Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 6 August 2006

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): National security adviser Stephen Hadley; Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon; Mohamad Chatah, adviser to Lebanese Prime Minister Faud Saniora; Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Lanny Davis, adviser to Lieberman, and Lamont supporter Jim Dean, chairman of the Democracy for America political action committee.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Rice; Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Ned Lamont, Connecticut Democratic primary challenger; screenwriter and director Nora Ephron.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : National security adviser Stephen Hadley; Lebanese Economy and Trade Minister Sami Haddad and Lebanese political analyst Roula Talj; Shlomo and Karnit Goldwasser, parents of kidnapped Israeli soldier.

Yes and no. Yes if Israel keeps hammering the Hezzies and the delay does not result in any "concessions" to the Hezzie by the limp wrist Europeans. As long as the end game looks something like this the Israelis win in Lebannon. The thing to watch for is any "compromise" deals being offered There is a great deal of misplaced angst in Conservative circles about the the Israeli operations in Lebanon. In the first days of the war, Ralph Peters was all ready moaning, “ISRAEL is losing this war. For a lifelong Israel supporter, that's a painful thing to write “ This week Charles Krauthammer exclaimed Olmert’s “search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well” To quote Lady Thatcher, “This is no time to go wobbly” Conservatives! The problem with these admiribable men’s analyses is they are trying to force a Conventional Warfare paradigm onto an Asymmetrical warfare problem. That simply will not work. Start with our Revolution, Napoleon in Spain, Spain in South American, the US in Vietnam, Various European powers all over the world, the Nazis in Eastern Europe, the French then the Americans in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan. A Conventional Warfare doctrine applied to an Asymmetrical problem always ends in the eventual bloody defeat for the Conventional Force. Think of Israel as a boxer punching a sand bag. No matter how hard they hit, they cannot hold their fist to the bag forever. Thus as soon as they pull their fist back the weight of the sand forces the bag back to the same old shape. This time Israel, with the backing of the Bush Administration, is trying to find a way to empty the sand OUT of the bag so that when Israel's fist is removed, the bag does not simply revert to the same old form. It's not as dramatic or made for TV sexy but it DOES have the virtue of possible achieving a workable longer-term strategic change for Israel. Israel is going for the long game, a solution to a decade long cancer NOT a drama queen ego feeding headline grabbing military blitz. It would be utterly stupid for Israel to settle for just pruning back Hizbolla when they could possible completely uproots it. All the various armchair Patton's plans would accomplish is a lot of dead Jews for a short term "Quick fix". Hizbolla would simply bleed the Israelis while pulling back into sanctuary areas in Syria and northern Lebanon. Then when the Israelis could no longer stand the blood and treasure long term occupation was costing them, Hizbolla would simply flow back into the same positions they hold now. And in a few years from now the Israelis would face the same crises in Lebanon Like the US in Iraq, Israel seems to be trying for a long term FIX that uproots Hizbolla and creates a viable Lebanese Govt that can police its own territory. That is why the Israelis are interested in a NATO force to do in Lebanon what it is currently doing in Afghanistan. The UN has showed it simply is too corrupt and ineffective to manage peacekeeping duties. Israel, and the world, need a force that can keep out the Terrorists while the Lebanese build a viable nation-state that can provide long term stability. Thus the Israel and the US should be looking with interest to the French. The French are the ideal choice because of their history with Lebanon. They have good troops with lots of peace keeping experience (Its their politics that are messed up, not their military) Being Lefties the Media will pretty much ignore the head cracking they need to do as peace keepers. They do not trigger the knee jerk hysteria British, American or Jewish troops would in the Arabs. For domestic consumption the French can spin this mission as one to protect the Muslims " stopping" the Israelis. France does not have any where near the existing military commitments that the US and Britain do so have the forces available to take this one. With France heading the mission Germany, Spain and the other reluctant nervous nellies among the old Europe nations would have political coverage to get involved. The Israelis get a Neutral Zone and make one front in the WOT someone else's headache. It sends a message to Syria and Iran that the EU is not divided on controlling their terrorists’ proxy forces and adds pressure on Tehran to make a deal on the nuclear issue since they are diplomatically isolated. It would be also be impossible for domestic political reasons for the French to let the mission fail. In face of the success we are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, France needs to prove itself a serious world player. This mission thus would be seen as a test of Frances Pan Europeanism. The $64 billion question is will the French do it? "Israel's Lost Moment" Washington Post Friday, August 4, 2006; By http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301258.html CAN ISRAEL WIN? New York Post July 22, 2206. By Ralph Peters http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/can_israel_win__opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

UGGG! Note to self, "It's called Preview stupid"! Here this is better.

There is a great deal of misplaced angst in Conservative circles about the the Israeli operations in Lebanon. In the first days of the war, Ralph Peters was all ready moaning, “ISRAEL is losing this war. For a lifelong Israel supporter, that's a painful thing to write “ This week Charles Krauthammer exclaimed Olmert’s “search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well” To quote Lady Thatcher, “This is no time to go wobbly” Conservatives!

The problem with these admiribable men’s analyses is they are trying to force a Conventional Warfare paradigm onto an Asymmetrical warfare problem. That simply will not work.

Start with our Revolution, Napoleon in Spain, Spain in South American, the US in Vietnam, Various European powers all over the world, the Nazis in Eastern Europe, the French then the Americans in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan. A Conventional Warfare doctrine applied to an Asymmetrical problem always ends in the eventual bloody defeat for the Conventional Force.

Think of Israel as a boxer punching a sand bag. No matter how hard they hit, they cannot hold their fist to the bag forever. Thus as soon as they pull their fist back the weight of the sand forces the bag back to the same old shape. This time Israel, with the backing of the Bush Administration, is trying to find a way to empty the sand OUT of the bag so that when Israel's fist is removed, the bag does not simply revert to the same old form.

It's not as dramatic or made for TV sexy but it DOES have the virtue of possible achieving a workable longer-term strategic change for Israel. Israel is going for the long game, a solution to a decade long cancer NOT a drama queen ego feeding headline grabbing military blitz. It would be utterly stupid for Israel to settle for just pruning back Hizbolla when they could possible completely uproots it.

All the various armchair Patton's plans would accomplish is a lot of dead Jews for a short term "Quick fix". Hizbolla would simply bleed the Israelis while pulling back into sanctuary areas in Syria and northern Lebanon. Then when the Israelis could no longer stand the blood and treasure long term occupation was costing them, Hizbolla would simply flow back into the same positions they hold now. And in a few years from now the Israelis would face the same crises in Lebanon.

Like the US in Iraq, Israel seems to be trying for a long term FIX that uproots Hizbolla and creates a viable Lebanese Govt that can police its own territory. That is why the Israelis are interested in a NATO force to do in Lebanon what it is currently doing in Afghanistan. The UN has showed it simply is too corrupt and ineffective to manage peacekeeping duties. Israel, and the world, need a force that can keep out the Terrorists while the Lebanese build a viable nation-state that can provide long term stability. Thus the Israel and the US should be looking with interest to the French.

The French are the ideal choice because of their history with Lebanon. They have good troops with lots of peace keeping experience (Its their politics that are messed up, not their military) Being Lefties the Media will pretty much ignore the head cracking they need to do as peace keepers. They do not trigger the knee jerk hysteria British, American or Jewish troops would in the Arabs. For domestic consumption the French can spin this mission as one to protect the Muslims " stopping" the Israelis. France does not have any where near the existing military commitments that the US and Britain do so have the forces available to take this one. With France heading the mission Germany, Spain and the other reluctant nervous nellies among the old Europe nations would have political coverage to get involved. The Israelis get a Neutral Zone and make one front in the WOT someone else's headache. It sends a message to Syria and Iran that the EU is not divided on controlling their terrorists’ proxy forces and adds pressure on Tehran to make a deal on the nuclear issue since they are diplomatically isolated. It would be also be impossible for domestic political reasons for the French to let the mission fail. In face of the success we are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, France needs to prove itself a serious world player. This mission thus would be seen as a test of France's Pan European vision.

The $64 billion question is will the French do it?

"Israel's Lost Moment" Washington Post Friday, August 4, 2006; By http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301258.html CAN ISRAEL WIN? New York Post July 22, 2206. By Ralph Peters http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/can_israel_win__opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

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.