Based on the general impression I was given of Olmert and Perez, I was surprised they have prosecuted this war with such resolve. But, ironically, Bush is encouraging the kind of war that Sharon would have fought, and Olmert is offering the kind of war that Clinton would have approved of.
Robert Avrech is seething about the decision to pull back on a ground campaign.Yoni told Hugh Hewitt that there was a Security Cabinet Meeting in Israel. During that meeting, a ground invasion was discussed and there was some apprehension about such an invasion. IDF Chief of Staff Dan Chalutz said something about like, "We don't need to kill all of Hizbullah, that they can change." . . . .Robert follows with a grim assessment of Israel's leadership which reinforces the uneasy feelings I had after Olmert assumed power.Yoni, in disgust remarked that he wants a warrior not a social worker for the campaign.
Out of Step Jew is equally grim on the shift in Arab opinion, which he attributes to Olmert and Chalutz' hesitation:
. . . . victory in war, especially against a guerilla army is as much determined by perception as by the battle field results. One army's victory is not necessarily another's defeat. And sometimes victory is humiliation. Any sense of hesitation is taken as weakness and the Israeli delay in land operations since bloody Wednesday (and another Golani attack has been pushed off at least three days according to Golani troops) has been taken as a defeat in spite of the Chief of Staff's claim to have seriously weakened Hezbollah leadership and military capacity.Rev. Sensing says:General Halutz, in his news conference yesterday, changed the "We will Win" boast of the Prime Minister in front of the Knesset last week to, essentially, "we will not lose". Whereas the original promise was to stop the rocket attacks on the north and to destroy the military capacity of Hezbollah, now the mission is to weaken their military capacity and to minimize rocket attacks.
. . . . When Israel was handing it to the Hezbollah, the Arab world was against them. When they saw that Israel was not in this to win – that it would not send the proper number of troops into battle and not make the economic sacrifices that a wider reserve call up would entail – the tide turned. . . .
The question still dangling before us is whether the decidedly non-martial Olmert government will commit all the military resources required to destroy Hezbollah quickly, on the ground, for Hezbollah will not be defeated from the air. If the callup of 30,000 reservists is a prelude to such commitment, then there is hope yet. But if we see the reserve troops or units being used to relieve, rather than reinforce the regulars, then we’ll know that Olmert and company have effectively surrendered.It doesn't look good.
Mr. Bush is in no position to offer advice on war fighting. In fact, Mr. Olmert is fighting the kind of war Don Rumsfeld fought: too few, too little, too poorly conceived. You want to slam Olmert, don't drag Clinton into it.
To which war did Clinton commit enough troops?
As for Rumsfeld, are you factoring in the division which was supposed to come through Turkey and the immediate aftermath of the war, or are you talking about the subsequent reconstruction? I'll give you Rumsfeld, but I'm saying something different.
Bush and Sharon had rapport because they had clear strategies and were decisive and not concerned with external approval. Clinton and Olmert both have the need to please and hate making up their minds. Two different kinds of people.
See what I mean?
Stratfor feels that the current turmoil in the Israeli government is probably calculated disinformation, and Wretchard, on the Belmont Club, provides a speculation as to the reason:
How do you trick Hez into fighting for territory? You sow the impression that the Israeli military is floundering and intends to pull back soon, tantalizing them with the fruit of a "virtual victory". Meanwhile the mere fact that an expanded ground war looks unlikely to everyone, actually makes it more likely.
Stratfor also notes that the language of the legislation includes some strange phrases that might actually be utilized to expand the war as a result of "currently unassessed circumstances". (Paraphrase.)
Well... Rumsfeld deliberately kept the 4th ID floating off of Turkey long after the Pentagon knew they werent going to get access. They could have been transferred to the Persian Gulf sooner. There was probably some value in keeping it there as a diversion, but Saddam was so blind it seems unlikely the whole division needed to sit idle to give the appearance.
The real problem was that Rummy 'off-ramped' 2 more divisions bound for Iraq when the war ended more quickly than anticipated even though rumblings were coming from CENTCOM that there werent enough boots to control the country. If you read Cobra 2 the author does a conclusive job of showing Rumsfelds priority of proving his small force doctrine ran afoul again and again with the generals on the ground. He was right about the invasion, he was dead wrong about the occupation and reconstruction. That is forgiveable (its war), but his refusal to size up the situation and change course as it became apparent the assumption that the Iraq army could be turned around and employed was dead wrong was unforgiveable. Making mistakes is okay. Not correcting them is not okay. Whats really eggregious is looking facts in the face, acknowledging them, having no response to them, and then ignoring what is inconvenient to what you want to believe. Thats what happened in the Iraq reconstruction, and for the life of me it looks like what Olmerts government is doing.
I have my own speculation on what is going on here:
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/07/how-israel-could-attack-syria.html
My bottom line? Since Syria is the supply depot for Hizbollah it will be taken out. Logic dictates that.
Syria must cease to be useful to Iran by 22 Aug.
#4 Demosophist,
My piece is in total agreement with yours. I wrote it before I saw yours.
I add that the real target is Syria.
First requirement is to draw as many hizzie reinforcements as possible off the flanks of the attack axis.
I have read reports that despite casualties the Israeli fighter just love being in the fight with the hizzies.
Yehudit:
To which war did Clinton commit enough troops? None. Exactly the same number of wars to which Mr. Bush committed enough troops.
But on the larger point, Olmert seems to have now lost this war. I believe the Bush-Blair call for cease fire today was cleared with Olmert. I think Olmert's had enough and wants to be pulled out of this bar fight. I think it's a bad mistake. I think this is looking like a clear Hezbollah win, their second over Israel.
Add it up and a year from now it's going to look like Islamic forces (of various stripes) will have racked up wins against the US and Israel. Not exactly the hoped for outcome.
Carter caved to Iran, Reagan caved to Hezbollah and toadied Iran, Israel lost to Hezbollah in Lebanon, we beat Iraq in '91, then Israel lost to Hezbollah a second time, and we are losing to a stew of forces in Iraq. Message? Secular Arabs may lose to the west, but Islamists, whether Shia or Sunni, win. Great message. Think that will encourage the Taliban just a bit? How about Muqtada al-Sadr?
I do disagree with one point of wretchard's.
The hizzie local center of gravity is Syria. The Global center is Iran.
The hope is (mine any way) that an attack on Syria will pull in Iran.
Wretchard's thinking is tactical and limited strategic. Mine is tactical, strategic, grand strategic.
michael reynolds:
What is your definition of victory then? I agree Iraq is messy, but when you go to war, nothing is ever 100% perfect.
John M.
John:
Messy? They're arguably in the middle of a religious civil war. That's not messy, that's disaster.
My standard of success is the one the administration put forward when we went in: a unified, democratic, rights-respecting, peaceful Iraq.
We need to stop rationalizing failure by defining victory downward. We should not try to salvage our early support (and I speak for myself) of this war by pretending that things are turning out the way we hoped or expected.
Had Mr. Bush gone to Congress or the people and said he was invading Iraq in the hopes that we would see a violent, economically stagnant Iraq where women are forced back into the burqa, the police are nothing but a sectarian militia, ethnic cleansing is carried out in the capital city, and Iran is laughing up its sleeve, and the president cannot visit the country unless he sneaks in the back door unannounced and rushes out without so much as breaking out his favorite pillow, I don't think he could sold this war.
This isn't all part of some master plan. It isn't what we expected. It's not what we were told to expect. It is a fiasco. It is a quagmire. It may be a far bigger foreign policy disaster than Vietnam ever thought of being.
Wow Michael. Tell us what you really think.
So let me follow your reasoning: once Iraqis set up a constitution and vote for a government, they must make decisions we approve of or the whole thing is a loss?
That's a fairly odd standard. I mean, I would imagine the goal would be a mideast where several democracies actively oppose our policies, disagree with us, oppress various secular groups -- all of the lovely things the rest of the world has been doing for hundreds of years.
Are we freeing the Iraqis or adopting them?
M.:
Could be (concerning Iran and Syria). But if this is a proxy war and there are reasons to keep it a proxy war it'll probably stay that way. At least that refers to Iran, though possibly not Syria. It looks like everyone is "going south" on the expanded war thesis, including Stratfor (who seems to now think that the costs are simply unbearable for Israel). But my bottom line is that even if they didn't start with this expanded war idea the alternative of handing Hez a "virtual victory" has to be something they can't live with. It throws a huge monkey wrench into the whole plan to precipitate a reformed Middle East. Hezbollah's resources and clout would expand by an order of magnitude, if not more. They'd almost make the "method of Muhammed" a certainty.
Given that option I can't see how Israel can afford to back out, even if they can't afford to stay in.
A nation of Michael Reynolds' would have declared WWII lost on the beaches of Guadalcanal.
#13,
Excellent. If all the major people are in agreement my pipsqueak comments will go unnoticed. The surprise will be all the greater.
As you point out they can't hand the hezziez a virtual victory.
Logic then dictates that they are moving on to Syria.
It wonders me that so many can't use logic on these things.
BTW did you catch my predictions about the Sharon plan?
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/06/sharon-plan.html
Over a year ago on my blog and two years ago on LGF comments I predicted what a Gaza pull out would lead to. Every one was predicting a disaster for Israel. I predicted it would free Israel's hands to do what it needed to do. Was I right? Heh.
Even the great Donald Sensing says the hizzies are winning. If I am right when this is over, I would like the position of Strategic advisor to WoC.
All of the military art is deception. I'm hoping the Syrians will be as decieved as most folks here.
In any case it is too late. Even if they figure out what has been done to them at this point they are out of position. No way they can move into position without giving Israel casus belli to attack them. However, the attack will leave Israel on the defensive. The strongest position.
Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh.
I might add that the Reverend Sensing may be an arty expert. He is no tactician or strategist.
If you really want to figure out what is going on may I suggest reading all the Dorsai Novels by Gordon R. Dickson. Start with "The Tactics of Mistake". BTW these novels are suggested reading for all the military services. Especially the ground services.
Remember for the real artists of the military art nothing is as it seems.
The soul of the Israelis is artistry.
The thing that is fooling most people is that Olmert, Peretz, and the rest look and sound like nebbishes. And they are mostly labor. Not known for the warrior spirit. All the better. And all the reporting of the cabinet, saying there is dissention and they are holding the troops back. Disinformation.
It seems that things looked that way to the hizzies, Syria, and Iran too. Excellent!
I hope they can hold straight faces for the requisite time. Here in my pajamas I'm LMAO.
Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har.
Get out the old vegematic. Slice and dice time.
#13 Demosophist,
Israel has no need to back out. It is preparing the battlefield to crush Syria and Iran. Be patient it could be a few more weeks yet (probably three).
What matters is perception. Smoke and mirrors and elaborated plans seldom work. Tet offensive was a disaster for Vietcong but they won in the perception war and consequential political. If Hiz-b-allah is the perceived winner many more resources and men they'll get. Their already positive reputation in Arab world will get another boost following the Lebanon Israel retirement. What that means? More War.
The Rev. Sensing is wrong.
In fact I believe that if the new troops are used for relief then that is exactly what is required for victory. Which I say over at my blog. With a few embelishments.
What you want to do is convince the other side of the ineptness of your generalship. The civilians are giving the military bad advice. Who put those galoots in charge. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
That is also part of preping the battlefield.
Such artistry hasn't been seen since WW2.
These folks will go down as some of the greatest warriors in this century or any other.
The only thing that could hurt this plan is lack of time.
Well the UN is out. NATO has no troops. The Americans and Brits are over committed. etc. etc. etc.
I am so loving this.
Oh, did I mentiion that Condi is going over to the ME to try to get the hizzies to stop fighting. She sure looks good on camera, doesn't she? A most ineffective Sec'ty of State. Har.
From what I can see in her pictures she looks much more relaxed since Bush pulled her back after the first week of the war. I think some one let her in on the secret.
#17 from lucklucky,
The only perception that will matter is the perception when the war is over. The fat lady has not sung.
All the better if the hizzies are riding high now.
BTW I recently read that all over Israel, on almost every building there are banners quoting Isaiah saying have courage and be of stout heart. The Rev. Sensing can probably quote me chapter and verse on that.
#17,
The plan is not elaborate. It is simple.
Keep the hizzies on the border. Attack the Bekkaa. Be prepared for a Syrian and Iranian counter attack.
You should read "Bodyguard of Lies" by Brown on the WW2 deception plans. The deception plan is smoke and mirrors. You can't properly fight wars without deception. Read your Sun Tzu again.
The problem for the hizzies is that their deception is tactical.
The Israeli deception is grand strategic.
It is all about making the other side give the wrong meaning to Israels moves.
Bush is telling what is going on:
Bush said Thursday that Iran is connected to Hizbullah, and now was the "time for the world to confront this danger."
Fortunately he is so stupid no one will believe him.
Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har. Har.
"The only perception that will matter is the perception when the war is over. The fat lady has not sung."
I agree that fat lady didnt sung. I just dont have any signs (except the decison of Israel to strike strongly after kidnapping) that will happen. And everytime Hiz sends a new rocket or escalates is caching in.
#22 lucklucky,
The Israeli plan is so good that if I told what it was today (and I have) there is no way Syria, Iran, and the hizzies can escape defeat.
Every pundit I have seen so far, blog, MSM, professional, amateur says israel has lost. I am alone. My value will be all the greater. Yipeeeeeee.
I'm going to tell you today that the war has already been decided. Israel and America have won big. Bush and Olmert have cleared the table. All that is remaining is to turn the final cards and collect the winnings.
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.
#12
Yeah, they have to make decisions that are acceptable to the civiliized world. I mean, are you kidding me? You think we went to war on the theory that they could vote for say, a Taliban state, and we'd say., "well, okay, then, if that's what you want?" That's insane.
We go to war to promote and protect our own ineterests so if a theoretical Iraqi democracy decides it wants to send terrorists to New York they are not free to do so.
Why is this concept such a mystery to people? We've done this before. This is not our first occupation. We didn't just give the Japanese democracy, we wrote their constitution and put a gun to their heads and said, "behave."
We get a Reuters story a year from now saying that the freely elected government of Iraq has freely decided to kill all Jews, train terrorists and shackle women and you'll be thinking, "Ah, freedom!"
#14:
You know, I'm getting tired of that kind of chest-puffing nonsense.
My position is not, and has not been, from the start of this mess, to cut and run. My position has been that we had to win. That we had to put in the men and the maateriel and the leadership to win.
Unfortunately while many of us were warning that we were losing this war, thoughtless people whose notions of patriotism are limited to saluting smartly and endorsing whatever nonsense comes from the White House have made it impossible for to win this war. Always in the name of patriotism and toughness, of course.
Patriotism is about defending your country. How is singing a lullaby about a coming disaster patriotism?
Winston Churchill did not tell his countrymen in the years leading up to WW2 that all was well, everything was going swimmingly. He warned of coming disaster.
#24,
Once Iran is put down (coming soon) much of the turmoil in Iraq will be over.
Israel knows any "victory" for Hezbollah means either nuclear or at best VX equipped ballistic misilles in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
This is fact. No one in Israel believes anything other than what Nasrallah has said again and again (with Ahmadinejad): they are totally determined to kill every Jew in Israel. [Note: Pakistani man in Seattle shot various women in a Synagogue].
There is no negotiation, no peace, no settlement.
What then is the "plan."
Probably to bait Hezbollah/Syria/Iran to hit Tel Aviv with VX or a single nuke, and respond with a strategic nuclear offensive aimed at:
Wiping out Iran, Lebanon, and Syria.
Hence the comments "we don't want war with Syria, etc. etc."
As plans go this is IMHO monumentally stupid; but Olmert and his Defense Minister are not very experienced, desperate, and afraid. A Dayan or Bibi would realize that Jews will always be hated and killed, no matter what. Because they are Jews and for Muslims, Leftists, and Europeans that is reason enough to kill them. Thus respond by flattening Lebanon with conventional military power to deter VX/Nuke attacks.
This obvious rope-a-dope strategy is horrific. But Olmert and the rest believe that the UN and Euros and Leftists actually matter. As if they are not 100% behind a new Shoah. Self-delusion can be a dangerous thing.
Michael (#24)
The Iraqi constitution is completed and they have an elected government. That's a done deal.
I supported the war because less people would die this way. If the Iraqis become a terrorism-exporting country, then we'd rain fire on them the likes of which haven't been seen since Soddom and Gomorrah.
If that happens, I know I will feel better that the Iraqis chose this fate for themselves, instead of having Saddam make the choices and the people pay the price.
I mean, I'm sure it's a fun game to point at every decision the Iraqis make and apply our values to them, but it seems very self-serving and defeatist. Of course they'll make mistakes. We had a civil war in the US, we had Black codes -- there are all kinds of mistakes we're all going to make. Unless you plan on running for office in Iraq, what business is it of ours? The word "free" doesn't mean anything unless it means free to screw up, right? Or would you want to tie Iraqi politics with US politics for the foreseeable future?
Daniel:
I never would have supported this war had I suspected that we planned to simply allow the Iraqis to do as they wished. The Iraqis haven't done anything right since Babylon freed the Hebrews.
We did exactly what you deride when we occupied Germany, Japan and Italy. We didn't say to Japan, "here, you're free, make your own choices." We said "here, you're free: no army, labor unions, women vote, don't piss us off."
It never occurred to me that we had so lost touch with reality as to simply turn the country back over to the people who have not, in a thousand years, managed to establish a decent government. I assumed we were doing a Japan.
Just one more example of my overestimating the competence of this criminally incompetent administration.
LOL. I guess the answer to my last question was "yes"
The Germans oppose us on a lot of issues. Should we control their behavior? The Japanese didn't want us to keep some of our naval bases. Perhaps we should let them know who's boss?
Oh I'm sorry. It's those dumb Iraqis. Never been able to manage their own affairs.
So which people are able to handle their own affairs, and which do we need to "manage"?
Daniel, it's absurd to think that the kinds of disagreements we have with Japan or Germany rise to the level of the problems we're having with the Iraqi government. Do you think we would have sat by in 1946 if elements of the Japanese government were supporting paramilitary groups roaming Tokyo killing their opponents?
The people who are able to handle their own affairs are those who have demostrated an ability to do so. That applies to Germany and Japan today, but it sure as hell didn't the day after that war.
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.
#27,
Jim I'm sorry to tell you this, but some times you have to take casualties to win. Israel is going to have its hands full with Syria.
If Iran lobs missles at Israel Bush can invoke his mutual defence promises and take out Iran.
Read #32 again there are banners all over Israel saying "Be strong and of a good courage". Try it.
Some times you have to take a punch in order to get in a stronger counter punch.
(#31) I think that's a fair statement. It's totally different, right?
The French helped us defeat the British, and it's not like we killed thousands of Indians after that. Oh yes, we did. Well, it's not like we had armed gangs roving the midwest during the the Bleeding Kansas period. Nope. Did that too. Well, it's not like wew ended up splitting the country into pieces with a vicious civil war. Did that, right? How about one group terrorizing another for decades on end? Ever hear of the KKK?
So yes, there is a difference between Japan and Iraq. Probably a difference between France and Iraq as well. If I remember correctly, there were thousands of French collaborators killed after the liberation of their country by their fellow countrymen in armed gangs.
Japan has a different social history and tenor than France, which is different from us, or from the Iraqis. If you want to wave your hands around and tell me how bad it all is in Iraq, I would respectfully ask you to define what is an acceptable change in Iraqi politics and what is not. Be careful that history doesn't bite you in the back, however. The contention that Iraqis need managing and cannot decide for themselves is quite frankly racist. The contention that they cannot have their own civil war or deeply troubled period simply because it may inconvenience or have political implications is patronizing. But I'm sure there is a line somewhere -- perhaps if the new Iraqi government started acquiring nukes or other WMD like Saddam. That would make them a potential enemy, but definitely no less human.
If only Arik were running things....
Arik is overated. Look at 1982 blunder.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060729/wl_nm/mideast_israel_hizbollah_dc
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel will not demand the immediate disarming of Hizbollah as part of a deal to end the fighting in Lebanon, a senior Israeli official said on Saturday.
Israel's position could make it easier to reach agreement with Western powers and the Lebanese government on the proposed deployment of a peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Hizbollah would almost certainly reject a force whose mandate called for its disarmament.
"Disarming Hizbollah will not be part of the mandate for the (peacekeeping) mission for now," a senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.
"However it is supposed to strengthen the Lebanese army, the responsibility of which will be to implement ( U.N. Security Council resolution) 1559 which calls for disarming Hizbollah eventually."
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Israel saw the full implementation of resolution 1559 as "the only real way to solve the problem in Lebanon."
Asked if Israel was demanding Hizbollah's immediate disarmament, Regev said: "Hizbollah has to be disarmed as soon as possible."
M Simon, I would believe you if it weren't for all the comments by Israelis about Olmert and Perez and Halutz. If Israel ends up doing as you say and it works, it'll be a happy accident.