Let’s consider a hypothetical.
Suppose a country was attacked by a terrorist organization. Let’s say that, in response, the leader of that country decided to wage a large-scale war against a nation or nations that housed these terrorists. Despite dedicating all of its military might to the cause, assume that the invader never completely conquered anyone but many, many civilians were killed (far more then the number in the initial terrorist attack). Unfortunately, the leaders of the terrorist organization were never apprehended, and at the end of the day, all the leader of the country had to show for his efforts were bumbling military failures, a destabilized region, and gobs of civilian blood on his hands.
Now, just for kicks, let’s say this happened to two men, one of whom experienced this scenario over a number of weeks, almost like a microcosm of the other, who experienced this on an exponentially greater scale over a number of years.
If you had to hazard a guess, which one do you think would be receiving pressure to resign for his failures? And which one do you think actually would have the moral obligation to do so?
In Israel, Olmert’s campaign in Lebanon will likely cost him his job. He has been asked to resign by the Israeli press and now a member of Parliament. Inside his own borders, he’s being bombarded with accusations of impotence:
Because of the Olmert government’s failures, ever greater battles await us. As the dangers mount by the hour, we must replace this misbegotten government with one that can defend us.
Inside ours, the wingnuts are right behind them:
And as tens of thousands of human shields pour into South Lebanon, Olmert’s ability to look himself in the mirror shrinks beyond any recognition.
The Olmert government must go. Immediately. Bring in a warrior, Israel!
olimert LAND FOR NOTHING WAS A FAILURE
time for him to go
Caroline Glick is once again spot on. Olmert must go.
Isn’t it interesting how pro-Israel the American Right pretends to be until Israel puts down its arms? Now, all of a sudden, they’ve become Israel’s greatest critics, siding with those who seek to banish the current administration.
When a liberal has the gall to question a bloody offensive, s/he is an anti-Semite. When a conservative has the gall to question peace, s/he’s a patriot. That’s what passes for logic in America.
Meanwhile, Bush is hated by over 60% of Americans. He’s killed many more Muslims and soldiers than Olmert could dream of slaughtering. He’s also had even less success combatting the nation-less enemy that sparked his rage. And yet he won’t be impeached; the idea is considered laughable.
Olmert’s crime was to stop fighting, to agree to a UN resolution the US helped craft. While Israelis can go on stewing over not starting World War III, how can the wingnuts here thumb their noses at him when their beloved Ambassador Bolton was deeply involved in the creation of the cease-fire? Aren’t they helping the terrorists by disagreeing with administration policy?
Maybe these Americans are becoming addicted to war. Cessation of violence does provoke within their ranks some rather unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. They can’t go long without another fix, and just the slightest whiff of the stuff sends them on a bender. And when one of their friends tries to go clean, they freak out on them.
That Olmert’s government will exit stage left while the Bush administration remains in the spotlight might be the Trainspotting bathroom scene of this downward spiral. Somebody put these people in rehab.
Interesting points all around. I’d add as another point of comparison that LBJ effectively resigned when he realized he’s fucked up the Vietnam War so badly.