In the Aftermath of the Conflict
At the beginning of the clash between Israel and Hezbollah I said that regardless of how the war went America and Israel would come out on the short end.
An opinion piece in yesterday's Financial Times headlined, "America Has Emerged As a Loser in the Middle East", opened with this paragraph:
"As Israelis and Arabs continue their debate over who won and lost in Lebanon, one outcome already seems clear: America lost. Washington's decision to bask Israel's military campaign unconditionally and refusal actively to seek an early ceasefire may have had some marginal benefits for the US, such as the destruction of some of Hizbollah's military capability. But in the broader scheme of things, Washington's support of this war and tolerance for the way it was fought have been a disaster."
The piece concludes with a list of steps the Bush administration should take to salvage it's position. It says "a political process in the region" should be undertaken. Where a political process has been taken in Lebanon, the PLA and other places has resulted in a militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas attaining positions of power and influence. So far, Iraq offerslittle assurance that the political process can halt the sectarian violence of the region.
Israel is undergoing a reappraisal of its government and defense posture in the aftermath of the ceasefire. the IDF did not eradicate Hezbollah. Even now it is being rearmed by Iran, being made ready for the next round of conflict. Some of questioning the will of Israel to defend itself.
