War--It's Good for Absolutely Nothing!

Predictably, reports of vast destruction and civilian misery along the Israel-Lebanon border have pushed news of vast destruction and civilian misery in Iraq off the front page and buried it further among the furniture ads on, perhaps, page five of most American newspapers.

Does that mean explosions and death in Iraq just aren't horrific or graphic enough anymore for space on page one--or for the lead slot on the evening news? Or are we more curious about a new hot spot in the general Middle East turmoil? Just as we'd scramble to read about a newly opened restaurant in town, even though it's no better (or worse) than the established one a block or two away?

Certainly Iraq's Shiite death squads and the Sunni insurgency are doing their best to keep us engaged and appalled. Yet Israel and Lebanon have the force of history and reputation to bolster their claims to the world's attention. Can editors and television producers ignore the utter devastation of Lebanese neighborhoods and the rocket craters of northern Israeli towns, just to remind us once again that life in Baghdad remains an absolutely intolerable nightmare of car bombs, self-exploding shoppers, and cold-blooded executions?

Of course not. And how can you weigh the importance of all-out civil war in one little country against the opening salvos of World War III? But still, we're talking American media here, and aren't we directly responsible--through willful executive blunders and overwhelming arrogance, not to mention congressional cowardice--for the mess in Iraq? In fact, isn't it obvious that if we had any diplomatic credibility left in the region, we might have had some chance of swaying both Israel and Hezbollah's patrons in Syria or Iran toward the logic of "any course but war"?

Worse yet, now that the rockets are flying and the sorties are adding up, the U.S. has taken an unequivocal stance of approval. The UN leadership and our NATO allies--other than Britain, of course--want to apply pressure on both sides for an immediate cease fire. We want none of it until Israel has taken its best shot and had ample opportunity to pursue its military objectives. It may turn out that Lebanon's civilian population, its recently rebuilt infrastructure, and its fragile democracy all are destroyed without bringing down--or even crippling--Hezbollah in the process.

Or Israel may indeed bring Hezbollah to its knees for an eight count before a "sustainable ceasefire" is worked out. But it will stagger to its feet again and morph into something even less tractable and more militant. One thing is for certain, though; Israel and Lebanon will still be neighbors. Israel, always insecure of its position among hostile neighbors, will still be supplied with warplanes and armaments from the U.S., and Hezbollah and Hamas, ever fueled by violent resentment over the indignities of occupation, will still be itching to use the thousands of Russian-made rockets in their Syrian/Iranian-backed arsenal.

It's a grim appraisal, I admit, but right now all concerned parties remain dedicated to the illusion that they can prevail and achieve their ultimate goals if the fighting just goes on long enough. Perhaps it's time to let them have their way. Mutual annihilation could be a terrific object lesson for our currently empowered neocon policy-makers.

It's either that or admit (with Edwin Starr),
"War! Huh Good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again."

Hear it. Say it again. Believe it. Or fuck it and just keep fighting.