For Hezbollah. At least according to the editor of the Arab Times.

And don’t expect Israel to let up. Even much of the Israeli (formerly) anti-war left now understands that they are literally in a fight for their lives.

Has anyone noticed that the leftist trolls who have been infesting the place recently haven’t had much to say about Lileks’ latest screed?

An interesting interview with Walid Phares, on the Middle East:

The U.S. and its allies can be accused of certain shortcomings as well. While the speeches by the U.S. president, congressional leaders from both parties, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac were right on target regarding Lebanon, and while the U.S. and its counterparts on the Security Council were diligent in their follow up on the Hariri assassination and on implementing UNSCR 1559, there was no policy or plan to support the popular movement in Lebanon. Incredibly, while billions were spent on the war of ideas in the region, Lebanese NGOs that wanted to resume the struggle of the Cedar Revolution and fighting alone for this purpose were not taken seriously at various levels. Policy planners thought they were dealing with the

An interesting interview with Walid Phares, on the Middle East:

The U.S. and its allies can be accused of certain shortcomings as well. While the speeches by the U.S. president, congressional leaders from both parties, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac were right on target regarding Lebanon, and while the U.S. and its counterparts on the Security Council were diligent in their follow up on the Hariri assassination and on implementing UNSCR 1559, there was no policy or plan to support the popular movement in Lebanon. Incredibly, while billions were spent on the war of ideas in the region, Lebanese NGOs that wanted to resume the struggle of the Cedar Revolution and fighting alone for this purpose were not taken seriously at various levels. Policy planners thought they were dealing with the

An interesting interview with Walid Phares, on the Middle East:

The U.S. and its allies can be accused of certain shortcomings as well. While the speeches by the U.S. president, congressional leaders from both parties, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac were right on target regarding Lebanon, and while the U.S. and its counterparts on the Security Council were diligent in their follow up on the Hariri assassination and on implementing UNSCR 1559, there was no policy or plan to support the popular movement in Lebanon. Incredibly, while billions were spent on the war of ideas in the region, Lebanese NGOs that wanted to resume the struggle of the Cedar Revolution and fighting alone for this purpose were not taken seriously at various levels. Policy planners thought they were dealing with the

Lileks has some thoughts on current events in the Levant. There’s a hint of sarcasm to them:

The US continues to support Israel. This is becoming difficult, since many important nations with well-dressed, urbane spokesmen have decided that Israel should stop its strange policy of firing rockets on UN-run stem-cell research facilities for no apparent reason. These diplomats will tolerate a little wartime madness

Is Hezbollah on the ropes? And Syria and Iran getting nervous?

If Israel continues to chase them north, it would be interesting to see what kinds of things have been stashed in the Bekaa Valley. Particularly of vintage early 2003…

This is old news that I missed while at the NewSpace conference, but Lileks has a screed up about Howard Dean and the war that’s still timely. It’s funny, and sad (as Lileks often is):

…the revelatory moment in Dean

Why is this not a functional declaration of war?

Iran awarded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez its highest state medal on Sunday for supporting Tehran in its nuclear standoff with the international community, while Chavez urged the world to rise up and defeat the U.S., state-run media in both countries reported…

“Let’s save the human race, let’s finish off the U.S. empire,” Chavez said. “This (task) must be assumed with strength by the majority of the peoples of the world.”

This time, Mark Steyn takes on the moronic “chicken hawk” argument:

Aside from anything else, I wonder if the gentleman (if that’s the word) understands how freakish it would strike every previous generation of Americans (and, indeed, almost every other society in human history) to berate a blameless young lady for not grabbing a rifle and heading for the front. And, if the issue is “extraordinary disrespect” to the troops, it’s utterly self-defeating to argue that only active-duty servicemen get proprietorial rights in a war.

In fact, the notion that “fighting” a war is the monopoly of those “in uniform” gets to the heart of why America and its allies are having such a difficult time in the present struggle. Nations go to war, not armies. Or, to be more precise, nations, not armies, win wars. America has a military that cannot be defeated on the battlefield, but so what? The first President Bush assembled the biggest coalition in history for Gulf War I, and the bigger and more notionally powerful it got, the better Saddam Hussein’s chances of surviving it became. Because the bigger it got, the less likely it was to be driven by a coherent set of war aims.