Clarity

January 2001
First meeting of the National Security Council
From The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind, pp. 71-2

He’d met Sharon briefly, Bush said, when they had flown over Israel in a helicopter on a visit in December 1998. “Just saw him that one time. We flew over the Palestinian camps,” Bush said sourly. “Looked real bad down there. I don’t see much we can do over there at this point. I think it’s time to pull out of that situation.”

And that was it, according to O’Neill and several other people in the room. The Arab-Israeli conflict was a mess, and the United States would disengage. The combatants would have to work it out on their own.

Powell said such a move might be hasty. He remarked on the violence on the West Bank and Gaza and on its roots. He stressed that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army. “The consequences of that could be dire,” he said, “especially for the Palestinians.”

Bush shrugged. “Maybe that’s the best way to get some things back in balance.”

Powell seemed startled.

“Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things,” Bush said.

:: :: :: ::

Apocalypse Now (1979)

Willard [quoting Kurtz]:
In a war there are many moments for compassion and tender action. There are many moments for ruthless action — what is often called ruthless — what may in many circumstances be only clarity, seeing clearly what there is to be done and doing it, directly, quickly, awake, looking at it.

:: :: :: ::

July 21, 2006
The Washington Post

President Bush’s unwillingness to pressure Israel to halt its military campaign in Lebanon is rooted in a view of the Middle East conflict that is sharply different from that of his predecessors.

[...]

“The president believes that unless you address the root causes of the violence that has afflicted the Middle East, you cannot forge a lasting peace,” said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. “He mourns the loss of every life. Yet out of this tragic development, he believes a moment of clarity has arrived.”

:: :: :: ::

July 30, 2006
Qana, Lebanon
The New York Times

The dead lay in strange shapes. Several had open mouths filled with dirt. Faces were puffy. A man’s arm was extended straight out from his body, his fingers spread. Two tiny children, a girl and boy, lay feet to head in the back of an ambulance, their skin like wax.

In the all-day scramble to retrieve the bodies from the remains of this one house — backhoes dug for hours at the site — tallies of the dead varied. Residents said as many as 60 people had been inside. News agencies reported that 56 had been killed, and that 34 of them were children. The Lebanese Red Cross, which conducted the rescue, counted 27 bodies. As many as 17 were children. The youngest was 10, and the oldest was 95. One was in a wheelchair.

2 Ripples from “Clarity”

Scott says:

August 2, 2006 at 8:08 am

It’s tough to fight a battle with an enemy that intentionally puts women and children in front of them. 

I’m not sure that’s reason to not fight the battle though.

zalm says:

August 3, 2006 at 3:09 am

Don’t get me wrong… using civilians as human shields is despicable.

I just don’t think that bombing the infrastructure and civilians of an already weak state is a particularly effective way to fight a deeply entrenched terrorist organization.  At best, it’s tactically misguided.  At worst, it’s collective punishment, which is also despicable.
-----

Put Your Oar In

Name: (required)

Email: (required, but will never be published)

Website URL:

Remember me next time | Notify me of replies

Live Preview