Maybe Nasrallah has won, with the aid of the UN.

According to Debka, Kofi Annan, the prince of peace, is refusing to honor the UN resolution insisting upon the disarming of Hizbullah. Let the war reignite. It looks as if the "force" won't be ready until mid Septenber at the earliest, so the Israelis will attack before then.

Thank you UN. You've saved us again.

It is time to can Kofi, and kick the UN out of New York. The UN has single handedly assured the world that Hizbullah will rearm with a UN shield, and reignite the Lebanese war.

The double tragedy is that the "international community" (read: leftist victimology practitioners) has been scolding Bush for his horrible ignorance and callousness in not calling for an immediate ceasefire from day one of the conflict. His reasoning was that any ceasefire would not hold because Hizbullah wouldn't abide by its terms. Now, the UN has assured that Bush was absolutely right. Hizbullah is rearming via Lebanese ports in the North, and the UN has bought time for them to rearm, assuring more death and destruction for the Lebanese people.

Another job well done by the UN.

//

The Economist: Nasrallah won.

It's not just the Economist. It seems everyone is on the Hizbullah bandwagon. I think it is far to early to declare a winner in this conflict for two reasons:

1. This conflict may burst open again at any moment, especially if people keep looking to the French to help in any situation under any circumstance.
2. This war is about the future, not the present, and only the future will tell who won.

I will grant that I haven't read The Economist article yet... just got it in the mail, and I will update this post if it goes contrary to the headline, however... The reason Israel invaded Lebanon was not because two soldiers were taken hostage, it was an attempt to cripple the Iranian vanguard of foreign policy in the middle East.

This war was an attempt to remove or limit to functionality of Hizbullah as a thorn in the side of anyone who would limit the hegemony of Iran, and to limit the ability of Iran to dissuade seriousness in the attempt to stop a militant theocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons. With that in mind, it is next to impossible to determine who has won this engagement.

The true battle is taking place right now in the debate and effort to disarm Hizbullah. If the attempt fails, Nasrallah and Iran have won, if it succeeds, Israel and the non-dark age world has won.

Many talking heads assert that the political capital won by Nasrallah has shown Hizbullah to be the winner of the confrontation, but to my mind, a swing toward Nasrallah is only valuable to him if the overall power-pie increases within the Iran/anti-Israeli block. If Iran loses Hizbullah as an effective tool, a swing toward Nasrallah has hurt Iran and the Arabs.

For a more nuanced view from the Iranian perspective, look at this Debka article.

//

Update on what's wrong with the Dems.

So the Dems voted for Ned Lamont, a man about whom they know nothing, but at least he has never agreed with GWB... yet. In so doing, they have ditched one of the three or four most powerful Democrats in Washington, and that Democrat is now running an independent campaign for the Senate. People that I respect, such as David Brooks, have said that this shows the power of the anti-war left, and that the Dems could win on that passion. I suppose it's possible, but the fact of the matter is taht there are more self-defined Conservatives than Liberals in this country. What that means is that unless the Dems can get a hugely disproportionate turnout, they cannot win by running left.

I'm glad there is an anti-war lobby. It's good to have policy debates. The problem for the Dems is that in order to win, they will have to convert moderate anti-war voters to their list. So long as the winners are flanked by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (as Ned Lamont was in this hilarious picture on his own site... note Jackson and Sharpton peeking out from behind him. Eerie view of things to come.), the Dems will not convert moderates. Most moderates think Sharpton is a cartton character based upon the corrupt victimology espoused by lefties and Euros.

What does all this mean? Well, it means that the Dems could ride to a victory in '06 if they get good turnout while GWB is still in office. It also means that the party will tilt seriously leftward, and if it fails to right itself, the Dems have no shot at winning against a decent Republican in '08.

It's a shame really. Great that you've got an anti-war lobby. Heart-breaking that it has become stupid and populist, and merely a proxy vote against GWB. Run to the left and doom your party.

Need evidence (usually you folks on the left don't require it, but here ya go...)? This week, VP Cheney came out of self-imposed recluse in WY, and bemoaned the loss of Liberman as support for Al-Qaeda. Say what you will about Cheney, he is not stupid. Note that the link is to a leftists screed that has taken this bait hook, line, and brown bobbing material that floats. Man extremeists are suckers. The lefties need to learn to bait the righties this well.

What Cheney knows that "think progress" and other lefty crazies don't is that Americans, by and large, like moderation. We like a guy that says "I see your argument and respect it, but I disagree for the following reasons..." What the lefties forget is that the first time GWB was elected, that is what he did, but behind the scenes whispered sweet nothings to the Ralph Reeds and Jerry Falwells of the world. Cheney has succesfully baited the far left to the vanguard of the Democratic party. What the country sees as the mouthpiece of the party is Ned Lamont, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and only the rediculous portion of John Murtha. The point is that GWB has tricked the Dems into running left (well much of it they did to themselves, but some portion has been encouraged by the Bushies). The Dems are now yelling what they should be whispering and whispering what they should be yelling.

All this means that the Dems only win in '06 if the Bush strategy is too late. It is no coincidence that top generals are putting together pullout plans if a civil war strts in Iraq. That is the Republican withdrawl strategy, and you'll be seeing more of it. It is the moderate alternative to the Dems. If it catches hold, the Dems can't win in '06, and they are likely to lose in '08.

The most interesting possibility: Liberman wins in the general election. Laughing? Don't. Read this from Dick Morris, a former consultant to Ned Lamont. What would an independent Liberman do in the Senate? well, probably continue to to be Joe: be a hawkish Democrat, and a guy most moderates can support. Look out Democrats. an independent Liberman could really stick it to you in interesting ways... imagine him exposing your secrets for programatic benefit. Imagine a Liberman free to support McCain for president... Interesting.

Pull it together lefties!

//