Other voices, other mediums.

Tom Blackburn:

Now, the White House is fighting over the budget in terms of who loves the troops instead of over the usual subject of budgets, money. That's a sham battle to avoid a discussion of how what started out as slapping down a dictator descended into trying to police someone else's civil war.

In his oratory, the president hit a ludicrous low last week when he said, "I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job." Mr. Bush should stop believing that.

The Constitution makes him commander in chief and puts Congress in charge of military spending. That is called civilian control of the military. While it doesn't mean that politicians tell generals how to fight, they do decide when and where to fight and with what. Those are the things the debate in Washington is supposed to be about.

Mr. Bush and his politicians haven't been exactly hands-off with the top brass. There has been constant turnover...

Andrew Sullivan:

Conservatives don't like half-assed wars - and this one has been under-planned, under-manned and chaotically strategized.

Conservatives don't like losing wars; and this president has been overseeing meltdown in Iraq and war without end.

Conservatives tend to think armies should be about fighting and winning conflicts;* but Bush has forced the US military to be nation-builders, religious peace-makers, torturers, and civil war policemen.

Conservatives believe wars should be in the national interest;* and let's just say that grinding your military into the dust for the sake of "democracy" in a place where few even understand it and those who do have left is arguably not in the national interest.

And yet no major Republican candidate can yet express the sentiment articulated by William F. Buckley last week.

I like Sen. Hagel's honest foreign policy approach.
From July 2006:

America’s approach to the Middle East must be consistent and sustained, and must understand the history, interests and perspectives of our regional friends and allies.

The United States will remain committed to defending Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But, it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice. Achieving a lasting resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is as much in Israel’s interest as any other country in the world.

Unending war will continually drain Israel of its human capital, resources, and energy as it fights for its survival. The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle East and the world. Neither can allow themselves to drift into an “us against the world” global optic or zero-sum game. That would marginalize America’s global leadership, trust and influence...further isolate Israel...and prove to be disastrous for both countries as well as the region.

It is in Israel’s interest, as much as ours, that the United States be seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency of trust.

The world has rightly condemned the despicable actions of Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Israel has the undeniable right to defend itself against aggression. This is the right of all states.

Hezbollah is a threat to Israel, to Lebanon and to all who strive for lasting peace in the Middle East.

However, military action alone will not destroy Hezbollah or Hamas. Extended military action is tearing Lebanon apart, killing innocent civilians, destroying its economy and infrastructure, creating a humanitarian disaster, further weakening Lebanon’s fragile democratic government, strengthening popular Muslim and Arab support for Hezbollah, and deepening hatred of Israel across the Middle East. The pursuit of tactical military victories at the expense of the core strategic objective of Arab-Israeli peace is a hollow victory. The war against Hezbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield.

Let's talk about Israel. This type of story might have a bit to do with the MidEast conflict or conflagration, if you prefer.

Imagine if all the time, energy and money we've wasted had been invested instead in a Palestinian state. Or better, if the world community led by the United States had said to Israel, "No. No more settlements until the boundaries are drawn. You don't get to continually "take" property that isn't legally yours.

The original Balfour Declaration warned:

An official letter from the British Foreign Office headed by Arthur Balfour, the UK's Foreign Secretary (from December 1916 to October 1919), to Lord Rothschild, who was seen as a representative of the Jewish people. The letter stated that the British government "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

Justice, justice you shall pursue. No one faith or peoples have a monopoly on justice. The laws of physics tell us for every action, there is a reaction.

A starved and beaten dog is to be feared more than one with a full belly. We don't get many mainstream tales of Palestinian suffering, but let's just call them dogs here for the sake of argument. Bombing alone didn't work in Lebanon. That war, in fact, undid all the good of the Cedar Revolution. Instead of letting the Lebanese handle Hezbollah on their own terms, the bombings (cluster bomb deaths continue to this day -- not the way to make friends among innocent civilians) STRENGTHENED Hezbollah.

Destabilizing countries is not a plan. Starving into submission won't work. Living next to neighbors with a hellish quality of life (undeniably contributed to by Israeli policies) is never never going to bring security, no matter how high you build that fence. Wait and see. (It's not a wish. Just a sad acknowledgment of reality. See history.)

I'll give my one vote (for what it's worth; I fear the politicians have to make promises just to get in the campaign money game) to the first politician who recogized that finding an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict should be priority number one. American and Israeli interests are not necessarily the same here. We need American leadership, for the sake of ourselves and yes too, for the sake of Israel's continued existence. Sometime a good friend has to offer harsh advice but in the end, they turn out to be a better friend than one who encourages or downplays your mistakes.
----------
*whistle minor foul:
overuse of semicolon where a comma would do just as well. Eliminate the "ands" and "buts" for a truer use of a semicolon there?


ADDED: For all those who say Israel needs to build this border for security reasons, fine. Let them build it on their own land, and if any displacing needs to be done, displace Israeli's to build it. Might cost more, take more enginering know-how, but taking away the homes and rich farmland of innocent Palestinian families is not an option in resolving this ongoing conflict. Collective punishment does not work. It will only breed honest enemies, eager to pursue justice in whatever way they can. Not justifying, just explaining, encouraging a fresh approach that might sustain true success in the long run. "Shock and awe" and all this expensive technology will not win the wars alone, nor make anyone safer or more secure. Some peoples might accept that; some do not.

Americans should not have to live like Israelis. It's not our way. We're just too big to adopt the same tactics as Israel is now: walling herself up in an us vs. the world approach.