Israel's troops must move faster than diplomats' agendas
I observed a week ago that, "Israel never lost a war or won a conference." With UNSC set to take up a ceasefire resolution in the coming week and the joint statements of Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush yesterday, Hezbollah's political operatives have swung into action. Power Line reports,[T]he Lebanese government, with the consent of its Hezbollah faction, has approved a cease-fire offer which it hopes will become the framework for an end to hostilities. The key elements are: (1) an immediate cease fire, (2) the release of Lebanese and Israeli prisoners, (3) Israeli withdrawal behind the border, (4) resolution of the status of Chebaa Farms, a small piece of land held by Israel and claimed by Lebanon, in favor of Lebanon, and (5) the "disarming" of Hezbollah, and (6) the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south, with the strengthening and increasing of the small, lightly armed U.N. peacekeeping force currently there. A cease fire under these terms would represent a clear victory for Hezbollah. They began the hostilities for the stated purpose of obtaining the release of its prisoners. The deal would not only enable them to accomplish this, but Israel would lose territory (Chebaa Farms) in the process.
A little quick analysis:
1. "The Lebanese government, with the consent of its Hezbollah faction" - that tells you pretty much all you need to know. Remember, Hezbollah is actuallypart of the Lebanese government, and right now the most politically powerful.
2. "Immediate cease fire" - The only indication, but a weak one, that Hezbollah thinks its military situation is becoming tenuous. Hezbollah cannot actually regain territory that Israel has taken. This item is more likely a bone to the UNSC, whose members have declared they already want an immediate cease fire, anyway, except the US.
3. "Israeli withdrawal behind the border" - that is, a return, militarily, to the status quo ante bellum.
4. "Resolution of the status of Chebaa Farms" - a sliver of land taken by Israel in 1967. Israel once again would give up land for peace, and will find itself with neither. Expect Hezbollah to cry a river over how they only want their land back (although Israel took it from Syria, not Lebanon) and that once the Farms are given to Lebanon, all Hezbollahis will take up gardening.
5. "the disarming of Hezbollah" - 'scuse me, I was drinking coffee and just spewed it all over the keyboard. Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, recently said:“But if anyone, no matter who, even thinks about disarming the resistance, we will fight him like the martyrdom seekers of Karbala."
So he's suddenly changed his mind? Please.
6. "the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south, with the strengthening and increasing of the small, lightly armed U.N. peacekeeping force" - where both will be promptly dominated by Hezbollah, which holds UN forces in contempt, and rightly so. Victor Davis Hanson:
“Multinational,” as in “multinational force,” usually means “third-world mercenaries who sympathize with Hezbollah.” See “peacekeepers.” “Peacekeepers” keep no peace, but always side with the less Western of the belligerents.
But gosh! Western governments will exclaim, now we know that Hezbollah wants peace! After all, they've admitted they miscalculated what their July 12 cross-border raid would rovoke from Israel. The WaPo reports that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, en route back to the Middle East, said,
"Obviously we are all trying to get to a cease-fire as quickly as possible, so I'll take this as a positive step," Rice told reporters on her plane flying from Malaysia to a refueling stop in Qatar. "I think there are a lot of elements that are coming together."
Rice has unsheathed her knife and awaits Israel to turn its back so the stabbing may begin. Regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah,
-- The central element --- and deal-breaker -- is disarmament of Hezbollah. But this does not have to happen before a cease-fire or even soon, U.S. officials say. The goal is to get a formal commitment and to outline arrangements, possibly to eventually bring members of Hezbollah's militia into the Lebanese Army reserves or in another capacity and to get their arms into a government-controlled depot.
So the UNSC will begin its debate with several presuppositions, including (as always) that Israel must trust again in the promises of a terrorist organization that wants to destroy it. Hezbollah cannot defeat Israel militarily so it has begun to play its political cards, knowing that the international "community" will always intervene in time to save it from the military destruction that it so richly deserves.
The only thing that may save Israel's efforts is the fact that no UN force can possibly reach southern Lebanon for several weeks, according to US officials, because of the detailed negotiations that must occur to set the size of the force, its composition and rules of deployment. Israel can salvage victory only if it immediately reads the tea leaves and throws overwhelming ground combat power into the fight. It must move events so quickly on the ground - specifically, on the ground - that they outdistance the parameters of the UNSC's debate.
Put simply, Israel's tanks and troops must move more quickly than diplomats' talking points. I doubt the Israeli government will make that happen, though, for pretty much the same reasons I explained here.
"Hezbollah prepares to be rescued"
Does this mean that the air campaign is effective without a large ground incursion? Does Israel really need more troops on the ground or just more time to complete it's air campaign? Maybe the first gulf war is the model that Israel is following: a long air campaign to prepare the battle field and then a large scale ground invasion.
I completely agree that a peace by committee will not be to Israel's advantage.
It's useless to negotiate with terrorists. An individual or splinter group can act independently. This happens with Palestinians all the time when the militant wing commits a terrorist act and the political wing responsible for negotiations says "don't blame us for breaking our agreement, we didn't do it".
Terrorism is an idological pathology. The way to defeat it requires an understanding of psychology. The surest way to cure a culture of terrorism is to humiliate the idology of terror by capturing or killing terrorists and their leaders, after which it's supporters will be too embarassed and disgusted to continue supporting them. The surest way to unify Lebanon under its constitutional government is deal Hezbullah a resounding defeat. In that case it's civilian supporters will abandon the organization in droves.
Brilliant analysis as usual.
Of course the deal is a non-starter. It allows a Hizbollah win.
Israel will not agree to it. Israel in fact has already not agreed to it. Here is what Israel wants:
1. Return of the two soldiers
2. Implimentation of 1559
3. A credable force on the border
BTW since no country of any repute has volunteered for #3 the whole thing is a farce. A stall. Keeps the diplomats busy jawing. Soothes the French Street.
The war will not be over until Syria and Iran are defeated. Bush wants the defeat of Iran. Israel wants the defeat of Iran. Do you think they will pass up this opportunity?
I don't.
Don,
The art of war is deception. Take this as part of the Hizbollagh deception plan - you got that.
However, you do not take into account that the Rice, Bolton/UN deal is part of the American deception plan.
Then add in the simple Israeli demands (with a UN resolution to boot).
Looks like a strategy to me.
Stall until Syria and Iran are defeated. The Syrian street is agitating to get in the war. The Iranian street to stay out. However, Ahmadinnerjacket will lose face if he doesn't back Hizbollh. The Arab street right now loves them (are they ever going to be depressed when this is all over). A cleric in Iran has Issued a no retreat fatwah (taking advice from Hitler again?). Iran wants hegemony over Islam. They cannot disappoint their fans.
M. Simon, I've read your blogspot, and your comment here. The basis of your confidence is deception by Israel. It seems to me that evil leaders aka Hezbollah have no trouble deceiving by lies, following their spiritual leader, the father of lies. I'm not so confident that leaders aka Israel whose moral standards are higher, feel comfortable causing deception by lies. Most "moral" people tend to deceive by withholding the truth instead. On what basis do you think Israel would reverse its leaders public statements not to attack Syria without Syria directly attacking first? I have no trouble accepting parts of your analysis. As you suggest, Israel most likely IS withholding the truth of their strategy. But it is another thing entirely to break their word.
"Put simply, Israel's tanks and troops must move more quickly than diplomats' talking points. I doubt the Israeli government will make that happen, though, for pretty much the same reasons I explained here."
While I agree in general with your suggestion of moving quickly, I still wonder what are the most effective tactics at this point. It seems to me, having intimidated Hezballah by insinuating a deep thrust got a good percentage of rocket assets out and moving north. That allows IAF to spot and take them out. At the same time, the danger is that Hezballah ground forces will keep one foot aimed north, too, and force Israel into having to slog through their defenses to engage them.
Having made a partial advance, is Israel now narrowing the buffer plan (2k) in an effort manipulate Hezballah back to the front and fight on terrain that Israel feels is cleared and safer to maneuver and strike? If I had my choice, I might prefer to fight over Bint Jubail for an extended period of time, if it meant Hezballah would come to me in an effort to continue the engagement.
Another thought. If the IDF can entice Hezballah to fight where the IDF is rather the IDF being required to go to Hezballah, the chances of civilian casualties can be reduced.
Dusty,
The only chance the IDF can hope to destroy the majority of the Hezbollah force is to lure them out to the open (kinda), away from the population, to fighting a set piece battle plan. Now how are you going to draw your enemy out to the open? It's only happened if your enemy perceived you have no will to fight, your command central is in disarray and could not make any decision, and ready to retreat if there is a way provided to save face. It seems to me the Israel with the help of the world MSM's useful idiots did a great job to broadcast the problems.
Ironically, I think this episode mirrors Olmert's preparation to be rescued. Bush's sudden decision to call for an immediate cease fire seems uncharacteristic and the timing doesnt match up with the previous calander of giving Israel time to mop of Hezbollah. I think Olmert and the cabinet are shell shocked that their thrown together offensive has met so much resistance, so they are taking the first lifeline that got tossed to them. Hezbollah is negotiating through strength, and Israel through weakness. That has nothing to do with the military condition on the ground, and everything to do with the perceptions of the combatants.
Mark,
You MAY BE RIGHT. However, if the fighting stops ONLY when the International troops are gathered, then you are not correct. Anything that allows Israel to continue to pound Hizbollah is a success. Who gives a Damn what the world thinks? Particularly, the French and Spanish leaders.
In addition, I agree with M. Simon that NO INTERNATIONAL FORCE will be deployed. All nations will any weapons have already said NO WAY.
Charles, I think you are correct. However this is the "latest": http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060729/wl_nm/mideast_israel_hizbollah_dc
"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. "
Olmert seems to be backpeddling about as fast as he can. The level of weakness this is betraying to the terrorists is disturbing. I've got to think the Knesset is rumbling about the way the last month has been dealt with, particuarly whats left of the Sharonesque old-guard. I think there will be a vote of no-confidence the first break in the action we see.
#4 Bill,
Good point. However, Israel has not decieved by lies. When they say they are not interested in a war with Syria, they are not lying. They will not attack Syria.
They are waiting for Syria to attack them and will counter attack.
The pressure from the Arab street to get in on the humiliation of Israel is intense and getting stronger. The Iranian government has filled the strets of Iran with posters of Nassrullah. All over the Arab world joy reigns. Iran is probably pressuring Assad to get in the fight. Assad being weak is going to give in at some point.
Let me give you something I posted on another blog:
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. Deu 31:6
I'm writing a longer piece on this but let me give you the short version:
What is the desired outcome for Israel? The defeat of Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran. How do you do that? Pin the Hizbollah. Take out the Bekaa resupply area. Syria gets involved out of popular desire, and because the Bekaa is on the Syrian border. Iran comes in to support Syria. America takes out Iran.
What is going on is preping the battle field. Painting a picture.
Since almost every one (except me) is sure Israel's inept handling of the war has caused its defeat and the Arab street is rising up in support of Hizbollah victory and Iran is going on a war footing, I'm expecting an Israeli/American rippost that will run the table. First requirement to run the table? Get all the chips on the table. Be patient.
U.S. President George W. Bush on Saturday cast the Lebanon war as part of a broader struggle against terrorism and said a strategy to end the violence there must address the threat posed by Hizbollah.
Bush is telling you what is going to happen.
#11 Mark,
Sun Tzu:
Warfare is the Way of deception.
Therefore, if able, appear unable,
if active, appear not active,
What makes Don's analysis so plausable is that it is a pattern we have seen so many times before.
Beware of patterns made by men. They can be broken by the men that make them.
M. Simon, Since you quote Deuteronomy, perhaps you are willing to consider this a war not just between 2 groups of people. How does the book of Daniel inform your conversation? It seems to me that Israeli leadership is reacting not with confidence, but with fear, and for a reason. Olmert & company are politicians, not visionaries. The time is not yet ripe for a leader who is. I would not go so far as to say Israel will be defeated. But neither do I see them emerging as the victor over Hezbollah, Syria & Iran. In fact, the most likely scenario is more wringing of hands, more world opprobrium, until lawlessness increases, love grows cold, and birth pangs turn into real labor. Except for the US, there is a building hatred of Israel worldwide. What explains this?
Bill,
The reason I put that Bible quote up was that the first few words of it (in hebrew) are on banners all over Israel.
To entice Syria and Iran to attack it is best to appear weak and incompetent. It is best to look fearful. It helps to seem to be on the verge of running or at minimum stalled.
That in my opinion is the deception.
Olmert (Sharon's protoge') not a visionary? I hope the Syrians and Iranians believe that.
The hatred of Israel and the victory dance in the Arab street is an important part of the plan. It will force Syria to act.
That is the beauty of the plan; it takes the known elements and uses them in a totally new way.
The more pessimism I see on our side, the more optimism on their side, the more I am encouraged.
Once Syria acts we will be in the endgame.
Since this war broke out Bush has been running around with a grin that makes him look stupider than ever. If that is possible. I hope it encourages our enemies.
When Rice was first scheduled to visit Olmert with her peace plan Olmert was looking wan. These days he looks buoyant.
Ahmadinnerjacket is screaming. Nassrallah is in hiding and boy Assad is afraid of the cameras.
There is a lot of misunderestimation going on in the publics of both sides and the leaders of one side.
You can guess who I'm betting on.
I finally finished my write up of all this:
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/07/tactics-strategy-grand-strategy.html
Tactics, Strategy, Grand Strategy
I have arguments. I have links. I even have Sun Tzu.
Powerline "reports"?????!!
Are you high? Powerline reports nothing. They blog from their jammies and fool you into thinking that they are reporters.