> Israel has tanks, modern artillery, and close to latest generation air support.

> HA has six years worth of fortifications, and ample anti-tank and other light infantry weapons.

> Both sides seem to have highly motivated and tenacious fighters.

Let it grind for a while - there can be only one conclusion now that Israel has isolated HA on the southern Lebanese perimeter. The only way HA can win is to survive and retain their special position in Lebanese society. I am betting they won't. I am betting they will run or attempt to fade. Big If - Can Syrian and Iranian resupply can be interdicted to some reasonable degree.

Based on the kind of battlefield preparation Israel was investing in, it was clear from the very beginning that they were anticipating a conflict in the time scale of months.

And I feel pretty postive in saying that when you here someone saying that Israel is "experiencing heavier resistance than expected" that what you are hearing is spin. The IDF knew pretty much exactly what to expect facing Hizb'allah. They've fought before and they've both been watching each other and squaring off for this for years now.

Like I said, its going to be a bloody mess before its all over. I see no reason to retract any of my earlier positions.

I anticipate Israeli fatalities in the low to mid hundreds, and total Lebanese fatalities in the low to mid thousands. If this thing is over before 60 days are up, I'll sing the 'I'm so sorry I ever pretended to be a military analyst' song.

News on one Israeli blog (Boker tov, Boulder!) is that Olmert has decided against a major ground offensive in Lebanon, despite advice from the IDF General Staff. I fear that in Israel's hour of need, instead of Churchill, she is met with Chamberlain.

The hesitation in Israeli leadership circles is an outrage, imho.

I get curious when people use the words "heavy casualties" and some numbers.

So, in a battle, up a hill, for a "key town" the IDF takes 14 (or 20) casualties. Okay. What was the nature of the opposition? How long was the fight? What's the percentage of casulties?

If it was a well defended critical position, then perhaps 20 down isn't that high a price to pay.

I mean, unless we're talking 25%-50% of more KIA/WIA here, this isn't Pacific Islands stuff.

Two web-log posts to be read in tandem:

Michael Totten's analysis of the effects of this war on Lebanon, when the post-combat reckoning arrives (at Winds, immediately below this entry).

Wretchard's speculation about the IDF's strategy ('Pulp Fiction' at The Belmont Club, via tinyurl.com):

... the fighting at Maroun al-Ras and Bint Jbeil have been and continue to be an unmitigated defeat for the Hezbollah. The Hezbollah are doing the single most stupid thing imaginable for a guerilla organization. They are fighting to keep territory... [The] Hez are probably losing 10 for every Israeli lost... A bad bargain for Hezbollah to trade their terrorist elite for highly trained but nevertheless conventional infantry.

It also makes it tough when you can't destroy the enemy's ammo dumps (mosques) or observations posts (UNIFIL OPs).

They are going to need to take off the kid gloves if they want to win. It's not as though their PR can get worse.

well, I understand (to some extend) that most of you fellows would have sympathy for israel and israelis more than freedom or humanity. I just refer you to what I read in Yahoo a few minutes ago:

Zeinab Yasmin, who fled from the southern town of Nabatiyeh, said: "Israel has audacity to call Hizbollah terrorist, when it bombed cities, towns and villages. Hizbollah only attacked its soldiers to free our prisoners of war."

well, ok, they attacked israel first, its soldiers though, but lets assume that the punishment is to ruin the whole country (or send it back to 20 years ago as one general said)

what about this?

well, you can lie to everyone once, you can lie to someone everytime, but you certainly cannot lie to everyone everytime

Fred,
Why do you not condemn the Hezbollah for hiding behind civilians, itself a war crime?

We know the answer to that though, don't we?

14 KIAs in a couple of days fighting where the opponents are dug in amidst civilians. Pee all over yourself with the mantra of heavy casualities if you want to, I'm not. What do you expect in terrain like that? One solider gets minor scratch after 30 minutes of fighting and Israel achieves a glorious victory in a 2 day war?

As someone who comments here periodically, I want to be perfectly clear that fred above is not me. I find his comment ridiculous and his moral equivalence offensive. Maybe he should call himself left-fred, although I guess if he stays with the lower case f and I with the capital F we can be distinguished.

Naturally the Liberal fred makes no mention of the Party of God's / Lebanon's firing of more than a thousand rockets into Israel; and the declaration of "open war" by Nasrallah, nor the coupling with an armed invasion of Israel with rocket attacks.

What Lib fred is saying is that the lives, sovereignty, nation, and worth of Israel is nothing; because they are Jews and not "worthy" i.e. non-Western anti-Modern tribalists so romanticized by the Left. I mean, Nasrallah helped kill Marines (hundreds of them) in Beirut, Robert Stethem, Airmen in Khobar Towers, Col Higgins, CIA Station Chief Buckley, hundreds of Argentinian Jews etc.

Hezbollah (Party of God) is the sworn enemy of America and Americans, has killed the second most number of Americans after Al Qaeda. That Left fred takes their side is proof positive that Left fred (and by extension the Left) is the enemy of America.

What more can you say? Left fred can't even side against America's enemies.

As you said fighting is nasty business.
Do you have any other solution for the aggression of terror?

for some reason i can't post my blog address
the reason is that i belong to M S N

but i'm no spammer

All I can say is - people! - give war a chance.

>ultimate stakes on both sides.

What ultimate stakes exactly are up for the Israeli side?

A bunch of randomly shot missiles into northern Israel isn't exactly a threat to their existance. 1,500+ rockets have been fired into Israel wounding 418 and killing 18 people.

Let's assume that they fire off another 10,000. You are still looking at only 150 max, dead Israeli civillians.

So what do you mean by ultimate stakes?

Several thoughts:

Was the initial IAF action battlefield prep, or did the IAF sell the national leadership that it could close down Hezbollah with mainly air strikes? I suspect the later. Air Forces are getting pretty cocky in their assumptions that air supremacy and PGMs can win battles, campaigns and wars. They have cool video to show they can destroy targets. But, in the end, al they can really do is help set the stage for the grunts who go in and do the hard work.

Is Hezbollah a tougher nut to crack than the IDF expected? The indications are yes. Israeli troops have gotten used to fighting Hammas/Fatah etc., and the Arab armies were never that really good at tactics or even basic soldiering disciplines like aimed fire. Hezbollah is not only well equipped by Iran and Syria, and is not only well dug in, but has obviously had solid, disciplined training for its soldiers.

Does Hezbollah have sustainability? That’s going to be the big question, and the flip side of that coin is whether Israel has the political courage to use the combat sustainability it does have. If Hezbollah has a few battalions of good soldiers and they get ground up in a few weeks, they are in trouble (unless the Israeli’s loose their nerve). In that case Wretchard is right, and taking casualties to hold land is a stupid move. If Hezbollah has greater depth of trained personnel, and if they can get Israel to stop in order to avoid the pain of more casualties, they taking a punch in order to give one back is smart on all levels.

Conclusions? First, you always need plenty of well-trained, well-equipped aggressive ground troops. Don’t invest so much in whiz-bang gadgets that you can’t afford ground pounders. Second, always assume your enemy is competent, and that some of his troops are as good as yours. Finally, fight to win, and win by destroying your opponent. Not your opponent’s will, but his physical existence. Have that attitude at all levels, from the recruit to the CinC. And remember that, no mater how costly the victory is, defeat costs even more.

So what do you mean by ultimate stakes?

David,

Read a little history. Look at a map of the Middle East. Look up the word 'deterrence.' Do some hard thinking. If the answer doesn't come to you, repeat the process until it does.

"Was the initial IAF action battlefield prep, or did the IAF sell the national leadership that it could close down Hezbollah with mainly air strikes? I suspect the later."

On what basis? Do you at any point hear some Israeli leader say something to the effect of, "The IAF told us that they could close down Hizballah with mainly air power"? Did you ever hear any military analyst say, "The IAF has a chance of closing down Hizballah with air power alone?"

I suspect not, and I have good reason for my suspicion. I suspect that this is just your typical square rant about the relationship between air power and grunts that you're trying to hammer into a round hole. It's a good rant, and it's often applicable. But not I think here.

"Is Hezbollah a tougher nut to crack than the IDF expected? The indications are yes."

What indications would that be? Did you happen to hear anyone in the IDF speak disparangingly about the fighting skill of Hizballah prior to this current war or this current operation?

I suspect that you did not, and I've good reason to suspect that if you'd been listening you would have heard the opposite. Or did it occur to you that the current generation of officers in the IDF mostly cut thier teeth fighting Hizballah during the occupation of Lebanon which ended just a few short years ago? Or, did you notice that in pictures of the Gaza and Lebanon operations, the IDF brought not only different equipment, but a whole different class of equipment for its offensive?

I apologize for being short with you, but I'm sick and tired of the spin. Accuracy matters here. Your gut instincts don't cut it. If your information is first hand, I defer to your superior information, but my opinions are based on what I consider to be quality second and third hand information and not just pulled out of my butt. Your spin is essentially Israeli incompetancy. I've no reason to believe that as of yet, but the spin itself matters because politics and public opinion are integral to this war.

Donald.

I'm a libertarian who is pro-action in this case. Thought I would preface my remarks with that.

I'd like to diagree with your statements, which I found ludicrous. Just wanted to give a little friendly criticism.

"...There were some skeptics, but sadly, events have proved me correct.." in regard to "...it will resemble Pacific island fighting in the Second World War more than the hard, deep strikes of large formations in the Gulf War or Iraq War..."

Tarawa -- 1115 dead, 2292 wounded in 76 hours
Iwo Jima -- 6821 dead, 19217 wounded in 30 days
Saipan -- 3100 dead, 13100 wounded. Hundred of Japanese families jumped to death rather than surrender, 3 weeks

I like hyperbole as much as the next guy, and I'm not crying any tears over Hizbollah, but nothing in the last 40 years is even close to the Pacific Island campaign. The term "heavy losses" is ludicrous in this context. It might be "more like the Pacific Island campaign" but only like a twinkie is more like a 7-layer cake than a dog bone. Israel fields something close to a million soldiers. Any loss is terrible, but Hizbollah is nothing to write home about in the grand scheme of things.

I knew some of the guys in Beirut back in the 80s. As far as I'm concerned, even after Israel is finished with them we still have payback coming. I mean, I'm sure they're nice guys and all, and certainly they are misunderstood, but just the same, perhaps we have too many tribal bloodthirsty jihadists around in order to have a safe world, you know?

Celebrim:

First, don’t apologize for ‘being short’ with someone you think is making foolish assumptions. Honest constructive criticism does not require appologies.

I don’t have access to first-hand information, and I am not in the military or intelligence field. More a student of history and all that stuff. Take what I have to say with as much salt as you desire.

My reading of the IAF oversell is in part from watching USAF oversell, in part from general reading (and media watching) of the current campaign, and finally from having a stronger affinity for the soldiers than the pilots. No specific comments to link to.

Underestimating Hezbollah is more specific. I’ve seen a number of contemporary interviews with Israeli soldiers coming off the front line who have talked about how much more competent and well armed Hezbollah is than expected. Front-line troops don’t have the best big-picture view and are still living in the world of combat stress, but they are one data point. A second point came from (I think) a comment on Austin Bay’s blog today, where the writer was stating that our entire estimation of the Iranian military needs to be redone. Hezbollah is one of Iran’s premier military units, and given the circumstances they are fighting in, they are very competent. The IDF has not had a competent military opponent in a long time, and even as professional an organization as the IDF can get complacent.

You talk about many in the IDF cutting their teeth on Hezbollah, but that was a very different sort of war, and it is one from which Hezbollah and its puppet-masters have also had a chance to learn. I have not heard IDF members discuss Hezbollah fighting skills prior to this war, in either disparaging or glowing terms. What I have done is watch the IDF move forward and get punched hard in the nose, and from all the information I’ve aggregated, one of the reasons they got punched is that their guard was not up. They are professional enough to not let that happen twice. I hope their government is brave enough to realize that one way to keep from getting punched in the nose once a day is to take 3 or 4 nose punches now while you are breaking the other guy’s neck.

I am not ‘spinning’ because I am a defeatist, either in this campaign or in the Long War. We won WWII so decisively that the Germans are still pacifists, and I’d like a similar state of abject surrender from the Islamo-fascists. I offer criticism because I WANT US TO WIN. One part of winning is taking the enemy seriously, and I think our friends in Israel, especially in the IAF, may not have done that with Hezbollah.

Jeepers,folks, don't be so one-dimensional. I compare the Israeli land campaign to the island fighting in the Pacific and all you can do is trot out casualty lists, as if I was unaware of them.

I had thought it obvious from the context of my original post that I was referring to the nature of the fighting, not its cost in blood. Since it apparently was not so obvious I said so explicitly in a comment to that post.

I never said Israel would suffer "heavy losses." did say Israel would be bloodied. They have. I did say that Hezbollah would fight rather than cut and run. That's what they've done. I did say that the land campaign would be infantry-based war. It has been.

The early reports have vindicated my analogy. For example, Bill Roggio reports on the nature of the fighting, citing reports that buttress my case.

Stop the linear thinking, please.

What I have done is watch the IDF move forward and get punched hard in the nose, and from all the information I’ve aggregated, one of the reasons they got punched is that their guard was not up. They are professional enough to not let that happen twice.

Even the most professional, best equipped, most alert force will take casualties.

To extend your metaphor, would you expect a professional boxer to get through an entire fight without ever taking a hit?

Look at the bio of Amir Peretz in Wikipedia

He's right up there with Dean and Michael Moore. Not the sort of person you want as Defense Minister.

note the end of his bio
==
Views and beliefs

Peretz is strongly committed to social issues and to the strengthening of the welfare state. He has declared that "within two years of taking office I will have eradicated child poverty in Israel". Notwithstanding, he has also reiterated his commitment to a market economy. For his movement in latter years towards "third way" positions, as well as for his earthy and warm personality, Peretz has been compared to Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

In matters concerning relations with the Palestinians and the Arab world, Peretz holds dovish positions. He was an early member of the Peace Now movement. He was also, in the 1980s, a member of a group of eight Labour party Knesset members, dubbed "the Eight" and led by Yossi Beilin, who tried to set a liberal agenda for the party in matters concerning the peace process with the Palestinians. Peretz connects between the peace process and internal Israeli social issues. He believes that the unresolved conflict with the Palestinians has also been a hindrance to the solution of some of Israel's most pressing social ills, such as rising inequality. He sees the resources allotted to the settlements in the West Bank as having diverted funds that could have helped to solve these problems. He has described the conflict as having mutated Israeli politics, so that the traditional left-right distinctions do not hold: Instead of supporting a social-democratic left which would advance their cause, the lower classes, mostly of Middle Eastern Jewish origins, were diverted to the right by the fanning of nationalist tendencies. Concurrently the left in Israel was usurped by the well-to-do, so that the Labour party had ironically become elitist. That is why Peretz sees an intrinsic connection between a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the resolving of Israel's internal social tensions (see Interview in Ha'aretz).
---
a real confidence builder.... not.

"Stop the linear thinking, please."

Precisely.

-This isnt a battle for ground by either side. The Israelis might be technically able to absorb thousands of casualties and remain a powerful fighting force, but politically that is impossible and politically is the only criteria that matters in this conlict. That the casualties are historically (heck, even contemporarilly by African standards) very low on both sides is moot.

-Hezbollah did not necessarilly make a suicidal move by choosing to stand up and fight. For a guerilla force in a conventional war that would be a mistake. Hezbollah is not a guerilla organization. They are a well trained and well supplied army dug into expertly fortified and trapped position and are as ruthless as they come. They dont need to beat the Israelis back to win. All they need to do is survive long enough for the Israelis to allow world opinion to call the dogs off. Its a big risk, but the reward for Hezbollah would be unimagineable. If they can hold out mostly intact and hold land until a peace is forced, they will become easily the most imporatant Arab entity in the Middle East. Money, recruits, and supplies will roll in and their ability to threaten Israel still further goes through the roof. It is a desperate gamble but holds out the chance for a decisive political victory. Think of Tet: the military results were simply inconsequential, its the answer to the wrong question. Just or not, thats the way it is.

-Everyone is asking what Israels grand stategy is. I think all the data points to the conclusion that there simply isnt one. Olmert has bumbled into a grand ambush and simply isnt reacting fast enough or decively enough to take advantage. I think this ends one of two ways: Israel sets and achives some very limited goals near the border, agrees to peace, and essentially pulls back with their tails between their legs and a reinvigorated Hezbollah firing a few more rockets in celebration. Or Olmert walks the plank and a hardliner decides to take the gloves off and sends divisions into Lebannon instead of a brigade at a time. I dont like either solution at this point but at least the latter isnt a total disaster.

Check "Thanks Iran for Nothing" on freesyria wordpress
PEACE To Lebanon

waiting for your comments guys...

I'm just wondering about Ralph Peters' recent comments, and whether one option Israel might pursue is further warnings for civilians to clear out, followed by annihilation of anyone remaining in towns like Bint Jbail. If Geneva conventions require the wearing of uniforms to separate soldiers from civilians and the Hellbuzzards won't play by the rules, it would seem foolish to waste own-force lives in house-to-house searches. I seem to remember on Iwo Jima, when the Japanese wouldn't come out of caves to surrender, American bulldozers simply buried all the openings.

Mark B.,

Olmert's government might be implementing one or more of a considerable variety of strategies. As an example, they might be temporarily reducing Hezbollah's ability to harm Israel during the period when the U.S. govt. has told them the U.S. will attack Iran. I don't place much weight on this possibility, but it is at least plausible and reasonable.

"That the casualties are historically (heck, even contemporarilly by African standards) very low on both sides is moot. "

It's only moot if you feel that way. I find it odd that people can make the argument of how hard it is on one hand, and then point out how small it is in the scheme of things historically, because of the political nature of the conflict.

Hello? Are you thinking through this?

By putting the fighting in historical context, I am making the political case that the fighting is trivial, which is generally supportive of Israel. Those of you blowing the conflict up into a larger magnitude, besides being self-serving for the purposes of blogging, are hurting the Israelis. Making any sort of general comparison of Hizbollah to tens of thousands of Japanese troops dug in with heavy weaponry on some Pacific Island is crazy. And it is harmful. This isn't fooz ball, people are dying. It's also not Monday night football. It is a specific type of warfare. Names are important. Some general assertion that ground troops are important is old, done to death, and trivial. Ground troops are always important. Illuminate the subject or get out of the way.

They're kicking over some ant hills. Get a grip. Paciific Island fighting? Grand strategic plan? Too fricking funny, guys. If you want a big ground war with winners and losers, you are playing into Hizbollah's strategy. This is just another version of active defense.

Historical context is always important. Points are always moot if you are blind to their meaning.

"It's only moot if you feel that way."

No, what I feel is truly immaterial. What the combatants and the people that support them collectively believe is the only thing that matters. Warfare is a test of will. Unfortunately simply reminded one side of the other of that fact doesnt change matters. I can shout on a bullhorn "Hey Israel, those rockets falling on your cities and soldiers dying are just Hezbollahs way of making you crack! Dont fall for it!" and in Lebanon "Hey Lebanese, kick out Hezbollah, they are doomed militarilly!" all day and all night but it changes nothing. Peoples beliefs are complex things. Decisiveness is what changes opinions quickly. Historical parallels are always useful, but they have to be the correct ones and they have to be taken in context. Like I said, you can tell the Israeli people all day that their current casualties are a pittance compared to the past, but they arent going to care and it changes nothing politically. Politically is all that matters.

"I find it odd that people can make the argument of how hard it is on one hand, and then point out how small it is in the scheme of things historically, because of the political nature of the conflict."

Because, again, it is perception that matters in a political war. If this was truly total war it would matter less, because Israel would destroy village after village until Hezbollah sued for peace or every one of them and their supporters and those they hide amongst are dead. Historically that was the way things used to work. Today the game is different. The game is played by different rules so obviously the outcomes are going to be drastically different.

"Hello? Are you thinking through this?"

I've been thinking this threw most of my life, thank you. I've been thinking this particular situation through rather constantly for the last 3 weeks. I still dont see a good end game for Israel via their current path.

"Illuminate the subject or get out of the way.

They're kicking over some ant hills."

Now there is some illumination. What exactly are they accomplishing in the long run by kicking over those anthills? The point in the kicking over anthills analogy is that its a pretty pointless act. You dont kill many ants and they just rebuild their tunnels. Hardly a ringing endoresement.

In 2 years, in your estimation what does the region look like at this rate?

Mark -- for somebody thinking about this all your life, do you understand the term "active defense"?

War is a test of wills. Yes. So think through that for a moment.

Those blowing up border raids into win-or-lose strategic scenarios play into the hands of those who want to give up. If you insist on winners and losers, and talk in terms of "who is winning" then you play into the hands of Hizbollah, who only have to wave a fist in the air from the Iranian embassy to call it a victory.

We certainly don't run newspaper stories like "another vice cop died in a drug raid today, when will the war on drugs end?" -- to ask such a question is to assume that there is some finite, definitive conflict. It's not like that. Sorry. Keep thinking.

"...In 2 years, in your estimation what does the region look like at this rate?..."

Sorry. Forgot to reply to that.

Bush is fighting the real war right now. Israel and Hizbollah are a side show put on by the Iranians. Bush should let Iran cook in their own pot for a while.

In the end, perhaps Bush gets a tough U.N. resolution against Iran. That's a big win. Israel has always been surrounded by people who want to destroy her. It's like a cottage industry over there. That will not change.

Keep your eye on Iran. That's where the action is really taking place. Can Bush maneuver the U.N. into a chapter seven resolution? Can a multi-national force be constructed for purposes of sanctions? Will the Iranians turn up the heat some more by perhaps sending even bigger missiles to Hizbollah? If so, do we shake Syria's cage a bit harder?

Daniel, again, everything your saying is logical in a vacuum, but the world doesnt work that way. Israel will not politically accept a status quo that includes occasional rocket strikes into Haifa. What we are looking at is an endless low intensity battle in Southern Lebanon. You are correct, this is not a threat to Israels existance. And you are correct, that isnt the issue. But that doesnt mean it wont have far reaching and potentionally dire consequences for Israel and our own interests. Hezollah is liable to end up stronger than ever out of this in the long run. Islamo-fascism will have the wind back in her sails. Money and recruits will poor in, and what isnt getting launched into Northern Israel will be transfered to Iraq. And maybe other places we havent even thought about yet. This is not a minor border squirmish even if the numbers make it seem so. The enemy will take the initiative.

You are mistaken that the current circumstances have Iran degrading- they are growing stronger every day. Your assumption that 'the world' will eventually condemn Iran is plausible but hardly a given. But what you are really missing is that Iran may simply not care. They have other plans in mind, like becoming so regionally powerful that sanctions are both irrelevant and unsustainable. The status quo is not to the Wests benefit.

And to address your question about the active defense strategy, i dont see how that can work on enemy soil with an unfriendly population and an enemy adept at guerilla tactics. It plays entirely to the Hezbollahs strengths. So Israel occasional sends some troops to roost out a given stronhold, they kill a few guys, destroy some arms and go home. How does this deter much less destroy a Hezbollah that employs the exact strategy of letting them do it and fading back until they leave? At the end of the day Hezbollah is still where they started, which as I said is unnacceptable with their growing arsenal.

"...It plays entirely to the Hezbollahs strengths..."

What an odd statement. Let's look at Hizbollah's strengths:

- they are part of the population, an armed political party.
- they are supported by Iran and Syria
- they provide services to the local people

In the past few years, Syria is out of Lebanaon, they had an election, and the UN passed a resolution saying Hizbollah had to disarm. In addition, Iran is getting the heat for their craziness and the world is coming around to understand the root causes of violence over there.

In the past couple of weeks, Israel has taken out the infrastructure used to transport weapons into southern Lebanon, severely taxed the civic services ability of Hizbollah, and refused to invade and re-occupy Lebanon. So they have no ability to provide services, their supply lines are being hit, and their ideology has only gotten their fellow countrymen pain and suffering. Looks like a direct hit to me.

Who's defending the status quo? It's working out exactly as it should over there. Hizbollah will be busy redbuilding their anthills, Iranian and Syrian support is even more obvious to the world, and the US and its allies are pushing for a comprehensive, long-term solution.

At some point, Iran is going to have to come around to disarming, whether they care about what the world thinks or not. Every little step we take strategically boxes in the Russians and Chinese for the day when things get serious. Israel is keeping Hizbollah jumping around. That's good.

Daniel, it seems to me what you are saying is that Israels strategy is to wait for the UN and the world to put Iran in a cage, thereby starving Hezbollah. If that were plausible I would back it. But its not going to happen, and Israel is not and would not base its strategy on the idea that China and Russia were going to put the best interests of the world in front of their own and the the Euros are growing to grow a spine. At best some minor sanctions would be placed and promptly ignored, just like they always are. Iran is not scared of the UN and may not even be scared of sanctions in general. If they are willing to suck up whatever the world dishes out (which historically is very very little) until they retain a nuclear arsenal and regional leadership, what then?

Two years of Hezbollah rebuilding their anthills may seem like a victory, but when those two years expire I dont see how we arent in worse shape than ever. Assuming the UN will have cut off the Syrian/Iranian spigot by then just seems like wishful thinking.

Lebanon may have had elections but they arent blaming Hezbollah for this and Hezbollah will walk away with a greater reputation with all Arabs (and many other Lebanese) just by surviving. That is not a recipe for the Lebanese to suddenly take a hard line with them.

Mark I think you are overstating my thesis. The UN/Iran situation I used is just an example of how the current situation plays into our hands.

Ever wonder why Israel is so intent on blowing up empty buildings? Buildings they know, for a fact, that nobody occupies any more? Attacking office buildings at night instead of during the day when they are occupied?

This is a conversation you see going on. Sometimes you talk with kind words, sometimes you get out a two-by-four and knock some heads around. Israel is saying "Do you like your offices, your cars, your nice houses? You don't have to go away, but do you want to live comfortably or hide in a cave?" Chanting "death to Israel!" is more fun when you are well-fed and in your Reebox. For the average Joe, this probably won't work. But Israel isn't talking to the average Joe, they are talking to the leadership.

When those two years expire? Well how about taking a week or so at a time, shall we? Perhaps we get Hizbollah to disarm, or at least disarm south of the river. Perhaps Lebanon decides to declare war on Israel. If we wake up in two years with a northern DMZ for Israel and Hizbollah still with this low-level conflict, well, we have made some progress -- if nothing else, we can force Hizbollah to use larger rockets from farther away. Larger rockets are easier to track and kill. Larger rockets are harder to hide in a supply line.

The most ironic part about this is the role of the chattering class, which seems to want a victor and loser. They all know this will end with Hizbollah claiming victory. It's like a greek drama where all the players know it ends sadly but putter on anyway. If you frame the conflict in 1000-year terms, this is just Israel consolidating its security in the region. Over the last decade or so the trajectory looks good. That's not saying things won't get worse, maybe a lot worse. There are a lot more cards to play in the game. But this isn't pacific island fighting. It's not fighting in that sense of the word at all.

You make a valid point. Whatever happens right now, its not going to end the world or bring Israel to her knees, and it shouldnt be framed as such.

On the other hand I am a great deal more pessimistic and think that the future will lead to a stronger and more virulent Hezbollah rather than see them weaken. Now as I said, this isnt exactly the new Nazi war machine, but the implications arent so easy to shrug off either. If Hezbollah had WMDs right now, would they use them? Will they in 5 years when they do have them? Are they deterable? I think that my position rests on the assumption that in the next 5-10 years Israel is going to grow progressively into graver danger of a WMD attack or the threat of one such that its terrorist enemies can operate more and more horrific and large scale operations. There is a chance now to run the table and shake up some of these eventualities. That window may be closing.

The danger I forsee is 5 years from now a nuclear armed Iran championing a Lebanon dominated by a cash and recruit rich Hezbollah that aquires any weapon you can think of, and use them to inflict real damage on Israel proper. The greater danger is the spread of such a super-Hezbollah as a global terrorist threat. A competant and smart Al Qaeda. I think we had a chance to erode that scenario peacefully before, and I think Israel could have smashed it with a hammer had they done so decisively, but instead the last few weeks havent slowed the process, they have sped it up. Im not talking about the BS 'cycle of violence', im talking about the GWOT and the momentum that goes with any war. Essentially, I hate the idea of handing the initiative to the enemy and waiting to see what happens next.

There are some constraints that we can identify in the current conflict. No matter what happens, Hizbollah will be around when it is over. And they will claim victory. The Arab street will hate and blame Israel.

In the Pacific Island campaign, we were prepared for the death of every Japanese, civilian or military. We were going to fight until there was a clear, decisive military victory or all of the other guys were dead or locked up.

That's the way people in the west are socialized towards warfare -- all or nothing. In Israel's current adventure, none of that is going to happen, no matter how much we wish it to. Due to those constraints we mentioned earlier, at the end of the day Israel will still have crazy nuts in their neighborhood. So you fight for political positioning. "Taking the initiative" might mean having the US leaning more on Syria, or declaring combatant Lebanese cities fair targets for razing.

Syria is a goner. They're like the walking dead. Not only are they kicked out of Lebanon, they're between the US and Israeli armies. And they're burning up political capital in the region with this latest provocationl. Maybe they go another 20 years, but I doubt it. So in this episode we work on positioning allies for the day Syria goes belly-up. Next year we push a little more. This year maybe we get Hizbollah out of southern Lebanon. Next year we pressure the rocket supply lines. That's the initiative -- moving in a lot of different directions at the same time towards our goal.

This concept is very difficult, I know. Some part of us would like to see the Israelis just occupy Lebanon and kick down every door in the country. We'd like to talk about the conflict in purely military terms -- who has the intitiatve, what weapon systems are effective, what tactics are being used. Maybe if Hizbollah keeps overplaying its hand we'll see more direct action. If, for example, you see Hezbollah load up one of those long-range missiles with chemical weapons, all bets are off the table. But I don't see that happening -- they're not that stupid. From their standpoint, better to live and harrass the Jews for another 50 years than have them come kill all of you.

Read my comments here:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008862.php

and here:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008863.php

Israel and America are taking Iran and Syria to the cleaners this summer.

For pros at this game I'm surprised at how clouded the vision of all the previous commenters is.

Start with the premise: To defeat the hizzies you have to take down Iran and Syria.

How do you do that? Pin the hizzies. Take the Bekaa flank. Syria gets involved out of popular desire. Iran comes in to support Syria. America takes out Iran.

That wasn't so hard to think of was it? Yet the "pros" here are all wringing their hands. Feh.

The mistake you all make is static analysis. Doesn't work in warfare. Doesn't work in economics.

It is the hizzies, Syria, Iran who have no plan.

Deu 31:6 Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he [it is] that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.