Vacillation

A vacillating policy leads to disastrous consequences. The British policies prior to the Revolution had such; one day hard-nosed, the next conciliatory; eventually the Americans rebelled. The inability to come to an agreement on the fate of slavery lead to the Civil War, Wilson`s inconsistent policies lead us into WWI (he, like an inverted John Kerry, was against the war before he was for it and campaigned for re-election under the slogan ``the man who kept us out of war``.) inconsistent policies by Neville Chamberlain brought us WWII, Korea was a fierce and bloody fight which ended in a stalemate because of the inconsistent military strategy, we lost Vietnam because of an inconsistent military strategy, etc. Foreign policy-especially in times of war-need to be solid, dependable, and firm; you cannot change horses in midstream.

Which is why Israel`s acceptance of the cease-fire proposal is such a bad thing; Israel has shown itself to be weak and vacillating. The Israeli`s never went after Hezbollah with full force. They would send troops and equipment in, then pull back as a sign of good faith whenever talks of a cease-fire would heat up. As a result, Hezbollah was able to make p.r. and tactical gains while continuing to fire missiles at Israeli civilians. Now, Hezbollah emerges as the victor, since they ``chased Israel out of Lebanon``. This mirrors the American withdrawal from Lebanon after Hezbollah attacked our Marine barracks in the `80`s (something which ``proved`` to Bin Laden that America had no stomach for a fight.) It doesn`t matter that Israel accepted a cease-fire in order to please the United Nations; to the Arab street the Israelis ran with their tails between their legs.

Not only does this postpone the day of reckoning, it encourages and emboldens the enemy everywhere, and we can expect to see a wave of new terrorist attacks around the Globe because of this failure of nerve by Israel. The Bush Administration should have done all in its power to encourage an Israeli victory, because a defeat of Hezbollah would make Iraq safer, would make Afghanistan safer, would ultimately make America safer. Of course, the Bush Administration failed to do that, and opted instead for the conventional failed wisdom of backing a U.N. brokered ``peace`` deal, which is merely a time out for the terrorists to sharpen their knives.

There seems to be something which rots the brain, which derails any consistent, logical thought when it comes to the situation in Palestine; even though we are at war with terrorism, and the President has declared that all terrorist organizations with international reach and their state sponsors are our enemies, we continue to restrain Israel, to force them to depend on the goodwill of der feind. Bush`s is only the latest in a long line of administrations which have been unable and unwilling to break out of this mold, which has shown a strange lethargy when dealing with Palestine. Something seems to sap the will when this problem is involved.

Therein lies the problem; we are operating with a vacillating policy, one in which we pursue some enemies while allowing others to remain in place. This is a recipe for disaster.

It has been said that the old Soviet leadership was happy when Ronald Reagan was elected President, because at least they knew what to expect. Jimmy Carter jumped around more than fleas in a flea circus, and it was impossible for the Soviets to maintain any sort of policy; they were afraid of Carter, because they never knew where the line they weren`t supposed to cross lay. (Of course, Reagan would eventually destroy them.) Carter`s weakness and vacillation lead to the current crisis with Iran, lead to the whole Contra business because he wouldn`t defend the Monroe Doctrine, lead to a plethora of problems worldwide.

We cannot afford to vacillate in these modern times. I expect this blunder with Israel will cost everyone dearly in the not-so-distant future.