This truce is quickly becoming a farce. Hopefully Rice realizes what is going on and not revealing her hand. If she truly is hoping for voluntary disarming and good behavior from Hezbollah she should resign now.

It's time to turn the tables on these guys - a few covert ops to blow up these weapons 'caches' and the Hezbos will be flapping like goony birds. And somebody has to interdict any new weapons shipments. And kill the delivery boys, if necessary.

If we aren't willing to do at least that much, then AWW is right. After all, George Bush said exactly the same thing as Livni at the UN in Sept. 2002.

"[A]s [Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni,] called implementation of resolution 1701 "a test" for the United Nations..."

The United Nations is the Steve Howe of international organizations. The minute any multinational soldiers step into southern Lebanon they won't be soldiers anymore. They'll either be hostages or human shields while Hezbollah rearms and retrenches for another try someday.

Only in the Middle East where Arabs keep losing the war but winning the peace.

Allons">http://switchboard.real.com/player/email.html?PV=6.0.12&&title=La%20Marseillaise&link=http%3A%2F%2Facc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu%2F%7Ephalsall%2Fsounds%2Fmarseille.ra">Allons enfants ... wave the white flag and let's get back to business as usual.

Why would Hezbollah disarm?

To be frank, someone reminded them of what happened to the Dragon battallion of Foreign
Legionaires; who were blown up October 1983:
the Paris metro bombings in 1986; hostages
like Seurat, Carton, Fontaine, & Kauffman.
Wanted no more of it

OJ:

Because the UN has told them to several times? (Snicker)

They should trade these arms to the UN for statehood--then they can equip a military just like every normal nation.

What is with Bush's secretaries of state? is this where he channels some quirky feelings of shame? Rice actually said she expects the Hezbohs to disarm voluntarily? That is parody. That is Colin Powell-level diplomatic cardboardspeak. Albright is somehow back at State.

Bush, bidding so well for greatness his first term, is just tanking in his second. Chalk it up to battle-fatigue. The Prez needs a Blair/Bolton type at state, not Condi. Oh, the disappointment.

Palm:

No, she didn't.

No one expects Hezbollah to disarm.

Patience. Hezbollah has largely been disarmed already. The chest-thumping of the Muslims and the jeremiads of the our conservatives are both Kabuki.

The lack of faith in our leaders is troubling, though.

Your mistake lies in believing that disarmament matters.

oj, are you being nihilistic or practical about the relevance of disarmament?

They don't have arms that can do much damage to Israel now. Once they're a state they will, but won't be a threat. Focussing on disarming an irregular force is a mug's game.

this is what USA Today reports Condi as saying:

"I don't think there is an expectation that this force is going to physically disarm Hezbollah. I think it's a little bit of a misreading of how you disarm a militia. You have to have a plan, first of all, for the disarmament of a militia, and then the hope is that some people lay down their arms voluntarily."

"insanity" is to mild to describe this nonsense; it's total abdication of responsibility by Condi and her boss; it's a washing of the hands; it's desertion of our ally, Israel -- it's more than desertion, it's handing over the fate of Israel to its executioner, Hezbollah/Iran out of...ennui, at best, or the most callous and vile of ratiocinations, at worst

OJ: their puny munitions kept a million Israeli's in bomb shelters for a month; how many Americans would that be in an equivalent situation, 50 million? If harmless quebecois irregulars were firing shrapnelized rockets into the Northeast, you'd urge inaction? [why am i arguing with living-room helmet man when i know the response before i even post?]

No, we'd crush Quebec.

Yes, note that she doesn't expect them to disarm.

OJ:

They were reporting on a news channel recently that somebody in the administration (it might've been Condoleezza Rice) said Lebanon will be responsible for disarming Hezbollah.

I'm guessing some reporter mangled that one.

Lebanon is. They can't. Hezbollah is a more powerful political entity. Indeed, Hezbollah ought to disarm Lebanon.

OJ:

I suppose Shi'ite self-determination could be aided if Hezbollah disarmed Lebanon, but the concept of a terrorist group disarming a nation gives me the creeps.

It is obviously goofy to expect Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah. I recently asked my brother, a former seminarian, what the Catholic version of Just War theory would say about invading a technically sovereign state that cannot control a belligerent terrorist group operating on its own premises (he wasn't sure, although he seemed to think it was permissible if an ultimatum was first delivered to the nation harboring the terrorists).

Clearly, the whole point is that Lebanon has no control over them.

There is no nation of Lebanon.

OJ:

Well, technically there is, it's just artificial. Note that Lebanon was doing comparatively well until the PLO and Syria mucked around with the situation.

Matt:

If the starting point of your analysis is that the Shi'a have to be oppressed by the Christians and Sunni then it was doing fabulously, like the Jim Crow South before MLK started rabble rousing.

OJ:

No, they don't have to be oppressed, I'm just pointing out that prior to the mid-70s, Lebanon was doing reasonably well for a Middle Eastern state. Of course, there weren't a lot of stellar regimes out there to compare it to.

We define well differently.