Jenna is not an option here

Hmmm, ok...I guess there is actually a theory behind infrastructure-based war that Israel has been waging, that being that destroying the highway or the infrastructure will prevent Hezbollah from taking their kidnapped soldiers to their Syrian or Iranian bosses. So there is a theory, but it is strategically and morally wrong. Problems with this theory: even if the killing of civilians is not intentional, that doesn't provide any solace to those eight dead Canadian tourists; all you need to get those soldier to Damascus is a single sturdy off-road vehicle; you end up alienating the Lebanese rather than teaching them a lesson that apparently two decades of occupation was insufficient in illustrating. ultimately, Hezbollah, and its thousand missiles with their long range and limited targeting ability, is throughly entrenched in Southern Lebanon after six years of preparing their 'True Promise' for the Israelis. For Americans stuck in Lebanon now, the State Department to the rescue!:

"the U.S. government does not provide no-cost transportation but does have the authority to provide repatriation loans to those in financial need. For the portion of your trip directly handled by the U.S. Government we will ask you to sign a promissory note and we will bill you at a later date."

A obvious parallel can be made to India, who shrugged off recent bombings with diplomacy and vigor. Arguably, it is the respective nuclear arsenals of India and Pakistan (and the presence of millions of Muslims in India) which keep the peace. A violent Kashmiri splinter group based in Pakistan has taken credit for the bombings, one which is known to be connected to the fantastically sinister Pakistani intelligence branch. Nevertheless there was no massing at the border or attacks on the Islamabad airport or the road to Karachi.

The benefit to Iran from their development of their most frightening tool of foreign policy is Hezbollah, who keep to their ironic slogans about their guns being sacred since, after all, they are sponsored by mullahs. Of course, in the field Iran has the same ability to make command decisions that the US has over Israeli military: little to none. All the Iranians need do is just let a few cells off of the chain to commit some provocative mayhem to distract all the world's attention from their nuclear ambitions.

While nobody seems to relish the idea of Iran holding the atomic card, what if in our vigilance to prevent this maybe, it slips by that other countries have become nuclear powers? Of course, you probably think I mean North Korea where the Hermit King has been bragging about his nuclear-tipped Taepodong in a deadly bid for attention, as his people cannibalize themselves to perpetuate his Stalinist dystopia. No, even Bush isn't sure how big their arsenal is, although given his track record for arms detection it isn't surprising. What I was thinking was a more sinister rumor: that Saudi Arabia has secret nuclear weapons.

Since 2003, tensions with the US caused some members to speculate about developing nuclear weapons. Certainly, money is no object and Pakistan was rumored to be sympathetic if not actually transferring warheads from their weapons program to them, as suggested in 2006 by the German magazine Cicero. Satellite photos have shown an underground city south of the capital with numerous silos equipped with Ghauri rockets. Pakistan denies any involvement in Saudi nuclear ambitions. The Saudis, along with Jordan and Egypt, are becoming the center of a pro-American anti-Hezbollah axis.

The dream of a lasting peace between nations has vanished like winter smoke. Palestinians get more exploited, as they are by terrorists in their own midst willing to use them as human shields or consscript them as martyrs. Many things get overshadowed, including a related rise in the sectarian violence in Iraq. I still don't believe the hype of this Rolling Stone article on plans to revive the draft. Of course, there is all this well-meaning talk of how it would really serve to increase popular opposition to the war and also spread the burden of military action across the upper strata of society:

In a recent meeting with military recruiters, Moskos discussed the crisis in enlistment. "I asked them would they prefer to have their advertising budget tripled or have Jenna Bush join the Army," he says. "They unanimously chose the Jenna option."

I call bullshit...that is to say, even if a draft goes through, required by some new quaqmire to keep the armed forces from bursting at the seams, there is no way members of the upper class will not do everything possible to prevent their children from going. In fact, it the burden will now be coerced by the state from working-class people with desirable skills. Jenna Bush is as likely as Paris Hilton or Chelsea Clinton drafted under this sneaky retooling of the Selective Service System. Instead, people with medical skills, translators and other skilled professionals would be drafted. Of course, this would spell certain death for the Republican Party, but I suspect this is the real reason for this push to renew this debate.

Español | Deutsche | Français | Italiano | Português| Ch| Jp| Ko