I love the Economist for its journalism, but am generally sceptical about its editorials. This week’s Leader on the escalating madness in Lebanon, however, seems to me to be spot on. Sample:

The war that has just erupted apparently without warning between Israel and Lebanon looks miserably familiar. The wanton spilling of blood, the shattering of lives and homes, the flight of refugees: it has all happened in much the same way and just the same places before. In 1982 an Israeli government sent tanks into the heart of Beirut to crush the “state within a state” of Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organisation. A quarter of a century later, Israel’s air force is pulverising Lebanon in order to crush the state within a state established there by Hizbullah, Lebanon’s Iranian-inspired “Party of God”. That earlier war looked at first like a brilliant victory for Israel. Arafat and his men had to be rescued by the Americans and escorted to exile in faraway Tunis. But Israel’s joy did not last. The war killed thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, along with hundreds of Israeli and Syrian soldiers. It brought years of misery to Lebanon—and, of course, no peace in the end to Israel. The likeliest outcome of this war is that the same futile cycle will repeat itself…

It goes on to speculate that the war may be partly a product of the insecurity that Israel’s new Prime Minister — a man with no military experience — may feel, and which may be leading him into being more belligerent than is necessary. One of the great things about Sharon was that at least he had been tempered in the heat of battle. As the old saying goes, Hell hath no fury like a non-combatant. (In the same context, it’s noteworthy that all the hawks in the Bush administration dodged the draft in Vietnam and never fired a bullet in anger.) The Economist Leader goes on…

It is because the stakes are so high that both sides have rushed so fast up the ladder of escalation. Israel’s aim is not just to even the score by hurting Hizbullah and then stopping. Before stopping, it says, it wants to deprive Hizbullah of its power to strike Israel in future. That means destroying Hizbullah’s rocket stores even if they are concealed in villages and bombing its command bunkers even if they are located under the crowded residential suburbs of south Beirut. It also means cutting off Hizbullah’s resupply, even if the subsequent blockade by land, sea and air brings Lebanon’s economy to its knees. If hundreds of civilians are killed, and hundreds of thousands put to flight, so be it: in war, under Israel’s philosophy, moderation is imbecility. Hizbullah is no different, and in some ways worse. The “open war” declared by Mr Nasrallah consists chiefly of firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel’s towns. Israel says it is killing civilians by accident, but the disparity in firepower means the Lebanese still suffer much more.

This is madness, and it should end. It is madness because the likelihood of Israel achieving the war aims it has set for itself is negligible. However much punishment Mr Olmert inflicts on Hizbullah, he cannot force it to submit in a way that its leaders and followers will perceive as a humiliation. Israel’s first invasion of Lebanon turned into its Vietnam. It is plainly unwilling to occupy the place again. But airpower alone will never destroy every last rocket and prevent Hizbullah’s fighters from continuing to send them off. No other outside force looks capable of doing the job on Israel’s behalf. At present, the only way to disarm Hizbullah is therefore in the context of an agreement Hizbullah itself can be made to accept…

This you gotta hear — Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) explaining why he voted against the Net Neutrality amendment, and giving an amazing primer on how the internet works….

Listen and weep. It’s an MP3 file.

Well, well, here’s an interesting development. According to the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice “dead or alive.”

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals. “The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever,” said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. “This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus.”

This morning’s Observer column…

The case for net neutrality is abstract, sophisticated and long term. It was therefore a racing certainty that US Senators, who respond to corporate lobbying much as Pavlov’s dogs did to the ringing of a bell at mealtimes, would struggle with it. And so it has proved. On Wednesday, the Senate commerce committee rejected an amendment to a new telecoms bill which would have enforced net neutrality, thereby opening up the prospect of electronic tollbooths.

So has the die been cast? Not quite: the issue may be contested on the floor of the Senate. But at the moment there are lots of dire predictions about the consequences of the committee’s vote…