I've had a squinty eye on Dan Halutz for a while, thinking he might have really messed up the campaign. It looks as though I may have stumbled on something though I know nothing about military campaigns. Certainly there's been plenty of discussion about asymmetrical warfare, the dubious use of aerial campaigns. Now the Jerusalem Post and other papers have just reported a shift in the command structure and, after reading your post, Larry, I found this at Stratfor:

We are now beginning to detect some changes on the Israeli side. At its meeting Aug. 7, the Israeli Cabinet appeared to have given up on a diplomatic solution -- if it ever actually believed diplomacy would work -- and made it clear that Israeli forces were going to be given a much freer hand in Lebanon. Today, Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz announced that Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky was to become Halutz's representative at Northern Command -- which owns the Lebanese operation -- for the duration of the war.
There are political ramifications for this in Israel Defense Forces, but what is essentially being done is that Kaplinsky, an army officer who commanded the elite Golani Brigade, has been put in charge of the Lebanese operation. Halutz, an air force officer who had been criticized for waging an extended air campaign that did not shut down rocket attacks, is ceding authority over the war. Obviously, this is also a criticism of Northern Command's performance over the past weeks -- but the important message, following recent Israeli Cabinet decisions, is that the Israelis are going to unleash their ground forces.

1. What are Hizbullah's long-term objectives? I Assume the initial kidnapping was to force a prisoner swap and that the size of the Israeli response was unexpected. This, then, forced Hizbullah into a more offensive action then they may have planned.

My own impression is that Hezbollah had been expecting and preparing for this war for a while. They may well have been looking forward to it.

I think we may have to face the fact that if Hezbollahs military is this good, their intelligence division and strategic command was smart enough to determine Israel's intentions far down the road. Or to anticipate the possibility of those intentions. They saw it coming.

My strong feeling was that this war was something both sides had been spoiling for.

So leaving this current flare up aside, what are their long-term goals? Do they wish to take over Lebanon? If so, then what? Do they expect to, then, be able to eliminate Israel?

I think their plans included a secret base of operations in a hollowed out volcano, patrolled by sharks with lasers mounted in their foreheads (do sharks have foreheads? never mind).

The core goal of any organization or institution is self perpetuation and maximization. So, it appears that Hezbollah was expanding its mandate in all sorts of directions, including politically. Its future growth would be determined by which avenues produced the most rewards and which produced the fewest. Thus, if the future offered the opportunity to be the new Starbucks, they'd have gone into coffeeshops.

Part of their issues were conflicts with other lebanese (bad), and outstanding issues with Israel (good). Conflicts with other lebanese stymied and narrowed their social power and viability. Being a leader in the Israeli conflict allowed them to consolidate their base and gave them purpose and unity, and it reduced internal conflicts.

The issues with Israel were Israel's cross border incidents, overflights by Jets and drone aircraft, covert assassinations and other missions in Lebanese territory, shots fired, artillery and missiles across the border, the occasional territorial incursion, Shabaa farms, the mine fields issue, and Lebanese prisoners with Israel.

There was enough unresolved baggage to keep the pot simmering.

Is Hezbollah seriously trying to destroy Israel, or to move into a postion where it can? About as serious and about as viable as Sinn Fein's effort to destroy Britain.

2. If Israel now realizes that Hizbullah is a real army will this mean that they will expand the war to punish their suppliers in Syria and/or Iran? If heavy damage in one of these countries (or even Jordan) made the local population angry with their rulers for dragging them into the conflict couldn't this lead to civil unrest in these Arab states and attempts by dissidents to replace the current crop of dictators? There is nothing like losing a war to arouse the man in the street.

Hasn't worked so far in any of the previous wars. Nasser and Sadat remained in Egypt, Assad remained in Syria, and the Hashemites remained in Jordan. Hussein survived the Gulf War. Defeat was not sufficient... it would appear a real effort to destroy these governments is necessary.

In the Lebanese case, foreign invaders have lined up support behind, not against, Hezbollah.

Be cautious about extending the war. You never know where these things will end.

Is the evolution of the Hezbollah into a bona fide military force a natural tendency?

1. The war has to last long enough for the revolutionary side to do its internal purges and delegate authority.
2. Authority has to be delegated to competent soldiers, who don't grow on trees. In the case of Israel, for example, Mickey Marcus, a WWII officer, made his greatest contributions in organization rather than leadership. His friendly-fire death was a severe blow. Giap appears to have been a natural military genius.
3. Historically, there needs to be outside support and/or sanctuary.
4. Know your strengths and weaknesses. Hezbollah is never going to go tank-on-tank, under the Israeli air force, with Israel, unless it really wants to be destroyed.
5. Often a difficult problem, the highest political authority has to support discipline in the military.
6. As a revolutionary force becomes an army, it often needs to start thinking seriously of avoiding civilian casualties. Mao is very emphatic with guerillas bonding to the people, but, especially in Africa, there's been a tendency for intermediate-level armed forces to go bandit.

ie - if you get a bunch of Jimmy's with guns and put them under stress long enough, will they tend to turn into real soldiers?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

In fact, claiming that Israel's campaign was a disaster is truly irresponsible or misleading. You cannot talk specifically of military success or failure without facts. What LJohnsin has here are anedoctes put together to defend a thesis. They provide no fact base.

What portion of Hezbollah's best trained fighters was killed? What portion of Hezbollah's long range missiles was destroyed? What portion of Hezbollah's infrastructure by the border was destroyed? To what extent will Hezbollah be able to return to within a few miles of the border and stage incursions against Israel?

The answers to these questions suggest to me that there is a resonable case that Israel achieved substantial, valuable military objectives in this campaign. Far from a defeat. And it did so with minimal casualties. Larry probably does not know, but in the first week of the 1982 Lebanon invasion, Israel had hundreds of casualties.

The idea that Hezbollah could resist a full Israeli push in South Lebanon is laughable. The Israelis have not truly taken off their gloves in South Lebanon (they could easily double or triple the number of combat troops, armored divisions, and even air sorties per day if they decided to do so). The war is not over and we may still see it happen.

I do agree with the previous commenter that suggests that there is nothing that Israel could achieve militarily that would change Larry Johnson's mind, and the mind of those who like the idea of an Israel perceived as weaker militarily. If there is, Larry could just tell us what it is!

Finally, let me point out that this discussion of Hezbollah gaining support in the Arab Street is interesting but really useless. Sunnis will never really support Hezbollah in general. They will only say they support Hezbollah if they are engaged with Israel. Hezbollah had and will continue to have unwavering support from the Shia in Lebanon and hence there is no way it would be disarmed or change its beligerant stance because of a change of perspective by the "Arab Street". So, nothing has changed.

What has changed is that Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria will think twice next time they plan an attack on Israel across the border.

snippets from a reporter near the Israel- Lebanon border.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1838871,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

There are burnt-out tanks, but few Israeli troops

By Israel's account, its forces are moving between four and six miles beyond it to take control of a long strip of Lebanese territory before the UN security council votes for a cessation of hostilities.
But reporters travelling along the border road on Saturday found few signs of an Israeli presence, let alone success. People in only one village had seen Israeli troops recently. Elsewhere, there was evidence of Israeli failures: burnt-out or crippled tanks. Despite the message of success Israel's generals and politicians are giving their public, the reality on the ground appeared mixed

At the western end of the border road just inland from the headquarters of the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon (Unifil) at Naqura, Hizbullah fighters were launching Katysuha rockets from positions within three miles of Israel.

Driving east through Aalma ech Chaab and Dhaira, reporters could see clusters of antennae and army huts on the Israeli side of the border but no sign of any incursion.
At Marwahin, where the road offers a clear view of the greenhouses and neat red-tiled roofs of the Israeli community of Zarit only 200 yards away, the ground was scarred with tank tracks. A broken metal towing cable lay on the ground, an apparent sign of mishap. Nearby were bits of caterpillar track. A mile further at the junction of the side-road to Debel a burnt-out Merkava tank was stuck in the trees, its cannon pointing limply downwards.

Here the border runs along the top of a hill where a heavily fortified Israeli base sits cheek by jowl alongside UN monitoring position 5-42, a collection of white trailers and a watchtower inside blast walls. The road to Debel was littered with more broken tracks and towing cables. Hizbullah's resistance had clearly made its mark.

I think all we can say is that Israel is a victim of the expectations game.  Because of its history of crushing victories over the Arabs, the fact that it's taking a bit longer to crush Hezbollah is seen as a "defeat" for Israel.  Just as the fact that Israel was initially caught flat-footed in 1973 was turned into a "humiliation" and an Arab propaganda victory.

It's a sign of how low the standards are in judging Arab military prowess that the fact that Hezbollah has survived these three weeks is a "victory".  It's true that compared with the Egyptian army of 1967, Hezbollah is like the Green Berets.  Compared with the IDF, they're still a bunch of ragtag guerillas who launch rockets at civilians from within civilian apartment buildings.

Now its true that a guerilla army can be mighty effective against an occupation force.  But Israel is not interested in an occupation.  They are interested in clearing out the border region and degrading Hezbollah's ability to attack in future.  In this they will likely succeed, although they may not succeed in stopping all missile attacks.

The point is that if the world was expecting another lightning victory like in 1967, perhaps it will be disappointed.  But in the end Israel will win - it just may be messier than it hoped.

Wow Brad, that was inspirational. Any chance of you going out there and showing those Israeli's how it ought to be done? I hear they're losing heart.

I dunno. For me, Howard's the most interesting discovery on Tpmcafe, so I think I'll just pay attention when he talks.

Y'know. I thought it over, and vivianne is right. She was fair. I earned that one.

To be honest, I don't really care much about ratings, but that was a shot at BradtheDad, and though I don't respect him much, he's entitled to courtesy.

Perhaps a minor point, but it's possible to overstate the number of destroyed Merkava tanks. Yes, it's considered a main battle tank, but has some unique design characteristics. If it went against a US Abrams or UK Challenger, it might lose -- but its crew would be as much, or even more, likelier to survive.

Merkavas are especially repairable and upgradable, and also have special features for urban warfare. Perhaps they give up more tank-vs-tank features, but it's a reasonable tradeoff. Hezbollah is not going to be doing high-speed large armored warfare.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Ruttabagga: Before you go after Larry for making inferences without accompanying facts, maybe you should check your own post. You claim that Israel could easily double or triple the number of combat troops, etc., but give no sources for your assertion. Within a week of hostilities, the major news networks were ablaze with the fact that Israel had called up its reserves.

The biggest clue for me has been the anger of the Israelis themselves over the lack of a decisive victory. Take a look at the Jerusalem Post or some of the other papers.

But that's what CIA agents do. They read the tea leaves and make predictions. The good ones get it right. I'm of the opinion that Larry was a good one.

Israeli censorship has been extreme, and, unfortunately, the US hasn't released photographic analysis, even of the less sensitive sort, of the battlefield. I haven't seen the MSM getting real analysis of the commercial satellite imagery that is available.

While there can be inferences drawn, unfortunately, there are a fair number of intelligence sources that, for good reason, will not be disclosed. A large part of what NSA does in its intelligence role is look for patterns. A hypothetical example might be that we learn of the existence of a rocket factory from photographs, but we also learn that the security escort taking the rockets to an Iranian shipping point is always on a particular frequency. From that, we can infer if Hezbollah is capable of receiving rockets, or if shipments are being held. Public mention of that piece of electronic traffic analysis would make the Iranians shut it down.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I'll agree in part and disagree in part. I think that in any classic military sense, Israel will win. But it isn't so clear what that means in an asymmetric war.

From Israel's own description of Hezbollah's missile arsenal, its proximity to the border will be less and less important to its ability to threaten Israel - the greater threat is that its future missiles will have even longer range, greater accuracy and perhaps a warhead that is not a conventional explosive. One lesson that can be drawn from this particular asymmetric war (and should have been drawn long before this war) is that both sides develop more effective weaponry over time, even if one side has a military capacity that is generations behind the other's.

I also fully expect Hezbollah to kidnap Israeli soldiers in the future as opportunity presents itself. Israel also seems to anticipate this, and has thus seized the bodies of dead Hezbollah fighters to use in future prisoner exchanges. It would also be a true "in your face" to anybody who claims to have defeated Hezbollah or to have diminished its capacity.

It is a real question. So, we don't know. And hence my observation on Larry Johnson's post stating unequivocaly that Israel failed.

I suppose that it is a case where we're both looking at half a glass of water and arguing over whether its half empty or half full.

But not being able to determine if your strategic objectives are being met is not a good sign. The point of having objectives is that they have to be seen to be achievable, and you have to have some idea, some way of measuring whether you achieve them or not.

War is not a form of casino gambling. Nor is war a form of performance art. In the end, its the most unforgiving of costs/benefit equations.

Also, it is clear that Southern Lebanon will not come back to being a fortified Hezbollah enclave

How do you justify that statement? Hezbollah's always stated that it will fight a guerilla war rather than a stand up battle for territory. Anything else would be foolish for them.

So, what's to stop them after Israel goes home? I don't know. Does Israel plan to maintain an indefinite occupation of the buffer zone, which will expose Israeli soldiers to unending casualties? Didn't work the last time.

Or does Israel plan to have NATO or the UN occupy the buffer zone, and expose their soldiers to unending casualties? And if so, what's NATO's motivation for dying for Israel?

Or will NATO or the UN reach an accommodation with Hezbollah, in which case, Hezbollah gets more freedom of action, and NATO gets bombed by Israel. Again, what's NATO's motivation for dying for Israel?

If you simply pull out, and leave nothing but the Lebanese army, then aren't you back where you started? Given Israel's bombing of the Lebanese army, they're likely to be Hezbollah's friend, not Israel's.

On its own, it seems the territorial incursion is a fools game.

It is also clear that Hezbollah wont be trying to hijack Israeli soldiers again anytime soon across the border,

And again, how do you justify that comment? The one thing that seems clear about this whole fracas is that Hezbollah seems completely unafraid to go toe to toe, and perfectly willing to respond in kind.

Hezbollahs argument is that Israel still leaves a lot of outstanding irritants... Still occupies Shabaa farms. Won't supply maps of minefields. Crosses into Lebanon to conduct assassinations and ops. Holds Lebanese prisoners. Regularly violates Lebanese airspace.

Do you feel that Israel should address any of these issues? Would Hezbollah be justified in maintaining low level hostilities given these issues? Would addressing these issues neutralize Hezbollah or take the wind out of its sails? I'm interested in your take on this.

So, you obviously can discuss how many hezbollah fighters have died, what is the ratio between Hezbollah dead and Israeli dead, and all that.

I read the newspapers, over the years, I've picked up a few things here and there. It's not rocket science.

Let us all recognize however that we are armchair generals, listening to limited media reports spun by PR machines, and commentary of other archair generals, and really don't know enough of what is going on at the military level to say that one party or another won a definite victory (if such things exist).

So, your thesis is that there are known knowns, there are known unknowns, there are unknown knowns, and then there are unknown unknowns? This is the best you've got.

Well, yes, victories exist. There's all kinds. There are political victories, and Hezbollah has won these, just by staying in the game and retaining punching power this long.

There are victories in the court of public opinion, and again, Hezbollah wins, in part because of Quaina, in part because Israel caused a massive oil spill, in part because Israel has attacked and killed a lot of civilians.

There are victories of survival, and again, I'd give that one to Hezbollah.

And there are victories of frustration, wherein you simply prevent the other guy from achieving his goals. And again, Hezbollah.

So... what's Israel doing? Winning on points?

Look, I'm not your enemy. You have a sentimental attachment to Israel. They're your team. You don't want to see them defeated. Hezbollah is the bad guy, you don't want to admit they've won certain kinds of victories. It's perfectly all right for you to feel that way, I respect that.

But feelings, no matter how sincere, don't substitute for a careful evaluation of the facts.

And because I think you're young, let me offer you a bit of advice. It's when the facts are most unpleasant that you have to pay the most thorough attention to them. Reality plays no favourites. Harsh realities are invariably unpleasant. But they must be faced, because if avoided, they simply become harsher.

You're welcome to participate in the discussion. You can learn things. I've learned things from others here. But its about realities and not sincerities.

One more speculation to add another side to one of your comments. Haaretz and Ydnet say the IDF claims that it killed or captured over 500 Hezbollah fighters. There have been almost 70 israeli soldiers killed. This is a rate of 8:1 or so. Not 5:1.

I have no taste for "My Team, Rah Rah Rah" partisanship of any kind. I just disagreed with Larry Johnson's cahracterization that is Israel is facing "looming defeat." The neocons deserve a lot of criticism but not for something that may not have happened and I THINK did not happen. Time will tell.

But in the end Israel will win - it just may be messier than it hoped.

You have a friend who believes the same.

According to Insight magazine, Condi and George are having their first big fight.  She wants a cease fire and he wants Israel to keep duking it out with Hizbullah.  Apparently, Scowcroft and Bush pere are on Condi's side and yup, Rummy, Vice and "to some extent" Steven Hadley are on W's side.  They want Hizbullah 'degraded' if not destroyed.

W went so far as to overrule Condi when she wanted to press Israel for a cease fire. 

"One Jewish friend of Bush actually called up a senior Israeli official and began yelling, 'What the hell's going on here,'" a source said. "'Are you going to fight or what?'"

Can anyone explain to the group just what diplomatic conditions could result in a long-term cease fire?

I'm touched that so many of you feel for the dead Lebanese and their families. It is natural to demand an end to the violence which has caused this destruction and loss of life.

But the Arab UN proposal, which France has allegedly broken with the U.S. to join, only puts off this conflict to a later date. And it will begin as it always does. More people will die and more infrastructure will be destroyed.

If this is a fight to the death, Israel should be allowed to fight it. If they actually have the balls to implement a massive ground operation that would be needed to destroy Hezbollah, let them try it. They do so at their own peril.

If not, they can admit defeat and face the consequences. Nevertheless, the Bush administration should allow them to make that choice.

ruttabaga, I would say that if Israel simply stopped now, its overall strategic position will have been weakened tremendously.

It has degraded Hizbollah's rocket supply somewhat, but probably not done much damage to their overall numbers and morale. My impression is that those people in south Lebanon who were not Hizbollah before the war have almost all made the switch to Hizbollah's side. They have also picked up support in non-Shiite parts of Lebanon and the Arab world. The money and support are going to come pouring in.

Since Israel is not occupying south Lebanon, and seems in no position to do so quickly, if the war ends now Hizbollah will quickly reoccupy all of their earlier positions. They will probably rearm quite rapidly, since Israel cannot control supply lines into in Lebanon, despite the attempt to do so.

Hizbollah will also have demonstrated its capacity to repel an Israeli invasion of the weak Lebaness state, and prevent a re-occupation, and will cement its claim to be the backbone of the nation's defense.

Most importantly, there are bodies and pulverized infrastructure strewn all over Lebanon, a struggling and once rebuilding state that has now attracted the world's sympathy. While some Israelis may be happy with the result of having cut down Hizbollah's rocket supply to 2/3 or 1/2 of what it was previously, the rest of the world will begin to scream, "all this destruction...for that?!" As the sense of emergency wanes, the sense of outrage will grow.

On the one hand Israel declares that it will not agree to a ceasefire unless an international peacekeeping force occupies southern Lebanon. The U.S. seems to support this view.

It helps that Washington has agreed to Lebanon's proposal of having 15,000 troops occupy the region. The catch is that Washington and Israel still insist that an international force must join that Lebanese contingent; the Arabs, and now France, disagree.

It would seem fitting with such an impasse to allow Israel decide for itself what it intends to do. Indeed, there can be no mistaking the fact that Israel is relying on the U.S. to get it out of this mess.

Israel, if it so chooses, should be allowed to undertake the massive ground assault needed to 'destroy' Hezbollah. I say this because it presents the Zion nation with somewhat of a Catch 22.

On the one hand it is highly unlikely that Israel would actually opt for the massive ground assault even if it were given a free hand to do so by the Bush administration. The reasons are too numerous to even list.

Yet the only two alternatives are to maintain the current "half-war" in which only a "half victory" could be achieved (at best).

The other option is to submit to whatever peace proposal is ratified by the UN. It is difficult to say at this point exactly what such a proposal will entail, but in any event it means Israel will be called upon to leave Lebanese soil.

The question, it seems, is whether or not Israel will see this as a defeat? Naturally, the U.S. might eventually agree to the Arab/French demands but it will likely do so only after a rider or two of its own is attached to the bottom of the document. Something along the lines of, "If Hezbollah at any point resumes unprovoked hostilities against Israel, the UN Security Council and its member nations will be called upon to completely disarm Hezbollah guerillas..."

Maybe it will be another decade before there is a resumption of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Maybe it will be one month. It's hard to tell because Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria will certainly claim victory and demand the lion's share of concessions. For its part, Israel will reserve the right to renege on its promises as any time because it has the 'superior' military.

Tough questions.

What do Hezbollah want?

They cannot take over Lebanon, this is not how Lebanon works. I think that they gain in the following sense: (a) they were pushed to be outsiders for the government, even if nominally inside, but now they will be more entrenched as insiders, (b) quite possibly, they will have larger position within Lebanese Army --- more Shia officers, for example, (c) if Iran has any sense, it will contribute generously to the reconstruction, giving Hezbollah a lot of patronage.

I do not see how Hezbollah can be "eliminated permanently". They may be prevented from having rockets south of Litani -- probably they will have better rockets in the future, and Lebanese Army itself will have better rocket systems. Moreover, if Syria and Iran do have more and better rockets than Hezbollah by some orders of magnitude, then they are not particularly chastized now. The goal of Israel was to crush, the goal of Syria and Iran was to make a demonstration that they have to be reckoned with. The following question was answered: can one maintain rocket launching capability in the face of sustained heavy bombardment?

The question if one can close the Strait of Hormuz that way is not aswered conclusively, but a big doubt is enough to make Iran sit pretty.

If Iran has any hegemonic goals, they were not set back. If Israel wanted a "once for all solution", it will not happen.

That assumes that Iranians cannot train even better "capable NCOs".

I am not sure if "we" (what "we", Kenosabe?) are the most competent trainers for a middle to low tech military. One that does not use "air support" to deal with urban guerillas, for example.

I think it was rather clear that under Saddam, Iraqi oil fields were managed much more effectively than with "our" technical expertise (big part of that management was the security, which was low/middle tech too). Skills and practices from high tech environment are not always transferable and even useful.

I still have suspicions about Hizbullah's supply and support coming from entirely Syrian and Iranian sources. Has anybody actually seen the rockets before they launched, or any captured ordinance. It seems very possible that some of the Hizbullah supply is from former Iraqi military resources. What short range rocket technology, and stockpiles did Saddam possess, and is there any hard evidence that these stockpiles were destroyed or depleted?

What of international arms brokers, and their bill of goods for sale these days? Are rockets available for purchase from them, and what is Hizbullah's financial situation? There are many Mediterranean ports that could have been used as a supply point for Hizbullah in Lebanon.

It also seems possible to me that the new battle techniqes, and discipline in Hizbullah comes from the Iraq insurgency. It is in Iraq where techniques of infantry fighting armor would have been improved, not on Iranian blackboards. It is surviving veterans of the Iraqi Insurgency that would possess the credibility to instill discipline into Hizbullah, not agents from two borders away.

The belief that Sunnis would never support Shia controlled Hizbullah is working with outdated premises. It is not hard to believe that former Iraqi Baathist Military would be quite happy to find a new home within the ranks of Hizbullah. There exists both motive and opportunity in that choice.

The Bush Admin has pushed the open Syrian border issue since almost day one in the War Upon Iraq. Why is there no mention that an open border works in two directions?

This is all musing, and no evidence, but it seems within possibility to me. Does anyone really believe that if any of it was true, the Bush Admin would be admitting it? I want some hard evidence that Iran has been supplying Hizbullah to this degree, not just the words of situationalists, spoiling for more unjustified warfare in the MidEast.

If you need proof of Iran's support of Hizbullah start with the most recent column by Christopher Dickey here and work your way back in the archives of his columns.

It seems that George does not really like what Condi is doing by pressing Israel for a cease fire and a split has now developed.  Team Admin: George, Rummy, Vice and Hadley; Team State: Condi, Scowcroft, Papa Bush and God knows who else.  See INSGHT here.

Withdrawal from Iraq may become academic if King George decides to rush in where angels fear to tread and help Israel 'get the job' done.

=== Is it possible that the huge effort in policing the territories took its toll?===

Martin van Crevald, Israeli military historian and ex-IDF tank officer, has been arguing exactly that for more than 5 years now.

sPh

Is Hezbollah seriously trying to destroy Israel, or to move into a postion where it can? About as serious and about as viable as Sinn Fein's effort to destroy Britain.

Good post. But you do realize Sinn Fein never had as an aim, proclaimed or otherwise, the destruction of Britain?

For one (nitpicky) thing Britain is a geographical entity not a political one and hence could only be destroyed by a cataclysmic event. For another Sinn Fein's aim was and has been the reunification of Ireland, and the UK's cessation of political control in the North.

Perhaps I am being obtuse and your point is that Hezbollah similarly has no desire (however unrealistic) for the destruction of the State of Israel, but would be content merely with cessation of Israel's political control over certain discrete territories?

I don't think so. It's like WWI, nobody in Europe wanted a full scale, multi-front, massive casualties world war. Nah, it was just a case where everyone literally blundered into it. The various mistakes and misteps, alliances and secret treaties of the past all locked everyone into a course where what should have been a little pissant no-account conflict between Seriva and Austria turned into a major conflagration.

By the same token, nobody sane wants a general middle east war. Certainly the United States does not (or should not) want a war where it might well lose an entire Army in Iraq trapped between Syria and Iran, and where Iran could close the straight. The potential for such a war to spread to adjacent Persian Gulf states, like Kuwait and Quatar is high. It would be bad for the Saudi's, even if they managed to sit it out. Bad for Iran. Bad for Israel. The one certainty of a general mid-east war is everyone, and I mean everyone, loses.

So no one is going to go for this thing voluntarily, except crazy people. Everyone wants short, sharp, fast and limited wars. They want wars that are cheap in terms of money and blood (theirs and other peoples).

We would only get a middle eastern war by accident. Essentially, in the early phases of the Lebanon war, Israel couldn't be sure that Syria would sit on its hands. Syria couldn't be sure that Israel wasn't going to attack. In that uncertainty, moves for readiness or attacks close to the border might be seen as preparations by one side or another to strike, which would invoke pre-emption. And once Syria and Israel are at it, then Iran has to come in on Syria's side, against America, at which point, things go to hell.

The situation has stabilized. Both Syria and Israel are confident that neither is going to take advantage of this to attack the other, both sides know the rules and the borders. So there's less chance of an accidental flare up or hot pursuit.

Everyone yowls and growls and talks tough, but that's just diplomacy. If war was to break out, it would no longer be a chain of circumstance, as in WWI, but a deliberate act. And that's a step no one wants to take.

Excerpt continued: The NeoCons Next War. 

 

A month earlier, Perle, in a June 25 Op-Ed in the Washington Post, revived an old trope from the height of the Cold War, accusing those who propose diplomacy of being like Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who tried to appease Hitler. "Condoleezza Rice," wrote Perle, "has moved from the White House to Foggy Bottom, a mere mile or so away. What matters is not that she is further removed from the Oval Office; Rice's influence on the president is undiminished. It is, rather, that she is now in the midst of and increasingly represents a diplomatic establishment that is driven to accommodate its allies even when (or, it seems, especially when) such allies counsel the appeasement of our adversaries."

Rice, agent of the nefarious State Department, is supposedly the enemy within. "We are in the early stages of World War III," Gingrich told Insight. "Our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough. We don't have the right attitude."

Confused, ineffectual and incapable of filling her office with power, Rice has become the voodoo doll that Powell was in the first term. Even her feeble and counterproductive gestures toward diplomacy leave her open to the harshest attacks from neoconservatives. Scowcroft and the Bush I team are simply ignored. The sustained assault on Rice is a means to an end -- restoring the ascendancy of neoconservatism.

So what is it to be:

The conventional wisdom that you cannot successfully use a conventional army against guerillas? Or the emerging wisdom that Hizbullah is now a conventional army, and so ... what? Whichever portrayal we accept, the suggested result is that Israel can't win. This makes it seem rather like the pre-conceived conclusion is driving the analysis.

By the same token, nobody sane wants a general middle east war. Certainly the United States does not (or should not) want a war where it might well lose an entire Army in Iraq trapped between Syria and Iran, and where Iran could close the straight. The potential for such a war to spread to adjacent Persian Gulf states, like Kuwait and Quatar is high. It would be bad for the Saudi's, even if they managed to sit it out. Bad for Iran. Bad for Israel. The one certainty of a general mid-east war is everyone, and I mean everyone, loses.

Unfortunately, Valdron this is the same thing W was told BEFORE he went to war in Iraq, he does not mind losing for a 'greater cause' bigger than us.  It is all quite dismaying...it is no coincidence that Gingrich is blathering about WWIII..they MEAN it...only intelligent, reasonable people think it is CRAZY, the neo-cons DON"t!!

 what the Neocon/Evangelical Americans and the hardline Zionist Israelis are up to is far bigger than vanquishing the Palestinians and destroying the Lebanese.

It is about an unprecedented crusading zealotry to enforce a dangerously unstable 'New World Order' in which the U.S. and Israel will continue to control the affairs of the critical Middle East region for years to come. IF...and it is now a big and growing IF...they can somehow crush all opposition through brute military force in combination with the covert capabilities of both the CIA and the Mossad.

With Iraq exploding out of control, Afghanistan still rebelling, and much of the world filled with more hatred and loathing for the U.S. and Israel than ever, these 'New World Order' crusaders may think they have little more to lose. This is especially the case as the American mid-term election approaches; possibly leading to a Democratic House of Representatives which itself could then lead to major Congressonal investigations, new supoenas against the sitting Administration and the Neocons themselves, and quite possibly an unprecedented impeach Bush-Cheney attempt.

And so the largely Jewish cabal of Neocons who so dominate Washington affairs in coordination with the Jewish/Israel Lobby -- and the new Evangelical/Israel Lobby which the Jewish one has greatly encouraged and helped -- now have the big target in sight: IRAN!

Just think back to a few months ago last March when some 5000 strong Jewish/Israeli Lobby AIPACers descended on Washington's Convention Center for their national convention. It was a major political gathering that clearly and quite vociferously had as its main target GET IRAN!

Val says: So no one is going to go for this thing voluntarily, except crazy people

Recall Condi spouting these last few weeks 'birth of a New ME"?Sorry to disllusion you but, we have crazy people running this country, remember...did you have a momentary lapse on that?

At his first National Security Council meeting, President George W. Bush stunned his first secretary of state, Colin Powell, by rejecting any effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When Powell warned that "the consequences of that could be dire, especially for the Palestinians," Bush snapped, "Sometimes a show for force by one side can really clarify things." He was making a "clean break" not only with his immediate predecessor but also with the policies of his father.

In the current Middle East crisis, once again, the elder Bush's wise men have stepped forward to offer unsolicited and unheeded advice. (In private they are scathing.) Edward Djerejian, a former ambassador to Israel and Syria and now the director of the James Baker Institute at Rice University, urged on July 23, on CNN, negotiations with Syria and Iran. "I come from the school of diplomacy that you negotiate conflict resolution and peace with your enemies and adversaries, not with your friends," he said. "We've done it in the past, we can do it again."

Charles Freeman, the elder Bush's ambassador to Saudi Arabia, remarked, "The irony now is that the most likely candidate to back Hezbollah in the long term is no longer Iran but the Arab Shiite tyranny of the majority we have installed in Baghdad."

Indeed, when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki came to Washington in the last week of July he preceded his visit with harsh statements against Israel. And in a closed meeting with U.S. senators, when asked to offer criticism of Hezbollah, he steadfastly refused.

Well, the operative word in my phrase was SANE. As in "Nobody SANE wants a general middle east war."

Yes, I have read the PNAC fruitbats and the Committee lunatics. I've watched William Kristol masturbate on public television, and read Podhoretz vile rantings on the need for genocide. I certainly believe that George W. Bush is impaired.

But having said that, even Maniacs do not have unlimited capacities.

Bush went after Iraq because it was weak, easy and isolated. It was the lowest of low hanging fruit, crippled by sanctions, surviving on corruption, a military starved and generations out of date, lacking equipment and spare parts, demoralized, without allies anywhere.

An Iran/Syria/Israel/Kuwait/Quatar/Iraq middle east war is a very different thing. Syria may be a pushover, but Iran might be a dangerously tough nut.

It's one thing for the neighborhood tough to go and kick around a stray cat. It's another thing entirely to piss off a junkyard dog.

To start a general mideast war, the crazies would have needed a good 'accident' to start the chain of circumstance. Without it, I don't think they've got enough mojo to overcome the obvious stupidity of such a blunder. There are just too many people who are too sane and too 'not-stupid' to get in the wheels.

It's possible that Bush and the PNAC nutcases will pull off their general mid east war. But so far the odds seem to be diminishing, not growing.

They had their chance to set it all on fire.

I appreciate your viewpoint, but the concern I have is that what used to be PNAC moved in toto to VP Richard Cheney's staff, and most of them are still there.

sPh

You've got a point. But I just don't think they've got the mojo.

Look, the way I figured it years back, their plan was originally to take Iraq. Install Chalabi as a puppet, and immediately draw down US forces to a modest level, 30,000 troops or so.

Then, with an army freed up, they'd walk over Syria within a few weeks or months. Syria would secure their supply lines, give them Meditteranean access, and remove a headache for Israel. Syria was also a pretty low hanging fruit. Not as easy as Iraq, but no real challenge.

And again, same deal. Install a pliable puppet, draw down troops, free up the army. Possibly bolster US forces with a 'free arab' coalition army made up of Iraqi and Syrian forces, with possibly a few Kuwaiti, Jordanian and Quatar brigades to make it look international. Maybe throw in some Egyptians.

Now, once that's done, Saudi Arabia falls into line and starts kissing ass big time. No more of this Saudi game playing. The Persian Gulf is America's lake.

Which leaves the big prize: Iran. Surrounded on all sides by American possessions or allies, no allies of its own left, outnumbered, outgunned. They could surrender, or they could be overrun. Probably overrun, and its game over.

The other part of the plan is move up from Afghanistan into Central Asia, push the Russians out of their sphere of influence...

At which point, the United States is sitting on the key strategic resource, oil, and is sitting on the economic lifelines of Europe, Japan, India and China. Using the control of this key resource, the US can rig its economy and strangle rival economies at will.

Which means the American Empire, forever an' ever an' ever! Any of youse who want to break out into the Horst Wessel song right now, feel free.

It's a three step program to world domination, it's frikking beautiful.

So, what went wrong with this gorgeous plan?

That bastard, Saddam Hussein.

Y'see, he didn't die on schedule. Worse, not only did he stay alive, but he and his high command stayed on the loose for way too long.

Now, to hand the country over to a puppet government, you needed to be able to trust the bureaucracy, the military, the infrastructure. You wanted the Iraqi's to police themselves for you, and support your appointee.

To make sure this happens, you have to decapitate the previous leadership. Captured, but preferably dead. Unequivocal surrender and obeisance is nice too. We could have had a nice ceremony where Saddam presented his ceremonial gun to Colin Powell and then licked his shoes.

But no, those bastards had to stay alive and on the loose for way too long.

Which meant you couldn't trust the Iraqi army.

Which meant you had to dissolve the army and run the damned country yourself.

Which meant your army was tied down indefinitely.

No free troops to overthrow Syria.

No mediteranean access, secure supply lines, and spare army to go after Iran.

It's all completely screwed!!!!

This is what happens when you get a bunch of nitwits who have no real world experience dreaming of world domination.

So here we are, three years later, the plan is shot to shit. Iraq is a basket case, the Army is completely locked down and unuseable for anything else. Afghanistan is barely stable, and the flush of power and influence in Central Asia is waning as the Russians take back whats theirs. Syria's not giving anyone an excuse. And the Iranians have spent three years getting ready.

We needs a new plan for World Domination!!!

The trouble is that the PNAC bozos were so in love with their old plan, that they never quite gave up on it. Instead, they kept telling themselves and telling themselves that Iraq would settle down, any day now. Days turned into weeks. Weeks into months. Months into years.

They've realized, long long long after everyone else gave up on it, that the plan has gone to shit. They held on for way long. But they were so committed to the old plan, they never allowed themselves to come up with a plan B.

Even now, their thinking goes along the lines of 'How do we fix up this plan so we can go forward again.'

They've basically reverted back to magical thinking. Like Iraq is a roadblock, and if they can just detour around it and take out Syria and Iran like they originally planned, then it'll all fall back into place.

The trouble is, they just can't figure out a way around Iraq.

So, the best they can do is whine about Iranian nukes and try and talk someone into a raid. But the trouble with that is that will just roll up your supply lines in Iraq, and you are screwed. So, much as they like to talk, maybe not... Gotta do something about Syria first, and there's no 'cassus belli.'

It looked like there might be, over that Lebanese car bombing. But the wiley Syrians once again read the writing on the wall, got out of Lebanon, and once again the US was left all dressed up and no one to bomb.

That's why the neocons creamed their jeans when Israel dusted up on Lebanon. The key war that would break their logjam was right around the corner. The Israeli's would rescue them, by starting the war with Syria.

Happy days were just around the corner!

But Syria wouldn't bite, the Israeli's were having enough trouble with Hezbollah, and so once again, the glorious thousand year rule has fizzled.

And it all looked so good on powerpoint!

I'll tell ya, if it weren't for the fact that these guys were all haemorhoid based life forms, my heart would go out to them.

Imagine: They saw themselves as the architects of a new age, they saw themselves as masters of reality, the visionaries, the brilliant, cultured, urbane, witty, impeccably dressed. They were going to slice through the gordian knots with their sheer will and their cunning. They were going to remake the middle east and turn it into a paradise, or at least a series of American colonies. They were going to secure, not just Israel's future in the middle east, but its dominance there. They thought they were the actors, the guys with the answers, the guys who were going to make things happen.

And what were they really? A bunch of flabby middle aged white guys, soiled and swaddled in their own delusions, enthusiastically jerking each other off and pretending it meant something.

Now, look at this Lebanese/Israeli thing. How does it make them feel? This is their last big chance to save their plan, to get back on track to rule the world. But they're completely ineffectual. It's just happening, and they talk and talk, but no one listens to them. They are revealed: Impotent, ineffectual, out of touch, irrelevant. It's like a nightmare for them, their last chance to save it all, and its just out of their reach, beyond their effect. It's like they're watching it all through a pane of glass, unable to so much as disturb a butterfly's wing. And its not even going the way its supposed to. And behind them, their every dream, their every accomplishment is steadily turning to shit.

I don't know about you, but I'm enjoying this all immensely.

I'd pay money to have lunch with Richard Perle, just so I could lean back and say "Oh and by the way, how's that world domination thing coming along... Iraqi's knuckling down? Central asia falling in line? Chinese on the run? So... uhm... any day now, you figure? Schoolchildren singing songs about your greatness, yet?"

So no. It's possible that the big screw up is still to happen. But these PNAC guys, they had their chance. Now its merely time for them to reap the contempt they so generously sowed and so richly earned.

What is "Hezbollah"? Just the militia? Or is it the militias plus all of its quasi-governmental and service operations in the areas it has traditionally controlled? Or all of its sympathizers within those regions, plus all of the above?

And by what formula would areas of Lebanon which are not sympathetic to Hezbollah and its fighters agree to have its militias and weaponry moved to their neighborhoods? (Particularly given what is happening to the last neighborhoods Hezbollah frequented.)

One overlooked problem with attackiing Syria is that they know the location of seven Israeli nuclear sites.

If Syria knows, Iran knows.

Can the Israelis be sure that they are protected aganist anything short of missiles with nuclear warheads?

What seven sites do you have in mind? Most accounts put the Jericho base at, IIRC, Zacharias, near Dimona. The description suggests it's semi-hardened, but the question would be is what non-nuclear method would be used to attack it? The Syrian air force has a very poor record over its own country, and it would be a long flight from Iran through intense defenses.

Nothing is ever sure.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I find nothing in the MSNBC or Insight articles that offers hard evidence that Iran is the force that has given Hizbullah their new capabilities.

Iran does not want a peaceful solution to Lebanon or Gaza. It works against their own interests, but Israel having to deal with Hizbullah as a recognised force, and not a band of outlaw terrorists, coukd possibly lead to a peace.

There is no doubt that Syria and Iran has helped Hizbullah, but I still doubt that this is the whole picture. Effective tactics are learned in battles, not in classrooms, a person's ability to command discipline in his troops is discovered in battle, not in OCS. Respect for an Officer is directly related to his perceived credibility, not his political clout in an organisation. It seems very possible to me that Hizbullah has been aided by veteran suriviors from the Iraq insurgency, as well as receiving supplies from them.

Well, the Israelis have some unfired Hezbollah rockets - they should check to see if they are made out of Uranium centrifuge tubes: that would help to hold up your thesis. ;-)

My take is that Hezbollah has multiple sources for funding, and with enough money, weapons are easy to obtain. Ever heard of the City of the East (Ciudad del Este). Pepe Escobar has a fascinating story in Asia Times: Hezbollah South of the Border.

And Bekaa Valley farmers are planting cannabis and poppies like mad (ever since the Syrians withdrew...irony), and processing labs seem to be abundant. Syria and other countries in the region are flooding the Lebanese with cheap produce, which has hit the farmers in the wallet...severely. So it's back to drug production, and it's rather obvious that Hezbollah is in on the ground floor considering the group's international arms - Ciudad del Este being just one: The Revival of Lebanon's Drug Trade. (Middle East Intelligence Bulletin)

As for weapons sources, Russia is more important than Iran to Hezbollah. Here's a good backgrounder - Dangerous laisons: covert "love affair" between Russia and Hezbollah. According to this research, the critical value of Syian and Iranian support for Hezbollah might be that both countries allow Russian arms purchased by Hezbollah to be trucked across the two countries.

This seems to be the underbelly of Globalization: everything and anything is for sale. And by the way, here's something in the above cited article that challenges your theory of Ex-Iraqi Military folks training Hezbollah:

Russian Instructors Return to Lebanon
In the second half of the nineties, agents of MJI started to recruit Russian ex-officers from elite and special units for training missions in Lebanese bases of Hezbollah. Initially, several dozen ex-"military advisers" who had trained the Syrian Army in the eighties in Lebanon were hired. As mercenaries they came back and taught Hezbollah`s terrorists in the Bekaa Valley how to plant mines, sharp shoot and collect intelligence. An interview with one of them was published in the Russian newspaper "Evreyskii Mir" (Saint-Petersburg) in June, 2000.

I'm not really arguing against your idea about Iraqis in the fray. It's quite possible true, as far as I know. It is certainly logical. Until I got reading some of this stuff, I assumed that Hezbollah International was some sort of "sleeper cell" type arrangement. Now it's clear that the main function is money making and arms purchases.

Neoboho

Rutty,

Glad to know that you are an equal opportunity character assassin. I thought you were just out for Larry Johnson.

Now it's clear that the main function is money making and arms purchases.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

More accurately, the IRA and Sinn Fein wanted the entity of the "Territories", or Northern Ireland, to cease to exist and be absorbed into Ireland. This is at least kind of similar to Palestine, although different in that it's more likely than Israel allowing itself to be absorbed.

If your goal was to destroy Hezbollah how would you do it? They are distributed, and in hiding. I know what I would do.

1. I would draw them out. If they are hiding, they can't be dealt with en masse. One great way to draw them out would be to make them believe they were holding their own. Let them send in reinforcements, let them send their whole army to the border area. Make them believe they are hodling off the Isrealis. Replace Generals and make it look like your forces are in disarray, amke the government look indecisive. Make Hezbollay believe they have a position of strength so they will come out and fight.

2. Once Hezbollah is committed, you attack The West First, clearing the only major obstacle which is Tyre, which can be bypassed and isolated. You trick Hezbollah into believing you are sending in a much smaller force to reinforce your troops, but in reality you are committing massive amounts of force. You give the press phony troop numbers to report. You make everyone believe you are losing.

3. Hezbollah will continue to send up reserves until they are fuly committed in Southern Lebanon, confident of victory.

4. Once Tyre is secure, you start your pincer movement along the Litani River. You sweep in from both the east and west (mostly from the East because you can hide your true strength there and strike quickly), taking the high ground by helicopter in order to dominate the valleys. All of Southern Lebanon will be cut off. Hezbollah will be unable to reinforce, move or resupply. There are no roads to resupply even if they had the troops. The best of the Hezbollah fighters are trapped.

5. The end of Hezbollah. Massive artillery barages will take care of fortifications and heavily defended positions. Each valley can be isolated and swept for defenders at Isreals leisure. Within 2 weeks all resistance in the region is crushed except for sporadic sniper fire which is silenced in another week.

6. You ink a Peace treaty.

That is what I would do. If Hezbollah stands and fights they will be destroyed. Funny, Isreal has a large force in North Eastern Isreal, I wonder what they are waiting for.

The only sites I know of are Dimona and Soreq. The mention of 7 sites came from the new Syrian envoy to the UN:

"He also insisted that Israel's "nuclear centers" could eventually be targeted by Hezbollah.
"Nobody wants to talk about [Hezbollah] attacks on those nuclear centers do they? They could have radiation fallout all over the region."
It is unclear what nuclear facilities the Syrian was referring to.
Israel's main nuclear installation is outside the city of Dimona in the Negev desert. The facility, several hundred miles south of the Lebanese border, is well defended from potential attacks.

The Syrian insisted that his government knows of "seven such nuclear centers all over the country." He refused to provide any additional details."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/14/62952.shtml

I was thinking more of Syria's missile cache than their AF.

Apology for the time it took to reply. I ingested something that was extremely disagreeable to my digestive tract yesterday.

Thanks for the links and the references to Russian involvement. It makes a great deal of sense, although it also implies their own damn foolishness. Do they actually believe the the Chechens will not gain an education from all of this?

What your post, as well as my musing indicates, is that Syria is not the bad guy the Bush admin claims, but they are just a path that must be traversed to Lebanon.

Have you run into any references to Russian support newer than what you offered here, and what do you know of axisglobe dot com? It is a new site for me.

Here is an article you've probably not seen. I would have missed it except I keep a data flag set for 'Derrida'. This one is very asymmetric (right up my alley...); citations to situationists in modern urban warfare:

"...Naveh references such canonical elements of urban theory as the Situationist practices of dérive (a method of drifting through a city based on what the Situationists referred to as ‘psycho-geography’) and détournement (the adaptation of abandoned buildings for purposes other than those they were designed to perform). These ideas were, of course, conceived by Guy Debord and other members of the Situationist International to challenge the built hierarchy of the capitalist city and break down distinctions between private and public, inside and outside, use and function, replacing private space with a ‘borderless’ public surface. References to the work of Georges Bataille, either directly or as cited in the writings of Tschumi, also speak of a desire to attack architecture and to dismantle the rigid rationalism of a postwar order, to escape ‘the architectural strait-jacket’ and to liberate repressed human desires."

Eyal Weizman, "The Art of War", Frieze, publish date unknown

Those interested in how Hezbollah built and deploys their military force in geographic layers.

one example of Hizbullah's surprising resilience in this war... the group's meticulous planning and thorough understanding of Israeli military doctrine and capabilities.

"They have done incredible staff work, learning the lessons of guerrilla warfare down the ages and carrying out a very deep and accurate analysis of the Israeli army," says Timur Goksel, who served with UNIFIL from 1979 to 2003 and witnessed Hizbullah's military evolution over two decades.

I read something about cement filled warheads being used against Iran's underground facilities. Bill Arkin maybe?

I heard rumors back in the 70s about silos(?) built into the Manzano mountains east of Albuquerque. There's been an AFB located there forever, but there's also Sandia Labs.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I appreciate the knowledge you bring. Thks.

The hanta virus infestation was also predicted by Navajo medicine men/witches/elders who were the repository of tribal knowledge.

The name sin nombre is damn funny. Knowing something about the locals' humor, I've no doubt they think so, too.

The hanta virus infestation was also predicted by Navajo medicine men/witches/elders who were the repository of tribal knowledge.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Was it a matter of a higher rate of exposure to the infected vermin?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I'll take your word for the housing -- it may have been housekeeping rather than the housing, and, in that case, I am at high risk for haantavirus. The sense I had is that people only ran into the housing to sleep, and weren't keeping up with the mouse infestation.

Age alone wouldn't determine the RBC concentration, but if that's a factor, I'd look at gender. Hemoglobin levels, which are a surrogate for red cells (although you often need both, plus a hematocrit) average 14-16 grams per 100 ml of female blood, and 16-18 grams in men. Interesting thought -- I don't know if it was predominant in one gender.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*