Well, I look forward to more hyperventilating over how there are no adults in charge, and how much better Sharon would have handled this, and how if we were to truly fix this situation it would require intellectual curiosity and the desire to work constructively.... but little in the way of substantive, forward-looking policy recommendations for how to immediately proceed, what exact course corrections to make going forward.
Because so far as I can tell, most of the analysts I see aren't so much armchair generals as armchair grannies in the back seat. Their only apparent function is to loudly complain.
What should Rice do, right now? Not yesterday. Now. What should she do?
What should Olmert do? Not yesterday. Right now. What should he do?
What should Siniora do? Not yesterday. Right now. What should he do?
Each will have their own goals, some of which are congruent and some of which are not. But I get really tired of handwringing and wise-sounding bullsh** that basically states the facts of the problem that we all know, and everything bad that has happened so far, and winds up with recommendations like "put some grownups in charge" or "listen more carefully" or "work harder diplomatically," all of which are about as useful as teats on a bull.
Siniora: he is doinge exactly what he should do: reject any negotiation from the Isrtraelis or the US that calls for anything less than unconditional cease-fire. Why? Anything less will destyroy his cred with the Lebanese street, and if Lebanon is going to hold together as a nation, then it needs legitimacy for its government - ESPECIALLY the non Hizbollah actors.
Rice: call for unconditional Israeli cease fire for 72 hours. Also publicly call for reconstruction funds commitments from israel and the EU and the US for Lebanon. WE need to do as much to repair our (US) reputation as possible because our long term goals for teh war onterror have not changed and our own cred - especially with respect to Iraq - is on the line. PLUS if we the West dont get Lebanon back on its feet, then Saudi Arabian and Iranian money will fill the void.
Olmert: announce a true cease fire for humanitarian reasons for 72 hours, with warning that if all rocket attacks dont cease by the end of that time frame, that aerial bombardment will resume.
Thats the best I can come up with so that Israel doesnt find itself with anarchy at iots northern border (ie the collapse of Lebanon), so the US doesnt find its own strategic goals completely overturned, and that we deny as much advantage as is possible at this stage to Islamist movements.
i agree with aziz, except i would add that all parties demand hizb' turn over the israeli soldiers to siniora to negotiate a prisoner swap. this would increase siniora's standing as the legit gov't of leb. and we would get back to root causes.
Well, when the Bush administration intentionally disengaged because they didn't want to continue any of the Clinton initiatives I'm left wondering if a Gore administration would have fared any better. Obviously I'm biased and not able to see a solution to the middle-east's ongoing conflicts. I do know that our nation may be the only hope in the region, but Rice is seriously in over her head as Sec of State.
I doubt any of this matters. Hizbollah's center of gravity lies outside Lebanon, and the root causes are sitting in Damascus and Tehran laughing at all of us. They will rebuild and rearm almost immediately.
Israel's only good move would have been to declare the assault on its soldiers an act of war by Iran and Syria, and react accordingly.
ummm...the reason i think the prisoner swap should be the opening gambit is that it would allow both sides a semi-graceful climb down, saving some face.
i think both sides were kinda surprised by the speedy escalation.
It is possible to suppress Islamic Fundamentalists terrorists groups. Look at what was done in Syria. Hafiz al-Asad came to power by coup in 1970. Throughout the 1970s the Muslim Brotherhood conducted guerrilla/terrorist campaign to overthrow his secular government and replace it with an Islamic government. Initially Asad did not take this threat very seriously, but after an assignation attempt that almost succeeded in 1980, Hafiz al-Asad began to ruthlessly crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood. He had large numbers of prisoners executed. In 1982 the Muslim Brotherhood organized an uprising in the city of Hama and they declared the city a “liberated city”. Hafiz al-Asad responded by having the Syrian military level the city with artillery and air attacks. Estimates of the number of civilians killed range between 10,000 and 25,000, but no one really knows. This is generally known as the Hama Massacre. Since the Hama Massacre, Islamic Fundamentalists have kept a very low profile and have not threatened the government in Syria.
The point is, it is events like the Hama Massacre that make the Syrian government “evil”, but this is probably the level of violence that needs to be applied to suppress Islamic insurgents by force in this region. Many of the surviving fundamentalists from the Syrian Hama uprising fled to Europe, and are today part of the Islamic Fundamentalists movement in Europe that is fueling terrorism.
The US and Israel simply cannot apply this level of violence. Their citizens will not allow it. Guerrilla/terrorist groups cannot defeat the US or Israel, but they know that the US and Israel can not resort to the sort of violence required to wipe them out. They plan to simply continue to harass the US and Israel, wear them down, and force them into more and more violent retaliation, which have the effect of blurring the difference between the violence applied by the terrorist and the violence applied to them. As long as they are broadly supported by the population they are hiding amongst, they are very difficult to defeat militarily.
As long as they are broadly supported by the population they are hiding amongst, they are very difficult to defeat militarily.
It's not clear how broad that support is, at least in Lebanon. Sure, people will say they support Hezbollah as a matter of Shi'ite honor or whatever, but most aren't willing to die for it. Did the civilians stay in Hezbollah's territory in South Lebanon because they chose to, or because Hezbollah wouldn't let them leave?
While the Palestinians have often shown a willingness to sacrifice their own children for the cause, other groups seem to cooperate because they're forced to. Hezbollah can survive without the willing support of the population, but they probably can't survive without the arms and money supplied by Iran and Syria.
Hezbollah can survive without the willing support of the population, but they probably can't survive without the arms and money supplied by Iran and Syria.
Precisely. A lot of their "popular" support comes from the fact they provide "humanitarian aid." It's quite a scam, actually : they destroy the local economy, then hand out money. Despotism 101.
Take those arms and money away and they quickly cease to exist.
Of course he could be lying. He could be mistaken. Or he could be right.
According to this report in the New York Times, Iran's leaders are seriously worried about the damage that Hezbollah has suffered.
Iran is very vulnerable, but we should probably wait a while before doing something about them. I wrote up something about this, which is scheduled to appear here on Dean's world in a few hours, and on my site.
But, we should also give Israel credit for what it has accomplished. Hezbollah is the strongest army in the non-Israeli Middle East, and in 20 days, Israel was able to inflict that much damage. That's important news to know.
TallDave “Take those arms and money away and they quickly cease to exist.”
I think this is way too optimistic. It is more complicated than that. Without Syrian and Iranian aid, Hezbollah may no longer be able to get rockets and other advanced weapons, which will make it much less dangerous, but it is not going to cease to exist.
If we destabilize and overthrow the governments of Syria and/or Iran in order to do this, terrorist groups may well try to take over those countries. This could result in even stronger support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah.
Like I have suggested before, our choices are to the raise a 2-4 million man army (WW II size) and try to occupy most of the Middle East or to view this as mainly an ideological struggle. You win an ideological struggle not by killing all your enemies, but by creating a better society and providing a better quality of life for your citizens. In an ideological struggle you only do highly targeted, short term military actions. To me our current strategy seems to be act like we had a 2-4 million man army, and see if we can intimidate our enemies. It isn’t working. Our enemies know we don’t have a 2-4 million man army.
You win an ideological struggle not by killing all your enemies, but by creating a better society and providing a better quality of life for your citizens.
Are you suggesting that we should show our respect for fascist groups like Hezbollah by calling our war against these AK-47 toting dirtbags "ideological"..and by giving their potential supporters money??
In short, you're suggesting that we attack their strategy by respecting it and showering it with cash...
It's a lot less complicated than people are making it out to be. Our response to Libya's state sponsorship of terror was neither nuanced nor sophisticated, and it pretty effectively eliminated the problem.
If we destabilize and overthrow the governments of Syria and/or Iran in order to do this, terrorist groups may well try to take over those countries.
Huh? Terrorists took over Iran in 1979, and have ruled in Syria even longer. I don't think regime change is currently warranted, but that scenarios is no worse than the situation now.
Maryatexitzero “Are you suggesting that we should show our respect for fascist groups like Hezbollah by calling our war against these AK-47 toting dirtbags "ideological"..and by giving their potential supporters money??”
No! I said create a better quality of life for our citizens, not for theirs.
No! I said create a better quality of life for our citizens, not for theirs.
Oh, sorry. You did.
..umm..how would creating a better life for Americans stop Iran and Syria from sending money and arms to Hezbollah? Terrorism thrives, not from desperation, but from the hope of gaining money and political power.
The Saudis and the Iranians are using their money to fund terrorist armies, which they have used against us. They're already impressed by our 'better quality of life' - they're so impressed, they want more, and they intend to take it by force.
They're our enemies, and that's their job. Our job is to defend ourselves. A better quality of life for our citizens is a nice thing, but it's sort of irrelevant to this strategic/military problem.
Do you think supporters of Hezbollah are willing to die for the cause, or do they support it for the same reason our local punks like to pretend they have "Soprano" connections - because it makes these losers feel like they're oh-so-tough..
You win an ideological struggle not by killing all your enemies, but by creating a better society and providing a better quality of life for your citizens.
even foxnews has lebanese support pegging at 80% today. after Qana.
Which is exactly Mary's and my point: bombing Lebanon makes Hizbollah popular, which is why it's such a stupid strategy. It's precisely what Iran and Syria want.
Dave, I would say that what Iran and Syria want is not the destruction of two-thirds of the pretty rockets they bought for their clients. I'd say what they want is a succesful prisoner exchange, actually.
This idea that assertive military action against Arabs "radicalizes" them is a joke. What were they before? How little does it take to "radicalize" them? Last I saw, editorial cartoons did the trick.
Rockets and prisoner exchanges are a means, not an end, unless you think they're just pining for the prisoners' company or are overcome with concern for individual rights. And what end do you suppose that is? (Hint: it involves some cartographical revisions.)
This idea that assertive military action against Arabs "radicalizes" them is a joke.
Well, any country under attack tends to rally around its military. But on the whole I agree, which is why I think we should be bombing Syria and Iran.
Given that every time Israel caves in to world pressure it only makes their situation worse, what makes anyone think they will do it any more? What makes anyone think that winning the PR war will gain them anything?
Israel is not stupid. Everyone is treating them as if they have less intelligence than a dog. Even a dog is smart enough to realize if you do what your master asks, but get punished every time, you might as well just stop listening to your master.
The solution to this problem is not political. Politics can't trump hate. Therefore they are going for the only remaining solution, a military one.
I agree it can't be successful without strikes on Iran and Syria, perhaps they are thinking they will degrate Hizb'allah first, before going for the big fish?
If I were them, I'd say to the US: we'll take Syria, you take Iran, simultaneously.
wow--then......you are both clueless?
let me get this straight...instead of israel bombing leb, you and mary propose the US bombing syria and iran?
riiiight.
have you run the logistics, dave?
read the arab media sites and see how this is playing in MENA.
hizb' has become wildly popular.
just think mare, with 80% support for hizb' in the leb population that shar'ia state you so loathe and fear could be voted right in without a coup.
The US has plenty of strike assets in range of Iran, even if you excluse those stationed in Iraq.
Between B-2s, B-1s, B-52s, tanker aircraft, F-22s, F-15s etc. it's certainly do-able.
That's not the question, I think. The question is, do we want to stir up that hornet's nest right now?
I suspect it's inevitable, but every military strategist knows that one needs initiative to win a war, to be calling the shots. Therefore it's up to the US and Israel to decide when the time is right, not just respond to aggression from Iran and play by their rules.
Why do you keep repeating this mantra? What kind of meme are you trying to spread so thickly?
ha ha ha, musta been meant for me!
why mary, are you reading my blog? shame on you, you might catch hizb' cooties. ;)
silly me, i just prefer the father of ardvaarks and the lebbloggers to the "mustache of enlightenment".
but you just go right ahead, knok yerrself out. ;)
Because so far as I can tell, most of the analysts I see aren't so much armchair generals as armchair grannies in the back seat. Their only apparent function is to loudly complain.
What should Rice do, right now? Not yesterday. Now. What should she do?
What should Olmert do? Not yesterday. Right now. What should he do?
What should Siniora do? Not yesterday. Right now. What should he do?
Each will have their own goals, some of which are congruent and some of which are not. But I get really tired of handwringing and wise-sounding bullsh** that basically states the facts of the problem that we all know, and everything bad that has happened so far, and winds up with recommendations like "put some grownups in charge" or "listen more carefully" or "work harder diplomatically," all of which are about as useful as teats on a bull.
Rice: call for unconditional Israeli cease fire for 72 hours. Also publicly call for reconstruction funds commitments from israel and the EU and the US for Lebanon. WE need to do as much to repair our (US) reputation as possible because our long term goals for teh war onterror have not changed and our own cred - especially with respect to Iraq - is on the line. PLUS if we the West dont get Lebanon back on its feet, then Saudi Arabian and Iranian money will fill the void.
Olmert: announce a true cease fire for humanitarian reasons for 72 hours, with warning that if all rocket attacks dont cease by the end of that time frame, that aerial bombardment will resume.
Thats the best I can come up with so that Israel doesnt find itself with anarchy at iots northern border (ie the collapse of Lebanon), so the US doesnt find its own strategic goals completely overturned, and that we deny as much advantage as is possible at this stage to Islamist movements.
Israel's only good move would have been to declare the assault on its soldiers an act of war by Iran and Syria, and react accordingly.
no ceasefire.
aziz-habbibi, the quote (from Aliens) is,
zactly how i feel. =(
i think both sides were kinda surprised by the speedy escalation.
The point is, it is events like the Hama Massacre that make the Syrian government “evil”, but this is probably the level of violence that needs to be applied to suppress Islamic insurgents by force in this region. Many of the surviving fundamentalists from the Syrian Hama uprising fled to Europe, and are today part of the Islamic Fundamentalists movement in Europe that is fueling terrorism.
The US and Israel simply cannot apply this level of violence. Their citizens will not allow it. Guerrilla/terrorist groups cannot defeat the US or Israel, but they know that the US and Israel can not resort to the sort of violence required to wipe them out. They plan to simply continue to harass the US and Israel, wear them down, and force them into more and more violent retaliation, which have the effect of blurring the difference between the violence applied by the terrorist and the violence applied to them. As long as they are broadly supported by the population they are hiding amongst, they are very difficult to defeat militarily.
Instead, we are following their plan to a "t."
Next best is to disrupt his alliances;
Instead, we are strengthening them.
The next best is to attack his army
Their armies remain inviolate; only their proxies fight.
It's not clear how broad that support is, at least in Lebanon. Sure, people will say they support Hezbollah as a matter of Shi'ite honor or whatever, but most aren't willing to die for it. Did the civilians stay in Hezbollah's territory in South Lebanon because they chose to, or because Hezbollah wouldn't let them leave?
While the Palestinians have often shown a willingness to sacrifice their own children for the cause, other groups seem to cooperate because they're forced to. Hezbollah can survive without the willing support of the population, but they probably can't survive without the arms and money supplied by Iran and Syria.
Precisely. A lot of their "popular" support comes from the fact they provide "humanitarian aid." It's quite a scam, actually : they destroy the local economy, then hand out money. Despotism 101.
Take those arms and money away and they quickly cease to exist.
According to this report in the New York Times, Iran's leaders are seriously worried about the damage that Hezbollah has suffered.
Iran is very vulnerable, but we should probably wait a while before doing something about them. I wrote up something about this, which is scheduled to appear here on Dean's world in a few hours, and on my site.
But, we should also give Israel credit for what it has accomplished. Hezbollah is the strongest army in the non-Israeli Middle East, and in 20 days, Israel was able to inflict that much damage. That's important news to know.
I think this is way too optimistic. It is more complicated than that. Without Syrian and Iranian aid, Hezbollah may no longer be able to get rockets and other advanced weapons, which will make it much less dangerous, but it is not going to cease to exist.
If we destabilize and overthrow the governments of Syria and/or Iran in order to do this, terrorist groups may well try to take over those countries. This could result in even stronger support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah.
Like I have suggested before, our choices are to the raise a 2-4 million man army (WW II size) and try to occupy most of the Middle East or to view this as mainly an ideological struggle. You win an ideological struggle not by killing all your enemies, but by creating a better society and providing a better quality of life for your citizens. In an ideological struggle you only do highly targeted, short term military actions. To me our current strategy seems to be act like we had a 2-4 million man army, and see if we can intimidate our enemies. It isn’t working. Our enemies know we don’t have a 2-4 million man army.
Are you suggesting that we should show our respect for fascist groups like Hezbollah by calling our war against these AK-47 toting dirtbags "ideological"..and by giving their potential supporters money??
In short, you're suggesting that we attack their strategy by respecting it and showering it with cash...
I don't think that's what Sun Tsu had in mind..
It's a lot less complicated than people are making it out to be. Our response to Libya's state sponsorship of terror was neither nuanced nor sophisticated, and it pretty effectively eliminated the problem.
If we destabilize and overthrow the governments of Syria and/or Iran in order to do this, terrorist groups may well try to take over those countries.
Huh? Terrorists took over Iran in 1979, and have ruled in Syria even longer. I don't think regime change is currently warranted, but that scenarios is no worse than the situation now.
No! I said create a better quality of life for our citizens, not for theirs.
Oh, sorry. You did.
..umm..how would creating a better life for Americans stop Iran and Syria from sending money and arms to Hezbollah? Terrorism thrives, not from desperation, but from the hope of gaining money and political power.
The Saudis and the Iranians are using their money to fund terrorist armies, which they have used against us. They're already impressed by our 'better quality of life' - they're so impressed, they want more, and they intend to take it by force.
They're our enemies, and that's their job. Our job is to defend ourselves. A better quality of life for our citizens is a nice thing, but it's sort of irrelevant to this strategic/military problem.
even foxnews has lebanese support pegging at 80% today.
after Qana.
mary, try a little, wouldja plz?
Do you think supporters of Hezbollah are willing to die for the cause, or do they support it for the same reason our local punks like to pretend they have "Soprano" connections - because it makes these losers feel like they're oh-so-tough..
Frank J beat you to it.
Which is exactly Mary's and my point: bombing Lebanon makes Hizbollah popular, which is why it's such a stupid strategy. It's precisely what Iran and Syria want.
This idea that assertive military action against Arabs "radicalizes" them is a joke. What were they before? How little does it take to "radicalize" them? Last I saw, editorial cartoons did the trick.
This idea that assertive military action against Arabs "radicalizes" them is a joke.
Well, any country under attack tends to rally around its military. But on the whole I agree, which is why I think we should be bombing Syria and Iran.
You write about political doom for Israel for what it has done in Lebanon, Dave. Why do you think attacking Iran would be politically beneficial?
Israel is not stupid. Everyone is treating them as if they have less intelligence than a dog. Even a dog is smart enough to realize if you do what your master asks, but get punished every time, you might as well just stop listening to your master.
The solution to this problem is not political. Politics can't trump hate. Therefore they are going for the only remaining solution, a military one.
I agree it can't be successful without strikes on Iran and Syria, perhaps they are thinking they will degrate Hizb'allah first, before going for the big fish?
If I were them, I'd say to the US: we'll take Syria, you take Iran, simultaneously.
wow--then......you are both clueless?
let me get this straight...instead of israel bombing leb, you and mary propose the US bombing syria and iran?
riiiight.
have you run the logistics, dave?
read the arab media sites and see how this is playing in MENA.
hizb' has become wildly popular.
just think mare, with 80% support for hizb' in the leb population that shar'ia state you so loathe and fear could be voted right in without a coup.
Let's just keep saying it over and over and over again. Let nothing disturb our mantra.
I'm not proposing bombing syria and iran, I'm just proposing that their infrastructure should be destroyed by any means possible, at the right time.
Let's just keep saying it over and over and over again. Let nothing disturb our mantra
Why do you keep repeating this mantra? What kind of meme are you trying to spread so thickly?
The US has plenty of strike assets in range of Iran, even if you excluse those stationed in Iraq.
Between B-2s, B-1s, B-52s, tanker aircraft, F-22s, F-15s etc. it's certainly do-able.
That's not the question, I think. The question is, do we want to stir up that hornet's nest right now?
I suspect it's inevitable, but every military strategist knows that one needs initiative to win a war, to be calling the shots. Therefore it's up to the US and Israel to decide when the time is right, not just respond to aggression from Iran and play by their rules.
oops - that assumption is correct, Ron
ha ha ha, musta been meant for me!
why mary, are you reading my blog? shame on you, you might catch hizb' cooties. ;)
silly me, i just prefer the father of ardvaarks and the lebbloggers to the "mustache of enlightenment".
but you just go right ahead, knok yerrself out. ;)
weird synchronicity.
The best Israel can do is defeat Iran and Syria. They will.
Tactics, Strategy, Grand Strategy
Tim_the Soldier,
Rice is doing her job perfectly. It is part of the disinformation plan.
Aziz,
We are attacking the enemy strategy. Our apparent defeat by it is part of the disinformation plan.
Tall Dave,
The strategy is brilliant. It will be studied for 1,000 years. You just don't understand the strategy. See my link above.