Defending Jed Babbin

Dafydd at Big Lizards tears into Jed Babbin, likening him to Nancy Pelosi for alleged crimes of defeatism:

Jed Babbin is now with the terrorists.

Oh, I'm sure he would go ballistic if he ever read this post (which he wouldn't, of course; I'm not up there with Instapundit, Power Line, or Hugh Hewitt, and I doubt he drills down any deeper into the blogosphere than sites with that level of popularity). He would insist that no, he's not with the terrorists; he's just being a "realist"... which is why he keeps saying "there are only two winners in this ceasefire: Hezbollah and Iran."

But how does this differ in any way from what John Murtha, John F. Kerry, Harry Reid, and yes, Nancy Pelosi relentlessly intone about Iraq? Don't they say that due to Bush's incompetence, Iraq is completely lost, that it's a total victory for al—Qaeda, that there is nothing we can do now, and that we might as well declare failure and go home?

But Babbin is right. Cheerleading over the abyss won't help. Overheated rhetoric won't help either.

Jed Babbin has not become Nancy Pelosi, despite what dafydd writes. He is reflecting the grave concerns of many Israelis and Israel supporters overseas, that a month of opportunity for Israel, provided by US support, produced at best a  stalemate with Hezbollah.

Those who favor a tougher Israeli response are hardly Pelosi—ites.  In realpolitik terms, a stalemate with a smaller militia is a defeat, and Babbin is right about this.

Certainly Israel delivered a painful blow to Hezbollah (though they did not kill thousands, maybe 700 or 800). Bbut what can Israel expect from a Shiite—dominated Lebanese army, and a UN force dominated by the French, who will now surround Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon but not disarm them?

And what message has been delivered to Israel's enemies, now that it is clear that rocket fire or the threat of rocket fire can effectively disable a major part of the country, and send people south or to bunkers?

Richard Baehr, Ed Lasky and Thomas Lifson    8 15 05

Dafydd at Big Lizards tears into Jed Babbin, likening him to Nancy Pelosi for alleged crimes of defeatism:

Jed Babbin is now with the terrorists.

Oh, I'm sure he would go ballistic if he ever read this post (which he wouldn't, of course; I'm not up there with Instapundit, Power Line, or Hugh Hewitt, and I doubt he drills down any deeper into the blogosphere than sites with that level of popularity). He would insist that no, he's not with the terrorists; he's just being a "realist"... which is why he keeps saying "there are only two winners in this ceasefire: Hezbollah and Iran."

But how does this differ in any way from what John Murtha, John F. Kerry, Harry Reid, and yes, Nancy Pelosi relentlessly intone about Iraq? Don't they say that due to Bush's incompetence, Iraq is completely lost, that it's a total victory for al—Qaeda, that there is nothing we can do now, and that we might as well declare failure and go home?

But Babbin is right. Cheerleading over the abyss won't help. Overheated rhetoric won't help either.

Jed Babbin has not become Nancy Pelosi, despite what dafydd writes. He is reflecting the grave concerns of many Israelis and Israel supporters overseas, that a month of opportunity for Israel, provided by US support, produced at best a  stalemate with Hezbollah.

Those who favor a tougher Israeli response are hardly Pelosi—ites.  In realpolitik terms, a stalemate with a smaller militia is a defeat, and Babbin is right about this.

Certainly Israel delivered a painful blow to Hezbollah (though they did not kill thousands, maybe 700 or 800). Bbut what can Israel expect from a Shiite—dominated Lebanese army, and a UN force dominated by the French, who will now surround Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon but not disarm them?

And what message has been delivered to Israel's enemies, now that it is clear that rocket fire or the threat of rocket fire can effectively disable a major part of the country, and send people south or to bunkers?

Richard Baehr, Ed Lasky and Thomas Lifson    8 15 05