Update.
So, Ms. Rice finally got to the Middle East Monday. Seemingly, not much having changed in her mindset during the last few days of preparation in Washington. It looks like US is going to back Israel (we've apparently already been sending several Airbus' full of laser-guided bombs to Israel through Scotland to assist with their operations...without UK's explicit knowledge) and hope that they will do our dirty work for us and eliminate an anti-american group (Hezbollah) that is struggling for power against the democratic regime of Lebanon. This, of course, will then help to further weaken Syria and Iran's sphere of influence in the region; and therefore also serve to help transform the entire middle east toward democracy, as a hefty blow would have been dealt to those pesky theocracy-minded extremists.
It sounds good on paper, but I think the biggest problem [among many others] with this plan is collateral damage. I'm sure that the administration knows this: but it seems that they are basically betting that the elimination of Hezbollah in Lebanon and weakening of Hamas in Palestine will do enough good for the US cause to override any potential recruiting programs those very groups could implement in response to the violence, which would be required to exact the ambitious plan. Furthermore, while the bold plan will no doubt carry notable Israeli losses, the majority of them are destined to be soldiers. Whereas Palestinians are purportedly being used as human shields in Gaza and 1/3 of the 405 Lebanese civilians killed have been children. Anybody, regardless of political affiliation or personal beliefs has to agree that substantially more non-military deaths have and will occur in Lebanon and Palestine over Israel. The same goes for economic impact. The 50 billion spent over the last 10 years revitalizing Lebanon after it's lenghty civil war have been reduced to rubble; and some say that the economy may never be able to fully recover from the risk this recent destruction has brought to any potential investments in the area (see article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5209502.stm). While large cities in Israel have now an increased risk associated with them due to the chance of a stray missile attack, the cost associated with this weak possibility pales in comparison to the already easily visible destruction in Lebanon and makes heavily targeted cities like Haifa in Israel look remarkably safe.
What bothers me the most, is not the loftiness of US goals, but rather the perceived indifference its official statements seem to direct to the innocent civilians suffering for the "new middle east." Not only did Ms. Rice fail to adequately address the humanitarian issue, she treated the trip more as a tour to reinforce Israeli actions than as a visit to broker peace between multiple factions. The United States: as a country considered to be the policing force of the world, regardless of private agenda, should never publicly take sides in any armed conflict that does not specifically endanger its property. Ms. Rice's comment that this war is "as much the United States' war as it is the Israeli's war," was irresponsible and misleading. Yes, the US has an agenda to be played out, and there are potential political gains to be won in this war. But it is not, or rather, should not be our war. The minute we engage in actions like flying the Israeli's laser-guided bombs to assist with their operations, is the moment when we can no longer be considered brokers for any potential solution. This is different from the past because while we have always defended Israel, we have not always directly supported its military actions; which is an important political distinction. This particular case is only exacerbated by the Israeli shelling and eventual bombing of an unarmed UN observer outpost; bringing up more questions as to their right to wage war. While it is possible that the act was an acccident, the 10 calls made to the Israeli military by the UN to stop the shelling before the final air-to-ground missile was dropped seem to suggest something more flagrant than an accident. Even in this the US seems to glance over at just another cost of securing a "new middle east."
More than anything else, by agreeing to let hostilities to continue, the US has in effect acknowledged that the 405 mostly civilian deaths in Lebanon and the 100 deaths in Gaza are acceptable and approved of by the US government. Even if the US has its own agenda, which is entirely within its rights to have, why do they have to be so publicly emotionless at the loss of life. Diplomacy is as much image as it is action, and the US still doesn't know how to make it look like it gives a shit about lives abroad. The true injustice in all of this is that the majority of Americans care more about the well being of others than most foreigners know. Our state department, it seems, will make sure that it stays that way.
It sounds good on paper, but I think the biggest problem [among many others] with this plan is collateral damage. I'm sure that the administration knows this: but it seems that they are basically betting that the elimination of Hezbollah in Lebanon and weakening of Hamas in Palestine will do enough good for the US cause to override any potential recruiting programs those very groups could implement in response to the violence, which would be required to exact the ambitious plan. Furthermore, while the bold plan will no doubt carry notable Israeli losses, the majority of them are destined to be soldiers. Whereas Palestinians are purportedly being used as human shields in Gaza and 1/3 of the 405 Lebanese civilians killed have been children. Anybody, regardless of political affiliation or personal beliefs has to agree that substantially more non-military deaths have and will occur in Lebanon and Palestine over Israel. The same goes for economic impact. The 50 billion spent over the last 10 years revitalizing Lebanon after it's lenghty civil war have been reduced to rubble; and some say that the economy may never be able to fully recover from the risk this recent destruction has brought to any potential investments in the area (see article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5209502.stm). While large cities in Israel have now an increased risk associated with them due to the chance of a stray missile attack, the cost associated with this weak possibility pales in comparison to the already easily visible destruction in Lebanon and makes heavily targeted cities like Haifa in Israel look remarkably safe.
What bothers me the most, is not the loftiness of US goals, but rather the perceived indifference its official statements seem to direct to the innocent civilians suffering for the "new middle east." Not only did Ms. Rice fail to adequately address the humanitarian issue, she treated the trip more as a tour to reinforce Israeli actions than as a visit to broker peace between multiple factions. The United States: as a country considered to be the policing force of the world, regardless of private agenda, should never publicly take sides in any armed conflict that does not specifically endanger its property. Ms. Rice's comment that this war is "as much the United States' war as it is the Israeli's war," was irresponsible and misleading. Yes, the US has an agenda to be played out, and there are potential political gains to be won in this war. But it is not, or rather, should not be our war. The minute we engage in actions like flying the Israeli's laser-guided bombs to assist with their operations, is the moment when we can no longer be considered brokers for any potential solution. This is different from the past because while we have always defended Israel, we have not always directly supported its military actions; which is an important political distinction. This particular case is only exacerbated by the Israeli shelling and eventual bombing of an unarmed UN observer outpost; bringing up more questions as to their right to wage war. While it is possible that the act was an acccident, the 10 calls made to the Israeli military by the UN to stop the shelling before the final air-to-ground missile was dropped seem to suggest something more flagrant than an accident. Even in this the US seems to glance over at just another cost of securing a "new middle east."
More than anything else, by agreeing to let hostilities to continue, the US has in effect acknowledged that the 405 mostly civilian deaths in Lebanon and the 100 deaths in Gaza are acceptable and approved of by the US government. Even if the US has its own agenda, which is entirely within its rights to have, why do they have to be so publicly emotionless at the loss of life. Diplomacy is as much image as it is action, and the US still doesn't know how to make it look like it gives a shit about lives abroad. The true injustice in all of this is that the majority of Americans care more about the well being of others than most foreigners know. Our state department, it seems, will make sure that it stays that way.