[T]he sub-plot surfacing currently from other sources (see http://www.debka.co.il) suggests that the US and specifically Condoleezza Rice had more than a hand in the decision to “take it slowly” and not use the full might of the forces. Generally speaking, Condi preferred the crying of Israeli mothers over the Lebanese ones.
Well, Debka is not always very reliable; its analyses seem to be borne out no more often than not. Nonetheless, there was a lot of discussion in the war's early days on whether President Bush had given Israel a "green light" to smash Hezbollah. The White House and the State Department said no, and that in fact the president never even spoke to Olmert until shortly before the passing of the UNSC's Resolution 1701, which established the ceasefire. This position is somewhat disingenuous, though, since what diplomats don't say is just as important as what they do say.
Much of the media record of the day is past easy retrieval now. But my recollection (and someone please provide corrections with links, if you can, if I'm wrong) is that the USG temporized quite a bit in moving toward a ceasefire. Over and again, both President Bush and SecState Rice said that the Middle East was "littered with ceasefire agreements" that didn't hold up, and they refused to put the administration behind yet another litter-to-be agreement. If Bush and Rice didn't give Israel a positive green light to stomp Hezbollah, they at least refrained from showing Israel a red light, or even a yelllow one. On July 18, however, the UK's Guardian reported that the White House had advised Israel that it had only one more week to wrap things up. Only three days later Secretary Rice said that the US did not support termination of the war on the basis of the status quo ante. But by that time even outsiders were wondering whether Israel actually had a strategy to fight the war.
Eventually, of course, the US did start to press for a ceasefire resolution in the UNSC, but certainly not one that obligated Israel and not Lebanon or Hezbollah. My analysis is that the administration initially played "hands off" the anti-Hezbollah campaign, expecting that the IDF would enter action decisively on the ground relatively soon, within the first two weeks or so. But time dragged on and the ground campaign was never more than desultory at best; with only a couple of exceptions IDF units didn't penetrate more than two or three kilomters into Lebanon. Eventually the Bush administration figured out that Olmert et. al. had not the will, hence not the intention, actually to enter a decisive ground fight with Hezbollah.
That meant that, inevitably, world diplomatic and popular opinion would turn against Israel, especially in view of the news reports of deaths and damage coming from Lebanon. That many of the reports were "fauxtography" didn't matter. It was always in America's self-interest for Israel to eliminate Hezbollah's army, but the Olmert government was not willing to do so. For two reasons, this fact mitigated against the continuing the tacit "green light" that the Bush administration had given Israel:
1. Indecision is neither a just aim in war nor a pragmatic tactic.
2. Even the Arab governments that would have privately smiled at Hezbollah's elimination would not countenance Israel's bombing of Lebanon that was increasingly unconnected to that goal and, by the last two weeks at least, of no obvious connection to a ground campaign that clearly was never going to come about.
At the end of the day, all nations finally look out for number one. Olmert got an implicit green light from Bush but sat there merely revving the engine. American interests with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait would have been harmed by Israel continuing what was a violent though phony war. American finally pushed for the ceasefire not because it was in Israel's interests, but because it was in ours, since Israel was obviously never going to close Hezbollah down. (By the time PM Olmert did give the go-ahead to move to the Litani river, it was too late; the UNSC had reached agreement.)
Its a crap excuse. Israeli PMs have a long and storied history of defying the White House, usually for the best for everyone involved. There's a game to it- the US sets a tentative limit and Israel ignores it, this gives the US diplomatic cover, 'hey, we told them not to do it'. Does anyone really think GW Bush put the breaks on Israel punishing Hezbollah?! The idea is ludicrious.
Some of the other comments I have heard on the web speak to the opposite: That the White House gave Israel the Green Light to not only go after Hizb'allah, but Syria as well. Personally, considering what I am hearing about the incompetence in Israel's current leadership, I am more inclined to believe this version of the story.
Well it seems to me that perhaps a lot of Israel is in denial. They never realized that voting Olmert in would lead to this. They of all people should have realized the foolishness of giving away land for peace. Instead of leaving the area the sharks smelled blood and weakness and struck for more.
Instead of blaming others though Israel needs to look to her leaders and change them. To do that they will have to realize that merely having a wish for peace does not mean the otherside wishes for the same thing. Projection of your morals unto the pack of animals fighting against Israel will lead to the destruction of Israel.
If it makes Israelis feel any better Denial is not merely a river in Israel or Egypt...it flows through the United States. Where we believe a variety of fantasies led by the main one...Islam is the Religion of Peace and that those who fight against us have "hijacked Islam". Nonsense.
What I heard was that both Condi and Bush were furious at Olmert and Peretz for screwing up this badly. And yes, the green light did extend to the Syrians. Olmert temporized. The DEBKA leak is a bit of arse-covering on Olmert's part in the runup to the Board of Inquiry.
Yah, brahs. Blame it on Condi. That'll do the trick!
"...by Israel continuing what was a violent though phony war."
Wha.............??????????
Did I just step into a parallel universe? Phony war? To go along with phony massacres @ Qana? Israel had every right to go after those who were threatening their existence. That threat was embodied in unguided rockets fired indiscriminately over the border at civilian targets. Those types of weapons are the definition of terrorism, folks. Olmert messed up by not going after Hizbollah with all available resources and killing all fighters or driving them out of Lebanon. Lebanon is complicit in that they did nothing about those in their midst, arming themselves to the teeth. What did they think all the rockets were for? Parades? All the underground bunkers that the world is so conveniently ignoring the existence of?
If the Mexican drug cartels started lobbing unguided missiles from Tijuana at San Diego, do you seriously think that we would be proportionate in our response? Thought not.
The Hobo
I see no reason to reject what Charles Krauthammer said.
Failure is not an option
The excuse of blaming the Americans gives me a sinking feeling. "Blame the Infidels!" should remain a Muslim game and not become a Jewish game of "Blame the Goyim!"
Israel is headed downhill after this defeat, but the direction can be reversed, or at least the Israelis can put the brakes on.
Many of us are counting on the Western capacity to face up to mistakes and correct them to pull Israel out of its serious state of weak and corrupt leadership and military unreadiness before the next war.
A resort to excuses would suck energy out of the drive to make life-saving reforms while poisoning Israel's relationship with its one vital ally.
Cross posted from another WoC thread and
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/08/deception.html
replace * with o
If the attack was to spoil Iran's plans for 22 Aug and gather intel (with a side of creating economic and logistical difficulties for Hizbollah - i.e. the bombing of Beirut was part of an economic warfare plan) then a missing wider strategic goal is explainable.
However, that is not how Olmert sold the war to the Israelis. So then he got caught by public expectations with a plan that was not even close to the one the public expected. He promised a strategic victory and may have actually deliverd one. It was not the strategic victory the Israeli people expected. To lay this all out might compromise intel sources. So Olmert is stuck.
Thus - confusion in the political echelon causes confusion on the ground. All driven by public perception.
It was a strategic defeat for Iran because 22 August passed without a bang or a whimper. Based on the Turkish grounding of an Iranian resupply mission - my guess is that a conventional rocket attack with large rockets shot off from Lebanon was the Iran plan.
The #1 problem with taking out Syria is not military. It is political. What comes next?
Does Israel want to turn Syria into what we have seen for the last 3 years in Iraq?
These regimes will crumble if they can be contained long enough. Can they? I doubt it.
What the current battles in this war are showing is that military victory is easy. Political victory hard.
Syria's threat to Israel is: if you attack us or force us to attack we will lose badly. The regime will fall. Then what?
If we can foment internal revolutions, that would be much better.
Rev. Sensing: I think you've just about nailed it.
If the Israelis could have avoided too numerous civilian deaths--whether or not some percentage of them was faked--they could have held on to wider support.
The fact is that Arab and International TV was flooded with images of dead babies. Nobody is going to be willingly associated with what appears--or is perceived to be--a bloodbath of civilians.
While some Arab gov'ts were happy to let Hezbollah get pounded, they could not support an effort that plastered dead civilians on TV screens across their countries.
Maybe that's "mushiness". I think it's reality.
The Israelis needed to move much faster. That would have cured most ills.
to win a decisive victory on the ground
Define "decisive victory on the ground".
AFAIK Hezbullah fighters can disguise as normal Lebanese people and flee as far north as the Turkish border, if necessary. More Katyusha rockets can also be brought from Syria easily.
In Europe, I think there is the contrary perception. Hizbullah didn't expect such a response from Israel, pounding severily southern Lebanon and even Beirut and moving troops to the Litani river.
The success of Israel in preventing launches from Lebanon was much greater than the same efforts carried out by American and coalition forces to avoid much larger Scud launches from Iraq in the Gulf War.
In the end, it is all regarded as just a skirmish in a bigger war between the United States and Iran.
Lebanese and U.N troops moving into southern Lebanon are seen as well as a victory for the hebrews. It has been a way to influence political developments in that country.
It was a strategic defeat for Iran because 22 August passed without a bang or a whimper.
Yea gods. Mr. Simon, you made incredible predictions over the war as to how it was going to come out, chastising us for not believing. If they'd occurred as you predicted, I'd have been praising you to the skies for being nearly omniscient, as a way of making up for the fact that I found them utterly unbelievable when you were making them.
However, one of the virtues that has to accompany making amazingly bold predictions that are at odds with common wisdom is to be able to eat crow with good humor when the predictions don't pan out. It's the price anyone who wants to be taken seriously pays for going way, way, way out on a limb.
Having a healthy ego means that you're not going to mentally collapse admitting you blew this one big time. Trying to eke out some sort of justification or "see I was kinda right" seems unworthy of you.
Its a crap excuse. Israeli PMs have a long and storied history of defying the White House, usually for the best for everyone involved. There's a game to it- the US sets a tentative limit and Israel ignores it, this gives the US diplomatic cover, 'hey, we told them not to do it'. Does anyone really think GW Bush put the breaks on Israel punishing Hezbollah?! The idea is ludicrious.
Yup. Bush wants Iran's proxy neutralized. Rice wants what Bush wants. Cheney and Rumsfeld are old Reagan hands, they remember the barracks bombing in '83.
None of these people have any love for Hizbullah. All of them have good reasons to want it destroyed.
Saying this administration 'held Israel back' is just not credible.
You get what you vote for.
The Israeli pop voted in a LLL government that was incapable of making the tough call when it was crucial.
They know have to deal with this. I suspect they will boot the Olmert government soon rather than later and be thankful that it was not worse and instead prepare for round two that will be worse for many reasons.
The Olmert gov know they are in trouble thats why they are running around blaming through rumors Rice on one hand and even attempting to blame the Israeli military itself. This may buy them sometime but I doubt it will save them.
The gual of the Olmert government in this war was seen in its full when in the middle of a devestating rocket assualt on a 3rd of the nation that exist only becuase of a earlier useless unilateral retreat from S. Lebanon Olmert dares to bring up his plans to renew the unilateral withdrawl from the W Bank. Insanity of LLL neverending appeasment at its apex.
"There is a growing sentiment among many Israelis that one reason the Olmert government did not send large formations of ground forces into southern Lebanon early, to win a decisive victory on the ground right away, is that the Bush administration placed a tether on Olmert to prevent such an operation".
It wasn't a "growing sentiment". For me, it was clear from the beginning that the Bush-Olmert strategy was to use the menace of a land incursion to press the UN into passing a resolution that asked nothing less than Hezbollah's state-within-a-state status, and to punish the Lebanese government into accepting the terms of 1701. This proposition seemed more atractive than a costly land incursion and it had the added value of having international forces and the lebanese army do the dirty work. They may or may not, but that was the intention.
There wasn't a decisive military victory because it was deemed sufficient to win in the diplomatic arena.
"War is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means."
—Karl von Clausewitz
I review a Michael Young piece from Reason Magazine, whose views are similar and complimentary to mine.
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/08/bitter-taste-of-victory.html
My bottom line?
A few more Hizballah victories like this one and Hizballah will be out of business. A few more Israeli losses like the one they suffered in Lebanon and they will control all of Lebanon. Some victory. Some loss.
Tom,
Sorry you missed it:
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/08/deception.html
Crow eaten. Enjoyed.
BTW the Israeli Army in the last 48 hours took the Litani - which was 1/3 my prediction. And they seem to have a strong special forces operation on going in the Bekaa.
What I have changed my mind about (in part) is the military objectives. It was a recon in force and a punitive expedition. Its job was to see how the other guy fights. Capture code books and frequency charts. Find out what works and what doesn't work in the Israeli Army. And a live fire training exercise. Also see how the Israelis respond to bombardment.
Here is some of the intel Amererica is getting:
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/08/electronic-warfare.html
According to the Michael Young article in Reason I reviewed above, Hizballah is busy taking care of a million refugees. A huge logistics, manpower, and financial drain on Hizbollah/Iran. In a country with a broken road net.
It helps with the money blockade on Iran.
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/08/cash-flow-jihad-meets-aftermath.html
replace the * with o
> M. Simon
Oops. I did miss it. My apologies.
Been there, done that, have the t-shirt.
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006379.php
The objective is neither Hezbullah nor Syria. It is Iran. If radical Islamism falls there, so will happen in Lebanon, and without the Lebanese economy Syria would collapse.
It has no point to fight a war now in the northern Israeli border. It is strategic militarily and geopolitically futile. Why follow the Iran provocation thru a proxy terrorist group? It is a distraction from the main objective.
BTW in this latest skirmish in Lebanon, that some called a war, were the Israeli bunker buster bombs used? Why do they need such devices able to pierce reinforced concrete as cheese?
Olmert had problems. To start, he was spending 3 weeks attempting to draw assad up the Golan. To no avail. So why pick on Olmert? And, not syria?
Israel knew the UN was signalling nasrallah on all its troop movements. So a lot of the stuff looking hokey, was designed to give false information to nasrallah. Not a bad move.
That the "bad pictures" from lebanon were due more to building things without CODE, and then never seeing this reported, isn't Olmert's fault. But a fault of the lebanese FAKERS. That's why their buildings pancaked. But good engineers are reporters; so you'll never know.
While the long range prospects is that even the arabs now know all the lies. And, don't believe nasrallah won very much. But like a cancer diagnosis. It takes its grand old time to catch up. And, actually kill the patient.
While Olmert discovered how previous budgets got passed by Arik Sharon. By stealing from the reserves. Getting soldiers mobilized? Israel learned a thing or two. Knowing that the reserves have gone without training for the past two years? PRICELESS INFORMATION.
Knowing the saudis wanted the Jews to do the dirty work and eliminate assad? Why should the Israelis do this, alone?
Ahead? Lebanon's under a seige. And, a few American amphibious landing vessels have joined the Israeli navy at sea. Hopefully, friendly than the Liberty!
In this neck of the woods you just never can trust those who say they're watching your back.
Iran? At a loss. All of nasrallah's missiles have proved useless. Though this has stopped Israel from stepping forward to be the "heavy lifter" in getting the iranian missile sites knocked out of commission.
For Olmert? I think a rather brilliant politician. For Bibi? The opportunist? With his settlers? Israelis aren't looking towards new elections, yet.
ANd, Mazuz and his spit patrol? You really believe this crapola?
Olmert got elected without all that much enthusiasm. And, oddly enough, he's stronger now. Not weaker. And, his team? Played better than I thought. For a bunch of weaklings. But if you're gonna get into a fight where one side knows how to flip ya (because they know it pays to do ju-jits-u, all Bush got was Condi getting her face rubbed in it by the french. So, I'll guess. Bush isn't happy. And, some day ahead, Chirac will discover what happens when his genitals come off. There's no other fight, here. And, while the MSM is useless, the Internet is growing audience all the time. At least that's my opinion. And, I'm more relaxed now, than I was with Bush, in 2002.