A "muscular", big-stick policy requires that you have a credible big stick to wield. Do the neocons and the Radical Right really think that they can fight wars in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea simultaneously?

Cranky

Mr. Observer, the entire point of this "Syria roundup" is to express the idea that a sort of domino effect is taking place in the Middle East due to Iraq. Certain oppressed populations seem to be growing backbones.

Therefore, it seems that the "neocons and the Radical Right" believe that they will not have to fight a war in Syria or Iran (or North Korea, I suspect, for entirely different reasons).

So in answer to your question, No.

While I know that the neocons love to claim credit for anything good that happens in the Middle East (or worldwide for that matter) as emanating from Iraq while refusing to acknowledge the costs of Iraq ($300 B and counting, 1500 American lives, even greater hate for America in the ME, the Abu Ghari scandal, general dislike for America every where in the world), it still mind-boggling to claim that this represents the oppressed populations growning backbone. A previous premier of Lebanon, a billionare can in no way be called an oppressed population (then again, maybe in the Bush canon, billionares are oppressed by definition).

It need hardly be added that a great deal of the oppressed populations in the Middle East are actually populations that hate the United States ...

But in response to Dan's comment

"emocratizing Iraq won't be easy. But the conditions aren't nearly as barren as these experts suggest, and the potential upside is enormous. If a democratic transition were to succeed in Iraq, then Syria, suddenly surrounded by established democracies (Israel and Turkey) and emerging democracies (Iraq and Jordan), might start to feel nervous as well."

So Syria which has 2 democracies around it, and one emerging democracy in Jordan (and actually, Lebanon has some democratic instituions as well) will start to feel nervous because maybe with a great deal of effory we might build one more democracy ? This is the great advantage from this ruinous war -- that Syria might feel nervous ?

Incidentally, is there any possibility that the US could exploit the anti-Syrian sentiment caused by this action to get Syria out of Lebanon ? I know we don't want a civil war (well, the neocons don't care because that idea doesn't enter their brilliant minds), but there may be a way to support anti-Syrian groups without getting into a bloody civil war.

Back after a long hiatus. I note the comments section has gone the way of most such facilities, and has become a resort for...well, you know what I mean. How long before comments are no longer welcome on this otherwise excellent site? Just wondering.

erg: There is no need to support the anti-Syrian political forces in Lebanon. US policy has held that Syria should withdraw from Lebanon in accordance with the Taef accords. Israeli withdrawl efforts were contingent on the Syrian withdrawl. As Israel has long demonstrated their compliance with this accord, the US has remained steadfast in pressuring Syria to comply with its obligations.

The only Syrian hand they play is that the Lebanese government has not asked the Syrians to leave. This is true. It is slowly morphing to "this was true".

UNSC resolution 1559 was passed narrowly with nine votes in favor(US-France draft). There were 6 abstentations to support the Lebanese mission's opposition to the resolution(China-Russia inclusive). The Lebanese mission objected to the resolution on the basis that they did not request the resolution.

After the elections it was obvious that the Syrians continued to interfere in the Lebanese elections. Perhaps they were banking on another UNSC division that Iraq had played. Once the election results were copnfirmed the Syrian opposition grew stronger with the addition of Rafiq al-Hariri.

The last 6 months have seen a shift of Lebanese politics over to the positions held by the United States, Israel and France as applicable to Syria. The policy is to leave Lebanon. Extract the troop presence and cease all intelligence and security manipulation in Beirut to temp the Israelis.

In my opinion it would be the king of bad moves if Syria is responsible for the assassination. While plausible, I think Iran had the motive and the protection to engage in this kind of strike. It makes little sense for other capable intelligence agencies to target al-Hariri.

The clear cut result of this assassination is that the Syrians face a mounting opposition in Lebanon. The Lebanese Opposition is blaming the Syrians whether they conducted the strike or not. The Syrians, as kingpins in Beirut, are culpable as accessories to the strike and the Lebanese undertand this.

Are you telling me that after decades of stagnation spent railing about a pissant border war between the Palestinians and Israel, all the rumblings in the Middle East are NOT part of the greater plan of the Neo-Cons? I think the war in Iraq's greatest accomplishment will be to shake up an area of the world that still seems reluctant to emerge from the dark ages. Whether this shake-up will benefit the US in the long run, of course, remains to be seen. Keep your fingers crossed that Bush's wild-ass, bloody schemes actually pay off. I always thought making OBL irrelevant would be a greater vengeance then simple death. (I'd happily accept either eventuality, thank you very much.)

"Yesterday's bombing calls into question the stated reason behind this presence of Syrian security forces: Lebanon's internal security," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at a Washington news conference announcing the recall of Ambassador Margaret Scobey

My God, doesn't anybody see the irony. Boucher expects that the occupation force comply with its stated reason for being an occupier.

Meanwhile to more Americans reported killed in Eye-rack today.

Seriously. What's with the regressive naysayers?

Excellent article.

Question: Has anyone formally laid claim to responsibility for the assassination?

And if not, why not? This was not some minor functionary, after all, but both a political and economic leader.

And does the fact that this was in Lebanon, putative location of WMD in Iraq, putative location of "victory" over the Israelis (through their voluntary withdrawal from South Lebanon), and actual location of repeated successful attacks on the US (US embassy, US Marine barracks) mean anything in particular?

Is there a nascent anti-Syrian movement afoot? And who, precisely, supports the Syrian presence in Lebanon? And where did this politico fit in?

The sometimes-right and always-entertaining Debka has a "report" that is worthy of Tom Clancy, but also has a ring of plausibility. According to that site, Hariri and two other major Lebanese opposition figures had been about to announce a major new political platform (which was to include expelling Syria and making a separate peace with Israel) in preparation for the upcoming elections. And the US was supposedly helping (though what useful assets we have in Lebanon I don't know). Syria understood the potential threat -- ie, a more realistic political threat in Lebanon than it has faced in years -- and responded by assassinating Hariri.

Far-fetched, certainly, but it has been puzzling to me why the US was willing and able to pin the blame so quickly on Syria. And moreover, it would not be unprecedented for the US to try to foment change through the local political process (as in Ukraine).

"Seriously. What's with the regressive naysayers?"

Worried Bush (and the "Neo-Cons") might be succeeding, as usual.

It's going to be a rough four years.

The politically instananeous way the assassination backfired on the Baathist regime with such devastating impact and effect emphatically exposes the reality of Syria's rapidly diminishing loss of power and influence.

The assassination was Syria's (last?) desperate attempt to shore up its grip on Lebanon and the region but has ironically done quite the opposite.

Let's connect the dots. Sadaam's Baathists and the Taliban, two of the world's most odious regimes, have been ousted and their countries have held textbook democratic elections; the Libyans have cried "uncle" and turned over their nuclear toys; Osama is making guest appearances spouting Michael Moorisms and looking like he's making a travelogue; Israel and the Palestinians at least appear to be making the hard decisions that must be made; the Syrians are about to be booted out of Lebanon; and the Iranians are looking fearfully over their shoulders at the prospect of their nuclear plants being turned into parking lots.

How can anyone, save the most chronically-politically-constipated, fail to see the transformative nature of what's going on?

Clap louder, people!

Israel and the Palestinians at least appear to be making the hard decisions that must be made;

Nothing to do with the war in Iraq, despite what the neocons promised us (the road to peace in Palestine lies through Iraq) -- this has to do with the serendiptious death of Arrafat

the Syrians are about to be booted out of Lebanon;

But Hezbollah is as powerful as ever even if that happens (and whether it will is unclear)

and the Iranians are looking fearfully over their shoulders at the prospect of their nuclear plants being turned into parking lots.

Yes, they really seem to be quavering in their boots now. That must be why they promised support to Syria today.

How can anyone, save the most chronically-politically-constipated, fail to see the transformative nature of what's going on?

How can someone other than the most Pollyanaish neocon fail to see how the war in Iraq has harmed, not helped the situation in the Middle East ? American prestige and credibility has been dnamaged severely by the absence of WMDs and by Au Gharib. We have added another reason for angry young men in the ME to hate us with that invasion, and probably rejuvenated Al Qaeda with that action. The Iranian mullahs have actually gone backwards (and Iran really had made some progress towards a democracy before then, despite some neocons claiming they brought democracy to the Middle East). We will probably end up with an Iraq that is friendly with Iran.

And the recent violence in Lebanon -- I still fail to see how this can be considered a positive step in any way. Obviously it exposes Syria's hypocrisy, but thats a far way from fixing it.

But hey, it only cost or will cost half a trillion dollars. A frigging bargain.

"Seriously. What's with the regressive naysayers?"

I see it now, being concerned that this may presage more violence in the still not completely resolved Lebanese civil war is being a nay-sayer.

"Worried Bush (and the "Neo-Cons") might be succeeding, as usual."

This is clearly some definition of the term success with which I was previously not acquainted. An assasination of a major pro-American figure is not exactly a success, but it does fit into the pattern of the Bush administration which gave us such brilliant successes as Iraq.

I think he was assassinated by Karl Rove. Talk about a blinding light on the road to Damascus.

If we discover forensic evidence - and the actual status of the group which claimed responsibility for the bombing - then this will point us in the direction of the perps:

IF the neojihadist group that claimed the hit is real, and IF it was a suicide bomber, THEN it was done by IRAN (because they are more neojihadist than Syria which is actually run by non-Muslims/Alawites).

IF the group is phony, and IF the bomb was remotely detonated, THEN the hit was done by Syria.
Sure: Syria does have some contacts with neojihadists - like Hizb'allah, BUT Syria only uses Hizb'aalah for selfish geopolitical aims (contra-Israel); whereas Iran uses Hizb'allah for international jihad.

Whoever did it should get whacked for a week with cruise missiles until their military - and any/all suspected WMD sites in their territory - are GONZO.

I'm gong to go a little Clancy-esque here as well: Is there a reason Iran wouldn't want to assassinate Hariri knowing Syria would look like the most probable suspect, so to drag Syria out into the targets of the US firepower next door? It'd slow down any US military plans for a few months, and would spread the US mil out too far to realize a new two-front war launched primarily from an already occupied country. This gives Iran a little more time to both finish up on their nukes and keep up the chaos in Iraq.

I think if I were Syria's President Assad, I'd be a little upset with my new partner in the "Common Front" right now.

Cranky:

One carrier group for each is overkill with precision weapons available.

I had had some skepticism that Syria was behind Hariri's murder, despite evident local opinion. It just seemed like an awfully big risk with an uncertain payoff for Syria in the best case and a big potential downside.

But this "common front" with Iran is dissolving my skepticism. Syria, steadily having lost its other friends, may gradually be getting dragged into pursuing Iranian interests for fear of becoming completely isolated if it doesn't. Renewal of the Lebanese civil war, after all, would be of dubious value at most to Syria -- but the civil war gave birth to Hezbollah and still inspirits its patrons in Tehran.

The downside for Tehran in killing Hariri isn't evident. Fortunately there are a lot more people inside and outside of Lebanon who want the same things that we do there than there are on the other side. But the core of our problem may be that the Iranian clerics feel secure enough to resume pursuing adventures in places like Lebanon, because their domestic opposition has lost momentum. We need to find ways to correct this -- Iran is a big country, with a lot of people who have no great interest in mucking around with Lebanese politics, supporting terrorism generally, or for that matter not being able to do anything the mullahs don't want them to.

It need hardly be added that a great deal of the oppressed populations in the Middle East are actually populations that hate the United States ...

It need hardly be added that they love everything about the U.S. except our gov't policies, which they are told to hate by their own state media in order to blame their relative poverty on someone besides themselves.

It also need hardly be added that Bush has freed 50 million people from tyranny and has given them democracy -- which frightens those states even more.

How can someone other than the most Pollyanaish neocon fail to see how the war in Iraq has harmed, not helped the situation in the Middle East ?

How can someone but the most deluded and shortsighted liberal not understand that short-term chaos is the price the price of long-term freedom and democracy in the region?

and Iran really had made some progress towards a democracy before then
Yeah, the mullahs were this close to letting go of power.

But hey, it only cost or will cost half a trillion dollars. A frigging bargain.

How much did 9/11 cost? The only way to prevent more 9/11s is to bring freedom and democracy to the Mideast.

One carrier group for each is overkill with precision weapons available.Posted by talldave
Ah, yes, the famous "shock and awe." So tell again, how well did that work in Iraq? Did it "shock and awe" all those insurgents?

How can anyone, save the most chronically-politically-constipated, fail to see the transformative nature of what's going on? Posted by Jack Lipkins
Yes the Bush method of replacing anti-American dictatorships with pro-American "democratically" elected dictatorships is advancing spendidly. Now, remind me, who won the Iraqi elections and who besides Bush lost? I'll give you a hint: the religious fundamentalists anti-Americans won, the Iraqi people lost, especially Iraqi women who are losing their secular freedoms.

As for the responsibility for the bombing, the simple question is who benefits? Anyone beside Israel and the United States? Note the suspicious alacrity with which the US withdrew its ambassador and blamed Syria without a shred of evidence. There is no firm evidence as yet, but the bloody hands of the usual troublemakers cannot be eliminated.

I've never been more proud to be a Bush supporter, Republican, and Neocon.

Statements such as, "The Carter administration issued a strongly-worded statement condeming Syria's occupation of Lebanon," don't mean sh*t.

Replace one word, the word "Carter" with the word "Bush", and suddenly when you read that statement you can honestly believe that, one way or another, the days of Syrian troops in Lebanon are coming to an end.

Today's news is important for Neocons because of the reaction. Lebanese resentment of Syrian occupation will allow us to make alliances there as we did in Afghanistan. In a war against Syrian occupation, most Lebanese would be our allies, if we play our politics correctly before the shooting starts.

This, in turn, pulls the rug out from under Hezbollah, whom newly resurgent Lebanese nationalists will link with Syrian aggression.

Thus when our plan comes to fruition there will be one less safe haven for terrorists.

Yes, I can read all that into a "strongly worded statement", but only because the person making that statement is George W. Bush.

That's why I'm a Republican.

Hey "erg", I'm confused, perhaps you can enlighten me. Aside from the Democratic Party and any credibility the Left had with the American people, what has this "ruinous war" actually ruined?

Sorry folks, guess I shouldn't let the nutcases get my goat like that.

Adding "neocon" to my lists of words and phrases that shut down the debate and indicate the speaker is either of below-average intelligence or entirely not willing to actually debate and would rather free speech not apply to anyone he or she disagrees with.

Also on that list:
"war for oil"
"[person's name] is just like Hitler" (see: Godwin's Law)
"Bushies"
"Zionist conspiracy"
...oh the list goes on and on...

What's with the "neocon" label? We've always been conservative. Or don't you know the meaning of neo?

The Debka report is intriguing. My history may be a little fuzzy, but didn't Lebanon's announced intention to make peace with Israel immediately precede the 1982 assasination of incoming President Bashir Gemayel? If my recollection is accurate, the parallel would appear to be striking.

Ken

How soon before Godwin's Law has a "neocon" addendum?

Zathras wrote:

But this "common front" with Iran is dissolving my skepticism. Syria, steadily having lost its other friends, may gradually be getting dragged into pursuing Iranian interests for fear of becoming completely isolated if it doesn't.

...which is exactly why I think Iran was behind it. By killing Assad, Syria is singled out as the sole aggressor. Syria is forced to join Iran in a "Common Front", or be left taking blame all alone (which wouldn't be good for regime longevity). Iran killed him in order to create a two-border front.

Israel and the Palestinians at least appear to be making the hard decisions that must be made;

Nothing to do with the war in Iraq, despite what the neocons promised us (the road to peace in Palestine lies through Iraq) -- this has to do with the serendiptious death of Arrafat

Well, it really has to do with both. The progress made since Arafat commenced his long conversation with Himmler makes one wonder why someone didn't whack him a decade ago -- how many lived would have been saved?

But the war in Iraq does have bearing on the recent changes. Saddam funded Palestinian terrorist groups and provided funds (among other things) for Palestinian suicide bombers. He was also quite adept at manipulating the situation there to ensure constant turmoil. This had the benefit of keeping heat off him, and also the benefit of agitating the Palestinians -- always useful if you're an Arab ruler. This is why Saddam always said that the Palestinian question had to be settled first before anything else could be done. He understood.

One might argue whether the Israel-Palestinian question can be solved today. But as long as Saddam was in power, it was an, er, academic discussion (hey, I made the jokes around here! ed. sorry, sorry ...).

Israel and the Palestinians at least appear to be making the hard decisions that must be made;

Nothing to do with the war in Iraq, despite what the neocons promised us (the road to peace in Palestine lies through Iraq) -- this has to do with the serendiptious death of Arrafat

Well, it really has to do with both. The progress made since Arafat commenced his long conversation with Himmler makes one wonder why someone didn't whack him a decade ago -- how many lived would have been saved?

But the war in Iraq does have bearing on the recent changes. Saddam funded Palestinian terrorist groups and provided funds (among other things) for Palestinian suicide bombers. He was also quite adept at manipulating the situation there to ensure constant turmoil. This had the benefit of keeping heat off him, and also the benefit of agitating the Palestinians -- always useful if you're an Arab ruler. This is why Saddam always said that the Palestinian question had to be settled first before anything else could be done. He understood.

One might argue whether the Israel-Palestinian question can be solved today. But as long as Saddam was in power, it was an, er, academic discussion (hey, I make the jokes around here! ed. sorry, sorry ...).

This whole 'neocon' epithet is getting tired. Might as well just say Jew and get it off your chest. The only way you can look at the Middle East and say it's a failure is if you totally ignore the past 30-40 years.... and it looks like some people are pretty good at it.

Dan, thanks for the article. It looks like something's abuzz in that area, and the question of the hour would be who's word do we take? Iran's pledged solidarity with Syria (we'll see if bombs start dropping), or Bush's strong words? If being a 'neocon' means I believe Bush more than the mullahs, well sign me up!

I am constantly amazed at Karl Rove's enormous reach and scope of operation. Not only did he plan and execute an assassination in Beirut, but he made it look like a joint Syrian/Iranian operation! What an evil genius.

Next he'll somehow get democrats in congress to oppose Bush's minority nominees. Then he'll get democrats to fight against social security reform and tax reform. All the while preventing democrats from generating and promoting any semblance of a coherent or workable plan on their own. Simply evil.

Saddam funded Palestinian terrorist groups and provided funds (among other things) for Palestinian suicide bombers.

True, he provided some funding for them. This is no more than several other Arab (and some non Arab regimes such as Iran) did. Probably far less money than various Saudi familiies did. Certainly far less training than Iran.

One might argue whether the Israel-Palestinian question can be solved today. But as long as Saddam was in power, it was an, er, academic discussion

Total BS. We have had progress made before, even had the Oslo accords. They didn't go anywhere after several years, but the fact is that there were many attempts made to do so. Saddam was at best an irritant, a minor inflamaatory factor in the equation. His role was limited to sending money to familtiies of Palestinanian suicide bombers and harboring the occasional ancient terrorist like the guy from the Achilles Lauro (who had as far as I remember, been pardoned by Israel under an agreement). All nasty enough but a far, far cry from claiming a major role for him in the ME.

How can someone but the most deluded and shortsighted liberal not understand that short-term chaos is the price the price of long-term freedom and democracy in the region?

How can someone who is not an utter moron so implicitly believe that short-term chaos will lead to long term freedom and democracy in the region ? It could very possibly lead to more blood and chaos.

Yeah, the mullahs were this close to letting go of power.

No one in his right mind believes that the mullahs were letting go of power. But there were signs of freedom and democracy in Iran. But then anyone who can clearly see a crystal clear democracy in Iraq and freedom, but fail to see that possibility in Iran clearly lacks the intellect and vision to see outside his or her backside.

"But hey, it only cost or will cost half a trillion dollars. A frigging bargain."

How much did 9/11 cost? The only way to prevent more 9/11s is to bring freedom and democracy to the Mideast.

Democracies have been known to have terrorists as well internally: IRA in England, Baader Meinhoff in Germany, Red Terrorists in Italy, half a dozen terror groups in India, the suicidal cult in Japan etc. But in any case, what makes someone think that the way to bring freedom and democracy is to attack Iraq rather than doing it more slowly and amethodically ?

It need hardly be added that they love everything about the U.S. except our gov't policies, which they are told to hate by their own state media in order to blame their relative poverty on someone besides themselves.

This is total and utter nonsense. Yes, it was true for Iraq, it is true for Syria and possibly for Iran (although Iran has a moderate amount of freedom of the press). In other Arab countries, the state media actually tries to tamp down anti-Americanism because their governments are often associated with America.

Al Jazeera is probably one of the freest stations in the Arab world, and it is virulently anti-American. That may give you more of an idea of what the Arab free media is likely to be. Or pakistan, which has a relatively free press, has papers that vary generally from being anti-American to viciously anti-American.

Hey "erg", I'm confused, perhaps you can enlighten me.

Delighted, me-lad.

what has this "ruinous war" actually ruined?

lets see --
1) 350 billion dollars spent, final fill unknown but probably well over $500 billion
2) 1500 American lives, 10,000 injured
3) Our credibility has been severly and possibly irreplacably damaged by the absence of WMDs, and the absence of operational links to Al Qaeda, which we touted. I realize that things such as "credibility" are strange to you, but some people do believe they're important.
4) Increased anti-American sentiment in the angry young men of that region. We can see it in the murderous morons who use suicide car bombs in Iraq.
5) The ISS and other groups believe that this has actually increased the recruitment to Al Qeada and other fringe groups.
6) Abu Gharib, no more than an aberration in a fine military record by our forces, has been blown up by demagogues to make America into a fresh target for hate.
7) Anger and dislike for America has increased greatly in practically every part of the world. Not just in West Europe or the Middle East. In traditionally friendly counries such as India, Ireland and East Europe.

Now, I believe that good can still come out of this. We can finish the job of rebuilding Iraq, given the Iraqi people a chance at a decent life and help to stabilize the Middle East. it will take blood and treasure, but it has to be done now.

The Iraq war though, has made all of our tasks in the Middle East considerably harder because we've expended resources financial, military and others in a war that was based on exaggerations and dubious intelligence at best. Those resources could have been spent more wisely to achieve the same end goal. Instead of focusing on the key trouble points: Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, we chose to essentially create involuntrarily a new trouble point.

had had some skepticism that Syria was behind Hariri's murder, despite evident local opinion. It just seemed like an awfully big risk with an uncertain payoff for Syria in the best case and a big potential downside.

One question might be how much Assad actually controls Syria. He may not have the control his father did. Its possible that there are powerful internal rivals who see things differently. Or maybe Assad was forced to go along with this because he thought that losing Lebanon would cost him his power and his head as well.

On the other hand, why commit an assasination in such a spectacular manner ? Surely, there would be less flashy ways of commiting murder [ Maybe not, if the man was well guarded].

If Harriri was actually dealing with the US, we might see some of that emerge from reporters stories in a few days.

The other possibiliy is that this is someone settling an old score.

here's an interesting article about how unrest in iraq is helping Islamic militants.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4272287.stm

Here is a direct quote

"Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism
Porter Goss
CIA director"

This is the Bush appointed CIA director speaking.

You know the poeple who read this site are way too conservative when every single world event points to some sort of proof that America is a perfect country, sharing the joys of "freedom" and "democracy" with everything it touches.

Further, it is amazing that no one even considered that Israel is the most likley country behind the killing of hariri. They are the only player in lebanon who could do such a thing and get away totally scott free. Plus, Sharon the Butcher has had his sites on Beirut for some 25 year now. He would know that an event like this would be the kind to destroy Syria, set into motion a whole host of reactions, and eventually lead to his ability to influence the politics of Lebanon (as is part of his dreams).

Even if I am not correct, that this is not even considered by the people on this site is pathetic. Israel (mixed with a wide range of dictators, but the dictators have mostly a local affect, Israel has a regional affect) is the boot on the throat of the Middle East. and for no one to see that shows a blindness that only a neocon crowd could have.

But, you know, I guess neocons know what they are doing, because, as we all realize now, they were appointed by God to rain death and destruction on the poor, weak and innocent of this world.

Terrorists do not succeed when they kill people, they succeed when they alter policy by killing people. To be successful, terrorists need allies in the countries to be affected.

When will these people (many of the commentators) stop opposing everything America does?

My motto: "When in doubt, Nuke France"

Smells like Hezzbollah did it. It's got their fignerprint. Why? Drive Syria into the arms of Iran. Seems like it worked.

As for the notion that one carrier group would be sufficient to deal with syria much less Iran or North Korea ... whoever wrote that was just plain dumb. Bomb them? Yes. But in each case there are land forces nearby that belong to us that would be terribly vulnerable to backlash.

Doesn't smell like Israel. Israel typically doesn't use suicide bombers.

Doesn't smell like Israel. Israel typically doesn't use suicide bombers.

OK, lets just add

"Sharon the Butcher" to the list as well.....

"In other Arab countries, the state media actually tries to tamp down anti-Americanism because their governments are often associated with America."

Yeah, like in Egypt, for example.

What complete and utter BS you spout.

"In other Arab countries, the state media actually tries to tamp down anti-Americanism because their governments are often associated with America."

Yeah, like in Egypt, for example.

The government of Egypt is in general considerably less anti-American than the population. Egypt has also cracked down on Islamic terrorists, thats where Zawahiri came from. Mubarak does so not out of any great love for the US but simply because he is concerned about this own position if this were to get out of hand (not to mention that he doesn't want hostilities with Israel).

What complete and utter BS you spout.

If you think that Egyptian state media is somehow more anti-American than Al Jazeera, and that there's some great wellspring of pro-American emotion just waiting to be tapped in Egypt, you're naive at best and insane at worst.

Well, first of all, I don’t think that Syria will even think about assassinating PM. Hariri. Everyone will point to Syria, as it is happening now, and Syria will lose the last thread of support.

But here is an interesting fact, in the constitution of Lebanon, the president must be Christian Catholic, the PM must be Muslim Sunni and the Head of the House of Commons must be Muslim Shiite. Now giving the fact that over 60% of the Lebanese are Muslims, I don’t believe that Lebanon will survive a year without another civil war. They need Syria, at least until they change their religion-dependent constitution.

well, i will admit that it is unlikely to be israel if indeed it was a suicide bomb. but, i have seen no proof yet that that was the case. there are many conflicting reports. but, too, if it was a suicide bomb that would also rule out syria. for that matter, there is no change that syria did this. they are not stupid, and do not have a death wish. and, i would bet that no one in lebanon seriously thinks that syria did it, but they are using the event to express their desire to get rid of syria.

the idea that hizbullah would do such a thing is not very credible either. they have never played a substantial role in the infighting within lebanon, they generally have focused their attention on israel.

and, the notion that iran was involved, or that anyone had the intention of killing hariri in order to bring syria and iran closer is stupid as well. iran and syria have been close for years. if anything, a bomb like this puts them both further at risk. and hizbullah, too, is not stupid nor do they have a death wish...

there may be other options, but israel, a personal enemy, and an anti-saudi bin laden-like group seem the three most likely. again, israel has the most to gain by far and has a history of destroying lebanon and killing via state terrorism. and especially, it would not be surprising that Sharon the Butcher would take advantage of the current situation in the world like this. plus, they have the firepower and ability. while, for other groups, it would be much, much harder for them to do it without getting caught.

the other choices are self-evident for their reasons.
---------------------
and:
"what has this "ruinous war" actually ruined?

lets see --
1) 350 billion dollars spent..."

HOW ABOUT 100,000+ IRAQIS MURDERED, AND THE COUNTRY IN RUINS????? BUT YOU ARE RIGHT, AMERICANS ARE THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD!!!!

Well, that just puts the cherry on top of this cocktail of stupidity... ANYONE. STUPID ENOUGH. TO BELIEVE THAT HALF-ASSED HORSESHIT REPORT CLAIMING 100,000 IRAQI DEAD IS EITHER A MORON OR A MOONBAT. IF THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.

The Iraq was has certainly been expensive, but classifying it as a disaster shows willful blindness to the region's pitiful prevous history.

Always bear in mind that it was not the destruction of the Iraqi state that was expensive, but its rebuilding. The U.S. military, even with its commitments in Iraq, could wreak that kind of destruction in North Korea or Syria or even Iran. A full Iraq-style occupation is not on the table, but the possibility of a hard takedown is, if our Administration believes an existing regime is more dangerous than the chaos which would replace it.

The Iraq was has certainly been expensive, but classifying it as a disaster shows willful blindness to the region's pitiful prevous history.

Its been a disaster for the United States. Anyone who doesn't realize that is blind. Read the washington post item this morning about how porter Gross (Bush appointed CIA chief !!) thinks jihadist networks have been invigoritated by Iraq. It has added another nexus of hate and instability to a region that has too many already.

The U.S. military, even with its commitments in Iraq, could wreak that kind of destruction in North Korea or Syria or even Iran. A full Iraq-style occupation is not on the table, but the possibility of a hard takedown is, if our Administration believes an existing regime is more da
ngerous than the chaos which would replace it.

Several rejoinders come about here:
-- Its been obvious since 9/11 that terrorists find chaotic regimes a great place to hide and plan. The notion of toppling a goverment without providing for the future is not attractive as a policy option any more.
-- It would be practically impossible to overthrow a regime from the air without using Nukes. We saw in Iraq that not a single high value target was killed from the air attacks -- not Saddam. not his sons, not Chemical Ali. Our intelligence assets in North Korea are far smaller than those in Iraq. Unless a lucky attack hit the Great Leader, the regime could definitely not be taken down that way. In iran, where power is more decentralized, its far more difficult.
-- Even forgetting the use of nukes, the results of which would be incalculable, it would take massive collateral damage to entertain any hope of overthrow. I personally do not think its really possible -- remember how our huge bombing of North Vietnam did not topple the government.
-- China would likely get very antsy about a huge bombing of North Korea, and China is not a country we can easily ignore (not when they hold billions of dollars in US debt).
-- The impact on the Middle East if huge collateral bombing of Iran were carried out would be devastating. It would probably strengthen the regime, the South of Iraq would probably explode, and I won't even go into Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Why on Earth would Israel want to assasinate an anti-Syrian, pro-American figure in lebanon ? And they don't use suicide bombers. If the US learned about it, the results would be incalculable. It cannot be Israel.

This article http://tinyurl.com/6yj5u from L'Orient-Le Jour spelled things out the morning of the assassination. The Daily Star isn't worth the IHT it's wrapped up in....

hariri was not "anti-syrian". in fact, he even payed for the palace that bashir lives in. he wanted syrian troops to leave lebanon, which is very different then being anti-syrian. as well, there is no proof it was a suicide bomb yet! and, israel has a lot to gain from his death. it is a similar mentality to how the usa has attacked iraq. it costs money, lives(american, of course, who cares about anyone else), and could be bad for a little while, but, overall having a puppet government is worth it to americans. israel also has this mentality. so, while hariri was not their most hated figure, killing him could clearly be worth it for israel as the results will clearly come out in their favor (syria leaves lebanon, american pressure and possible attack on syria, sharon likely to influence the next government of lebanon, plus, now, no pressure on him to give back golan...)

as for "gimme a break", if you have done an analysis more detailed then the one that johns hopkins did, then you can talk. otherwise you are a faith based neocon, just like the others.

and, it is just amazing how unimportant anyone who is not american is to you people. the worst part is that even those of you who probably consider yourselves to be christians/religious people still only view things in terms of what happens to the good old usa. it is pathetic.

I wouldn't go that far, h. s. It is probably true, though, that Americans have a very low opinion of people who don't stay on-topic and lack the minimal consideration required to punctuate their posts properly. I know I do.

Bob Frunk:
"I am constantly amazed at Karl Rove's enormous reach and scope of operation ... What an evil genius."

Anyone who can get Janeane Garofalo to heil would have to be.

To all Neocon self-haters:

"Neocon" is only a dirty word if you believe it to be. When someone calls you a "Neocon", they are paying you a compliment, however backhanded it might be.

Let's break it down to specifics: a Neocon is libertarian on social issues, hawkish on foreign policy, and a pragmatic non-partisan on economic issues.

What's not to like? Be proud!

"I AM A NEOCON! Moonbats beware!" See? How tough was that?

Honestly Speaking:

First, your use of trite, petty ad hominem's like "sharon the butcher" and "neocon" completely wipe away any credibility you have as an objective or even semi-objective observer of the situation. The vitriol seeping through your posts also doesn't augur in your favor.

Second, Hariri, by all accounts, had gravitated toward the Lebanese opposition and was positioning himself for a return to politics in the upcoming elections. If you don't think the most popular and powerful politician in Lebanon running for office in the context of increased anti-Syrian sentiment scared the shit out of Syria, then arguing with you is a waste of breath.

Oh, and you're right, you definitely care much more about the people of the middle east than we jingoist America-firsters do. Consigning your people to another century of despotism, police states, fear, and purgings is definitely the more compassionate position. NEWS FLASH: Just because something is in the interest of the US and Israel doesn't mean it's ipso facto bad for Arab people.

First of all, from what I remember, Syria was not directly involved in ANY of the many political assassinations during the civil war in Lebanon. And, since they have been a powerbroker for a long time (and many of their enemies were in power at one time of another. You know, Michael Aoun is in France now, they didn't kill him. And he was actually an enemy, not just someone who was slightly leaning against their military being there), that says a lot. Further, they could have just called Hariri on the phone, or invited him to dinner to inform him of his new position as backer of Syria, if they were all that worried about him. Syria did not kill Hariri, there is almost no chance. They would know that they would pay for it, big time. And, just because Hariri had "gravitated toward the Lebanese opposition" does not mean that Syria wanted him dead. It is far more likely that it was someone like Israel (again, Sharon's wet dream is to turn the government of Lebanon pro-Israel, and he has tried several times before) or a Bin Laden type. Rule number 1 of starting a war is not to do it when you are going to kill yourself doing it. And, again, Hariri wasn't "anti-Syria". For God's sake, the world is not so black and white. But, if you have only read one newspaper article about him, then, I guess it seems realistic.

And, to JMH and other uber-Americans, if it were a simple question between all-out war vs. dictatorship, I would take dictatorship any day (and i am not defending dictators, but expressing how bad war is). What is amazing is, that for people who have been at the back end of a war, it means death and destruction on a level that dictatorship does not even come close to. For an American (generally) war means to watch bombs on CNN and realize how wonderful you are for bringing "freedom" to everyone.

And, I agree that not everything that helps the USA or Israel is bad for the Middle East. But it is unfortunate that the USA and Israel have positioned themselves in such a way in relation to the Arab states that that is becoming more true with every action, reaction...

War does not always mean "death and destruction that dictatorship doesn't come close to." Saddam killed 100s of thousands of his own people, not to mention initiating two foreign wars. And what of the numerous polls that showed, in the wake of the invasion, that most Iraqis supported it? Just more misinformation by the Mossad I presume.

And regardless of the back and forth on the merits of the Israel vs. Syria whodunnit, the fact that you so confidently state that there is almost "no chance" Syria killed him, and equally confidently assert that Israel planned a possible suicide assasination of a politician that had a very real chance of returning to power and pushing Syria out, is truly astounding. You sound less like a person that has deduced that Israel was the culprit, and much more like a person that simply wants Israel to be the cultprit (and I can understand the temptation, because blaming Israel in general must make the utter misery of the Arab world, carefully nutured for decades by corrupt and illiberal dictators, more explicable). You know it must be nice to blame Israel -- it's easy, makes you feel better, and explains just about everything.

JMH, I will be the first to admit that I do not know who killed Hariri. I do not know whether it was Israel, Syria, some ex-business partner who owed him money, some Bin Laden like group or whoever. I don't know. Either do you or the people who were sure it was Hizballah or Syria.

It just seems very likely to me that Syria would not be dumb enough to do such a thing. The results are/were obvious and they would know they would be a big loser for it. Plus, they have not had a history of political killings of their enemies in Lebanon(and, for that matter, Hariri was not one of their enemies. Historically, or last week), and even if they did want to kill him, it would not have been in such a way. Especially, if it turns out to have been a suicide bomb, then I think it pretty much rules out both Syria and Israel.

But, I think it is harder to rule Israel out generally (aside for the suicide bomb case). Again, Sharon has obviously had no problem destroying Beirut in the past, plus he would know that there would be no downside, no one will do anything to them if Israel did do it, it would give him a chance to become a player in Lebanon, get Syria out...

You know, it probably was some Bin Laden types, like Al-Jazeera reported.

And I realize that Iraqis did generally want to get rid of Saddam before the USA attacked. But that does not prove that it was a good decision, or that they are better for it now. Granted, Saddam was a butcher. You win on that one. But that does not make the war right, or the 100,000+ (many more if you add other American attacks, and the sanctions) killed in it any less painful then the people Saddam killed. And, for that matter, polls now show that a huge majority would want the Americans to leave. Pretty hard to read what that means, Iraqis don't like war or dictatorship. Who knew.

And, I would be slow about using the term "carefully nutured," considering Western involvment in Mid East history. You know, the likes of Nasser might have been dictators in fact, but I bet he would have been elected by a higher % (had there been honest and fair elections) then Bush was.

and, I am not a Mossad conspiracy buff, but to argue that Israel has not had a bad effect generally on the Middle East (for the Arab countries), is like arguing that the dictators (generally) have not also screwed the people.

anyway, this is spinning out of control.

h.s. -

"First of all, from what I remember, Syria was not directly involved in ANY of the many political assassinations during the civil war in Lebanon. "

You happened to forget Rene Mouawad, Bashir Gemayel, and Kamal Jumblatt, among others.

" or the 100,000+ (many more if you add other American attacks, and the sanctions)"

Reading the Lancet report, it states that the pre-second war death rate was lower than the death rate in the U.S. (5.0/1000 vs. 8.5/1000), indicating no increase in deaths due to sanctions. The more likely proposition is that the Lancet report is bogus, but the two accusations due not mix well together.

"You know, the likes of Nasser might have been dictators in fact, but I bet he would have been elected by a higher % (had there been honest and fair elections) then Bush was."

Which is why he felt the need to imprison and kill his political opponents...

"and, I am not a Mossad conspiracy buff, but to argue that Israel has not had a bad effect generally on the Middle East (for the Arab countries), is like arguing that the dictators (generally) have not also screwed the people."

Very arguable for Israel's near environment, but leaving that aside how is Israel related to Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, despotism in the Magreb, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, etc.?

Neocon is libertarian on social issues, hawkish on foreign policy, and a pragmatic non-partisan on economic issues.

Actually, it seems here that neocon means spineless on social issues (i.e. unwilling to oppose conservatives on gay marriage, for instance), spineless on economic issues (unwilling to confront the president on the cost of their wars and how they'll be paid for).

When it comes to foreign policy, neocons have not covered themsleves in any sort of glory either. For all the supposed intelligence of these people, they completely missed even the possibility of 9/11 choosing to focus on China and Iraq pre-9/11.
Neocon means someone who is perfectly willing to risk our people's live, money and prestige in the pursuit of their quixotic wars. And unlike the English imperialists of yore, they don't even have the courage to do their conquests or fight their wars themselves.

Janek,
Funny, but for all the left's ranting how W "missed even the possibility" of 9/11 I remember there was a liberal in office in the 8 years before 9/11 who allowed numerous attacks on America and American citizens without ever forcing those responsible to meet the consequences they deserve (except for a little court time). I'm sure that had no effect on terrorists thinking they could get away with 9/11. It's also funny how you think it is perfectly fine to allow dictators to ruthlessly kill their own people while any deaths that occur in attempt to free those people somehow proves America is cold and heartless. And using the term "quixotic" to describe the administrations actions mean you didn't even read the actual post. It seems W's belief in what would happen is coming true...

Moawad was a Syrian asset who was ok with their presence in the country. It is extremely unlikely that Syria killed him.

I have no idea who killed Gamayel, and, I will admit that you can't really rule Syria out in this case. But I doubt they were the ones.

And I will admit that you are probably right on Jumblatt.

I was mistaken. But, you and anyone else who is reading this will have to admit that those cases were much, much different then anything Hariri was involved in. I mean, really, Jumblatt was literally calling for the elimination of the Christians, and Gamayel was an Israeli agent. And both were killed during periods of active fighting while the war was still ongoing. Even if Syria killed those two, if anything, because it took such extreme conditions, that leads one to believe that Syria was unlikely to have killed Hariri.

What you will find is that Syria has become a scape goat for everything that happens in Lebanon. And, people blame Syria because they are sick of the Syrians being there (or they have something to gain personally), but that Lebanon has so many factions and so much going on that things just come to a boil, and something happens. And, usually the ones who did it were not the obvious choice.

The Lancet article was a statistical extrapolation based on on-site research. And, it was BY FAR the most detailed, thorough and professional study of Iraqi deaths that has been done to date. And as such, it is the basis for discussion of the people killed. If you can not accept that, you are not in touch with reality. If you have problems with it, I suggest to ask the people who wrote it, not me:

Les Roberts, Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi

And, if Bush faced the type of opposition that Nasser faced, this country would be in COMPLETE LOCKDOWN, martial law! It is actually quite surprising that Bushies do not understand that better, considering how quick they are (generally) to lock people away or go to war. And that is not to say that what Nasser did was moral or just. But he was very popular.

And, lastly, Israel has a very small direct relationship with religious life in Saudi, the revolution in Iran or with north African dictators. And, all those cases are very different. But, indirectly, Israel does have relationships to those things (whether by design or just by accident). At the least, Israel is a provocation for these things to get more harsh and build their (not Israel's) credibility.

Like the way Castro uses the USA. Castro probably goes over the top in the way he blames the USA for everything that goes wrong in the country. But that does not mean that the USA does not make things worse in Cuba with its actions... Castro would probably have no support was it not for the way the USA screws Cuba. Is the USA responsible for the state of affairs in Cuba? Yes and No.

"Spineless?" I think you're projecting your own party's crushing of dissent onto ours.

Neocons aren't afraid to speak our mind. We might not constitute the majority of the party necessary to stop such foolishness as marriage amendments from blighting the party platform, but at least we're allowed to say we don't like it.

In the case of the budget, the pork and welfare statism of the right is almost as frenzied as that of the left. I'm with you on the need for some serious budget cuts (not in the military mind you), but sadly not even "conservatives" believe in budget-cutting any more.

Why does everything that goes wrong in Iraq get laid at the feet of American occupiers, but the same doesnt go for Syria in Lebanon?

Funny, but for all the left's ranting how W "missed even the possibility" of 9/11

Please learn to read. I never mentioned W. I said neocons. Bush was definitely not a neocon 9/11 and he's not really one now.

I remember there was a liberal in office in the 8 years before 9/11 who allowed numerous attacks on America and American citizens without ever forcing those responsible to meet the consequences they deserve (except for a little court time).

The perpetrators of the original World Center outrage were put in jail for life. . Timothy McVeigh was put in jail and then executed. you are of course lying when you refer to a little court time as the consequences of those actions. Clinton also managed to stop the Millenium plot -- lets not forget that.

But the point here was not to praise Clinton and blame Bush. The point here was to emphasize that the neocons, with all their ideas of reshaping the world completely missed the boat when it came to the enemy that should be confronted prior to 9-11 when they thought it should be China and Iraq. Why should one trust their fever dreams about remaking the world when they proved to be so wrong pre-9//11 ?

It's also funny how you think it is perfectly fine to allow dictators to ruthlessly kill their own people while any deaths that occur in attempt to free those people somehow proves America is cold and heartless.

I challenge you to come up with a single line saying that I blame America for deaths occurred liberating Iraq. I also challenge you to come up with a single line where I say that it is okay for dictators to ruthlessly kill their own people.

What I did say or what I do tink is that
--- It is hypocrisy to be suddenly concerned about a dictator's brutal record 1-2 decades after the bulk of his crimes (Halabja etc.) occurred.
--- The Iraq war has cost America badly in money, prestige and lives, and the advantages to us are still elusive and dubious.

h.s. -

"I was mistaken. But, you and anyone else who is reading this will have to admit that those cases were much, much different then anything Hariri was involved in. I mean, really, Jumblatt was literally calling for the elimination of the Christians, and Gamayel was an Israeli agent. And both were killed during periods of active fighting while the war was still ongoing. Even if Syria killed those two, if anything, because it took such extreme conditions, that leads one to believe that Syria was unlikely to have killed Hariri."

I can use similar arguments to acquit almost everyone else. I don't recall Israel trying to kill anyone who was not an active opponent, especially after the attempt on Khalid Mashal blow in its face. I don't recall Iran/Hizballah doing political assassination. The CIA is incompetent (There's a joke: "It was a typical CIA assassination. Everybody died except the intended target"), etc. etc.
Since we can give just about anyone a motive, we should see who had the most means and opportunity to do this, rather than think about motives.

Anyway, I'm not as hostile to Syria as you might think. The Lebanaese are most at fault for the civil war, with some blame going to the PLO. Not a single outside power wanted the civil war to happen. Once the civil war begin, it drew everybody else in. Syria won the prize, but maybe that era should now pass.

"The Lancet article..."

My point wasn't against the Lancet as much as saying that accusing the US for both deaths from sanctions *and* for 100,000+ death post-2nd war in Iraq is incorrect because the data self-contradicts. One must pick one or the other. I see you've picked the Lancet, but than say that all questions about the survey should be turned to its makers. OK, let's forget about it. I maintain my doubts of it, given that it contradicts all other available data about causality counts.

"And, if Bush faced the type of opposition that Nasser faced, this country would be in COMPLETE LOCKDOWN, martial law! It is actually quite surprising that Bushies do not understand that better, considering how quick they are (generally) to lock people away or go to war. And that is not to say that what Nasser did was moral or just. But he was very popular."

You are right about Nasser's popularity (I admit I was sniping), but I think that if he allowed political criticism he wouldn't be as popular. At least Egypt wouldn't have built the Aswan dam. Mubarak faced tougher opposition in the 90's, but was a bit more responsive to criticism.

"And, lastly, Israel has a very small direct relationship with religious life in Saudi, the revolution in Iran or with north African dictators. And, all those cases are very different. But, indirectly, Israel does have relationships to those things (whether by design or just by accident). At the least, Israel is a provocation for these things to get more harsh and build their (not Israel's) credibility."

True, but I do not see any _logical_ connection. If some people are so gullible as to allow themselves to be harmed such because 'he stands up against Israel!', than it's the people fault. It's like blaming Communism for McCarthyism.

"It is hypocrisy to be suddenly concerned about a dictator's brutal record 1-2 decades after ..."

No it isn't. It's reality. It's the lesson of Vietnam and Somalia.

A losing war, fought for its own sake, doesn't advance the cause of world peace.

The only way we win is through an alliance with the Populists. They are the plurality of voters in America. Theirs is the final decision.

They're also largely isolationist, so we cannot win a war without a clear message of national interest that resonates with the Fox News audience -- "Jacksonians", "Reagan Democrats", "The Religious Right", however you wish to name them.

9/11 resonates.

The idea that a suicide bomb rules out Syria is naive. They may simply have hired experts in such matters. While rumors abound and I have no personal knowledge of the truth, a suicide bomber might well be available for hire.

The only way we win is through an alliance with the Populists. They are the plurality of voters in America. Theirs is the final decision.

They're also largely isolationist, so we cannot win a war without a clear message of national interest that resonates with the Fox News audience -- "Jacksonians", "Reagan Democrats", "The Religious Right", however you wish to name them.

So basically you're saying you're willing to manipulate the American public (in this case through 9/11) to get the result you want (in this case war).

Thanks for making that clear.

As if. We're less Cabal than Cassandra, I'm afraid (or I haven't drunk enough Ovaltine to get my secret decoder ring.)

We didn't so much convince anyone the Horse was full of Trojans as our leaders were the only ones to have a plan on the President's desk once the Trojans came crashing out of the Horse.

If anything we're victims of our own honesty. Caring about abstract things like "Democracy in Iraq" creates a conflict-of-interest in the mind of the listener with respect to a concomitant claim of compelling national self-interest. "Nation-building" is hardly the phrase that drives the "Brainwashed Fox Legions" into a martial frenzy.

You should really be more angry with the manipulations of pacifists, whose rationalizations, unreflective dogma, and breathless air of moral superiority exist solely to mask a nihilistic indifference to the suffering of others.

"Peace" is just another word for "let 'em burn".

At least isolationists are honest with themselves. I can respect that.

Anon,
You are wrong in terms the incompatibility of the Lancet article with the UNICEF sanctions figures. First of all, they are based on different sets of information and different time periods; so, they do not have to use the same data for them both to be correct.

According to the press release for the Lancet article:
“The researchers compared the mortality rate among civilians in Iraq during the 14.6 months prior to the March 2003 invasion with the 17.8 month period following the invasion.”

The UNICEF figures are based on:
“The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.”

Notice that the Lancet article is based on the mortality rate of the entire civilian population, while the UNICEF figures are based on child mortality(those most vulnerable to sanctions). Not to mention, the time periods are different, so it is perfectly feasible that both are accurate. At least, based on a comparison of each other’s data. I think that both UNICEF and Johns Hopkins have a lot of credibility as institutions, and I trust that their researchers have done the math and used the most reliable data available. I am not competent in doing a complete statistical analysis, nor are all the drafts and data sets available to me, so that is why I deferred to the authors of the report in terms of any possible errors that they may have made. But the way the right tries to invent any lie to discredit information that in inconvenient to them is seriously a problem.

Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, it seems that both reports are correct. And, let’s not forget that the UNICEF numbers were just children. That obviously did not include war deaths (of which, the Americans killed tens of thousands in the 91 war), and the Lancet article does not include Fallujah or the army either, so it is likely an understatement as well. Basically, it is undeniable that Iraqis have been and are dying at amazing rates. And a very large part of that is directly at the hands of Americans. I would hope that you and others would be willing to admit that. What is further, it really is sad that Bushies who now claim (after a million other fake reasons) that they have come to Iraq to build “freedom and democracy” and to save the Iraqis from their suffering, are not more sympathetic of the suffering that the Americans have rained down on them. It really shows the utter hypocrisy of the right. If you cared about Iraqis, you would stop killing them. I bet a strong argument could be made that the USA has killed more Iraqis then Saddam (though, I don’t feel like trying to defend that argument now).

Next, you are wrong about the argument that:
You “can use similar arguments to acquit almost everyone else. I don't recall Israel trying to kill anyone who was not an active opponent, especially after the attempt on Khalid Mashal blow in its face. I don't recall Iran/Hizballah doing political assassination. The CIA is incompetent (There's a joke: "It was a typical CIA assassination. Everybody died except the intended target"), etc. etc.

Since we can give just about anyone a motive, we should see who had the most means and opportunity to do this, rather than think about motives.”

I disagree with this because you are saying that history does not matter. I mean, I agree that Iran/Hizbullah have no history of political assassination. And as they do not, it is fair to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially when you are in a place like Lebanon (because so many people are involved in assasinations). It is important that Syria’s history does not support the notion of their being active in political killings. I agree that the fact they have done it at all is not in their favor, but when you look at the cases where they may have been involved, it shows conditions that are very, very different then the case we are faced with today. And that is on top of the other points I have made on how it was not in their interests to kill Hariri in the first place, plus, he was not even an enemy to be killed. All and all, it does not add up that Syria killed Hariri. It just does not. But, of course, a neocon who wants to attack Syria for any reason would make it add up. But neocons have proven they are crazy, they thought Iraq had weapons and that it would be roses and gifts…

As for Syria being in Lebanon now, it is not a prize to be won. When they went to Lebanon in the first place, they did so at the urging of everyone. And they switched sides a million times in the honest interests of bring peace. During the way, they were there to make peace, it is just true. Now, they are not there because they want to go to the beach, they are still there because they are scared of Israel. When Israel attacked Lebanon in 82, and when they got to Beirut, the Syrians looked to the west and realized that Israel could just go a little further to the east and destroy the whole country of Syria as we know it. They could cut it in half or take Damascus in one move. Look at a map. It is obvious, everyone in the Middle East knows it. So, they stay in Lebanon because the mountains are in Lebanon and they want to keep the high ground. They know Israel (and especially Sharon) has a history of wanting to dominate Lebanon, and the Syrians see that as a serious danger (and they are right to do so). So, they stay. The reason they play with the internal politics is not for fun or to steal, but because they know they run the risk of getting kicked out if they don’t. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense that Israel would be willing to kill Hariri in an effort to really destabilize Syria. It would be the best way for them to do it. And it would fit into Sharon’s typical worldview. Plus, anyway, if you ask your original question of who has the ability, this even favors the Israels as well. They could do it with ease. And they have the history and motive too. Like I said before, maybe it was a Bin Laden type group, that makes sense as well (though, I don’t know about the how part). But it seems pretty clear that it was not Syria, and could be Israel.

And “but I do not see any _logical_ connection. If some people are so gullible as to allow themselves to be harmed such because 'he stands up against Israel!', than it's the people fault. It's like blaming Communism for McCarthyism.”

This is just a different argument. You are missing the point. They support their governments when they “stand up against Israel” because they generally want a government that stands up against Israel. It is a high priority for them. Because, look at the problems Israel has caused for them. That does not mean they are ok with getting picked up in the middle of the night by the security services for telling a friend that Mubarak can go to hell. They clearly don’t have a choice as to who their leaders are, and like everyone, you take what you have. But, for example, even though I think Bush is garbage, if he actually started funding the Global Fund, I would give him credit for it. And especially if it was THE big issue. Just look at how many neocons support Bush even though he wants to make this country into a police state, turn the world against us and spend us into the ground… and Americans have a choice (sort of) as to who leads them. Basically, my point is that people’s opinions are complex and there is more then one reason that people like or dislike their leaders. And seldom are things cut and dry, you can like bush for some things and hate him for others. Israel is a big deal in the Arab world, and it has demoralized them for years, so it is only natural for them to stand up to it any way they can. There comes a time you lose the fear as a society, so Israel can’t really do anything to the Arab world anymore that will hurt them. They are yet to lose the fear of their own governments because it can and does have a more direct daily impact, and can hurt them on a daily basis. Some people like the brotherhood do stand up, but they are not suicidal.

As for the notion that one carrier group would be sufficient to deal with syria much less Iran or North Korea ... whoever wrote that was just plain dumb. Bomb them? Yes. But in each case there are land forces nearby that belong to us that would be terribly vulnerable to backlash.

Ludicrous. Syria lacks any capability at maintaining any type of "logistical tail" for any operations outside their borders. If the Iraq war had taken place outside of Iraq it would have been easier than taking over a cub scout bake sale. Simpletons routinely underestimate homefield advantage, as we did while invading Iraq, and Syria would not relish taking on Kurdish pesh mergas in Iraq's Northern Mountains.

Attacking Israel would be, if conceivable, even dumber. Syria could only hope to possibly defend itself against a competent first world military, and maybe not even that. Attacking us or Israel with conventional forces is totally out of the question.

Asymmetrical retribution, however, would be likely.

North Korea would be consumed in the flames of its own revenge were it to attack South Korea, and the Dear Leader knows it. Yes, he could do great harm, but in the process he would destroy the cult of government his father left him, and if power is not left to a megalomaniac, then what is left to him at all?

All of this speculation is meaningless. I waste my time to even post it. *sigh*

I bet a strong argument could be made that the USA has killed more Iraqis then Saddam (though, I don’t feel like trying to defend that argument now).

Such convenient fatigue!

Really, if you are going to cast such accusations around so lightly, Mr. Jordan (can I call you Eason?) you really ought to be able to back them up, or at least be willing to expend the energy of trying.

(And I'm on the Left. I just really dislike intellectual laziness.)

h.s. -

1. The Lancet -
You raise several arguments (paraphrased):

a. The survey data against the sanctions was from an earlier data before the pre-war data of the Lancet.

reply: UNICEF didn't simply fold after 1999, they continued to work in Iraq, making surveys using the same people and the same methods. If the Lancet's numbers are correct, than not only would the 2002-2003 data be proven incorrect but all the surveys from the same agencies in the past would be in serious doubt.

Examples of surveys after 1999:
Oxfam [1] says:

"More than one in ten Iraqi children die before their fifth birthday (131 out of every 1000 live births) . Iraq has suffered a faster increase in the rate of child mortality than any other country in the world (160 per cent in the decade to 2000) . Seven out of ten infant deaths result from diarrhoea or acute respiratory infection linked to polluted water or malnutrition. Although the rate of child malnutrition actually improved in 2001, UNICEF’s latest survey in February 2002 revealed that close to one million children under five – nearly one-quarter of all children – still suffer from chronic malnutrition."

WHO [2] says:
"In 2001, life expectancy at birth was reported to be 58.7 years for men and 62.9 years for women. The infant mortality rate for 2000/2001 was estimated at 98 per 1000 live births. The mortality rate for children under the age of five was estimated for 2001 to be 133 per 1000 live births. Maternal mortality in 2001 was estimated at 291 per 100 000 live births.

Sources: WHO, UNICEF"

UNICEF [3] gives a detailed table with mostly 2003 data (we'll return to it shortly).

[1] http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/conflict_disasters/iraq_disaster.htm

[2] http://www.who.int/features/2003/iraq/briefings/iraq_briefing_note/en/index2.html

[3] http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html

b. The surveys did not measure the same metric. The UNICEF report was about children.

reply: There were surveys from UNICEF and others which measured the total population death ratio which is a direct comparison. The children data was measured with the same methods. e.g. The UNICEF table mentioned earlier [3], which gives a 9/1000 death rate compared to the Lancet's 5.0/1000[4]. I'm not sure about how the 2003 rate is adjusted for the war, but a previous versions of the table gives a 8/1000 rate for 2001 [5] and a 9.0/1000 for 2002 [6].
Info by the The Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRTCIC) gives a 10/1000 death rate [7] for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003.
The closest are numbers from the CIA factbook which give 6.21/1000 for 2001 [8], 6.02/1000 for 2002 [9], 5.84/1000 [10] for 2003 and 5.66/1000 [11] for 2004.

The Lancet pre-war numbers are half of the numbers by SESRTCIC, and ~55% of the numbers by UNICEF. The closest are the CIA factbook numbers [83-88%], but the trend of the CIA factbook numbers contradicts the main conclusion of the Lancet study, as the numbers between 2003 and 2004 decrease rather than increase. The CIA factbook also shows an 8.34/1000 rate for the USA (2004) [12] - higher than the numbers it gives for Iraq!
I do not think the data from there is reliable [13].

[4] http://www.newsletters.newsweek.msnbc.com/id/6354133/ or you can read the original report.

[5] http://web.archive.org/web/20030726052151/http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html

[6] http://www.unicef.org/sowc04/files/Table6.pdf

[7] http://www.sesrtcic.org/statistics/couresults.php?lastyear=2003&coucode=IRQ&catname=Agriculture&indclass=byInd&year%5B%5D=All&indcode%5B%5D=DGDEA

[8] http://web.archive.org/web/20011023084822/http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

[9] http://web.archive.org/web/20021021173444/http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

[10] http://web.archive.org/web/20031202204524/http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

[11] http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
This URL may be changed by the time a future reader reads this by the CIA factbook maintainers.

[12] http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
This URL may be changed by the time a future reader reads this by the CIA factbook maintainers.

[13] Where does the CIA factbook maintainers get their data from? It's not listed on the site. I guess that's from official government data, making it entirely unreliable given Saddam's statistics ('99.95% voted for me!'), and the chaos after the war.

c. The Lancet report does not include Fallujah or the (Iraqi, I guess?) army.

reply: Actually, it does include Fallujah! The number was so high that the authors wrote that even if it is omitted the result of their study does not change by much. Perhaps you meant causulties from the American operation in November which is obviously not included being after the time the survey was made. I am not sure whether Iraqi army causulties should be included, we'll have to include the insurgent causulties as well if we do this. Didn't both chose to fight?

2. Syria and Lebanon -
While I agree the original impetus for Syria's entry was to settle the civil war, you cannot deny the enormous economic benefits Syria derives from her stay. (That's why I referred to Lebanon as a 'prize').

There are reasons why Israel didn't try to invade Syria via Lebanon in any of the previous wars, and that's not because it's so considerate. Israel could either try to reach the Beirut-Damscus road, or try to move through the mountains. The latter has easily chokable mountain passes and will have great logistical difficulties. I do not think this will work unless Israel gets total surprise. The former will give Syria time to respond. In 1982 it had to race against the ceasefire time to just cut the road. Syria can gain safety by early warning stations placed in Lebanon, and do not need a full occupation force on Lebanese soil. There can only be a credible threat of Israeli movement via Lebanon if Lebanon get a pro-Israeli and anti-Syrian government. That possibility was removed in 1982, and is very unlikely to happen again unless Syria tries really hard (which might describe current policy).

Israel will anyway probably attack directly (given their superiority over the Syrian army), and the Syrian forces in Lebanon will be removed from the scene of fighting.

3. The Hariri Assasination:

You seem to ignore the argument I made against Israeli involvement. Hariri was not involve in active actions against Israel (as I said), and actually wanted less actions for now because of economic concerns. Furthermore, if they are caught (as in the Khalid Mashal case which I mentioned), this will backfire badly.
Syria, with its assets, had the most means to transfer kilos of explosives across Beirut. There a question of how this happened, whether by a suicide bomber (which points at Bin Laden and co.), by a planted bomb (which points at Syria and co.), etc.

4. Support for tyrants because of Israel:

McCarthyism was gone because senator McCarthy was discredited, not because the USA improved relations with the USSR. I don't think much will change if relations between Israel and the Arab world improve. I think that at most, there'll be a move to stuff like "I Hate Israel" (the song).

I just noticed the CIA factbook says the death rate is affected by the age distribution. [1] Perhaps this explains the disparity? I still don't trust that data. Where is it from?

[1] "This entry gives the average annual number of deaths during a year per 1,000 population at midyear; also known as crude death rate. The death rate, while only a rough indicator of the mortality situation in a country, accurately indicates the current mortality impact on population growth. This indicator is significantly affected by age distribution, and most countries will eventually show a rise in the overall death rate, in spite of continued decline in mortality at all ages, as declining fertility results in an aging population."

" In 1982 it had to race against the ceasefire time to just cut the road. " -> it=Israeli forces.

I don’t have time to review the figures right now, but I will at some point. Before I do though, my general assumption is that UNICEF is correct in their analysis because they did a massive sample of the population, and anyone that has a different result then theirs has made a mistake. For that matter, to my knowledge, no other organization (other UN agencies?) was doing the research, so it seems strange that there are differences at all. If in fact there is a disparity between the UNICEF figures and the lancet report, that would be problematic, though, I would feel the need to follow up directly with the authors to find out where they get their mortality figures. As of now, I still believe that that both are correct. But I could be wrong. I will check it when I get the time.

2. Syria and Lebanon-
I think you and I disagree on emphasis, not really on facts. I would say that your use of the word “enormous” is not correct. I obviously admit that they get economic benefit, that goes without saying, but I think the major reason they have for being there is that they are scared of Israel. The economic benefit is just a lucky side effect for them. And, in fact, I would assume (without having done the analysis) that having good relations with Lebanon, without the occupation, would also afford a similar level of economic benefit. It would shift the form of it a bit and lessen the actual Syrian workers in Lebanon, but they would gain in other ways.

So, the Beirut/Damascus road is just that, a road. It is basically equal to moving through the mountains directly. At points it is hardly wide enough for a tank, and I would not be surprised if a tank was unable to make some of the turns, or at least a convoy with any type of trailer.

And, I think the “logistical difficulties” you mention are exactly what Syria is using to its advantage. Early warning or not, Syria is no match for the Israelis. Maybe you don’t remember just easily Israel took over Lebanon last time. So they need to be seriously dug in. They need their troops in position, they need they equipment there, they need to be ready. And they would not be able to get into position under an Israeli invasion if they were sitting in some Syrian base on the other side of the mountains, it would eliminate all the advantage that they know they need. And that is the main reason they stay in Lebanon, again, because they want to have position on Israel in the case of an invasion. If anything, Syria is much weaker now then it was then (without the USSR). And, of course, they are still pissed as hell about the whole Golan thing (technically still at war), so they don’t want to see that happen again. Thus, they are serious this time. And they would not risk that by killing Hariri, they are not stupid. Especially since he was not the great “opposition figure” that the news keeps saying he was.

And, you basically make my point for me when you say that “there can only be a credible threat of Israeli movement via Lebanon if Lebanon get a pro-Israeli and anti-Syrian government.” This is exactly what Syria fears most. Because they know that there is a lot of anti-Syrianism in Lebanon, and they fear that the second they left the government alone it would go neutral, which, they fear would leave it open to an Israeli take-over, and put them in the position that they are most scared of (above). So, again, that is the whole point. And the economic gains are involved as well, but much, much lower on the chart.

And I disagree that Israel would attack directly. They have learned from Beirut (and the Americans in Baghdad), they don’t want to occupy Damascus. They would much prefer to isolate Damascus by cutting it off from the rest of Syria, and from the sea. And, they would do that by taking the area north of Damascus, thus splitting Syria into two pieces and strangling the capital… your option is possible via air, but unlikely by ground. And Syria is trying to defend itself by staying in Lebanon.

3. The Hariri Assasination:
It is not that I completely disagree with your argument, I just don’t think it is as strong as you seem to believe. 1st, Bibi and Sharon are completely different loaves of bread. Bibi was a Special Forces guy, Sharon was a General. So, while I think the whole poison tipped dart deal is more Bibi’s style, the total invasion is more Sharon’s. Plus, Hariri had a dozen bodyguards, and that kinda restricts the notion of getting too close. So it would have to be a major explosion or something to get him. And, you know, it is looking more and more like it was NOT a suicide bomb (according to the reports). And, if it was not a suicide bomb, it leaves us with the question of how it was done (which opens up a whole new host of questions). But anyway, I can’t argue that it was Israel, only that they seem the most likely. And, I think that Sharon does have Lebanon on the brain, so it would not surprise me to think that he would make another go at it, though this time more indirectly. Even though I will agree that Hariri was not a formal enemy, or that if they wanted to do stuff in Lebanon, the obvious choice would be Hassan Nasrallah or one of their military commanders. But, that would be pretty damn obvious. Not that Sharon has a flair for the subtle, but, the bomb against the Hamas leader in Damascus a couple months ago shows that they are willing and able to do this sort of thing, and if you wanted to be strategic, there was no person who’s death would have a bigger impact then Hariri. So, you know, if you want to argue that they were being strategic and all that jazz, and it is obvious that they gain by far the most from this, then it makes sense to think it could very easily be Israel (I equally think that some outside Bin Laden type could have done it, but that has its own problems.)

You know, basically, I would probably think it was Syria, too, if I thought they benefited from it. But they are so clearly the loser, and they would have so obviously been the loser, that the whole notion that they would sit down and plan something like this without ever asking what would happen if he died, well, it is just beyond me.

4. Support for tyrants because of Israel:
Your argument doesn’t make sense. McCarthy was busy bringing poets and stuff before congress. It had nothing to do with a serious enemy. And, you know, some people might have been for it when it started, but the country was split. So there was a large crowd who was saying that it was crazy. And over time it gets discredited. But, I think you missing a couple points in the analysis of the Middle East. 1) that the people hate Israel BECAUSE OF WHAT IT HAS DONE to the Palestinians and the other countries. So it is very concrete, not an ideology like communism. If McCarthy had been picking up Soviet spies all day and not actors, then McCarthyism would have gone on for a long time. But it dies because it is fake. Israel is a legitimate enemy for most Arabs; the Palestinians are continually crushed, basically everyone else has lost at least one war to Israel and they still dominate the region and humiliate everyone. Plus, Israel = USA and the USA is dominating the Arab world. You can’t expect them to like that, can you? 2) I have never met an Arab who liked the Arab leaders. So, basically, I think you have it backwards, the reason the leaders are anti-Israel is because they would get beheaded if they didn’t. and that is the only thing that keeps them in power, plus their armies. But that is the only thing that keeps the army from couping them. 3) too, like I said before, there are a lot of factors. So, for example, poor southerners vote for bush because they hate gay people, even though he will just make them more and more poor. People are not 100% rational. Maybe it would be best for everyone to make peace with Israel and get tons of US military aid, but everyone know that will not change the main aggravating factors (war and occupation).

And, you are just wrong about the “I Hate Israel” the song (look at the Arab Israelis, they hate Israel because it is killing their brothers, some would still sing “I Hate Israel” but it would go down a ton), and, here is part of a transcript from a lecture that Sari Nussiebeh gave that, I think explains things best (and it was transcribed, so that is why it reads choppy):

I grew up in a house that was very nationalistic, very patriotic, my father was wounded in a battle, he had his leg cut off, he had to live with it all his life, my grandfather was expelled from here by the British, you know, his property was confiscated, his house was burned down, we had a lot of problems. And I grew up in a house that was very politically sensitized. And in my mind, the Jews and the Israelis and Zionism were always a terrible thing. So one day, I went and told my mother, this was recent, a few days ago, a few months ago, a year ago, maybe now. I came to her and told her this, after reading something that touched me, so I came to her and told her something about the Jewish problem in Europe, before the holocaust. Leading up to the holocaust. As a person who has been educated and so on, I look at the figures, I look at the, I know everything. But one day I was reading something, nothing to do with politics, something else. But it was actually related to the life of Jews in Europe, leading up to the holocaust. And I suddenly felt sympathy, empathy even, with the situation of the Jews in Europe, leading up to the holocaust.

So I went to my mother and told her, “look, I know your father was this and this, and you and your house, and refugees and so on,” but I told her, “let’s assume that a rabbi had come to your father in the 30’s, or maybe the 20’s, had come to your father who’s tilling the soil,” if you like, and knocked on his door and said, “look, you know, I have just come from Vienna or something…” You know, a wise old rabbi, and had come to your father and told him, “look, I can see things, the situation in Europe is getting worse. Things are beginning to unfold in this direction, I can see there is going to be a catastrophe that’s going to fall on my people, and I want a way out. I want to lead my people to safety, to preempt this from happening, and I thought and thought, and I decided the best place for us would be here. Because this is where our history is, and I want therefore to bring my people here. I realize that you live here. But would you have a problem if we could share this together, with you, in order to… What would you father have told him?”

I am taking to my mother who is very anti-Israeli. And she wants to… it didn’t take her a minute to answer me. She told me, “what do you think we are, what kind of question are you asking me!” Like, how dare I think that her father would have entertained, even for the slightest bit of a second, entertained the possibility of rejecting this man, how could I, what kind of people are we? It was a revelation, it was a revelation to me…, that the only problem was not with the fact that it happened, but with how it happened, if you see what I mean. My mother is angry not about the Jews coming here. My mother is angry about the way they came here. And what therefore happened to her father and what happened to her and her husband and ahh… So, in retrospect, from a human point of view, I feel it is something, that ah.. And I very much look forward to the day, when the, you know, this problem, this basic fear and the causes for that fear, will in fact dissolve, because, only when the causes of the fear are dissolved, in the world at large, will I be able to love a normal life as a Palestinian, side by side with a Jew here. It has been imposed upon me, but this is how it is.

"Why on Earth would Israel want to assasinate an anti-Syrian, pro-American figure in lebanon ?"

They might, if he was more useful to them dead than alive. They're tough that way.

"And they don't use suicide bombers."

That appears to be true. At least they don't use israeli suicide bombers. Somebody made the argument that the syrians might manage to hire a suicide bomber, and that's as true of the israelis. But hiring suicide bombers sounds a little peculiar. I can see hiring a poor indian peasant to let you transplant his heart easier than hiring one to blow up people.

But then, say you find fragments of flesh from the bomb that don't belong to any of the known victims, does that prove it was a suicide bomber? People who want something to look like a suicide bomb only need to supply one more victim....

"If the US learned about it, the results would be incalculable. It cannot be Israel."

This is false. The israelis have gotten caught repeatedly doing such things and it hasn't gotten them to stop yet.

But just the idea that the israelis benefit, and that they have the means, doesn't prove they did it. It's real unclear who did it.

But then, we went a good 80 years without much evidence who blew up the USS Maine, and that didn't slow us down starting a war over it. In some ways it doesn't really matter who did it.

Suppose it's true that the Lancet report strongly undercounted iraqi deaths before the war.

Then the way to bet is that it also strongly undercounted iraqi deaths after the war too.

If there are problems with the study, the obvious solution is to repeat the study with more funding and a larger effort. How come nobody who says there are problems with that study ever suggest doing that?

Janek,
Sorry, I spent the weekend building a trebuchet....

I'm fairly certain I am more well-read than you. I actually never said "you", I lumped you in with others that try to make the same argument. I just used your quote.

I don't lie. "A little jail time" was designed to belittle efforts to treat these acts of war as simple crimes. Throwing a few followers in jail does nothing to protect us from their leaders. As for the millenium plot, an alert security guard detained the bomber, not any action of Clintonian policy. I don't recall significant reaction for the African embassy bombings or the USS Cole bombings.

Your intent was to jump all over the administration. Bush and the neocons had already been reviewing steps to take against Al-Quaida and the Taliban prior to 9/11, including isolating the Taliban much the same way he ultimately isolated Arafat. Somehow it is a big failure of the neocons to not solve all intelligence failures in the 8 months they had before 9/11. Honestly. And Iraq WAS a threat, according to then-current intelligence. China continues to be a threat.

How about: "Neocon means someone who is perfectly willing to risk our people's live, money and prestige in the pursuit of their quixotic wars." You mean this doesn't imply "blame America for deaths occurred liberating Iraq."?! Your use of the word "quixotic" implies the war was naievly concieved and will not benefit the people of Iraq. Meaning those killed did so in vain and the people of Iraq were better off without our liberating them.

Your reasoning is flawed. Just because we finally have a president willing to stop the offensive policy of appeasing tyrants does not mean it is hypocritical. And the war is costly monetarily and unfortunately soldiers have died. I don't give a rats ass what backwards Europeans think of our country at the moment. They've been exposed as greedy, unprincipled asses. (see: France) As for the benefits, No more Sadam, a stabilizing Afghanistan, a disarmed Lybia, the flourishing of democracy in places like Ukraine, the rising calls for reform in Saudia Arabia and Lebanon...just to name a few current examples. More will come.

1. Lancet:

J. Thomas - That the study massively undercounted Iraqi deaths before the war does not mean that it undercounted Iraqi deaths after the war. It could be anything from a mathematical error to more complex explanations. Even if it did undercounted deaths after the war, because the study uses a subtraction for its result (Iraqi deaths after the war minus Expected Iraqi death according to the pre-war Iraqi deaths = Iraqi deaths because of war), it is not certain what the effect on the result would be, but depends on the nature on the error. Someone would have to check this throughly, but us in the more Natural studies oriented professions would dismiss almost anything with more than 10% error. Lastly, If I had the clout to convince anyone to repeat the study, I doubt I would have the time to read this blog (Sorry, Dr. Drezner!).

h.s. -

2. Syria and Lebanon -

I doubt that Israel needs to surround Damascus to 'win', but that's the strategy it is likely follow if it wants to go that far. It will probably do a direct, brute force attack, without taking unnecessary chances with fancy plans like going via Lebanon, naval landing at Latakia, etc.

I do not think that staying in Lebanon helps Syria defend itself. The most likely (and dangerous for Syria) option for an Israeli attack via Lebanon is if a "pro-Israeli and anti-Syrian (Lebanese) government" allows this to happen. Any other government will make every possible effort to prevent, delay and stop Israeli attacks in general, probably fairing no worse than the decayed Syrian army. If Syria approaches in good faith, I'm sure the Lebanase government will be responsive.

With 300,000+ Palestinian refugees and Hizbullah, the chance a "pro-Israeli" government will come to fore is infinitesimal. The only way that will happen is that Syria will make many Lebanese very frightened and angry at it, much more than at Israel. The reason for "a lot of anti-Syrianism in Lebanon" is current Syrian policy. Thus, Syrian policy ironically is increasing the chances for the event it should be stopping.

Economically, I think that having good relations with Lebanon without the occupation would make Syria benefit more in the long run. However, that prospect means three things:
a. Some Syrian government officials will no longer be able to 'reward themselves' with bribe money. Now, Lebanon was never a paragon of virtue in that regard, but it was always much more 'laissez-fair'.
b. Syrian workers will face some competition, and new measures are likely to be taken so that they'll spend some of their salary in Lebanon.
c. Syria will have to treat its sister far more as its equal, rather than as a vassal-state.
a. means early retirement for some people, b. means some short-term economic damage, and c. will cause an heart attack to some people. Again, Syrian policy harms Syria in the long term for short-term reasons.

3. Hariri assassination:

Hariri indeed was 'not being the great “opposition figure” that the news keeps saying he was'. It would seem, however, that he had a falling out with Syria some months before. As you can see from my description above of Syrian policy, I do not think it is smart at all. and Bashar is not half as clever as his father.

I do not know who killed Hariri, though Syria still occupies no. 1 on my suspect list. As for Israel, I think that was too great a risk, considering all of its other problems. This theory cannot however be entirely dismissed. As an aside, I doubt that Sharon is obsessed with Lebanon, anymore than he is obsessed with any other country beside his own. It's probably all business for him.

4. Israel and the Arab world:

I think we are talking one past another here, so I'll (re)state my position. Most of the problems in the Arab world are internal. While the grievances against Israel are genuine and held by the people, the conspiracy theories, the exaggerated claims and the ability of some elements to use these grievances as a distraction are a sign of a lack of education and maturity. Better diplomatic relations with Israel will not change much, as the underlying problems are internal. We are likely to see more muted hostility against Israel ("I Hate Israel" in a country which signed a peace accord) in this scenario.

Senator McCarthy was right to oppose the USSR which was an enemy, and there was some Communist infiltration then. But his methods were incredibly self-serving and counterproductive, and opposition to him did not mean serving Communism.

A clarification or two:

"I doubt that Israel needs to surround Damascus to 'win'" -> Destruction of the Syrian army in the field (which would lead to a destabilization of the regime) without taking much territory will probably be good enough for it.

" If Syria approaches in good faith, I'm sure the Lebanase government will be responsive. " -> a Lebanase government not Syrian 'assets', will be responsive to security arrangements.

Anon, you're right that undercounting prewar deaths wouldn't necessarily imply undercounting postwar deaths too. But it's the way to bet. More likely a systematic error that undercounts both than a biasing error that only undercounts one. But the proper thing to do is to repeat the study in more detail, which I've heard no one but me even suggest.

Critics of this study appear to me to *want* it to be wrong about postwar casualties, so they come up with a reason why they think it's wrong about something and then claim that for this reason we can ignore it. I've noticed that many supporters of the war do this about every unpleasant report they hear of. There are a lot of them....