Ultima Thule

In ancient times the northernmost region of the habitable world - hence, any distant, unknown or mysterious land.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

An unmitigated disaster - women sound the clarion call to arms

By Aussiegirl

Well, dear friends, it is a dark day for the forces of freedom. The UN sponsored ceasefire is an unmitigated disaster for the West, as you'll read in this excellent analysis by that estimable warrior for peace, Caroline Glick. What is it about women in the modern age that causes us to be even more acutely aware of the catastrophe that is befalling Western Civilization? Of course there are men on the front lines of the war of ideas, and it is men that have to fight this war and prosecute it to its ultimate end, with prejudice, with vigor and with all the due violence and determination that men are capable of mustering. But yet I see that it is often the women among us who have the clarity of vision to sound the alarm, to scream to the high heavens that smart men are so tangled up in their dream worlds of complex maneuvering and complex political machinations and subtle geopolitical considerations that they fail to see the simple question that lies before us. There are so many women sounding the alarm -- Oriana Fallaci, Melanie Philips, Caroline Glick and others. I don't want to overstate this aspect of the situation, for there are men who are also sounding the alarm, but perhaps women in their emotional attachment to elemental dangers see more clearly at times than men. How many times have my warnings and fears been pooh-poohed by men who are smarter and wiser than me -- who counsel me to not overreact, to not get hysterical. The big boys have it all taken care of. That poker-playing cowboy has an ace up his sleeve -- just you wait -- this is all clever strategery -- a plot laid by those more subtle and ingenious than mere females, who do not understand this geopolitical big boys game. After all -- aren't they members of the club? The gentlemen's club, those smoky rooms where all the deals are made out of sight of the unknowing public, and soothing words are issued forth as pablum for the anxious masses. Only the spin isn't working. There is no strategery. There was no brilliant plan behind this insane plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. There isn't any glorious resolution with Israel marching to triumph. No. Too-clever-by-half incrementalism has crippled and hobbled the West.

But then, we have the curious case of Condoleeza Rice, that smiling fool who blathers nonsense about a "sustainable peace", and parades and minces around in her high-heeled shoes, when in this case we need testosterone on steroids running our foreign policy. Ultimately, we might even say that the final battle between Islam and the West may be waged and won by the side that has the men with the most testosterone. Maybe women are just finally standing up and demanding that Western men start acting like men, and not dithering weasels like the French-sounding Olmert. He even looks French. Is this a man? Are these cowering fools men? Yet they stand in the way of real men, the military who should be allowed to fight wars on their own terms, not with politicians tying their hands with incrementalism and halfway measures.

This is the way it's always been. Men must do the dirty work of leading and fighting and dying, and women must console and pick up the pieces and try to keep their families and society together in the process, and aid in the process of rebuilding. But nothing can take the place of men in this case. They have to step forward. We have created an over-intellectualized male, concerned with process and not outcome. We have a nation of lawyers and negotiators, when what we need are warriors. Yes, warriors -- muscular men who are moved to muscular action and act with malice and anger and single-minded vengeance. We need more Pattons. And on the civilian side we need Churchills. We don't need no stinking pusillanimous lawyers like Olmert making deals and finessing an outcome, while trying to convince his client that a loss is really a win, if only they were clever enough to see it, as he is, of course. Things are really quite simple. There is no subtle strategy required. There are no subtle geopolitical considerations to take into account. They want to kill us and subdue us and convert us to Islam -- and we must defeat them on every battlefield, both domestic and foreign. We must beat them down until they no longer entertain the notion that they can subjugate us. We must intrusively monitor mosques and Muslim cultural centers and schools for signs of incitement to hatred and terror. We have to root out and deport those Muslims in our community who are not 100% loyal to the United States first -- and Islam second. We have to prosecute that war in Iraq and make sure that those fools do not make a greater Iran out of that hell hole. We have to take the fight to Syria and Iran and North Korea. And we have to stop apologizing to the world and asking forgiveness for the very fact that we exist! Don't ask me how -- that's the job of men. It's the job of women to demand that men stand up and protect them and their children. It has always been their job. We are doing our part. Now men have to do theirs.

Townhall.com::An unmitigated disaster::By Caroline B. Glick

There is a good reason that Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah has accepted UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which sets the terms for a cease-fire between his jihad army and the State of Israel.

The resolution represents a near-total victory for Hizbullah and its state sponsors Iran and Syria, and an unprecedented defeat for Israel and its ally the United States. This fact is evident both in the text of the resolution and in the very fact that the US decided to sponsor a cease-fire resolution before Israel had dismantled or seriously degraded Hizbullah's military capabilities.

While the resolution was not passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and so does not have the authority of law, in practice it makes it all but impossible for Israel to defend itself against Hizbullah aggression without being exposed to international condemnation on an unprecedented scale.

This is the case first of all because the resolution places responsibility for determining compliance in the hands of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Annan has distinguished himself as a man capable only of condemning Israel for its acts of self-defense while ignoring the fact that in attacking Israel, its enemies are guilty of war crimes. By empowering Annan to evaluate compliance, the resolution all but ensures that Hizbullah will not be forced to disarm and that Israel will be forced to give up the right to defend itself.

The resolution makes absolutely no mention of either Syria or Iran, without whose support Hizbullah could neither exist nor wage an illegal war against Israel. In so ignoring Hizbullah's sponsors, it ignores the regional aspect of the current war and sends the message to these two states that they may continue to equip terrorist armies in Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Iraq with the latest weaponry without paying a price for their aggression.

The resolution presents Hizbullah with a clear diplomatic victory by placing their erroneous claim of Lebanese sovereignty over the Shaba Farms, or Mount Dov - a vast area on the Golan Heights that separates the Syrian Golan from the Upper Galilee and is disputed between Israel and Syria - on the negotiating table. In doing so, the resolution rewards Hizbullah's aggression by giving international legitimacy to its demand for territorial aggrandizement via acts of aggression, in contravention of the laws of nations.

Moreover, by allowing Lebanon to make territorial claims on Israel despite the fact that in 2000 the UN determined that Israel had withdrawn to the international border, the resolution sets a catastrophic precedent for the future. Because Lebanon is receiving international support for legally unsupportable territorial demands on Israel, in the future, the Palestinians, Syrians and indeed the Jordanians and Egyptians will feel empowered to employ aggression to gain territorial concessions from the Jewish state even if they previously signed treaties of peace with Israel. The message of the resolution's stand on Shaba Farms is that Israel can never expect for the world to recognize any of its borders as final.

By calling in the same paragraph for the "immediate cessation by Hizbullah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations," the resolution treats as equivalent Hizbullah's illegal aggression against Israel and Israel's legitimate military actions taken in defense of its sovereign territory.

Operational Paragraph 7, which "affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 [which calls for a cessation of hostilities] that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons," all but bars Israel from taking military action to defend itself in the future. Any steps Israel takes will open it to accusations - by Annan - of breaching this paragraph.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni had let it be known that Israel's conditions for a cease-fire included the institution of an arms embargo against Hizbullah. The government also insisted that the international force it wished to have deployed along the border would work to dismantle Hizbullah.

However, paragraph 8 puts both the question of an arms embargo and Hizbullah's dismantlement off to some future date when Israel and Lebanon agree to the terms of a "permanent cease-fire." In addition, it places the power to oversee an arms embargo against Hizbullah in the hands of the Lebanese government, of which Hizbullah is a member.

While the resolution bars Israel from taking measures necessary to defend its territory and citizens, by keeping UNIFIL in Lebanon it ensures that no other force will be empowered to take these necessary actions. Furthermore, paragraph 2 "calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment [of the Lebanese military and UNIFIL] begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel." This means that Israel is expected to withdraw before a full deployment of Lebanese and UNIFIL forces is carried out. As a result, a vacuum will be created that will allow Hizbullah to reinforce its positions in south Lebanon.

Finally, the resolution makes no operative call for the release of IDF soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev now being held hostage by Hizbullah. By relegating their fate to a paragraph in the preamble, which then immediately turns to Hizbullah's demand for the release of Lebanese terrorists held in Israeli jails, the resolution all but eliminates any possibility of their returning home.

Aside from the resolution's egregious language, the very fact that the US has sponsored a resolution that leaves Hizbullah intact as a fighting force constitutes a devastating blow to the national security of both Israel and the US, for the following reasons:

It grants the Lebanese government and military unwarranted legitimacy. The resolution treats the Lebanese government and military as credible bodies. However, the Lebanese government is currently under the de facto control of Hizbullah and Syria. Moreover, the Lebanese army is paying pensions to the families of Hizbullah fighters killed in battle, and its forces have actively assisted Hizbullah in attacking Israel and Israeli military targets. Indeed, the seven-point declaration issued by the Lebanese government, which the UN resolution applauds, was dictated by Hizbullah, as admitted by Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Nasrallah last week.

It incites Shi'ite violence in Iraq. From a US perspective, the resolution drastically increases the threat of a radical Shi'ite revolt in Iraq. Hizbullah is intimately tied to Iraqi Shi'ite terrorist Muqtada al-Sadr. In April 2003, Hizbullah opened offices in southern Iraq and was instrumental in training the Mahdi Army, which Sadr leads. During a demonstration in Baghdad last week, Sadr's followers demanded that he consider them an extension of Hizbullah, and expressed a genuine desire to participate in Hizbullah's war against the US and Israel.

It should be assumed that Hizbullah's presumptive victory in its war against Israel will act as a catalyst for violence by Sadr and his followers against the Iraqi government and coalition forces in the weeks to come. Indeed, the Hizbullah victory will severely weaken moderate Shi'ites in the Maliki government and among the followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

It empowers Iran. Iran emerges as the main victor in the current war. Not only was it not condemned for its sponsorship of Hizbullah, it is being rewarded for that sponsorship because it is clear to all parties that Iran was the engine behind this war, and that its side has won.

The UN resolution does not strengthen the US hand in future Security Council deliberations regarding Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program because the states that object to any action against Iran - Russia and China - will continue with their refusal to sign on to any substantive action.

Indeed, Russia's behavior regarding the situation in Lebanon, including the fact that a large percentage of Hizbullah's arsenal of advanced anti-tank missiles was sold by Russia to Syria and Iran, exposes that Moscow's role in the current conflict has been similar to the position taken by the Soviet Union in earlier Middle East wars.

Furthermore, because the resolution strengthens the UN as the arbiter of peace and security in the region, the diplomatic price the US will be forced to pay if it decides to go outside the UN to contend with the Iranian threat has been vastly increased.

Many sources in Washington told this writer over the weekend that the US decision to seek a cease-fire was the result of Israel's amateurish bungling of the first three weeks of the war. The Bush administration, they argued, was being blamed for the Olmert government's incompetence and so preferred to cut its losses and sue for a cease-fire.

There is no doubt much truth to this assertion. The government's prosecution of this war has been unforgivably inept. At the same time it should be noted that the short-term political gain accrued by the US by forging the cease-fire agreement will come back to haunt the US, Israel and all forces fighting the forces of global jihad in the coming weeks and months.

By handing a victory to Hizbullah, the resolution strengthens the belief of millions of supporters of jihad throughout the world that their side is winning and that they should redouble efforts to achieve their objectives of destroying Israel and running the US out of the Middle East.

International legal scholar Prof. Anne Bayefsky assisted the author in analyzing the text of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.


At 3:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good post, Aussiegirl.

If we as a people and our leaders, don't get our PC heads out of the sand then we have already lost this war. Because at war we are, whether we like it or not. Islam will have to be stopped with violence, as they neither respect or listen to anything else, being the bullies and thugs they are. As has been said by people crying as a voice in the PC wilderness, APPEASEMENT DOES NOT WORK.
We are already losing this war because we will not face facts - we either win or become dhimmis. Islam is not interested in playing nice and 'live and let live'.

At 11:39 AM, Blogger Chris said...

Sorry to rain on your parade, Aussiegirl, but Condi Rice is responsible for U.S. national security and foreign policy. Ehud Olmert, on the other hand, was solely responsible for the execution of the Israel war plan, which he refused to do.

I have it on absolutely golden, positive authority that she ran interference for that empty suit for three weeks. When he didn't do anything with the opportunity Bush and she gave him, it was time to pull the plug.

There will be a next time. Thankfully, Netanyahu will be Prime Minister. But don't go running around blaming Rice when you obviously know very little about what actually went on. Ask the IDF General Staff. They know who's at fault, and it ain't Condi Rice.

At 3:46 PM, Blogger Aussiegirl said...

Strangely, the weather is still quite good here at Ultima Thule, despite predictions of imminent downpours. My criticisms of Condi Rice stand and will continue to stand. From the very first moments of this crisis, which occurred during the G-8 summit, Condi Rice was making ridiculous statements about immediately getting back to the peace talks and ensuring a lasting and sustainable peace, etc. etc. To his credit, President Bush quashed these nonsensical statements and stated forthrightly that Israel had a right to defend herself. She disappeared from the scene for several days only to re-emerge a while later singing the same old song. There are reports that there was a split between the president and Condi, who is of the Brent Scowcroft school of State Department diplomacy at all costs and appeasement at any price. It looks as though President Bush did win this one with Condi, at least for a while, and rightly overruled her. The fact that Olmert failed to take advantage of the opening offered to him is his shame and Israel's terrible fate. The fact remains, that we need a strong man running our diplomacy as well as our military posture. Women are considered beneath contempt in that part of the world where she is most needed. And Condi is no Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir. A nice handy resume and a degree in a field which no longer exists -- i.e. Sovietology -- is no qualification for being the Secretary of State at probably the most dangerous time since the late 1930's. She speaks of diplomatic blah-blah when muscular realism is called for. There's plenty of blame to go around here, and nowhere did I say that it is entirely Condi's fault. As for your "golden positive authority" -- well, we'll have to take your anonymous word for that.

At 7:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Aussiegirl, for Caroline Glick's incisive article, and your equally insightful introduction. It does seem that there are a lot of brave women in the world, and you've posted articles about many of them. And I agree with your assessment of Condi Rice -- her Russian doesn't help much in confronting people who speak Arabic, and who in addition see women as second-class humans -- if that high. As for commenter Chris, well, anyone can use the phrase "absolutely golden, positive authority" -- in fact I myself used the identical phrase just the other day -- and did I impress my audience!


Post a Comment

<< Home