It seems clear that Hezbollah has, through the inexplicable Israeli unwillingness to commit to a robust ground attack, emerged battered but undefeated and thus as defined by Israel’s own stated war aims, the winner. It did this simply by surviving and by not being pushed north of the Litani river.
Although not all the detailed reports on the fighting on the ground have yet become public, one thing seems quite clear: the reason Israel did not destroy their enemy was not Hezbollah’s Kornet and Konkurs anti-tank missiles or their RPG-29s, but was due to the fact Israel did not deploy sufficient ground forces and commit to a full scale attack on Hezbollah until two days before the ceasefire. If Israel had been serious about destroying Hezbollah, it would have attacked at corps level by the end of the first week of the campaign, using 30,000 troops to make a tank supported infantry assault with airmobile blocking forces to isolate and exterminate the enemy. Two weeks of that would have been more than enough to have reduced Hezbollah to a small shattered cadre of dazed activists north of the Litani river.
But that is not what happened. As far as I can figure all that Israel committed to until the very last spasm of the campaign was a series of armour and artillery heavy limited objective raids which seem to have been mounted to blast settlements used by Hezbollah rather than to actually isolate and then clear them with infantry. I cannot fathom what ‘end state’ the planners envisaged from these attacks, given that it is a military aphorism that rubble is easier to defend than an intact town.
It will be more than many will be able to bring themselves to admit but when you get past the spin, Hezbollah won and they did so because Israel fought what was by local standards a long war without any plan I can identify to actually achieve what they said they wanted. So if the IDF bombarded Lebanon not to choke off Hezbollah’s logistics as part of a battle of annihilation, then why was the Lebanese transportation system trashed? Even if some delusional idiot in the IAF thought Hezbollah could be destroyed purely from the air, in that case surely all the IDF would have done was nothing but hammer tactical targets in the south rather than cripple the Lebanese infrastructure and economy to no good purpose.
Even the wider pain inflicted on Lebanon might have been worth it if Hezbollah had been so reduced militarily that their ability to poison Lebanese politics was greatly reduced, but quite the contrary has now been achieved. I can only hope I am very wrong but with Hezbollah both largely intact and politically enhanced, the prospect for a secular liberal Lebanon and a Lebanese state with the strength to contain Hezbollah’s militia are now more distant than ever.
It seems to me that Israel lost this war because Israel never had a coherent plan and thus I cannot escape the conclusion that the people in charge seem to have forgotten the basic principles of how to fight a war. To be honest I am astounded that I find myself writing these words about Israel of all people. I predict that once Israelis have some time to mull this over, the government will fall and fall hard.
The Israeli high comand did have a plan,Olmert would not let them use it,then Qana was the tipping point,from then on it was simply a scramble to cover as many pbjectives as possible before the ceasefire.
Now,the chinless wonder of Syria is emboldened to threaten yje Golan Heights
Israel lost deterrence, and a lot of diplomatic assets, although the inevitable Hezbollah flounting of the ceasefire might bring some of the latter right back.
But deterrence in the context of the Arab/Islamist-Israeli war is about not much more than putting off the inevitable. Sooner or later Syria and Iran will start a wider war anyway, and whether the enemy cohorts over- or under-estimate Israel’s capability to defend itself, won’t make much difference. This is total war, only drawn out over decades so it occasionally looks like random border skirmishes.
Both sides gained insight into the capabilities of the other. The faster learner might glean an edge. Syrian tank columns rushing to the Golan will still be doomed. The Syrians might go with the missile rain of terror instead. The Israelis might or might not think of an effective response before that.
Yes, the war of the words and appearances is important, but not more so than the (next) war of bombs and bullets. (I for one root for Israel, against its genocidal enemies, but that is beside the point.)
The only hope for the Isrealie goverment is that the terms of the ceasfire are adhered to completely. The Lebanese army as to take over the south dis arm Hezbollah and keep peace.
However as Hezbollah is now in a position to claim that they survived and won their star will be ascendent in the anti Isreal camp.
To be fair though Isreal lost the propaganda war not the fighting war, they were against the Beeb et al, but fought back poorly.
If I can be inhuman for a short while, it would be better if Hezbollah “targeted” the UN peace keep force in the short term, they may realise that they are on the wrong side at that point and allow Isreal to finish its war.
Blah blah blah. Yisrael lost because they did not accomplish their stated objectives. Hezbullah won because they did.
Yisrael’s aura of military superiority has been shattered. It was a farce to begin with. They were successful in the past because they faced armies led by corrupt and cowardly leaders. They clung to this wold as a result.
Hezbullah fighters were well trained, well led and willing to sacrifice this world for the next. Hezbullah demonstrated the power of a well organizaed, non-state military force. I believe it will be such a force that ultimately removes the Jewish Tyranny from western asia. I pray that Yisarel will not see a century.
Israel’s sudden willingness to accept a ceasefire when the job was plainly not yet done is bewildering — so much so, in fact, that it makes me wonder if there is more here than meets the eye.
Abandoning the south Lebanon operation half-completed would make sense if one hypothesized that the date for an American and/or Israeli airstrike against Iran’s nuclear program and regime has been fixed and is fairly close. In that case, Israel would reason that (1) the threat from Hizbullah will soon be greatly downgraded anyway due to the fall of its main supporter, and (2) the IDF needed to disengage from Lebanon so it could focus on defending Israel against any blowback from Iran.
Of course I’m just speculating. Sometimes what looks like a massive blunder really is a massive blunder. But the Israelis tend not to make many of those where national defense is concerned. They can’t afford to.
Steves says: “The only hope for the Isreali goverment is that the terms of the ceasfire are adhered to completely.”
I disagree, the only hope for the Israeli government (and Olmert in particular) is that the terms of the resolution are either breached or ignored fairly quickly by one of the non-Israeli parties involved. If Lebanon can’t bring itself to at least try to disarm Hezbollah south of the Litani, or if Iran is caught re-supplying its proxies, then Israel will have the excuse it needs to go in and do the job that it should have done in the first place.
Remember, the ceasefire is only part of the resolution, not it’s entirety.
If Israel had struck with overwhelming force the Hezbollah warriors would have put down their weapons and merged with the local population. Israel got rid of the UN and Hezbollah will probably provide an excuse to repeat the exercise within a couple of months.
Ibrahim AbdAllah is entitled to his opinions but clearly Israel did not bring the full weight of their military might to bear against Hezbollah. However if Hezbollah really does accept the interpretation Ibrahim AbdAllah spins for what happened, at least that is good news because they will become fatally overconfident in their abilities when faced with an unrestrained IDF under a more rational government.
Moverover it seems as if Israel may have forgotten the hard won lessons of 1973 about providing proper infantry support to armour, if the reports in the newspapers are correct (a big if, I might add).
I am with Jeff. There is something not right here – why would a nation state such as Israel agree to a ceasefire when they would have known the document would work against them?
The ceasefire is a disaster for Israel, but they must have known that. In fact the Lebanese have this morning indicated that they wont be disarming Hizbollah and also that Hizbollah will be permitted to keep their weapons. Assad and Iran are proclaiming great victories. But Israel would have known all this would happen – they are hugely experienced in dealing with the arabs and would have known the ceasefire was worth nothing.
The other thing that confuses me was that Olmert was seriously gung ho until after Rice visited. After that he was backtracking quickly and seemed extremely keen to get out of the fight. This attitude is continuing now – withdrawals have started.
Washington’s behaviour is also very confusing. Why get Israel to agree to a ceasefire which provides Syria and Iran with a win, especially when Israel would have been able to take Hizbollah in a straight fight with massive force? Doesn’t add up. Then there’s Bush’s comment yesterday regarding Iran – ‘Imagine how dangerous they would be with a nuclear weapon’. So why give them this ‘win’?
Is it possible that Israel deliberately signed a ceasefire that they knew would be breached, to create a pretext for attacking Syria and/or Iran ? Bush is known as a master poker player. Perhaps it’s nearing the time where he will reveal his cards.
Or perhaps I am just deluding myself and this was a monumental screw up.
Destroying infrastructure from the air and failing to achive ground dominance, sounds like they’ve tried to take a leaf from the book of tactics that the US uses.
Big armies cannot defeat small well motivated armed groups working towards a similar goal, the US proved that to the British in their war of independence, the Afgans showed the Russian’s the same result and now we’re seeing it all over the theatre of operations in the Middle East.
The idea that domination of the air will yield a ground victory is nonsense, it seems to me to be a politically acceptable method of minimising losses so that the Reality TV tranfixed populous will not object too strongly to military action.
I suspect it is because the new PM has been taking advice from the US rather than his own people. Of course our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a great help to him.
Except that the US did indeed gain complete ground dominance in both Gulf Wars. The insurgency after Gulf War part deux, well, that is another story. No, the current Israeli screw up is a home grown fiasco.
History proves nothing of the sort. The US gained its independence not via a guerrilla war but by fielding a well drilled and well led conventional army and fighting conventional battles.
That is not really true. After a week of bombing (and certainly after two), clearly a large proportion of the civilian population had cleared out. Moreover, Hezbollah has artillery, ATGWs and all manner of heavy (albeit mobile) equipment. They are NOT a bunch of guys with Kalashnikovs, so the only way they can ‘bend in’ is to abandon their gear and allow Israel to occupy any place they wish. Quite demonstrably that is not the Hezbollah strategy. Hezbollah holds itself up to be the defenders of Lebanon and the only way they can do that is by standing and defending, and that they did… which is why Israel’s half-arsed ground assault was completely inadequate.
I am afriad so. I think attempts to glean a ‘hidden strategy’ are the product of incredulity that Israel of all people could be so inept and poorly served by its government. But alas, Israel is a nation-state like any others and as we all know, the State is not your friend.
I don’t see Hezbullah as the force that will defeat Yisrael.. I simply see them as proof-of-concept.
The armies Yisrael faced in the past had capitals that could be taken, they had leaders who feared losing power, and they had conscripts who wanted nothing more than to survive.
A non-state army has no capital, it’s top leadership is of little importance and it’s fighters are motivated volunteers.
I also don’t believe Yisrael was constrained.. They just attempted a foolish strategy. They though Death, Displacement, Distruction and Destitution would turn the lebanese citizens and government, as well as other regional states, against Hezbullah. The exact opposite happened.
That’s all I have to say. Thanks for the civilized response; I had expected otherwise.
Ibrahim AbdAllah, you really are entitled to you views and you expressed them in a reasonable manner.
Likewise you make a sound point when you say “A non-state army has no capital, it’s top leadership is of little importance and it’s fighters are motivated volunteers”. I only disagree with your notion that Hezbollah took everything Israel could throw at it.
We could debate whether or not that was actually the strategy Israel intended but clearly that was indeed the strategy Israel did indeed end up following this time and it did indeed produce the opposite effect to that which they would have liked.
You are no doubt pleased at that result whereas I am not, but we both agree that has in fact been the outcome.
It’s a draw, says an article on strategypage:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20060814.aspx
I tend to agree. And in any case, it seems this engagement was just the first act in the most current Israel-Lebanon/Syria/Iran conflict (and who knows what ordinal in the greater war to exterminate Jews in the Middle East).
Perry
I am inclined to agree that this is a disaster for Israel, but I think it is an error to discount the power of deception. Israel and America are more focussed on Iran than Hizbollah.
Olmert is an accidental PM whose political life has been spent opposing military action, if my impressions are correct, not directing it. The idea, then, that this military action was poorly directed, and planned strikes aborted or cut back is not surprising.
Any good? The soft left in Israel has been discredited. The phoniness of UN peacekeepers has been clearly demonstrated, and, presumably, will be again when Hez ignores any attempts to disarm it.
The proxy nature of Iran’s activities against Israel, and the West in general, have been laid bare for all but the most obtuse, and Syria’s complicity is transparent.
The utter duplicity and moral bankruptcy of the MSM has once again been displayed for any who weren’t quite sure if it was as bad as critics were claiming.
The same can be said for the “international community”, whether UN centered or not. (It was interesting how many Arab governments reacted, though. There are deep divisions in that community, which we should actively help along.)
I’m sure there’s a few more crumbs that could be mentioned, but not much worth the obvious negatives.
It is a hopeful sign that budding little Islamofascists like Ibby earlier thinks this is a sign of Hez’s power. Maybe they’ll try something even more ambitious, and their masters in Tehran will stick their necks out, and noses in, a little more next time. That would facilitate a more thorough chop job by Israeli and US forces.
Who knows, maybe Ibby will be inspired to offer himself for martyrdom. One can only hope.
I think disaster is too strong a word. The region is back to status quo ante, or very close to it. So Syria, the Hez and Iran want to destroy israel even more? Big deal. Hez will have easier time recruiting? Ditto. The enemy is both implacable, and very explicit in its aims, and has been since -48.
Israel decided to call Hez’s missile hand, then chickened out before a decisive outcome could be achieved, in political-military disarray. On the oher hand, Hez lost a lot of men and materiel. On stated aims an Israeli strategic defeat, in the greater scheme of the Middle East, I would call it more like a draw.
I agree on the “draw”analysis — but also agree that this is simply an additional chapter and the plot has yet to truly evolve.
While Israel woefully mismanaged this conflict, the net result is a return to a status quo. The real question is not “who won,” but “what’s next?”
PurpleThink & Jaakko… i agree that maybe ‘disaster’ is too strong a word but I do not think this was a draw either. It is essentially a return to status-quo antebellum with the big difference that Hezbollah has been greatly strengthened politically, moving Lebanon even further into the toxic clutches of the Islamists. That has to be a Hezbollah/Iran win.
I’m not finding Jaako’s linked article terribly convincing.
Cited as an Israeli “victory” is the following:
Israel had this right before the present conflict. That it was recognized by the international community is evidenced by the fact that for the first week or so of the conflict everyone was more or less quiet about it. Israel didn’t need to fight this war to establish its right to defend itself. Maybe there will be more sympathy for Israel next time as a result of the fighting this time – but I doubt it. More likely what people will do is point to the senseless (because absent a ground invasion it does seem senseless) destruction of Lebanese infrastructure Israel inflicted.
This is indeed a gain (everyone always suspected Hezbollah was duplicitous, but it’s nice to have concrete proof), but I don’t think it stands up to any cost-benefit analysis which takes into account the losses in the war.
The problem with the US and Iran’s nuclear program is that it never gets more than “touchy.” Very little has been accomplished on that front, and it’s hard to see how this will change anything. The evidence that Iran sponsored terrorist organizations was always stronger than evidence that Iraq did the same, and yet Iraq was invaded and not Iran. Maybe Rumsfeld et al would like to invade Iran, we just don’t know. But we do know that the US doesn’t have the ability to invade Iran until its position in Iraq is shored up, and there’s a long road ahead on that.
Call me pessimistic, but I don’t think the UN is going to be much help with Hezbollah. Failing to mention that Hezbollah was camped right next to the base that Israel “deliberately” attacked can be taken to characterize their attitude to the situation.
None of these other failures seems to have given them a renewed sense of mission – why should this one?
That question was raised long before this started. That the UN failed to be of any use and was still consulted about the outcome gives them legitimacy here they don’t deserve. This can hardly be an incentive to work harder.
I agree with this bit. This is the silver lining. Let’s hope Bush and co. put this to good use rather than wasting their time at home trying to get flag-burning banned.
Maybe I’m naive, but I would suspect that U.N. troops and the Lebanese army finally occupying Southern Lebanon counteracts the loss of political capital.
As Jaacko said,
You can say that again!
But many in the Lebanese army support Hezbollah and the ‘International force’ is going to be lead by the FRENCH. Can anyone seriously see the French army of all people having the stomach to seriously shoot it out with Hezbollah to ensure Israel’s security? I mean, give me a break!
Yes, I agree, it was more like a draw, and as such – a defeat for Israel, which is not accustomed to, neither can afford, draws.
The stated aims of the war were: defeating Hizbollah, freeing the abducted soldiers and creating a demilitarized southern Lebanon. These aims were unatainable, they were just empty rethoric of Olmert – an expert at empty rethoric, a man of little substance. I think and hope his days in office are numbered.
The situation in Lebanon is returning to status quo ante – and clearly – that is not a worthy acheivment, that justified the losses sustained, not what Israel went to war for. So I agree, it was a colossal screw-up, a bad waste of lives.
From the military point of view – there is one way to fight a guerilla force that hides behind civilian shields: it is to clean the area of civilians. Israel should have done that, bombed all South Lebanese settlements to rubble, from the air, after giving civilians adequate warning and possibility to leave. It should have done so systematically, one village at a time, until all resistance ceased. Then, and only then, could ground troops be brough in to make sure all was clear.
The civilian leaders of Israel did not understand this (maybe the military dilletantes too). Their orders: avoid civilian casualties at all costs actually traduce into: don’t hit Hizbollah – whose “fighters” were hiding exclusevly in civilian areas. So we have again the familiar cliche: fighting with one arm tied behind the back, which is worse than not fighting at all.
What happens now ? What will the future bring ? I don’t know, nobody knows. I can only say that the only possibly positive outcome of this war would be – if Israel manages to get rid of Olmert and his ridiculous cabinet. (It seems that Halutz is already on his way out due to an unrelated scandal).
Big armies can defeat small mobile forces.
They just have to be completely ruthless and take a few pages out of the Julius Caeser campaign handbook.
Destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon as much as they have and not solely targetting the Hezbollah fighters makes me wonder was this an exercise to draw out Iran and Syria into the conflict?
Why did Israel comply with a UN request for a ceasefire when they have paid scant attention to UN edicts in the past? If Iran aren’t going to be provoked then maybe something will have to be conjured up, sorry, found to get the west behind an attack on Iran?
Can you give an example of a western force successfully doing this in the past 50 years?
While I think that its possible, the media would do more to undermine any government that publicly sanctioned action that could be considered to be so extreme.
The soliders could not perform their ordered actions without the threat of legal action on their return and personal abuse/attack from anti-war protesters.
Sadam Hussain was quoted as saying that the West did not have the stomach for a proper battle, and all that I’ve seen in the press serves to show that he was correct in that respect.
I think the answer is a little more Mossad and a little less Gung-ho Marines
O delluded ones fear ye not. Israel will deliver the knock out blow very soon.Only when One Hundred Million Arabs are dead will the rest of them finally get the message.For them shatter day is ever closer.
The fat lady may not be singing yet -but she is clearing her throat.
The Israelis screwed this up big time. This is a defeat for the entire civilized world. I suspect the US (and others) put pressure on Israel to “stop the slaughter”.
For a while I thought that a civilized army was gonna go on despite the crap issued by the MSM. Alas no.
This has already happened in Iraq and the ‘stan where we have completely failed to astonish with our violence. Remember Fallujah and the US Marines trying everything to get around the fact they’d been using white phosphorous against the insurgents. A smarter military would have just said, “Yup that’s our tactic, wanna see the results?”
The IDF had (because what had been done to Israel) the absolute moral authority to turn Lebanon below the Litani and Southern Beirut into lands fit only for the ant and the cockatrice.
Because Israel didn’t do this because of “humanitarian” concerns means that ever more the entire civilised world is hamstrung against Islamicists who make the rules of warfare up as they go along.
The take home message to the muzzies of this cease-fire is that even the most traditionally aggresive of their foes is a pussy cat, not a tiger.
Unless The West is preparded to change it’s policy and slaughter them man, woman and child by the millions with cheerful abandon we are screwed.
Perry, you saved me the trouble of writing my closing article to match up with my opening article at the start of the war. While things did not (yet) turn out as badly as I worried they might, they have indeed turned out rather badly.
My initial complaint was a war that was started with apparently no real planning… Iran told Hizbullah to bait the hook, they tossed it over the border and the Israeli’s came flopping onto their deck. I might have been a bit less annoyed about the whole thing had there been an obvious plan to establish a 20 mile buffer and the forces behind it from day 1 to accomplish the goal. Instead we got half assed air attacks and artillery barrages that accomplished almost nothing except stir the pot.
Now that there is a cease fire, Hizbullah will be recruiting like mad… the pool of willing volunteers probably went up by a factor of 10… and I am sure that as soon as things quiet down, the replacement weapons systems will be flooding across the Syrian border.
Hizbullah will be back up to strength with more arms than ever by the end of the year.
Now that the cease fire has come into affect, we should expect to see the diplomacy angles go into slow motion about a border force with teeth in it. I would not be at all surprised if some months from now we hear a joint announcement of a wonderful bright new future for Lebanon under the new force… a handful of unarmed blue helmetted UN troops.
So, any bets on when Lebanon War, Round II starts up? Perhaps just before Iran decides to test its nuke and needs attention drawn away from them again?
The only upside in the whole mess is that it did *not* spill over into Iraq beyond the Sadr brigade and a bit of public but oh so diplomatic disagreement between the US and Iraqi officials.
I can: the French, in Algeria.
Incredible, I know.
Point made Perry — Need to stop my wushful thinking I suppose.
British in Malaya.
Good new blog by the way :
http://goingroman.blogspot.com/
A non-state army has no capital, it’s top leadership is of little importance and it’s fighters are motivated volunteers
But it cannot exist without state sponsors, which have capitals and leaders and all the rest of the stuff that conventional armies are so good at disposing of.
Eliminate the Syrian and Iranian regimes, and Hez dries up and blows away.
But it cannot exist without state sponsors, which have capitals and leaders and all the rest of the stuff that conventional armies are so good at disposing of.
I disagree. There are plenty of organizations in south america that have operated for decades without state sponsorship. There is also the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka.
It is also worth mentioning that any serious move against Syria or Iran by Yisrael or the United States at this moment in history would be utterly foolish and end poorly for the aggressor.
And how many of them have been successful? Well there were the Sandinistas, briefly, and… er… um… ah…
Iran would be a hard nut to crack (depending on what the objectives were) because of its ability to interdict naval movement in the Gulf and its sheer size, but I cannot see why you think Syria would be particularly challanging. It’s airforce would be shot out of the air within 48 hours even if it was facing only Israel (or the first couple hours if the US was also involved) and its border with Iraq is indefensibly long against any move by US mechanised and airmobile forces. Syria is really not that impressive militarily.
My inner pessimist says this is the terrorists’ Midway.
You’ll recall that Midway did two things: it halted and began the rollback of the Japanese offensive in the Pacific, and it proved the superiority of new air power tactics.
Well, this campaign in Lebanon seems to have halted the anti-terrorism offensive of the US and Israel, and also proved the superiority of the bad guys’ Fourth Generation tactics (terrorism plus media manipulation plus transnational institutions) over our conventional arms/nation state way of fighting. Strikes me as a big old loss for our side.
Thanks a lot, Olmert!
Possible silver lining: Prime Minister Netanyahu?
I agree that Olmert and his coalition comrades must go. Almost needless to say they have no idea about domestic policy (unless one considers “spend more money and impose more regualtions” as ideas) and the war shows that they have no idea about security policy either.
In any war with the Arabs speed is of the essense, the enemy have to be knocked off balance and kept that way.
“Gradual buildups” and other such are insane folly.
Nor do they “reduce civilian casualties” – because the war drags on and on (like so many other people I found the slowness, vagueness and half heartedness of the whole operation almost unbelieveable).
Besides which they will always be burned babies to be waved at the television people. A handful of burned babies will be cited as hundreds (and duely reported as such) and even if there were no burned babies at all – the enemy would simply burn some themselves (“it is an honour for you to give up your children”) in order to have something to wave.
All the regulations on the military to “reduce civilian casualties” had no positive P.R. effect at all – for the reasons I have just explained.
Indeed Israel was attacked in the media every day.
As for the effects on Hez.
I doubt it will mean more recruits than they would have got anyway – they have always had as many as they are prepared to arm and train. They have an expanding demographic base and far from their ideas being a “perversion of Islam” (as Bush and Blair claim) they are faithful to it. For a Muslim (Shia or Sunni) to turn his back on what Mr Bush or Mr Blair call “extremism” is to turn his back on the way of “the Prophet” (a look at the life of this man shows this).
Also Christian power in the Lebanon had collapsed long before the present fighting.
Far from being prepared to fight the Hez and others the Christians (after various let downs in the past – from the Western powers) were already at the “let us be friends” stage (i.e. the stage of hopeing that the Hez would stop at exterminating the Jews and leave the Chritians alone – a false hope).
The Lebanese army is now mostly Muslim – and as likely to side with the Hez as against it (among the Shia Amal [or however it is spelt] is still a rival to the Hez – and there are still powerful Sunni forces who want some power for themselves).
And the “International forces” are unlikely to include many people who want to take on the Hez.
As for a “liberal Lebanon” – well (dancing “babes” aside) that was thing that died back in the mid 1970’s and is not likely to return (demography makes it unlikely).
Of course it is POSSIBLE that large numbers of Muslims will become liberal (we all know the stories of nice Muslims drinking red wine in nice places in Lebanon) – but remember this is “liberal” as in “decadent”.
People are not going to fight to the death for decadence.
Well they might – but it does not seem likely.
Caroline Glick is hopping mad:
Hell hath no fury like a Likud babe scorned!
Read the whole thing here. She calls for Olmert’s immediate resignation, and I don’t think she’s kidding.
Let’s hope so.
I agree. I despise the argument that anything (military) we do to defend ourselves will only end up on recruiting posters for Islamofascists. These organizations were having no trouble finding pledges before 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the mess. Alright, maybe the Israeli campaign swells the rosters a bit, but membership was already at a critical mass. Hezbollah can only use as many as it can afford to arm. Al-Qaeda can only use people when it comes up with fiendish masterplots, which doesn’t seem to be all that frequently, really. All of these organizations have always had as many as they could use and more. Nothing we do swells the ranks so much that it significantly increases the threat; worrying about it is a recipe for paralysis. I suspect that the “be nice or you’ll alienate more ME Muslims” line was the hasty invention of MSM people trying to look intelligent on international affiars – which of course to them means demonstrating an ability to “see the other side” and to “appreciate the gravity of the situation” etc. Naturally they think everything is about image. I don’t know that there’s all that much that can be done about Arab public opinion (short of feeding Israel to the dogs, I mean, which is unacceptable). When the West makes a move on Islamists, the Arab press lionizes them as victims of “Zionist Imperialism.” When the West doesn’t make a move, the Arab press is happy to keep replaying stories from any number of long-dead incidents. The only way to do anything at all about Arab public opinion is to smash their idols. A dead Nasrallah’s corpse on prime time and every Katyusha launcher pummeled into smouldering remains: now that would have been a setback for recruitment.
Did anyone see this (link)? Hezbollah is buying friends doing (much-needed) cleanup and rebuilding with Iran’s money faster than the Lebanese government can get to work.
What an absolute disaster. Here’s a choice quote:
Inevitable. Israel has definitely lost the propaganda war in spectacular fashion.
It is my suspicion that there is more going on here than meets the eye. We in America have seen some of the ‘secretive’ Bush administration’s programs leak out, and it is likely that these are the least shocking in their scope and scale. 22 August remains the bellweather day, perhaps the US has some intelligence that points to Iran’s intentions?
Also, it is better if Israel uses the next few days to prepare for that situation, rather than get itself bogged down in Lebanon. Let the ‘Peacekeepers’ get bogged down and shot at by Hezbollah, so US and Israeli forces can assault Syria and Iran directly. It’s the Blackfive Exit Strategy(Link).
I mentioned before that if a Nation goes to War it should only do so on the premise of achieving a “clear and decisive victory”.
Fighting a poliically correct war is the problem that the West has made for itself. These are the results.
Our governments are still fighting islamic fascists with a political correctness that defies any logic. I give up.
Someone asked for an example of victory by a Western army in a recent war against iregular forces.
I agree that Algeria was a military victory – but the F.L.N. still took over (thanks to De Gaulle). A better example would be Malayia – where the British army defeated a Communist force.
The British performance in Malayia has often been favouably compared to the American performance in Vietnam – however the situations were quite different.
The existance of the N.V.A. meant that the simple man power of the Communists was vastly greater (General Giap admitted to losing one million regulars).
The forces that Britian deployed in Malayia would not have lasted long in Vietnam.
As for Lebanon:
Well the agreement is already a dead letter.
The Hez were rearming (in violation of the agreement) as soon as the airstrikes stopped (very much like Vietnam).
The Israelis sent in commandos to try and stop the rearming this morning (and were denouced by the media).
If one does believe in this “liberal Islam” stuff, I suppose Lebanon has a chance.
But this chance only exists if the leadership of the Hez is killed (not just the recuits). So that Sufi tradition (or whatever) can take charge.
That means going in and killing the Hez leadership whereever they are – hard fighting.
People asked “why did the Israelis bomb all those roads and bridges” simple – to try and stop more weapons being brought in to Lebanon.
Forty years after IndoChina proved that one can not cut off enemy supply lines just by airpower and special forces Olmert tried to just that – perhaps people told him that modern technology would make the difference.
Actually these missiles can be put on the backs of light trucks (under grain or children or whatever) and driven over country (big roads and bridges are not needed) and the trucks can be fueled up in Syria (so blowing up all the local fuel supplies is not going to solve the problem).
There is even a theory that the leftists who dominate the present Israeli government did not like the idea of a low tax Lebanon on the border and decided to smash it up – but that is too cynical even for me (although the trade restrictions after the 1982 operation against the P.L.O. did turn some Shia against Israel in the first place – and there is an odd provision in the Oslo agreement that Gaza and the “West Bank” should not have lower tax rates than Israel).
Anyway the only way to destroy the Hez is to do it on the ground – and it is the leadership that must be hunted down especially.
Commanders have a choice – either they concentrate on hiding (in which case they lose control), or they do not (in which case they can be hunted down).
Syria – careful here, it might not be nice if Assad was replaced by (say) the Muslim Brotherhood.
Iran – well Dale is always telling us that the government is very unpopular.
If this is so the opposition should be armed and encouraged to overturn the government.
But if the message comes out “we need American forces to do the job – do not worry you will be welcomed as liberators”.
Then there should be a one word reply “Iraq”.