Monday, May 21, 2007

Civil War Question

Why is the prospect of more violence in Gaza being referred to as "civil war" but the term has been deliberately avoided in Iraq?

Just asking...

This comment from Betty the Crow News is bitterly delightful.

Let no one say that the Bush administration’s Middle East policy, such as it is, has been an unqualified failure. Sure, Iran and Osama bin Laden may be the primary beneficiaries of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Yes, the unqualified US support for Israel’s disastrous assault on Lebanon helped precipitate yet another political crisis in the region’s only multi-ethnic and pan-religious democracy, simultaneously sending Hezbullah stock skyrocketing in certain key quarters. And it’s true that Saudi Arabian leaders, including the once reliable Bandar Bush, have taken to flipping off high-ranking US officials with boring regularity.

But Condoleezza Rice and company have achieved at least one of their goals: they set out last year to encourage a civil war between Hamas and Fatah in Palestine, and in relatively short order, with relatively little effort and at relatively little expense, they’ve succeeded. Of course they couldn’t have done it absent cooperation from the Israelis, the Egyptians and factions within both Palestinian parties, and the outcome likely won’t meet the administration’s ideal, but for now the situation can be counted an unqualified success if for no other reason than that it takes diplomacy, at which the administration really, really sucks, off the table.

More at the link, if you're up to it.

(Part of the answer to my question might be that the ROI for crude is much better than for halal/pareve vegetables and fruits. Pipelines deliver their product without the need for refrigeration.)

No comments: