Let's review for a moment the strategic goals of Israel's military campaign in Lebanon. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed the Knesset on July 17, explaining that the actions against both Hezbollah and Hamas were intended to “terminate their activity,” “remove this threat of the Middle East” and “conduct a tireless battle until terror ceases.” There were four national objectives, Olmert said:
- The return of the hostages, Ehud (Udi) Goldwasser and Eldad Regev;
- A complete cease fire;
- Deployment of the Lebanese army in all of southern Lebanon;
- Expulsion of Hizbullah from the area, and fulfillment of United Nations Resolution 1559. [link]
Where does Israel stand today in accomplishing these objectives?
1. The kidnapped Israeli soldiers are still in enemy hands with no prospect near that they will be returned. PM Olmert has repeatedly (and rightfully) ruled out freeing terrorists held in Israeli prisons in exchange for them. The locations of the hostages are not known to Israeli intelligence. This objective has not been attained.
2. The UNSC will take up the terms of a cease fire this week, but Olmert was not speaking of a cease fire for the sake of cease fire. Speaking less than a week after Israel's campaign began, Olmert was talking about a cease fire on term favorable to Israel, put into place after Hezbollah's ability to attack Israel had been eliminated. This point was amplified by Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who said, "Our objective is to stop the missile attacks by Hezbollah and enable the Lebanese military to take over and prevent Hezbollah from ever again returning to the border of Israel."
Hezbollah has continued rocket attacks in ever-greater numbers until the present day. Sunday it launched more than 150 rockets into Israel, the greatest single-day total ever. This objective has not been attained.
3. There is almost no chance that the Lebanese national army will deploy in all of southern Lebanon. The Lebanese national army is more likely to be absorbed into Hezbollah rather than disband it.
4. Hezbollah is becoming politically stronger inside Lebanon even as its military capability against Israel may finally become seriously degraded by an expanded Israeli ground offensive. As I have already written, there is great risk now that Lebanon's national government will become dominated by Hezbollah rather than disbanded by it.
Bret Stephens, writing in the WSJ:
Generally speaking, wars are lost either militarily or politically. Israel is losing both ways. Two weeks ago, Israeli officials boasted they had destroyed 50% of Hezbollah's military capabilities and needed just 10 to 14 days to finish the job. Two days ago, after a record 140 Katyushas landed on Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told visiting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he needed another 10 to 14 days. When the war began, Israeli officials spoke of "breaking" Hezbollah; next of evicting Hezbollah from the border area; then of "degrading" Hezbollah's capabilities; now of establishing an effective multinational force that can police the border. Israel's goals are becoming less ambitious while the time it needs to accomplish them is growing longer.
It is amazing how much can be squandered in the space of three weeks. On July 12, Israel sat behind an internationally recognized frontier, where it enjoyed a preponderance of military force. It had deterrence and legitimacy. Hezbollah's cross-border raid that day was widely condemned within Lebanon and among Arab leaders as heedless and provocative. Mr. Olmert's decision to respond with massive force enjoyed left-to-right political support. He also had a green light from the Bush administration, which has reasons of its own to want Hezbollah defanged and which assumed the Israelis were up to the job.
But it seems they are not up to the job.
It is not too late for Israel to salvage its goals, but it has to move very quickly. Its government seems to realize that fact:
"Time is running out," noted Housing Minister Meir Sheetrit, a non-voting member of the inner Political-Security Cabinet. The U.N. Security Council is due to meet at the end of the week and it "could take all sorts of decisions. We want to be then... closest to the goals we have set ourselves," Sheetrit said.
Time was never on Israel's side. The firmness of resolve that PM Olmert has showed this week is heartening. That it is coupled with a more vigorous ground campaign is a good sign. The only way Israel can recoup the diplomatic setbacks it has suffered in the last several days, of which the Qana deaths were the capstone, is to impose political conditions through military successes on the ground. Let's hope Israel's renewed seriousness is not too little, too late.
Crossposted at donaldsensing.com.
Well said. This should go down as an object lesson on the dangers of half measures. Air attacks and raids do not win wars, they embolden the enemy.
Steve Schippert at ThreatsWatch offers a contraryand highly optimistic (from Israel's POV) interpretation of the war in Hizballah Is On The Ropes. To me, it looks like wishful thinking (on whose part?), but here is an excerpt:
This is all beginning to resemble a child in the back seat of a car repeatedly yelling "Are we there yet?!" It's been days not months. It's a little early for a postmortem.
Cf. #2 above with Bill Roggio's analysis at The Counterterrorism Blog, A Change in Strategy: IDF to Expand Ground Campaign in Lebanon. Roggio ominously concludes with an indication of what a Hezbollah victory means for Lebanon:
So far, Hezbollah's strategic accomplishment has been to frame the terms of the engagement--despite their apparent initial tactical surprise. What has resulted from Israel's choice to respond vigorously is great suffering in Lebanon (televised to the world), enhanced prestige for Hezbollah, and mortal danger for Lebanon's democrats. The slower poison that would have flowed from Israel declining to respond to the original attack would have been good for Hezbollah--and bad for the rest of Lebanon--in slower, more insidious ways.
"This is all beginning to resemble a child in the back seat of a car repeatedly yelling "Are we there yet?!" It's been days not months. It's a little early for a postmortem."
All things being equal, that would be true. But one of the parameters of this conflict that everyone knew going in was that there would be massive pressure from the world and ultimately even from the US to stop the fighting. That is a political fact, fair or not. Like it or not, there is a clock running.
Olmert's plan was to use air and limited ground power to take out Hezbollahs only strategic weapons, their rocket force (and supply lines for same). This was thought to be quickly doable. Unfortunately (but hardly surprisingly) this proved wildly overoptimistic to the point that Hezbollah has been launching more rockets as time goes by, not less. All the wishful thinking aside- the number of rockets launched was the metric for Hezbollahs strategic strength. Israel has failed to impact that number and been made to look foolish.
Now has there really been a sea-change in Israeli policy such that the strategic goal is now to divest Hezbollah of their launching grounds and possibly forment a disarmament? Perhaps, but to me that plan doesnt seem any more plausible than the first one. Olmert is escalating the conflict gradually and playing right into Hezbollahs hands.
"The slower poison that would have flowed from Israel declining to respond to the original attack would have been good for Hezbollah--and bad for the rest of Lebanon--in slower, more insidious ways."
I agree, but this was not a binary option. Israel could have used more limited force against obvious border targets and held a larger campaign as a stick over Hezbollahs head- back when Hezbollah feared the IDF. Or they could have played diplomacy for a couple days and then dropped the house with the full weight of the IDF. Either of those options would have kept the aura of IDF invulnerability alive, and that was a valuable chip that shouldnt have been given away lightly.
Everybody knows Clausewitz's description of war as a "continuation of politics by other means".
I make no pretense of being any sort of military strategist, but I know a bit about politics.
If Israel had entered Lebanon with overwhelming force concentrated in the areas where rockets were actually launched, rather than airstrikes in Beirut/Beka/roads/infrastructure/airports, they could have maintained the broad international support for their right of self-defense they had initially. However, Israeli military casualties would probably have been much higher, while Lebanese civilian casualties likely would have been lower. Olmert was not willing to make that choice. I can well understand why, but the long-term costs of his current actions may prove higher.
I don't disagree with you, but let's drop the metaphor and step back into the real world. What realistically happens when the clock runs out?
Seriously: what will Lebanon do if Israel continues to pursue Hezbollah? Everyone seems to agree the Israelis have been showing some restraint and not unleashing their full force on Lebanon. What will Lebanon do if Israel is still at it 3 months from now, launch a counter-offensive with the regular Lebanese army? I somehow doubt they'll be too eager to pit a conventional force against the IDF in open combat.
What about Europe and the UN? We've heard repeated calls from the usual diplomacy cultists demanding a cease-fire. If Israel politely says "Thanks, but no thanks", what will the UN do, pass a strongly worded resolution? Do you think economic sanctions will actually pass, when they can't even get a strong resolution passed on Iran? Will Europe scour the continent for a few hundred soldiers to militarily compel a stand down?
The real lynchpin for Israel is US support. The US runs interference in the UN Security Counsel, provides military support (via arms sales or strategic alliances), and is one of the few powers capable of force projection on an extended basis. But if Israel feels they need another two months of fighting, and the US is willing to hold off on "hard" sanctions while publicly acting like a peace seeker, they may not need to worry about any clock other than the one the US President pays attention to.
Never forget that diplomacy is merely soft words put on the face of raw force, whether that force be military, economic, financial, or otherwise. If an entity can not or will not back its diplomatic language with some measure of force, then diplomacy will fail to halt tanks.
Stephens' assessment of the military situation may be correct, but I can't tell from the evidence he cites.
Lessee, there were ~12,000 Hizb'Allah rockets in Lebanon at the beginning of this conflict. (I know that estimates vary.)
Israel claims to have destroyed ~50%, or ~6000 of them. I'm not sure how many rockets have been fired. Let's say 2000 (100/day for 20 days).
That leaves ~4000 rockets remaining in HB hands.
Pardon me for failing to see this as proof that the IDF has failed or is failing.
Yes, Mark, but what if Israel knew going in that it would take months? Would your advice be to not even try? Of course not. All this speculation about what Israel should have done using hindsight is navel gazing. It's the same navel gazing we pro-Iraq people have been bemoaning for 3 years.
You see something that needs to be done you do it and to hell with the critics. The "pro-resistance" people aren't persuadable. They cry and wail about Qana when it is Israel's fault. If it's proven definitively(not gonna happen) that Hizb'allah staged Qana they'd be damning Israel for pushing them to such a desperate state. Just look at the trolls WoC has had recently railing against "Likudniks" like we've time-warped back to 2000. Israel knows that internationally they are in a no-win situation. Six days is interminable now.
-The time factor is real because the UN will be focused on Israel to the expense of all else. We still have Iran to deal with. The more leverage the US exerts in the UNSC to protect Israel, the less it has to handle Iran, because the Euros dont like Israel to begin with.
-We wouldnt expect the Hezbollah rocket attacks to continue apace and then suddenly end when they hit 0 rockets left. If Israel has been effectively degrading the rocket supply we would expect the attacks to gradually decrease. What we have seen is the opposite, which probably means Israel isnt finding them as effectively as they expected and the resupply is going better than hoped. Air power can intridict only so much, it takes boots on the ground to break supply lines. Breaking a bridge is great, but its not hard to put a box of rockets in a rowboat. You cant have F-16s attacking every rowboat and pickup truck in Lebanon.
Nothing I have suggested is naval gazing to the contrary i've been singing the same song since the conflict started as have many others. The reason examing Olmerts decision making is crucial is to get inside what decision he will make in the future. The prospects arent good. You are right, if you are going to do something like this you have to go all the way, and nothing Olmert has done to date suggests he is willing to do that. This is the kind of man that is quite capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, even if Hezbollah does get knocked on the ropes. I cant advocate X or Y course of action to destroy Hezbollah if there are serious doubts about the man on the triggers resolve. There is a reason none of this crap went down when Sharon was with us, Hezbollah seems quite adept at reading Israeli politicians.
#11, Mark B. wrote: "There is a reason none of this crap went down when Sharon was with us..."
Well said. It was Sharon who actually carried out most of the concessions Israel made for "land for peace." When Hassan Nasrallah saw news reports of the IDF carrying Jewish settlers out of their homes and then taking a wrecking ball to those homes, he sure had no doubt what Sharon would do to him if necessary.
Just as Americans elected Clinton tp focus on domestic issues, not defense (because the Cold War was over), Olmert was elected because Israelis thought Sharon really had made them secure. If Sharon had remained healthy, Israel would indeed be secure. But Hezbollah saw in Olmert an opportunity. They miscalculated how Olmert would respond, but Olmert certainly lacks Sharon's strategic acumen, for which Hezbollah is no doubt thankful.
"wildly overoptimistic to the point that Hezbollah has been launching more rockets as time goes by, not less"
Actually they have been launching a lot fewer over the past few days.
"If Israel had entered Lebanon with overwhelming force concentrated in the areas where rockets were actually launched, rather than airstrikes in Beirut/Beka/roads/infrastructure/airports,"
Can you say that destroying the transportation infrastructure has not damaged Hezballah's manouvering capability? I thought that tactic was "preparing the battlefield." But I'm not a military expert so I'll let Rev Sensing answer that one.
But I do know the airstrike in Beirut was concentrated in a suburb which was Hezballah's headquarters, and most of Beirut is untouched.
The necessary assumption to everything you and Donald speculate about is that Israel is using a limited time table for its planning. You assume that because they've always folded under international pressure and willingly sacrificed long-term gains for short-term public relations. Now redo all your work without that and see how it stands. This time try to work into the mix UNIFIL being supplemented by 20,000-30,000 MNF. Haggle about the mandate all you want. Donald's #2 and #3 amounts to nothing more than "Are we there yet?" I apologize for being dismissive in my first post.
It doesn't matter who is at the triggers. We had people speculating that Sharon was now the yardstick by which all PMs would be measured. Predicting that they would be even more harsh and unyielding. Pulling every hackneyed phrase out of their playbook trying to bully people into thinking Olmert would out-Sharon Sharon. Now we've got people saying Olmert is too weak because he hasn't accomplished some ephemeral goal. It's naval gazing. People are staking out territory on both sides of this issue. I think I'll wait til it all ends before picking over the bones and pointing fingers. Same thing I'm going to do with respect to Iraq.
Good point, Yehudit. We use all these metrics for success and failure and include things entirely dependent on the actions of our enemies. Then when those enemies play the media to their advantage we sit there screaming "WHAT THE DEUCE, MSM?! You traitors." The internationalists sigh and frown over 5 deaths or 2 and scream bloody murder when 30 or 60 die. They unintentionally focus the conflict into the very bloody ground they want to avoid. If you were in Hizb'allah(or the Lollypop Guild if HA is inconveivable) what would you do? I sure as hell know what I'd do. The sad thing is that instead of realizing all who are complicit the West tuttuts and consoles itself that they are savages. Wrong again.
"Actually they have been launching a lot fewer over the past few days."
The reduction in launches closely matched Israels reduction in air raids. That may or may not be coincidental. It could have been because their rockets have been blown up. It could have been a diplomatic gesture, but more likely hezbollah took the opportunity to manuever, reequip, and rearm. We shall see. I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but i think the barrages will pick back up when the suspension expires tomorrow.
The new offensive seems a step in the right direction, but the IDF surely isnt going into Tyre or the Palestinians camps so I dont see how advancing to the Litani accomplishes much if Hezbollah is not cut off from Syria. Hezbollah will still retain strong positions within 20 miles of the border.
Lebanon Agonistes
by Charles Glass
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/glass1.html
"By their cross-border raids and the capture of three Israeli soldiers, Hizballah and Hamas humiliated the Israeli army and dented its deterrent capacity. In Israeli eyes, this cannot go unpunished." But who should be punished and who should be approached with an offer to save the soldiers' lives? Perhaps punish the high command for its negligence.
"You assume that because they've always folded under international pressure and willingly sacrificed long-term gains for short-term public relations."
Seems like a rational reason to me.
"Now redo all your work without that and see how it stands."
Assume a ladder?
"This time try to work into the mix UNIFIL being supplemented by 20,000-30,000 MNF."
From where, where are these troops coming from? If the Euros act remotely in character they will maybe dispatch a few dozen a peice, and make Israel pay a pound in flesh at the negotiating table to do it if they sense israel needs them.
And how will they stop rocket and missile launches even assuming you gave them the most open rules of engagement imagineable? As always, the UN will be a roadblock for the good guys while the bad guys use them to hide behind (when not amongst). Many of the same people that suddenly see the light of the UN peacekeeper solution would be choking in indignation and disbelief at the thought before this conflict began. Rather telling how far down the road we have come in so short a time.
"It's naval gazing. People are staking out territory on both sides of this issue."
You're wrong. Im looking for a direction where things end up better than they started, not worse. In order to do that we have to understand how we got here and who can be counted on to do what. Personally I find the Deus Ex Machina hope of the UN saving the day to be a nutty thing to set your hopes on. But if you take Olmert at face value thats his new storyline.
It is unrealistic to think that any nation besides Israel will put troops in Lebanon unless Hezbollah agrees to their deployment. Who wants to put their soldiers in the middle of a 1000 year old blood feud?
If US forces were not overcommitted between Iraq and Afghanistan I am sure Bush would consider it, but he does not even have enough troops to control Baghdad, let alone Anbar plus Taliban and Hezbollah territory.
I feel the Sharon love, but I got to ask, haven't the operations suggested a fundamental failure in intelligence about the location of Hizbullah that had to have predated Olmert?
I think you guys have totally blown it on this one. Totally, hopelessly, blown it. Gentlemen, past performance is not indicative of future results. The diplomatic and strategic arena has fundamentally changed since GWII.
What does it mean that Israel has a deadline?
A deadline for international peacekeepers?
Great. Who will compose them? How long will it take for them to be chosen? Agreed upon domestically? Prepared to move? Actually getting there with enough heavy equipment to matter? That'll take time, and the people who show up will be people acceptable to both Lebanon and Israel ... people who will pick timetables favorable to the Israelis. Notice that France has gotten exactly nowhere in the EU on this, and not merely because of the UK.
Why have the Saudis made all their standard Pious Noises, yet front-and-center said that the US (with its blatantly pro-Israeli solution) should have and take the diplomatic lead? P.N. ™ aside, what does this say regionally?
It says your assessments are off-kilter. The game has changed.
Or it could be this from Strategy Page(h/t Dean's World)...
The ones that hit populated areas are the only ones that count since they're only real if they're reported in the news.
The real question to ask is what state of affairs might convince the Israeli people to consider ceasing hostilities.
I have said all along concerning this new conflict with Hezbollah that it is NOT a repetition of past Arab-Israeli wars, that it is instead something new and that past rules of engagement no longer apply.
Catastrophe is coming to the Shia of Lebanon.
So today is the same as 8/1/01 or 8/1/99? The internationalists have been crowing for a cease fire since day 1. If they get one on day 25 or day 250 does that still mean they succeeded?
No. Assume a window of opportunity longer than a lunar cycle.
If there are none forthcoming then Israel continues with the prospect of using its own troops. Israel has stated repeatedly that someone other than Hizb'allah must control the south. The UN conceded the point when it considered an expansion of UNIFIL or a new mandate. That game is over. It was over before Hizb'allah even got a turn.
It didn't take much prodding to get France, Italy, Germany, and Turkey to volunteer in principle. And I trust atleast half of those depending on the time of day. But the admission that Hizb'allah remaining in the south is intolerable is the key change. Anything beyond that is gravy. I think the main disagreement we have is that you guys are looking for epochal change in 20 days; I'm setting my sights much lower and much more long-term.
So the UN force fails miserably. Do you think no good can come of that? I know I'd certainly add it to my hate-the-UN folder. UNIFIL is an abject failure but it is relatively tiny. For some reason the internationalists think 20,000-30,000 blue hats will do the trick. What do they say after that? What feather is left in their cap? I'm not saying "give the UN a chance" because I suffer under any delusions that they are competent. I'm saying let them try because either way it turns out we're closer to the end of all this madness.
As M. Simon is doing. As thousands of other people are doing. I've never been much of a gambler myself.
New? As I've said all along however this conflict ends it will be a plus for Israel. I have absolutely no faith in mankind but I do put a lot of stock in evolution. The internationalists won't be able to ignore Hizb'allah any longer. Even if they despise the very concept of Israel the ball is back in their court.
It seems to me the Rev. is talking like a lawyer trying to put his selected evidences together to convince the jurors to believe him than doing any real worthy analysis. He conveniently ignores all other possibilities of deception and disinformation tactics and strategies which the Israelis doesn't broadcast their intentions implying it's just not simply there. Lucky that Stratfor doesn't write like the Rev else I would dump their subscription real quick. Or at least he takes sometimes to read Wretchard' comments. It's free BTW.
#25, Lanny the appropriately named Horrible, says that I should read Wretchard. Let's see, I've been reading Belmont Club since Richard Sanchez started it. My site was one of the first five he put on his blogroll, which might give Lanny a clue of who is reading whom. Anyway, I have the greatest respect for Richard and have enjoyed a number of pleasant interchanges online and via email.
Lanny, did you mean I should read his most recent post as of this comment (http://fallbackbelmont.bl*gspot.com/2006/07/48-hours.html)? Referring to a Ha'aretz article about the stillborn 48-hour bombing halt, Richard writes,Which is exactly the same thing I've been saying. Hmmm. As for STRATFOR, Wretchard says in the same post of its most recent report, It would help, Lanny, that when you appeal to authority to make a point, that the authority actually supports your claim.BTW, what kind of "deception and disinformation tactics and strategies" might the IDF be doing? Certainly they won't announce them, duh, but I await your own analysis that takes into account what they might be as well as the facts on the ground, militarily and politically.
Tell you what - you type it up, complete with relevant links, leave it as a comment on this post, and I'll post it on this site under your name as its own entry. Make sure you don't simply put "selected evidences together."
I read this on a blog:
"...Apart from this side, and coming back to the crisis at hand, the similarity between the Israeli latest offensive on Lebanon, and what we know as the “Operation Iraqi Freedom” are subtle, but yet unmistakable. Talking to a few Lebanese reveals that Hezbollah is far more than an extremist terrorist group, but rather intimately intertwined with the fabric of the Lebanese society. They are considered as the pride of the Lebanese society who are credited for ending Israeli occupation, and are popular, not only with the Shia muslims, but also with Sunnis and Christians. In fact, more than two thirds of the Lebanese public somehow benefit from the services of Hezbollah. Therefore, it is not hard to imagine that destroying Hezbollah takes nothing less than destroying Lebanon, and putting it back together from scratch.
Sounds familiar? Add to it the fact that Saddam Hussein was such an unpopular dictator, and yet US is in so much trouble for removing him. On the other hand, Hezbollah is the most popular political group in Lebanon (whose popularity increases by the minute).
I assume that the majority of the Israeli public have already made peace with the moral implications of the policies of their elected government (some of which bring about significant suffering and death, among other things). After all, this is a democracy. What this young democracy is constantly overlooking is the long term effects of using brute force to remove their enemies, in the process of which more bystanders are hurt. This is only a recipe for making more enemies.
For example, creation of Hezbollah was a direct byproduct of the occupation of Lebanon by Israel in order to remove PLO, some twenty years ago. While, depending on your moral criteria, this might have been justified, in the long run, it left Israel with a stronger enemy to deal with. Is there any question that the children who are raised under the Israeli bombardment will grow up to make the next, may be more brutal reincarnation of Hezbollah? Of course, many of the Israelis who have to deal with this problem are yet to be born, and thus cannot impact the undoubtedly high approval rating of the current Israeli prime minister.
The analogy of Iraq may again be used to predict what may happen in the next few months if the hostilities continue at this rate. There is no question that the US has made many enemies in Iraq, most likely more than the new friends it might have made. However, most Americans have the luxury of living on the other side of the globe, where most of these enemies cannot harm them. Unfortunately, most Israelis don’t enjoy this luxury when it comes to their newfound enemies. "
Color me stupid. Absent the United States what force exists to make Israel cease-fire? The UN which is openly allied with Hezbollah to the point of collaborating with past operations to kidnap and kill Israeli soldiers (and denied the video evidence of such until it leaked out)? Arab nations or European ones both of which before this war hoped to exterminate every last Jew in Israel? Democratic politicians who "remain neutral" between Hezbollah and Israel, at best (Dingell) or media/interest groups that run the Democratic Party and who openly call for it's dissolution and view it a mistake (Kos, Washington Post)?
These are Israel's enemies. They have always been Israel's enemies. They will always be Israel's enemies. What has happened (cross-border raids to kill and kidnap soldiers, rocket attacks that never end) show conclusively that Israel cannot and will not ever have peace. So they might as well have war.
Who pray tell will "enforce a peace" with Hezbollah? Stop them from rocketing Israel? The French? Indonesia? Neither of which are capable anyway of reaching Lebanon without US sealift at any rate.
The UN will pass a billion resolutions calling for Israel's extermination, Zionism=racism, both of which have been seen hundreds of times in the past anyway. At least the rockets raining down on Israel will be matched by bombs raining down on the Lebanese, who now fully got the war they always wanted with Israel.
If anything Israel ought to widen the war by bombing Damascus, and forcing Assad into the fight so he can be wounded. Absent that making Southern Lebanon absolutely unfit for human habitation and conducting siege warfare designed to slowly kill every Hezbollah fighter seems the only choice Israel has. No Arab nation has offered to attack Israel. They want no part of that fight. Even the Israeli Left now realizes peace will never come; at best they face fights of their choosing.
The attacks from Gaza and Lebanon show there is no path for peace, no deal available and nothing to trade with Israel's neighbors who are intent on killing all Israelis (the Jewish ones anyway). Israel withdrew and ... got attacked. Israelis seem from the blogs/Israeli online newspapers to view this as existential; today small rockets from Hezbollah and tomorrow nuclear tipped ones.
[Israel is a small country that can't bear many casualties. Starving and dehydrating the Hezbollah fighters seems their intention ala the Romans. No grand strategy. Just stumbling into this. Hezbollah is well dug in, but they lack mobility. Like France's Maginot Line. They need food. They need water.].
Mark B -- The UN? What a laugh. The UN can send a "sharply worded letter of regret" to Iran and that's about it. Iran wants the bomb and missiles together and that's it. There is no alternative to war with Iran anyway. There is no deal to be made or offer on the table that will prevent Iran from using nuclear tipped ballistic missiles against the US and Israel. This has been clear since 1979.
Israel clearly has the means to extirpate Hezbollah without reliance on American resources, though those will be available in any event.
The rest of the world, absent the U.S., will do nothing to stop Israel from eliminating Hezbollah. They lack the will, and the means even if they had the will, though the U.S. would block them if they had both.
I simply do not see any agreement in the U.S. government on stopping Israel from eliminating Hezbollah. Only the U.S. could stop Israel from doing that if Israel has the political will to do it.
And it appears they do.
Hezbollah will be destroyed if the Israelis really want them dead.
Once Hezbollah's militia is destroyed, only Syrian intervention could keep Lebanon's Sunni & Christian Arabs, and Druze, from commiting genocide on Lebanon's Shia. It remains to be seen whether they will have the will to do so in the limited "window of opportunity" available after Israel destroys Hezbollah. It appears they do.
I doubt Syria would intervene to stop them. Israel would very likely prevent that, and I just don't see the Syrians trying unless someone pays them well to do so. As Jim Dunnigan pointed out on Strategy Page, there "just isn't enough graft to go around in Iran even with $75 a barrel oil prices."
Nice post Bill on the military aspects of the Lebanese situation.
Serious doubts the Christians and Sunni's can kill all the Shia. Bad move if attempted the Iranians will make the world pay in cash. Sectarian warfare tends to be relentless and in these socities likely to be genocidal.
Can Israel degrade Hezbollahs missle arsenal, of course. Was it a good idea not. To much damage to the non Shia areas of Lebanon infrastructure; breeds more hatred rightly placed or not. To much damage to the fledgling democracy. Subsquent interference in a sectarian war let Iranians off hook for nuclear aims(live w/ it and give them the faustian bargain in public. Nukes go off here in any fashion Iran disappears as a society/culture; think Carthage)
Stategically Israel loses big time. They keep alienating the people whom are disposed to kill them anyway so you may not care. They dissapate anti Iranian nuke intiatives. They are likely to end sectarian Islamic hostility in Iraq placing US in greater danger(not enough troops to control open civil uprising against US forces if Iran funds it. Mix in the Kurds, Turkomans, oil and Turkey it will be Magnum old Chinese curse. The US economy can not sustain those types of interesting times. Nork will not stay quiet either and they are likely to slip lose the Chinese dogs of war to China's peril.
In short Israeli incursion overly short sighted. their intelligence and spec op capaability far better used for this type of action.
Robert M.,
Genocide does not mean killing them all. Iraq's Sunni Arab population has dropped by a third since our invasion, but almost all of that has been due to fear-induced emigration, chiefly to Jordan and Syria, and only a tiny fraction to murder at Shiite & Kurdish hands (still less to KIA fighting Americans and Iraqi forces).
If Lebanese Christian and Sunni Moslem Arabs seriously go after the Shia following Israel's destruction of Hezbollah, I expect 40-50 Shia will flee to Syria for every one that is killed by Christian & Sunni Arab gunmen. If this happens, probably 30-50% of Lebanon's Shia will run away in 3-6 months.
The real slaughter will come when Syria's Baathists lose power and its Sunnis go after the Alawites. Then it will be a real bad time to be a Shia in Syria, and the refugees from Lebanon will have no where to run to.
Did I say something deep that ticks you so bad?
Let me break my comments to 2 posts, one is to argue that your response logic is faulty and the other one, you theme about the Israelis’ intention is incomplete and because this is your 2nd or 3rd posts with the same theme, I would categorized it as selective evidences to support your thesis. Let’s start with post #1 first, dear Rev
1) The fact that he blogrolls you doesn’t mean all of your opinions are sound and valuable. I granted that some of your posts in other fields in the past at your blog are sound and valuable but time didn’t stop there, or the Muslim could moan forever of their past glorious days. Since you have bloated highly of yourself, I just want to bring up a fact that if he values your insightful analysis, how come I have not seen any worthy links of your analysis lately on this Lebanon’s conflict at his blog. I see he links to Tigerhawk, Bill Rogio, Walid Phares and several other bloggers. Well, where were yours?
2) The fact that you read his doesn’t mean you truly see his analysis for what it is. You just might very well want to read what you want to read and ignore the rest. The glaring example of selective evidences is the one you are quoting right here “
“This doesn't sound like a cabinet that is operating according to a strategic plan. It sounds like a bunch of politicians doing what politicians do.”
But you conveniently ignore the one below
“As I said, we shall see.”
What does this mean, Rev? He is certain that his opinion could be wrong, hence the sentence. I could conveniently pick a single sentence from his comment to prove my “selective evidence” as you do as followed.
“I don't think Israel plans to invade Syria. But we are seeing the strategic plan begin to uncoil.”
But I’m not any MMS’s journalists and not intend to become one, so I passed. And here is his full comment and I think it’s insightful:
“I don't think Israel plans to invade Syria. But we are seeing the strategic plan begin to uncoil. If you go back to my Pulp Fiction post, the two centers of gravity are the Hezbollah's military base and their political power in Beirut. Both are dependent on each other.
Right now the Hez support base in Southern Lebanon is in full flight. Evacuation mode. This is not pretty, but I state it as a fact. Many of these, as you may have read, are now camped out in Druze or Christian areas. Fine for now while they have lots of weapons and ammo. But eventually the Hez military base will collapse and so too will their political power. At least, that's the calculation.
Now comes the danger that the IDF will sever their land supply from Syria and rip up their infrastructure in pursuit. The Hez will soon be at the mercy of all their rivals in the civil war. They will have terms: the proposals say they will be allowed a political role. But no more guns.
Syria will now have the choice of staking everything by coming to the aid of the Hez or watching their client in Lebanon shredded. I predict Syria will stand aside, but. But as past days have shown in war anything can happen. Israel may suffer a check. There may be widespread sectarian revenge-taking in Lebanon. Iran may fire missiles. There might be a meeting engagement between the IDF and the Syrian army.
But as matters stand this is the opening act of the Hezbollah and Israel's fight for life. Israel cannot leave Hezbollah in existence. And Hezbollah lives to destroy Israel. Two in and only one out.”
As far as I know of many people respected in military and warfare analysis, they know for a fact that
1) They were not included in the Israel’s cabinet meeting and what were not broadcasted, IS NOT NECESSARILY NOT THERE.
2) They maybe smarter than few Israelis politicians, or even maybe smarter than a few Israelis Generals, but they are definitely not smarter than all Israelis’ politicians or all Israelis’ Generals.
So they are not really 100% gungho of their opinions but rather lay out their speculation because IT IS CERTAIN that ALL ANALYSIS FROM OUSIDERS are speculation due to lack of direct information, direct intelligence reports and direct participation in war plan. You have exactly the same access to information as I do (with the exception of your blinder that I don’t have) and you come rather convinced that you are the one who certain of your opinion without any decent weight of other possibilities. As you can see, I read your context of your last several posts on the same subject hence my impression of you acting like a lawyer to convince the jurors with your selective evidences. Or maybe you just really can’t think that far. I don’t know but I have a doubt of your analysis in term of honesty.
Hezbollah will be destroyed if the Israelis really want them dead.
But are the Israelis really prepared to pay the price? Thanks to tactics such as colocation with civilian buildings and the impossibility of distinguishing combatants from non-combatants, completely destroying Hezbollah would probably require the direct and indirect deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians. Is the Israeli population prepared to pay the moral price of near genocidal policies in order to eliminate what is in the end not a dire threat to their existence?
I think not.
In the end, Israel will take the only realistic course open to it. A slightly militarily diminished and politically vastly more powerful Hezbollah and enough promises of peacekeepers and resolutions to allow face to be saved.
Tom H. keeps waiting for that democratic wrath, but until the majority feel that their survival is at stake, I don't see the political will for indiscriminate killing of civilians showing up any time soon.
And absent that, it would be better for major nations to avoid asymmetrical warfare that they cannot win.
Cripes, I keep getting reminded that there good reasons I adopted a personal policy years ago of not responding to comments, and Lanny the Horrible has reminded me of it again. The first is what Heinlein wrote, "Critics are those who create nothing and so feel qualified to judge those who do." The second is also Heinlein: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Lanny, do you really think that my posts are anything other than my opinion? What else could they be? Do you really think that I should always fudge my analyses by needlessly throwing in "We shall see," or "I might be wrong," or "based on what I know now," etc? Isn't it obvious that anything I write is simply my conjecture and nothing more? What possible reason can there be for me to explicitly, repetitively point it out?
I write what I think is the best explanation of the facts, context, and circumstances that pertain at the time. I have neither the time or the inclination to try to exhaust every possible contingency in a blog post; my posts are long enough as they are. Besides, this is a group blog, remember? Are not Armed Liberal and Colt and other posters providing other POVs? Or perhaps you dismiss my own qualifications?
What you're really ticked off about is that my writing stylebook isn't the same as yours. Then don't read my posts, I don't care.
Sensing, signing out. Really.
Tom W.,
You continue to think of this new conflict as if the tacit rules for past conflicts apply. They don't. Here's an excerpt from the Times of London story linked in my No. 23:I realize that no facts or evidence can convince you that the rules of engagement have changed. That was obvious from your statement: "I don't see the political will for indiscriminate killing of civilians showing up any time soon."
The only people who talk about indiscriminate killing of civilians by Israelis are the enemies of Israel. You are one of those.
I encourage others, however, to look at the story linked in my No. 23. The Israeli people are committed. Their government does what they want, and they want Hezbollah destroyed.
Look at your style of writting, Rev. You have changed a lot since the first start of your blog. Your attitude is all of condesending as if you are above. You have become arrogrant beyond imagination. You have made a lot of assumption as if I am not aware of your qualification. I know you are an artillery officer and have a son served in the Marine?. Which I think it's great for someone to have guts to have a son served in the Arm Force during this dangerous time. I also know that you have some good religious and spiritual advices related even though I am an agonistic borderline of atheist. And nothing of me that you know off, except few posts I have here, (but you can read through to have a glimpse of someone's thinking)
But that doesn't mean I am going to buy anything you said especially when you are testy now and reveal certain aspect of your condescending soul,. Your bio is thing of the past as all the licenses you have. It's the ability to use the tool and the level of instropection that count. Not the laurel of the past.
Ah, what about AL or Katzman? So far, I perceived their models and mine are not a major difference so I don't see anything that much to object as I do yours. BTW, if you don't beat up you chest, I wouldn't bring some unpleasant facts up. You know, I am not a Rev and I am not nice. Thanks for let me off the hook on the 2nd post, because I normally don't really care to post when there are many writters are much better than me. Takes me a lot of time to write the 1st one. Besides, if I'm the enemy of Israel I would rather go to a site that support Israel to read what they think than I would go to the NYT, LAT or the CNN. Things better not said doesn't mean that it's not there. So it's better for you guys to sell Israelis' defeat because it works better.
What does "pressure" mean, exactly? Other than the US, what "pressure" is likely to influence Israel? And who is exerting pressure on the US to exert pressure on Israel? Is someone threatening to interrupt our oil supply? How realistic is that, and to whom would they sell what they witheld from the US? "They" (whoever they are) are as addicted to the oil income as we are to the product.
Honestly, this all seems to be about mere conventionality... the basic notion of routinized expectations. And it's something of a misnomer to call it "pressure." Once one resolves to pay it no heed, it has no power.
@#37: Yep. "Pressure" is what Russia exerts on Georgia. That's why I characterize the current bleatings as 'Pious Noises ™.' They're as meaningless as a Turtle Bay lunch symposium. Sensing and Buehner are dead wrong, but I have tremendous respect for both.
Back on the 17th, my assessment was:
1. Israel will ignore the P.N. ™
2. Israel is going to the Bekaa Valley
3. Syria will blink.
4. If there is a deal, it will be because Assad sold Hezbollah down the river.
1 and 2 have come to pass. #3 is openly prognosticated over at Threatswatch (Pajamas has the links). I believe #4 is still in the cards.
BUT...
I could turn out to be very, very wrong on #3. YMMV on whether that would be a good thing.
Donald Sensing wrote in #26:
Which brought us Lanny's comments #32 and #36. Two rants, no relevant links, simply "selected evidences put together."
Yikes. These essays should stay in the comments, buried treasures to be read only by worthy voyagers that have mastered the intricacies of their trusty search engines. And also skimmed by us reg'lar thread readers.
"Hezbollah's rocket attacks into Israel, meanwhile, diminished. Hezbollah fired just 10 rockets across the border Tuesday, well below an average of about 100 a day since fighting began." Fox News.
Perhaps they still observe cease fire to show the world how blood thirsty the Israelis has become?
M. Simon,
Try this one - Syria will defend the Bekka Valley against Israeli ground attack to protect the narcotics growing/smuggling income vital to Syria's Baathist gangster confederacy.
If it ain't true, it oughta be, and in this case it really might be true.
Brought to you by my fantasy evil Debka twin.
The only people who talk about indiscriminate killing of civilians by Israelis are the enemies of Israel. You are one of those.
What? Everything in my post has indicated that the Israelis are not willing to engage in the indiscriminate killing of civilians. That makes me an enemy of Israel? Cripes, what are their friends like?
Let's be clear: the bombing so far has been neither indiscriminate nor particularly effective. The only way to truly destroy an army that is essentially (and purposefully) indisinguishable from non-combatants is to eliminate most of the non-combatants. An occupation could temporarily halt Hezbollah, but that's already been tried and it was way more costly than the status quo of the occasional missile.
No one has yet to shown how to quell a popularly supported guerilla war that doesn't involve being (as the War Nerd put it) "the more evil bastard". Since Western democracies aren't (thank God) willing to become the more evil bastard, they do what they must. And that means highly limited interventions on easily available targets, while employing non-military means to win the war. Long, frustrating, and in the end, the only means that will work. Which is why, until the present time, the United States and Israel have made it their strategy.
Only an enemy of Israel would wish Israel in its current situation.
It's not a rant, in case you don't see it AMac. It's refutation of the Rev's logic. He withdraws so I withdraw. Post #1 has a comment of Wretchard which I do think insightful and it hints certain type of Israelis's strategy and logics. But you have to skimp through a lot of comments to find that piece of jewelry and he has a lot of comments like that hidden in some 200 plus posts per every of his article when he engages with his commenters. If you want to find out, start digging. When you cry uncle, I show you where it is. I'm not making life easy for lazy people.
Surely, at some point most Moslems and Arabs will already believe that the US and Israel are the world's most dangerous terrorists, if they don't already believe that, and there will then be vastly diminished penalties for the US and Israel to kill wholeheartedly. That is, the US and Israel will then benefit from having taken the moral low ground, and can really benefit militarily (genocide can be very effective, but requires a real commitment to stick to the effort/moral lowground, and ignore propaganda damaging to the effort).
That is, the US and Israel will then benefit from having taken the moral low ground, and can really benefit militarily (genocide can be very effective, but requires a real commitment to stick to the effort/moral lowground, and ignore propaganda damaging to the effort).
On the other hand, Israel and the US are accused of 'massacres,' 'wanton killing,' 'indiscriminate bombing,' 'genocide,' etc., etc. ad nauseum, even when demonstrating phenomenal restraint and extremely surgical violence. All it does is cheapen the words and gradually erode their moral power, right along with any moral authority those making the accusations might fancy they have. Use those words sparingly and only when warranted, because they're the little boy who cried wolf. Because if you don't and the day ever comes that it's for real, all your fluffy little sheep are belong to us.
While every body is suddenly being amazed with the semantical differences between "ceasefire" and "cessation of fire", children are being killed. No way that these will be forgotten. War does not create peace, at least, not any more.
Q: Whither now, Israel?
A: Downhill.
Don,
Those are Israel's stated objectives. Their real objectives are the defeat of Syria and Iran.
In fact they are already defeated.
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/07/tactics-strategy-grand-strategy.html
BTW a military analyst looked at my analysis and liked it.
See the comment by Karradine at the above link.
#28 Jim Rockford,
Israel has a grand strategy. You just don't understand it. See my link above for some clear thinking.
#32 Lanny The Horrible,
You are the closest of any here to reality. Bravo. You will enjoy my piece linked above.
#33 Tom West,
Totally wrong. The price will be low. The profit will be the destruction of Syria and Iran. They have been outmanuvered.
#41 Tom Holsinger,
That is what I expect for different reasons. Your point only adds to the pressure on Syria to attack. Israel will be on the tactical defensive. Very strong. They will win. They are already making moves into the Bekaa.
It is all over but the shooting.
#47 David Blue,
Israel and America are going to run the table. Jihad is over. The jihad troops around the world are going to be demoralized and fade away.
Iraq is going to be relatively quiet by November.
===================================The Rev. Sensing may be an arty expert. He is no analyst.
#46 nezbeto joins the ranks of the clueless. Today they are legion. In a few weeks every one will say they knew all along. Unfortunately there is a record.
This war has and will be so brilliantly fought that it will be studied for 1,000 years.
Take it to the bank.
I forgot to mention #38 Russ,
Most excellent.
You beat me to it by 10 days. I think my analysis is deeper but I have not read yours. I will look at it and give you my thoughts here.
Russ,
I am looking at your 17 June and have a few things to say.
http://happycrow.w*rdpr*ss.com/2006/07/17/armchair-archons-israel-hizballah-prognostication/
Syria will not blink. #41 Tom Holsinger gives one reason. I give another at my link: popular pressure.
The reason Damascus is not going east of Bekaa is that they will be defeated there.
The settlement will come about due to regime change in Syria and Iran.
Minor quibbles though.
All in all excellent for so early in the war.
*
M. Simon:
Normally I'd say you're just way too Celtic to be correct, but sometimes intricacy is the key to simplicity. Bernard Lewis has observed that one of the classic weaknesses of Muslim Culture over the centuries is revealed in their approach to music. Their music can be quite intricate and lovely, but their ability to orchestrate is minimal. The Iranian strategy is an attempt to orchestrate, but it's essentially binary and linear. They're too clever by half, and are open to being blind-sided because they're overly impressed with their own cleverness.
By the way, I think there's something wrong with the link you posted above. Even after replacing the "*" with an "o" it still didn't work. I had to go to the main page and then find the post.
"What does "pressure" mean, exactly? Other than the US, what "pressure" is likely to influence Israel? And who is exerting pressure on the US to exert pressure on Israel? Is someone threatening to interrupt our oil supply?"
Threatening their smart bomb supply is more likely. The Israeli military relies on US resupply during wartime.
First of all, there are very real consequences for Israel. Most of their trade is with Europe and it wouldnt take much for most Euro governments to sanction Israel independantly or as a group. It has happened before. This is a nontrivial point, Israel's economy relies on European trade. Secondly if a point is reached where US support cant be counted on, the UNSC can create even more restrictive sanctions- they may not be counted on to sanction a bad guy but theyd love a crack at Israel. Finally, this isnt about simply the physical, to the Israelis and I suspect particularly to a politician like Olmert US support is important. Probably, as you suggest, moreso than it need strictly be.
Sidenote- Hezbollah rocket attacks are back up to about normal levels.
M. Simon:
A case of Shiner or your regional equivalent says you're on.
#41 won't happen, b/c it's predicated on the Israelis also fighting the previous war. Why send in lumbering armored columns that can be flanked by the Syrians and are prey to asymmetric warfare, when they can pin the lighter and less-trained Hezbollah troops from the air, and then shoot the hell out of them from on high when they emerge to try to swarm the inserted troops? Everything coming out about the recent raid suggests that they actually managed to sucker Hezbollah into playing that game.
Your reason is: public pressure. I don't buy it for two reasons. The first is in the generic: since when do dictators care about public pressure? Okay, you can blow that one off. The second is that he's an Assad. The Assads are smart and smart and then surprisingly smart boys -- the tiny little Alawite faction hasn't been at the top of the heap in Syria because they're prone to making sucker moves or being rope-a-doped. Assad can do the math. He knows that he's toast if the Israelis sucker him in. The minute Hezbollah and/or the Iranians are no longer a benefit to his retirement plan, they'll be cut in favor of a better deal (and the French will always be there to help him cut one).
Thus my #3 and #4 prognostications.
#55 Russ,
I expect what is called a boxing. Light troops inserted in Baalbeck to hold that end of the road. Tanks coming from Israel. That is what the insertion extraction was about. To see if it could be done. And probably to leave some intel and FAS behind.
The tank attack and supply convoys going up the road will attract Hizbollah to come out into the open for flank attacks. Guerillas in the open are dead meat. Easier to find as well.
As you point out an armored Syrian advance is suicide against troops with the proper weapons and air support.
The Israeli armor will not be flanked by Syria because there will be light infantry holding the valley. Once Syria crosses the border the whole line of troops and tanks behind them will be fair game for air attacks.
The problem for Syria is the big moustache problem. The Mother of All Battles Problem. Assad has to back up his talk or be thought weak. Weakness invites overthrow. He has no good options. He might as well go down fighting. There at least honor in that.
#53, "word pross"? I don't think so. Try "word press". Fooled me the first time too.
#54 Mark Buehner,
Bush wants a Syrian/Iranian defeat as much as Olmert. Think "the Iraq Quagmire". There will be no American pressue. Expect more security council vetos if necessary.
Think big Mark. Think about solving a whole host of problems this summer.
What is the goal of Iran/Syria? To get the ME street to pressure their governments to support Iran. The street is aflame. They may not be so inflamed again. Iran/Syria has to take advantage or see their strategy ruined for decades. With Iran in the shape it is in this is their chance. And it is very slim.
Again:
I'm reminded of one of Cromwell's Scottish enemies who said:
"We must either starve, disband, or go with a handful of men into England. This last seems the least ill, yet it seems very desperate".
BTW by FAS I meant Forward Air Spotters. Should it be FAC? Forward Air Controllers? I'm Navy myself so I'm weak on ground pounder terminology.
Give me decks, overhead, fore and aft. I grock that.
@57: I like decks. Decks are good. FAC is what I hear, but I'm too old and the recruiters told me to go home...
Does that mean we're on, your beer against mine?
"Think big Mark. Think about solving a whole host of problems this summer."
Im thinking big, you're thinking big, but we dont call the shots. Its one thing to ponder what the right thing to do is and propose ideas. But its another to talk about what is happening and will happen in the real world.
"What is the goal of Iran/Syria? To get the ME street to pressure their governments to support Iran. The street is aflame."
The street is always aflame. Yeh, every set of cirucmstances is different, but underlying principles often remain static. Thats why history seems to repeat itself. Israel has been down this road many times before and the fundamentals havent changed much from 1982, believe it or not. Syria is going to do everything in its power to survive, starting with keeping out of Israel's crosshairs. I guarantee you Assad is more afraid of Israeli tanks and smart bombs than 'the street'. Rightly so.
Russ,
This one is going to have to be for bragging rights. I am, as they say, between asignments.
Tell you what. If you win I will blog it. I will publically abase myself in your honor.
You will have to remind me. And keep track of the details. A few days should tell.
I must say conventional wisdom is on your side.
BTW Iran has been making big noises that they will support the hizzies. So Iran might press Syria as well.
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/08/lebanon-bekaa-attacks-maps.html
I have the Iran link above and in the comments a real intel analysist says he liked my deductions here:
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/07/tactics-strategy-grand-strategy.html
So I have that in my favor.
msimon6808
at
yahoo
dot
com
Mark,
Just a few days ago you were saying Israel was not going to Bekaa. Agreed they are not there in force. They will be.
The snatch in my opinion was cover for an insertion.
And don't take that the wrong way. LOL.
If the Iranians have blackmail pressure over Syria that might tip the scales.
@ M. Simon (yes, but my snarking is based totally on having gotten my chips in before the common wisdom). Anyway, I can play to those stakes, and will publicly abase myself if you turn out to be right. We'll need to keep a close news-eye on Syria deployment patterns as that news comes out.
I'm not certain what going after Syria will accomplish. The successor to Assad is likely to be a lot less friendly to the West (if one can imagine).
M. Simon, I have to admire someone who's willing to put their ego on the line (especially one as large as yours), but I can't help noticing that you haven't mentioned a "drop dead" date.
What deadline are you willing to accept for Israeli action in Syria and Iran? (i.e. admit you were wrong if there's no action by that date...)
#64 Tom,
Before the war is over. As you well know predicting when wars will be over is not easy. I'm no better at it than your average general or President.
The American Civil War was supposed to be over in a few months (Northern perspective). It lasted a while longer than that.
And yes I have a very strong ego. My kids complain all the time. I tell them they are right. LOL My fist mate married me for it (in part) and she complains too. LOL
Well, I, for one, would love to be wrong about what I see as the outcome here. If Hezbollah can be truly neutralized (i.e. not spring back up in a year or two)
(1) without Israel occupying Lebanon
(2) without Israel obliterating Southern Lebanon (which isn't going to happen)
I'll be more than happy to eat crow.
Hope he is wrong.
"Walid Jumblatt in the Financial Times"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7f991d98-217e-11db-b650-0000779e2340.htm
"Fighting ‘has sunk hope of a free Lebanon’
By William Wallis in Beirut
Published: August 1 2006 22:10 | Last updated: August 1 2006 22:10
Walid Jumblatt, leader of the most powerful clan in Lebanon’s Druze community, said on Tuesday the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas had dealt a fatal blow to Lebanese hopes of a strong independent state, free of Iranian and Syrian influence.
Speaking from his family’s palatial 18th century redoubt high in the Shouf mountains above Beirut, Mr Jumblatt said the Shia Hizbollah movement already sensed victory. "...
"There was also little prospect that Hizbollah, having emerged as a champion in the Arab and Muslim world, would be willing now to incorporate its armed wing under the Lebanese state apparatus – the issue at the centre of international diplomatic efforts to end the conflict with Israel.
“We will be just a weak state next to a very strong militia. Our government will be like the government of Abu Mazen (Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas) next to Hamas or maybe worse like the government of [Nouri al] Maliki in Iraq.”
“All American policy in the Middle East is at stake,” he continued, “because their failure in Palestine, their failure in Iraq and now this failure in Lebanon will lead to a new Arab world where the so called radical Arabs will profit.
“This is the new Middle East. Not the new Middle East of Ms [US secretary of state Condoleezza] Rice. Darkness everywhere.”
Will be?!? I want some of what he's been smoking for the last 6+ years.