I talked to my liberal brother in California and my Palestinian friend in Arizona about these recent hostilities in Lebannon. We all agree that the United States is about two bullets shy of becoming imbroiled in an all out Middle Eastern war.

Then, just watch how fast the draft is re-instated and how quickly American students get up off their fat asses and start whining about something worthwhile. It is called the "Oh gosh, this could actually effect me personally" American syndrome, which is far more potent than legions of preacher, pope and activist speeches.

I am sure that the neocons are wringing their hands in glee and toasting each other with the most expensive champagne money can buy because of Israel's unjustified and totally inappropriate military action against their neighbors. The neocons have been doing their best to get the U.S. to invade Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia and Egypt for years. After all, the neocons can't have their empire without the oil of Southwest Asia. The neocons have great influence in Israel. I doubt that they advised the Israel government to try diplomacy first.

Without delving into speculation about whether Iran and/or Syria was ultimately behind Hezbollah's decision to start launching rockets into Israel, and without passing judgment on whether Israel's response is or is not an "overreaction", I see a couple of things being overlooked in coverage of this latest escalation in carnage.

First, the most straightforward motive for Hezbollah to attack at this particular time seems to me to be a recognition that the Zionist wall and the American Green Zone strategies were succeeding in pitting Muslim factions against each other (Sunni vs Shiite in Iraq, PLO v Hamas in Palestine, etc.) The whole regional dynamic since the American occupation took hold has become that every little movement has a militia all its own. By provoking the current massive Israeli military response, an incentive is created for the macho men with the guns to back off on sectarian warfare and concentrate jihad back upon the Jews and the Americans, whose occupation and anti-terror tactics are both remarkably similar, and remarkably self-defeating, in the long run.

Second, will the Dems or the mainstream media ever pick up on the historical fact that George W's foolhardy decision to garrison large numbers of US troops indefinitely in the Middle East runs counter to a half century of genuinely bipartisan foreign policy wisdom?

The neo-cons wanted to be a player in the ebb and flow of the endless Arab-Israeli conflict, and now their wish is granted. Even Ronald Reagan came to recognize how potentially catastrophic a long term US military presence would most likely be when he pulled the Marines back out of Lebanon in the 80's (a bloody fiasco that no doubt would have gotten any Democratic President impeached).

Maybe what we need for the fall election campaigns is to candidly revisit the historic differences between the GOP's penchant for gunboat adventurism abroad and the somewhat more isolationist, self-defense orientation of the Democratic Party's original principles, dating back to at least the Spanish-American War. Whatever happened to the good neighbor policy? Sabre rattling, and actual military interventions that periodically have "worked" to bring about regime changes in places like Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, and many other western hemisphere countries south of the Rio Grande - particularly when Reublicans have been in charge of the White House - obviously can't be plunked down as a formula for success into the complex cross current realities of the Middle East.

More hubris, anybody?