THe destruction of Palestinian society is NOT a proclaimed objective of the State of Israel - just something that they are incrementally doing!

"Diplomacy is not just about realized goals, but about what you prevent, what you limit, what you contain, what you diffuse. Successful diplomacy will take more than Obama-doctrine outreach. It will require a new form of American power to work, in avoiding the worst even if it cannot attain the dream." (Roger Cohen on the approach to achieving successful diplomacy as exemplified by Dennis Ross).

"even if it cannot attain the dream" Peace between Israel and the Arabs in Palestine is an unattainable dream for the foreseeable future. As long as those that wish Israel's destruction control the Muslim political scene in the Middle East, the best the US can do is to help "avoid the worst" (war).

So, from my point-of-view, MonsoonWind, it's "a new form of American power" - not "powerlessness" - not imposing US will by force as the imperialists wish, but striving to "prevent," "limit," "contain," and "diffuse". Power doesn't of necessity have to mean dispatching troops to blow away those one opposes.

I think the word "power" is misapplied here, Jim. American influence is surely the correct termanology?

In American oxymoronic terminology, it's "soft power".

Why call a spade "a spade" when you can call it "a manuelly operated digging implement"?

Actually, it's whatever one wishes to call it. The imperialists on this forum would call it the cut-and-run form of American power. If left to me, I'd call it "the prevent, limit, contain, and diffuse Islamic fundamentalist kick-ass form of American power," or, as Dennis Ross termed it, the "big-carrot/big-stick" approach. But what the hey.

In any case, there are alternatives to the military/industrial complex-favored imperialistic approach of invade first, and then hang around to shoot as many locals as one can over a span of as many years as one can manage. It's good to see that alternatives to that are finally being explored by the US.

Jim the Moron wrote:


In any case, there are alternatives to the military/industrial complex-favored imperialistic approach of invade first, and then hang around to shoot as many locals as one can over a span of as many years as one can manage. It's good to see that alternatives to that are finally being explored by the US.


Does this mean a smaller (more manageable) military-industrial sector in future?

Painful economic restructuring for the US. BUT if successful it should liberate vast amounts of capital, manpower and other resources for other uses. YOU might even see a comeback in US manufacturing of consumer items.

Quite true, M'wind. But with any kind of luck, America's defense needs will be driven by geopolitical considerations, rather than the interests of capitalist warmongers. America requires a powerful military, not for foreign adventures but for real national security needs (see WWII).

M'wind - are you inferring that America is incapable of fulfilling its requirements for can openers through domestic production? I'll alert the President; I'm sure he'll get right on it.

Jim the Moron wrote:
Quite true, M'wind. But with any kind of luck, America's defense needs will be driven by geopolitical considerations, rather than the interests of capitalist warmongers. America requires a powerful military, not for foreign adventures but for real national security needs (see WWII).

M'wind - are you inferring that America is incapable of fulfilling its requirements for can openers through domestic production? I'll alert the President; I'm sure he'll get right on it.

With the benefit of hindsight, I am glad that your country participated in WW2 the way it did,but I ocasionally wonder whether doing so was essential for "real national security needs".

America was seperated from the Axis belligerants on both sides by wide stretches of ocean uncrossable to any would-be seaborne invader, therefore absolutely safe, Japan would not have even attacked Pearl Harbour had not Roosevelt, in cahoots with CHUrchill, cut off its oil supply jeopardising its capacity to wage war in CHINA - a deliberate provocation. Roosevelt was determined to get his country into the WAR by one means or another. Nothing to do with national security; arguably better served at the time by continuing neutrality.

(YOur second point); perish the thought that a nation capable of inventing the hydrogen bomb could not manufacture a can opener.

www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08friedman.html?ref=opinion

"The Palestinian leadership 'wants a deal with Israel without any negotiations,' and Israel's leadership 'wants negotiations with the Palestinians without any deal.'" This encourages Friedman to state that "If the status quo is this tolerable for the parties, then I say, let them enjoy it. I just don't want to subsidize it or anesthetize it anymore."

Greenwald carries this further: www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/11/...m=/opinion/greenwald - focusing on Israel and advocating an end to US economic and diplomatic aid.

"Muslim anger towards Israel will inevitably translate into Muslim anger towards the U.S. for as long as we continue to flood Israel with aid and cover." "Muslim anger towards Israel" is based on Muslim hatred of Zionists, pure and simple. "Death to Israel," etc. - vows to Allah that there will never be an end to efforts to eradicate Israel. So, Greenwald would advocate stopping US aid to appease mi;litant Muslims.

These apologists for Muslim unwillingness to recognize a secure Jewish State of Israel cannot understand that Americans look with favor on civilized Israelis, in stark contrast to the atrocities perpetrated by terrorists every day in the name of Allah.