posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami: Lebanon is a (parliamentary) democracy. An anti-syrian, pro-hezbollah disarmament coalition holds power. This has been mentioned in threads on hatrack.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 Aďta 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?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
