This will make John Robb happy:
The uneven calculus of Mideast victoryHizbullah may ‘win’ this war, now in its fourth week, by merely surviving.
BEIRUT, LEBANON ““ As fighting between Israel and Lebanese guerrillas intensified Thursday, Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah warned that his forces would fire rockets at Tel Aviv, if Israel again attacked Beirut.
[...] “[If] at any time you decide to stop your campaigns on our cities, suburbs, civilians, and infrastructure, we won’t strike with rockets any settlement or Israeli city,” Nasrallah said, on a day in which Hizbullah fired at least 150 rockets, killing eight Israeli civilians.
Indeed, what American Left, U.N. and Europeans fail to understand in their knee jerk reaction is that a cease fire would be an automatic victory for Hizballah. As a 4GW movement, they need only to stay in the game to win. Theirs is not a war based on firepower but of will power and world opinion.
“I’m not sure that Israel can actually prevail, in the way Israel wants to this time around,” says Heyman. “Hizbullah wins by surviving, because Israel said they are going to destroy Hizbullah.”
Indeed, Hizballah isn’t to be undestimated and has perfected their best tactic, namely putting Israel in a Catch 22 situation. Jihad Watch reports (via American Future):
“Laughing, a local sheikh explained to me that the Jews lose either way: either because the rockets are fired at them or because, if they attack munitions depot, they are condemned by world public opinion on account of the dead civilians.”Â? Hezbollah, he says, uses the civilian population “as a human shield and then when they are dead as propaganda.”Â?
Israel understands that their only option is complete victory. Anything less than the destruction of Hizballah as a terrorist group (i.e. their armed wing) will only strengthen them and weaken Israel. The only other option is to create a large enough buffer zone inside Lebanon to protect Israel in the future which, however, would only continue the tit for tat fighting further north.
Dan tdaxp has an amazing post up analyzing the Israel-Hizballah conflict and a lively discussion has already broken about between Sonny, Eddie and Dan.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Mi-Hwa
August 5, 2006
1:27 am
Kirk H. Sowell
August 5, 2006
3:08 am
1) Israel needs enough time to the kind of damage to Hizballah badly enough that it can be manageable by the regular Lebanese military, which is weak, and
2) Lebanon's democratic majority will need to summon the strength to take full control of their country and disarm Hizballah by force if need be.
Part one is why the United States needs to hold off this ceasefire for as long as necessary; people talk about how Hizballah is persevering, but it has only been three weeks. A fight of this nature will not be won in three weeks.
A key element of part two is the need to seal the border between Lebanon and Syria, otherwise Syria will simply resupply the terrorist group. While it is not reasonable to expect the much-discussed "multinational force" to have the backbone to fight Hizballah, it might be strong enough to do this. If not, Israel could bomb the transport convoys, as it has been doing.
An alternative would be to reach an agreement with Lebanon on the disarmament of Hizballah, and then be explicit that if Damascus starts aiding Hizballah, Israel will this time bomb Syria, not Lebanon.
snow
August 5, 2006
6:45 am
Does this put the US in a difficult position in the world? Certainly. But I don't see much remedy, as the US can't just abandon Israel. Future administrations may take different positions towards Israel, but hopefully no one will ever stop supporting the state. As it seems that so many in the world would have few qualms about seeing another holocaust of the Jews, the US may be the only one standing in the way of this happening.
Joseph Steinberg
August 5, 2006
7:33 am
John Robb
August 5, 2006
12:13 pm
davesgonechina
August 5, 2006
1:27 pm
Chirol, I agree that Hezbollah needs only to stay in the game to win, but from everything I'm seeing, Hezbollah is remaining in the game and getting bonus points for doing it in the face of Israeli bombings. As a result, the bombings are actually helping Hezbollah come out with more points than they had before - a net loss if your goal is not to accept:
anything less than the destruction of Hizballah as a terrorist group (i.e. their armed wing)
because that:
will only strengthen them and weaken Israel.
As for the human shields question that Dan addresses, he says the following:
This is in an atmosphere where Hizbullah hides among the human population.
OK, well, Hizbullah is made up of humans if I'm not mistaken. More to the point, can one really make a clear distinction between Hizbullah and non-Hizbullah? Doesn't 4GW in fact make this distinction blurred? You make a distinction, Chirol, between "Hizbullah as a terrorist group (i.e. their armed wing)" and, presumably, everything else in Hizbullah. But a non-armed relative, in the face of bombings, can become, in an instant, an armed terrorist. How can one ever distinguish, and what about the repurcussions of Israeli bombings in changing the ratio of non-combatant Hizbullah to active fighters? In this sense, I fail to see how Israel can possibly succeeded at eliminating Hizbullah, as both you and Dan advocate, through its current campaign. An incredibly aggressive string of targeted assassinations by Mossad, on the other hand, would be different. But that's not what they went with.
sun bin
August 5, 2006
1:47 pm
it would only be a 'victory' for hizbollah because it "won", i.e. israel lost by its own stupidity in lacking of any viable strategic vision of at all any planning.
----
bq. "..Israel needs enough time ...."
what israel needs is not time, it is brain that it needs.
sun bin
August 5, 2006
1:55 pm
1. even if hezbollah is disarm, the people are still there. they could regroup and re-arm with another name (hasbilloh) at moment
2. the more civilian israel's guided missiles crushed, the larger the population base (and sympathy) will be formed for future re-group, and more ethnic/religious variety would join the cause.
the current approach is a cul-de-sac for israel
Kirk H. Sowell
August 5, 2006
4:09 pm
I think that your argument misunderstands Lebanese politics - the Lebanese majority, made up of the bulk of the country's Sunnis, Christians and Druze, are opposed to the Shia having a separate militia, PERIOD. The problem is that, up until now, they have lacked the power to effectuate that desire. Druze leader Walid Jumblatt recently made the point that not only must Hizballah be defanged, but the entire border with Syria has to be guarded to prevent Syria from resupplying them.
The Shia are a minority in Lebanon. Once Lebanon's regular army has established its dominance, nothing short of another Syrian invasion will shake it. The Shia and what is left of Hizballah will be offered a place of the table poltically, and nothing more.
Israel does need a more viable strategic vision than unilateral withdraw, as I have argued on several occasions. Withdrawing from territory without without some sort of security guarantee in both Lebanon and Gaza empowers terrorists and undermines Israel's deterrent posture.
Joseph:
The U.S. should support Israel not only because it is the right thing to do - Israel is a free society fighting terrorist movements, like India - but because it is the right thing strategically; Israel is fighting the same war on a different front. Hizballah and its Iranian patron know that the U.S., not Israel, is the primary enemy over the long-term. Israel is doing the U.S. a service in destroying an organization that is an implacable enemy of the U.S. HA focuses on Israel because it is nearby, but its global network - much more dangerous than al-Qaeda - serves Tehran. Both must be defeated.
terry mc falls
August 5, 2006
4:51 pm
davesgonechina
August 5, 2006
6:15 pm
The Shia are a minority in Lebanon. Once Lebanon's regular army has established its dominance, nothing short of another Syrian invasion will shake it. The Shia and what is left of Hizballah will be offered a place of the table poltically, and nothing more.
I'd agree with you if the past few weeks hadn't made support Hizbullah a strictly Shia activity. Israeli bombings have been hitting non-Shia areas.
The New York Times:
Israeli planes dropped leaflets over the city of Sidon, south of here, warning people to evacuate before expected air strikes of "terrorist infrastructure"Â?... Sidon is an overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim city, rather distant from Hezbollah strongholds further south.On Friday, the Israelis struck heavily for the first time in the Christian heartland north of Beirut, cutting four bridges on the coastal highway that was the last major connection to Syria and the outside world. Another target in the Maronite territory was the road near the ski resort of Faraiya, which goes over the top of the Lebanon mountain range into the Bekaa Valley and could provide a passage to Syria.
LBC-TV, Christian Lebanese television, via Angry Arab:
when the Lebanese were asked whether they support the US demand for disarming Hizbullah, 64% of Lebanese said no. (63% of Sunnis, interestingly). As for whether you blame Hizbullah or Israel for the war, 84% of Lebanese blamed Israel for the war. (84% of Sunnis, for those who think that Lebanese Sunnis are now supporters of Israel). And 67% of Lebanese supported the capture of the two Israeli soldiers.
From Asia Times, numbers from the Beirut Center for Research & Information, pre-Qana media frenzy:
In all, the survey showed that 87% of the Lebanese people supported Hezbollah's retaliation against Israel, attributed mainly to Hezbollah's celebrated military performance to date. Meanwhile, 89.5% said they did not see the US as an honest broker in the Middle East conflict. Another 64.3% were not satisfied by the performance of Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora. Within the Sunni community, 64.8% said they did not approve of Siniora as premier.
Never mind the other Arab nations and populations rallying behind the mythic heroism of Hizbullah, David to Israel's Goliath. Chirol said "As a 4GW movement, they [Hizbullah] need only to stay in the game to win". I agree. As far as I can tell, they've not only stayed in the game, but Israel lent them some chips.
I'll throw in Maronite Christian and Lebanon's President Emile Lahoud:
Hezbollah enjoys utmost prestige in Lebanon, because it freed our country. All over the Arab world you hear: Hezbollah maintains Arab honor, and even though it (Hezbollah) is very small, it stands up to Israel. And of course Nasrallah has my respect.
As for TDAXP, John, I can't translate because I can't understand how he can claim the Israelis are "winning".
davesgonechina
August 5, 2006
6:16 pm
The Shia are a minority in Lebanon. Once Lebanon's regular army has established its dominance, nothing short of another Syrian invasion will shake it. The Shia and what is left of Hizballah will be offered a place of the table poltically, and nothing more.
I'd agree with you if the past few weeks hadn't made support Hizbullah a strictly Shia activity. Israeli bombings have been hitting non-Shia areas.
The New York Times:
Israeli planes dropped leaflets over the city of Sidon, south of here, warning people to evacuate before expected air strikes of "terrorist infrastructure"Â?... Sidon is an overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim city, rather distant from Hezbollah strongholds further south.On Friday, the Israelis struck heavily for the first time in the Christian heartland north of Beirut, cutting four bridges on the coastal highway that was the last major connection to Syria and the outside world. Another target in the Maronite territory was the road near the ski resort of Faraiya, which goes over the top of the Lebanon mountain range into the Bekaa Valley and could provide a passage to Syria.
davesgonechina
August 5, 2006
6:23 pm
The Shia are a minority in Lebanon. Once Lebanon's regular army has established its dominance, nothing short of another Syrian invasion will shake it. The Shia and what is left of Hizballah will be offered a place of the table poltically, and nothing more.
I'd agree with you if the past few weeks hadn't made support Hizbullah a strictly Shia activity. Israeli bombings have been hitting non-Shia areas.
The New York Times:
Israeli planes dropped leaflets over the city of Sidon, south of here, warning people to evacuate before expected air strikes of "terrorist infrastructure"Â?... Sidon is an overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim city, rather distant from Hezbollah strongholds further south.On Friday, the Israelis struck heavily for the first time in the Christian heartland north of Beirut, cutting four bridges on the coastal highway that was the last major connection to Syria and the outside world. Another target in the Maronite territory was the road near the ski resort of Faraiya, which goes over the top of the Lebanon mountain range into the Bekaa Valley and could provide a passage to Syria.
LBC-TV, Christian Lebanese television, via Angry Arab:
when the Lebanese were asked whether they support the US demand for disarming Hizbullah, 64% of Lebanese said no. (63% of Sunnis, interestingly). As for whether you blame Hizbullah or Israel for the war, 84% of Lebanese blamed Israel for the war. (84% of Sunnis, for those who think that Lebanese Sunnis are now supporters of Israel). And 67% of Lebanese supported the capture of the two Israeli soldiers.
Eddie
August 5, 2006
9:45 pm
Israel has no idea what it's doing, let alone does it have the kind of military or political leadership to handle the challenge of Hezbollah. One minute Olmert promises to destroy Hezbollah, the next he's anxiously waiting for some increasingly non-existent international force to secure South Lebanon, which his forces have depopulated through a mixture of blockade which starves people and bombs which offer them no semblance of peace.
Dan seems convinced Israel is winning. Highly dubious especially when everyone from Israel's biggest fan (Charles Krauthammer) to its most ardent military admirer (Ralph Peters) is saying they're losing.
sun bin
August 6, 2006
2:29 am
i know the lebanese situation pretty well, at least all those you mentioned.
the problem is, israel is forcing them with no choice but to side with hezbollah. that is israel's gravest mistake.
i am not saying this just because i think so (like some other blogs quoted here), i have statistics to support my conclusion.
see "poll":http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html
and "my short note":http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2006/08/guo-jia-iv-olmert-tragic-paradox-of.html
sun bin
August 6, 2006
2:37 am
i disagree.
if GWOT is the goal, and proving a successul democracy in middle east is the first phrase, US should support the democratic government of lebanon at all cost.
instead of blindly supporting israel's adventure, US should restrain israel (but ask israel to show impatience and threat with words and deadlines), and use this opportunity to create a deal with the lebanese govt to disarm hezbollah in phrases (send in armed force to assist if needed, also leverage UN if possible).
then this will be the first real democracy (who is not militaristic and no excuse to be discreted by its neighbors) in middle east.
unfortunately israel already messed up.
Kirk H. Sowell
August 6, 2006
3:19 am
The analogy I made with India was solely to make the point that I identify with the Indians in their fight against the Kashmiri jihadists because the Kashmiris live in a state where they can vote and be represented, which would not be true if they were in Pakistan. India is completely innocent in the conflict in which they are engaged, and there should be no equivalence between them and their jihadist enemies.
I didn't intend the analogy beyond that. Pakistan is a very different problem from that Israel faces in Lebanon, and you are correct, India is responding differently.
Sun Bin:
- True enough, Arabs are rallying to Hizballah's side; there is always a pro-terrorist reaction when Israel is involved. To some Nasrallah is the new Salah al-Din, to others the new Nasser (a bit of irony, there).
- If there were any indication that the democratic forces in Lebanon could have taken down Hizballah on their own, I would pressure Israel into letting them do so, even if it meant otherwise unjustifiable restraint. But I've seen no indication of that. They weren't making any progress on that point when this happened.
- Your suggestion about creating a "deal" with the Lebanese govt is fine in theory, but the elements simply don't exist. Not only can the Lebanese themselves not handle this, but the UN is (as always) spineless, and although the French want HA disarmed, they will not fight for it. And the French are stronger on this than just about any other country.
- I don't mean to suggest that the Israeli govt has handled this in anything like an ideal manner, in fact that are being undermined by their own hubris. The first week they were claiming to have destroyed half of HA's capability, which was nonsense, and Olmert was talking about totally destroying HA by the end of the first week, which was unrealistic given the limited time constraints. The timing is certainly horrible for the U.S. And the bombings have killed civilians who HA was using as human shields, but nevertheless anger at Israel will be there. From the beginning I wondered if instead they should have hit Syria. That may have been a tactical blunder.
Once Israel leaves, the Lebanese complaint against Israel will disappear; the will still resent the attacks, but they will have their own problems to address. The real concern is that Israel will fail to do sufficient damage to HA for the Lebanese army to be able to handle them, and Assad will be strengthened (which looks likely). But under no circumstances can it be acceptable to the U.S. to make an equivalence between a free society and an organization like Hizballah, nor can we ignore the long-term threat that they pose. If Hizballah isn't taken down, it will be a much greater threat to the U.S. than al-Qaeda. It already likely is.
sun bin
August 6, 2006
6:18 am
now let me take it one more step/
if isreal is right in bombing the civilian because it cannot distinguish civilian from militant in hezbollah areas, (which may be quite true, especially the vicious circle introduced to Qana years ago). doesn't hezbollah's claim that civilian centers at Haifa are military targets, because everybody in israel will need to serve the army, also quite valid?
if one stretches the logic, isn't al qaeda's claim that slamming WTC is justifiable because americans elected governments that fought them so everybody is at war also has some credibility?
of course, i disagree with al qaeda. i disagree with hezbollah. therefore, i have no choice but disagree with israel.
sun bin
August 6, 2006
6:22 am
1) Not only arabs, christians in lebanon as welll, as davegonechina commented
2) sunni would not have rallied to hezbollah had their own home not attacked directly.
i was not talking about arabs in general. i was talking about the lebanese who would otherwise be suspicious or rival to hezbollah.
snow
August 6, 2006
8:18 am
Joseph, I didn't claim carte blanche for Israel. I was talking in generalities, general support for Israel, as opposed to withdrawing support that some demand. But again, I don't think the US can ever abandon Israel.
And for all those saying this is the wrong approach, I don't see what other alternatives are any better. Ignore Hezbollah's shelling? Work to get the Lebanese government to rein them in? What? They are shelling now, they can't wait months and months for something that might possibly happen, though who knows?
Israel has to act and they are doing it, as messy as it is. I'm not sure there is any 'solution' to the Israel-Palestinian problem. Isreal is not going away and a large portion of the Arab world would like to see the Jews pushed into the sea. I can't see either of these things changing. So the Jews will have to create a secure state somehow against the hatred that will probably never end.
It doesn't really matter what Israel does, she will be hated no matter what, just as the US is hated by terrorists, no matter what it does. These things will not change, so security of the state has to be secured.
snow
August 6, 2006
8:46 am
It should support Israel because it is the right thing to do in a world that is mostly against Israel, a world that would be only too happy to see Israel wiped off the face of it. And again, I don't mean blanket support for everything Israel does, but general, long-term, consistent support.
Joseph Steinberg
August 6, 2006
8:59 am
Left Flank
August 6, 2006
11:42 am
I'll take this chance to introduce myself through two conversations in which I've participated today. And, I'll test b2evo out a little.
1. OK, weird, huh? really, Confederate history is fascinating. I've read a few books, mostly by Wiiliam C.Da...
sun bin
August 6, 2006
8:56 pm
bq. Ignore Hezbollah's shelling?
to be fair to hezbollah, the shelling only started after israel attacked lebanon, and hezbollah pledged it would stop shelling as soon as israel stops its attack.
the "provocation" was the ambush of israeli soldiers, without the disproportional revenge there was no excuse for hezbo9llah shelling.
snow
August 7, 2006
10:01 am
Elgunjduts
August 7, 2006
3:35 pm
sun bin
August 7, 2006
6:07 pm
that is something new. i checked wiki (not a perfect source) but don't see anything like that before the ambush/kidnap.
you have any concrete evidence about that?
snow
August 8, 2006
3:44 pm
I think you are right about the ambush/kidnap being the trigger, though some sources stated that there was a simultaneous barrage by Hezbollah, maybe to distract attention. But I would hardly say that the ambush/kidnap/killing of soldiers was a single event to which Israel was responding. They were responding to it as a 'second front' in their actions against Hamas in Gaza, which had been shelling continually (I remember the beach attack, which was blamed on Israel, though it may very well have been done by Hamas). So I think Israel really decided that they had enough of these attacks and figured it was a good opportunity to hit Hezbollah hard, just as they had re-entered Gaza to hit Hamas. It seems to me that it was a response to the general situation of being under attack (from more than one side), triggered by the ambush/kidnapping. That's why I don't think it was out of proportion.
sun bin
August 8, 2006
4:30 pm
if you are saying hezbollah attacked civilian (or military) targets numerous times before the ambush as your reason to bomb civilian targets, you need to list them as reason.
if you are responding to the kidnap, proportionate response would be to bomb major transportation arteries, air-lift soldier to establish check-points. then quarantine the area and search.
snow
August 8, 2006
5:15 pm
I would say that this is impossible. They don't have control over the area, that's why they have sent in troops. This isn't a police action, it's an incursion into another country. And just because I don't know the details of why the Israelis have gone in, doesn't mean they don't have plenty of reasons.
"you can't say "I have enough of this"Â? while "this"Â? has not happened at all."
Do you really htink that the only reason they went in was because of the ambush/kidnapping? I do believe that they have had many bombardments in the last few weeks by missiles being fired (from Gaza). Previously, Hamas (I think) had kidnapped another soldier or two and things looked to be escalating, despite the fact that Israel had withdrawn from Gaza. I think the Israelis were fed up with having unilaterally withdrawn from Gaza and Lebanon (earlier, in 2000) and yet they get no thanks for it, only more attacks rather than more peace. I think the ambush/kidnap was a trigger that they decided to act on. Enough's enough. I think they've had plenty of reason to go in.
Proportionate response? The Israelis have bombed the airport and transport routes and hit facilities that they believed were sheltering Hezbollah and its rockets. Unfortunately, Hezbollah sets up their weapons in civilian areas, so the IDF has hit some of these. They have made attempts to get civilians to leave by dropping leaflets and making radio announcements warning of impending attacks, which serve to also warn Hezbollah.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » How Hezbollah Won
August 14, 2006
12:09 am