Right. This Lebanon thing.

The last week I have been wondering exactly who stands to gain anything out of this war. Contrary to popular belief, wars do NOT start through "eye-for-an-eye" reprisals, incredibly rarely through religion (I doubt very much if religion was ever a real reason for a war) and certainly not for the "kidnapping" of two soldiers who were in all likelihood special forces stationed inside Lebanon.

I was also wondering why the US has been so slow to react, and why Condoleeza Rice cancelled her peacekeeping visit on the grounds that the Lebanese wanted an immediate, complete ceasefire (doesn't sound unreasonable does it ?).

It seems that the US has a vested interest in this war. They are supplying arms and hi-tech equipment to the Israelis and are certainly not openly quick to condemn the Israeli attacks. But what is it they gain ? Lebanon has no oil, has never threatened the US or US interests.

After thinking about it, the only reason I can see is the following. They want Syria. If Syria were attacked, they would very likely respond with attacks on Israel via Lebanese territory (air space or ground / sea).

However, Syria is bordered by Turkey which has recently been given the go-ahead for application to the European Union and therefore is kissing Western arses at the moment. It is bordered by Jordan with its Anglophile King and readiness to allow western forces to have temporary bases on its territory (e.g. first Gulf war). It is bordered by Iraq and the Golan Heights which are occupied by US and UNDOF. It has Cyprus to the west.

Basically, if the US or international peace-keeping forces are stationed in Lebanon, Syria is isolated, unable to mount attacks on many fronts against Israel (in fact it will be hard to make any direct attacks on Israel as the only direct route would be through the Golan Heights), while the US could attack from all around its borders.

I reckon the US are isolating Syria. I guess there isn't enough oil in Iraq.

Posted By: Steve in Holland, Aug 1, 13:04:33