Hizbullah accuses US of secret war and arming opponents
Hizbullah are claiming that the US is waging a covert war against them by arming anti-Hizbullah militias in Lebanon and threatening to send the country back into civil war. The man they say is behind the campaign is none other than the greatest chickenhawk in US history, Dick Cheney, a man who avoided the draft FIVE TIMES but loves to send other people's kids to die for his beliefs; beliefs that he, himself, was not willing to fight for when he had the opportunity.
This is all part of the US determination to avoid Siniora's government coming to any form of compromise with Hizbullah, and is part of the US's overall aim that the Middle East must function totally is Israel's favour."Dick Cheney [US vice president] has given orders for a covert war against Hizbullah...there is now an American programme that is using Lebanon to further its goals in the region," Sheikh Naim Qasim, Hizbullah's deputy secretary general, told the Guardian in an interview in a safe house deep in Beirut's Hizbullah-controlled southern suburbs.
The accusation follows reports in the US and British media that the CIA has been authorised to take covert action against the militant Shia group, which receives substantial military backing from Iran, as part of wider strategy by the Bush administration to prevent the spread of Iranian influence in the region.
According to the reports, US intelligence agencies are authorised to provide "non-lethal" funding to anti-Hizbullah groups in Lebanon and to activists who support the western-backed government of Fouad Siniora.
Sheikh Qasim has stated:
Indeed, Nasrallah has stated that he sees no chance of ever reaching a negotiated settlement with Sionora's government and now says that the matter will have to be resolved by early elections or a referendum. He is also saying that Hizbullah are rearming in preparation for a new war with Israel this summer should the US push Israel in that direction.
"We think that if it wasn't for America's interference, we would have resolved the issue of participating in the government a long time ago," he said.
"America is forcing the government forces to prolong this crisis, because they want a price for it... They want to tie Lebanon into negotiations that benefit Israel and their plan for a new Middle East."
A new war with Hizbullah would possibly end in a second Israeli defeat and finish off the Premiership of Ehud Olmert but the US are being led by ideologues - and chickenkawks who do not fully appreciate the danger of what they are doing - so anything, no matter how insane it sounds, is possible here. After all, this is the same Bush regime that wanted Olmert to expand last year's war into Iran and Syria, an act of madness that Olmert was wise enough to avoid.
However, the neo-cons have proven time and again that their belief system does not respond to logic, it is sustained by a simple code; weakness encourages one's enemies.
Pragmatism plays no role in the mindset of people who think in this way. Indeed, pragmatism would itself be seen as a sign of weakness and a way of encouraging foes.
This logic was best summed up by that other supreme chickenhawk, Bill Kristol, during last years Israel Lebanon war when he and other neo-con thinkers were urging that the Bush regime should actually engage and fight Israel's wars with her.
For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.What courage it must take to type such stuff. What bravery and strength Kristol displays when he asks that others die for his belief system, a belief system that he also chose not to fight for when he had the opportunity.
The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran.
And yet, with the US fighting a covert war against Hizbullah, there is, indeed, every chance that these same lunatics will lead Israel into a second disastrous war this summer.
Nothing would please the Kristol's and Cheney's of this world more. After all, we "have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak. The right response is renewed strength".
That is the chickenhawk mantra, that is their code. That is the logic that tells them that they are being brave and everyone else is being weak as they courageously send other people's children to die.
They are actually beneath contempt.
Click title for full article.
4 comments:
What would you call somebody who believes in more stringent law enforcement but isn't going to actually do their own policing? A chickencop? How about somebody who believes that their town needs more fire and EMS services but isn't willing to run into burning buildings themselves? The whole chickenhawk insult doesn't really hold up under objective scrutiny.
As someone who has served in the army I would think that you would know exactly what a chickenhawk is and why they are so dangerous. Neither Cheney nor Kristol actually served when they had the chance but they are very keen to employ the military when people who had served, like Colin Powell, were against the invasion, as we are told were military Generals.
It strikes me that all the people who had actually experienced war had reservation's which the chickenhawks - having no such experience - lacked.
Four years down the line I think the military guys were on the money.
I already laid out the logical fallacy behind the insult. As someone who has served in the military, what makes it worse it that the people who usually use the insult a)almost always have never served in the military, b)would never get within sight of a recruiting office, c) don't much care for the military and those who serve anyway, d) is yet another example of these types of people hypocritically using the military to serve their own agendas. Many of these people are the same sorts who protested Vietnam in the 60's, so their opinion of someone who has or hasn't served in the military is pretty much worthless from where I stand.
When you complain of people "hypocritically using the military to serve their own agendas", don't you honestly feel that this better describes the Cheney's of this world. The people who send the military into unnecessary conflict, rather than the people who aim to stop this from happening?
Post a Comment