Cliff May wonders whether Dianne Feinstein is dumb or just pretending to be. Feinstein on the shipment of missiles to Hezbollah and the potential for war, pronounces: “There’s only one thing that’s going to solve it, and that’s a two-state solution.” Thunk. As May observes, is it really possible that the “chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, believes that Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria would be satisfied with a two-state solution — assuming that one of those states is Israel”? Well, to be honest, that is not far removed from the claptrap we hear from the administration, which has reduced every issue to a pretext for “focusing” (haven’t we focused for decades?) on the non-existent peace process.
For a saner take on what is really at issue in Syria, read Lee Smith’s compelling piece on the SCUDs and what the administration is doing about that situation. The contrast to the prior administration is stark:
This past week was a bad one for those eager to reach out to Syria. It was reported that Damascus is believed to have transferred to Hezbollah Scud missiles that would be able to reach any part of Israel. “The threat that Syria might transfer more advanced weapons to Hezbollah has existed for a long time,” says Elliott Abrams, who oversaw Middle East affairs in the George W. Bush White House and is now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “With respect to Scuds, it has been understood the Israelis would interdict such a shipment. I do not recall the Bush Administration ever expressing disagreement with that view.”
The Obama Administration seems to feel differently. Initial reports explained that the White House convinced the Israelis not to attack the arms shipment and promised that Kerry would deliver a strong message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during his visit to Damascus early this month. U.S. officials confirmed Kerry did indeed convey the Americans’ displeasure even as more recent reports suggest that the Obama Administration now believes that the actual transfer may not have occurred.
As Smith notes, the great danger here is that Syria and its senior partner Iran will once again perceive American weakness if we don’t respond (with something more meaningful than a tongue-lashing for the Syrian minister) to this latest act of aggression. (“If we let Syria off the hook for its proven acts of terror against U.S. military and diplomatic personnel, as well as U.S. allies in Israel, Lebanon, and Iraq, we have all but announced that in the event of future attacks on the U.S. homeland we will never retaliate against the states without which so-called stateless terrorist organizations cannot exist. We will have effectively disabled any deterrence we have against our adversaries and made our cities vulnerable to anyone who can lie his way past the Transportation Security Administration.”) But we should not be reassured that it is John Kerry delivering the message to Damascus, Smith says. He — and his wife, we learn — have a soft spot for Bashar al-Assad.
So Feinstein is not alone in her silliness. Unfortunately, the president and those carrying out his foreign policy are equally confused.
“Fourth, South Ossetia itself has a large majority of ethnic Russians, and if it came to a vote, would choose to rejoin Russia. America’s interest here is not in forcing South Ossetia to remain part of Georgia, but in ensuring that South Ossetia’s fate is decided peacefully, and without compromising Georgia’s security”
I don’t think many of georgias beltway supporters / lobbiests see that as their “interest” at all. they don’t want those ethnic russians to be able to choose anything. they want georgia and their president, who’s version of democracy includes jailing his opponents for treason, to stick a fork in putins eye.
It looks like by tomorrow or the next day there won’t be a Georgia left to have this debate over.
OT
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080810/i/r1082707441.jpg
lester-
Somehow, that picture says it all.
As a side note, the silence of the US and European left has been deafening here. The Russians move without a scintilla of international “law” as a cover–and nary a peep from the usual suspects. Moreover, the implications of a successful Russian effort here are perhaps more destabilizing to world peace than anything ever dreamed by those who opposed the Iraq invasion–Russia will now attempt to reassemble through outright violence or subversion, its former empire.
Expect no complaints from the Euro-Left. Imperialist aggression is excusable as long as it comes from a power that supplies the oil that heats the NGO offices in Brussels.
Isn’t odd that the last US commander to tangle with the Russians, Wesley Clark, has been noticeably absence from the list of talking heads.
“South Ossetia itself has a large majority of ethnic Russians, ”
This is absurd. According to the 1979 census, there were 2% ethnic Russians
there. There are probably even fewer of them now.
About 2/3 of the population are ethnic Ossetians (a people that has nothing
to do with Russians, their language is related to Farsi);
about 30% are ethnic Georgians.
Russia has recently granted Russian citizenship to most Ossetians -
but that was a political act having nothing to do from their ethnicity…
#7, A correction:
Russia has recently granted Russian citizenship to most Ossetians -
but that was a political act having nothing to do with their ethnicity…
(I had mistyped “from”, instead of “with”).
“Russia has recently granted Russian citizenship to most Ossetians.”
If by “recently” you mean 1992, then yes. In the early days after the breakup of the USSR Russia gave its citizenship to any former Soviet citizen who wanted it. The Ossetians took this option en masse.
What utter tommyrot.
The notion that the United States should challenge Russia on its strategic doorstep is fatuous nonsense. Georgia is not Afghanistan. The Russians would, rightly, see such a challenge the way we saw their probe into Cuba in 1962, as an attempt to permanently tilt the balance in our favor. Russia has the 58th Tank Army, air and naval supremacy in theater, and most importantly, interior lines of supply. This does not appear to have made an impression on Mr. Boot.
We can, however, hurt one of their clients, the Iranians. I suspect things may be in train to do just that. The Russians and the Iranians both want us out of South Asia, as Mr. Boot suggests?
Well, the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away….