Posted on 08/15/2006 11:18:11 AM PDT by Uncledave
|
Aug. 15, 2006: Lebanon Thoughts I
Thanks to Stanley Kurtz for directing me to this conversation between Paul Gigot and Martin Kramer on Fox. Key line:
In analyzing the war, there are it seems to me two rules to keep in mind: The fact that Israel did not win does not quite mean that Israel lost. And the fact that Hezbollah did not lose does not quite mean that Iran won. As Kramer underscores, Hezbollah's highest value to Iran is as a deterrent weapon against Western intervention. How daunting is that deterrent today? Rather less so, I think, than it was a month ago - and not because (or not mainly because) Hezbollah has depleted its stock of missiles and its roster of trained fighters. Rather, in the past month the world has seen Hezbollah indiscriminately fire a huge barrage of rockets at Israel without strategic result. The attacks have been damaging and murderous, but not accurate and in the end, not all that deadly. And the world has seen Hezbollah threaten terrorist operations worldwide - again without result. Hezbollah has done its worst, and it was not that bad. Policymakers planning coercive actions against Iran have gained some extra room to maneuver. Iran's room for maneuver has contracted. I don't call that a win for Iran at all. Aug. 15, 2006: Lebanon Thoughts II
Among the casualties of the Lebanon war: hopes of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank to match the withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005. The lesson is now plain: Israel's enemies do not respect borders - and neither do their rockets. The Israeli voter will reckon that withdrawal from the West Bank will translate into Iranian rockets 12 miles from Tel Aviv. And they have just witnessed: Those rockets will be used. I think it has been clear for a long time that the very last thing that the Palestinian and Arab leaderships have ever wanted is an actual Palestinian state. This summer's attacks on Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah have very likely thwarted West Bank statehood for years, if not decades, if not forever.
|
Regardless of why Israel went to war, they will probably come out of it with a new government. Would Olmert ever pull the trigger on Iran's nuclear sites?
Those complaining that this thing didn't end like an action movie DO NOT GET IT.If there are some who wanted an action movie, then you may be right, but if you are saying that Israel DIDN'T blow it big time (failing to act on a plan that's been in place for 3 years, a plan that called for a quick assault on Beirut to snatch the Hezbulla leaders before they could scurry into holes, a plan that called for a major advance to the Litani immediately and quickly), then you aren't listening to the Israeli generals, who are very angry that the schmuck Olmert stayed their mighty hand.
It wasn't an action movie the Israeli generals wanted, it was a quick and decisive (and well planned) victory.
They were denied.
Hezbulla and Iran might also be suffering as Frumm describes, but they are not suffering nearly as much as a quick Israeli victory would have made them (and Syria, don't forget Syria, who Bush gave the green light to Israel to go after, a green light that was ignored by Olmert) suffer.
It's not action movies we're talking about. It's strategic survival. For Israel. For the US.
Olmert is the Jewish Jimmy Carter.
The Hesbo's shot over 4000 rockets with virtually nothing to show for it.Militarily, strategically, tactically, you are right. They did, however, burn down huge swaths of forest that will take 60 years to grow back.
None of us really know how badly Hizbollah was degraded. We do know that their rockets are far less effective in causing Israeli civilian deaths than suicide bombers. My hunch is that this "war" was a short-term propaganda victory for the Hezzies and their sponsors. It was not a decisive military confrontation. That will occur in the near future.
If they improve the effectiveness of their rockets, Israel will teach Syria and Iran a very painful lesson. Perhaps, the Iranian madman will use that as an excuse to use nuclear weapons on Israel. He will be betting on Western governments restraining Israel for fear of an oil embargo.
This scenario increases in probability if the Democrats take over Congress in '06 and the White House in '08. Think it's worth sitting home on election day because you don't like the GOP position on immigration and government spending?
More importantly...now Israel will have a peacekeeper force between them and Hezbo in the event that Iran wants to get it on. Israel was proactive in reducing the "fronts" it will have to fight on when the time comes.
Have you forgot that Hezbollah is not a state but a unit of the Iranian army. Loosing a hundreds means nothing but a small amount to them. What is the Iran army, a couple million or more and growing daily?
Yup. The kidnapped soldiers provided the pretext, but Israel's real aims were in fact strategic, and they almost certainly had Iran (and Syria) in view.
To do this so close to Ahneedajihad's August 22 "reply by" date was probably likewise no accident. The fallout from that could go either way.
Iran cannot surrender. But if they have no significant "no" response on 22 August, the ruling mutts lose face with the salamikazes.
So they've got to do something, and their preference was no doubt to do something flashy. I'm sure the foiled plane-bombing plots were supposed to be the crowning jewel of a large-scale diversionary attack.
Makes one wonder what, if anything, they can still try to do on 22 August... some sort of large-scale violence in Iraq would serve, but it wouldn't answer the nuclear question. "Something stupid" is always an option, though.
Likewise, the failure of the IDF to "take out" most of Hezbollah's capabilities quickly is a defeat - even if the Hezzies had far higher absolute and relative casualties. This is because the world expected, and Israel bragged about, doing just this, and instead 5,000 guys in pajamas largely survived and held off the IDF. Of course, we all know that this occurred because the pols held them back, but that is EXACTLY the point - Israel's leadership displayed a complete lack of guts and decisiveness, which will only encourage future agression. The French Army was far stronger than the Wehrmacht in the late 1930's, but its leaders' unwillingness to use it against a rising Nazi Germany made its worth about zero.
Yeah, Israel hurt the Hezzies - so what. Wounds heal, equipment can be replaced, bunkers built anew, soldiers recruited and trained, etc. Oh, and Syria is now getting more aggressive, Iran is acting crazier than ever and Hezbollah appears quite popular in Lebanon...which portends a possible Hezbollah-controlled government which probably wouldn't make much of an effort to disarm itself. What has really been won?
When you are surrounded by the enemy and have no way to flee, declare victory. Mohammed is in charge of the fireworks.
Kinda puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
I will gladly paraphrase Churchill: "The RINO-dominated Republicans are the worst political party in the nation - except for all the rest."
Right. Lots of overconfidence going on in the Islamic world right now. A lot of chest beating that is acutally a form of denial. Good!! It's just that much farther for them to fall when we kick their butts the next time. It's that more humiliation to come for them.
The conflict between the Palestinians and the Jews is a microcosm of the larger struggle between the Islamofascists and the West.
It is a war that will not end until all the proponents of one side are dead.
ping for later
Very, very good point! I have had the vague thought these last few days that as bad and stupid as this world is it will draw back at the destruction of Isreal and the genocide which it entails. The world loves victims after all.
Well I wish I was certain of this but I am not. We seem to be ignoring news reports of what the IDF soldiers were saying. It was a rough go all the way. I do not understand why everyone is so convinced Israel could have won. I think more likely they would have gotten bogged down in Lebanon for months and months maybe years taking casualties and not winning. And all the while a terrible humanitarian crisis would be going on in Lebanon and Israel with mostly Lebanese civilians dying of hunger and disease. The crazy resolution the UN pasted together was a result of all sides staring that possibility in the face and blinking.
IMHO the PM made the same mistake in this action that GHW Bush made in "Desert Storm": too much hammer used to too little effect.You disrupt the lives of of the people to prepare for a battle, you need to win a victory - not settle for a draw. Israel can't afford to mobilize indefinitely; if it mobilizes it needs to win expeditiously so that it can demobilize and go back to its knitting.
The really offensive thing about the entire episode, tho, is the denigration of the Geneva Conventions. Lebanon/Hezbolla is allowed to use Lebanon's civil population as human shields, Hezbolla operates in civil garb, and Hezbolla launches rocket attacks indiscriminately against Israel's civil population. And for that, Hezbolla gleans positive PR for the civil casualties Israel inflicts concomitant to attacks on Hezbolla, and positive PR for attacking Israeli civilians.
IMHO there should at least be a recourse for Israel in US civil court to enforce the Geneva Conventions - to which the US is signatory - against our TV journalists and against the FCC for not constraining broadcast journalism.
This author reminds me of a quote from a Bond movie: "Then we shall have to pay up and look as happy as we can, shan't we?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.