The Aid Package

I would be fascinated to see someone (someone at The New Republic, perhaps) try to write an article about why this is a good idea:

The new aid to Israel will average $3 billion a year on a sliding scale, an increase of about 25 percent from current figures, to begin in October 2008. That year, American economic aid to Israel, which has a vibrant, growing economy, is scheduled to end. Uniquely, officials said, the new deal allows Israel to spend 26.3 percent of the aid on arms from Israel’s domestic military industry; the rest of the money must be spent on American equipment.

The New York Times's Steve Erlanger hints here at the odd specter of a gigantic increase in aide to a country with a vibrant, growing economy. He doesn't note that the baseline level already made Israel the country's largest aid recipient. And Israel is, of course, not a poor country. It is, of course, a democracy. But so is Bangladesh -- a country with many more citizens and much less money. But not only is Israel's giant aid package getting substantially larger, it's "uniquely" going to allow "26.3 percent of the aid on arms from Israel’s domestic military industry." The standard military aid package requires all the money to be spent on US defense contractors, making it half partially a subsidy to a foreign country, partially a subsidy to American arms manufacturers.

There's some indication in the article, meanwhile, that Steny Hoyer and other Democrats may raise objections not to this aid package but to the "don't call it a quid pro quo" complementary package of arms sales to the Gulf monarchies. And thus both parties continue in the quest to be more slavishly in hock to AIPAC.

Comments

Actually, Bangladesh is not currently democratic - a military-imposed, non-elective "interim" government is currently in charge, having suspended elections last spring during a wave of partisan violence.

But that's a nitpick; I agree whole-heartedly with the rest of the post.

Posted by ASI | August 17, 2007 11:02 AM

Screwed again by Jimmy Carter's Camp David Accords.

Of course, for the umpteenth time, Matthew ignores the fact that the Israel aid stem from Camp David; it's not like we just give them the aid because AIPAC says so. (The Times does likewise, needless to say.) Oh well, that's the Reality Based Community for ya.

Posted by Al | August 17, 2007 11:05 AM

Re "thus both parties continue in the quest to be more slavishly in hock to AIPAC. "
--------
Yes. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that several institutions are canceling appearances by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, given the pending publication of the book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy"

The reasons why are somewhat incoherent. On the one hand, the institutions argue that the Israel Lobby does not exist. On the other hand, they argue that they are canceling the discussions out of fear of ..er.. something which they can't discuss.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/books/16book.html

I sure the Atlantic Monthly will show more courage than these guys.

No,wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 11:07 AM

Of course, for the umpteenth time, Matthew ignores the fact that the Israel aid stem from Camp David

The Camp David accords specify that Egypt gets two-thirds of what Israel gets in aid. That has absolutely nothing to do with Saudi arms *purchases* and if we gave Israel zero aid, Egypt would be entitled to 2/3 of zero.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 17, 2007 11:12 AM

Also not reported in the MSM, damn their onery hides, is the fact that the Bush Administration's new "get tough with Iraq" policy, supposedly being pushed by Condi to protect her from the Cheneyites, is also being pushed by congressional Democrats, being pressured in turn by AIPAC.

At the same time, both the Israelis and the Saudis are subsidizing our arms manufacturers, loading our hapless congressional reps with further cognitive dissonance. "If only I could vote to please everybody!"

Posted by Alan Vanneman | August 17, 2007 11:30 AM

maybe marty will do a Corner . . . er, Spine post about this.

Posted by farty peretz | August 17, 2007 11:32 AM

At the same time, both the Israelis and the Saudis are subsidizing our arms manufacturers, loading our hapless congressional reps with further cognitive dissonance. "If only I could vote to please everybody!"

No dissonance. This game has been played out before. They are pleasing everyone. The Israeli's aren't concerned with the sons of Saud. As a matter of fact, Israeli firms will manufacture a sizable percentage of the components that make up the sale. They would be nonplussed if it didn't go through. It's just SOP that anyone in congress suggests giving (or allowing) an Arab to do anything the congress has to have this contest where they all try and be the biggest brownnoser in the class to try and get Israel something extra out of the deal and it always works.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 17, 2007 11:46 AM

The time when we could have reevaluated this situation would seem to have come and gone without being at all noticed. I think it would probably have required Republicans in charge of the entire government--well, we had that. And it didn't happen. OK, now the plan is for us to keep getting crazier until the rest of the world works the whole peace process issue out without us. Don't stare like that--isn't that what France did for us in Lebanon? (Not that it fixed "the whole issue" of anything.)

Posted by sniflheim | August 17, 2007 11:57 AM

Look at the amount of money we have spent in Iraq and then it's easy to see that millitary aid to Israel is a huge bargain. That money buys an incredible amount of influence over the most powerful indigenous armed force in the middle east.

Posted by Dave | August 17, 2007 12:00 PM

I told you several weeks ago. When you have Haim Saban's sock puppet --Kenneth Pollack -- praising Bush's Iraq policy, it means Big Oil and the Israel Lobby have cut a deal.

I predict we strike Iran within 6 months. Gets Haim Saban's other sock puppet Hillary off the hook too. It's always easier to continue a war than to start one.

Yes, Bush is a lame duck . Which means he could start a nuclear war if he wanted to -- he's not up for reelection , his pension is locked in, and that scrubland outside Waco Tx is WAY down on anyone's target list.

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 12:06 PM

"Look at the amount of money we have spent in Iraq and then it's easy to see that millitary aid to Israel is a huge bargain. That money buys an incredible amount of influence over the most powerful indigenous armed force in the middle east."

How exactly have we gotten any influence in practice? When we tell Israel that its cracking down to harshly in its neighborhood, does Jerusalem or the IDF listen? Nope. Israel wasn't able to help us out in either Gulf War because that would have been too dangerous for Israel and also help feed conspiracy theories that the wars we just Zionist conspiracies. Instead, we get Pentagon secrets passed onto AIPAC while we protect the Israelis financially from the costs of an occupation of the part of the world undergoing the fastest economic growth. AIPAC, which members of Congress in a poll said was the second-most powerful lobby in DC after the AARP, has more influence over American policy than the US has over Israeli policy. If we had given this aid instead to Bangladesh, one of the most populous Muslim nations in the world with a history of democracy and tolerance, maybe democratic rule would have been stronger there and there wouldn't have been a coup. The same goes for Thailand.

Posted by Reality Man | August 17, 2007 12:08 PM

Re Don Williams

As is usual with Israel bashers, Walt and Mearsheimer, the bobsey twins, refuse to debate anyone from the other side, just like James Earl Carter refused to debate Alan Dershowitz. The fact is that Walt and Mearsheimer are nothing but gutless, yellow-bellied, lying cowards, just like James Earl Carter, who cringe at the overwhelming likelihood of their being embarrassed by their lies being exposed in public debate. In fact, some of the proposed venues would have invited the bobsey twins if they had been willing to engage in a debate but of course, as usual, when Mr. Williams engages in quote mining, he forgot to inform his readers about that.

Posted by SLC | August 17, 2007 12:13 PM

Re Dave's comment "That money buys an incredible amount of influence over the most powerful indigenous armed force in the middle east."
---------
What utter horseshit.

That money CREATED the most powerful indigeous armed force in the middle east. That's WHY 1 Billion Muslims hold us directly responsible for Israel's actions.

When Ariel Sharon bombed an apartment building in Gaza in the middle of the night-- and killed 6 children --, everyone knew it was with a US-supplied F16 and a US-supplied bomb.

Why the HELL do you think the Sept 11 attack occurred?? Bin Laden explicitly cited US sale of Advanced weapons to Israel -- and Israeli slaughter of Muslims with those weapons --as justification for Sept 11.

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 12:13 PM

If you're going to call other people cowards, SLC, why don't you put your name on your comments?

Posted by William Burns | August 17, 2007 12:18 PM

Even before the military coup, Bangladesh was a "democracy" only if you apply that term to every country with competitive elections. Both of the major parties were highly corrupt, and electioneering involved force, fraud and cash.

Posted by Pithlord | August 17, 2007 12:20 PM

Also, I thought the coup in Bangladesh got a reasonable amount of attention. It is amazing how insular even the smartest American pundits are.

Posted by Pithlord | August 17, 2007 12:21 PM

SLC- Chomsky debated Dershowitz.

Posted by Rickm | August 17, 2007 12:27 PM

Re SLC's comment "As is usual with Israel bashers, Walt and Mearsheimer, the bobsey twins, refuse to debate anyone from the other side, "
--------
"As is usual" , SLC is full of crap. Mearsheimer and Walt debated their paper at a forum moderated by Anne Marie Slaughter. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy#Debate

Given the massive amount of propaganda disseminated by the Israel Lobby over past decades, I think it is fair for Mearsheimer and Walt to ask for the chance to give their views without the presentation being disrupted by ankle-biting curs like Alan Dershowitz.

I confess that SLC's newfound love for even-handed discussion caused me to almost wet my pants with laughter.

Perhaps SLC would like to have AIPAC invite Mearsheimer and Walt to speak at AIPAC's annual conference?? You know -- the one where Members of Congress from both parties come and press their lips firmly against the AIPAC's buttocks??

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 12:38 PM

Re Rickm

My point exactly. How come Walt, Mearsheimer and Carter don't have the same cojones as Chomsky does?

Re Don Williams

Once again, Mr. Williams quote mines Mr. Bin Laden, ignoring the numerous times he declared that 9/11 was in retaliation for the presence of infidels in Saudi Arabia. I have a question for Mr. Williams. If Mr. bin Laden is so concerned with the alleged mistreatment of Palestinians by Israel, why hasn't al qaeda launched any attacks on Israel? Actions speak louder then words. How come al qaeda operatives aren't welcomed by either Hamas or Fatah in the Gaza Strip or West Bank? Is it because the Hamas and Fatah folks are smart enough to know that Mr. Bin Laden doesn't give a rats' ass about the Palestinians, just like the rest of the Arab world.

Posted by SLC | August 17, 2007 12:46 PM

You know which AIPAC Conference I'm talking about , SLC. This one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052301565.html

Looks to me like the only "debate" going on was whether the Republicans had stuck their nose farther up AIPAC's butt than the Democrats or whether it was a tie.

So how about it, SLC. Mearsheimer and Walt invited to speak at the next AIPAC "Policy" Conference?

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 12:48 PM

"That money CREATED the most powerful indigeous armed force in the middle east. That's WHY 1 Billion Muslims hold us directly responsible for Israel's actions."

Actually Don, you are totally wrong. The US had no millitary alliance with Israel until it destroyed the armies of two Soviet client states in 1976 (Egypt and Syria). Until that time the US was still trying to woo Nassar from the soviets. Once Israel proved it was the strongest millitary power in the middle east, then the US allied with it for obvious reasons.

Previously, Israel bought almost all it's arms from France. It wasn't until Israel became the dominant power in the Middle east that the US sought close millitary ties.

Posted by Dave | August 17, 2007 12:54 PM

"Even before the military coup, Bangladesh was a "democracy" only if you apply that term to every country with competitive elections. Both of the major parties were highly corrupt, and electioneering involved force, fraud and cash.

Posted by Pithlord | August 17, 2007 12:20 PM"

Isn't democracy a system with competitive elections? There is a difference between well-functioning constitutional liberal democracy in theory and how it is actually practiced in much of the world. By your standard, Japan, India, Israel, Korea, Indonesia, South Africa, Mexico, Turkey, the Philippines and many other countries can have their democracy just dismissed. Considering what happened in Florida in 2000 (black voters purged from the voting rolls) and Bush v. Gore, the US might not count by this metric either.

Posted by Reality Man | August 17, 2007 12:54 PM

Well, Israel's domestic defence industry has, let's say, interesting focuses, including things like surveillance technology. Consider it an outsourcing of the Pentagon's black budget.

Is SLC a parody of the rabid Likudnik? I'd like to think so, and I'll not engage with its threadjack, but its nym would be much funnier as 'ZOG'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 17, 2007 12:57 PM

"It is, of course, a democracy."

In the next Israeli election, I'm excited to see how the polls turn out in the West Bank and Gaza.

Posted by Father Figure | August 17, 2007 1:02 PM

"How exactly have we gotten any influence in practice?"

Do you think without the lever of this aid Israel would have agreed to the Madrid 'peace' process, which included allowing 40,000 PLO gunmen to come from Tunis to occupy the West Bank and Gaza? What giving the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt in 1979?

The truth is that Israel would be better off without U.S. aid, and the policy influence it buys. Since 85% of this money ends up going to U.S. corporations, there is little incentive on our part to cut this off.

Posted by Juan | August 17, 2007 1:10 PM

The truth is that Israel would be better off without U.S. aid, and the policy influence it buys.

Yes, word is that Olmert is constantly on the phone to Bush, begging him not to send so much money. The flood of cash is really becoming quite the problem for Israel.

Posted by Glenn | August 17, 2007 1:16 PM

Dave,

So, you're saying that Israel is still relying on '70s vintage French weaponry? Then what is all the billions of dollars in military aid going to?

My guess is that you're wrong. And that Israel's military equipment is modern, and largely financed by our military aid.

Posted by Jim W | August 17, 2007 1:17 PM

Re Dave's comment "Actually Don, you are totally wrong. The US had no millitary alliance with Israel until it destroyed the armies of two Soviet client states in 1976 (Egypt and Syria). "
-----------
Actually, I think it was David hitting Goliath in the head with the rock that really won us over.

The US has given Israel over $95 BILLION in past aid. If you look at Israel's Air Force , you don't see French warcraft. You see 243+ F16 fighters, 77 F15s, 43 Apache Attack Helicopters, etc -- all courtesy of Uncle Sam.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Air_Force#Current_aircraft_inventory

Israel would not exist if not for the past and present support of the USA. Even if it bought French aircraft, it's economy could never have supported the IDF without huge financial support from the US.

I do concede that the USA would be stupid to base a Middle Eastern policy upon the military prowess of the Egyptians and Syrians.

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 1:33 PM

Although the basic
purpose of Jimmy Carter's Camp David accords was to give the Egyptians $3 Billion every year from the US Treasury in order to bribe the most powerful Arab military power into leaving Israel alone.

You know. That Jimmy Carter. The well-known Anti-Semite who hates Israel.

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 1:37 PM

Re Don Williams

""As is usual" , SLC is full of crap. Mearsheimer and Walt debated their paper at a forum moderated by Anne Marie Slaughter.""

1. As usual, Mr. Williams tells half truths. What a debate! But of course, Mr. Williams considers Dennis Ross, Shlomo Ben Ami, and Martin Indyk to be extreme Zionists (Williams definition of an extreme Zionist: anybody opposed to an Eichmann solution for the Jews in Israel). How come Walt et al won't debate his Harvard colleague Alan Dershowitz. He wouldn't even have to travel out of town for the debate.

2. Mr. Williams refers to Mr. Dershowitz as "an ankle biting cur." Better to be an ankle biting cur then a piece of filth like Mr. Williams.

3. Mr. Williams wants AIPAC to invite Mearsheimer and Walt to address their convention. I would be all in favor of that, provided that they were willing to debate Alan Dershowitz before the throng.

4. If Israel didn't have the most powerful military in he Middle East, it would have been eliminated long ago, a consummation undoubtedly devoutly to te wished by Mr. Williams.

Posted by SLC | August 17, 2007 1:37 PM

Screwed again by Jimmy Carter's Camp David Accords.
Of course, for the umpteenth time, Matthew ignores the fact that the Israel aid stem from Camp David; it's not like we just give them the aid because AIPAC says so. (The Times does likewise, needless to say.) Oh well, that's the Reality Based Community for ya.
Posted by Al

Actually, we do give the aid because the tremendously wealthy and powerful groups behind AIPAC say to. Or any in Congress that buck them will suffer.

The Camp David agreements were to give restitution for infrastructure Israel built on the Sinai Peninsula and was giving up to relocate, rebuild inside Israel proper when the Sinai was returned to Egypt. Egypt squealed they were getting nothing to "rebuild" the basically nothing they had in Sinai in 1967 - so Carter stupidly tossed them a bone and locked Egypt in to 2/3rds the foreign aid the Zionists got for a few years until all the Sinai relocations were transferred to Israel..and funded.

What Carter hadn't counted on was that the Israeli Lobby puppetmeisters would turn those one-time one use Sinai relocation aid requests into a 28-year long permanent annual welfare check for their favorite country, all the while bitching magnanimously about how "America is screwed by paying out billions to those unworthy Egyptian bastards".

The Sinai costs were paid for by the US taxpayer by 1980. The rest is pure gravy delivered to our "Special Friend" courtesy of Jewish clout for their favorite country.

The fun doesn't stop there, as AIPAC is unusually fond of showing their clout in other ways by treating Israel as "the most special nation" - the only one that gets it's aid lump sum, rather than quarterly, with the US taxpayer charged interest on unspent Israel foreign aid.

The only nation, courtesy of a cowed Congress, that is allowed to spend a substantial portion of their foreign aid on non-US vendors. The only nation that had a Foreign Lobby with the power to get a tax deduction written into code for private individuals in America giving private funds directly to agencies of a foreign nation. They also manage special Israel loan guarantees not given to any other nation, earmarks inserted in Fed Department funding for money, studies, grants to go to Israeli agencies on top of the eternally persistent Camp David Welfare check.

And the only foreign Lobby whose members do not have to register as foreign agents and thus allowed to dual-hat and be both serving Israel and serving America in an influential position inside the US government.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 17, 2007 1:42 PM

Re SLC's comment "The fact is that Walt and Mearsheimer are nothing but gutless, yellow-bellied, lying cowards, just like James Earl Carter, who cringe at the overwhelming likelihood of their being embarrassed by their lies being exposed in public debate."
-----------
Given Jimmy Carter's extraordinary raid on the US Treasury to protect Israel, I'm kinda puzzled by SLC's bile.

Or does SLC think that if he curses Jimmy Carter hard enough, Jimmy will give SLC $3 billion as well??

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 1:43 PM

"If Israel didn't have the most powerful military in he Middle East, it would have been eliminated long ago, a consummation undoubtedly devoutly to te wished by Mr. Williams"

Now, that's a straightforward smear, that reinforces all of the negative sterotypes of the AIPAC lobby. Anybody who disagrees with one iota of our current blindly pro-Israel policy wants to see Israel destroyed. Poor form, SLC.

Posted by Father Figure | August 17, 2007 1:50 PM

I would be fascinated to see someone (someone at The New Republic, perhaps) try to write an article about why this is a good idea...

The conventional wisdom I've always heard is that it is in the interests of the US that Israel enjoy a significant regional military edge, to decrease the chances that the Jewish state might some day have to resort to nuclear weapons to defend itself. A truly significant military advantage requires a lavish level of funding. Israel may be a wealthy nation by world standards, but it is nonetheless a small country with a relatively small economy. Lavishly funding the IDF is a lot more feasible with US taxpayer aid.

Posted by Jasper | August 17, 2007 1:50 PM

"Actually Don, you are totally wrong. The US had no millitary alliance with Israel until it destroyed the armies of two Soviet client states in 1976 (Egypt and Syria)."

In 1962 US began selling AA missiles to Israel.
In 1966, tanks.
In 1968, 50 F-4 Phantoms
In 1972, more F-4s and some A-4s

In 1973, the US airlifted over 22,000 tons of military equipment - some of it state of the art shoulder launched anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles - to Israel during the war. At the onset of the airlift, it was clear that Israel was going to lose the war. It isn't just the large military that Israel has that is due to the US, Israel's existance is due to the US. I'm not arguing it is a bad thing that Israel exists, but don't try to argue it would exist without US military aid.

Posted by Njorl | August 17, 2007 1:53 PM

Re "And the only foreign Lobby whose members do not have to register as foreign agents and thus allowed to dual-hat and be both serving Israel and serving America in an influential position inside the US government."
----------
Oh, it gets better than that. Try "dual citizenship". Which is why the biggest financial supporter of the Democratic Party in 2000-2002 was ISRAELI billionaire Haim Saban -- who tossed in almost $14 MILLION.

Plus all those AIPAC supporters probably have automatic Israeli citizenship and passport on request. If you provide US tax returns which might come "under review" by the IRS -- or are engaged in investments that might be reviewed by the SEC -- then that second citizenship and passport is worth a great deal. And if the Israeli government lobbies a US President to pardon you, why that's ..er.. priceless. Just ask Marc Rich.

All of these considerations are rather far from the Torah.

But then it is worth remembering that roughly 19 families OWN much of Israel -- and receive the benefit of that $3 Billion/year in US aid.

I guess Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't want to take "Welfare Reform" too far. It's one thing to put an Afro-American mother with an infant to work for minimum wage -- she's only a US citizen.

Far worse to offend one of Haim Saban's friends. You know. The Haim Saban who boasts in Haaretz about how PRESIDENT Bill Clinton fetched soda water for him in the White House.

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 1:56 PM

Re: "The conventional wisdom I've always heard is that it is in the interests of the US that Israel enjoy a significant regional military edge, to decrease the chances that the Jewish state might some day have to resort to nuclear weapons to defend itself."

Its nice to finally hear an explanation with some rationality to it. I still don't think we should give Israel a dime, but at least this is better than the dopey sentimental rationales one hears, such as: "we need to stand by plucky little Israel" or "we need to stand by our only Democratic friend in the region".

Posted by Jim W | August 17, 2007 1:58 PM

When AIPAC talks of the "shared values" of Israel and the USA , it does not talk about what's really shared: A belief that a few oligarchs are entitled to most of the wealth/income and fuck the people who do the work and who die to defend the country.

See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=884060&contrassID=1&subContrassID=7 ,
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/9299.htm

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 2:11 PM

"decrease the chances that the Jewish state might some day have to resort to nuclear weapons to defend itself"

I could imagine Israel using nuclear weapons against Iran, or maybe the future radical Shiia government in Iraq, but would it really poison its own nest by using them in Lebanon, West Bank/Gaza, or Syria? I severly doubt it; the ramifications for the Irraeli population are too grave.

Furthermore, wouldn't it be easier to tell Israel not to act like a bully, instad of spending billions of dollars on weapons? I mean, are the Golan Heights, Shebaa Farms, and occupied territories really worth all of this?

Posted by Father figure | August 17, 2007 2:17 PM

Is this you, Some Likudnik Cretin?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 17, 2007 2:25 PM

Re Father Figure

Mr. Don Williams has left no doubt in his many posts on this blog that he considers the existence of the State of Israel to be an abomination.

Re Don Williams

Mr. Don Williams seems to be fixated on Haim Saben, who apparently is the devil incarnate in his world. Mr. Williams bases his claim that Saben is a right wing ideologue on a single quote mine in which Saban said something positive about Avigdor Lieberman. Apparently, Mr. Sabans' support of the Labor party in Israel, his support of the Oslo agreement, his lack of support for the Bush Middle East policies as actually being too one sided in favor of Israel are all ignored. But that's Mr. Don Williams for you. He rivals Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute as quote miner extraordinaire.

Posted by SLC | August 17, 2007 2:27 PM

If Israel didn't have the most powerful military in he Middle East, it would have been eliminated long ago, a consummation undoubtedly devoutly to te wished by Mr. Williams.

Pulling Israel from the American tit away might be the best thing that ever happened to it. Maybe then Israelis would put some real effort into living with their neighbors. Maybe then they'd stop the settler fanatics from doing their endless lebensraum stunts.

Either way, ya know what? In the end, this is all Israel's problem. It's not worth one American life, or even on American taxpayer's nickel. Hysterics like SLC love to wail "anti-Semitism" at every opportunity. I suspect they're going to see some serious anti-Semitism if America gets sucked into a disastrous war in Southwest Asia, even if Israeli intransigence is (for once) not the proximate cause.

Frankly, if Israelis had any sense, they'd abandon their little Euro outpost in an Islamic sea, and they'd emigrate. If WE, the U.S., had any sense, we'd offer lavish subsidies to encourage precisely that. It's certain to be cheaper than the current "policy" -- which, as others have pointed out, works as much for Lockheed Martin as Israel.

Posted by sglover | August 17, 2007 2:36 PM

"So, you're saying that Israel is still relying on '70s vintage French weaponry? Then what is all the billions of dollars in military aid going to?"

I don't know how you could possibly read what I said to mean that. What I said was that Israel established itself as the dominant millitary power in the middle east before the US entered into a millitary alliance with it.

Once Israel had done that, it would have been foolish for the US not to ally itself with Israel.

Posted by Dave | August 17, 2007 2:46 PM

"Frankly, if Israelis had any sense, they'd abandon their little Euro outpost in an Islamic sea, and they'd emigrate."

40% of Israeli jews are either from or are direct descendants of jews from middle eastern countries. I guess they could stay as pay the jizya tax under your ethnic clensing program or would they have to go too? Would you be sending the Etheopian jews back to Africa?

Posted by Dave | August 17, 2007 2:52 PM

Dave,

To say that (a) Israel's current military dominance is due to US aid is not to deny that (b) Israel was once dominant without US aid. So, for you to say that someone was wrong in stating (a) because of (b) was a non sequitur.

Posted by Jim W | August 17, 2007 2:55 PM

Jim,
First, I was responding to a statement that said Israel's millitary dominance was created by the US, when in fact it was not.

"That money CREATED the most powerful indigeous armed force in the middle east."

So if you actually read the thread, you will find that what I said was not a non-sequetur at all.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_aid_package.php#comment-429046

Second, there is no doubt that israel would still be the dominant milltary force without the US's aid. Look at Egypt it get's 2/3 of Israel's aid. Does it have 2/3 the millitary that Israel has? Not even close.

Posted by Dave | August 17, 2007 3:14 PM

Dave,

It seems pretty clear that the original comment was referring to Israel's current military dominance, not their military dominance in the 1970s.

Posted by Jim W | August 17, 2007 3:24 PM

Jim,
That is not correct. My original point was that the US allied with Israel because it was the strongest millitary in the US,

"That money buys an incredible amount of influence over the most powerful indigenous armed force in the middle east."

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_aid_package.php#comment-429023

Then the response was that I was wrong, that the US "CREATED" the Israeli millitary strength it didn't ally with it because of it's strength.

"That money CREATED the most powerful indigeous armed force in the middle east."
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_aid_package.php#comment-429046

Posted by Dave | August 17, 2007 3:43 PM

40% of Israeli jews are either from or are direct descendants of jews from middle eastern countries. I guess they could stay as pay the jizya tax under your ethnic clensing program or would they have to go too? Would you be sending the Etheopian jews back to Africa?

Oh piss off. I've said this before: The U.S. should subsidize Israeli immigration here, to the States. Whether we want to be candid about it or not, we already subsidize the lebensraum policies of the settlers. As well as the entire Israeli military machine. Enough. As long as Israeli's stay where they are, following the trajectory that is inherent to a beseiged apartheid state, they are laying the foundations for another big myth-worthy wipeout. And this time there won't be any moral cachet left.

Second, there is no doubt that israel would still be the dominant milltary force without the US's aid. Look at Egypt it get's 2/3 of Israel's aid. Does it have 2/3 the millitary that Israel has? Not even close.

As was pointed out to you, Israel was on the verge of losing the '73 war. They effectively lost their idiotic tantrum last summer. Israel's long-term strategic position is already a losing one -- just like that of Afrikaaners and white Rhodesians. The Lebanon idiocy suggests that their tactical advantages are fraying badly as well. Obviously, neither the Egyptian nor the Syrian militaries are especially relevant in this new reality.

Posted by sglover | August 17, 2007 3:48 PM

sglover,
I think we are all clear on your position to ethnically celnse jews from the middle east.

Posted by Dave | August 17, 2007 3:56 PM

sglover, you can debate any number of these points in a straightforward fashion, but it doesn't help anyone, especially you, when you refer to the settlement policy as "lebensraum".
Depicting the state of Israel as a whole, or even its mainstream right-wing elements as Nazis is intellectually dishonest bullshit.

Posted by Other Dave | August 17, 2007 4:28 PM

"If Israel didn't have the most powerful military in he Middle East, it would have been eliminated long ago, a consummation undoubtedly devoutly to be wished by Mr. Williams"

Father Figure,

If you think this is a "smear" of Don Williams, you can't have been reading the comments on this blog for very long. Indeed, if Don Williams were only opposed to the state of Israel, that might be excusable. Unfortunately, it goes much further than that. Much further. See this comment for example:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/israel_project_background.php#comment-354380

And others in the same thread. See especially, this comment by Frank:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/israel_project_background.php#comment-355445

Posted by Peter G. | August 17, 2007 4:42 PM

Yes, Bush is a lame duck . Which means he could start a nuclear war if he wanted to

Reading the tea leaves here:
Israel is going to do the pre-emptive attacking of Iran. On American taxpayer dollars. Wait and see...

And then when the next 9/11 occurs on American soil, they will still try to deny that America's policy of arming/financing Israel has anything to do with "why they hate us".

Sadly, I think Israel is the one who will be left holding the bag when America stops financing her "defense". They are risking big, and when you risk big, you risk losing big. We can only protect them for so long, with American arms, tax money, and the blood of our young.

If only America would back off, and force Israel into accepting the consequences of her ill-planned and ineffective military actions while there is still an opportunity to face them on a small-scale basis. I really do fear for the country in the long run, once America's loyalties run out. And of course, knowing America's loyalty abroad, they will. AIPAC is their own worst enemy in not recognizing that their power is fleeting, and a good majority of Americans don't have any vested interest in seeing Israel artificially propped up.

Posted by anonymous | August 17, 2007 5:02 PM

"I told you several weeks ago. When you have Haim Saban's sock puppet --Kenneth Pollack -- praising Bush's Iraq policy, it means Big Oil and the Israel Lobby have cut a deal.

I predict we strike Iran within 6 months. Gets Haim Saban's other sock puppet Hillary off the hook too. It's always easier to continue a war than to start one."

Yup.

Posted by kafka | August 17, 2007 5:07 PM

As was pointed out to you, Israel was on the verge of losing the '73 war. They effectively lost their idiotic tantrum last summer. Israel's long-term strategic position is already a losing one -- just like that of Afrikaaners and white Rhodesians. The Lebanon idiocy suggests that their tactical advantages are fraying badly as well.

Absolutly correct.

Being in denial has consequences. If you really care about the Israeli people, you won't let them deny the facts on the ground, the facts of America's not unending support of the country, or continug to exaggerate the strength of the IDF.

Without continual infusions of American weaponry and technology, they would have been forced to accept compromises long ago they could still exist with. By risking their country's survival on playing an "all or nothing" hand and not admitting their weaknesses, well I won't be too surprised if these people they lose big ... yet again. It seems something inherent in their stories and mindset, going for broke and suffering catostrophic loss when they miscalculate and push for too much.

G-d Help Them. They really are going to need it over there, and maybe on the coasts here too if there is an attack on Iran.

Not anti-semitic either Dave, if my words in the long-run turn out to prove true. I certainly wouldn't risk my family or country gambling big like that. No matter how much confidence I had in G-d to pull my 'nads out of the fire in the end. To each his own, but please keep innocent Americans out of the coming conflagration of cyclical revenge.

Posted by anonymous | August 17, 2007 5:10 PM

I predict we strike Iran within 6 months. Gets Haim Saban's other sock puppet Hillary off the hook too. It's always easier to continue a war than to start one

Close.
But that's what this transaction is all about.

Israel's going in for the job. American taxpayers would never accept it, but somebody seems to think we're be ok with financing Israel to do the job. Not for long will that "yay! Iran got bombed!" attitude last though, particularly in the heartland where we're fed up and have seen enough.

Best thing to do about Iran would be to wait them out, the current changes being undergone in that country. Attacking them now would be like attacking Lebanon after the Cedar Revolution -- absolutely stupid, and totally contrary to what you are trying to accomplish.

Then again, I think the Isreali's continually overestimate their intelligence, as well as their independence and strength. It would almost be laughable, except for the fact that America's future is now so intertwined with this illegitimate little apartheid state that can't seem to accept it is not, nor will it ever be a SuperPower.

Posted by anonymous | August 17, 2007 5:17 PM

If Israel didn't have the most powerful military in he Middle East, it would have been eliminated long ago, a consummation undoubtedly devoutly to te wished by Mr. Williams.

Pulling Israel from the American tit away might be the best thing that ever happened to it. Maybe then Israelis would put some real effort into living with their neighbors. Maybe then they'd stop the settler fanatics from doing their endless lebensraum stunts.

Either way, ya know what? In the end, this is all Israel's problem. It's not worth one American life, or even on American taxpayer's nickel. Hysterics like SLC love to wail "anti-Semitism" at every opportunity. I suspect they're going to see some serious anti-Semitism if America gets sucked into a disastrous war in Southwest Asia, even if Israeli intransigence is (for once) not the proximate cause.

Frankly, if Israelis had any sense, they'd abandon their little Euro outpost in an Islamic sea, and they'd emigrate. If WE, the U.S., had any sense, we'd offer lavish subsidies to encourage precisely that. It's certain to be cheaper than the current "policy" -- which, as others have pointed out, works as much for Lockheed Martin as Israel.

Posted by sglover | August 17, 2007 2:36 PM

So true it bears double posting.

Posted by anonymous | August 17, 2007 5:19 PM

Re SLC's comment "Mr. Don Williams has left no doubt in his many posts on this blog that he considers the existence of the State of Israel to be an abomination"
-----------
If so, then SLC should be able to point to my "many posts" in which I say Israel should not exist.

If he can't do that, then maybe the other people on this board can conclude that SLC is a bald-faced liar who deliberately slanders other people with falsehoods.

What I have objected to is Americans placing loyalty to Israel above loyalty to the US -- where I see that causing major damage to this country. Things like ..oh.. 3600+ dead Americans in IRaq.

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 5:35 PM

You're in good company Don Williams.

I want to reassure you that when push comes to shove, there are more Americans out here that support America and our own interests than there are that support Israel.

I only wish the Israeli supporters would come out of their closed circles and recognize that now, while there is still time to change their behavior -- and the eventual consequences of that behavior.

America will pay up to a point, but our treasury and definitely our loyalty to our allies is not unlimited. Why are they so blind to that fact they won't even attempt to pull away from our teats and think of their long-term survival and independence? Sad all the way around what is coming, and all the deaths that really could be prevented.

Posted by anonymous | August 17, 2007 5:45 PM

Chris Ford and Don Williams,

The Saudis would piss themselves reading your comments. Yeah, AIPAC is powerful. And so big and obvious that there's a book coming out about its nefarious influence. And yet its influence is dwarfed by that of the Saudis on the U.S. Government. Yeah, I know -- no big lobby there. So how's it work?

At the end of every presidential administration -- Democrat or Republican -- every cabinet member gets wined and dined by the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., and offered favors -- perhaps a sinecure at a Middle Eastern think tank, or a business deal with an energy company (Presidents get seven-figure donations to their libraries and the promise of six-figure speaking fees in the Gulf). What does this influence by the Saudis? Think about it.

Aside from us pulling their chestnuts out of the fire in the first Gulf War, think of our complete non-response to their role in 9/11. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, Bin Laden is Saudi, and the Saudi government funded the madrassas that churn out Al Qaeda recruits in Pakistan. And we invade Iraq? Connect the f'n dots already.

Posted by Harry | August 17, 2007 5:56 PM

Re sglover

"As was pointed out to you, Israel was on the verge of losing the '73 war. They effectively lost their idiotic tantrum last summer. Israel's long-term strategic position is already a losing one -- just like that of Afrikaaners and white Rhodesians. The Lebanon idiocy suggests that their tactical advantages are fraying badly as well. Obviously, neither the Egyptian nor the Syrian militaries are especially relevant in this new reality."

Although this is somewhat of an overstatement, there is some truth in it. What happened was that Henry Kissinger wanted Israel to lose the 1973 war to force it to agree to all Egyptian demands and consequently he convinced Nixon to deny Israel spare parts and ammunition replenishment. He abruptly changed his mind and decided that this was not a good strategy when then Prime Minister Golda Meir informed him that this policy would leave Israel no choice but to attack Egypt with nuclear weapons, in particular the Aswan Dam. Since this quite possibly might have started WW3 between the US and the Soviet Union, Kissinger and Nixon did a 180. This was documented by Time Magazine at the time. Now of course Mr. Don Williams will point to this episode as an example of Israeli blackmail but the bottom line in Israel is that there will be no more Auschwitzs; their position is that if we have to go, we'll take the rest of the world with us.

Re Don Williams

I think that Mr. Peter G. has effectively demonstrated that it is Mr. Williams who prevaricates, not me.

Posted by SLC | August 17, 2007 7:03 PM

Re SLC's comment "I think that Mr. Peter G. has effectively demonstrated that it is Mr. Williams who prevaricates, not me."
---------
Actually, what SLC just demonstrated is how to duck, evade and hide when asked to substantiate a slander against me that he's made.

It's beside the point but Peter G did nothing.
All Peter G did was point to a past post of mine and make inarticulate, whining sounds.

Maybe Peter G, SLC or Frank would like to point out where I said anything false -- or ,for that matter, objectionable. What, specifically , is your problem?? -- and why do you have to communicate it in sign language and grunts??

Is it because it's easier to mislead and deceive that way than with plain speaking? Is it because it's easier to falsely smear me with vague fingerpointing than to address the facts I present?

I'm still waiting for SLC to show where in my past posts I said Israel should not exist.

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 8:55 PM

Re Harry's comment "The Saudis would piss themselves reading your comments. Yeah, AIPAC is powerful. And so big and obvious that there's a book coming out about its nefarious influence. And yet its influence is dwarfed by that of the Saudis on the U.S. Government."
----------
I have always noted that our Middle East disaster resulted from a malign partnership between Big Oil, Big Defense, and the Israel Lobby. I have noted that Bin Laden, in 1998 interviews with US TV networks, cited US support for the Saudi dictatorship as well as our support of Israeli aggression and the deaths of 600,000 Iraqi children resulting from our bombing of Iraqi water plants and blockade of water purification chemicals via sanctions.

Posted by Don Williams | August 17, 2007 9:00 PM

And yet its influence is dwarfed by that of the Saudis on the U.S. Government.

I don't think that's even close to being true, but what would the relevance be?

I'm curious because it looks like sort of a knee jerk reaction ,"look over there", sort of thing I've noticed before. A species of "What about Tibet"ism? I've got a morbid interest in the taxonomy of these arguments.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 17, 2007 9:39 PM

Wow, Matt! Saying that denying military aid to Israel is a good idea! You must have become masochistic in your old age!

Must be why you don't show up at TPM anymore...Josh Marshall - or his lapdog Daniel Greenbaum - would crucify you for "denying Israel's right to exist" - which after all means billions in arms to "protect" Israel from the "sea of Islamofascists" waiting to "drive Israel into the sea."

Blah, blah, blah...

By the way, somebody at TPM noted that more Israeli Jews emigrated to GERMANY - the site of the Holocaust, for Christ's sakes! - than all the Jews who emigrated to Israel last year! More and more Israeli Jews are seeking European or other citizenship because they are tired of seeing the right wing Zionists in Israel drag the country to utter ruin.

If that doesn't make it obvious the Zionist dream is stupid and dead, I don't know what does!

For those who believe Israel will attack Iran as a proxy for Dick Cheney, I think the deal is even more complicated than that. I think Israel - or some Zionist factions in Israel - have made a deal with Cheney to start another war with Lebanon AND Syria in coordination with a US attack on Iran - although that attack might in fact be initiated by Israel on Iran's nuclear energy facilities, to be followed up either during or after by the US when Iran retaliates against Israel and the US in Iraq or the Gulf States.

Colonel Pat Lang thinks that Israel will attack Syria from the Golan Heights, roll up to Damascus, cut left and try to come in on Hibzallah's flank in the Bekaa Valley. This will be a result of the IDF thinking that if they can just get back to nice tank maneuver warfare - their forte fifty years ago - they can win everything.

In reality this will be a strategic disaster for the Israelis (and as an aside for Lebanon and Syria who will lose more thousands of civilians and infrastructure.) Hizballah will blunt the front of the Israeli attack in the Bekaa Valley, having moved much of its materiel from southern Lebanon to avoid having it destroyed by the UNFIL forces. Then what's left of the Syrian military will harass Israel from the rear.

Fourth-Generation Warfare, folks. Israel is in no position to win it.

Neither is the US - and we will be facing exactly the same thing in Iran and Iraq subsequent to our attack there. The Iranian agents in Iraq and the Iraqi Shia militias will be cutting our supply lines from Kuwait in Iraq, while the Iranians blunt our advance into Khuzestan and then engage in a ten-year-long guerrilla war to force us back out again.

Count on several thousands of dead US troops, scores of thousands of critically wounded US troops - the IED ain't going away, folks! and the Iranians will make more of them than the Iraqis ever did - and the cost of the combined Iraq-Iran war soaring from $10-12 billion a month to $20-30-40 billion a month.

Add to that the $20/gallon gas tax on the US economy, and the Chinese dumping the US dollar because we've cut them off from Iranian oil and gas, and it's bye-bye US economy.

Add to that a draft - guaranteed your kids are going in the military (unless you're a politician, of course.)

And it all starts sometime between now and the end of 2008, by my estimation.

So what are you going to do about it?

Nothing. Nothing you can do but prepare.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 17, 2007 10:51 PM

Hack -

Your "vision" of 4th Gen Warfare as irrestistable for conventional militaries to fight only holds if "our side" holds to and is handcuffed by Geneva, while the other side flouts it freely.

The obvius solution to 4th Gen warfare is withdrawal from terms of Geneva. IEDs can't work if all Muslims are banned from certain road networks, cleansed from nearby settlements, and told they will be shot dead if they go into any "forbidden zone". Resisting cities can be handled without intense door-to-door fighting as soon as a nation declares that enemy civilian lives of a foe that does not protect their compatriots - are far less valuable than our own soldiers we would piss away sparing enemy civilian lives. That would lead to seige warfare, carpet bombing, destruction of critical services inside a city....leading the starving survivors off to internment camps...then directing bombs and massed artillery on the survivors who did not go to the internment camps.

If the US military fought without Geneva restraint, without going to WMD use, perhaps 2900 of the 3700 deaths we took could have been avoided, and we could have been in and done by 2005. The people that survived that ass-whipping would hate us, but they would fear us far more - and people like Ahmadinejad and Chavez would be behaving very circumspectly in 2007 and perhaps Pakistan, seeing Tikrit and Fallujah made into rubble piles that smelled of Jihadi dead 3 years later would be more motivated to find Binnie...

Worry not, it will take another mass Islamoid attack on infidels on the scale of 9/11, perhaps 2, before Americans and Euroweenies ever chuck Geneva and fight Jihadi-style, gloves off, no sanctity of enemy civilians, no POW treatment or quarter given to enemy forces...
But if we have to, really HAVE TO win a war against a chunk of, or the whole Ummah - we can.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 18, 2007 12:31 AM

"The obvius solution to 4th Gen warfare is withdrawal from terms of Geneva. IEDs can't work if all Muslims are banned from certain road networks, cleansed from nearby settlements, and told they will be shot dead if they go into any "forbidden zone". Resisting cities can be handled without intense door-to-door fighting as soon as a nation declares that enemy civilian lives of a foe that does not protect their compatriots - are far less valuable than our own soldiers we would piss away sparing enemy civilian lives. That would lead to seige warfare, carpet bombing, destruction of critical services inside a city....leading the starving survivors off to internment camps...then directing bombs and massed artillery on the survivors who did not go to the internment camps."

So where are we supposed to do this exactly? Iraq? So you basically want to ban all Iraqis from Iraqi roads? Do you really think that warfare is a form of D&D? Have you ever heard of blowback?

Posted by Reality Man | August 18, 2007 1:52 AM

Have you ever heard of blowback?

He cribbed his plan from Colonial Kenya and I can't really say the Brit's had a problem with blowback. I guess if we started calling our oil crews "settlers" and imprisoned all the Iraqi's for their benefit it would make an evil sort of imperial sense. The problem would be that we are supposedly on a humanitarian mission in Iraq.

He just wants to wage a genocide because they pissed him off. I don't know that there is "blowback" in the world to come back at him with any sort of justice. He might want to hope there isn't a God though.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 18, 2007 2:12 AM

The part of Chris Ford was played by George C. Scott. The Dr Strangelove role, not the Patton one.

You out there killing the hajis in Iraq right now, Chris?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 18, 2007 3:07 AM

You out there killing the hajis in Iraq right now, Chris? Posted by pseudonymous in nc

Nah, got my quota in the Gulf War. As a targeter, not as a person actually laying the fire down, but I found two Republican Guard hidey-holes others had missed and one turned up to have 46 dead hadjis and a slew of Russian BMP armor shredded after the cluster bomb drop I set up. Not a bad day's work. Got a commendation letter for that one...

Tell you what, maybe you can be the 1st Lefty to shock the nation and offer your precious little ass as a volunteer for a Lefty brigade sent into Darfur to help OAS soldiers already there. If you "care so much", that is...Just like the Lincoln brigade in the Spanish Civil war! Lefties volunteering to risk their sweet little asses personally!

As is, Lefties have the lowest rate of national service of any American ideological persuasion outside Amish, transnational progressive Jews (many Lefties of course), Muslims, and Mennonites.

Rather than urge more conservatives to join national service they are already overrepresented in, the Religious Right...maybe Lefties - "We support the Troops soooo much!" ought to shut their lying mouths and prove they support national service.

He just wants to wage a genocide because they pissed him off. I don't know that there is "blowback" in the world to come back at him with any sort of justice. He might want to hope there isn't a God though.

Lefty hysteria to claim that abandoning fighting by Geneva Rules after the other side abdandons it amounts to genocide. Just another indicator of how the Left hates America, and not the radical Islamist enemy - for thinking of new rules of war after the other side throws all of 'em out.

As for God, I'm sure if he exists that he welcomed in Atlanta-burner General Sherman, and Churchill, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, General Zhukov, and all the passed away B-25, B-17, and B-29 crews for blasting, burning & exterminating 100s of thousands of civilians in cities in the cause of doing a lesser evil to defeat & eliminate a greater evil.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 18, 2007 4:35 AM

I'm a liberal. I did my time. You know who else was a pansy-assed bleeding heart liberal? Pat Tillman. Hell, he was on his way to have a pal-around session with none other than Noam Chomsky, and would have probably had some interesting things to say about Iraq after his time if he hadn't been put down.
As for me, I had little difficulty finding people who agreed with me on political issues when I was in-it wasn't as if I were all alone, surrounded by self-righteous conservatives-of course, things could have changed since 2004, but I doubt it.

The military is a more diverse political outfit than the Mr. Fords of the world would like us to think. Excellent evidence for this can be seen by examining military campaign contributions. Here is the list, which I found here:

Ron Paul 26.23%
Barack Obama 24.02%
John McCain 18.31%
Hillary Clinton 11.08%
Bill Richardson 5.59%
Mitt Romney 4.05%
John Edwards 2.63%
Rudy Giuliani 2.44%
Mike Huckabee 1.84%
Tom Tancredo 1.63%
Duncan Hunter 1.05%
Joe Biden 0.84%
Mike Gravel 0.16%
Sam Brownback 0.07%
Dennis Kucinich 0.05%
Tommy Thompson 0%
Chris Dodd 0%
Jim Gilmore 0%
John Cox 0%

And will you look at that! Who's the most popular candidate, if we use this as a metric? Why, the Republican that has most vociferously rejected the war! And look who's number 2! Barack Hussein Obama! Democratic candidates have roughly 40 percent of the share of military contributions. I think that makes sense too-I won't say the military doesn't have more conservatives than liberals, but it's not by some ridiculous margin. The military is not a monolithically conservative institution, never has been. The reasons that lead people to join very rarely have much to do with politics.

At any rate, as a veteran of the Armed Forces, I promise you that Chris Ford cannot speak for me, or for the vast majority of soldiers, seamen, airmen and Marines that served or are serving. I am actually suspicious of his claim that he participated in the Gulf War-the way he describes it just doesn't sound right. No soldier I ever met would say:

Nah, got my quota in the Gulf War. As a targeter, not as a person actually laying the fire down, but I found two Republican Guard hidey-holes others had missed and one turned up to have 46 dead hadjis and a slew of Russian BMP armor shredded after the cluster bomb drop I set up. Not a bad day's work. Got a commendation letter for that one...

It doesn't really matter to me all that much whether Ford was really in the Gulf for this sort of thing or not-I only point out that this sounds exactly like the kind of thing a wannabe would say. Real soldiers don't normally prattle on about the people they supposedly killed, and most of the time they don't pat themselves on the back for doing their bloody duty. If Ford really did serve in this manner, then it reflects all the worse on him for saying it.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 18, 2007 6:49 AM

"When AIPAC talks of the "shared values" of Israel and the USA , it does not talk about what's really shared: A belief that a few oligarchs are entitled to most of the wealth/income and fuck the people who do the work and who die to defend the country."

One of the best posts I've ever seen here.

Posted by kafka | August 19, 2007 3:12 AM