Here's the first Winds post by Neo-Neocon from her eponymous blog. It's crossposted there.
There's an old saying, rendered variously as:
When elephants fight, it's the mice who must tremble.
When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers.
The applicability to the current situation in the Middle East? When Hezbollah goads Israel from its hiding place in Lebanon, and Israel retaliates, the ordinary people in both countries suffer.
Right now, as Fouad Ajami points out in today's Opinion Journal (and as I pointed out some days ago, here), the Lebanese people are being held hostage by Hezbollah. Yes, of course, some of the Lebanese people support Hezbollah, even though it was originally a foreign graft from Iran. But the majority? Doubtful. But that didn't stop Nasrallah from provoking the Israelis into this war in Lebanon; elephants don't ordinarily ask the mice's permission when they start a battle.
Ajami believes that Nasrallah miscalculated, thinking it would be just business as usual when he provoked Israel, underestimating the spine of the new, non-Sharon, government (as well as the opposition of the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan). Gone were the old warriors of Israel, Nasrallah thought--the elephants, as it were--and in their place were the bureaucrats.
But Israel seems to have found a new resolve, exemplified by this passage from a speech Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made last Monday:
"There are moments in the life of a nation, when it is compelled to look directly into the face of reality and say: no more!" Olmert said in a speech in the Knesset plenum Monday evening. "And I say to everyone: no more! Israel will not be held hostage - not by terror gangs or by a terrorist authority or by any sovereign state."
There's that metaphor again: being held hostage. And the linked Jerusalem Post article goes on to point out that Israel and its leaders (usually so fractious) are presently united behind Olmert.
Why is this? It seems to me that it's because so much else has been tried, for so very long, and been found so very wanting. If the slogan of the peace movement is "Give peace a chance," Israel can honestly say (although its enemies will never credit this, of course) "Been there, done that, many times. And it didn't work."
Another reason Olmert can stand firm is that the Bush administration is refusing to pay any more lip service to the 'peace process" as a way of dealing with terrorist entities such as Hezbollah.
The tricky part, of course, is to stand firm in such a way that the Green Revolution in Lebanon is not destroyed--that the mice and the grass (to continue the green metaphor) don't tremble too much as the elephants collide.
Secretary Rice is going to the region to try to strike that delicate balance. It will not be easy, as blogger Alcibiades at Kesher Talk points out, here:
...the crumbling of prosperous, pro-Democrat Lebanon may represent a crumbling of what could have been a very important bulwark against the Islamist night that will never be built up again in quite the right way.
But, unfortunately, for Lebanon to ever become that bulwark, Hezbollah has to be rooted out. You can't have it both ways. The hope is that the cure isn't worse than the disease.
Secretary Rice is declaring her own version (or Bush's version, or their combined version) of Olmert's cry of "No more!" Her version is an "no more, enough!" to the false promise of the ceasefire in this case:
We do seek an end to the current violence and we seek it urgently,'' Rice told reporters at the State Department. Still, ``a cease fire would be a false promise if it just returns us to the status quo.''....`Hezbollah is the source of the problem,'' Rice said. No diplomatic solution can allow Hezbollah to stay in place, she said. The U.S. is working to put pressure on Iran and Syria, which sponsor Hezbollah, to ease the strife diplomatically...
Rice is clear: a diplomatic solution is not ruled out. But it must involve an end to the Hezbollah presence in Lebanon. Only then can a ceasefire be meaningful; until then any cease-fire would be premature and counterproductive.
"Cease-fire." It's a wonderful word, is it not? It speaks of peace and tranquility; the poor mice and the defenseless grass can finally stop suffering. Who wouldn't want that? And there are those who are calling for an immediate ceasefire--such as Kofi Annan, not unexpectedly.
But ceasefires in the region, especially ones with a terrorist entity as one of the parties, don't have a good track record. The status quo is unacceptable.
Enough is enough.
Lets finish it this time.
'Enough is enough' -- and then enough becomes something else. What that turns out to be, nobody knows.
Sorry to be enigmatic, but the times demand it. I hope the world turns out to be run by more than mice and elephants.
Neo, great post, and congratulations on making Winds of Change!
Congratulations, and welcome.
I think analysis of the Israel-Lebanon war has to draw a bit more heavily on Sun-Tzu and like-minded folks. One of those Wise Ones said (somewhere) that the best course in war is to force your opponent to choose among unpalatable alternatives.
I hope Israel manages to do this to Hezbollah, but at the moment I think the advantage is with the terrorists.
This is how I imagine things look from Hezbollah management's perch. Israel can absorb the blows (kidnappings, raids, rockets) and lose face and morale in the process. Or, they can respond militarily (as they have), and suffer casualties, earn fresh hatred from Lebanese, and be condemned by World Opinion as aggressors.
One downside to this precis is that Lebanon gets pounded, and many Lebanese civilians die. But I don't think this is a negative--when Shi'ites get killed by falling bombs, their families' anger will translate into fresh recruits. When non-Shi'ites get killed, it's the Israeli's fault, and--to some extent--the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So, the more the merrier.
To the extent the leadership cares about their own families (cf. martyrdom), they are in Syria, Iran, or Europe.
There is no Israeli analog to this cruel calculus.
Having your soldiers killed in battle is, of course, bad--but how bad? There are lots of angry young men in the Shi'ite community, and lots of AK-47s in bunkers in the Bekkaa Valley, and a stream of circa $100 million a year from Iran. Asymmetry again: only one side's young men are cannon fodder and martyrs.
(Stepping back from my Hezbollah roleplay)--Israeli weapons and tactics may severe damage to Hezbollah, mainly through killing large numbers of well-trained cadres. The IDF knows the area, militarily and culturally. Perhaps the biggest gamble on Nasrallah's and the Iranian mullahs' part was simply the chaos and the unknown that is unleashed in war. I hope their plans turn to ashes.
"All we knew was that a large-scale killing of civilians was inseparable from the futuristic combat style the Israel Defense Forces have chosen... It could be assumed that the operation would kill 100 civilians, give or take a few.... It was important for us to kill them, because the yawning gap between the unlimited sacrosanct importance we attribute to our own lives and the very limited sacred character we attribute to the lives of others allows us to kill them. We killed them out of a certain naive hubris, believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own. Believing we really had the right to instruct 400,000 people to leave their homes within eight hours... and treat their homes as military targets...and drop 16,000 shells on their villages and small towns...and we have the right to kill without being guilty.... It was very important to us that the victims stay faceless, nameless people. People who are quite unreal."
-- Ari Shavet, Ha'aretz, “Qana: 102 Faceless Dead”, May 21, 1996 (On Israel's Deliberate Attack and Murder of Lebanese and Palestinian Civilians taking Refuge in a United Nations Camp in Qana, Lebanon)
#1 from Tom Perry on July 22, 2006 12:35 AM
"Lets finish it this time."
Sounds like something Adolf Hitler said a few years back
Hey ZZ, as I recall Jews weren't lobbing missles at Berlin from Warsaw.
Nice try at moral equivalence, though.
I especially liked the obligatory Hitler reference.
What is it with schools nowadays? Don't they teach the kids about Ghengis Khan, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, or any of the other brutal, massacaring dictators? I mean come on now! It's like the Germas get all the good rhetorical spots. Don't be so eurocentric -- the asians, for instance, had a lot of really great evil monsters.
And I seriously doubt that Hitler would have said something like that "a few years back" since the man has been dead for over 40 years now. Although I confess that is just my being overly picky.
Great post, Neo. A case fire does sound very luring. But as our ambassador to the UN asked, how do you get a terrorist organization to have a cease fire? I love great-sounding slogans, I just wish folks would think through the issues a bit as well.
What would you have Israel do Zed?
Hamas has declared "total war" on Israel and says they will destroy Israel.
Of course, I get it. Israel (and Jews) have no right to exist. Perhaps you want them to "go back to Germany" as Iran's president suggested.
Israel withdrew from Lebanon and got ... war. Same as Gaza.
To be less snarky, let's look at the moral mathematics in the Hizballah use of Lebanese civilians as de facto hostages. Of course, Israeli restraint is good for the family whose home has been hijacked as a Hizballah command center or missle depot.
But such restraint reinforces the practice, and makes it much more likely that the hostage tactic will be used against other unwilling families.
At what point do you decide restraint is causing more collective harm than collective good?
"It's like the Germas get all the good rhetorical spots. Don't be so eurocentric -- the asians, for instance, had a lot of really great evil monsters."
Only white people can be evil monsters, didn't you know?
I thought Zed Zed had decided to take his toys and go home, after he found out that "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is from the Old Testament.
Zed, I'm glad you're sticking around - I think you are salvageable. But you have to stop just posting soundbites from whatever stock of anti-Israel quotes you keep handy. They don't impress us because we know how reliable selective quoting is.
We shall see. Crushing Hezbollah is only the first act. And yes, it's going to get very messy before it gets better; quit parroting leftist drek ZZ, there's no such thing as a stand-up battle when the chief component of your enemy's battle armor is: women & children.
There can be no half measures in this battle; Hezbollah is Iran's 'new model army'. A Hezbollah victory will validate Iran's strategy; from that point on the formula will be repeated. In one country after another citizens will be used as meat shields while Iran's proxys assemble a 'state-within-a-state': over and over again.
Unfortunately, the task has been put in the hands of a leftist Israeli leadership. As to their nerve holding out, we shall see. Before this is over, the squeals of outrage from the press, the UN, the (selective) human-rights mob and the anti-war morons will reach record decibel levels.
Fortunately, Bush 'gets it'. For the first time, he gave State the back of his hand and declared his position.
Clinton made kissy-face with that corrupt, homicidal little toad Arafat; don't hold your breath waiting for Dubya to do like-wise with Hezbollah.
Wish the IDF luck. They're gonna need it.
Iran is trying to recruit the Germans of 1942 into their little project.
Unfortunately for them it is 2006.
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/07/iran-asks-germany-fix-zionists.html
What can you say to closed minds? Why bother to reason with ANSWER and Kos type leftists, or their Islamic fascist fighters? All that matters is the survival of the human race and they ARE NOT!
Anyone that thinks that MIGHT makes RIGHT or that military action will solve this problem is a retard - maybe someone that spent too much time on the football field rather than the history class.
Think of Germany after WWI. The War Reparations were high - Germany was an economic wreck. After WWII the Marshall Plan was used. Big difference after that one - no?
If you guys cheer on the destruction of an economy in order to eliminate a few terrorists - you will just create more terrorists.
But I guess you guys here get stiffies thinking how powerful your little country is.
It is funny from a sociological perspective unfortunately so m any innocent people pay a heavy price.
Re: #12 from Yehudit on July 22, 2006 05:54 AM - I thought Zed Zed had decided to take his toys and go home, after he found out that "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is from the Old Testament.
I told you that I am not an expert of the Bible. Funny though if the Jews also use the Torah (Old Testament) as their primary theological / Spiritual book then how come they can't seem to make a greater effort to follow that of primary guidelines from God.
What I find ironic is how the once oppressed people can so quickly become even greater oppressers.
"Think of Germany after WWI. The War Reparations were high - Germany was an economic wreck. After WWII the Marshall Plan was used. Big difference after that one - no?"
This historical example does not prove what you think it proves.
"What I find ironic is how the once oppressed people can so quickly become even greater oppressers."
Can we lose this troll now? His lack of seriousness is continually on display.
ZZ, in #16 you mention the difference in the treatment of a defeated Germany after WW1 and WW2. What you leave out is that in both wars Germany's armies and industry were completely destroyed and they lost land they had conquered before and during the war. The difference is that after WW1 Germany's European rivals imposed unfair regulations that effectively denied Germany the ability to rebuild itself as a functioning state, while after WW2 the USA rebuffed Europe's inclination to repeat the same treatment and implemented the Marshall Plan instead. Compare East and West Germany before reunification to see the beneficial effects of the Marshall Plan on West Germany. But do not fool yourself, both East and West Germany were destroyed at the end of WW2.
So we have three scenarios here.
1. Conquer the country, destroying its morale. No rebuilding. Germany after WW1. East Germany after WW2. Did not work.
2. Conquer the country, destroying its morale. Rebuild. West Germany after WW2. Worked brilliantly.
3. Take the country's land, leaving its tribal structure and will to fight undamaged. Rebuild without demoralizing rebels and nihilist first. Leave the enemy with reserves and command structure in neighboring countries. Iraq. Afghanistan. Too soon to tell how it worked, but it doesn't look good at the moment.
It looks to me like the correct formula is to carry on a war until the enemy forces, including all their allies in adjoining countries, are killed or surrender and disarm. Violent common criminals (murderers, rapists, looters, bombers) must be dealt with harshly, using summary justice. Surrenders must be total and they must be humiliating. There must be no opportunity for the defeated to escape shame. They must be truly ashamed of the failure of their entire way of life. Their way of life must have a chance to change to a better one. Then, and only then, rebuild.
Obviously, all this depends on the conquering nation(s) being in the right. This requires that great attention constantly be paid to principles. Nobody is or has been immune to drift from principles, and perfection is not to be expected though it is devotely to be prayed or hoped for.
Ah yes, the Israel-haters handbook. If you want to find someone who thinks the worst of Israel at every turn, ask a Muslim spokesman. If you want someone to say the same thing, and to shield yourself from accusations of antisemitism, go to Ha'aretz.
One wonders why they call themselves 'The Land'. There isn't much of it they want to keep. I guess 'ha'eretz ha'aravim lo rotzim' is too honest.
(Literally, 'the land the Arabs don't want'.)
#6, Zed Zed:
You didn't get it. You haven't read anything else I've written I guess.