To expand upon the matter added to the last post. As a great artist once said/sung, "isn't it ironic ... don't you think?"
In April, the community produced a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism, which, according to people who have read it, says that Hezbollah is the only major terrorist group with global reach currently not trying to kill Americans. The document also raised the intelligence community's concern that, if the United States were to attack Iran over its nuclear program, Iran might use Hezbollah to strike US targets once again.
[as they say, read the whole thing]
So noted Laura Rosen in a recent column. Some sorts, however, think we aren't being gung ho enough. It is somehow "anti-American" actually not to fully support a hardline pro-Israel policy here, though again "pro-Israel" is ironic given the counterproductive results (to putative Israel supporters) of said policy.
The people who want us to be more forceful sometimes are quite angry at the commander-in-chief. Such rhetoric like this might be deemed downright anti-American, you know, if Lamont said it or something:
I'm hoping we can get through the next two years without any major disasters, and then I'm looking to elect a real war leader to the White House - somebody with a warrior's temperament and a leader's skills. George Bush has neither. He is a dangerous failure, and America will be well rid of him.
Well, now, I'm not inclined to agree with Instapundit too often, but he sort of has a point there. I guess he's allowed to say it, right Sen. Lieberman? When the Right says such remarks it isn't defeatist akin to when Rep. Maxine Waters or a majority of Democratic voters in Connecticut do.* Anyway, another "dangerous failure" probably is Rummy, who is apparently worried about the potential of Lebanon, including ultimate threat to our forces in "Americastan in Iraq":
By the way, Hersh maintains that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has at least some inkling of all this, which is one reason he hasn't been enthusiastically cheering on the Lebanon war.
The truth is Rummy is a something of a rational sort, to be overly generous, and the core reason he is still there is his loyalty (the assurance he is right helps, self-righteous cluelessness is a useful job trait in the Bush Administration). When Rumsfeld is one of the better people leading your administrations, you sort of are in trouble.
And I'm here, to remind you / Of the mess you left when you went away
Something to sing better sooner than later, hopefully.
---
* And, even George Will, who has received some kudos from some of the blogs he dismissively references, thanks to a sane column that admits Kerry was right to see the fight against terrorism as largely a criminal matter. And so on. This was obvious at the time, but thanks for saying it after the cows left the barn, George.
My concern that we look at this matter rationally with a properly well considered eye was shown by some comments of mine in response to a piece in a liberal blog. Except for a probably unfair snide remark concerning "this route," I stick by my comments. I appreciate the person partially responding to them here. I added a few more remarks, including my distaste for the term "collateral damage" in the comments to that post.
All the same, I don't like the idea that such concern suggests I am some sort of "pacifist," and/or "pacifists" do not realize that sometimes society must harm others, including some innocents, given we do not live in a utopia as of yet. It is the degree of harm that is the sign of a civilized people, as well as the respect for those harmed. Respect (and sane policies) often leads to less harm as well.