Billmon makes the point that Hezbollah is just the right size for modern war. Israel cannot drive them out of Southern Lebanon solely using air power, and a ground offensive (for the moment) seems unlikely. It would unite world opinion against Israel, whereas now they are getting support from (of all places) Saudia Arabia, who has condemned Hezbollah for starting this mess.
quote: (In that sense, Hezbollah may have found the sweet spot in Fourth Generation War : It isn't a state and doesn't carry the political or defensive burdens of one, but it controls enough territory, commands enough popular loyalty and has enough allies to mount some fairly sophisticated military operations, using both conventional and nonconventional weapons. It's powerful enough to be successful -- and be seen as successful -- but not so powerful that state actors like Israel can fight it on equal terms. We may be looking at the New Model Army of the 21st century.) ... But given how well Hezbollah is doing so far, it doesn't look the Israelis can deliver a knock out blow -- not in a few weeks, or a few months and probably not even in a few years. And a Hezbollah that takes whatever Israel dishes out, and emerges not just intact, but with a few notches in its own gun, would be a Hezbollah that looks like a real winner.
In this interview from 3/2002, Professor Martin van Creveld, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (one of Israel's most prominent military historian, and an expert on low-intensity combat) shows that Israel has been degrading itself by fighting the Palestinians the way they have. I would say they have done little better in their recent Lebanese advetures.
quote: Byrne: Thanks for joining us tonight on Foreign Correspondent. How has it come to this, Martin... how is it that the mighty Israeli army – one of the world’s most powerful - with its helicopter gunships, with its tanks, with it’s missiles, can be losing to this relatively small, relatively under-armed if fanatical group of Palestinians?
Van Creveld: The same thing has happened to the Israeli army as happened to all the rest that have tried over the last sixty years. Basically it’s always a question of the relationship of forces. If you are strong, and you are fighting the weak for any period of time, you are going to become weak yourself. If you behave like a coward then you are going to become cowardly – it’s only a question of time. The same happened to the British when they were here... the same happened to the French in Algeria... the same happened to the Americans in Vietnam... the same happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan... the same happened to so many people that I can’t even count them.[including, of course, us Americans in Iraq--Morbo]
Byrne: : Martin you used the word ‘cowardly’ yet what we’ve seen tonight – these commando units, the anti-terrorist squads – these aren’t cowardly people.
Van Creveld: I agree with you. They are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.
Also, by destablizing the Lebanese government, the Israelis make it much harder, and less likely, that the Lebanese government can or will do anything to reign in Hezbollah. Similarly, they repeatedly attacked and destablized the PA, and then condemned them for not having a monopoly on power and arresting terrorists.
Yet, paradoxically, today the Israeli PM rejected using UN peacekeepers to keep Hezbollah from using Southern Lebanon as a launching pad, and demanded that only Lebanese forces are suitable for that mission. Even though such a mobilisation order could probably not be carried out, and if it was attempted could lead to another civil war in Lebanon. Weird.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Interesting, I hadn't seen that bit about UN peacekeepers. That would seem to go a long way towards helping to give Israel the security that it is after.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lebanese forces are in no way capable of ousting Hezbollah from S. Lebanon. Requiring that they do so is a recipe for prolonged hardship for everyone...except Hezbollah.
Destabilizing Lebanon is not a good thing for anyone. Israel is not the likely inheritor of that territory. And if they did somehow manage to take it over, they would learn pretty quickly that major increases in borders have their own set of headaches. If one intends to keep people there and keep them safe, that is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It doesn't seem weird to me. If Israel insists that Lebanese forces are the ones preventing Hezbollah from using southern Lebanon, and at the same time manages to successfully insist they're the only ones suited for it...and then it doesn't happen, well they've got justification for all sorts of things once those things happen.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And of course, Israel has so many good reasons to trust the UN or its agents.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Like so few of them being adulturers! That's a pretty firm foundation of trust right there.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Israel will move in with ground forces soon, the United States taught the world the effectiveness of combined arms ground assault in Falluja, Israel can flush Lebanon like a toilet and then hand it back to the Lebanese government, and they will.
BC
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I agree rivka. Were I Israel, I certainly wouldn't trust the UN. Hell, I'm American and I don't trust the UN very much. Mostly due to the whole who-gets-to-veto thing (including us)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yeah, like we've flushed Iraq, BC?
What a crock.
I hope Israel can wipe out Hezbollah and not get further embroiled. Let's just say I am worried and not very hopeful.
But I don't see another route for them than a ground offensive.
I hope nobody gets too adventurous while Israel is committed in Lebanon, though.
I don't know the strength of Israel's forces, but I'd worry about having to fight on more than one front at this point. And who knows what Syria might attempt.
This is a dangerous time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see Israel launching a major ground assault, and if they did, it won't be like Gaza. Hezbollah has a lot more man power and a lot more weapons, and better weapons, than Hamas has, or was willing to use when Israel marched back into Gaza.
Lebanon can't oust Hez on its own, and to try would probably mean yet ANOTHER Civil War in that country, not that it matters at this point anyway, since they've already gotten the crap blown out of them, but I don't understand why the UN can't go in to secure the situation, then hand power over to the Lebanese after they've gotten a chance to get back on their feet. If Hezbollah can give Israel a bloody nose, how do they expect Lebanon, the weakest military power in the area, to take them on?
Much of the current situation doesn't make sense, and I don't see especially how the US plans on helping, when four of the major parties involved in the current crisis have zero official standing with the US. If we can't even talk to the groups who are involved, we might as well just sit on the sidelines and shut up. Better that, than being percieved as giving Israel a greenlight to carpet bomb residential buildings.
Perhaps the most amazing thing in this is the Arab world, not as a whole, but more than you'd guess, actually blaming Hezbollah for the current mess, and not Israel. But that won't last for long if Arab citizens keep seeing images of a smoking Beirut. It'll turn back the other way, which is exactly what Hezbollah wants. Now is the best time for international help, while everyone he keenly focused on the issue at hand. The more time that passes, the worse it will get for Israel.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm pretty sure the combined arms method of warfare was successfully demonstrated well before Fallujah.
Like, millenia ago.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Israel can, will, and likely should smash Hezbollah, but they need to take significant care with the civilian population. Both Israel and the US made a misake in not taking advantage of the international furor against Syria over the assassination last year to cripple that government.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: I hope Israel can wipe out Hezbollah and not get further embroiled. Let's just say I am worried and not very hopeful.
Very true statement. :/
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Two fronts? Like Europe and Japan? Come on the "Two Fronts" are within thirty minutes by helicopter, lets not get carried away by imaginary scale issues.
BC
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Okay, how much time does it take to transport a thousand people by helicopter?
C'mon, the logistics of that kind of two front things are not measured in helicopter flight times...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Getting attacked by Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the south while half your army is occupying Lebanon IS going to be a headache Bean. Unless you're telling me Israel has the lift capability, and the mobility to move that many men across a desert fast enough to stop invaders from doing any harm.
I don't think they do.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And of course, Israel has so many good reasons to trust the UN or its agents.
Hi Rivka! I've been meaning to email you lately but have been lazy. Sorry.
Of course Israel has reason to distrust the UN. Do they have any reason to trust the Lebanese government more? If not, then why would the Israeli PM insist only they can muzzle Hizbollah, when the Lebanese have shown so little abilty or will to do so?
I would think he would welcome a UN role. It would give Israel a clear exit strategy, before things escalate even more.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Giving the UN a foothold or a position of power in this situation is a lousy idea. The UN's traditional role in similar situations has been to drag things out, and drag things out, and usually make things worse.
Not dealing with the official Lebanese government is not an option. Not dealing with the UN is.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, the UN has often been useful, but mainly where there's an uncooperative government that can be coerced into allowing their presence and no sufficiently powerful and positioned actor is nearby. In this case, the government is fairly cooperative and Israel is a sufficiently powerful and well positioned actor, so UN intervention is unnecessary.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I did specify "in similar situations," neh?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Two fronts? Like Europe and Japan? Come on the "Two Fronts" are within thirty minutes by helicopter, lets not get carried away by imaginary scale issues.
BC
That makes things worse, it makes it easier for the Egyptians to cooperate with Hezbollah. There comes a point where the advantage of interior lines turns into the disadvantage of being surrounded.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Israel has no logical choice but to execute operations against Hezbollah. The immediate security threat presented by their rocket attacks and the imperative nature of the kidnapping of the Israeli troops makes any other coarse of action impossible. Sending in ground troops may be necessary to ensure that major damage is done to Hezbollah, and that Israel’s stance on these kinds of attacks is unmistakable.
The resulting (potential) destabilization that of the Lebanese government is an acceptable evil. However, any apparent vacuum of power in Lebanon will compel Syria to immediate action, as they have already shown their propensity to get involved in Lebanese politics. While the reintroduction of Syrian influence will be a step back, the elimination of Hezbollah will help to remove some of the radical influence that has been marring the peace process, and hopefully will result in the return of the captured soldiers and a net increase in the security of the region.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Right now the threat is missile launches, locating and retaliating fast. Iraqi insurgents learned fast to be gone in under a minute of launch or end up a sneaker and a smoking hole, Israel has the look down capability of tracking every vehicle in the city, tagging an area and using real time intel to feed to attack choppers and follow a fleeing vehicle to a terrorist nest and pound it with hell-fires, so when ground forces start coming in with armor, being surrounded may be an issue, right now chopper response time is much more of a real issue.
BC
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
We or the UN will have to be the ones who bolster the Lebanese instead of Damascus, we cannot afford to let another warlord become popular with Capone style politics.
BC
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And just to keep with my theme of the evening,
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm, But just in case, we better get a bomb. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: The resulting (potential) destabilization that of the Lebanese government is an acceptable evil. However, any apparent vacuum of power in Lebanon will compel Syria to immediate action, as they have already shown their propensity to get involved in Lebanese politics. While the reintroduction of Syrian influence will be a step back, the elimination of Hezbollah will help to remove some of the radical influence that has been marring the peace process, and hopefully will result in the return of the captured soldiers and a net increase in the security of the region.
Right, because of Syria moves back in to take control of Lebanon, they won't set Hezbollah, or a new organization with the same purpose right back up in the same postion Hezbollah was set up in while Syria was previously in charge of Lebanon.
So long as Israel has the US on its side, and Western Europe is unwilling to push anyone to do anything, Israel will remain unhindered in their pursuits, and the violence will only escalate until there's just nothing left for Israel to bomb but ruins. The US can't really use the death of civilians as a reason to pull out, 40 people died in Baghdad just yesterday, though we didn't do it, many would argue that they are only dead because we are there. We tossed the ball up in the air, and Israel is testing how far they can run with it. So far it looks like it's fairly far.
From Israel's point of view, there's really no reason to halt. I'd care more about Israelis than Lebanese citizens, and at the moment, Jordan is quiet, Syria is quiet, Iran is far, far away, Iraq is busy with America, Saudi Arabia is actually blaming Hezbollah, and Egypt is scrambling to make peacemaker. All the while, the US supports us, and Western Europe is fumbling around yammering about peacekeepers, in other words, all talk and no action.
I don't think they'll be able to keep the status quo forever, but then they don't have to. I also don't think that at the end of this they'll get their men back. But I hope at the end they at least behead Hezbollah. If they don't then I think all they will have done would be to make the situation to their north much worse than when they started.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I thought this was an interesting analysis of Israel's strategic motives.
quote: Some in Israel viewed all three of these potential policy courses for the U.S. -- a broad deal with the Arab Middle East, a new push on final status negotiations with the Palestinians, and a deal to actually negotiate directly with Iran -- as negative for Israel.
The flamboyant, over the top reactions to attacks on Israel's miltiary check points and the abduction of soldiers -- which I agree Israel must respond to -- seem to be part establishing "bona fides" by Olmert -- but far more important, REMOVING from the table important policy options that the U.S. might have pursued.
Israel is constraining American foreign policy in amazing and troubling ways by its actions. And a former senior CIA official and another senior Marine who are well-versed in both Israeli and broad Middle East affairs, agreed that serious strategists in Israel are more concerned about America tilting towards new bargains in the region than they are either about the challenge from Hamas or Hezbollah or showing that Olmert knows how to pull the trigger.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/shrewd-israeli-objectives_b_25110.html I don't think Israel's reactions to the capture of their soldiers is quite this Machevellian. Also, I'm not sure if their actions constrain us in the US from our options like the article spells out (though the article is persuasive). But it's a very interesting thesis.
Lastly, Israel could be pursuing it's own aims for it's own reasons, and those actions could have the added effect of limiting US foreign policy options.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Of course they consider what we plan to do to be critically important, of course they are pursuing their own interest, of course their choices eliminate some of ours, it is the sinister way that you characterize these obvious and reasonable facts that points to an agenda on your part, above and beyond being your being reasonable.
BC
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
A sinister agenda? Though I think it's an interesting thesis, I brought up 3 points against my own link. I thought it was open-minded of me.
Only you would claim that open-mindedness is "sinister", BC.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
CS Monitor article on the affect the war & the responses of the Arab governments is having on the Arab street.
quote: But countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have little influence over the militant Shiite group and its backers Iran and Syria, so their statements may be of little practical value. Instead, their comments emphasize the widening gap between these regimes and their people.
. . .
"The regime claimed that peace with Israel would create prosperity and jobs. But we have been at peace for over 20 years and have not seen any prosperity. We can't watch our Palestinian and Lebanese and Iraqi brothers be slaughtered every day and do nothing."
In Saudi, too, the regime's position isn't shared by its public. "I don't think the Saudi government's statement is in tune with how most Saudis feel about the Lebanese situation," says Bassem Alim, an activist lawyer based in Jeddah, and frequent government critic.
"The way they said it was extremely damaging to their reputation in the Islamic world."
Anger at Saudi Arabia's close relationship with the US, and by association Israel, has long generated support for Al Qaeda among many Saudis, so the government has taken a risk by speaking in a manner that jihadists view as supporting Israel.
But he and other analysts say that Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia's history of animosity with Shiite Iran, which sought to challenge the Saudi monarchy's position of leadership among world Muslims after its Islamic revolution, has left the regime more nervous about Iran's nuclear program than about flareups of terrorism that, while dramatic, have never challenged the regime.
"The Saudis are trying to make sure that the United Nations and the Security Council will be involved in the region as a way of controlling Iran,'' says Saudi political analyst Adel al-Toraifi.
. . .
And as the crisis has spiraled, even Arab leaders close to the US and Israel, have warned of the potential for blowback. "Israel will not emerge as a victor in this war. It will only create more enemies," Egyptian President Mubarak said Monday. "The war will only inflame Arab animosity toward Israel (and) many anti-Israel extremist forces will surface."
The entire article is worth a read.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM once wrote the wisest think I ever heard on this subject and, I think, has given us the key to the only way to real peace in the region.
quote: And it's difficult to get a howling mob together in a country which is about 90% middle class.
The only thing that will work in the long run is for these people to have a path to a better life. Jobs. People with jobs don't time to blow things up.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Are you aware of the fact that more than half of those who have attempted or succeeded to detonate suicide bombs have been middle class?
You are oversimplifying.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree that I am oversimplifying.
I am surprised by the middle class thing. I find it incredible that people with nice lives in reasonable homes with the ability to provide a decent life for their children can get so motivated.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Contrary to popular "root cause" mythology, it is not poverty that breeds terrorism but the other way around: terrorism breeds poverty.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I agree that I am oversimplifying.
I am surprised by the middle class thing. I find it incredible that people with nice lives in reasonable homes with the ability to provide a decent life for their children can get so motivated.
Most revolutionaries come from the middle or upper classes. It's the norm.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I believe it's less than 65%, so not "most" or "the norm"; but it is patently true that people with jobs most emphatically are finding the time to blow Israelis up.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Does anybody expect ANY sort of cooperation between hezbollah and the PLA, or Hammas, or any group of Palestinians?
Even at the lvl of Hezbolah using Palestinians as pawns?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hum. Possibly I missed out a word in that sentence; I might have been better off saying "about 90% middle class and atheist or apatheist".
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Are you aware of the fact that more than half of those who have attempted or succeeded to detonate suicide bombs have been middle class?
Thank G-d someone said this. We aren't fighting wars about poverty, we are fighting wars of degradation, and there is a difference, a non-negligible difference. The issue does concern food and jobs, but there is also no small part of the conflict that concerns land, community, culture, emasculation, and degradation.
Until we give that latter class of issues serious thought, we aren't going to approach a stable peace, in the middle east or in our American city streets.
[ July 18, 2006, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rivka, Thanksa for the articles. I have printed them off but haven't had a chance to read them yet. Didn't want you to think I was neglecting you!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No worries. I have a job too. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Another gloomy military analyst, again via billmon. org , chimes in about the odd straits Israel finds itself in.
Arrcording to billmon, "William S. Lind is generally recognized as the leading U.S. theorist of non-conventional, fourth generation war, and has recently been helping the Marine Corps rewrite its bible on the subject, the Small Wars Manual."
quote: I think the stakes in the Israel-Hezbollah-Hamas war are significantly higher than most observers understand. If Hezbollah and Hamas win—and winning just means surviving, given that Israel’s objective is to destroy both entities—a powerful state will have suffered a new kind of defeat, again, a defeat across at least one international boundary and maybe two, depending on how one defines Gaza’s border. The balance between states and 4GW forces will be altered world-wide, and not to a trivial degree.
from the short essay "The Summer of 1914" by William S. Lind It seems to me Hezbollah can definitely survive an air campaign, and even a short ground offensive. I make no predictions about Hamas in Gaza. But is mere survival "winning", as Lind would have it? I don't know.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
BTW, I support Israel in it's fight against Hezbollah. I hope Hezbollah is crushed as a fighting force after the dust settles. Even though I think that's unlikely.
But I think Israel's broader war against Lebanon is counterproductive to Israel's own long-term goals, strategy, and even survival.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
But think of the post Hezbollah construction boom in Lebanon after the Israeli's stop shooting! It will be better then Florida after a Hurricane or New Orleans, Jobs for Palestinians is what this is all about!
BC
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What peace pipe have you been smoking?
This has wrecked Lebanon's economy for the next five to ten years, to say nothing of how the displaced people will survive without an infrastructure.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What peace pipe have you been smoking?
This has wrecked Lebanon's economy for the next five to ten years, to say nothing of how the displaced people will survive without an infrastructure.
Oh, well. I guess harboring a psychopathic terrorist army is a bad policy decision.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"to say nothing of how the displaced people will survive without an infrastructure."
That's how terrorists are made.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Thanks rivka, that was enlightening. Like kmboots, I had always assumed that suicide bombers were poor with nothing to lose.
Edit: Wait...I thought that terrorists came from middle classes, not the displaced poor. Confused. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What peace pipe have you been smoking?
This has wrecked Lebanon's economy for the next five to ten years, to say nothing of how the displaced people will survive without an infrastructure.
Oh, well. I guess harboring a psychopathic terrorist army is a bad policy decision.
If you think what is happening now is going to make the problem go away, you must be smoking the same pipe as Bean Counter.
The armed forces present in Michigan at the moment could probably take out the Lebanese military. I don't know how you expect them to take on Hezbollah, especially when, after a week of extensive bombings that have ravaged Lebanon, Israel still hasn't significantly degraded Hezbollah's ability to prosecute hostilities against Israel. While I think Lebanon should have put significant pressure on Hezbollah to disarm, (and while they were making SOME progress, just not a lot), pretending that Hezbollah exists because Lebanon didn't take them out when they had the chance is ludicrous.
Syria just recently ended their occupation of Lebanon, and free elections for the first time there installed a new democratic government. Quite frankly I think it would have been a horrible decision to immediately immerse the nation in a civil war with Hezbollah the moment they'd finally achieved freedom. Then again, if the alternative is to be wiped off the map by Israel, perhaps civil war would have been preferable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rivka, Cool articles. I found Krueger's study - the NYT article is a summary. Fascinating stuff. He and I are talking about somewhat different things. As you said, I oversimplified. His data records the education and economic levels of individual terrorists as compared to the general populace of the area. I was thinking (in my head - I didn't communicate this at all) more to the general levels of poverty and unemployment of the area rather than to individuals compared to others in the same area.
Having said that, I am conviced that civil rights and self-determination are more of a factor than poverty.
Thanks again for the reading!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Your assessment is problematic. Israel, while it would love to disarm Hezbollah, does not seem to be trying for that objective. Instead, they are forcing a buffer zone in which they will make it prohibitively expensive for Hezbollah to create rocket emplacements. This will likely succeed, as it depends not on any ability to complete the so-far daunting task of disarming Hezbollah, but on the demonstrated ability of Israel to strike forcefully at any source of rocket attacks.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
What if a democratically elected Syrian government agrees to use terrorist tactics to destroy Israel? Does that give Israel the moral authority to wage a carte blanche war, making no distinctions between civilians and military? If so, why would any government in that region become democratic, especially if the demos are hostile toward Israel?
If I'm in Lebanon deciding public policy, there is no way I'd push for a democracy. It would just give Israel, and any "enemies of terror," a clear target.
I don't know what the policy makers in the area are thinking. I do know what I'd be thinking, which is, if the people want Israel destroyed, support Hezbollah under the table, and keep your distance, that way if Hezbollah wins, Israel is tamed, and if Hezbollah is on the losing end, then Israel still can't carpet bomb my country.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It seems silly that Hezbolah boasts that the Israeli airstrikes targeting leaders did nothing to their intended targets, seeing as how Israel rained down leaflettes the day before warning of strikes directed at Hezbolah buildings.
How do you bomb terrorists and give innocent neighbors fair warning that you are going to? Seems almost as easy as trying to sprint without sweating.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
too bad a lot of people didnt listen to the warnings.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Irami: Lebanon is a (parliamentary) democracy. An anti-syrian, pro-hezbollah disarmament coalition holds power. This has been mentioned in threads on hatrack.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Israel's stated goal is to disarm Hezbollah, and that they will not stop until that is done, if it takes weeks or...however long.
It doesn't seem to matter much if anything of Lebanon remains by the time they are done.
If I were Israel, knowing the kind of damage that would be done to Lebanon, and knowing the kind of resentment it would cause towards my nation, I'd spend a couple weeks making sure I could secure the moral imperative at the end, keeping in mind I already think they have all the justification they need.
I'd tell the world, we're going to invade Lebanon, we're going to pound it continuously until we think Hezbollah is gone, unless you have a better idea. If the world does nothing, spend a day dropping bombs. Say, we're not kidding, we'll do this every day until we feel they are disarmed or sufficiently degraded. If the world still does nothing they can say, well, we tried, but the world obviously doesn't care, and that includes the Arab world.
Not that I'd be happy with the results, which includes the death of hundreds and the wholesale destruction of Lebanon, but at least Israel would come out of it in a better position politically. Best case scenario, they get the world to disarm Hezbollah for them, which I don't see as very likely, hopefully, they might get Hezbollah to leave Lebanon, but I wouldn't see that happening either. Worst case scenario, they get to blow up Hezbollah for awhile, but don't pay much of a price in the eyes of the world.
Either Israel doesn't really plan to go through with it's stated objective, or everyone in Lebanon might as well make plans to leave now.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The first paragraph wasn't meant to be taken with the second two. It's just what struck me.
As to Lebanon, the real dynamic between the controlling faction of the government, the minority factions of the government, the people, and Hezbollah isn't conducive to reigning in Hezbollah. Sure, the talk will be tough, but in practice, it just makes too much sense to be soft in prosecuting/confiscating the weapons of Hezbollah without emasculating the people.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
You gotta remember that Isreal has been wildly successful in all of its wars so far.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwiggin: "to say nothing of how the displaced people will survive without an infrastructure."
That's how terrorists are made.
You've summed up the painful lesson. The current conflict seems poised to help exactly who the Isralies are trying to fight.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: You gotta remember that Isreal has been wildly successful in all of its wars so far.
In their prosecution yes, but what about the aftermath?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Given the aims of their enemies, Lyrhawn...I'd have to say they've been pretty damn successful there too, if you consider the full spectrum of outcomes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, I wouldn't call the present situation wildly successful, but if you compare it to oblivion, then sure, it's fantastic.
When you compare any state of being to a lack of being, you can make anything sound great.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: You gotta remember that Isreal has been wildly successful in all of its wars so far.
Sure, Israel has kicked ass--against other nation/states. But their record is far more mediocre against terrorist groups, or in the jargon of the last analyst I linked to, "4GW forces" or 4th generation warfare forces. Which is what Israel is up against in the Israel-Hezbollah-Hamas War.
You can get another nation/state to surrender, with or without conditions. Israel did it very quickly in the 1967 Six Day War, especially if your enemies have 20 times the casualties. Wow, I had no idea the casualty ratio was so lopsided in that war. I've even been to that web page before.
It's far more difficult to get a dedicated terror group to surrender. Even when you kill the leaders, new ones pop up like heads from Hydra. The IRA is the only large terrorist group I can think of that has surrendered (though I'm sure there are others), and that took many, many years of struggle and negotiation.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Somewhat related question. Israel has said they don't want the UN peacekeepers involved. What say have they? If Lebanon invites the UN (which they are apparently discussing) it's not like Israel could do much about it. I suppose they could keep on bombing S. Lebanon. And if the UN forces can't stop Hezbollah from shooting missiles into Haifa, what choice would Israel have at this point except to just keep going at it.
I really don't see much possibility for a good ending here. I figure the #1 probability is that things will get quiet...maybe Hezbollah will run low on munitions or decide to lay low for awhile. Israel would have to decide how far to take this at that point. Do they still keep on the offensive because their soldiers have not been returned? Or, do they slow the pace of attacks as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:When you compare any state of being to a lack of being, you can make anything sound great.
Few other nations in the modern world face that level of good and bad, Lyrhawn.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
My guess is that when Hezbollah begins to run low on missiles, Syria will step in to "help" Lebanon and promote a cease fire. I can't help but think they'll see this as their opportunity to reassert influence in Lebanon, perhaps even toppling the government.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Bob: even if Lebanon requests, the US will veto.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If fear is the primary driver of the Israeli's reactions to events, then we are all in for a very rough time.
I personally see a lot more at work here. Olmert's government is new and has to prove itself. Taking Israeli soldiers hostage has been taboo for awhile and they can't let that go without a strong response. Hezbollah is getting too powerful (seats in the Lebanese Parliament, for example) and this latest thing gives Israel an opportunity to act against them without it looking like some sort of pre-emption. And, a show of force against a legitimate enemy that also has decent enough weaponry gives Israel the chance to show its might without looking to the rest of the world like a total bully (although they are being accused of bullying anyway, imagine if they made a show of force against truly weak opponents...like Palestinians.)
The problem with being the acknowledged power militarily in the region is that (I think this has been said already) everyone they fight is an underdog and actions against Israel start to look like plucky resistance instead of dastardly terrorism. Especially as the conflict wears on and people forget who fired the first salvo. The rest of the world looks on from a distance and starts to sympathize with the elusive warriors still putting up a fight despite the odds.
Meanwhile, Israeli and Lebanese civilians are dying.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
On reconsideration, bringing in the UN could be extremely advantagous for Hezbollah, if they only have marginal effectiveness. UN troops certainly would not be as gung-ho about rooting out Hezbollah from southern Lebanon as the IDF would be.
Suppose the UN brings in more troops in a few weeks, either before a major Israeli invasion or soon after. By that time, Hezbollah might have launched all their vulnerable rockets, yet could still have thousands left in reserve. I've seen various numbers bandied about, supposedly they have roughly 10,000 rockets. If they launch off the most vulnerable ones, they could just stop, soon after the UN comes in, and keep hidden their reserves. Then Hezbollah fighters could just fade away to blend into the Shia population, keeping caches of weapons.
With no more rockets slamming into Israel, it would appear the UN had been effective. There would be pressure for the UN to pull out. When they do, Hezbollah could start the whole mess over again in the months or years to come.
It's starting to dawn on me why the Israelis don't want an immediate cease fire or UN peacekeepers.
But even assuming Israel invades southern Lebanon, which seems much more likely than it did last week, how long could they stay? How effective could they be against Hezbollah, if Hezbollah uses classical guerilla tactics?
Hezbollah can blend into the Shia population they spring from, and the IDF can hardly shoot all the adult male Shia in southern Lebanon, just like our US forces cannot kill all the Sunnis in the Sunni Triangle in Iraq.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: If Hezbollah and Hamas win—and winning just means surviving, given that Israel’s objective is to destroy both entities—a powerful state will have suffered a new kind of defeat, again, a defeat across at least one international boundary and maybe two, depending on how one defines Gaza’s border.
requote from the Lind essay linked on pp1.
Do you agree or disagree that for Hezbollah and Hamas , "winning just means surviving?" (Say, surviving with some future effectiveness.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: It's far more difficult to get a dedicated terror group to surrender. Even when you kill the leaders, new ones pop up like heads from Hydra. The IRA is the only large terrorist group I can think of that has surrendered (though I'm sure there are others), and that took many, many years of struggle and negotiation.
With the IRA it also took US recognition of Sinn Fein, a plan for power sharing, a serious change in policing, the possibility of achieving their goals through political means, and strong, forward-thinking leadership. It didn't happen because the IRA was defeated militarily.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Good point, the IRA surrended it's arms, eventually, but not because of military defeats. And the IRA achieved at least some of their main goals.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Winning does not mean surviving. There is no doubt the organizations will continue to exist in some form; in fact, Hamas will probably still hold political power. If Israel establishes a buffer zone in Lebanon and resolves the hostage situations then blithely stops its offensive, it will be very hard for either group to claim victory.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The people pulling the strings don't necessarily want to win. There power and identity comes from the struggle itself. No war and they are out of a job. Some leaders want to be out of a job, but not all. And some can't imagine life without the struggle.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
A graphic summary of the war so far: 1sr43l pwns L3b4n0n Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Looks like the IDF ground offensive has moved past the special forces stage: Israeli Troops Take Over Lebanese Village(AP) I wonder how far north of the border they will go? And for how long?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I would expect them to push at least far enough to prevent the small rocket attacks and I would expect them to stay indefinitely.
BC
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Having bad experiences with occupation, Israel will withdraw once they feel there is a resolution to the current situation (Hezbollah pushed back beyond a buffer zone, hostage situations resolved). They have already expressed that desire very concretely.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I agree. There would be far too much international pressure, including from the US, for Israel to contemplate an indefinite occupation of Lebanon. I would guess no IDF infantry would be beyond the border by the end of the year. Probably they will withdraw much earlier than that. Mossad and the Air Force is a different matter, of course.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:The problem with being the acknowledged power militarily in the region is that (I think this has been said already) everyone they fight is an underdog and actions against Israel start to look like plucky resistance instead of dastardly terrorism. Especially as the conflict wears on and people forget who fired the first salvo. The rest of the world looks on from a distance and starts to sympathize with the elusive warriors still putting up a fight despite the odds.
Well, not exactly. The more the world looks at this conflict, the more they disagree with the 410 members of the House that passed the recent unconditional endorsement of Israel's attacks on Lebanon.
Who fired the first salvo anyway? Initial reports were contradictory about where the two Israeli soldiers were captured. Hezbollah announced that they were captured inside of Lebanon:
quote:The Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement announced on Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. "Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon," a statement by Hezbollah said. "The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place," it added. The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they "infiltrated" into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border. [Hindustan Times 7/12/06]
Lebanese police corroborated this story:
quote:TRANSLATION: According to the Lebanese police force, the two soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab close to the border, whereas Israeli television indicated that they had been captured in Israeli territory. [fr.news.yahoo 7/12/06]
quote:In the midst of last Friday's onslaught, in which Israeli bombers killed dozens of Lebanese civilians, the Pentagon announced the export of $210m of aviation fuel to help Israel "keep peace and security in the region".
quote:WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.
The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.
quote: Who fired the first salvo anyway? Initial reports were contradictory about where the two Israeli soldiers were captured. Hezbollah announced that they were captured inside of Lebanon: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement announced on Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. "Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon," a statement by Hezbollah said. "The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place," it added. The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they "infiltrated" into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border. [Hindustan Times 7/12/06] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanese police corroborated this story:
And you believe them? Have you ever seen an Arab news release that was not a lie?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)