Peter Howard at Duck of Minerva didn't get his op-ed published elsewhere so he published it himself. I agree with the commenter who left "...what made you think that a well written, level headed, educated argument on the matter would be of interest in this society? Great piece."
Go read it. It will only take a minute.
Four key differences...separate the current situation from the past.
First, the Palestinians occupy a fundamentally different position then they had in the past...
Second, Iran has moved to center-stage in the contemporary Middle East drama...
Third, the relationship between Syria and Lebanon has shifted dramatically...
Finally, the US has a fundamentally different involvement in the region from a decade ago...
...the Bush Administration is more inclined to let the conflict play out as Hezbollah is weakened as opposed to press for a diplomatic solution.
Unlike 1996, the situation today does not bode well for quick and manageable cease-fire. As Iraq has demonstrated, large scale military operations against local insurgent terrorist organizations have a difficult time producing tangible results absent a wider political settlement. Hezbollah, like Hamas or the insurgents in Iraq, gains more popular support from fighting than from compromise, and the strong political actors that were able to force a Hezbollah – Israeli compromise in 1996 are less inclined to do so today. Unless the US and Israel exercise extreme caution, they risk inciting a region-wide conflict that will be exceedingly difficult to end.
Entirely too clear, Dr. Howard. Too plain. Next time more obfuscation and jumbled thinking might be better for publication. A contingency here, a qualifier there...you know.
No comments:
Post a Comment