The first half of this was posted at Kesher Talk by my co-blogger "Alcibiades." I added to it later this evening.
Here are the accounts of what is going on from the posts of a few Arab bloggers, all of whom are opposed to Hezbollah's incursions. These accounts are all very poignant, as the writers are conscious of the idiocy of Hezbollah's long planned attack and filled with details we would not otherwise come across so easily. It is quite sad what Hezbollah has instigated, at this moment, with Lebanon well along in its economic and political recovery.
Lebanese Political Journal: Hezbollah Surprised By Their Own Attack
The Lebanese Bloggers: Breaking News Flowing
Rantings of a SandMonkey (writing in Egypt): It has begun.
The comments in all three of these accounts are interesting, where you can see individuals from different political factions within Lebanon and Egypt, respectively, and perhaps other countries as well, arguing with each other. And some Israelis commenting as well.
From Judith: Asher Abrams and Big Pharoah eavesdrop on more Lebanese forums where Hezbollah are not real popular, and Iraq the Model noticed last week Iraqis expressing a similar dissatisfaction with Hamas in an Arabic forum on the BBC site:
About three dozens of comments were made by Iraqis both inside Iraq and in exile and all these comments were supportive of Israel or at least against Hamas as far as the topic is concerned except for only three comments; that's a 10:1 ratio while as you probably have guesses, the opposite ratio is true about the comments by the rest of Arabs.Check out the comments themselves.. . . . we in Iraq are evolving politically faster than we are doing when it comes to economy, security, etc. that we are even ahead of countries like Egypt or Kuwait in holding real elections and having a permanent constitution and fair representation of all the segments of the people. . . . Iraqis are beginning to distinguish between terrorism and rightful acts of resistance not only in Iraq but also on a global level and are showing decreasing tolerance for extremism. . . .
Two years ago ITM translated comments from another BBC Arabic forum, which illustrated this bifurcation. The topic was Abu Ghraib. Most of the other Arabs in the forum saw Abu Ghraib as a convenient example of American depravity, but many Iraqis disagreed and said it was an abberation, and were impressed by how decisively the Americans were taking responsibility for fixing it, and pointed out that other Arabs didn't speak up when Saddam was really torturing Iraqis.
This also brings to mind an article I can't locate now, about all the phone and internet traffic (of which thse BBC forums are examples) between Iraqis and Arabs in other countries, where the reconstruction and the democracy project are discussed along with other news and personal chat. We think of Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya as the interlocutors of the Arab world, but they may be much less influential than the informal discussion in forums and blogs and talk among friends and relatives.
Meanwhile on the home front, M Simon notices a shift in sympathies:I watched NBC news for the first time in a long time to catch the latest on Israel. The commentary at the end of segment went something like this: "Israel left Lebanon 6 years ago. They left Gaza a year ago. Why can't they leave Israel alone?" Which goes back to my previous points about Sharon. He has created a situation where even a weak leader can take strong measures.More evidence that Bush's grand plan for democratizing the Middle East was the right one, and is working. As Asher says:I do not think [Olmert] would get serious complaints if he toppled Boy Assad.
It is no longer the Israelis who are isolated, nor the freedom activists in the Arab world. It's the fascist regimes that are increasingly isolated and panicking.And here's another angry Lebanese blog.
UPDATE: The times they must indeed be a-changing, because a news story about Arab bloggers and their dissatisfaction with the status quo appeared last week in the San Francisco Chronicle, not exactly a bastion of neo-con democracy promotion.
Augean Stables on the contrast I described above, which more and more Arabs can distinguish as the practice of representative government and the understanding of individual rights begins to take hold:The Israelis care far more for the lives of their own citizens (including their Arab citizens) than the Arab regimes care for the lives of their own people (subjects). It is characteristic of elites in prime-divider societies to treat their commoners as so many beasts of burden (in the Middle Ages the comparison was between peasants and oxen), and, in time of war, cannon fodder. Look at the ways in which Iran and Iraq threw their own people into the killing fields for 8 years. This differential derives, among other things, from the high value that civil societies place on the voluntary adherence of its citizens to the social contract (from Sinai to the social contract theorists of modern democracies) and the way they empower individuals. Prime divider societies rule by fear and impostion, and not only do not value individuals, they fear them.UPDATE: My co-blogger Asher has another Cedarsphere roundup.. . . . When Israel and Egypt signed the Camp David accords in 1979, I remember seeing a small news item about how the Syrian minister of Education declared darkly that it was only a matter of years now before the Israelis dominate the entire region culturally. At the time I smiled at the paranoia. Having better understood the Arab predicament and the cultural demands of economic development in the subsequent decades, I now realize that what he feared — and what these reformers no longer fear (or perhaps don’t fully understand) — is that in turning away from the prime divider politics of Arab political culture, they are indeed adopting the civic commitments that the Israelis have fostered from the earliest years of Zionism. In that sense, they are coming under Western, if not Zionist influence.
Thanks for your coverage...
I am not a lebanese Blog I am a Syrian one calling for less trouble and more Peace.
I am so mad at Nasrallah and Assad
Check
Nasrallah Why don't you negotiate in Hell on
freesyria wordpress com
God spare us all this...
Fares,
God bless you all, too. May the days of the fascists be numbered.
==============================WoC crew,
Thanks guys for the link love. Reciprocated.
Simon
I think you are being over optimistic. Net disussion is representative of an elite and it's by it's nature a biased sample. After that we have those who have the sword and that is what rules in that part of the world, see what happened to Iran students and many other peacefull muslims. Unless a democratic muslim with a sword appears they are only voices in the wilderness. See what the so called cedars revolution achieved. Not much.
The stuff from the Lebanese Political Journal in fascinating. It confirms the reporting that Michael Totten has been doing from the region. More importantly, they suggest that despite the rhetoric, Israel is not holding the Lebanese government responsible, isnt touching Beirut or Northern Lebanon, and is basically going to isolate the south, try to destroy or mortally wound Hezbollah, and perhaps create a situation where the Lebanese can man the border and show the door to Hezbollah. I very much hope that to be the case.
Although I risk disagreeing with our esteemed Reverand, I'm not entirely sure that Israel doesn't have a grand strategy here. I think that Israel believes that they can leverage Hezbollah away from the general Lebanese populace and perhaps even from Syria. I'm not sure that they are going about it entirely correctly, but that seems to be the situation. If the Israeli's can inflict serious damage to Hezbollah, there is a possibility that they can get Lebanon to both see Hezbollah as primarily thier problem and not primarily Israel's problem, and that Hezbollah is weak enough that Lebanon can in fact do something about it.
On the other hand, I'm also not entirely sure that this isn't about to erupt into a general conflaguration as all sides may have stuck thier fingers in the wind and judged today is a good day for a war. It remains to be seen which side is going to proven to have miscalculated. The next move is up to the Lebanese, the Syrians, and the Iranians. It will also be interesting to see if this creates a political crisis for Eygpt.
I fear we are in for (more) interesting times.
I disagree. I dont think the Israelis (particularly the IDF) are happy about this at all. The IDF wants no part of reoccupying southern Lebanon, but there doesnt seem to be an alternative if Hezbollah intends to make a fight of it. Its either that or suffer rocket and artillery attacks indefinately.
Olmert really screwed the pooch by calling off the dogs in Gaza and not responding decisively enough against Hamas leadership. It allowed Hamas and Hezbollah time to coordinate. Had Israel come out of the blocks hard and targetted Khaled Meshaal in Demascus for masterminding the affair, and torn Gaza apart brick by brick looking for the kidnapped soldier, its possible the second kidnapping wouldnt have occurred. Or at least if it did the Hamas/Gaza front would have been dealth with before having to deal with Lebanon/Syria. Weak, escalating response has emboldened the enemy and already the world diplomatic response is growing for peace no matter who is at fault. The lesson Israel fails to learn is that you should get your licks in quick and brutal because you are going to be condemned no matter what you do.
"I disagree. I dont think the Israelis (particularly the IDF) are happy about this at all. The IDF wants no part of reoccupying southern Lebanon, but there doesnt seem to be an alternative if Hezbollah intends to make a fight of it. Its either that or suffer rocket and artillery attacks indefinately."
I don't think the IDF has any intention of reoccupying southern Lebanon. I think that they intend to get Lebanon to reoccupy southern Lebanon.
I dont even think that Olmert will do anything more than he already done. Expeling or destroying Heezbollah is just whishfull thinking. That could have been with the Israel of the past not the Israel of self doubt of today.
By blockading Lebanon's ports and shutting down its airport, Israel seems to be putting heavy pressure on Lebanese government assets as well as Hezbollah.
Which is a mistake. Making it a contest of wills between Israel and the Lebanese government is just batty. If you put Lebanon in a corner, they will be forced back into Syrias pocket, what is the good in that? Yes, we all want Lebanon to push aside Hezbollah and man their border, but its harldy just a matter of the Lebanese deciding to do so. Hezbollah is the most powerful military force in the country, and they arent going to stand down just for the asking. The worst thing would be giving Lebanon an 'us or them' ultimatum. They would have no choice but to take them, because they quite simply do not have the power to live up to those demands.
"I dont even think that Olmert will do anything more than he already done. Expeling or destroying Heezbollah is just whishfull thinking. That could have been with the Israel of the past not the Israel of self doubt of today."
I'm a person that tends to think that barring absence to the contrary, people generally mean what they say.
I expect Olmert is going to bomb the heck out of Southern lebanon. I don't think it is necessary to expell or destroy Hezbollah in order to cripple it.
The basic strategy is:
a) Put alot of symbolic pressure on Lebanon - bomb the airport (but not the terminals or other hard to replace infrastructure), bomb an airfield (whose runways are never used anyway), establish a naval blockade, etc.
b) Wreck the economic infrastructure of Southern Lebanon. This is indirect pressure on Syria and Iran.
c) Kill as many Hezbollah fighters as possible. Don't be too discrimenating about it so long as you continue to have reasonable Casi Belli. A couple of hundred rockets blowing up in your cities daily and kidnapped soldiers will do.
d) Make it very clear to the Lebanese government that this is going to continue until they agree to occupy the boder with the Lebanese army. That is to say, force Lebanon to expell (a weakened) Hezbollah.
e) Assume, probably correctly, that the US would see a weakened Hezbollah and a Lebanon with less Iranian influence as something sufficiently in our interests that we'd be willing to put up money (directly or indirectly) to repair some of the things they are blowing up.
f) Hope that the EU doesn't end up (effectively) unconditionally backing Hezbollah.
Its also my understanding from one of the links above that Israel has destroyed the bridges and roads that the Lebanese army would need to engage Hezbollah.
So any pressure on the Lebanese government would have to be for long-term purposes -- after Israel withdraws, leaving a potentially weakened Hezbollah.
celebrim: I see it as more likely that Israel will return across the borders before a fractured government like Lebanon's could agree to (d).
Time is not on Israel's side in this. I recall Michael Totten reporting something to the effect that with all of the intense sectarian hatreds and centuries-old feuds in Lebanon, it was still easier to hate the Israelis because they were "over there." Israel would be smart to leave Lebanon with Hezbollah weakened militarily and politically as possible. I suspect that at some point Hezbollah will start to rebound politically.
I think celebrim has it. And I don't think that the issue is one of "self-doubt"—Matt Yglesias has a great piece that I quoted on another thread about the American conservative tendency to see everything now as a test of 'will' and not tactics and capabilities. Will is overrated: ask Robert E. Lee.
As to celebrim's point (f), I don't expect Hezbollah to get the least sympathy from Europe. (Lebanese civilians, especially those in Beirut or otherwise far from the Hezbollah launching pads, are a different question.) European opposition to Israel is not based on anti-Semitism and Hitler nostalgia, exciting as that prospect is for the followers of Meir Kahane. Europe, and this ties in with its own history, has a hard time with colonialism. And make no mistake, the Israeli settler enterprise was at its roots colonialist, with a privileged class holding the rights of citizenship and an unprivileged collection of helots. Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza and the intent to make at least partial withdrawal of civilian settlements in the West Bank, coup led with the miserable showing of the settler parties in the last election, made it clear that the Greater Israel fantasy is dead and its political proponents are decreasing in relevance. In the new context, cross-border raids are an outrage, not a liberation movement.
I've got to agree with Celebrim, but I'd like to add something...
In the discussions regarding a possible pre-emptive strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities, both the Palistinean (Gaza) and Hezbollah (Lebanon) angles have figured prominently.
The assumption has been that, aside from a possible long range missile attack from Iran, that any pre-emptive strike would lead to Iranian retaliation via their proxies in Gaza and Lebanon.
I think we can consider both of those options effectively neutralized.
If I was a Mullah in Tehran, I'd be getting very nervous right now ...
The logic of taking Syria is inescapable.
Will the Israelis do it?
Several years back they were within hours of pulling the trigger. The reserves were called up. The tanks ready. Will they rectify that mistake?
Taking Syria might gain good will from most Lebanese. It eliminates a long term problem.
The logic of the situation makes it seem almost inevitable.
#12 PD Shaw,
The bridge blowing may be a physical boundary between unit responsibilities. It insures neither side goes too far until intentions are known.
TrackBack by All Things Beautiful The Muslim Brotherhood And Hezbollah Detonate The Political Bomb
M. Simon: I'm utterly baffled by those statements. Perhaps I'm just barely sapient, but somehow the logic of the claims has managed to escape me.
I'd like to know what you think Israel would do with Syria once they had it, and why you think that they would want it. For that matter, I can think of few things more likely to split the US and Israel than Israel sending the tanks toward Damascus over any provication less serious than Damascus sending tanks toward Tel Aviv.
I'd expect Bush to say something like this:
"The way I see it, I tell people, Israeli tanks in Syria - Not on the table. What in tarnation where you thinking? Not a good notion. See, I don't like it, and I want you to know, the American people don't like it. It's doubly stupid. Because the - if the war, the occupation of Syria should have happened, we would have decided that war ourselves."
Its also my understanding from one of the links above that Israel has destroyed the bridges and roads that the Lebanese army would need to engage Hezbollah.
On the other hand, those are also the roads and bridges the Lebanese army would need to support Hezbollah. However much the Lebanese government may be p/o'd with HA, they've shown zilch spine opposing them in the past, even rhetorically. The chances of the Lebanese military taking the side of 'Zionist Jew invaders' against a politico-military party that's a member of their own government fall somewhere between slim and none. Even if the odds of it are upgraded, generously, to 'just barely remotely possible,' it's still not a worthwhile gamble for Israel.
I suspect Israel is both forestalling that and providing Sanioura with plausible deniability. Any requests for aid from HA can now legitimately be met with 'sorry dude, we're pinned down over here, you're on your own.' The IDF/IAF have been quite careful to immobilize the Lebanese military by destroying the routes of movement (airport tarmac, roads, bridges) rather than the military itself (planes, tanks, men). The troops, armor, and emplacements that've come in for the real pounding have been Hezbollah's.
Westerners in Lebanon are fleeing to Damascus; the only way out now. Syria has repealed its policy of denying Westerners visas and is welcoming them in. Is Syria concerned about what M. Simon suggests?
No trackbacks, so ping!
I agree with Achillea. The bridges were blown to isolate Hezbollah and to create plausible deniability.
I'm well aware that the Lebanese military lacks the capacity to profitably engage Hezbollah on Hezbollah's turf. It would be ridiculous to expect them to do so in the very short term.
But let's say Israel keeps this up for the next 80 days or so, something which should be within thier operational capabilities. By that time Hezbollah should have taken a severe beating, and expended most of its hoarded rocket arsenal. Israel's cities are getting pock marked, and Israel loses a few score civilians. As far as Israel is concerned though, its a 'better now than latter' situation. Hezbollah's capabilities are expanding, and there have been alot of things which tipped off that they were planning on using those capabilities even before the kidnapping. As far as Israel is concerned, and must be concerned in my opinion, this was an inevitable war and its better now than when Hezbollah might be even more fully prepared.
That's especially true if you don't think time is on Israel's side.
The ultimate hoped for outcome is that Israel withdraws some weeks down the road 'in the face of growing international pressure' and a set peice advance by the Lebanese military. The Lebanese military gets to say that they 'drove out Israel' and a militarily crippled Hezbollah, and Israel gets a militarily crippled Hezbollah plus someone on the border whose actions are far more predictable than those of Iranian backed Shi'a terrorists. And Hezbollah has to decide whether they are going to start shooting at a column of Lebanese military and thereby destroy all thier political credibility just win thier military effectiveness is at a nadir.
I don't disagree with #14 entirely, but I will note that if this goes on for 80 days or so the EU's pacifist leaning idealists are going to balk at the 20,000+ casualties regardless, and I'm worried not so much about reflexive anti-Semitism as I am about the reflexive assignment of the moral high ground to whoever is losing a fight no matter who started it. Let's do keep in mind that the casualty rate at the current rate of violence would seem to exceed the worst the Iraq war has produced. This isn't some little border skirmish, and if it continues its going to become clear just how hot it is.
celebrim, I'm largely in agreement (#23).
I might be naive, but I would imagine Israel has had (for some time) a list of Hezbollah targets. 80 days might not be necessary to degrade their more conventional capabilities.
And I think patience with Israel's actions are going to erode on the cold math of how many lives (Israeli or Arab) should be lost to save the lives of two or three Israelis?
Yeah, I think celebrim and Achillea have spelled out the best strategy for Israel. In the short term, they've cut off the Lebanese army without doing any real damage to it, preventing them from coming to Hizb'allah's rescue and giving them an excuse to not engage the IDF. Once they've inflicted as much damage on HA's military capabilities as they feel necessary, they pull back and let the Lebanese army 'push them out' and take control of the south. Assuming the Lebanese are ready to consolidate control there, and with some luck, problem solved.
If Syria or Iran were to act to prevent this outcome, they'll have to do it very soon -- but I really don't think they want to give the IDF an excuse and a new target.
Hezbollah rockets are landing in Haifa.
Israelis understand they will get no peace. Daily Kos is posting "Imagine a World without Israel" and the Dem Party is likely only a few short days away from moving to condemn Israel's very existence and move to endorse it's destruction (since Komrade Kos controls much of the Dem Party).
Looking at this (Dems WILL aid Israel's enemies in it's destruction once they gain power), and Iran's very short horizon to achieve the Muslim dream (total destruction of Israel by essentially Genocide) ... Israel has no choice but to widen the conflict and destroy as much of the enemy NOW as possible.
Moving tanks into Syria is essentially their only move; it will provoke a guaranteed Iranian counter-reaction against the US and bring the US and Iran into the final phase of the decades long war being waged since the 79 Embassy invasion. Destroying the Syrian Army and levelling Damascus will also provide an object lesson to the Egyptians (the most dangerous of Isreal's enemies) and the wider Arab world.
Finally, Israelis all understand: there can be no peace for them, at any time, and at any place. Anti-semitic hatreds lurk in the US Democratic Party, throughout Western Europe, and certainly in the Muslim World (the latter to the degree not seen since Germany 1945). No agreement is worth a damn, and there is nothing to negotiate but the time and place of their extinction.
Thus, the only proper measure is to inflict as much pain as possible to deter enemies.
Lebanon may be easy to unite in hatred of Israel, but it's very divisiveness and sectarian hatreds combined with tribal Dark Ages superstition makes it impossible for Lebanon to muster anything beyond a tribal levy. The idea that Lebanon could muster a professional Army, Air Force or Navy is laughable. Egypt being bigger has more of the "non-Arab Arabs" i.e. Westernized people who understand that Allah may will something but military success requires Western ways of thinking. Israel succeeds in open battle because Arab nations (with the exception of the pure size of Egypt) cannot produce soldiers like the Israelis, only tribal hit-and-run folks.
What we are likely to see is the ending of Israel's self-imposed limits. If they will be condemned anyway for mass murderers while taking great care in Jenin, if phony "massacre" and "war crimes" are manufactured with the connivance of the Western Press, why not act anyway? Particularly since all Israelis face literal extinction by Iranian nukes?
Better to instigate total chaos where by smart action Israel might just barely get lucky and find some way to destroy Iran before they disappear in a nuclear blaze (as Iran has promised over and over and over and over again).
[Iranian Agents with Hezbollah apparently are trying to smuggle the captured Israeli soldiers to Iran ... most of the UN has already condemned Israel and only the Republican President's UN Veto has kept the toothless Security Council from another anti-Israeli resolution. Might as well be damned in fact and not just name.]
"I think you are being over optimistic. Net disussion is representative of an elite and it's by it's nature a biased sample."
I agree with you about Egypt. But Lebanon is very Westernized and educated. Beirut, Tel Aviv, and Dubai are known in the Middle East as the best towns for partying and clubbing!
Also every village in Iraq has an internet cafe (via satellite). And Iran has the largest number of blogs after the US. And everyone has cellphones.
Yehudit:
This was a useful perspective. I have to admit I'm sort of uncertain about how to think about Olmert's recent actions. It occurs to me that if this was a deliberate provocation by the Syrian/Iranian Claw they're doing it out of desperation rather than calculated devilishness. Iraq's transmutation is something they can't allow, so one way to attack that is to pick a fight with Israel and then expand the conflagration into a region-wide civil war. Again, it's not so much that they're being descriminating in their choices. They just don't have many cards in their hand, and this joker may look like their best shot.
Andrew:
As I started to say when you brought this up here, why not ask Grant and Lincoln about the decision to wheel south after The Wilderness? That took a spot of "will" that had been missing up until then, and it took even more "will" to keep trying to push to Lee's flank in successive battles at enormous cost... right up to Appomattox. I guess that doesn't quite fit with Iglesias' "brilliant" theory of warfare though. Maybe he and George McClellan would see eye to eye.
#19,
If I knew which "those statements" you questioned I would answer you.
What would Israel do in Damascus? Destroy terrorist infrastructure. Kill Baby Assad. Make a point. Put some new generals in charge. Leave. One or two days occupation ought to be sufficient.
Repeat as necessary.
#21 from PD Shaw,
I hadn't heard that news. Very interesting. Those ME guys love the human shield bit.
Look at it militarily. The Syrian Army in the north (Bekaa) has lost serious mobility and a potential blocking force is now inside Lebanon. Israel takes two to three days to mobilize. One day has already passed almost two.
From the Golan Damascus is one to two days away (military travel time) actual distance about 30 miles.
Syria has no air defences. All destroyed.
At this point they are at Israel's mercy.
I'd say Israel was in a perfect position to take out Iran's junior partner.
You can bet the Pentagon guys are very busy these days revising the Iran War Plan. If such a plan was to become operational it would be good if Israel was covering our six.
"They wouldn't dare" or "it would be very difficult" is a recipe for surprise. Remember Pearl Harbor.
#26 J. Rockford,
d'accord
#30 Demosophist,
I always thought Grant was way under rated as a General. He was the only Union General able to keep Lee pinned. As CinCh he gave Sherman his orders to kick the South in the pants. He controlled all the Union Armies and co-ordinated their movements.
Grant lost battles and advanced. Rather unusual.
One of the problems with 1914 was everyone studied Grant and forgot Sherman. The pin is only 1/2 the battle.
Demosophist, the lesson I learn from your example is that will plus an enormous advantage in materiél and maneuverability beats even more will without same.
There are strong reasons to believe that the tactics of George Bush are not going to attain what I thought were our objectives regardless of the amount of National Will whipped up. If some sort of stasis with dozens of Iraqi civilians and a handful of US troops per week getting killed is a satisfactory objective, why, yes, we can maintain that with enough will, but I don't really see why it deserves to be maintained. The whole exercise starts to look like the equivalent of the Muslim self-flagellation rituals.
"Demosophist, the lesson I learn from your example is that will plus an enormous advantage in materiél and maneuverability beats even more will without same."
So, what do you make of the Peninsula Campaign?
The astounding thing about the American Civil war is not that the North won. The astounding thing is how long it took them to do it. The explanation for that lies with will.
#34 Andrew J. Lazarus,
Guerilla wars take about 10 years to win. The most potent weapon against them is self government. It is way too early to declare defeat.
Will is very important.
I don't blame you for your attitude. You never had the will for it to begin with.
Back on current events, it occurs to this admittedly armchair analyst that there are a couple of further explanations for initial Israeli strikes transport infrastructure:
- How would you like to be running the IAF and be told there was an airliner inbound from Iran to Beirut, loaded with god-knows-what nastiness, but certainly civilians as well? Or any inbound transport with Russian/Chinese/whatever tail feathers? No runways = no problem.
- Shaping the battlefield. With air, sea, and northbound ground logistics shut down, any resupply / relief for Hezb has to come from Syria, and it's not going to be possible to hide it in the middle of civilian traffic (IAF has struck the Beirut/Damascus highway). To Syria: Watch 'em die or provide casus belli.
Could be these and the above Hezb/Lebanese Army segregation as well, and some others. The best chess moves serve multiple purposes. I can't buy the Israel is panicking / wimping out line. If Michael Totten (whose work I love) can figure out something's coming down as an amateur reporter-analyst, the IDF/Mossad guys who did it for a living - literally - must have files full of contingency plans they've been updating for years. And if Olmert blinks, for certain Bibi is tanned, rested, and ready.
"The astounding thing about the American Civil war is not that the North won. The astounding thing is how long it took them to do it. The explanation for that lies with will."
Yep, true; it takes a lot of "will" to march hundreds of thousands of troops across America to fight in ditches and fields with muskets...I wonder how they mustered that kind of courage.
I suppose (will)+(immediate threat to their survival)= uncommon motivation.
All the "will" in the world, mustered in the plush townhouses of the north and the south, amounted to not a whit of difference on the battlefield where men needed to summon the courage to slog through mud and blood to fight a mortal enemy, to walk into a hail of musketballs while your comrades fell around you screaming in pain.
Being occupied by a foreign army that occassionally (or frequently, for all we know) kills your fellow countrymen would probably do that to even a peaceful person, I would think.
M. Simon, unless you are blogging from Iraq, when it comes to a discussion of my will versus yours, STFU. Will from your little apartment in Brooklyn comes cheap.
Do I make myself clear?
Andy: I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I can't tell if you are trying to be witty or not. I can't tell if you have a point or not.
"Yep, true; it takes a lot of "will" to march hundreds of thousands of troops across America to fight in ditches and fields with muskets..."
Yes, it does.
"I wonder how they mustered that kind of courage."
I do too. In fact, I wonder alot about the courage of our ancestors. I wonder about the courage it took to leave Europe, give up everything you have, and go to the howling wilderness (the above, as they believed, of Satan) and try to start a life. I wonder about the people who had the courage to fight against the greatest Empire the world had ever seen, and I wonder about the courage of people who decided to found a country based on unproved theories of democracy - a form of government that collapsed disasterously in its own most famous occurance. I wonder about the courage of people that loaded everything they had in a wagon and headed out across the country knowing that alot of people didn't make it and there would be nothing but hard work for them when they got whereever they where going.
"I suppose (will)+(immediate threat to their survival)= uncommon motivation."
That's just the thing; there really wasn't an immediate threat to thier survival. The easiest thing in the world would have been to not fight the civil war, just like the easiest thing would have been to negotiate a peace after Pearl Harbor. And anger goes awhile, but it can only take you so far. It isn't necessarily a given that a nation has a 'pearl harbor' and in a tide of anger it takes the fight to its ultimate conclusion. In fact, I think it happens less often than not.
No, I wonder about courage alot.
"All the "will" in the world, mustered in the plush townhouses of the north and the south, amounted to not a whit of difference on the battlefield where men needed to summon the courage to slog through mud and blood to fight a mortal enemy, to walk into a hail of musketballs while your comrades fell around you screaming in pain."
Pretty much exactly, but there is more too it than that. In the South, they gave up everything to fight the war. The Southern aristocracy wasn't living in plush townhouses for long. The entire Southern economy ended up in war production. Not a fraction of the Northern economy was ever mustered for war, nor a fraction of the Northern men. The North fought the war with one hand behind its back. Two, while McClellan was in command, because he didn't even want to use what they had.
"Being occupied by a foreign army that occassionally (or frequently, for all we know) kills your fellow countrymen would probably do that to even a peaceful person, I would think."
Maybe, but not necessarily. This doesn't work like a computer program. The same inputs don't always produce the same results. There are intangibles involved, as anyone that has ever studied warfare has long recognized.
"Do I make myself clear?"
Yes. You clearly haven't thought very long and hard about this problem.
"Being occupied by a foreign army that occassionally (or frequently, for all we know) kills your fellow countrymen would probably do that to even a peaceful person, I would think."
I suppose you're talking abut Heezbollah and Syria....
---------------------------
"I agree with you about Egypt. But Lebanon is very Westernized and educated. Beirut, Tel Aviv, and Dubai are known in the Middle East as the best towns for partying and clubbing!"
Well i am in Western European country that for sure has much more connectivity than those countries. Still the blog scene is biased(to liberal -in european meaning) and far from representative of political spectrum.
----------------------------
"Will" - Israel is psycological defeated: that could be seen in UNILATERAL retreats of Lebanon and Gaza.
That retreats were tentatives to restore the self esteem and the moral high-ground because the media
feed the line that land for peace is automatically assured and Israel was the unfair occupier.
Israel also didnt wanted the casualities, well now they have same or worst casualities and nearer. But ilusions and wishfull thinking that the media feed all along and everytime made Israel and everyone ignore the NATURE OF ENEMY and their declared objectives.
----------------------------
Of course "Will" doesnt make anyone right or automatically assures sucess. But without it the defeat is assured.
Celebrim: I'm glad you and M. Simon are enjoying your masturbatory fantasies that go by the name of "will". It's too bad that so many thousands of people are dying for them.
M. Simon's offhand, lazy comment about needing 10 years to win a guerrilla war is not only callous, but unsupported. Ten years with how many troops? With what political program? The Malaysian experience included no small amount of anti-Chinese racism that may not translate well to the Middle East. A lot of guerrilla wars have gone on for ten years and the guerrillas won. Instead of facing up to the bankruptcy of the current strategy (leave alone the stupidity of starting the mess to begin with: I forget when we were promised ten years of war) you're all participating in a circle jerk talking up your fantastic 'will' thousands of miles out of harm's way.
Dressing up comments with tawdry sexual allusions doesn't add all that much to the policy debate. But I suppose that's their writer's problem.
As has been noted many times (example) the problem with the chickenhawk argument isn't where it starts, but where it ends up.
A lot of guerrilla wars have gone on for ten years and the guerrillas won.
Which "guerrilla" wars are you talking about - the proxy wars that were sponsored by communist nations? In those cases, we had no choice but to fight those proxy wars because the commie state sponsors were just as powerful as we were.
In the Middle East, the states that are sponsoring terrorism, like Iran and Syria, are much weaker than we are. It's actually easier to fight them militarily than to fight the proxy "guerrilla" war, and it's a good idea to do it now, before they get stronger. It would also help to shorten the war, and guarantee that the 'militants'/insurgents/guerrillas/whatever - lose.
Hamas and Hezbollah used to be 'militant' rebel organizations, but now they're considered to be sort-of-statesmen. Now, when they do something brutal and stupid, it's not a crime, it's an act of war. The victims of the attacks can respond as if it's a war. When the victims are much stronger than the militant/terrorists, that tends to discourage more attacks.
With their current actions, Israel is changing the rules of counterterrorism, which is good because the old methods (peace talks/UN involvement/bribing with aid) weren't working.
"Still the blog scene is biased(to liberal -in european meaning) and far from representative of political spectrum."
Okay, let's take that as a given. But if it represents the educated elite, especially the young and energetic and globalized, they are the ones who have the most power to change things.
Also, what is most significant is the connectivity throuhgout the region. Israelis commenting at Lebanese blogs and Lebanese commenting at Egyptian blogs and Egyptians commenting at Saudi blogs..... not to mention the internet forums and emails. And most of us in the West only see the English-language traffic. I do think this is the tip of an iceberg.
Only the elites in the Soviet Union got blue jeans and Beatles records and passed around samizdata. But it made a difference. And this is samizdata on a grand scale and open to anyone who can read.
With their current actions, Israel is changing the rules of counterterrorism, which is good because the old methods (peace talks/UN involvement/bribing with aid) weren't working.
Changing the rules ... back to what they were the last time Israel invaded Lebanon. And that turned out just fine.
#39 Andrew J. Lazarus,
I see I struck your cut and run nerve. Must be very painful.
Still, you have yet to explain why we ought to let a bunch of suicide bombers keep us from supporting our allies, the democratically elected government of Iraq. Other than you don't have the will to stand beside a friend who is in a fight for his life.
I will admit that since I left the Navy all I have is armchair courage. What have you got?
Aptmt. in Brooklyn? Cute.
And further re:#43 - You are losing it Andy me boy.
mary,
Guerilla wars have long tails. ETA in Spain, IRA in Ireland, etc. Geurillas almost always have outside support, so I don't get your point there. B.H. L. Hart in his classic "Strategy" has quite a bit on guerilla wars. If you haven't read the book, may I reccomend it? It is required reading for all our military personel.
AJL asks,
With what political program?
Why A. J. I thought you read what I wrote. Ya must have missed it. Probably that cut and run nerve acting up distracted you. I can repeat it:
Self government.
I can even explain it if you like. Just ask.
====================BTW we lost 'Nam due to lack of will on the home front. So armchair will can be vital. Get some.
That would explain the tremendous support for independence in the colonies in the late 1700s.
"Okay, let's take that as a given. But if it represents the educated elite, especially the young and energetic and globalized, they are the ones who have the most power to change things."
No because they are not with have the guns neither are the majority. That's one of the reason of human decapitalisation of Arab world and the emigration of many of the some most educated ones. I agree that could work like the jeans and beatles but would be much slow. Communism was totalitarian but was a reality of only 50-70 years.
The current relations of power in Arab world came from beginning of times and penetrate family and men-women relations. So the conservative forces and inertia are much stronger. We will have time to wait for the change?
-----------------------
WILL
look at this headline:
"Israel threatens to eliminate Hezbollah leader"
It says all.
I'm mildly surprised this discussion of a combatant's Will got this far without a Clausewitz reference:
Or better yet, read the entire chapter "Ends and Means in War". In which we find:
In other words, our nation's Will matters because it is precisely the target of terrorist tactics. An entity at war will cease to make war once its will to fight is expended; if you can't grasp that basic concept, you can't comprehend anything relevant to the current WoT.
(Cites above found at http://www.sonshi*com/clausewitz1-1.html and http://www.sonshi*com/clausewitz1-2.html, which managed to run afoul of the spam filter. Replace the "*" with a ".")
check "God Save Lebanon" on FreeSyria wordpress
And the tide begins to turn on the Lebanese blogs:
Lebanese Political Journal