It was a fair guess that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ fight against a coal-fired plant expansion near Holcomb would not play well in western Kansans. A recent SurveyUSA poll left no doubt. In the poll, taken in mid-May just as she’d vetoed a third bill to allow the plants, her approval rating out west was 41 percent — a stunning 22 points lower than the month before, and similarly off her statewide approval rating last month of 62 percent. Maybe she should send flowers. Or jobs.
Former President Jimmy Carter is free to meet with Hamas if he chooses, which he has during his controversial visit to the Middle East. “I think it is absolutely crucial that in the final and dreamed-about and prayed-for peace agreement for this region that Hamas be involved and Syria will be involved,” Carter said. But the fact that Carter was largely snubbed by Israel’s top leaders undermines his efforts. Quite a fall from grace for the man who, as U.S. president in 1979, brokered Israel’s first peace deal with an Arab country, Egypt.
A Washington Post editorial argues that Carter is wrong to “publicly and unconditionally grant recognition and political sanction to a leader or a group that advocates terrorism, mass murder or the extinction of another state.”
Expectations are so low for the Mideast conference that begins tonight in Annapolis, Md., that success may be defined as no fistfights. The participants are so weak (including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in photo from meeting today with Bush), the issues are so tough and the uninvited so key (Hamas, Iran) that lack of progress will surprise no one. But President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice deserve credit for optimistically — though belatedly — taking a leading role on the issue of a revived peace process. And it was encouraging to see Syria sign on. Maybe the two-day Annapolis event at least won’t go down in the history books as a gathering that made matters worse.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Today’s Eagle included articles on the bombing of the Shiite shrine and the killing of two more Fort Riley soldiers in Baghdad, the civil war in Gaza (see photo), another assassination in Beirut, and Iran supplying weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan. What should the United States do about all these and other problems? The first step should be gaining a better understanding of the Middle East.
Syndicated columnist and terrorism expert Micah Halpern, who met with Sedgwick County security personnel last week to discuss terrorism threats, told The Eagle editorial board that the United States still knows little about the cultures, religions and languages in the Middle East. As a result, he said, our leaders are making decisions about what they don’t understand. And that tends to make the problems even worse.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
The evidence presented over the weekend in Baghdad backed up the Bush administration’s recent assertions that Iran is supplying Shiite groups in Iraq with bomb materials and other support. Iranian officials, of course, called it “all lies.” It’s hard not to worry about what’s next, given the escalating rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Newsweek’s cover story suggests a “hidden war” between Iran and the United States already has begun: And “with Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident’s spiraling into a crisis are higher than they’ve been in years.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Conventional wisdom has it that Hezbollah emerged the big winner in its recent clash with Israel. Charles Krauthammer’s column in the Washington Post takes a different view.
He cites the recent admission Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (in photo): “If I had known that the operation to capture the soldiers would lead to this result, we would not have carried it out.”
Not exactly words of triumph. Krauthammer points out that Hezbollah also suffered severe damage to the military infrastructure it spent the past six years building, and political damage among Arab nations increasingly alarmed by Hezbollah’s Iranian sponsorship.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Most of the global talk about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (in photo) has been about what he might do to Israel and the United States if he’s successful in pursuing nuclear weapons. But what about what he’s doing to Iran? His call Tuesday for further purging of liberal and secular professors from Iran’s universities should bring new attention to the Taliban-like changes Ahmadinejad’s administration is making in the country, presumably out of nostalgia for the 1979 Islamic revolution. In the past year, dozens of professors have been retired, and a cleric was put in charge of Tehran University. Time magazine recounted other recent fundamentalist reforms, including gender segregation in classrooms, restrictions on women’s dress and their public performance of music, and confiscation of residents’ satellite dishes. Will the world cry out about these limits on liberty, as it did about pre-Sept. 11 Afghanistan?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
The Boston Globe carries a thought-provoking article by historian Andrew Bacevich on the “Islamist way of war,” as witnessed in Lebanon and Iraq — a sophisticated blend of terrorism, guerrilla warfare, assassinations, and social action and propaganda that he argues should occasion a rethinking of Western military strategy.
Although what he calls the Islamist “resistance” strategy can’t threaten our nation’s existence, it can “prevent conventional armies from achieving decisive results.”
He goes on: “Resistance is a strategy not of conquest but of denial. Wars undertaken with the expectation that they will be short and conclusive — on the model of the Six Day War or Operation Desert Storm — instead become open-ended and inchoate. Politically, the Islamist way of war is demonstrating that the West can no longer impose its will on the Middle East.”
Posted by Randy Scholfield
For decades, Iran has been a leading U.S. nemesis, including, in recent years, charter membership in the “axis of evil.” So why don’t U.S. intelligence services know more about what’s going on inside the country?
That’s the timely question asked last week by a House Intelligence Committee report that noted “significant gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the various areas of concern about Iran,” especially its nuclear program and leadership intentions.
Iraq is a textbook case of what happens when policy is based on bad and selective intelligence. Are we going down a similar blind alley in the present standoff with Iran?
It’s more evidence the United States is failing to develop old-fashioned human intelligence assets abroad. Spies on the ground, more than high-tech snooping, likely will be key to understanding emerging threats against this country.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Speaking of Iran: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during a press conference Tuesday that he wants to "debate world and international issues with George Bush in a televised debate." The White House dismissed the proposal as a diversion from international concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. But what was interesting about the press conference was how combative some of the Iranian reporters were. Some jumped from their seats and demanded that their questions be taken. Maybe the White House press corps could learn something about holding a president accountable.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
After promising Israel and the United States that a French-led international force would help secure and patrol Lebanon’s southern border, France is offering only 200 combat engineers (in addition to the 200 French troops already serving as U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon). President Bush said in his news conference Monday that he hoped France would “put more troops in.”
It needs to. If not, the 15,000-member international force may not materialize. As a Wall Street Journal editorial Monday noted: “Given that the French contingent was supposed to be at the vanguard of this enhanced force, it’s unclear whether other nations will be willing to chip in with troops of their own.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
According to most damage assessments of the Israel-Hezbollah war, the terrorists won. The offensive may have impaired Hezbollah’s ability to terrorize Israelis with its rockets, the thinking goes, but not so much that it offset Hezbollah’s gain in stature and credibility.
Given that, Eagle editorial board members found it encouraging to hear the more optimistic view of Barukh Binah (in photo), consul general of Israel based in Chicago. While in Wichita Thursday, Binah acknowledged that the “Lebanese people paid a price,” but he emphasized that Hezbollah launches missiles from residential neighborhoods and that civilians were warned to leave. Most important, Binah said, people in the region are newly asking questions, especially about the involvement of Iran and Syria in Hezbollah’s activities, and the United Nations for the first time has passed a resolution allowing Israel to defend itself. Now, he said, if Western nations don’t step up and help rebuild southern Lebanon, the Iranians will.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
President George Bush, in a statement that carried echoes of his famous “mission accomplished” speech, declared this week that Hezbollah “suffered a defeat” in the recent weeks of fighting with Israel in Lebanon.
But that’s not how many military analysts, the Israeli public, Hezbollah or much of the Arab world saw it; Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah boasted that his militia had stood its ground with Israel’s powerful army and inflicted painful casualties.
And Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is reeling from domestic criticisms that he didn’t achieve the stated objective to decimate Hezbollah.
Now the United Nations is going to finish the job of disarming the militant group? Don’t hold your breath. Expect an emboldened Hezbollah to live to fight another day — and that’s bad news for Lebanon, for Israel and for peace in the region.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
The outcry from the right over what it sees as the Bush administration’s capitulation on Hezbollah is starting to feel like another Harriet Miers, Dubai port or immigration moment. Why are so many conservatives mad about how the conservative president has handled this cease-fire? For his part, Washington Post columnist George Will characterizes the outcome this way: "Hezbollah has willingly suffered (temporary) military diminution in exchange for enormous political enlargement."
But President Bush’s rejection of a diplomatic solution would have meant more bombing and death. Is that really the better choice for either Israel or the United States?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lays out the administration’s thinking in a Washington Post commentary.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
The U.N.-imposed cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel already has seen some violations. No surprise there. But overall, it’s holding, authorities say. What’s remarkable is how quickly Lebanese citizens began to head for home — or what’s left of it — in defiance of Israeli officials. Now the hope becomes that the fragile peace will last long enough to allow the international peacekeepers to move in and diplomats to work on the next goal — a lasting peace agreement. Unfortunately, sentiment in the region is that Hezbollah and its more than 4,000 rockets effectively won this 34-day war.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
It was a fair guess that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ fight against a coal-fired plant expansion near Holcomb would not play well in western Kansans. A recent SurveyUSA poll left no doubt. In the poll, taken in mid-May just as she’d vetoed a third bill to allow the plants, her approval rating out west was 41 percent — a stunning 22 points lower than the month before, and similarly off her statewide approval rating last month of 62 percent. Maybe she should send flowers. Or jobs.