August 13, 2006
SIDESHOW:
If this was a defeat, the Israelis must be praying for a lot more of them (Tim Hames, 8/14/06, Times of London)
IF ONLY Israel were as effective at public relations as at military operations, the results of the conflict on and around its border with Lebanon would be so much starker. As it is, however, the real meaning of the UN resolution that will start to come into force today is being widely misrepresented. Hezbollah is hailing a “victory†of sorts, albeit one of a presentational character. In a bizarre situation, Israeli politicians on both the hard Left and the hard Right appear to agree with the terrorists. All are profoundly mistaken.What, after all, does this Hezbollah claim consist of? The organisation considers it a triumph that it has not been completely “destroyed†after just four weeks of fighting. It contrasts this with the dismal record of several Arab armies combined in 1967. It has not yet been disarmed and may not be formally neutralised in the near future. Nor has it been discredited on the Arab street, where it has enhanced its popularity. The Hezbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah, thus proclaims himself a “new Nasserâ€.
As victories rank, not being destroyed, disarmed or discredited is not that impressive. It is hardly Henry V at Agincourt. The idea that the Six-Day War represents the military standard for the Arab world is a somewhat humiliating notion. Allowing for the feeble record of the original Nasser, Israelis should not be too disturbed by the prospect of another incarnation. Nor was the Arab street that equivocal about Israel’s existence before these clashes started.
The facts now evident on the ground suggest an entirely different assessment.
Obviously Israel didn't lose--the question is: did they achieve anything? Mr. Hames's own list suggests not and that the real war was elsewhere. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 13, 2006 7:01 PM
Israel lost: the Hezbos proved they can fire into Israel at will and at some distance and that Israel cannot stop them at all, no matter how much they're bombed and regardless of ground troops; now we just need wait for the payloads to change from shrapnel to something more potent
The Hezbos don't care about collateral damage, so the pain and suffering of Lebanon is irrelevant to them; now they just begin moving to the next stage of the conflict: killing Jews in the tens of thousands or threatening to do so, so that they can control Israeli behavior through blackmail. The latter seems to be the N. Korea approach, where S. Korea serves as the N. Korea b*tch mouthpiece to keep the U.S. from doing anything constructive with N. Korea as Seoul quivers with fear like the damsel tied to the railroad tracks.
Southern Lebanon is not a DMZ, that would have been victory for Israel. S. Lebanon is a permanent Hezbo launching pad and the Hezbos are the ultimate authority not just in Lebanon, but now in Israel. We should swing open the immigration gates and save as many Israeli Jews as we can.
Israel simply had no Churchill with whom Bush could work.
Posted by: Palmcroft at August 13, 2006 8:06 PMThe bombings were ineffective, as were Saddam's.
Posted by: oj at August 13, 2006 8:11 PMIsrael's just fine. For both strategic and political reasons, it was important to get this theater settled before tackling Iran. (Bonus: we also got to test our bunker busters, which in recent days have proven to be much more effective than Israel's.)
It's all good. The only question remaining in the southern Lebanon theater is whether the surviving Hezbos disarm voluntarily. May they choose wisely.
Posted by: ghostcat at August 13, 2006 11:47 PMAnother aspect of the strategery. By the time we're ready to take on Iran, there should be a sizeable, well-armed UN force (mostly NATO, and under French command) standing between Iran's two proxies (Syria and the Hezbos) and Israel. And before anyone chuckles about French command, I repeat: assassinating Chirac's good friend Hariri was stoopid.
Posted by: ghostcat at August 14, 2006 12:34 AMI think what was achieved was the end of Olmert. He'll be gone by Christmas.
Will the return of Bibi help or hurt Israel?
Posted by: Bob at August 14, 2006 10:14 AMWell, it'll be an improvement in the looks department, if that helps get him on television to pitch his arguments.
Posted by: erp at August 14, 2006 10:54 AMHow's Bibi going to convince Israelis that he too wants out of Palestine and Lebanon?
Posted by: oj at August 14, 2006 3:53 PMoj. Are you serious. Bibi's a dove now too?
Posted by: erp at August 14, 2006 7:13 PMNo, but Israel is.
Posted by: oj at August 14, 2006 7:36 PMI suspect if Bibi had been PM things might have gone worse - more tanks blown up by mines, more indiscriminate bombing, more soldiers killed.
Fighting Hezbollah is not a sweeping tank battle; it's like Mogadishu (except the bad guys don't swarm and chant like they did there). It's 2 or 3 months of rough going, up close and personal (except for the bunker-busting). It's repeated insertions of special force teams, striking everywhere in Lebanon.
Sure, the Israelis could have just landed in force south of Beirut and pincered Hezbollah to death. But it's one thing to kill 10 or 15 civilians from 10,000 feet; it's quite another to kill 50 just to drive the terrorists out of a village, and then repeat the total the next day.
It's not like fighting the Syrian Army - it never will be. But they need to kill Nasrallah. And if the cease-fire breaks, they need to roll to Damascus. Olmert should tell Chirac he will send him the opthalmologist's eyes as a prize.
Posted by: jim hamlen at August 14, 2006 11:03 PM