The reactionary hand-wringing about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is wholly devoid of intellectual support and contradicted by the Geneva Conventions themselves. The flaccid objections are based in three parts: that unlawful combatants can be anyone, Habeas Corpus is a right enjoyed by military combatants, and a misunderstanding of the Geneva Convention documents (if they are read at all). Through on top a healthy dose of paranoia and you have basically the entire dogma of the liberal establishment on the issue.

First, there is such a thing as a lawful combatant (which makes anyone not living up to that standard unlawful). This is defined in the Geneva Conventions document “Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War”, Article 3. It falls into 4 basic parts: wearing a uniform of other distinctive insignia, having someone with command authority in charge, carrying arms openly, and conducting themselves in accordance to the laws of war. Now, according to some, in fact, most left-wing “thinkers”, killing Americans or Jews is a complete immunity to any infraction of international law, however, there are some reasonable people who do think there are some laws here that might possible apply.

For instance, Article 3 talks about the illegality of taking hostages. Presumably sawing off their heads with a dull knife also falls under this. Using mosques, hospitals, or schools as arms depots or locations to launch attacks is also included. In short, almost the entire battery of tactics used by Al Qaeda or the so-called insurgents in Iraq is illegal under international law.

Another point to note is the requirement to carry arms openly and to wear a distinctive and fixed sign (a.k.a. a uniform). This is to clearly identify which people are ok to shoot at and which are not. If you don’t wear a uniform, it makes it really hard to be sure you aren’t shooting a civilian. That’s why things like Haditha happen. In short, the tactics employed help ensure that more civilians get killed, and for that matter, it makes it just as hard for the authorities to be sure they killed a civilian or a combatant. This is one reason why the “civilian death toll” is exaggerated.

More importantly, these above two points (and others) show that the insurgents in Iraq, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban (to some extent) do not meet the criteria of being lawful combatants entitled to the Geneva Convention protections. As an aside, I studied international law under Francis Boyle… yes, that Francis Boyle. It was before the Iraq war but I did quiz him on these provisions. In fact, he was quite fond of saying that US mercenaries such as DynCorp were not entitled to the Geneva Conventions and could be summarily executed if a capturing nation wanted to do so. He also conceded that the tactics employed by Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and others were illegal under international law. It just seems like the biggest supporters of international law think it only applies when you aren’t killing Jews, Christians, or Americans.

The important point is that unlawful combatants are a defined entity and not subject to a whole lot of interpretation. Article 5 says that everyone is entitled to a status hearing which everyone at Gitmo has had. Article 84 makes a particular emphasis that trials should be conducted by military tribunals. It’s clear what an unlawful combatant is and doesn’t need constant definition. In fact, everyone in military life is fully versed in the difference.

The Habeas Corpus objections are particularly odd. Never… ever… in the history of mankind has an army who has captured an enemy offered that enemy a trial and charged him with some crime, gave him a sentence, and then happily returned him to his home country while hostilities were still ongoing. In fact, more often than not, history shows when countries capture an enemy and subject them to trial, it’s often a show trial for propaganda purposes and not infrequently results in the execution of the prisoner of war in question.

Article 118 deals with repatriation and it says prisoners will be returned after the cessation of hostilities. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in international law, the Constitution, state or local laws, or moral law that states we should only hold POWs for a certain time and then return them so they can continue fighting against us. In fact, the entire section that deals with repatriation before hostilities have ended only allows for returning POWs who no longer serve in a military capacity. The Geneva Conventions fully supports the right of a nation to hold POWs or illegal combatants until hostilities are over. If a war lasts 100 years, then they can be held until they are too sick or elderly to fight anymore. The Geneva Conventions is crystal clear on this point.

Nowhere in the history of man can it be found that a country held any class of enemy combatant, tried him in a civilian court for a civilian crime, sentenced him, and then returned him to his home nation before hostilities were over. It’s a complete invention of the left. And this skips past the huge jurisdictional issues with trying someone from Afghanistan for what they were doing in Afghanistan.

Last, the cherry-picking of particular sentences or sentence fragments from the Geneva Conventions is a particular bastardization of legal interpretation. The Geneva Convention framework has to be taken as a whole. Yes, torture is illegal and we can haggle over the grey areas, but I’m not a fan of those policies either. However, to skip past the requirements in Article 3 and 4 and then site later articles indicates a selective use of the law. It either all applies or it doesn’t apply at all.

The particular paranoia that dissenters will be picked up as enemy combatants is patent delusion. I challenge anyone to show me one case of a non-violent dissenter inside the US being picked up. Everyone knows what a combatant is. I don’t fear falling victim to this law because I don’t plan to start shooting at US troops. The canard that Bush is quashing dissent and silencing speech is absurd. I’ve been listening to anti-war agitprop for years, they won’t shut up, and I’ve not seen one of them picked up. They’re loud, they’re public and it wouldn’t be hard to bring up a couple black helicopters to take care of business. The fact remains, they are being allowed to dissent, even when it’s devoid of fact.

The reason why we have a GOP majority, that will likely remain as much as the GOP deserves to lose, is that the left has abandoned any factual or reasoned approach to issues. The Military Commissions Act is just another example of the hyperventilating hysterics of the Democrats and anti-war Left. It has all but bankrupted any real political discourse in this nation and strikes to the very heart of our democracy. It would be nice if some Election Day I’d have a real serious choice between candidates as opposed to between dumb and insane.

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

The conflict between science and religion (particularly Christianity) is centuries old. It probably preceded Galileo though Galileo is the portrait scientists hold up when any Christian dares to question the work of a scientist. Both the debate over embryo-destroying stem cell research and intelligent design are the latest battles in this ages old war.

Scientists have a deep-seated fear of Christianity. Not only do they ceaselessly try to “remind” us that Christianity is the cause of most if not all of history’s bloodshed, but the actively try to ban it from the one realm where they rule… the academy. FIRE has story after story of the suppression of free expression on campus.

The University of Illinois in Champaign, for example, allows students to host talks to persuade people to be pro-choice, Democrat, Republican, objectivist, and a variety of other conceivable notions. The one thing the University does not allow is for hosted talks to be “evangelical in nature” or to proselytize. You can try to convince anyone of anything with your “free speech” until you try to convince them to be religious. Practice has shown that this campus generally only applies the rule when Christianity is the religion in question (or at least some serious version of it).

Scientists, for their part, refuse to entertain moral questions of their research because they oppose any religious interference in science. The problem with this dynamic is that scientists are not in the best position to determine broad societal principles which would impact what research gets funded, allowed, or used.

The general trend in the academy is to have highly-trained and highly-specialized experts. There is nothing wrong with this class of person, society needs them. However, society also needs broad-minded scholars who can understand and apply several disciplines and bring them to bear for problems. This person is not accepted in the academy.

The question of stem cell research involves more than simply microbiology. What is most important to fund in a society of limited resources is an economic question, not a scientific one. What is “right” or “just” for a society to allow is a legal and philosophical (or moral) question, not a scientific one. Scientists say this research must be allowed because the ends could justify the means. These questions cannot be allowed to rest solely with scientists because the issues involved go far beyond science. While some scientists will proclaim that they know better in these areas too… as Will Rogers says, “There is nothing so stupid as the educated man if you get him off the thing he was educated in.”

To be outright reactionary, the “scientific” mind when freed of religion or any questions of morality has produced some of the greatest horrors of the 20th century: human experimentation, social Darwinism, racism, eugenics, and so on.

While one can make a historical argument that religion has over-stepped its bounds over the scientific community has returned the favor by doing some over-stepping of its own. Science is not and cannot be the end-all-be-all of human nature, human experience, or human meaning.

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

Recently an undergraduate student began circulating on Facebook a 10 + 1 point plan for the “liberation of students at the University of Illinois.” Apparently I didn’t get the memo that there was still slavery going on in Champaign. This movement started in a response to a suggestion that the various cultural houses be combined to help end self-segregation on campus.

Now much can be said about the under-representation of minorities on campus (or other racial problems in town) but this goes far beyond affirmative action in admission. This list of demands wants affirmative action in grading. Demand #2 stats “We demand that the percentage of undergraduate GRADUATION RATES for Black, Latino/a, Native American, and Asian American students from the University of Illinois at the very least match their percentage of the population of the state of Illinois.” How exactly would the University affect this demand? Once you get into college it’s up to you to graduate, why is it oppressive to demand the same for minorities (who do benefit from programs designed to help those with remedial problems catch up)?

Quota systems are illegal in hiring and admissions, is the University supposed to adopt a quota system in grading? How is this going to work, tiered grading? If you are white: A – 98-100%, B – 96-98%, C – 94-96%, D- 92-94%, F – 0-92%. If you are a minority: A-70-100%, B – 40-70%, C- 10-40%, D- 0-10%. As long as you show up, you don’t fail.

Its one thing to have everyone start at the same point (i.e. equal opportunity), it’s an entirely different matter to insist on equality of result. The later always punishes the successful rather than lift up the bottom.

The under-representation of minorities on college campuses is not a problem for the universities to fix. It is a failure of the K-12 system, especially in poor areas, to educate those students to compete for entrance into college.

Lastly, there is one problem with this student’s demands and that is the subtle threat of violence in another post (called This School is Insane) regarding this issue:

Motha****as say I talk too much…but I listen even more. Thats why I have so much to say to begin with.

“I hope you wake up in time before the revolution/ or your going to be like/ I can’t believe it/ I got SHOT” - Common

Ok I’m Done

Peace

PS-I been raising hell going on 4 years now. If I get suckered into staying here for grad school…

I’ma make mothafuckas real uneasy

It isn’t a stretch to read this as saying “give us our quotas are we’re going to be violent”, especially when the organization effort is being called a “resistance” movement.

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

Last week at Columbia University, members of the International Socialist Organization and other student groups violently rushed the stage during a speech by Jim Gilchrist of the Minuteman Project. This is the same university that employs this year’s Nobel Prize winner in economics. They are obviously capable of intelligent endeavor.

In a rare moment of honesty, an International Socialist member who was too cowardly to be identified said, “It [the protest and rushing of the stage] was fundamentally a part of free speech. The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration.” Words fail to convey the absurdity of this position, to at one instant wrap oneself in the shroud of Free Speech while at the same time insisting that dissenting points of view cannot be presented. It is a rather delicious bit of unintentional irony.

The fact is, this kind of behavior is an outgrowth of what the University environment has become. Few people discuss and debate opposing points of view, they simply sneer in elitist condescension at opposing points of view. See, if the other side was enlightened, they’d know what we’re talking about. There are only two parts of a debate, the enlightened elite and the uneducated rubes. While this has generally been a left-to-right dynamic, those on the right seem to be perfectly willing to return the favor.

The result is masses of activists stirred up with a fervor that rivals all the accusations of the “blind faith” of the religious. It is where the ad hominem is the first step in a disagreement. It is only natural that acts of violence flow from this mindless conformity to unquestioned ideas. The University, once the first and best place for the free exchange of ideas, has become the worst place for such a debate.

This is not a problem particular to Columbia; even the University of Illinois in Champaign (not commonly thought of as a liberal bastion) has had issues like this occur. In 2004, a group of protestors engaged in a violent occupation of the campus’ administration building. Such antics are not atypical for a campus environment. They are so convinced of their causes; they feel they don’t have to bother with intelligent discussion. Such is the disposition of a revolutionary.

The latest incident at Columbia should be a wake up call to universities everywhere. Either we return to the free exchange of ideas principle on campus or these acts of violence will continue and escalate.

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

C

It is no secret that the campus environment has been reformed into an institution for political inculcation. At some point, many professors exchanged a solid liberal arts and classical education for the petty advancement of political objectives. That’s why it is no surprise that recent studies found that student both have a lacking understanding of civics and history as well as businesses finding most graduates wholly unsuited for professional work.

This can be seen in how many undergraduates attempt to engage the issues of the day, particularly those of left-wing persuasion. As an example, a fellow Daily Illini columnist wrote a recent column on the Federal Election Integrity Act which required photo identification for prospective voters.

No one can intelligently debate the need to positively identify voters before allowing them to cast ballots. It’s just common sense. So what does this columnist, and many like-minded commentators do, claim racism. Racism used to be an invidious crime against people of color, now it is little more than a club to shut down intelligent discussion and beat opposing points of view into oblivion.

The bill would require identification for free for voters, however, that doesn’t matter or get mentioned. In order to gain employment, one has to have valid ID. According to recent unemployment statistics, about 96% of the US population has valid ID. That doesn’t matter. This columnist, like many undergrads, is trained to claim racism despite any and all facts to the contrary.

The problem with this line of education is that it makes effective participation in the legislative process impossible. If the general public cannot come to the table with effective ideas or effective ways to debate and discuss those ideas, they are incapable of participating in the process at all. In this way, our universities have failed our democratic republic.

The other problem with claiming racism with frivolous abandon is that it drowns out legitimate claims of racism. Most of the public isn’t stupid and realizes that requiring identification isn’t a matter of race; it’s a matter of common sense. Trying to claim racism where it does not exist diminishes the efficacy of any legitimate charge of racism. It harms people of color in a fundamental way and plays directly into the hands of the Ku Klux Klan.

The dangers of a politically charged yet intellectually deficient education are a clear problem to our ability to remain a free nation. A people who cannot have at least some measure of reasonable discussion about the issues of the day will eventually find themselves at the mercy of the “elites” who tell them what to think.

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

Think Progress is reporting that Air America radio will announce filing for bankruptcy protection on Friday according to three independent sources. The company has experienced financial difficulties throughout its tenure, continuing to request infusions of capital and suffering the loss of several high-profile hosts. Five employees were laid off Tuesday without severance. The radio has had several controversies in its brief tenure including a funding scandal involving Evan Cohen. Air America Radio was funneled $875,000 dollars from Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, a not-for-profit, in the form of a “loan” to fund its operations. Due to of the less-than-ethical funding arrangement, Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club has been disbanded. In another incident, The Randi Rhodes Show aired a skit that could have been interpreted as advocating the execution of the President George W. Bush. Several of the shows have been accused as fostering bigotry against Christians, Catholics in particular, and have been seen as lowering the dignity of political debate. In a comment on Think Progress on the matter:

The right wing is sure to seize on Air America’s financial woes as a sign that progressive talk radio is unpopular. In fact, Air America succeeded at creating something that didn’t exist: the progressive talk radio format.

However, the progressive talk radio format did exist with the variety of IndyMedia projects as well as Pacifica Radio. Air America, however, was the first radio that put through an entire slate of radio shows instead of syndicating individual shows. This has largely caused problems with their expansion as it required stations to pick up the entire network for 24 hours a day instead of the most popular shows. Ratings have shown that Air America has never been able to compete with rival Rush Limbaugh. However, Air America has brought a new broadcast model into talk radio and has led to similar projects. For instance, Wide Awakes Radio is an internet-only talk radio broadcast station that focuses on conservative content. Air America’s troubled past has finally caught up to them. Board shakeups, hosts leaving, and shady financing have all contributed to the demise of the station. Air America Radio has not returned calls for comment as of this writing.

John Bambenek is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

Bush has admitted to the requisite “high crimes and misdemeanors” to allow for impeachment. It doesn’t matter that these supposed crimes aren’t truly crimes; he has effectively admitted to them being illegal and makes it impossible to claim otherwise. He has shown fundamental weakness leading up to the election that makes Congressional Republicans that much more vulnerable. Ultimately, the Democrats will gain control of the House, will successfully impeach the President, and he will likely be thrown out of office by a weak Senate Republican majority.

It is no secret that many Democrats (and certainly left-wing activists) want to impeach Bush. This drive started roughly on the day of inauguration in 2001. They’ve invented and refined charges throughout the past few years. Some of these have been completely debunked by the facts, others have hung around. For instance, the scandal of the Valerie Plame incident is that the prosecutor, after knowing who the leaker was the first day of the investigation, allowed the witch hunt to continue. The investigation also proved that not only did Bush not lie about Niger, but the claims were actually true.

However, the charge the Bush has violated the Geneva Conventions and tortured prisoners is one that cannot now be argued against by the President. By admitting that the terrorists have rights on the Geneva Conventions, he makes it impossible to turn around and say the decision not to grant them rights to begin with was legal. This is despite the fact that the Geneva Conventions are crystal clear that illegal combatants are entitled to no protections.

The Geneva Conventions protect only uniformed military who carry weapons openly. It does not protect spies, mercenaries, or terrorists. The fact that the language of the Geneva Conventions is clear on this point has not deterred the left from this rallying cry of human rights violations.

Discussions on what is or is not required in international law tend to border on the absurd. Usually the crowd that vigorously supports international law as binding is the same crowd that believes in the “living and breathing Constitution”. In short, they believe that what is written and agreed upon doesn’t matter; they believe that whatever is “progressive” is what the Constitution requires. The same is true of international law. Many scholars don’t argue what is actually required in the treaties, they argue what they believe the law should be, and thus, it becomes much more invidious to defend against. Think of it as trying to hit a moving target.

Bush, by admitting that Al Qaeda has Geneva Convention rights, has admitted that not giving those rights to Al Qaeda was illegal. He has conceded to the idea that international law can be “written” and “rewritten” at the whim of the “international community” regardless of the words that are on the page. He has justified the very same judicial activism he rails against domestically. He has emasculated the Republican opposition to judicial legislation and has allowed the law to be whatever Howard Dean, MoveOn, and George Soros says it is. The law will always be against whatever conservatives want to do as a result. The rule of law no longer matters to the GOP.

The left has argued that violating international law is a high crime and misdemeanor, a charge justified in the Constitution that treaties and the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

Bush and the Republicans have run on a strong national security platform. The idea of terrorists sitting in plush cells and being given access to all the rights entitled to American criminals will do nothing but turn off his base. The idea that we have to treat terrorists, who intentionally kill civilians, with the utmost respect is a slap in the face to the conservative base.

Another component of the population that will be put off by this decision is the military. By Bush deciding that the Geneva Convention affords rights to terrorists, he justifies terrorism as an acceptable form of warfare. It is telling that there are no real cries to have Al Qaeda terrorists tried for human rights violations or war crimes. The military faces heavy restrictions that regulate how they fight the enemy. Those restrictions are paid for with the lives of soldiers.

The military has just been defecated on by the Bush administration by being equated as the moral equivalent to terrorists. There may be a few bad soldiers who are being tried for violating military regulations. There are no Al Qaeda trials for killing civilians. By and large, US soldiers are fighting honorably in tough conditions. Al Qaeda fights like cowards. The Bush Administration has effectively told the military they are no better than Al Qaeda.

Alienating these two groups and showing weakness on the one issue that has been the Bush Administration’s strength will likely undermine the GOP platform going into November. There are already over 30 seats in contention in the House and if the elections were held today, Democrats would likely gain at least 15 (and gain control of the House). Showing further weakness and undermining their main platform stance will likely make for an even more difficult case to sell to voters. Combine that with an alienation of two key voting blocs makes for a losing season for the Republicans.

Nancy Pelosi and others have signaled discreetly that they would certainly have hearings that could lead to impeachment. With Bush admitting to violating the Geneva Conventions, hearings almost become superfluous. There is no way Bush can state now that the Geneva Conventions do apply and then state during impeachment that they don’t. This decision amounts to a confession.

Bush will be impeached come January, but it won’t only be over the Geneva Conventions issue. Every set of Articles of Impeachment against Bush go far beyond international law and the war. They criminalize conservatism. The impeachment will attack not only the war, but opposition to embryo-destroying stem cell research, the Patriot Act, tax cuts, the NSA scandals, judicial appointments, and limited federal government. It will likely enshrine a “progressive” standard that all future presidents must follow. See this example of impeachment articles that has one article that says Bush’s response to Katrina was a crime (yet is suspiciously silent about Gov. Blanco’s and Mayor Nagin’s roles). The consistent feature of all articles of impeachment against Bush is that they include thought crimes.

The idea that impeachment won’t be used for partisan purposes is novel and interesting, yet unconvincing. The Clinton impeachment, if anything, was not about perjury (which it should have been), it was about partisan politics. It is not likely that this impeachment will be any different. With the left having a history of trying to outlaw opposing or traditional points of view, it would be nonsensical to believe they won’t try to do it in an impeachment.

Make no mistake, the Congressional GOP will lose at least the House in November and now possibly the Senate. Bush will be impeached in the House and those impeachment articles will include the thought crimes of not being a progressive. The Senate, which has always been weak when it came to sticking up for Republicans, will likely throw Bush out of office.

The Republican Revolution has been mortally wounded today. Now we get to watch its slow and painful euthanizing.

John Bambenek is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

It appears the Congressional GOP has sounded the death knell for immigration reform legislation until after the elections.

It is a good thing that the current package of immigration reform has died. Amnesty would be one thing but the current package is far more than just amnesty. In addition to amnesty they get two years off taxes, job rights far surpassing that available to US citizens, and civil rights protections far beyond what is available to our own homegrown minorities. It legalizes their status and throws money at the community simply to buy their votes.

While no one seriously contends that the United States should have no effective border or that any regulation of immigration is inherently unjust, few seem to have developed the intestinal fortitude to specify a policy that makes sense. Part of the reason there are so many problems in the illegal immigrant community is the lack of enforcement of the law.

Employers can extract more from employees by holding the sword of calling immigration over their employee’s heads. That community is subject to the manipulation and abuse of coyotes (immigrant runners), landlords, and employers because they have no recourse to the government. When the law goes enforced you get lawlessness. It is clear that not enforcing the law hasn’t worked; the idea that removing the law altogether will help is patently absurd.

When the governments of the US and Mexico both telegraph that immigration law won’t be enforce (at least not the parts about sneaking across the border), is it any wonder people come over the border? This is a problem of our government’s own making (blaming the immigrants is rather simple-minded here) who don’t enforce the law and then grant ridiculous concessions like bilingual services, welfare, and the use of non-US identification. It as if the US government wants to multiply the number of walls between the immigrant community and the general population. In effect, it only increases the amount of tension, manipulation, and anger in the illegal immigrant community.

The Republicans know that they have gotten themselves in a tough spot. The Democrats have stayed largely silent on the issue because there is no reason to get involved in letting the Republicans pick which set of people they burn with their policy. The Republicans decided to hold off until after the elections as a result.

This means that the public, based on their actions during the midterm elections, get to decide the policy. If a strong anti-amnesty, pro-enforcement message gets communicated, likely the Republicans will adopt that. If apathy on the issue is apparent, then the Republicans will likely pander to gain new voters.

So while the Republicans are backing off in apparent cowardice to handle an issue largely caused by governmental actions, it gives the chance for the public to pick the policy. The question is, how much do the people really care? We’ll find out in November.

John Bambenek is an academic professional for the University of Illinois and a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.

While the provocation of hostilities falls squarely on the shoulders of Hezbollah (and in the case of Gaza, Hamas), Israel misprosecuted the war. That was bad enough. Worse is the “diplomatic” efforts to achieve peace that apparently the world isn’t really behind. The United Nations comes in, promises peace and then doesn’t meet the basic troop levels it commits to. The result is that Hezbollah wins.

There was much discussion about the Hezbollah declaration of victory against Israel. While on its face it appears absurd, on deeper inspection they are absolutely correct. Hezbollah did win.

If one’s definition of victory is simply hammering an adversary into submission, neither side could claim victory. If the definition is inflicting damage, surely Israel won. Hezbollah, using dumb-fire rockets, couldn’t manage to inflict any real discernible damage on Israel (well except they did hit a few cemeteries). However, if you define victory as achieving military objectives Israel certainly failed and Hezbollah certainly was victorious.

Israel’s objective was to crush Hezbollah or at least move them far enough north to be no real military threat. By any assessment, Israel inflicted little lasting damage on Hezbollah except to make them waste a bunch of rockets that Iran will replenish at their earliest convenience. Israel certainly did not respond in any meaningful way to the actual sources of Hezbollah aggression, namely Syria and Iran.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, didn’t appear to have any illusions of defeating Israel militarily. They seem to know full well that Israel will not be wiped off the map with tanks and bombs. They wage their war in the media and the chambers of the United Nations and yield the weapon of diplomacy with great success. Their objective was to not be defeated and gain political clout. They wanted to project an image that they could not be defeated militarily and need to be negotiated with. They achieved these objectives with resounding success.

Despite the media being fully aware and fully informed that most of the information coming from Hezbollah was doctored for effect, the media willingly complied. The embedded reporters with Hezbollah and produced puff piece after puff piece about Hezbollah social workers. One can whine about media bias all they want. When it comes to war, one needs to deal effectively with the tools of the enemy. Bitching never won a battle.

Hezbollah mounted an army of public relations specialists that were more powerful than any weapon in their arsenal. Put simply, they won the hearts and minds in Lebanon, in the Arab World, and much of the West (particular those left-leaning). Hezbollah’s clout increased dramatically as a result.

Now, theoretically, if the UN managed to deliver what is promised, if they could get 15,000 additional troops on the southern border with Lebanon, if they can deal with the Syrian border, if they can halt arms transfers from Iran, if they can effectively displace Hezbollah, then Israel and Lebanon will both be better off and democracy will thrive in Lebanon. If… if… if…

From the looks of the international community, it doesn’t appear likely that the UN will even be able to muster those troops needed which certainly calls into question whether they will succeed. Independent of troop levels, UNIFIL in Lebanon has never been successful and it is questionable that simply more warm bodies will do anything to help. As usual, the United Nations and the international community’s bloviation on peace never quite matches up to what they actually end up doing. In a perfect world the United Nations might be able to do something, however, in this world the United Nations is more talk and no walk. That’s when they aren’t being generally corrupt.

The result? If the UN fails, and it appears eminent that they will, Hezbollah will not only be more powerful on the foreign scene, they will be more powerful domestically. Lebanon recently threw off the shackles of Syrian oppression and was rightly high-lighted as a beacon of democratic hope in the Middle East.

Hezbollah is nothing more than Syrian power projection in Lebanon. If Lebanon could have dealt with them they would have long before rockets started falling on Israel. Increasing Hezbollah’s domestic power will result in the democratic advances made in Lebanon being turned back. In short, Lebanon will go the route of Palestine and put Hezbollah in power. Syria will be back in control of Lebanon and Lebanon will descend firmly into anti-Semitic fascism.

This descent was put into motion by Israel not fighting the war the way it should have been fought and it was solidified by the United Nations promising what it never could deliver. Israel had good cause to act militarily, however, by not engaging their enemy as they should have they leave Lebanon on the road to democratic collapse.

John Bambenek is an academic professional for the University of Illinois and a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. . He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.