Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

Think at your own risk.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
WTF???
That's apparently the reaction of the uniformed military to alleged plans by the Bush adminitration to possibly deploy U.S. troops to Lebanon to fight alongside the Israelis. From Harper's magazine by way of RawStory:
A "well-connected former CIA officer" has told Harper's Magazine Washington bureau chief that the Bush Administration is considering deploying US troops to Lebanon. ...

"The officer, who had broad experience in the Middle East while at the CIA, noted that NATO and European countries, including England, have made clear that they are either unwilling or extremely reluctant to participate in an international force. Given other nations' lack of commitment, any “robust” force—between 10,000 and 30,000 troops, according to estimates being discussed in the media—would by definition require major U.S. participation. According to the former official, Israel and the United States are currently discussing a large American role in exactly such a “multinational” deployment, and some top administration officials, along with senior civilians at the Pentagon, are receptive to the idea.

The uniformed military, however, is ardently opposed to sending American soldiers to the region, according to my source. “They are saying 'What the fuck?'” he told me. “Most of our combat-ready divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan, or on their way, or coming back. The generals don't like it because we're already way overstretched.”

The former CIA officer said that the Bush Administration seems not to understand Hezbollah's deep roots and broad support among Lebanon's Shiites, the country's largest single ethnic bloc. “A U.S. force is going to end up making, not keeping, peace with Hezbollah. Once you start fighting in a place like that you’re basically at war with the Shiite population. That means that our soldiers are going to be getting shot at by Hezbollah. This would be a sheer disaster for us.”

The scenario of an American deployment appears to come straight out of the neoconservative playbook: send U.S. forces into the Middle East, regardless of what our own military leaders suggest, in order to “stabilize” the region. The chances of success, as we have seen in Iraq, are remote. So what should be done? My source said the situation is so volatile at the moment that the only smart policy is to get an immediate ceasefire and worry about the terms of a lasting truce afterwards.
But according to investigative reporter and former NSA operative Wayne Madsen, the U.S. is already involved militarily in Lebanon:
July 26, 2006 -- Our intelligence sources report that the Israeli Defense Force attack on Lebanon is being carried out as a joint Israeli-U.S. military operation. Moreover, there are joint Israeli and U.S. war rooms coordinating the U.S.-supported Israeli attacks on Lebanon. The ultimate aim of Washington and Jerusalem is not only to eliminate Hezbollah as a political force in Lebanon but also to remake Lebanon as an American and Israeli client state. Israeli forces are pounding parts of Lebanon, especially in the north, where there are no Hezbollah units and primarily Christian populations. In addition, Israeli forces are being aided by the Bush administration with high-resolution overhead imagery from U.S. spy satellites and signals intelligence (SIGINT) intercepts from National Security Agency assets, including SIGINT satellites.

Madsen also concurs with Kofi Annan's statement that the bombing of the U.N. peacekeepers' facility in Beirut by Israel was deliberate. And he says:
Israel's deliberate attack on a UN peacekeeping outpost in southern Lebanon represents a new departure in Israel's war against Lebanon. The attack is being called a mistake by the Israeli government and its Bush administration patrons. Unconfirmed US ambassador to the UN John Bolton is a known opponent of the UN system, having once called for the destruction of the top ten floors of the UN Secretariat Building in New York. The US and Israeli Missions to the UN, always working in complete lockstep, are now spinning that the Israeli attack on the UN outpost was because Hezbollah placed weapons near the facility.

The last time UN peacekeepers were deliberately targeted was in 1994 when 10 Belgian blue helmets assigned to the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) were savagely murdered by rampaging Hutus after the shoot down of the presidential aircraft carrying the Hutu Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi by members of U.S.-supported Paul Kagame's Rwanda Patriotic Army forces. In 2005, Congolese guerrillas killed nine MONUC Bangladeshi and one Nepali UN peacekeepers in Ituri province. In 1976, two US Army soldiers operating under UN aegis were hacked to death by North Korean troops at the demilitarized zone's Panmunjom "truce village." In none of these cases was it proven that the assaults on the UN troops were carried out with the knowledge of the governments concerned.

and...
July 25, 2006 -- On July 22, WMR first reported that white phosphorous, a substance that burns through the skin of its victims, was being used against Lebanese civilians, including children, by Israeli forces. Yesterday, Reuters reported the following in a July 24 dateline from Paris: "Lebanon's president accused Israel on Monday of using phosphorous bombs in its 13-day offensive and urged the United Nations to demand an immediate ceasefire." CNN also reported on the use of white phosphorous by Israel.

and finally...
July 22/23, 2006 -- The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration. On June 17 and 18, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Likud Knesset member Natan Sharansky met with Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute conference in Beaver Creek, Colorado. There, the impending Israeli invasions of both Gaza and Lebanon were discussed. After receiving Cheney's full backing for the invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu flew back to Israel and participated in a special "Ex-Prime Ministers" meeting, in which he conveyed the Bush administration's support for the carrying out of the "Clean Break" policy -- the trashing of all past Middle East peace accords, including Oslo. Present at the meeting, in addition to Netanyahu, were current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir is very old and suffers from dementia and Ariel Sharon remains in a coma after a series of strokes.

After the AEI meeting, Sharansky, who has the ear of Bush, met with the Heritage Foundation in Washington and then attended a June 29 seminar at Philadelphia's Main Line Haverford School sponsored by the Middle East Forum led by Daniel Pipes. Sharansky appeared with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who this past Thursday was beating the war drums against Syria, Iran, and "Islamo-fascism" in a fiery speech at the National Press Club attended by a cheering section composed of members of the neocon Israel Project, on whose board Santorum serves along with Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Virginia GOP Rep. Tom Davis.

Our Washington sources claim that the U.S.-supported invasions of Gaza and Lebanon and the impending attacks on Syria and Iran represent the suspected "event" predicted to take place prior to the November election in the United States and is an attempt to rally the American public around the Bush-Cheney regime during a time of wider war.
In today's news, war crimes files are being filed against Israel by a Belgian couple of Lebanese dissent. Read the Reuters story here.

Tags: , Bush, Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Politics, News, war, Current Affairs, Iran, Iraq, , ,
posted by JReid @ 7:45 AM  
ReidBlog: The Obama Interview
Listen now:


Home

Site Feed

Email Me

**NEW** Follow me on Twitter!

My Open Salon Blog

My TPM Blog

My FaceBook Page

Del.icio.us

My MySpace

BlackPlanet

Blogroll Me!


Syndicated by:

Blog RSS/Atom Feed Aggregator and Syndicate


Loading...


Add to Technorati Favorites

Finalist: Best Liberal Blog
Thanks to all who voted!



About Reidblog

Previous Posts
Title
"I am for enhanced interrogation. I don't believe waterboarding is torture... I'll do it. I'll do it for charity." -- Sean Hannity
Links
Templates by
Free Blogger Templates