Larry

It seems unlikely at this stage that the U.S. will commit any ground forces to assist Israel's Lebanon campaign. In fact, Bush's complacent, dare I say bored, responses while at the G8 summit indicates that he had a pretty good idea that this Israeli "project" was in the works.

The entire matter, however, comes down to whether or not Israel will pull the proverbial trigger and deploy ground troops of their own. As it stands right now the pickett lines are merely trading potshots in the woods. Neither side has launched any sort of true offensive; airstrikes, as you say, do not constitute full scale war. If Israel were to cease its airstrikes Hezbollah was surely terminate their actions as well.

At present it appears to be too early to determine what will happen next. After all, the world community is as yet uncertain whether or not we are witnessing a war, a scrap, or some other clandestine operation.

Fortunately, the United States has a stalwart ally in Iraq, the newest democracy in the Middle East. Any word of the Mahdi Militia coming to the defense of Israel?

Although the investment has been large, $500 billion and 20,000 US causalties, over 2,500 dead, events like the war in Lebanon show the wisdom of Bush and his evangelical base. They are patiently awaiting a scenario for the return of the Messiah. At this point that may be the only way out of the debacle Bush has so eagerly and recklessly gotten this country.

Nearing Midnight, at Rapture Ready.com!

I see the turbulence as a clear warning of our proximity to the last days.

The caption of tomorrow's WSJ story doesn't do the report justice.  Bush's Mideast strategy is not only risky it is a fantasy.  Bush is willing to fight to the last Israeli and Arab to "dismantle" Hizbullah.  Read it and weep.

The President want to restructure the Middle East in line with his mission to spread democracy throughout the area unaware or without concern that lives and countries may be destroyed. Neither is he concerned or aware of the economic catastrophe that his action could visit on the world as a result of an expansion of the fighting.

Who exactly will Secretary Rice persuade to help the Israeli's take apart Hizbullah?

Crissie

Don't fall into the trap of thinking Democracy proliferation is one of Bush's top policy aims. It's not.

If you want to know his true policy aims, simply look at what he has done and then determine who has gained from it. Anything in between is just empty rhetoric..

Gettysburg
I read your post elswhere regarding corporate interests and Bush and Cheney. I have to agree with you.

David Korten author of "When Corporations Rule the World" would be proud of you.

Crissie

It's interesting because the average American has every reason to despise the Bush administration. Yet what is bothersome to me is that it seems as if most people, including many at this site, hate Bush for the wrong reasons.

I would argue that this is important because if people loath him for lying, fabricating intelligence, spying domestically, etc. they are missing the most important things: what he is doing in terms of setting precedents.

The next president of the United States can easily rectify many of the things Bush has done wrong. He or she can be more honest with the public, more transparent to the public, cancel domestic spying programs, and use reliable intelligence on foreign policy issues.

Yet what they cannot necessarily do is rid Washington of the now ubiquitous private sector influence in government and politics. Now emboldened more than ever, these entities such as Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. will become the most powerful lobbiests in Washington no matter if the president is a Neocon or a socialist.

And they WILL succeed.

I'm a little confused. "Vast numbers of rockets"? I've heard the number 10,000. While I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, that's not a lot of rockets, if used as they were designed -- not onesies and twosies by guerillas. See notes below.

One Merkava tank was lost? While the Merkava is considered a main battle tank, it has a quite different design philosophy than US, UK, or Russian tanks. It emphasizes crew survival, and ease of repair after it has been knocked out. There are several versions, some optimized for low-intensity urban warfare.

The Israelis started the Yom Kippur War with 188 tanks, many being older models, in the Golan Heights. The Syrians attacked with combined forces including more than 2,000 tanks. One of the two defending Israeli tank brigades was almost totally destroyed, but the tide turned in about 5 days. Am I getting across the intensity of modern tank warfare, and that losing individual tanks isn't going to deter the Israelis? In Iraq, tanks are rarely knocked out by IEDs and infantry weapons, although it's rough on lighter vehicles.

What you are describing from Hezbollah is simply not high intensity warfare. I hold no particular fondness for the IDF, but you are not describing a serious deterrent. My concern, indeed, is that the IDF gets annoyed enough to devastate civilian areas.

Notes on artillery rockets.

Successor to the 132mm Katyusha is the fUSSR 122mm GRAD. The GRAD is normally fired from a 48-tube launcher on a truck or tracked vehicle, which usually operate in battalions of 18. 48x18=864 rockets. In other words, 10,000 rockets are a little more than 11 loads of fire. Those rockets, fired in 864 round salvoes, will destroy unarmored targets in about one square kilometer.

They aren't being used that way. They are being fired a couple at a time, which will hit somewhere in a radius of a kilometer. Yes, they can throw fragments up to 400 meters, but, in the context of modern warfare, that isn't very impressive.

A direct hit with one of these rockets may give the crew a headache and leave them deaf for a while, but that's about all unless it gets lucky (e.g., the top hatch is open). Artillery and antitank rockets have completely different designs.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

this is about new Israeli settlements in Southern Lebanon, establishing water rights, appropriating more territory, and building permanent military bases closer to Syria

Huh? youve got to be kidding... Israeli settlements in in south Lebanon? Israel was there for 18 years, didnt set up any settlements and was quite happy to leave..Israel just wants quiet. One day youll be able to put all your conspiracy theories to the side and realize all Israel wants is peace and quiet. You may not agree with the way they go about achieving this and you may dream up some ulterior motives like the will to build settlements in south Lebanon but at the end of the day that doesnt change that all Israel wants is peace and quiet.

It is unlikely that any amount of Israeli airpower is going to be able to weaken Hizballah enough that the Lebanese government will be able to disarm it without direct US military assistance.

And the latter will result in the US embroiling itself in a Lebanese civil war as it did before.

That's unlikely (but not impossible.) And therefore that is not the purpose of the exercise.

I think Israel wants to entangle the US in a war with Iran and possibly take out Syria itself, while using the Lebanese situation as the excuse.

As such, it will make only a token invasion of Lebanon - enough to threaten Syria but not an attempt to occupy Lebanon for years as it did before. Once the war with Syria starts, Israel will concentrate on that while it gets the US to attack Iran. It will try to do as much damage to Lebanon and Hizballah as possible, of course, but in the end, the goal of this is Syria and Iran and the crushing of Hamas and the Palestinians.

Once the Palestinians are driven off Gaza, Hizballah returns to being merely a pinprick for Israel as it has been up to now - especially if they can eventually get an international force to set up a no man's land on Israel's northern border - with or without the US. And if they can't, they can always push Hizballah back from the border themselves once Syria and Lebanon are no longer in the picture and they don't need troops to deal with the Palestinians. In that situation, they end up with only one functional enemy, instead of four or five as they have now.

Well, he also made the point that supposedly Hizballah does have a lot of anti-tank weapons.

While they may not be entirely effective (by the way, the Merkava "crew survival" result was zero in the one mine case so far), as Iraq has shown by the fair number of Abrams we've lost there (not to mention Bradleys), I'd say that Israel is in for trouble if they try straight up tank warfare without lots of supporting troops.

Tank battles against other tanks are entirely different than tank battles against infantry or insurgents, as you know. If you don't have infantry support of your tanks when engaging infantry or insurgents, you get swarmed or IED'd and eventually your tank is going to get blown up.

Yeah, the Katyushas aren't going to be effective against an Israeli invasion force, that's pretty clear. Hizballah has some heavier stuff, but they'll run out of those fairly quickly depending on how profligate they are with them. Still, if they have a thousand or so units of the heavier stuff, they can do some damage. How many tanks and armored vehicles and trucks do you think Israel would commit to this enterprise if they invade southern Lebanon?

I think Hizballah has learned from Iraq and will rely on Iraqi insurgent tactics, and perhaps their own homegrown methods. Eventually they'll bleed Israel enough to make them go away - but not until Israel has got what else it wants from this.

No, I think this is bigger than just settlements. Israel might go for settlements some day after it gets rid of the Palestinians and Hizballah completely (if it can), but not now.

Given the Israeli rhetoric against Iran and Syria, this is an operation clearly targeted at those two countries. Hizballah and Hamas are side issues the Israelis will deal with under cover of a war with Syria and with the US taking on Iran.

Israel Lobby Watch

Right on Larry!  If you saw the NewsHour piece last night with Brzezinski and HK you'd know that it's Come to Jesus Time for Israel in Lebanon.

If you read Juan Cole's Wednesday recap in Informed Comment, you'd know that the Israelis are not ready to meet their Maker, not with all that blood on their hands. Their smart bombs are landing on churches and milk factories - not on Hizbollah.

Hosea 8:1-9

7For they sow the wind,
   and they shall reap the whirlwind.
The standing grain has no heads,
   it shall yield no meal;
if it were to yield,
   foreigners would devour it.
8Israel is swallowed up;
   now they are among the nations
   as a useless vessel.
9For they have gone up to Assyria,
   a wild ass wandering alone;

Israel Lobby Watch

I don't think that either Iran or Syria are "behind" them in the sense that Bush and Cheney and Olmert are using the term. Hizbollah is no proxy for Iran or Syria as Bush is for Olmert in Iraq and vice versa in Lebanon.

It is clear though that when B/O need to cut the deal to save this sorry enterprise, Damascus will be the first stop for an "honest broker".  Make no mistake - they will have to visit Assad sooner or later, pay the piper. What a bunch of numbnuts.

And Syria is not a charitable organization

In the meantime, the Lebanese people will have to suffer all that MadeInUSA iron dropping on schools, churches and Lebanese Army Barracks of all things

Count ourselves lucky. All we have to suffer is the indignity of another insult to our intelligence - and 4 buck gas, and free ride deeper into the Qwagmire and a continuing world class humiliation.

Who's gonna follow Bush to Damascus or Tehran?   I guarantee you not even our well-Lobbied CoverUp Congress

Like Transhuman, I often find myself in disagreement with you, but on this we three agree: the privatization of government is the goal of the Bush administration, and it is one that we must resist to the fullest. They are inserting it into every sector they can, and it has to be reversed.

Bushco delenda est.

Aten'Hut Sarge...

Don't forget the Chinese embassy, we got them good too.

Wow ... were you in on that one too Sarge?

It's nice to see you came by the queue this morning and voted my request a "dump it". Real small of ya'...

Aren't you a little late heading out the door for your part-time day job cleaning latrines over at Benning?

By the way... Why haven't ya' come by and answered the comments in response to your post about people needing, "...to get over [their] fear of the military" over at the Culture Table at: Joining the military is a career option for any child?

Oh and speaking of military, since you spent 24 years in the Army, if folks around here really wish to believe that line of BS, could ya' possibly find time correcting your spelling mistake here, there's no "e" in "militery" ... As you were.... Later ....

~OGD~

...all Israel wants is peace and quiet.

 Maybe that's all Germany wanted in WWI... just peace and quiet.  That's why they invaded their neighboring states, too many late night parties.

 The word peace is being slandered in the context of the Middle East, please stop using it.  When there is an initiative for one person, one vote then we can talk about peace bt as long as both sides act in hate there is no peace.

This is a place-setter for Israel's new administration.  Settlements will be a bold move.

Attempting to decapitate Syria and Iran is all Israel will try and let God sort out out afterward [at the American taxpayer's expense using a generation or two of America's military as war fodder].

In response to my July 5 post on the growth of corporate power Gettysburg said:

On July 6, 2006 - 4:02am Gettysburg said:
I think Corporatism is merely another challenge for Democracy; not unlike Communism used to be. A policy of a weakened Federal government, including measures of de-regulation, has allowed companies to more or less 'do their own thing.' Our country is fine.

Is there more than one Gettysburg?

Israel decided that the US was dragging its feet - or was simply going too slowly - over getting sanctions and a military airstrike on Iran, so they decided to force the issue...what we see here is Israel using an expected provocation from Hizballah as an excuse to widen the ME war and roll up all its enemies at one time.

Somewhat similar to the diabolical Jewish 911 plan - where they provoked Muslims into destroying the Trade Center in order to increase aid and world sympathy for Israel. Now why do you suppose the Muslims fell into the trap...again?

The simplist explanation is best - Hizballah and Hamas captured Israeli soldiers because they thought they could get away with it...and Israel responded heavily to show them they couldn't.

On the larger stage, though, you're right. Those who are currently running the Israeli government are descendents of Jabotinsky and Begin, people who believe that the conflict can never be resolved, that it will always continue, and that Israel is best served by ever increasing its land area and power, and diminishing those of it's enemies.

All true, but didn't you know, deficits don't matter.  What you don't seem to understand is that all of the above is ok because it's with other people's money.

On a serious note,  while outsourcing of jobs is very painful, it is my understanding that "in the long run" globalisation will redistribute human and capital resources efficiently.  You might say, in the long run we're all dead as our illustrious leader has been quoted as saying.  The reality

Ken Silverstein, at Harper's, has been reading and reporting on posts at RaptureReady/EndTimes blog, among which we have this one:

A question just popped in my head. Do you think children of around say 7 or 8 (but before the age of accountability) that have been indoctrinated up until that time by their parents religious beliefs will be raptured? . . . For example, would a 7 year old muslim be raptured? I know G-d will do right but I was just wondering everyone's thoughts. I hate to think of kids being left here.

You know, they mess up the world, are enraptured by the thought of leaving it, but only mildly worried about leaving little children behind to cope.

Now that's character!

I really think the Bush administration is doing "a heck of a job" evacuating US citizens from Lebanon.
I wonder how the Lebanese government is going to maintain power after this war. If Hizbollah is destroyed, they will be the government that couldn't prevent missles and shells from falling on lebanese cities. If Hizbollah continues, the government remains a failure on two fronts , Hizbollah and Israel. Bringing in foreign troops to patrol Lebanon's southern border also confirms a weak government. Time for new elections (? and more Hizbollah members)
Why would a moderate Lebanese person, remain a moderate? The main message, the world seems to be sending in a variety of situations is that your government should be armed to the teeth to prevent another country from even thinking about attacking.
Lambs (the under armored and armed)are ripe for slaughter. From a pure national testosterone standpoint, it would seem that you need the biggest baddest armament you can get to keep your airports ,roads and other structures from being destroyed at another country's wim. (Hello Syria, How ya doin' Iran?). You're going to be bombed anyway as long as one guy can get to and fire a rocket.

When there is an initiative for one person, one vote then we can talk about peace

Minority rights under Arab governments? Oh, that's a good one...especially for Jews.

No one factor. Important considerations included the level of training, and the decentralized command of the Israelis. Syrian doctrine tended to require top command approval for almost anything, where individual Israeli tank commanders, acting alone, kept on hit-and-run attacks.

This is a lesson that keeps getting learned. A fair number of commentators have mentioned that a US platoon sergeant may have more autonomy than a colonel, certainly a captain, under Saddam. Recognizing this works is one of the drivers of getting more networked information to combat units, so they know not only what is in their chain of command, but about friendly units around them. With that knowledge, they have a much better chance of making independent moves without friendly fire.

Israeli air power began to dominate, and, after several days, the Israelis were able to reinforce. Deep air strikes interfered with Syrian resupply.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I think it is a 50/50 call at the moment.

I don't think posters on this site want to hear that. Israel is beaten, finished, kaput...and George Bush and the neocons also. That's what they want.

Whether Israel gets this deal will depend ultimately on the effectiveness of American diplomacy.

Nonsense.

Israel got a great deal with Egypt because of unique circumstances - the 1967 defeat of the Arabs was fresh, the Egytian army had performed well under fire in '73, the Egyptian economy was nearly terminal, and Sadat (who, of course, was assassinated for his trouble).

There's nothing America can do to recreate that time. Israel will get a good deal if the Lebanese and Syrians feel it's in their interests to give them one. The Lebanese aren't in a position to make deals with anyone. Their government and country are being destroyed by the minute. As for the Syrians - that depends on Israel's success. If they're able to wipe out Hizballah and Hamas while the international community stands on the sidelines the Syrians will cave. Otherwise, they won't.

This is a lesson that keeps getting learned.

I agree...and I would argue that it works if, and only if, the individual soldier is up to it - and that depends on his training and culture.

I again recomment R.D.Kaplan's "Imperial Grunts" since that's the lesson he too is pushing. And again note that Bush sought a personal interview with Mr. Kaplan almost immediately following his election.

Wasn't "Kenny Boy" an HBS graduate, too?  WTH do they teach them there, anyway?  How to get rich while running businesses into the ground?

I don't care much what other people want to hear when I offer an opinion.

To your second point, I am not sure if you disagree about (a) what Israel wants; (b) whether Israel is likely to get it, or (c) whether American diplomacy is the key ingredient.

If we disagree on (a), then nothing else matters. However, I would take your argument that unique circumstances existed in the 1970's to facilitate that deal, and suggest that Israel is trying to recreate some of those conditions. I would also suggest that you purposefully left out the key role America played in the negotiations that brought the deal about (with particular use of significant economic incentives to both sides).

But anyhoo, I'm saying it's 50/50 whether Israel can get something similar again. Fact is, Israel can achieve only so much militarily. Sooner or later they'll have to seek a negotiated solution.

And like it or not, Israel will not be able to get what it wants without our help. Presently, our ability to help is seriously compromised. And I would point the finger of blame squarely at Bush. Sorry if that upsets you, but as I said at the outset, I don't care much what people want to hear when I offer an opinion.

Israel is trying to recreate some of those conditions.

True.

I would also suggest that you purposefully left out the key role America played in the negotiations that brought the deal about (with particular use of significant economic incentives to both sides).

No, I didn't. I thought the economic incentives were secondary and only worked because Israel and especially Egypt were desperate. But, upon reconsideration, I'm willing to grant their paramount importance.

I also didn't mention the importance of geography - that Egypt and Israel were separated by a vast, mountainous, nearly unpopulated desert. Upon reconsideration I thank that, too, was of paramount importance.

Fact is, Israel can achieve only so much militarily. Sooner or later they'll have to seek a negotiated solution. And like it or not, Israel will not be able to get what it wants without our help.

I don't agree. They can get whatever they want militarily as long as the international community is kept at bay. How long the U.S. can provide that cover and whether it will be sufficient remains to be seen

Presently, our ability to help is seriously compromised. And I would point the finger of blame squarely at Bush. Sorry if that upsets you

It doesn't upset me. :) I'm no particular fan of Bush, or the Republicans. I don't mind seening them criticized. What upsets me is that the criticism is so unbalanced, so "disproportionate" (in the trendy argot of the moment). There's a long-running joke over at Free Republic; liberals have only two things to say

1)It's all Bush's fault

2)It's the J-E-W-S

Too true, in my opinion

There's a long-running joke over at Free Republic; liberals have only two things to say

1)It's all Bush's fault

2)It's the J-E-W-S

Too true, in my opinion

 So now that you're here in Liberal territory, point to an example of a Liberal poster blaming J-E-W-S because if you can't you should go back to Free Republic and tell them they're wrong and tell them you don't care what they think because you're no doormat for lies.

And in your adventures here if you come across neither points two or three consider the education, Free, not as in Free Republic but as in Free beer. 

Nahh...get some trainers from the Amazon for the warheads, some Wagnerian opera singers for the propulsion, and make them into giant curare-tipped blowguns. I guar-an-tee that nobody planned for that as a surprise weapon.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

So now that you're here in Liberal territory, point to an example of a Liberal poster blaming J-E-W-S

I don't have to. Rosenberg did it for me.
But I'll have a go at it.

On nearly every thread on the Middle East there are several posters who lambast the Israelis for their cruelty, their bestiality, their war crimes, their inhumanity. You did it recently.

Nothing wrong with that. Noble to do so. BUT. This sort of thing is going on all over the world, has since the beginning of time. People are regularly tortured and killed for political, social, sexual, financial, racial, religious reasons. And for no reason at all.

Much of this cruelty has nothing to do with Bush or Israel or Jews. So point me to liberal posts that have complained about such behavior, to threads about Saddam's cruelty without blaming Bush, about what's going on in Zimbabwe without blaming America, about atrocities that are committed everywhere in the Muslim world without any reference to Jews or Americans, etc.,etc. And that do so with the same rage and passion I find on the Middle East threads.

Can you? Can you do it easily because they are many and readily available...or do you have to frantically search just to find one or two?

consider the education, Free, not as in Free Republic but as in Free beer.

Nothing is free in life, child, especially not a good education. Somebody has to pay for it, even if it's not you. Snap out of it.

My own views are fairly simple.

First, the temptation of Zion-nuts is to call anyone who disagrees with them in any particular or who seeks any sort of balance an anti-semite. Those people can kiss my ass.

Second, it strikes me that the notion that this enduring campaign in Lebanon is merely for the return of two kidnapped soldiers is ludicrous. So far as I can tell, there is no military operation ongoing which contributes to that objective and many which are antithetical to it.

In the past, Israel has kidnapped 'unsavoury' persons from both the occupied territories and from Lebanon. Israel has also conducted targeted assassinations outside its borders. I'm not talking any moral dimension or making any judgement, this is merely what goes on.

Also in the past, Israel has negotiated prisoner exchanges, including a noteable exchange with Hezbollah, signed off on by Sharon himself. Israel holds a great many Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners, so it has all kinds of leverage.

Theoretically, its best response to the Hezbollah incursion would have been a few targeted assassinations, perhaps some limited bombing or missile strikes, taking a few more hostages and negotiating an exchange. There's no shortage of military options which would produce effective deterrence while helping to get the prisoners back.

Given the ferocity of the Israeli response, it is likely that the intensity of work has actively endangered the lives of the hostages. They are now at risk of retribution, termination for other reasons or even accidental bombing.

Ergo, we must assume that Israel's actions and objectives are not connected to the kidnappings. The kidnappings may be the triggering event, but this is not what the war is about.

This poses the question, what is the war about? We need to understand Israel's objectives in order to both evaluate their conduct and judge both the morality and efficacy of their actions.

There are a number of possibilities, and frankly, in my view, we should be discussing what these possibilities are and which ones closest approximate reality.

One possibility is that Israel is seeking to foment a greater regional war with Syria and Iran (in which those worthies are soundly defeated and discombobulated) in pursuit of its greater security interests. This has certainly been discussed. It is entirely possible that this Greater War will come about, regardless of Israel's actual motivations. So, a general middle eastern war is, while a potential result, not necessarily proof that this was Israel's intention all along.

Supporters of this possiblity point to the hysterical drumbeat of blame applied by America to Syria and Israel to Iran. However, this may simply be hysteria for the masses.

The proof or disproof of this thesis wil rest with Israel's future actions. If it undertakes attacks on Syria, then it will be quite likely its trying for the bigger war.

Another possibility is that Israel's objectives are more local, and aimed both at Hezbollah and the Lebanese government.

Turning first to Hezbollah, it would appear that the ideal solution would be to eradicate Hezbollah root and branch. In our view, this objective, if it is an objective, is doomed to failure.

First, Hezbollah has shown stunning improvements in sophistication, tactics and weapons. I am amazed that it is hitting Haifa, that it is continuing to strike, and that it managed to take out a warship. All of this argues for a depth of materials, personnel and skills that may not be easily eradicated.

Second, we must assume that Hezbollah's response, at least in part, will be to conceal its assets and redeploy them against Israel at a later point. Unless Israel's intelligence services are exemplary, it is likely almost impossible that Israel will take out 100% of Hezbollahs assets. A more likely figure is 30% to 50%. In such a case, Israel may as well not have bothered. Hezbollahs striking ability will be unimpaired, they can simply move to a higher strike/asset ratio while regenerating, or lie low. The level of eradication necessary to truly neutralize Hezbollah seems humanly impossible.

Third, Hezbollah is not an isolated organization, but has widespread popular support in Shiite communities in Lebanon and elsewhere. Thus it has an undefined capacity to regenerate. Theoretically, we could take out 95% of Hezbollah, yet be back where we started in two or three years.

The bottom line is that the objective of neutralizing Hezbollah seems doomed to failure. Indeed, Hezbollah may well come out of this much stronger and more aggressive than before.

There may be achievable collateral objectives. Such as Driving away Hezbollahs supporters. Or Intimidating Hezbollah from further attacks. So far there is no evidence, and no likelihood, that the current military adventure is helping achieve these, or any other realistic goal with regard to Hezbollah.

At best, the current level of attack on Hezbollah and Lebanon suggest only that the ground is being laid for future attacks on this level. ie, this war is plowing the ground for more campaigns, not of eradication, but merely wide ranging destruction in the hopes that these will paralyze Hezbolah.

Again, we have to question this objective, if objective it is, since Hezbollah is far from paralyzed and indeed continually strikes back. Given that most of its resources are untouched, this policy may be counterproductive. The intensity of the campaign may simply inspire Hezbollah become creative or more ferocious.

As an example - They have 10,000 Katyusha's, and have been deploying them a few at a time. What if they were to decide to attack in the manner for which these weapons were designed... Mass area attacks. Imagine 500 or 1000 of these things fired at a military barracks or a town in Israel.

The other objective may be more achievable. It has become clear that Israel is not simply targeting Hezbollah, but rather, the whole of Lebanon. Targeting extends to ports, to airfields, to roads and bridges, including facilities under the control of potential or actual allies. Further, targeting has also been extended to non-shiite ethnic groups, to infrastructure and economic targets and even to Lebanese army.

The implication here is that Israel is punishing Lebanon as a whole for its sins. Those sins being not getting rid of Hezbollah.

Unfortunately, the broadness of the Israeli attack seriously undermines the Lebanese capacity to do anything whatsoever about Hezbollah. It is likely that the Lebanese military will come out of this far weaker vis a vis Hezbollah, and that the official government will be either impotent against or supportive of Hezbollah. We have to assume that this obvious fact is known to the Israeli's.

So the question becomes... why?

It strikes me that we may have to make a reasonable inference that Israel is out to destroy the capacity of the Lebanese government.

To what purpose? Possibly to eliminate an obstacle to further punitive strikes?

In any event, the odds are quite likely that the result of this war may well be the effective breakdown of the Lebanese government and the potential resumption of the Lebanese civil war on some terms.

However, apart from solidifying a committment to more wars and campaigns, it is difficult to see how this will enhance Israel's security in the long or the short term.

In the meantime, we all await the parties next moves, and cross our fingers...

Israel Lobby Watch

Larry,

It is Come to Jesus Time for the ChuckleHeads and for those pop Stupid Pills

Syria expert Josh Landis of the Univesity of Oklahoma provides this comment from a former US ambassador to an Arab country revealing how pitifully weak the Bush-Lobby-War Party line is

Key Qoute:

First, the US is in a weaker position to influence the outcome of this crisis than any time in the last three decades. Our influence in the region couldn't be lower.

Second, I do not see how Hezbullah can be defeated, much less dismantled.

I fear that our policy has become so misguided that we will end up only making matters worse. We don't know what the situation will look like in a month, but it is liable to be very bad for Arab moderates and for the US

lh25,
you might think the use of the word 'new' in 'new Israeli settlements' means that the author was not committed to saying that there were settlements in Southern Lebanon before now.

As for your claim about what Israel wants, that is naive. Probably lots of Israelis want peace and quiet. Most Israelis are normal people who just want to get on with their lives and not have to be afraid. I don't think this has much to do with why Olmert and those around him made the decisions they did, and the naivete I spoke of is in thinking that the will of the people typically determines how major state level decisions are made.

And they aren't conspiracy theories, they are inductive generalizations based on how virtually every powerful country has acted throughout history. I appreciate that Israel is in a rather unique position in history, but I think it is foolish to think that Israeli leaders are not being motivated by exactly the kinds of long term strategic concerns which you quote as being part of a conspiracy theory.

This is the great unanswered question in all of this, I think: Who really is calling the shots here, and what are/were they intending to gain? As yet there is no real consensus on this. In an interview broadcast this morning on "Democracy Now!" journalist Robert Fisk, not someone you would expect to find in agreement with either the US or the israelis, put the finger of blame on both Syria and Iran, but chiefly on Syria:

AMY GOODMAN: . . . Well, during our conversation yesterday with journalist Robert Fisk, I asked him about what role he thinks Syria and Iran are playing in the current crisis.

ROBERT FISK: They are behind all of it. Look, last year under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, Bashar Al-Asad, the President of Syria, was forced to make a very humiliating military withdrawal of his army from Lebanon. Since then, he's been constantly condemned by the State Department, the Pentagon, the White House, Israel, of course, as a bastion of evil, as helping the insurgents of Iraq, which up to a point I think he probably does.

<snip>

. . . Syria is the chief supporter politically of the Hezbollah. And Iran is the chief supporter military of the Hezbollah. And this is Syria’s work. This is Syria saying, “We're back. We control events. Negotiate over the occupied Golan Heights.” And as usual, poor old Lebanon and the poor old Lebanese are paying the price for it.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/19/1345257

"Those who are currently running the Israeli government are descendents of Jabotinsky and Begin, people who believe that the conflict can never be resolved, that it will always continue, and that Israel is best served by ever increasing its land area and power, and diminishing those of it's enemies."

Careful - you might be called "anti-Semitic" here for that description.

Excellent analysis.

As you say, to be even tentatively sure about Israel's motivations (or anyone else's), we need to see what the next actions are.

"By their actions ye shall know them."

T.H.

Yes indeed. It just goes to show that SOME truths are self-evident...

One difference is that the US routinely votes with Israel often against literally every other nation on earth at the UN or vetoes any criticism of Israel by the UN. We have made ourselves complicit in whatever Israel does and there is no better example of that than where we find ourselves today, the most powerful nation on earth using our power to urge that there be no ceasefire. You can debate endlessly root causes but the 500,000 refugess TODAY are Lebanese, the Americans fleeing like refugees TODAY are fleeing from the threat of Israel, abandoned by their own President, their own Congress, and the Democratic Party all cheering for the war to continue even when American citizens are in harms way.

And enough of the "liberal" label on this issue. I had a heartfelt discussion today with two conservative Republicans about Lebanon. You see there are lots of Catholics in and from Lebanon and a surprising number of people seem to know some of them and to know more about Beirut, Lebanon, Lebanese culture, etc. than perhaps our blind, deaf and dumb government might imagine.

There is sympathy with the Lebanese people and maybe after 9/11 even empathy for people suddenly at war, through no fault of their own and there is a fearful, queasy, sick feeling that we as Americans are complicit in their suffering.

 US to Israel: One More Week to Blast Hezbollah

 

Then what? Marine Expeditionary Force to clean out Northern Israel of rockets, artillery, tanks and US made jets?

Voters for Peace

THANKS!

I love William Odom and as usual he's scary right.

Damned my Yahoo/Track missed this ..Thanks again
Voters for Peace

I'm going to add another thought to my rather lengthy discussion.

It strikes me that Israel must realistically be aware that this campaign, on its own, cannot take Hezbollah down, or do more than give it a hiccup.

It may be that the real Israeli strategy is a prolongued, high level war of attrition against Hezbollah. This suggests that the current campaign is only the first in a long series of campaigns, which, over time wil degrade Hezbollahs capabilities past the point of effectiveness..

Essentially, its a matter of crossing the border, destroying everything you can find, inflicting massive casualties and infrastructure damage and then going home without attempting to occupy or control the territory. Basically, its 'lay waste.'

Of course, the only chance this strategy has of working depends on the Lebanese government literally dissolving and rendering Lebanon a lawless no mans land. This leaves Lebanon without a government to protest or attempt to defend itself in international forums. It leaves a chaotic situation which allows Israel to continually plead self defense in its raids as 'there is no Lebanese government to be a negotiating partner.'

Of course, this strategy would arouse moral revulsion in both Lebanon and Israel, and indeed the world. So, we'll have to wait and see...

Actually, for once the liberal MSM have got it right overall, and this of course massively frustrates and ires the academics, unnamed sources/officials/experts, and retired (read, 'out of the loop') whos and whats's, who are moved to the margins.

Iran for sure is the junkyard dog in the 'hood, Syria mostly performing in a supporting role. But hardline Syrian Baathists, pining for the glory days of old, are plenty willing to capitalize on Iran/Hisbullah's initiative.

Hafez al-Assad, as is well known, is a weak head of state, but he's not lost on the lingering Cheney/Neocons' encore fantasy of regime changing him. (Good lord! - at one point I read that the guys were actually musing on the attractions of siccing the Muslim Brotherhood on the Baathist government, but this was sourced by another of the unnamed.)

Foremost among the follies of the Bush Administration's scheme to express deliver a plug-and-play DemocracyMaker to Iraq, was their willfull overlook of primary grade knowledge of the shape shifting political dynamics that is the Middle East ( including Israel). And as is also well known, Colin Powell persistently argued in simple English that "if you occupy [Iraq], you own it." But the Neocon mavens had already locked themselves in the War Room, talking real estate.

As I said - there's a long-running joke over at Free Republic. Liberals have only two things to say; 1)It's Bush's fault. 2)It's the Jews. You only confirm it.

If a group is guilty of bad behavior while everyone else is good, then clearly it is evil.

If a group is guilty of bad behavior when everyone else behaves the same way then, at worst, it is behaving sensibly.

If you single out the former for criticism then you are being moral.

If you single out the latter then you are bigoted or racist.

Can you follow the logic?

I can follow you logical fallacy just fine. You want to bash liberals and that's all there is to it. Fortunately, a majority in Israel and a majority here in this country don't agree with you OR the Free Republic Trolls. The Lebanese are the issue here. Not the Israelis. Not the U.S. The Lebanese. They are innocent. They know it. We know it, and if you don't know it, the problem is with you. Not with the "liberals" who, I'm guessing is anyone that doesn't post at the Free Republic. That's a Hate Ameerica site if I ever did read one, and if I was interested in THAT type of garbage I'd go there. I prefer it here, where there are rational and thoughtful people that consider ALL sides of the issue. Not those only concerned with their own narrow and selfish self interest.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Please say "Israeli government" when that's what you mean. Substituting "J-E-W-S" is really obnoxious.

You mean "rational and thoughtful people" like this right?