Carter making progress in ME visit?

[Craig234]

The Bush presidency can largely be summarized as a group of political crooks who knew how to assemble a coalition of special interests, from selling out the public to corporations/lobbyists, the religious right, and military interests/foreign policy hawks, doing so and gaining power, very unable to govern, and offering only spin to cover up some of the worst governing in our history.

Some of them were very willing to support Bush - the leaders of the religious right who stood to gain big with new federal 'social spending funds' re-directed to their pockets as 'faith-based initiatives'; some supported him because they'd lose out if they didn't. In Bush's first term, it was explicitly 'pay to play' - you donate and put Republican operatives in your organization, or you're shut out on bills.

This is responding to some of the Bush advocacy in this thread, and it fits his Middle-Eastern policies.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think your assessment of Israeli capabilities is way, way off base, chucky2. W/O US support, they'd have to compromise, because the ability to sustain war requires resources that they don't have. And if you're talking about war in the middle east, that's clearly what it's about- sustainability. They have no oil, no ore and limited manufacturing capability- there are only ~6M Israelis, and they'd be very hard pressed to engage in trade against sanctions that the UN would impose if it weren't for US veto power. A high tech airforce doesn't matter if there aren't spare parts and fuel. Guns become clubs when you use up all your ammo and can't make more at the required rate.

They aren't fools, so they'd likely back off, find another way long before it came to total war. They're part of the world economy much moreso than we are, and with world opinion against them, they simply can't persevere...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I think your assessment of Israeli capabilities is way, way off base, chucky2. W/O US support, they'd have to compromise, because the ability to sustain war requires resources that they don't have. And if you're talking about war in the middle east, that's clearly what it's about- sustainability. They have no oil, no ore and limited manufacturing capability- there are only ~6M Israelis, and they'd be very hard pressed to engage in trade against sanctions that the UN would impose if it weren't for US veto power. A high tech airforce doesn't matter if there aren't spare parts and fuel. Guns become clubs when you use up all your ammo and can't make more at the required rate.

They aren't fools, so they'd likely back off, find another way long before it came to total war. They're part of the world economy much moreso than we are, and with world opinion against them, they simply can't persevere...

Or is it possible, that if Israel feels that they are isolated w/ their backs against the wall, they may opt for a cleansing of Gaza (scorched earth). For the past 60 years, the world opinion (via UN actions) have been agaisnt them.

After all, world opinion would not matter. They wouldhave no sponsor as you stated; the Arab world is heavily lined up against them along with Russia and China as sponsors/supporters of the Arabs.

Just like in '67, when the forces are set up, a preemptive strike may be needed to relieve the threat.

Clean Hamas & the Palestinians out of Gaza and they now have only the West Bank and the North as an issue. There biggest thorn would be removed.


When you put someone's back against the wall, they may not react in the logical way one hopes. We saw that in Iraq & Asia (multiple times).

The Western mind does not always mesh with that of other cultures.

 

[Lemon law]

The other thing to mention about Israel is that Iran is getting out of range for them in terms of an air war. The extra wing tanks they would have to carry reduces bomb loads, no matter what they must trespass across the air space of other multiple nations, and unless the US wants to join in Israel's war, the USA is duty bound to defend Iraqi air space. And the previously successful Israeli preemptive strikes at neighboring countries nuclear facilities will not work with Iran because they are too deeply buried. Its going to take Israeli nukes and that even Israeli dares not use.

In terms of a land war, Israeli supply lines get impossibly long. And would likely result in having to greatly weaken domestic defense. And before Israeli tanks could get even half way there, other Arab states might start attacking Israel proper. The Seymour Hersh contention was that the 2006 Lebanese incursion was just that dry run test of an possible Iranian invasion, and when Israeli armor took two weeks to go 20 miles against just militia opposition, there is that totally unfeasible answer right there.

Israel may be able to intimidate nations like Lebanon and Syria with air and land power, but Iran is just too big and far away. Fortunately for Israel, Iran has a similar distance handicap. As both nations look at the distance and call each other nasty names.