Temple 3 - Thought, Word and Deed

my man cnulan hit me off with a link (below)- and I'm inserting this quote of note to highlight something of interest:

The Long War

Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert has stated that the Israeli offensive against Lebanon would "last a very long time". Meanwhile, the US has speeded up weapons shipments to Israel.

"There are strategic objectives underlying the "Long War" which are tied to oil and oil pipelines.

The air campaign against Lebanon is inextricably related to US-Israeli strategic objectives in the broader Middle East including Syria and Iran. In recent developments, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated that the main purpose of her mission to the Middle East was not to push for a ceasefire in Lebanon, but rather to isolate Syria and Iran. (Daily Telegraph, 22 July 2006)

At this particular juncture, the replenishing of Israeli stockpiles of US produced WMDs points to an escalation of the war both within and beyond the borders of Lebanon.

I've been in an ongoing conversation with my peeps over at P6 about whether or not Israel has underestimated Hezbollah and whether or not a larger game is afoot. I think our nonaligned positions can be summed up thusly:

ptcruiser would assert that Israel has clearly underestimated hezbollah and is in the midst of an unwinnable 4GW conflict. the tactics of the israelis are not sufficient to win this particular fight and there is no measure of support from the US that is sufficient to tip the balance. i hope that's a fair recapitulation of his points - he'll correct me if i am in error.

my position is that israel only appears to have underestimated hezbollah because the goal is not to end this fight quickly and decisively, but rather to drag this out and engage syria and iran into a broader fight - with the assistance of the us. i believe the us and israel want and need this fight in order to establish a formal military presence in high priority pipeline areas around the caspian sea. quite frankly, hezbollah and lebanon are beside the point (literally).

further, i believe we will see a rolling back of media coverage on this issue and the initiation of a new wave intended to change the terms and tactics. today, the financial times took this issue off the front page. cnn shifted its focus to the closing of the alaskan pipeline by BP and the related increase in gas prices. and the new york times is leading with a story about the senatorial race in connecticut. the story re: lebanon-israel is a personal/human interest story, rather than an ongoing exposition of the situation as it unfolds. i don't believe any number of katusha strikes will change the direction of media coverage. i believe the winds of change are in the air - and this story will begin to take on a different shape.

I'm not the only one who believes that a larger scheme is unfolding with respect to Israel's current beef with Hezbollah. That really does not amount to hill of beans, but it can make for interesting reading. Sidney Bleumenthal weighs in with plenty.

According to Sidney, the neocons next war is aimed at Syria and Iran. I think he's probably right. Still, I don't think he's really hit on the "why" of it all.

In any event, it appears that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is has been "thrown under the bus" for being incompetent by pundits and politicos from Richard Perle to Newt Gingrich. Perhaps this is another case of affirmative action gone wild - then again, it couldn't be that because all Republican appointments have been based on merit.

One of the primary military and economic objectives of the United States of America is to restrict the access of China to energy markets. China is the world's second largest consumer of energy. The United States is the world's largest consumer. China is Iran's number two export partner. Japan is number one. Iran has gone on record as stating it would like to shift its export "weight" to China.

If you're interested in knowing how China's energy limitations have protected Iran over the past few years, check this out.

If you're interested in the scope of China's energy issues, check this out.

If you're interested in what Henry Kissinger thinks could precipitate the next global conflict, check this out.

The potentially explosive combination of a China less willing to passively accept U.S. leadership and the prospect of competition between China and other states for control over vital energy resources poses particularly critical challenges to U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, China’s search for oil is making it a new competitor to the United States for influence in the Middle East. If not managed prudently, this competition will generate multiple points of bilateral friction and damage U.S. strategic interests in the region.

There is more to this than is being discussed in the mainstream media. It is why the mass media is not a source of news or information, but a source of US policy imperatives. Those imperatives do NOT indicate clearly what the US intends to do, but they do indicate what the US wants people to believe.

What if the conflict in the Middle East is really not about that region at all? What if the real concern of all those players has nothing to do with Israel, its right to exist or the Palestinians? I've asked myself these questions for some time now. As I've read more and more pieces about the conflict, the less I am convinced that the current conflict really has a thing to do with Lebanon or Gaza or even Syria.

I still have a few numbers to crunch, but I'm inclined to believe that the crux of this matter, like a game of chess, has yet to unfold. We could be witnessing the first or second move in a series of 8 or 10 moves. It is not easy to make a sound determination about what is unfolding. Perhaps I'm simply being skeptical. Perhaps I'm simply rejecting the way the story has been framed by the mainstream media. In any event, the geopolitics of the region from the eastern edge of the Mediterranean through to the Khyber Pass is complex.

It takes two lunatics to have the type of action that is taking place in Lebanon and Israel right now. Hezbollah admits to kidnapping two soldiers. Perhaps abducting is a better word. Israel responds with bombings in Lebanon which are estimated to have killed as many as 75 people, mostly civilians.

The US says, "That's fine. Just try to finish up before Sunday dinner. That'll be the first time most Americans will catch any images on television. It should be over by then. Now run along and get back to killing those Arabs." Or something to that effect. Of course this won't be over on Sunday - and it won't be over in a month or two months or two years or ten years or two centuries.

These groups, Arabs and Israelis, are fighting about land and identity...there is nothing more fundamental than that. The American media uses the term "fundamentalist" as if it is some awful thing. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The thing is that there is very little room in this fight for someone who is not a fundamentalist - but plenty of crossfire for those of all political stripes.

The carnage will continue. The body count will grow. And humanity will add more testaments to our ending belief that life is not sacred. Whomever said, "though shall not kill," must have clearly understood our innate capacity to murder on all levels, small and large.