Bush hints at widening conflict.

Maybe it's a hint of what's to come.

I reported here on the fact that Bush and Blair have been calling for a Chapter VII resolution at the UN, which allows for the use of force, although - as I said at the time - none of us have any idea of what that resolution might specify as both Bush and Blair talk about it only in the vaguest of terms.

However, over at the National Review Online, many right wingers have strong opinions on what the resolution should comprise of.

The only thing that has any hope of bringing light to the end of the tunnel is a robust Security Council resolution under Chapter VII that requires Iran to stop supplying weapons to Syria, and requires Syria to stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah. The Council should demand of Syria a transparent accounting of the weapons shipments it has received from Iran, as well as a comprehensive declaration of Syria’s missile production infrastructure, with full details of its inventories and disposition of missiles. Syria must then be required to admit U.N. inspectors at all of its military and civilian airports, as well as its missile production facilities. And finally, the resolution should authorize the use of all necessary means, including the use of force, to enforce its terms.

Reading this, one can't help thinking that the Republicans continue to look for ways to expand this dispute and bring both Syria and Iran into the conflict.

Indeed, across the Republican blogosphere, calls for the dispute to be widened are almost commonplace. Michael Ledeen argues:

The greatest failure of our leaders, with rare exceptions, is their refusal to see the war plain, which means Iran and Syria (might as well call them “Syran,” since they operate in tandem, with Tehran pushing most of the buttons). It was never possible to “win in Iraq” so long as we insisted on fighting in Iraq alone.

Ledeen now argues that only by widening the conflict will victory in Iraq be possible. Indeed, the wish to view Israel's war in Lebanon as part of the US/UK battle in Iraq is a recurring theme amongst Israel's supporters:

First, if Israel withdraws now under pressure Hezbollah will sell it as their victory — as a victory of Islam over Israel. This will for one embolden the insurgents and Islamic radicals in Iraq fighting the U.S. and British troops. The numbers of available suicide bombers and resistance fighters will almost certainly increase, as will the frequency of the attacks on American and British troops.

It's a crude oversell, but you can see where they are coming from. Israel must be allowed to continue to fight Hizbullah or US and UK forces will suffer even harsher losses.

However, this frantic desire for a widened war ignores one simple fact on the ground. The US/UK forces are losing the war in Iraq and Israel is losing the war in Lebanon. In both cases we are witnessing conventional armies attempting to fight hidden enemies, and in both cases - no matter how much firepower is aimed against their foe - the death rates amongst the US/UK/Israeli forces continues to rise and their enemies ability to attack increases rather than diminishes.

What we are actually witnessing here is a rehash of the Vietnam argument, a defeat that many on the right blamed on the fact that they weren't allowed to hit the Vietnamese hard enough. The same warped logic is now being applied to the Middle East. We are losing because we are not fighting enough enemies. Most reasonable people would conclude that if you are fighting one enemy and losing, it is not wise to add another two country's into the battle zone as that would surely only increase the odds against you ever proving victorious.

But delusion seems rampant across the right wing, as witnessed by this statement from Deborah Weiss:

Even for the Lebanese, there should be no question Israelis are the good guys.

A comment like that above would be funny were there not people actually proposing this as fact and suggesting that we implement policy based on such insane logic.

However, Dennis Prager, over at Real Clear Politics has the answer as to why the right's logic appears from the outside to be so insane:

If you are ever morally confused about a major world issue, here is a rule that is almost never violated: Whenever you hear that "world opinion" holds a view, assume it is morally wrong.

So there we have it. They are right, the world is wrong. Simple as that.

I normally console myself at such times with the fact that such hyperbole is common enough in right wing circles and is rarely, if ever, acted upon.

However, I do find myself worrying when the President of the USA seems to be expressing similar sentiments.

President Bush described Israel’s battle with Hezbollah as part of a much wider struggle against terrorism today, as he once again embraced a pillar of his foreign policy: his faith in the power of democracy to bring peace to the region.

“The current crisis is part of a larger struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror in the Middle East,” Mr. Bush said in a speech at the Coast Guard command center in Miami.

“For decades, the status quo in the Middle East permitted tyranny and terror to thrive,” the president said. “And as we saw on Sept. 11, the status quo in the Middle East led to death and destruction in the United States, and it had to change.”

Leaving aside Bush's fascinating admission that 9-11 was the result of events in the Middle East rather than an attack by people who simply "hate our freedoms", we can once again clearly see the wish to view all these different conflicts as part of the larger battle of the "the war on terror".

Bush clearly embraces the extreme logic of the far right and, as he has expressed a wish for any resolution passed at the UN to be done so under Chapter VII - allowing the use of force - one can only worry that the right wing are about to get their wish granted.

With US forces unable to control the ground in Iraq, and with Israel proving so ineffective against Hizbullah, Bush - by raising the stakes - is gambling that Iran and Syria don't fancy their chances in a wider conflict. Given the way things look on the ground in Iraq and Lebanon, that's not a gamble that any wise man would take.

Tags: Bush, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Syria, Iran, wider, conflict, UN, resolution, Chapter VII,