Aha. I get it.

The reason you haven't understood anything that's happened in Lebanon this past month oj is b/c you're under the misimpression that Israel went into Lebanon in an effor to recreate 1982? Is that it?

Did you really think that they intended to stay for 10 years again? So therefore this is a loss for them?

They thought they could achieve something by going in. They didn't. But they have us to get them out. It was a waste, but certainly not a loss.

Set your calendars for the same stuff next year. Until Israel or others are allowed to clean out the terrorists it will keep going.

We gave Israel a month to do their thing. "We" includes France and Israel's Arab neighbors. Time will tell if it was worth the cost. I continue to trust Blair, Bush, Rice and Bolton.

"Hundreds of millions"? No. Only a few diplomats and the leftist media. And the Arab League types (along with Hezbollah and its masters).

Kofi and the UN lost their integrity a long, long time ago. And they have no authority.

What we might see now is the end of the UN, because the 'agreement' voted on by the Asecurity Council will not be followed. All it takes is one rocket, no? Assad better watch out - failure of the resolution is probably the pretext to get him.

It is a defeat for the Israelis and a loss for the U.S.. Hezballah has managed to fight Israel to a stalemate while continuing to shot missiles at the same rate throughout the conflict. The kidnapped Israeli soldiers have not been returned and will not be. The Iranian proxies have shown they can stand up to the "great" Israeli military and survive. Syria and Iran have suffered no damage.

jim:

You bet, things are about to go the way you want them to....

No, they probably won't. But George Bush's challenge to the UN in Sept. 2002 is still there, and a President McCain will be much less patient, don't you think?

Your book is an example of this - 30 years ago, people who denigrated the UN were cranks, or wingnuts, or worse. Today, defending the UN is the province of John Kerry, Mark Malloch Brown, Jacques Chirac, and George Voinovich. Hardly a stellar line-up. Jesse Helms has won - all that is needed now is enough disgust at another failed UN mission (Lebanon, Darfur, etc.), and our $$$ contribution will be at risk.

Just watch if the UN tries to influence what happens in post-Castro Cuba.

McCain's ultra-American impatience makes us unlikely to get drawn into such pointless exercises and more likely to just take out an Assad or the Iranian nukes.

And yet, Israel have actually increased their presence in Lebanon since yesterday, surely the response of a defeated nation desperately looking for a way out, eh?

You might also note, tho you'll ignore it in the interest of the narrative you created 4 weeks ago and have tenaciously held ever since, despite all evidence to the contrary -- that it was the sponsors of the HB, Syria and Iran, not Israel, that went running to the UN for a ceasefire. Why would that be?

Meanwhile, Jim Dunnigan of Strategy Page reported the following to Glenn Reynolds:

They [Israel] have done a lot of damage. Obviously, for security reasons I can’t announce what they know they have destroyed. But from the information I’m getting from Beirut, you know, from inside Lebanon, they have done great damage. A lot of Hezbollah people are not happy at the moment… They’re [Israel] not going after territory, they’re going after assets. Some of them are up walking on two feet, some of them are buried in bunkers, a lot of them are buildings which are no longer there. Hezbollah has lost a lot. Remember, one thing that kept them going was the money: they were basically over a half a billion dollar a year operation, which basically bought a lot of loyalty. Well, they’ve lost a lot of their walking-around money.

From the start you've interpreted this as if it's a repeat of 1982. Manifestly it is not.

This has been about: (1) punishing HB for repeated cross border attacks (2) degrading their offensive capabilities (3) gathering intelligence (4) and most importantly reducing Syrian and Iranian influence in Lebanon, so that the Cedar Revolution can be consolidated.

Note that this benefits the Shia of s. Lebanon, who won't be hostages to the Iranians and Syrians and their insane hatred of the so-called "Zionist entity."

But I'm sure you'll ignore this in the interest of your fantasy narrative that this is about Shia nationalism in Lebanon and 1982.

Funny, that you accurately castigate the Greenspan's of the world for being stuck in that period in time, and yet you're repeating their mistakes.

Hezbollah is kept going by the votes of Lebanese Shi'a, not money or weapons. The invasion did nothing to lessen the Shi'a sense of themselves as a distinct nation. It was easy enough to see four weeks ago that this is how it had to end.

I need to revise and extend my statement.

Actually, the UN will probably 'flourish' as long as the US is cynical enough (discriminating enough) to off-load all but the most critical problems to it. Darfur, Lebanon, Congo, etc. will always be UN problems. As they probably should be, although I still believe we could give Darfur a good short-term solution in about a week or two. Same for Zimbabwe, and even Cuba.

The UN can't bind us but we use it to bind others. It's too useful to get rid of.