[I]n the first days of McNamara's tenure as Secretary of Defense, he invited the Commander in Chief of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) to explain the US strategic war plan (known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan or SIOP). After the review, McNamara said in horror "General, that's not a war plan! All you have is a kind of horrible spasm."
I have been wondering since Tuesday or so, when I started working on this essay, whether the same might be fairly observed about Israel's response to Hezbollah's provocations.
I say that having already written why, from Israel's point of view, Hezbollah's July 12 cross-border raid indicated a new level of violence by Hezbollah that Israel could not accept. Its question was not whether to respond, but how.
Despite the barrages of essays across media and blog sites about Israel's "disproportionate" response, Israel could not retaliate against Hezbollah merely tit-for-tat. Hezbollah raised the stakes with its cross-border raid, setting new terms of the long-going conflict. For Israel to respond similarly would have signaled to Hezbollah that it accepted those terms. But the terms were unacceptable.
A card-game analogy: Hezbollah raised Israel $100 and probably expected Israel to call. Instead, Israel raised Hezbollah $1,000. Hezbollah can't match it in military capital. But Israel may have miscalculated whether Hezbollah can call or even raise in political capital. All Hezbollah's chips may not yet be on the table.
... it is hard not to conclude that every player involved directly or indirectly has badly miscalculated.
This conflict will not end by a restoration of the status quo ante. Israel will refuse to allow a replay of the last two weeks. This means that there must be a dramatic change in both Lebanon and the Palestinian territories that satisfies Israel’s security concerns and sends the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table in a permanently calm atmosphere. ...
Hezbollah has fared even worse than the Palestinians by badly miscalculating the Israeli reaction and counting on both the tacit and open support of Iran and Syria as well as the support of the Arab masses and governments to save the day.
... Seduced by his own rhetoric about how powerful and mighty Hezbollah is and eager to show solidarity with Hamas, Nasrallah overplayed his hand and now he is likely to pay a crippling price for his grandiosity. ...
But Syria and Iran underestimated the Israeli response. Somehow they were blinded to the fact that Hezbollah had crossed the line drawn in the sand by attacking urban areas inside Israel. To the Israelis this was totally and categorically unacceptable.
Regarding the Arab governments' view of the war, Ahmed Al-Jarallah, chief editor of the Arab Times, says that they have swallowed a bitter pill:
Unfortunately we must admit that in such a war the only way to get rid of “these irregular phenomena” is what Israel is doing. The operations of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon are in the interest of people of Arab countries and the international community.
It's highly doubtful that Hezbollah thought it would not get even rhetorical support from Arab governments. The Washington Post:
"What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas," said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of sensitive diplomacy. "Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats to take down Hezbollah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant."
Hezbollah's cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others has provided a "unique moment" with a "convergence of interests" among Israel, some Arab regimes and even those in Lebanon who want to rein in the country's last private army, the senior Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing conflict.
Israel and the United States would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled. "It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill -- Hezbollah's neutralization."
But another point of view is found in Ralph Peters op-ed piece, "War in Middle East A Tragedy of Errors."
Hezbollah got this one wrong. Whoever green- lighted the raid on Israel didn't anticipate the ferocity or scale of the Israeli reaction. Then the Israelis began to miscalculate - reacting impulsively and emotionally themselves. Attacking Hezbollah was fully justified and necessary, but Israel's frustration with the Lebanese government's toleration of terrorists boiled over into folly. Israeli aircraft attacked Beirut's international airport and other targets around the city, doing both Israel and Lebanon's fragile democracy far more harm than good.
Israel hopes to pressure the Lebanese government into taking action against Hezbollah. But Lebanon's leaders can't do that. If they ordered their work-in-progress military to attack and disarm Hezbollah, some Lebanese Armed Forces units would mutiny, others would disintegrate - and any outfits that attempted to take on Hezbollah would be badly and swiftly defeated. And the action would reignite the country's dormant civil war.
After the Israeli strikes in Beirut, Hezbollah then raised the stakes again by raining rockets down on Israeli cities - making it impossible for Israel to limit its offensive.
Counterterrorism Blog analyzes thus about Syria and Hezbollah and the future of Lebanon:
Syria. Reports from military sources suggest that Bashar Assad would like to see Israel enter South Lebanon. For a long time, one of the key drivers of Syria's economy was its domination of Lebanon; after Syria was pushed out last year, its economy took a major hit. Reports suggest that the Lebanese government has essentially ceased being functional. If Israel enters South Lebanon, engages in major combat operations and then withdraws, it will likely leave a power vacuum that the Lebanese government cannot fill. That will pave the way for Syria's return.
Hizballah. Hizballah has already shown that it's capable of taking on the Israeli military. This fact alone will help increase its prestige. Moreover, Lebanon's infrastructure has already been so damaged that Hizballah's social services network is bound to expand -- thus bolstering the terrorist group's standing.
A third consideration is what is likely to happen next. There appears to be little chance of a long-term Israeli engagement in Lebanon. If Israel were interested in a long-term occupation, it would have had to call up far more reserves than it did.
The Lebanese government includes Hezbollah representatives; it's unlikely that any Lebanese will consider the kind of incursion being staged by Israel as I write this to be something other than invasion, no matter how Israel describes it. They risk fighting not only Hezbollah but large numbers of Lebanese soldiers who will desert to join Hezbollah's ranks - except that the Lebanese government might release them to do so in the first place. Jonathan Steele, writing for The Guardian in Beirut, wonders, "How could both sides have blundered so badly?"
The key questions for Lebanon are whether Hizbullah will emerge from the crisis stronger or weaker, and whether the sectarian divisions that sparked its last civil war will re-emerge deeply enough to launch a new one. ... [A]s Israel continues to destroy the country's infrastructure, killing more than 300 civilians and putting half a million people to flight, anger has forged Lebanon-wide unity. ...
Strongly anti-Hizbullah Lebanese commentators such as the Daily Star's Michael Young fear that Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbullah's leader, will emerge victorious.
"He doesn't need a military victory in order to secure his political resurrection. He needs only to survive with his militia intact and Israel sufficiently bloodied," he argued yesterday.
I personally think that Israel will be bloodied - Hezbollah has already shown it can fight skillfully and with determination. The question is whether Israel will pay the butcher's bill in its soldiers' blood to ensure Hezbollah's militia survives much less than intact.
I fear that Israel's leaders may have failed to remember what Richard Heddleson emailed me three years ago: "starting a war is like entering a dark room blindfolded." Even if Hezbollah's present ranks get badly depleted by Israel's arms, there will probably be no shortage of volunteers from Lebanon's population to reconstitute it. The enormous violence being done to the country and people of Lebanon, including Lebanese Hezbollahites, may propel Hezbollah, after open hostilities wind down, into a stronger domestic position than ever. It may wind up ruling the whole country.
I wrote near the beginning of Israel's operation that Israel was being forced to react to events rather than proactively shape them.Despite being on the receiving end of Israel’s sword, it’s far from certain that either Hamas or Hezbollah think they are at disadvantage. In their minds, they may have Israel right where they want it, and they may be right in the long term. ... All of which means that Israel was forced to react to circumstances rather than create them. Yet the real initiative is political, not military, and Hamas and Hezbollah (unjustly) hold the high ground there. I doubt that Israel’s military actions will reverse that.
For now the West, led by the United States, is giving Israel free rein; the Europeans are mouthing their usual "stop!" platitudes, but not very loudly or earnestly.
Even so, the day will soon come when the West will insist on ceasefire, impelled not by military analysis but from the suffering of the Lebanese people. The calls have already started - actually they began almost the moment Israel sent its first F-16s into Lebanon.
In fact, serious talks have begun for a "robust" international force.Planning for the force is in early stages, but officials said they anticipate it including 10,000 to 20,000 troops led by a contingent from France or Turkey. ...
Key aspects of the peacekeeping force, such as which country would lead it, its size, and its mission are still being discussed, both inside governments and in international meetings.
"The questions about what kind of force it is -- what its command structure is, is it a U.N. force, is it an international assistance force -- those are the discussions that are going on and, I think, are going to go on over the next few days," [Secretary of State Condoleeza] Rice said. She is expected to leave [Sunday] to discuss those matters on a trip to Israel, Italy and the West Bank.
One potentially nettlesome point would be whether the international force would be told to disarm Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon. Asked about that, Rice said, "It's got to be capable of helping the Lebanese forces make certain that southern Lebanon is not a haven for these kinds of attacks."
Israel's grave risk is that Hezbollah will not be sufficiently degraded by the time the ceasefire negotiations are held. And, to paraphrase Will Rogers, Israel never lost a war or won a conference.
I admit I could be underestimating the will of Europe, whose leaders may be awakened to the threat Iran poses via Hezbollah by proxy and who may actually understand the disastrous long-term consequences of letting Hezbollah survive. Certainly the "avert my eyes" reaction of the Arab countries is out of pattern for them, and that may make some backbone grow in the West.
As in so many things with such high stakes and countless variables, we shall see.
Hmmm. "This conflict will not end by a restoration of the status quo ante. Israel will refuse to allow a replay of the last two weeks."
But Israel hasn't done anything to not replay the last two weeks. Nor have they done anything that won't replay their last two incursions into Lebanon. Blah blah blah, rah rah rah.
If Israel could really take Hezbollah down, I'm all for it. But that isn't going to happen without a total occupation and Lebanon and Syria. Israel doesn't have the resources to do that. What can we conclude?
I like the spasm analogy, because that's what their reaction looks like to my untrained eye. But perhaps I don't the subtlety of their ations ;-)
So, what could Israel have done differently?
I'd argue they should have gone in harder and faster. But they weren't expecting this and invasions take time to plan. I'd say that would have upped the stakes - they could have come out a lot better or a lot worse. If it were up to me I wouldn't take that risk.
I agree, they have to go in there, get the job done, and they will take losses. But, what other options do they have? What other options did they ever have?
I'll say one other thing: I think the way the international community is embarassing itself over this war, Israeli politicians are going to worry less about such ramifications in future. It seems that if they sneeze, they're condemned. That being the case, what's the advantage of restraint on their part? All it buys them is more war.
The issue of proportionality has been misapplied by the appeasement faction and, unfortunately, debate has been held in the den of that misapplication since then.
Proportionality is measured not solely by the instigating act of your adversary but by the threat posed by that adversary. As such, the proportionality of Israel’s response should be measured against what is deemed reasonable to eliminate the threat, not what is reasonable in responding to the act.
Israel declared that the existence of Hezballah as an armed faction openly hostile to Israel on their northern border, uncontrolled by the legitimate authority of Lebanon as the state, is the threat for which removal of this threat is required. It goes without a lengthy showing that this is reasonable objective. The question then is, are the actions taken so far disproportionate to achieving the stated the objective, not disproportionate to Hezballah’s instigating act.
As for miscalculations on Israel’s part, I think it is premature to conclude that they have made any that amount to a serious one.
So, what could Israel have done differently?
Negotiate.
They could have talked first. See if they could have gotten their captured POWs back either in a prisoner exchange (no shame in that) or in some other manner.
If that didn't work the military option would still be available.
So let me see. Israel has set up a pattern. Enlarging its forces every three or four days, but sticking to the pattern.
Now despite Donald's intimations the Israelis are not stupid.
So why would they be setting up a pattern?
To break it maybe?
If I was Syria I'd be needing an underwear change every hour.
My guess is that they are waiting for Syria to relax. When the Syrian's edge is off.....
ken : They've negotiated for the release of prisoners, in the past, repeatedly. What was the outcome?
They got their prisoners back, sometimes, after releasing hundreds or thousands of criminals.
What happened then? Those same criminals, and their buddies, killed and kidnapped more Israelis and fired more rockets.
Israel has learned a simple lesson: you negotiate with kidnappers, more people get kidnapped. As simple as that. So, cleraly they thought about it, and decided enough was enough.
Anybody have a better suggestion?
Nicholas,
Has Isreal ever negotiated with the democratically elected government of Lebonon before? No.
Since Hezbollah is part of that government Isreal could have had govenment to government negotiations about the POWs as well as the general issue of border security.
I think it is a shame Isreal did not even try.
I don't think this is about Hizbollah, which is the mistake I believe you all are making. It is about Iran.
The immediate attack was done for the sake of making this look like a retaliation raid and get initial public opinion on its side.
Instead they look "hot headed". However, attacking after six months or three years of negotiations would seem like even more of an over reaction than today's events.
The logic of the situation says Syria. In strategy it is preferable to go after the weak partner.
Neither, Syria, nor Lebanon will be occupied. Why repeat mistakes. For Syria it is regime change time. Worse regime comes in? Repeat the process every few years until the Syrians decide peace is more profitable than war.
If Iran keeps its promise to Syria it is toast. If it does not it loses prestiege. In any case Iran is isolated.
And the USA? If Syria keeps sending jihadis, American/Iraqi cross border raids (recon in force) will hurt until Syria cleans up its act or the Americans/Iraqis clean the place for them.
A lot of folks are falling into the "they would never do that" trap. Remember Pearl Harbor?
A lot of things will get settled this summer.
ken,
Remember the democratically elected government of Lebanon has no power over Hizbollah. In fact it seems to be aligning itself with Hizbollah.
Why negotiate with those who have no power to deliver?
The Muslims have been playing that game for decades with Israel. You know armed wing, political wing crap.
I believe Israel has decided to kill the whole bird.
Magic Number: 666333
(Second time I have that number in a week. Do I get a prize?)
In regards to post #2, from Nicholas -- "What could Israel have done differently?"
Maybe a special ops against Nasrallah? It seems like the daring Israel of the 70s is long gone (the Entebbe operation, and the assassination of the instigators of the Munich Massacre, come immediately to mind). Perhaps the assassination or abduction of Nasrallah is completely out of the realm of reason. But don't alienate the whole of Lebanon with a spastic military reaction. Some of the Lebanese would be happy to see Israel take Hezbollah as long as they don't get caught in the crossfire.
What is Israel's end game? Answer: The removal of Hezbollah as a threat to Israel's security. How do they go about doing that, given that Hezbollah is an amorphous organization -- one that isn't tied to conventional tactics -- and one that can retreat disperse and live to fight again. To my mind Israel hasn't thought through the ramifications, especially with our involvement in Iraq being a shining example of what not to do...
M. Simon,
Your absolutely right, it's all about Iran. This is a breakout move of the usual status quo.
Here's my two cents.
RBT
*****
GWOT - The Strategic Game Afoot! [Israel vs. Hezbollah]
HT The Volokh Conspiracy via Instapundit
More info on what the MSM is not covering. The Israelis are doing more damage to Hezbollah then is generally reported. Also with the US now in Iraq the strategic geopolitical climate has shifted. With Saddam still in power the Arab states probably would not be "winking/nodding" on the Israelis tearing up Hezbollah.
Mind you Hezbollah is Shi'ia and back by the Iranians who are Shi'ia too. The other Arab states, largely Sunni, and now that Saddam is out of the picture are very nervous about the Iranian led Shi'ia moving into the power vacuum. Especially, with their quest to hasten the return of the 12th Imman perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons to bring on Armageddon.
OK - so no WMD found in Iraq ;-) (Fat lady hasn't sung yet on this though)
See the pieces below re a more global view of the GWOT. Read why it was so important strategically that the US took out Saddam when we did in the GWOT.
The Mad Mullahs of Iran are now in a vise between the Western forces in Afgan and Iraq and the Kurdish populations to the north. The Arab states in the region are not backing the Iranian and Syrian moves in Lebanon and Gaza.
Perhaps this was the strategic plan of Sharon all along. Give a mouse a cookie and next they'll want milk too!
The Israelis now have a green light to clear the swamp in Southern Lebanon. What remains to be decided is what force will maintain the status quo once Israel withdraws back inside its borders.
This is the diplomacy now in motion.
Read More
M. Simon,
I think you are confused when you say that the Lebonese government had 'no power' over Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is part of that government.
By negotiating with the government for a prisoner exchange Israel would be also negotiating, although indirectly, with Hezbollah. A successful negotiation would have also, no doubt, strengthened the hand of the legitimately elected government over Hezbollah.
I am not certain it would have worked but it was certainly something Israel could have tried.
I am not a cynical as some who think Israel was just using the taking of prisoners as an excuse to make all out war on Lebanon. I think they really just wanted to get their soldiers back but were incapable of thinking of anything but war as a means.
I fear Israel has lost its humanity. It sees violence as its first and only response to something that had a chance of being resolved peacefully.
#5 M. Simon
That's a pretty expensive strategy, given the number of reservists. As for Syria, if Debka is to be believed, they're on alert.
#10 beowulf888
And yet, as much as we wish for it to be otherwise, life remains unfair.
I have a lot of sympathy for most Lebanese, but they cannot have it both ways. The roads, bridges, communications, airport, port, all of it was used by Hezbollah to fight Israel.
#11 RocketsB,
I predicted a lot of this (not Lebanon) a year ago:
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/06/sharon-plan.html
It looks like you and I are in the minority for now.
#12,
If Hizbollah is part of the government then it had 24 hours to turn over the soldiers. The hizzes refused. The Lebanese government was silent (powerless). The hizzies offered a prisoner swap of 1,000 to 1. Israel is not playing that game. The rules changed. The hizzies were not notified. Most unfortunate.
And as you point out the hizzies are part of the government. Which means there are no innocent Lebanese. Excellent.
BTW the Israelis have never gotten back live soldiers in these prisoner swaps. What is the point of playing that game?
#13,
You will note that the reserves are not being called up all at once. That extends the time for operations.
I said the Syrians are on alert. What you look for is the point where routine sets in and alert slackens.
M. Simon,
Sorry, I didn't realize you were just another of the codpiece conservatives that infest this site.
No point in discussing this further with you.
Well, I see merit in the idea of a special-ops type mission but would killing this Nasrallah guy really have achieved anything? Would not somebody else step into his place? I think it would be a temporary set-back for them and cause some reshuffling, but the same problem would still come back to bite them in 3-6 months if that.
As for negotiation.. I tend to assume there is secret/back-channel negotiation going on between all parties who are legitimate. That would include the Lebanese government. For all I know, that is not happening, but I"m not going to assume that it isn't. I would not expect to hear about it either way. Are they explicitly saying they have had no contact and are not negotiating anywhere?
Just a note that I have not yet lost my fight by responding to Ken's comments. Right now me, myself, and I are still in the midst of negotiations. Internicene fisticuffs broke out briefly followed by a quick cease-fire, but prospects for final resolution to the matter in a peaceful manner will be entirely dependent on future instigations.
Martin Kramer has some very interesting things to say.
Some of which I have said myself (Hizbollah made a premature move re:its Iranian masters - thus Israel did a spoiling attack). Most of which I agree with.
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/07/spoiler-attack.html
You guys really need to hire me as your military analyst for this war. I'm way ahead of most of the pack. LOL
Here is a Kramer quote:
"In any case, it is in the interests of Israel and the United States to deal with the Hezbollah threat now, and not later in the midst of a far more dangerous crisis over Iran's nuclear plans. So a war now to degrade Hezbollah is a shared Israel-U.S. interest, which means that Israel can wage it without many constraints.
Just as I have been saying. It is all about Iran.
Why ken,
I had no idea you paid close attention to such things. I guess I will have to guard my front and rear in your presence. Typical of you to have no faith in reality though. My condolences.
In any case wait a few weeks and see if what I predicted conforms more to reality than those predictions your vast store of knowledge has provided.
I'm already one up on you re: the Sharon Plan.
codpiece conservative = one who uses facts and logic to kick ken's a**
Must remember that in the event the term arises again.
"I fear Israel has lost its humanity. It sees violence as its first and only response to something that had a chance of being resolved peacefully"
I fear that you let know your agenda. That sure sign when there are that hiperbolic tones.
A flight of a squadron of F-16 could have caused much more casualities than those 10 days of war.
Nicholas, I too would like to think there are 'secret' negotiations going on to end this. I am not sure that is a fair assumption to make however, given that nothing would be gained by keeping such talks secret.
The best opportunity for negotiations was before the hostilities got out of hand.
Like I said above, Israel could have negotiated with the government of Lebanon for a prisoner exchange and for border security, all the while threatening military action if talks broke down.
A successfully negotiated settlement had the chance of strengthening the legitimately elected government of Lebanon against the rogue elements within Hezbollah that were causing both it and Israel trouble.
Any settlement probably would not have been perfect, I am not certain one was even possible, but it was certainly worth a try.
I have to laugh at #22 by Ken.
"Like I said above, Israel could have negotiated with the government of Lebanon for a prisoner exchange and for border security, all the while threatening military action if talks broke down"
bwahahah.. you are probably the only person on the planet who thinks this.. which is appropiate since your scenerio is pulled out of your ass.
"A successfully negotiated settlement had the chance of strengthening the legitimately elected government of Lebanon against the rogue elements within Hezbollah that were causing both it and Israel trouble"
Um, Lebanon certainly doesn't need an Israeli ultimatum to internally deploy thier army and assert thier soverignity, if they had the will to do so and are under UN Sec Council Resolution compulsion to have already done.
You are a fool.
BTW Our President Agrees with me Don.
It is about Syria and Iran.
It is truly amazing how even many Bush supporters misunderestimate him.
#20 Achillea,
Honored to be your "codpiece" friend. LOL
Don is wrong. I believe he has made an honest mistake. An incorrect parsing of facts.
Ken is just plain out of touch with reality.
===================================Based on this little dust up I have to think that the Dems will be lucky to hold their own in November. Most Republicans think the Rs will lose seats. I'm one of the few predicting R gains, but you never know. It could be a prediction too far.
#22, #23, I have to agree with Vince, I don't see how the Lebanese government had the power or ability to negotiate anything with Israel. They can't just turn around and tell Hizb'allah what to do. As for whether it would be a benefit to keep negotiations secret, I think Israel needs to keep up a tough facade (their enemies seem to admire toughness more than mercy). They need to back their military up with tough talk. But at the same time I think they want to keep all their options open. Thus, back-channel negotiations.
So, ken, what makes you believe that the government of Lebanon would say anything to Israel other than "sorry, we don't control those guys" - even if they do? Part of the point of having a terrorist force like Hizb'allah is deniability, surely?
The larger point of Ken is that Dems have allied themselves, overtly, with "the enemies of humanity" that is the terrorists, jihadis, and bearded ones.
When Joe Lieberman and his support for Israel are derided on Kos; and Dems leading website openly (along the Washington Post) say Israel's creation was a "mistake" and that Israel has no legitimate right to exist and side openly with bearded jihadis who take their orders from Iran; or carry signs such as "Islam will dominate" (flying Saudi flag over the White House) ...
Most Americans believe that Dems are openly siding with our enemies; and if anything believe Bush has been too namby-pamby. Geraghty's Tipping Point. Not wanting hearts and minds but merely have them by the short hairs.
ken assumes that negotiations are cost free, that if they don't work "the military option would still be available."
The element of surprise would be gone, the opportunity to get Hezbollah flatfooted would be gone. How many Israeli lives would that cost?
Plus, Hezbollah has, in the past, moved hostages to Iran. It wouldn't take very long for the military option, to the extent it aimed at freeing them, to become moot.
U.S. experience with negotiating (with Iran) for the freedom of American hostages captured by Hezbollah was that the bargains struck encouraged further hostage taking. Its a wicked problem, but I would never fault a government for refusing to negotiate with kidnappers. It actually seems better to offer blanket condemnations than the promise of concessions.
Israel is trying to solve a political problem with a military solution. Reminds me of King George III and other failed attempts to do the same.
Hezbollah doesn't need any tactical victories for this to rebound to their advantage strategically. Hezbollah only needs to win once.
This is not WW3, won't become WW3' and is not truly global. This is a local conflict about land and population. This is an effect, not a cause, and therefore an end to nothing. Deal with the cause, and perhaps the cycle can be broken.
When people are raining rockets on your territory and kidnapping people across international borders, you have a military problem on your hands,
Tell you what, Tom. How about I fire a few rockets at your house, then kidnap one of your kids. then you can explain to your wife that it's all a diplomatic misunderstanding, and if the root of the problem is cleared up, everything will be fine.
At some level, everything is a political problem. Hitler was a political problem. The question is, was he a problem with a political solution? The answer was no.
Politics can solve irreconcilable engineering problems. Force solves irreconcilable political problems.
Ultimately, the cause of the problems we are seeing in that area of the world is the insane levels of hatred and promotion of genocide in the Arab/Muslim world. This is a medling of modern and older phenomena, and includes generous infusions of fascism ia the Muslim Brotherhood's nazi affiliations and pan-arabism's Soviet ones. This is combined with the religion's proven inability over centuries to live peacefully and on an equitable basis with people of other faiths, and rage that it has been balked at its promised goal of reducing all others to a second-class quasi-slavery. Of course, given Iran's role and the "12th Imam" end-times materials springing up from Iran through Iraq and into Lebanon, you can also throw in a generous helping of plain old medieval style religious nuttery.
I'd be fascinated to hear your political solution.
Tom,
I know you think that was an important thought but
would it surprise you to learn that over the past ... oh, couple of millenia, that a lot of political problems have been solved with military force?
Not to mention that, if Hezbollah is a political problem why have they accumulated so much military hardware and troops?
Israel's basic position: Israel retains some/all communities in Judea and Samaria, united Jerusalem, has security guarantees in Jordan valley.
Hamas/Hezbollah/PLO position: Israel destroyed, all Jews slaughtered.
How do you compromise with that? Do as Israel did in the 90s: release prisoners, arm the dominating terrorist force, provide them with territory, income, military training and legitimacy? Because, surprisingly, that didn't work all that well.
I guess you could skip all the interim 'confidence building' bullshit and skip straight to agreeing a percentage of Jews to be killed.
Tom --
Hamas and Hezbollah (Party of GOD) Nasrallah have repeatedly, and recently (as in days) said their objective is to kill every Jew in the world. As Nasrallah said "Good that the Jews are in Israel. It makes it easier to find them all and kill them."
This is why Hezbollah blew up Argentinian Jews in Buenos Aires, or Fatah shot wheelchair bound elderly Jew Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro.
If you prefer to step away from the insane hatred of all Jews by Muslims, perhaps you'd like to examine the Jihad declared by Somalian Muslims against Christian Ethiopa? Or the one by Muslims in Southern Thailand against Buddhists?
You may not be interested in jihad, but jihad is very interested in you. Coming soon according to the FBI to the US. When Hezbollah follows it's patterns of killing Americans abroad (Beirut Barracks 1983, Robert Stethem, CIA Station Chief Buckley, Khobar Towers 1996, the latter of which Clinton obstructed FBI Director Freeh's investigation) ... and kills plenty of Americans here, what's your response?
It is bad policy and worse politics to be on the side of people who have killed in cold blood and will kill again in cold blood Americans.
Well it looks like I was right.
Israel is now starting to negotiate for secure borders and the two Israeli POWS have requested that a third party like the UN arrange for a prisoner exchange.
It looks like all this violence was for nothing. It is a shame Israel did not go this route first, before it started the bombing.
#33 Ken,
I think that the fighting will go on for some time. The Arabs love to negotiate when they are losing.
I wouldn't place too much store in negotiations.
OTOH if the government of Israel gives too much away expect a more hawkish government. It is how Sharon got elected.
In any case without Hizbollah defanged the next round of fighting will be worse and every one knows it.
Besides what are the odds that Israel would have gotten its terms: and end to rocket fire, prisoners returned, no prisoner exchange, without a war?
And how are you re: Hizbollah's human shields?
=======================================The last time the Jews promised to compromise with those who vowed their extermination it didn't work out so well. Every one else may have forgotten.
The Jews still remember. In fact they have a new holiday/memorial.
If the Lebanese want to harbor those whose goal is genocide then like the Germans they should not complain too much about the rain of bombs.
In general one must remember in politics as well as engineering: it sucks to be stupid. The Lebanese are paying for their stupidity.
Israel is now starting to negotiate for secure borders
I wonder why Israel never before demanded that Lebanon move Hezbollah away from its borders or demanded UN action?
Oh, that's right they did, but people like ken obviously didn't care until Lebanese started dying. Hmmmm, I wonder what lesson is to be learned.
Joe, Robin, Jim:
Political doesn't mean nicety nice. I am not advocating pacifism or aggression, but rationality. Political can mean all embracing force or reluctant acceptance. Here's two quick opposite examples. The American revolution ended with a partition of Anglo phone North America. Further conflict achieved nothing but destruction and no real gain. In a triumph of reason over greed a peaceful settlement was arrived at, profiting all. Conversely in the last days and aftermath of WW2, Joe Stalin decided to resolve the Polish German border issue for good. He pushed the Polish border considerably far west and evacuated all the ethnic Germans. Thats a good border. Polish troops occupying German population and territory would have led to conflict. But there was no occupation, evacuation and a clearly defined viable boundary.
Military solutions absent the political dimension, are not solutions. They bring armistices, or occupations which can be problematic. Military victory alone is simply insufficient. We see that time and again. My own country's rapid conquest of Iraq is an example of applying a military solution to a political problem. The Soviet Unions reliance on military coercion failed the moment it was no longer credible. One must secure the victory so that one can demobilize the victorious but unproductive military and retain the victory. Were military solutions alone sufficient, Napoleon would have ruled an Empire until his death. He failed politically while succeeding militarily until he then failed militarily and lost everything. Napoleon's numerous military victory didn't lead to ultimate success. The Austrian Empire, which rarely failed to humiliate itself in those wars, came out quite well. Military is one dimension of political. Israel seems to expect that after x number of victories, Arabs will cry uncle. Show me the evidence of history for that. It is obvious military action alone cannot bring lasting victory.
I understand the horror of what you say, I also understand it is horrible when it happens to Arabs too. How about I take your grandfathers land, bulldoze your fathers refugee home for something a relative did, and kill your kid accidentally through collateral damage? I have empathy for both sides. I personally would swear revenge on any regular or irregular force that would inflict on my family the merciless punishment meted out by Hezbollah or IDF. That doesn't make it good policy. Why do you think there are insane levels of hatred in the Arab/Muslim world? Is it causeless? Caused internally without reference to the outside world? Or could it be internal problems combined with external interference? And yes Religious nuttery is a major fertilizer of Abraham's tree.
Hitler was definitely a political problem. He and his crony's needed hanging. But the Hitler and the Nazi's example is not cool. Hitler pegged the evil meter; even Churchill didn't know that instantly. Comparing any punk dictator or wannabe revolutionary with Hitler trivializes the true evil his regime committed and the scope of power possible in a powerful ill led first world nation.
The creation of Israel has displaced a large number of Arabs, who have no place to go. Until that issue is solved, there can be no peace. It is critical and obvious point. So far every opportunity has been squandered. At this point I would suggest Israeli-Hashemite efforts to remedy the basic problem of who, will live where. I would do this, were I the Israeli leader by identifying the borders I desire. I would engage Turkey. Identify Christian Lebanese I could work with and set them up in a smaller satellite state. I would invade Syria and Lebanon and destroy them militarily and civilly. I would I would allow and assist the Hashemites to rule over the state they were originally promised, with a proviso of a meaningful, permanent peace, which would include settlement of evacuated Arabs, recognition, trade.
The resort to arms is inherently risky, and simply foolhardy unless it fits into a greater scheme.
M Simon:
The Lebanese are weak and lack foresight. Once the Jews were weak and lacked foresight and paid a terrible price. I am nonplussed by the Schadenfreude and complete lack of empathy and contained in those sentiments.
Tom,
Such philosophizing is all well and good, but Israel has never been in a position to implement political solutions to its defense problem, because its Arab neighbors have been able to appeal to the superpowers to prevent Israel from pushing its military superiority far enough to impose political resolutions of the situation. The Arab/Muslim world has found a continuing state of belligerency convenient to its interests.
Robin:
America has aided as much as it has hindered Israel. I have said that for a long time. It is up to Israel, because they have one government. The arabs have, what 22? The Palestinian Arabs can't negotiate, because that can only lead to national suicide. If they were part of a larger Arab entity, they would have a place to go, and Israel would have a negotiating partner.
Tom Perry, are you advocating that Jordan and Egypt take over the Palestinian territories?
PD Shaw:
No.
ken, are you for real?
The negotiation is a direct result of the violence.
How you can suggest otherwise I simply can't understand. I'm still not convinced the offers to negotiate are anything other than a stalling/media tactic, but we shall see. I expect this to be an "Iran-like" or "North Korea-like" negotiation where one side makes outrageous conditions and is unwilling to compromise. Israel has a history of compromise, Hizb'allah, Syria and Iran do not. We shall see...
By the way, the fact that they announced yesterday that the Lebanese government NOW has the power to negotiate, suggests I was right initially when I said that the Lebanese government had no power to negotiate on behalf of Hizb'allah. What would have been the point of that announcement if that had had that power previously, as you claimed?