Friday, July 28, 2006
Israel and Hizbollah
Challenged on Israel and Hizbollah, a semi spontaneous response…
Responding to first comment attached to this post, sent to me in a private email, reposted with the emailer’s permission.
Israel and Hizbollah?
My initial reaction is that I don't think the Israeli response is likely to be effective. I don't think it is likely to quickly bring back their kidnapped soldiers alive. I don't think it is likely to significantly disrupt Hizbollah's ability to launch rocket attacks into southern Israel.
That leads me to:
If it is not going to be effective in either of those aims, what will it achieve then? Lots of casualties on both sides. Lots of destruction of civilian infrastructure. Further enmity.
That said, what was Hizbollah expecting? Was it a horrible miscalculation of the scale of Israel's response?
I think it was pretty obvious that a guy, sans military background, who got elected by a razor thin margin, on the promise to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank (Olmert) was going to have to show tough guy credentials, especially after the previous week's Gaza soldier kidnapping.
I am befuddled tactically, why did this seem like a wise move to Hizbollah? Especially with Lebanon's economy modestly reviving with some geopolitical stability, I tend to think they made a massive miscalculation.
Still I see no gain from Israel's side. They are sacrificing tons of blood and treasure. Even if they make Hizbollah pay way more, via this methodology there is no chance they will persuade Hizbollah to simply quit. I think exterminating/massacring all Shia Muslims in southern Lebanon is repugnant genocide that neither the Israeli people, nor their leadership, nor any right thinking folks period, support. However, short of genocide, massive killing rarely, if ever, deters retaliation. This is especially true when an extant political state is facing a non-state foe.
Israel's own experts indicate that based on: 1) how small rocketry has gotten these days; think: multiple rockets could fit in the trunk of a Geo Metro, a single rocket could be launched from a bicycle or on foot. And 2) how fast these rockets move, from 4-5 miles inside southern Lebanon to Israel's northern towns in 2-4 seconds from launch to impact. (Israel's own experts have concluded) that there is NO practical way to stop them. The American provided Patriot missile system is designed for ballistic missile interception. As are all anti-missile, missile systems of its ilk. They are for knocking down the big ones. The American government and the Israeli's are innovating as fast as they can, trying everything from lasers to sonic walls, but as yet, there is nothing remotely close to an effective interceptor. (remember we're talking about a target just bigger than the size of a baseball bat that goes from launch to impact in under five seconds, packing 40 odd pounds of explosives---this may sooner rather than later become a serious strategic concern in the lower forty-eight.)
see analysis in the Washington Post "Missile War Is a New Challenge To Israel's Long Rule of the Sky"
Once one has committed to War, agreed that proportionality goes far down the list of priorities...however, I am simply very, very hesitant, to employ War as a policy making tool, much more hesitant the Bush II team, and the Israeli government.
(Perhaps easier to pen this from Durham, where it seems as though I am not on the front lines.)
See this for a fascinating view from someone who is. The comments folks are posting as interesting as the blog itself.
a blogger in Israel
Temporarily setting aside the utility of War in general, in this specific case I don't think there is an effective way to suppress Hizbollah via high intensity conflict. I think engaging in high-intensity conflict costs Israel far more in lives and shekels than it is worth. I think Israel's leaders retaliated in this manner for base political motives.
I think it is hard to find any hope. (But that is not to say there is none.) for instance see: combatants for peace
I would rather see Israel attempting to engage moderate peace loving people anywhere in the world who support a two-state solution.
A hard road, the hope for peace based in a two state solution, has taken a turn for the worse, would be my assessment.
Obviously things are going from bad to worse in Iraq….
from AP Correspondent in Iraq
Sober commentators say a state of protean civil war already exists. Unfortunately.
See today’s announcement that the Pentagon is not going to rotate home 5,000 troops who were originally scheduled to see their already year long tours in Iraq end this month. Human beings who had weddings and vacations scheduled, hopes to see their wives and children for the first time in a year, are now slated to spend four more months on the front lines in Iraq. Instead, trying not to get killed or crippled, while standing in between conflicted groups Iraqis who resent them as much or more than they resent each other. Awful.
a heart wrenching read from an Alaskan newspaper where the brigade in question is stationed...Anchorage Daily News
Responding to first comment attached to this post, sent to me in a private email, reposted with the emailer’s permission.
Israel and Hizbollah?
My initial reaction is that I don't think the Israeli response is likely to be effective. I don't think it is likely to quickly bring back their kidnapped soldiers alive. I don't think it is likely to significantly disrupt Hizbollah's ability to launch rocket attacks into southern Israel.
That leads me to:
If it is not going to be effective in either of those aims, what will it achieve then? Lots of casualties on both sides. Lots of destruction of civilian infrastructure. Further enmity.
That said, what was Hizbollah expecting? Was it a horrible miscalculation of the scale of Israel's response?
I think it was pretty obvious that a guy, sans military background, who got elected by a razor thin margin, on the promise to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank (Olmert) was going to have to show tough guy credentials, especially after the previous week's Gaza soldier kidnapping.
I am befuddled tactically, why did this seem like a wise move to Hizbollah? Especially with Lebanon's economy modestly reviving with some geopolitical stability, I tend to think they made a massive miscalculation.
Still I see no gain from Israel's side. They are sacrificing tons of blood and treasure. Even if they make Hizbollah pay way more, via this methodology there is no chance they will persuade Hizbollah to simply quit. I think exterminating/massacring all Shia Muslims in southern Lebanon is repugnant genocide that neither the Israeli people, nor their leadership, nor any right thinking folks period, support. However, short of genocide, massive killing rarely, if ever, deters retaliation. This is especially true when an extant political state is facing a non-state foe.
Israel's own experts indicate that based on: 1) how small rocketry has gotten these days; think: multiple rockets could fit in the trunk of a Geo Metro, a single rocket could be launched from a bicycle or on foot. And 2) how fast these rockets move, from 4-5 miles inside southern Lebanon to Israel's northern towns in 2-4 seconds from launch to impact. (Israel's own experts have concluded) that there is NO practical way to stop them. The American provided Patriot missile system is designed for ballistic missile interception. As are all anti-missile, missile systems of its ilk. They are for knocking down the big ones. The American government and the Israeli's are innovating as fast as they can, trying everything from lasers to sonic walls, but as yet, there is nothing remotely close to an effective interceptor. (remember we're talking about a target just bigger than the size of a baseball bat that goes from launch to impact in under five seconds, packing 40 odd pounds of explosives---this may sooner rather than later become a serious strategic concern in the lower forty-eight.)
see analysis in the Washington Post "Missile War Is a New Challenge To Israel's Long Rule of the Sky"
Once one has committed to War, agreed that proportionality goes far down the list of priorities...however, I am simply very, very hesitant, to employ War as a policy making tool, much more hesitant the Bush II team, and the Israeli government.
(Perhaps easier to pen this from Durham, where it seems as though I am not on the front lines.)
See this for a fascinating view from someone who is. The comments folks are posting as interesting as the blog itself.
a blogger in Israel
Temporarily setting aside the utility of War in general, in this specific case I don't think there is an effective way to suppress Hizbollah via high intensity conflict. I think engaging in high-intensity conflict costs Israel far more in lives and shekels than it is worth. I think Israel's leaders retaliated in this manner for base political motives.
I think it is hard to find any hope. (But that is not to say there is none.) for instance see: combatants for peace
I would rather see Israel attempting to engage moderate peace loving people anywhere in the world who support a two-state solution.
A hard road, the hope for peace based in a two state solution, has taken a turn for the worse, would be my assessment.
Obviously things are going from bad to worse in Iraq….
from AP Correspondent in Iraq
Sober commentators say a state of protean civil war already exists. Unfortunately.
See today’s announcement that the Pentagon is not going to rotate home 5,000 troops who were originally scheduled to see their already year long tours in Iraq end this month. Human beings who had weddings and vacations scheduled, hopes to see their wives and children for the first time in a year, are now slated to spend four more months on the front lines in Iraq. Instead, trying not to get killed or crippled, while standing in between conflicted groups Iraqis who resent them as much or more than they resent each other. Awful.
a heart wrenching read from an Alaskan newspaper where the brigade in question is stationed...Anchorage Daily News
Labels: Middle East, Politics
Comments:
The main topic that I wanted to address with you is the situation in Israel/Lebanon. Where do come down on the issue? I’m sure that you know that I’m all for a crushing blow to Hezbollah. I think the commentary in the media and international calls for restraint are incredibly silly. My favorite comment from such luminaries as Bill Clinton is that “the Israel response to the initial incursion by Hezbollah is disproportionate”. For the life of me I don’t understand why a response should be proportionate. In fact, it seems that the only way to combat such acts is through massively disproportionate responses. If we or any of our “allies” are indeed fighting a war, there is no place for proportionality. It only emboldens your enemy and gives them time to regroup and rearm. My position is bring the hammer down and reshape the landscape. THOUGHT?
-Pesh in CA
-Pesh in CA
# posted by 
: 7/28/2006 1:06 PM
: 7/28/2006 1:06 PM
Pesh's comment was the inspiration for the original article.
Comment was emailed to me Tuesday, 7/25/06.
Comment was emailed to me Tuesday, 7/25/06.
Jim Jones can I get some more Kool-Aid...
Good to hear from you.
That is certainly a record response time for you.
I'll assume that you were working on your computer already.
I can certainly see your POV with regard to war/violence but I keep coming back to the notion that the people we're fighting, Israel is fighting, the British, etc. are fighting, have zero interest in some sort of negotiated settlement. Do the Palestians want their own country, sure; do the Lebanonese want a peaceful country in the Middle East, I would also say yes. But from what I see (and I'm only really seeing what's in the media, which could be a far cry from the realities on the ground and what government officials see and hear) the major stumbling block in all of the hot spots around the whole is that the adversaries are non-governmental entities. Even though we were fighting a guerilla war in Vietnam, the enemy had by all practical accounts a central government in North Vietnam which was highly logical & reasonable and one with which foreign governments could negotiate directly and actually hope for a sustainable peace agreement.
What we seem to have to today all over the world are numerous movements/causes that at the core have a fundamental ideology based around Islamic principals (which in and of themselves isn't necessarily bad/evil, however, as I may have indicated in the past, religion and anything that claims to be in the name of religion scares me to death. Go through all of human history {including the pagan periods in history} and it seems to me that more people have been enslaved, murdered or displaced in the name of "religion" or "god/gods"). My point though is that all of these groups while having many commonalities, also have numerous differences so at the end of the day, any compromise you reach with one group may not suit another "splinter" group in the same region or another group entirely in the region. And no one group seems to be able to speak for all the people in a region or control a given region (i.e. Lebanon). You've got a NGO (the military wing of Hezbollah vs the politicians in parliament) essentially roaming freely within a soverign country instigating a "war" in that said country with I think little or no backing from the "majority" in that country. I think you can talk with these guys til you're blue in the face and the only thing that they will understand or respect is action.
I'll admit that I'm a bit brainwashed by some on the conservative side regarding the "war on terror", but I do believe that the world is engaged in what could be called World War III or IV if you include the Cold War. This go 'round seems to be a lower intensity conflict than WWII and arguably a higher intensity that the Cold War, but at the end of the day it's a War and anyone sitting around complaining about whether we should or shouldn't be in Iraq or engaged in Israel or anywhere else in the world is missing the bigger picture. Tensions have been simmering for years (decades in fact) and the explosion of violence we're seeing today is all of that coming to a head. Now, how do we defuse/win the situation before the flames get so big that we all get consumed, that point seems open to debate.
I think the road to peace globally runs through hell for a bit. Everyone has to beat the crap out of each other for a while. All sides have tasted blood now and the feeding frenzy simply wouldn't stop in short order. Everyone thinks he's winning. There's been no major knockout punches thrown (save maybe we've established a presence in Iraq and Afganistan, and the other side is actually getting some mileage out of that anyway). I do think that the "Western" powers have to push to dismantle some of these rogue organizations as negotiation and more importantly settlement is not possible with them. At the same time we've got to engage the soverign powers in the Middle East and come to a point where they all feel secure within their own borders.
Countries like Iran and Syria have every right to have influence in the region, and I can understand their disdain for our influence there. However, I think our reasons for wanting to be there are first for economic reasons and second for security reasons. I get the impression that countries like Iran and Syria are looking for influence more as empire builders in order to control the people in the region and impose their religious views. I don't know if that makes sense or not and maybe it's naïve of me frame it like that. I guess my concern is that if these countries get their way, they don't stop at the current hotspots. Obviously our goal is to be dominate in the world in terms of business and economics and we use our military strength to ensure that we can play everywhere in the world. But I think that we stop short of point a gun at someone's head and telling him that he has to buy a "Starbucks" coffee or a "Ford". If Turkish coffee is a better product and people want to drink it then so be it. Maybe Starbucks will compete in that market with its own product line of Middle Eastern drinks.
Conversely, it seems as though many of the powers in the region are more driven by religious belief and installing a religious order. When the Mullahs tell me that they have the right to develop nuclear technology and weapons, you can sure as hell believe I'm hitting the eject button. I'm scared as hell of people who tell their "followers" it's better to be dead "martyrs" than alive. Can I get a Halleluiah Jim Jones!!
Later,
Pesh
Good to hear from you.
That is certainly a record response time for you.
I'll assume that you were working on your computer already.
I can certainly see your POV with regard to war/violence but I keep coming back to the notion that the people we're fighting, Israel is fighting, the British, etc. are fighting, have zero interest in some sort of negotiated settlement. Do the Palestians want their own country, sure; do the Lebanonese want a peaceful country in the Middle East, I would also say yes. But from what I see (and I'm only really seeing what's in the media, which could be a far cry from the realities on the ground and what government officials see and hear) the major stumbling block in all of the hot spots around the whole is that the adversaries are non-governmental entities. Even though we were fighting a guerilla war in Vietnam, the enemy had by all practical accounts a central government in North Vietnam which was highly logical & reasonable and one with which foreign governments could negotiate directly and actually hope for a sustainable peace agreement.
What we seem to have to today all over the world are numerous movements/causes that at the core have a fundamental ideology based around Islamic principals (which in and of themselves isn't necessarily bad/evil, however, as I may have indicated in the past, religion and anything that claims to be in the name of religion scares me to death. Go through all of human history {including the pagan periods in history} and it seems to me that more people have been enslaved, murdered or displaced in the name of "religion" or "god/gods"). My point though is that all of these groups while having many commonalities, also have numerous differences so at the end of the day, any compromise you reach with one group may not suit another "splinter" group in the same region or another group entirely in the region. And no one group seems to be able to speak for all the people in a region or control a given region (i.e. Lebanon). You've got a NGO (the military wing of Hezbollah vs the politicians in parliament) essentially roaming freely within a soverign country instigating a "war" in that said country with I think little or no backing from the "majority" in that country. I think you can talk with these guys til you're blue in the face and the only thing that they will understand or respect is action.
I'll admit that I'm a bit brainwashed by some on the conservative side regarding the "war on terror", but I do believe that the world is engaged in what could be called World War III or IV if you include the Cold War. This go 'round seems to be a lower intensity conflict than WWII and arguably a higher intensity that the Cold War, but at the end of the day it's a War and anyone sitting around complaining about whether we should or shouldn't be in Iraq or engaged in Israel or anywhere else in the world is missing the bigger picture. Tensions have been simmering for years (decades in fact) and the explosion of violence we're seeing today is all of that coming to a head. Now, how do we defuse/win the situation before the flames get so big that we all get consumed, that point seems open to debate.
I think the road to peace globally runs through hell for a bit. Everyone has to beat the crap out of each other for a while. All sides have tasted blood now and the feeding frenzy simply wouldn't stop in short order. Everyone thinks he's winning. There's been no major knockout punches thrown (save maybe we've established a presence in Iraq and Afganistan, and the other side is actually getting some mileage out of that anyway). I do think that the "Western" powers have to push to dismantle some of these rogue organizations as negotiation and more importantly settlement is not possible with them. At the same time we've got to engage the soverign powers in the Middle East and come to a point where they all feel secure within their own borders.
Countries like Iran and Syria have every right to have influence in the region, and I can understand their disdain for our influence there. However, I think our reasons for wanting to be there are first for economic reasons and second for security reasons. I get the impression that countries like Iran and Syria are looking for influence more as empire builders in order to control the people in the region and impose their religious views. I don't know if that makes sense or not and maybe it's naïve of me frame it like that. I guess my concern is that if these countries get their way, they don't stop at the current hotspots. Obviously our goal is to be dominate in the world in terms of business and economics and we use our military strength to ensure that we can play everywhere in the world. But I think that we stop short of point a gun at someone's head and telling him that he has to buy a "Starbucks" coffee or a "Ford". If Turkish coffee is a better product and people want to drink it then so be it. Maybe Starbucks will compete in that market with its own product line of Middle Eastern drinks.
Conversely, it seems as though many of the powers in the region are more driven by religious belief and installing a religious order. When the Mullahs tell me that they have the right to develop nuclear technology and weapons, you can sure as hell believe I'm hitting the eject button. I'm scared as hell of people who tell their "followers" it's better to be dead "martyrs" than alive. Can I get a Halleluiah Jim Jones!!
Later,
Pesh
# posted by : 7/28/2006 1:27 PM
: 7/28/2006 1:27 PM
This is on Iraq rather than Israel and Hizbollah
Link is from the NY Times back on July 12th, but reading it now underscores that Iraq has been in a state of civil war, a iteration above low intensity conflict, for a stretch of time, already.
American forces are simply increasingly caught in the crossfire.
General Sees Need for More US Forces in Bagdhad
And this is just what's in the mainstream media...
Link is from the NY Times back on July 12th, but reading it now underscores that Iraq has been in a state of civil war, a iteration above low intensity conflict, for a stretch of time, already.
American forces are simply increasingly caught in the crossfire.
General Sees Need for More US Forces in Bagdhad
And this is just what's in the mainstream media...
This is a link to some fascinating analysis of the why's, who's and what's in the Israel-Hizbollah-Lebanon crisis...
from Haaretz
from Haaretz
Occasionally even a blind squirrel finds a nut...
The Clarion saw comments by Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah indicating that this war was indeed begun by a miscalculation. (as was our initial editorial speculation.)
Nasrallah said he never would have authorized the kidnap that started this war if he had known the consequences.
The Clarion is willing to concede that Nasrallah's motives for making these comments are complicated and in part, definitely motivated by internal Lebanonese politics. However, it is inarguably positive that he is expressing regret that this war occurred.
Israel and its neighbors need to treat War as if it will inevitably lead to mutual assured destruction. They need to step by from any and all brinks as quickly as possible.
Neither side benefited from this last war. Both sides should publically state that, too.
Here is a link to International Herald Tribune article with Hezbollah leader Nasrallah's comments to Lebanonese television.
Post a Comment
The Clarion saw comments by Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah indicating that this war was indeed begun by a miscalculation. (as was our initial editorial speculation.)
Nasrallah said he never would have authorized the kidnap that started this war if he had known the consequences.
The Clarion is willing to concede that Nasrallah's motives for making these comments are complicated and in part, definitely motivated by internal Lebanonese politics. However, it is inarguably positive that he is expressing regret that this war occurred.
Israel and its neighbors need to treat War as if it will inevitably lead to mutual assured destruction. They need to step by from any and all brinks as quickly as possible.
Neither side benefited from this last war. Both sides should publically state that, too.
Here is a link to International Herald Tribune article with Hezbollah leader Nasrallah's comments to Lebanonese television.
