Victory in Lebanon

To the Editor, President Bush has declared the Lebanon cease fire a “victory” against Hezbollah. This seems a little far fetched in light of the fact that Hezbollah seems to have survived pretty much intact. It fired 2200 rockets on the eve of the cease fire. Most pundits agree that it achieved its purpose in weathering the onslaught of the Israeli army. Its reputation has soared amongst Arabs. It seems that its leader has become an icon in the Middle East, even eclipsing Osama bin Laden. Moreover, even Prime Minister Ohlmert does not claim that Israel achieved victory. In fact, he apologized to the Israeli nation for the government’s failed strategy and said Israel would do better “the next time.” Victory would mean that there would be no “next time.” This might have been the result if Israel had gone after Hezbollah on the ground in the beginning instead of focusing on turning Beirut into rubble with air attacks. If President Bush is satisfied that the cease fire in Lebanon is a “victory,” perhaps he can find some event that he could call “victory” in Iraq. If he had called the troops home after his “mission accomplished” landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, thousands of American and Iraqi lives would have been spared. In fact, the situation on the ground in Iraq might have been better than it is. Iranian-backed politicians who praise Hezbollah might not be running the country. Despite its continual carping on the ineffectiveness of the UN, the Bush Administration is relying on a hastily assembled UN peacekeeping force, under the leadership of France, to achieve what the Israeli army could not accomplish with a twenty year occupation of southern Lebanon — the disarmament of Hezbollah. I’m not so sure that there is going to be a great change in Secretary Rice’s “status quo ante.”   Michael G. Busche Sparta