona fide crazy religious zealots. In the middle east, things do not get better, especially when Israel or the US try making them so.

Let the Lebanese, UN and the French take care of this one. Maybe they know something we don't.

e

Posted by: e at November 24, 2006 07:28 AM

e:
"Israel really doesn't need peace. We need security. Peace would be nice to have but not essential. We have what we need on the Syrian border and there is no need to shake the boat especially if you can't predict what will happen."

This is old thinking that worked like a charm in the past, but no more. There are three factors that are opening a hole the size of a Merkava tank in this theory. Factor 1: Demographics are clearly working against Israel. There are more unemployed angry arab young men and and there are fewer Jewish people willing to emigrate to Israel, in fact some of them are leaving Israel. The demographics are a tidal wave. Factor 2: Availability of more and more sophisticated weaponry to smaller and smaller groups of terrorists. Hezbollah can bomb Haifa and maybe even Tel Aviv and the Israeli army was nearly powerless to stop it. On current trends, smaller groups than Hezbollah, more shadowy, with an unknown leadership and no known address, could inflict similar or worse damage. Factor 3: US demographic shifts will make the US more sympathetic to the arabs over the mid term. Israel needs friends. The Europeans are clueless and the Americans are far away and slowly shifting. But there are potentially a lot of friendly locals.

Conclusion: Israel must sue for peace soon before it's too late, but not with dictator-thugs. Better give arab democracy an honest chance, even if it's a long shot.

Posted by: NoSleep at November 24, 2006 08:15 AM

For the west to secure "peace in our time" Israel may have to give up land taken from Syria in exchange for the Syrian state to recognize Israel. Won't happen

I agree. They Syrians may want the Golan back, but they are not willing to pay the diplomatic price for it, i.e. peace and recognition with Israel. Hafez al-Assad had an opportunity in 1999 to get the Golan back, and he balked. Syria's raison d'etra is to act as the spearhead of Arab rejectionism vis-a-vis Israel. Making peace with Israel would deprive Syria of this “honor.”

Syria may be lock stepping its way into the abyss with their Persian puppet master.
As long as the French peace keepers sleep safely at night in their beds while hezbo's resupply outside their widowsill, nothing changes as was UN mandated

It appears so, especially considering the two have a mutual defense pact (if fights Israel, both fight Israel).

As for the French, words can't describe my utter disgust at their behavior in Lebanon as so-called peacekeepers. In effect they are helping Hezbollah against Israel. Hezb smuggles in weapons and flaunts the cease fire, yet the French do nothing. Because nobody is preventing the Hezb. from rearming, Israel feels obliged to monitor the situation from the air. When they do that, however, the French threaten to fire on them. Just when you think they can't get any lower, they do. If they fear for the safety of their troops they should never have gotten involved in the first place.

Posted by: Zak at November 24, 2006 08:32 AM

NoSleep,
I totally disagree with your analysis.
1) Demographics is not an issue whatsoever. What are the angry Arabs going to do? March across the border? In any case, peace is not going to get those Arabs jobs or make them like Israel. Case in point: Egypt.
2) As for sophisticated weapons in the hands of small groups it is the Europeans that need to be worried about this more than us. A rocket in Paris is more impressive than one in Haifa and it is better to fight the French than us. In any case, we are developing our own counter technology including a heavy investment in nanotech. If worst comes to worst, we will take of the gloves and fight WWII style. This is not a game the Arabs want to play with us.
3) The Americans will only dislike Arabs more as time goes on, especially if there are successful terrorist attacks in Europe or the US.
4) I don't beleive in democracy in the Arab world in the next 100 years. Make the Lebanese experiment work and maybe I will become more optimistic.

e

Posted by: e at November 24, 2006 08:52 AM

Someone pretended to be me in a comment above. That person's comment has been deleted, and the IP Address of the offender is blocked.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 24, 2006 09:19 AM

e
Hubris and delusion. Who do you fight if an anonymous bomb goes off in an urban center? Which country do you bomb first? And after you've done that, who do you bomb if it happens again and again? I don't wish any of this on anyone, but we live in different times, requiring different solutions.

Posted by: NoSleep at November 24, 2006 09:20 AM

Well, the Israeli commentator has his head up his rectum, because the Boy President is helping Hezboallah rearm precisely to shake down the Golan from the Israelis.

Israel will be attacked from three sides: Gaza, the Territories, and of course, Lebanon. There is a good chance that the Boy President will chime in on the heights with his own missile troops if he believes Olmert to be as feckless as he was last summer.

What people don't realize was the importance of the Gemayel assassination. It had the air of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand about it. As if there can't be going back after Gemayel's killing.
The Boy President was clearing the decks for something much bigger later on. He intends to swallow up Lebanon as a client state, with the help of Nasrallah and his Persian patrons. It's part of the Big Deal he's got with his senior partner in Tehran. Killing a Gemayel was supposed to send a message of intimidation.

Think of the Gemayel assassination as the first shot of the Second Round. I saw that immediately.

All of this hinges on the Americans and the Israelis doing absolutely nothing. What if the conventional wisdom is wrong?

What's Bush got to lose by getting tough on the Syrians? The next election?

Posted by: section9 at November 24, 2006 09:24 AM

E: At least the Syrian border is quiet and it is clear who is responsible and will pay the price if it isn't. Why should we change this?

South Lebanon is the Syrian border. And it isn't quiet.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 24, 2006 09:26 AM

Section9,

Your thought;

What's Bush got to lose by getting tough on the Syrians? The next election?

Does carry far more weight than most realize.

Sweeping Rummy under the rug and other moves do seem more like looking out for the next election more than paying attention to our principles for today.

There is bound to be a big bump in oil delivery in the next year and a half, hitting our economy HARD.

Pussy footing, pulling punches is just giving the timing to Ahmadinejad and Hizbullah.

IT*s as though the West and the EU are just trying to be stupid. = TG

Posted by: TG at November 24, 2006 10:07 AM

There is bound to be a big bump in oil delivery in the next year and a half, hitting our economy HARD.

Well, not our economy, TG, the US economy. A spike in oil prices would likely bring a lot of money into Canada.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 24, 2006 10:44 AM

My guess is that ultimately Israel will have to try and 'kneecap' Assad. Reasons. 1) Historically, new Arab rulers were reckless with Israel. It usually took a war or two to calm them down. 2) Hitting at Syria will be the way to weaken Iran. A head-on collision with Iran would not be very clever, and I suspect that both sides agree on that.

However, this Israel-Syria conflict will not take place now. The current leadership here is too demoarlized and internally divided; and Olmert seems to be incapable of thinking beyond his own narrow interests. So it will have to wait for a reshuffle of politics in Israel, and period of reorganization.

And even then the outcome of such a conflict is far from certain. One reason is that Iran is a type of rival that Israel never had before. It combines the power and sophistication of the USSR with the ideological commitment of the Arab states. Another reason is the internal fragility of Syria itself. Its regime may not survive the war, and (paradoxically) this would be an Israeli defeat as well, because the new regime will again be an untried and therefore aggressive one.

Which of course leaves the March 14 coalition pretty much on their own now.

Posted by: Disk on Key at November 24, 2006 11:17 AM

What happens if Siniora appoints Pierre Gemayel's replacement tomorrow? Will Lahoud have the gall to block that?

Posted by: Bruno Mota at November 24, 2006 12:50 PM

NoSleep,
Your comment is pertinent to the US and Europe. They are a more attractive and softer targets than Israel. If there is a world wide coalition fighting these guys, that is another matter. Israel would be happy to take part. Hubris? Not at all. Lead the way (America and Europe) and we will follow. But don't expect us to take risks for everybody else and especially the Lebanese. Show us just ONE example of a functioning and stable Arab democracy and make us believers. Otherwise, the preaching is ridiculous. I am not willing to sacrifice the life of Israelis for some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If anybody wants to fight the Syrians and think it will help, be my guest. If it is up to me, Israel is going to sit this one out unless we are attacked directly.

Michael,
There is a distinction between the Syrian border and the Lebanese border. As you know, Asad has to distance himself from any violence towards Israel. That is why he needs proxies. A Syrian proxy is not credible. He needs to find weak governments that cannot control local militias. Once he is in direct control of south Lebanon, this will change. That is why Israel would look favorably at an option where for example Lebanon is divided or federalized and the south is in Syrian control or even part of Syria. That would be a stable solution. On the other hand, what good to Israel is an almost democratic Lebanon that cannot control HA and other militias?

e

Posted by: e at November 24, 2006 01:12 PM

Show us just ONE example of a functioning and stable Arab democracy and make us believers. (e)

It's at the other end of the Arab world, but Morocco has come on leaps and bounds over the past decade. Yes, I know some of the Madrid bombers were from Morocco, but it's also the Arab country where opinion polls have shown the least sympathy to Islamic terrorism.

Algeria has come out of a bloody civil war with relatively free elections and the prospect of a stable economy and society

Qatar and Kuwait have both had some democratic reforms and even Saudi Arabia had local elections for the first time (which, true, brought in Islamists)

Mauritania had elections earlier this week

OK, so none of these are 'democracies' in a Western European or North American sense but they do show progress has been made in some parts, and the view of the Arab world being ruled completely by tin pot dictators and / or extremists is far from the mark.

Posted by: Dirk at November 24, 2006 01:41 PM

e,

I completly understand the cynical view. I'd probably think along those lines too if I were Israeli. But let me remind you that the civil war in Lebanon idea was already tried in 1975-1990. At the time, Israel's problem was the PLO. Take your first post, replace the word HA with PLO, and you'd find the situation is exactly the same. Some Lebanese would ally with Israel, some wouldn't. Same song and dance. Syria would interfere and find an excuse to reoccupy parts of Lebanon.

And we all know the previous civil war did not, in the end, do Israel any good. No reason to think this time would be any different.

Posted by: bad vilbel at November 24, 2006 01:47 PM

Sorry, e -- I just keep seeing Iran getting a nuke and Tel Aviv going mushroom -- and THEN Israel replying with WW III attacks on most Arab capitals.

Or, to avoid this, Israel has to do something pre-emptively. Israel has failed to impose democracy on Palestinians. It's hard to imagine Israel being any "softer" in the face of such hatred and continued terrorist attacks.

I suggest Israel prepare for a LOT more apeshit bombing / land invasion of Lebanon >> but switch against Syria. With "temporary annexation" for local democracy training from the Golan thru Damascus.

Not to save Lebanon, to avoid the Tel Aviv mushroom. If any in Leb. fight HA, Israel should join in.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 24, 2006 02:09 PM

Dirk,

Based on freedomhouse.org Morocco is in the "partly free" category with a 4.5 ranking together with Kuwait, Lebanon and Jordan.
In order to get a feel for their ranking, Yemen and Mauritania are in the group below them at 5 and Nigeria in the group above at 4. The worst score is 7 and of course Syria is there with Sudan and North Korea among others.

Algeria and Qatar are at 5.5 squarely in the "not free" category (with Egypt, Oman, Tunisia and Iraq).

No Arab country is ranked higher than 4.5. For heaven's sake, Albania, East Timor and Niger are 3's.

If these are the best examples you have...

In my opinion, it will take the Arab states decades to reach a level nearing a decent liberal democracy. In any case, if you think it will happen sooner, I am all for it. Let's wait patiently.

e

Primary source:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=267&year=2006

Posted by: e at November 24, 2006 02:10 PM

BV,
First, I hope there will be no civil war in Lebanon. If it happens, this time things will be different. At first, the war will flush out the HA and make them much easier targets for Israel. Second, if somebody we can't make a deal with will try taking over the south, the security zone will return. Even though I was all for it at that time, we made a stupid mistake leaving south Lebanon. Next time, we are going to learn from our mistakes. Israelis including me have learned, that 10-15 soldiers a year dead is a painful but necessary sacrifice for Israel in order to maintain a security zone in Lebanon.
Had we stayed in south Lebanon in 2000, we wouldn't have had to deal with all the bunkers and other crap. In any case, as we know now, HA will always find an excuse to attack us and not disarm so why try to be nice?

e

Posted by: e at November 24, 2006 02:23 PM

Tom,
How is the Iranian bomb connected to Syria? I fail to see how attacking Syria will stop the Iranians. Israel may or may not attack Iran, but it is another matter all together.

Regarding, helping to fight HA, anyone who needs help in Lebanon knows where to find us. We will certainly listen to what he or she has to say.

e

Posted by: e at November 24, 2006 02:27 PM

Lebanese Girl:

http://ikbis.com/beirut%20girl/shot/1300

OK -- THIS is what it's all about. Democracies have to be willing to die, so this person can do this anytime she wants, without interference or persecution. (It's not dirty, it's just FUN, and full of spirit, and hope, and JOY)

Posted by: DemocracyRules at November 24, 2006 06:47 PM

DemocracyRules,

I enjoyed that video immensely. Didn't even have to bother with the English button. I know you had some text following the URL, but my eyes couldn't really focus too well to read it after the video, not surprisingly. Interesting how she incorporates a few hip-hop movements into that ancient artform. Thanks for perking up a rather bland Friday early evening around my house.

Posted by: allan at November 24, 2006 07:39 PM

Lebanon:
Main players; 5 photos;
Walid Jublatt, Fouad Siniora, Michael Aoun, Nabin Berri, Saad Hariri.

Who is Pro Syria and who is con Syria.

Its great when someone puts Three pages together so you can see the plot and who the players are for, fairly clearly.

www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3331769,00.html

= TG

PS, paste and print for reference. = instant pro.

Posted by: TG at November 24, 2006 09:42 PM

e

No way did Israel make a mistake leaving south Lebanon. If there's one thing the last fifty years of history has taught us, it's that occupation as a military strategy is a guaranteed loser. Democratic societies (as well as non-democratic ones) cannot bear long-term attrition associated with being an occupier. If you're being occupied, on the other hand, your staying power resisting the occupation is unlimited. The occupier is constantly weakened while the resistance is strengthened.

Bad dynamic. Stay away.

Posted by: MarkC at November 24, 2006 10:47 PM

e -- Israel attacking Syria takes out an Iranian ally and the conduit from Iran to Hez.
If Iran gets a bomb, and then Hez gets one (from no way to prove where), Hez can more easily destroy Tel Aviv/ Haifa.
Could Israel retaliate?

But permanent occupation is a loser; some form of Free Speech / Free Religion, with local elections and local police control, needs to be part of any temporary occupation.

On the other hand, assassination seems to be in style, maybe Israel should start using it more, but more secretly? Not merely Israeli bombs, but Mossad-paid Palestinians/ Lebanese/ Syrians?

I'm not happy with this, but less happy with the non-responses leading to Iranian and then terrorist nukes.

I really don't understand/ know enough about Israel's wimpy occupation of the Palestinian West Bank. Who is in charge of prosecuting criminals who murder, for instance, press people trying to write real articles critical of the PLO?

It seems an excessively "light hand" by Israel means they get the blame for a lack of security, but have no power to punish the guilty criminal/ insurgents.

Yet another option -- big bombing, short, sharp occupation, then retreat. Like in S. Leb.
Maybe the anti-Hez folk will get tired of war and destruction. Perhaps if Israel wants to try this again, then should ship all the cars they can capture back to Israel, in partial compensation for Hez destruction.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 25, 2006 02:17 AM

MarkC,
Because Israel left Lebanon, HA was able to build its bunkers. What you say is generally true, but each case needs to be looked at in detail. After the second intifada Israel optimized the checkpoint system. It would take me a long post to describe it. Suffice to say that while south Lebanon is very difficult to fight in, it is almost optimal for checkpoint type occupation. We can divide it into isolated sectors that would make HA's work very very difficult. Of course the population would suffer, but at this point I am sad to say it is a less critical point.
e

Posted by: e at November 25, 2006 07:51 AM

"What's Bush got to lose by getting tough on the Syrians? The next election?"

Political capital. To do anything he'll have to fight the Democrat party, half of the Republican party, 90% of the US media, 99% of the European media, and 99% of the UN, and a very vocal chunk of the US population. It would have to a quick and brutal strike and would have to have the right results.

"My guess is that ultimately Israel will have to try and 'kneecap' Assad."

It seems that this might be an option if Isreal is willing to risk workwide condemnation. Bush might give them a secret thumbs-up, but that's about it. Would Isreal care about that?

If Assad goes down would Syria collapse from infighting? Would Iran help push it over? Or would there be a smooth turnover of power? Didn't one of you say that the new boss would flex his muscles by attacking Isreal?

Rummie: I think the reason that Bush didn't announce Rummie's firing before the elections is that the announcement would have been like throwing bloody meat into the shark tank. Regardless of whether the firing was right or wrong, the media feeding frenzy would have been extreme.

In my opinion, it will take the Arab states decades to reach a level nearing a decent liberal democracy. In any case, if you think it will happen sooner, I am all for it. Let's wait patiently.

What does the "typical Arab" want in regards to democracy?

"How is the Iranian bomb connected to Syria? I fail to see how attacking Syria will stop the Iranians."

I've read alsewhere that, logisticly, attacking Iran would be difficult for the Isrealis (Jet range and such.) Would attacking Iran's proxies, despite the inevitable worldwide condemnation, send a useful message to Iran?

Posted by: Greg at November 25, 2006 02:51 PM

SOLUTION: DEPOSE ASSAD PEACEFULLY
email, phone, mail, blog post, asking Israel, US, UK, France, Italy, and/or Canada to: Drop 12 small GPS guided bombs 30 metres from Assad’s bedroom, on his palace grounds. Give him 24 hrs notice before hand. Then drop the 12 bombs, 2 minutes apart, all in exactly the same grassy spot. No injuries, just a very deep hole, spectacularly drilled. Then give Assad 24 hrs to be in Tunisia, where he can live the rest of his life. Something similar worked for Khadaffy (because psychopaths fear only for themselves). Ask big blogs to help. No secrecy needed: publish the date in advance, vote on it in the Knesset, or wherever.

Posted by: DemocracyRules at November 25, 2006 08:20 PM
Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn