"The most frustrating thing about the ceasefire is not so much that little progress was made in killing terrorists but that Hezbollah is declaring victory."

A reminder before we get started reducing the discussion to Israel vs "the terrorists" again.

Judging by the reception that Israeli troops got in Lebanon, Hezbollah's fighters are well aware of the IDF playbook, and have learned it well. Be certain that Hassan Nasrallah and the leadership of Hezbollah are also aware of the career trajectory of former terrorist, Menachim Begin and Irgun. Hizbullah is a legal political party in Lebanon with representatives in parliament and ministers in the government.

"Even more twisted is the fact that Hezbollah is gaining approval for rebuilding the devastation their terrorism wrought."

Well, as a practical matter, even if you accept the proposition that this is the "devastation their terrorism wrought," there's nothing "twisted" about Hezbollah "gaining approval" for rebuilding in the wake of that devastation. Even assuming that Hezbollah caused the damage, it's perfectly rational to give them more credit for rebuilding than for leaving the place in ruins.

It sounds like you'd prefer the simplicity of characterizing Hezbollah as "PURE EVIL." And you're frustrated that they're doing some things that make that characterization more difficult. So you're trying to characterize even their acts that benefit others as "twisted."

I like the portion of your quote that states "What if the Muslims in the Middle East, and the Arabs in particular, want dignity and pride while the Israelis and Americans want physical safety? Then we've got something to deal with." That's an excellent observation. Much more practical than a good-versus-evil characterization of the dispute.

From the NYT:

in addition to [Hezbollah's] hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill

Excuse me? They didn't fight Israel to a standstill. If the IDF wanted to march to Beirut, there's no way Hezbollah could have stopped them. I can understand Hezbollah's supporters claiming such, but it's disappointing that the NYT would buy into it.

Yes, it's rational for giving Hezbollah more credit for rebuilding south Lebanon than leaving it in ruins, but it's irrational to give them higher standing than before the war because of that. If my neighbor's kid breaks my window, owns up to it, and pays to have it fixed, I'll be glad he has at least a little class but I won't be thinking more highly of him than before.

Anyway, Hezbollah's goal of being seen as a community leader is not a novel strategy. It has been employed at varioius times by organized crime, the Ku Klux Klan, and urban street gangs.

Eric

Despite what you may believe, the IDF's infantry foray into Lebanon after a bombing campaign that reduced much of that country to rubble was no walk in the park, and I consider your Beirut boast to be just that, a boast, based on these notes from former DIA analyst Patrick Lang's website:

"-western military doctrine in general seems to be moribund, preparing to fight the next WWIII on the WWII model

-the main battle tank (and indeed most armored vehicles) are increasingly vulnerable to modern weaponry...the balance has shifted in favor of infantry firing missiles, and this trend can only continue unless some new light-weight impenetrable armor can be devised.

-the same can be said for the helicopter gunship, as evidence by the recent US cancellation of the new gunship program over vulnerability to missiles

-both of these factors point to the increasing importance of infantry over more advanced systems, which is a boost for less well equipped guerrillas."

*snip*

"...In any event, as Pat has noted earlier, pay little attention to the technology that Hizbullah is using. It is not the technology that is making them effective. It is their training and dedication that are making them effective. And for that matter, Israeli incompetence -- it is not so much that Hizbullah is fighting like supermen (they have obviously studied their art and are executing it, but if they were really the supermen they've been accounted to be, Israeli casualties would be much higher), as it is that the IDF is fighting extremely poorly. Tankers, for example, should never allow themselves to get into enclosed kill boxes where the enemy can fire down onto their less-armored top and rear parts. The fact that IDF tanks have managed to put themselves into exactly that position is a sign of incompetence on their part, rather than super-human competence on Hizbullah's part. Hizbullah is just doing Warfighting 101. The IDF is doing... well, poorly." "

If Israel's decision to crush Lebanon was actually an attempt to dismantle Hisbullah, more notes for Lang's website:

"-popular movements like Hezbollah can not be defeated by any kind of military force...they may be suppressed, but they will rise again unless the geo-political reasons for their having come into existence are not addressed

-the leading cause of modern Islamic terrorism is 60 years of bad foreign policy by USA/UK...or to put it more bluntly, when you go into other peoples countries at will to interfere, you only make more people angry at you."

I personally think there is much more going on here than meets the eye. There is evidence that both sides have been planning this war for more than 5 years.

The dispute over Shebba Farms was about to be settled by Israel and the Lebanese Gov't, which would have marginalized Hizbullah even further in Lebanon, so their strategy is pretty transparent, considering their new-found post-war popularity, even among the Maronite Christians there.

Less transparent is the Israeli strategy. I can't believe that the Israeli military actually thought they were going to crush Hizbullah militarily. That kind of nonsense only plays out in the heads of Bill Kristol, Chas Krauthammer, and Michael Ledeen. What were their actual goals in Lebanon, I wonder?

JohnS:
Less transparent is the Israeli strategy. I can't believe that the Israeli military actually thought they were going to crush Hizbullah militarily.

The Israeli military, perhaps not, but what about Israeli politicians? In a democratic society like Israel, the military has to do what the politicians order, regardless of whether the career soldiers think it is actually feasible. Don't we have examples of that closer to home?

JohnS,

First, I never said the IDF ground forces had a "walk in the park" against Hezbollah. I said if they wanted to advance to Beirut, Hezbollah could not have stopped them. But that was never the IDF's objective. Their objective was never to take territory, it was to drive the guerillas far enough north that their missiles could no longer hit Israeli cities.

That is a much different sort of battle than the previous wars Israel has fought with its Arab neighbors. So, really, it's absurd to look at the IDF/Hezbollah fighting and conclude that Hezbollah fought better than the conventional armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Hezbollah isn't even the first guerilla group to survive the IDF. Hamas has been doing the same thing for many years.

Nick,

Maybe it was that the new Army Chief of staff is an Air Force man, perhaps it was Israeli politicians, or maybe as Daniel Levy hints in his article in Haaretz, "Ending the neoconservative nightmare," it was American politicians. But again, I don't think any of those people were responding to Hizbullah as a "terrorist threat." I think there are other regional geopolitical fish to fry. My question is: what are those fish?

I would suggest that Iran has to fit into this somehow. European analysts have noted that Iran may be "the most valuable country on the planet. They have one of the biggest holdings of gas and oil reserves in the world. second in gas, second in oil. On top of that they have direct access to the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea what makes them a potential platform for the distribution of oil and gas to South Asia, Europe and East Asia."

On one level, I think this is about a struggle for regional dominance, with Iran and Israel being the two main powerhouse players squaring off. But all things considered, the rest of the world has a major stake in the outcome of this struggle. So I doubt the major powers are just sitting idly by, leaving their economic fates and future well-beings to rest upon events in the ME---and that just complicates the picture further.

Eric,

Hizbullah is not Hamas, and the Israelis are freaked by what happened in Lebanon.

IDF couldn't hold a town they overran and took heavy losses. Do you really think the IDF could have marched into Beirut at will?

As for what Israeli objectives were, they appeared to change daily. First they were to retrieve the kidnapped soldiers, then to destroy Hizbullah, then to push Hizbullah back...from mission creep to strategic debacle.

Do you really think the IDF could have marched into Beirut at will?

I don't know what you mean by "at will," but there's absolutely no doubt that Hezbollah could not have stopped the IDF from pushing all the way to Beirut. Guerilla armies simply aren't equipped to hold territory against the brute force of a conventional army; their strategy is to inflict pain on the superior force by attacking, then hiding, then attacking, etc.

There's no question Hezbollah put up a stronger fight than Israel expected. But to say they fought Israel "to a standstill" is absurd. Israel's military goals were limited and they are leaving not because they are giving up, but because an international force is being put in place.

Why didn't the U.S. do in Iraq what Israel did in Lebanon - bomb the heck out of it, and then have the terrorist factions pay for cleaning it up? Israel did better in weeks than we've done in years.

And on the same subject, why not do the same in Iran and launch a multiple-arena strike using the same techniques: demolish the bridges and supply trails, warn civilians ahead of time to get out to avoid destruction, and then blow it to bits? W

When people are fleeing their homes and running for cover, they have a more difficult time planning terrorist attacks on other countries. Plus, when money otherwise flowing to terrorist cells all over the world has to be diverted to rebuilding or assisting displaced citizens or defense, the terrorist cells can't continue their work.

Just a thought....

Anonymous

Brilliant!

General:

If you spent half as much time studying war strategy as watching ancient movies and facilitating bodily fluid degradation, you'd understand why my suggestions made sense. Since you can't, go back to wanking off.

and then have the terrorist factions pay for cleaning it up?

By asking them "pretty please"?

Intresting quote from strategic analyst (Center for Strategic and International Studies) Anthony Cordesman's "Preliminary Lessons of Israeli-Hezbollah War:"

"...no serving Israeli official, intelligence officer, or other military officer felt that the Hezbollah acted under the direction of Iran or Syria."

I recall that some posters on the last ITA thread on the Israel/Lebanon conflict operated under the opposite assumption, so I thought this might be worthwhile noting.