New at Reason

David Weigel | July 18, 2006

Cedar Tim Cavanaugh opines on the ins, outs, and imminent disasters of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict.

Comments

Warren|7.18.06 @ 12:44PM|#

Tim,
As we use to say back in my Navy days;
Out Fucking Standing

VM|7.18.06 @ 12:45PM|#

Tim:

enjoyed the article!

Hoping for the continued safety of your family.

a good read.

cheers,
VM

|7.18.06 @ 12:56PM|#

Tim,
Good article. As soon as I heard about the Israeli's actions in Lebanon, I looked forward to getting a little "ground truth" (as geographers say) from you.
Stay safe!

|7.18.06 @ 1:05PM|#

EXCELLANT writing, sir. Best wishes to you and yours.
Also dodging rockets is the redoubtable Fisk:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14037.htm
Meanwhile, Stratfor claims to know what the plan is.....
(recovering POW's isnt it)


EXCERPT: The Israelis will use airmobile tactics to surround and isolate Hezbollah concentrations, but in the end, they will have to go in, engage and defeat Hezbollah tactically. Hezbollah obviously knows this, but there is no sign of disintegration on its part. At the very least, Hezbollah is projecting an appetite for combat. Sources in Beirut, who have been reliable to this point, say Hezbollah has weapons that have not yet bee seen, such as anti-aircraft missiles, and that these will be used shortly. Whatever the truth of this, Hezbollah does not seem to think its situation is hopeless.
dated 17 July. Sorry, no URL......

�

|7.18.06 @ 1:07PM|#

I've been operating on an assumption that the IDF was prepping for an actual invasion to blow up missiles and kill people. Not knowing what all had blown up, I was assuming that it was avenues of retreat and infrastructure supporting whatever size buffer zone they wanted to clear. No?

|7.18.06 @ 1:07PM|#

One thing that I'm not clear on is whether Hezbollah carefully planned the initiation of hostilities here, choosing their moment to snatch the Israeli soldiers, or whether someone in a Hezbollah unit saw the ruckus the IDF was raising over the capture of one soldier by Hamas, and decided to play the same game.

In either event, Hezbollah clearly seized the initiative, and I don't think that it's reading too much into the situation to say that Israel seemed to be caught off-balance, and may have activated contingency plans that don't necessarily advance any particular goals.

The weirdest part of all of this is listening to folks here who are talking as if the four horsemen of the apocalypse are saddling up... just what we need, more religious interpretation of what really seem to be largely straightforward political and geographical conflicts.

|7.18.06 @ 1:10PM|#

The IDF makes the Pentagon seem downright transparent.

|7.18.06 @ 1:13PM|#

Israeli TV Channel 2 is asked to be less forthcoming when reporting on the locations where the rocket strike: �The soldiers called police and demanded they tell Channel 2 to cease the live telecast. �You are endangering us, Stop broadcasting. You are helping Hizbullah to fire on us,� they said. After as second appeal to the police, the television producers stopped the live report.�

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=107701

|7.18.06 @ 1:14PM|#

As Jason suggests above, Israel is (contra Tim) planning a land invasion. Blowing up bridges and other infrastructure hampers them less than it does Hezbollah, leaving the latter compartmentalized (reduced maneuverability) and with dicey communications at best (reduced C-3). Getting the civilians as far out of the way as they are willing and able to get is consistent with this -- it should reduce noncombatant casualties (albeit from shocking to merely horrendous).

Equally to the point, what else should Israel do? It's easy to criticize the course chosen, less so to offer a superior alternative. I suspect dragging Syria into the fray could lead to the best resolution, but the path from here to there is perilous. In the meantime, killing Hezb. fighters is the only sensible thing to do.

|7.18.06 @ 1:17PM|#

Good piece. I love the link to Krauthammer's pre-mature gloating:

"The Bush doctrine, which we have pursued since 9/11, is based on what states do internally. We care about their external actions, but we also care about who makes the decisions. The theory is that non-dictatorial regimes�which represent democratic aspirations and adhere to the democratic principles of the rule of law, protection of minorities, and human rights�are more likely to have normal relations with us.

"We have now tested the theory. And just recently we have had the Lebanese revolution, the Egyptian announcement about electoral changes, the Iraqi elections, the Afghan elections. Kuwait has just extended suffrage to women, and Syria has announced, however disingenuously, that they are moving toward legalizing political parties, purging the ruling Baath Party, sponsoring free municipal elections in 2007, and formally endorsing a market economy (Washington Post, May 17). What we have seen in the last six months has been simply astonishing�well, astonishing to the critics. I am pleasantly but not entirely surprised."

|7.18.06 @ 1:35PM|#

Exellent article, Tim.

And you're right, there is no plan, there will be no acheivements for Israel. The soldieras will be killed or swapped for terrorists, and Hezbollah, though sustainig some losses will recover as long as Iran supports it.

There is no plan, becuase there is no solution. There will be no ground invasion, not under the current novice Israeli leaders. There are no solutions in life, it's just a perpetual struggle.

What could Israel do? Sit back and turn the other cheek ? So Israel hits hard Hezbollah, and everything that moves. Maybe Hizb will think harder before attacikg again in the future. Maybe Israel is trying to buy a few years of quiet. maybe it will acheive as much, maybe not, depends on global factors (the position of Iran).

As to Bush: "His strategy on the Arab-Israeli conflict has always been to let nature take its course". A very wise startegy. The only one there is. All other aqpproaches have failed.

Shannon Love|7.18.06 @ 1:39PM|#

The bombing of bridges and infrastructure indicates a ground invasion is not in the works...

Actually, the pattern of bombing suggest the opposite. Israel is destroying infrastructure that will leave southern Lebanon in an isolated pocket. When the ground invasion comes, Hezballah will not be able to resupply or get out any of their heavy equipment if they retreat.

The air campaign may look ineffective if you view it as a means of destroying weapons but its true purpose is to destroy communication both in the physical and information senses. Once the Hez lose the ability to coordinate the Israeli can move in and destroy or capture their weapons with relative ease. The invasion of Lebanon this time won't look anything like it did in 82.

|7.18.06 @ 1:41PM|#

I'm thinking that an invasion is going to be necessary (from Israel's perspective, anyway), even if it isn't already in the works. They may be taking it slow, just to see how various countries react (us, Europe, and Russia, of course, but also Syria and Iran).

|7.18.06 @ 1:44PM|#

I pray for the safety of your family, Tim.

There are undoubtedly many other possibilities, and I should note that the assumption that there is a master strategy may be rooted in the simultaneously philo-Semitic and anti-Semitic notion that The Jews have figured out the universe and therefore always have a plan. However, in this case it is only reasonable to assume that we're seeing more than just some feckless hissy fit.

When reasonable people trade one situation for another, it's because they think they're gonna get something better than what they already have. Not knowing exactly what'll happen in the future isn't necessarily enough to stop reasonable people from rolling the dice--if they know things as they stand now will ultimately lead to failure, then they have to change course.

Ultimately, how much of a threat does Hezbollah present to the state of Israel? Has anything changed recently to increase the size of that threat?

|7.18.06 @ 1:59PM|#

Tim,

Good article, but you're missing a </i> tag somewhere in your list of possibilities.

|7.18.06 @ 2:03PM|#

Ultimately, how much of a threat does Hezbollah present to the state of Israel? Has anything changed recently to increase the size of that threat?

Iran has stepped up both their rhetoric and their level of open support for Hezbollah's terrorism and conventional warfare against Israel.

|7.18.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Ultimately, Hezbollah's threat to Israel is proportional to their arsenal. Ideologically, their stated intent is the elimination of Israel, but capability is another matter. So far in the past week, they have surprised the Israelis a couple times with their capabilities, striking the warship and striking Haifa (and beyond).

Now maybe these capabilities weren't a complete surprise on paper, but they hadn't shown this capability before. Perhaps word of these increased capabilties triggered a more robust response to the kidnappings than would have previously been the case.

Hezebollah and Syria and Iran have now warned of larger capabilities to come. Reports are that one rocket that could have hit Tel Aviv (beyond, beyond Haifa) was destroyed on it's launch pad yesterday. What Hezebollah's current maximum capabilities are is unknown, but I suspect that Israel has set up a blockade in no small part to hold them as is.

|7.18.06 @ 2:10PM|#

Tim, best wishes for your family. I'm sure they'll be okay, but it's got to be just crazy stressful for you.

|7.18.06 @ 2:12PM|#

"Ultimately, how much of a threat does Hezbollah present to the state of Israel? Has anything changed recently to increase the size of that threat?"

Am I insane in my belief that the use of rocket artillery is a big deal?

Jennifer|7.18.06 @ 2:15PM|#

That was a great article, Tim. But I thought your family was in California? Wherever they are, I hope they make it through okay. And Michael Young and his family, too.

|7.18.06 @ 2:32PM|#

Am I insane in my belief that the use of rocket artillery is a big deal?

Has that changed recently?

Hezbollah decisively winning some elections and achieving whatever legitimacy winning elections bestows--that was an interesting and new development.

...Maybe it's one thing when a group of murderers lobs rockets over your border and quite another when a group of murders who've won elections and some legitimacy among the locals lobs rockets over your border and kidnaps your soldiers.

A Hezbollah with legitimacy among their locals and foreign support for funding and hardware--that was the trend, and it seemed to be gaining momentum.

|7.18.06 @ 2:36PM|#

Does winning elections in a big way make Hezbollah (and/or Hamas) more of a threat or less of a threat?

|7.18.06 @ 2:45PM|#

Thoughtful article Tim. Best to the family.

"Don't send troops where you can send bullets"

You prep the battlefield first, gather intel. Air Assault (helo) will hop you over the minefields and put you close to whatever objectives. Will probably see some down birds by RPGs, SA-7/14s but such is the nature of warfare. Extraction plan is as essential as the insertion plan. Some will do their thing and get right out (limited supply lines with airborne ops), few will stay and snoop and poop (some probably there now). Later will see some occupation as missions are accomplished and areas are secured. Will face enemies similiar to those earlier in Iraq but much less than the mob stuff in Somolia.

There is always a plan, but they are not always good plans.

Israel will not just satisfy some pent up vengeance and go about business as usual. This ain't your grandma's earth anymore.

|7.18.06 @ 2:48PM|#

I wonder if Israel is trying to un-tie the Gordian knot that exists over Syria or Iran's nuke program? Are they hoping to goad either the Baath or Iran into a mis-step of some sort of military involvement (either direct, or press Hezbollah so hard that Syrian or Iranian military support is proven to even the most skeptical onlookers), thus paving the way for a US strike on either country?

They've already turned up two Iranian missiles (the one that hit the Israeli warship, and the one they shot down at launch that reportedly had 100m range). How much more Iranian advisors and hardware can they parade before a US airstrike is justified?

|7.18.06 @ 2:56PM|#

Ken:

In the short run, winning elections gives Hezbollah legitimacy (locally and with some of the more inane outside observers). It gives them a hand on the levers of power and access to more resources of the state - both to tap them and to prevent it from interfering with their own objectives.

In the long run, one theory (pro-Democratization) holds that they'll become preoccupied with "filling potholes" and other elements of satisfying voters' daily needs. I'm not yet sure whether that will work in this situation; arguably, there is a bottomless "daily need" for attacking Israel in some circles, and any party that fills that need will continue to get re-elected.

|7.18.06 @ 2:59PM|#

I very much liked the article, especially since I've been wondering since this started wtf Israel's motivations/goals, etc are.

And of course, continued best wishes for the safety of your family.

|7.18.06 @ 3:10PM|#

I very much liked the article, especially since I've been wondering since this started wtf Israel's motivations/goals, etc are.

And of course, continued best wishes for the safety of your family.

Shannon Love|7.18.06 @ 3:22PM|#

Ken Shultz,

Does winning elections in a big way make Hezbollah (and/or Hamas) more of a threat or less of a threat?

I would say more of a threat. Winning an election grants moral authority from the people who elected them. Since they won without renouncing any of their brutal tactics it also validates those tactics as well. They have no incentive to moderate there positions or methods.

|7.18.06 @ 3:45PM|#

In the long run, one theory (pro-Democratization) holds that they'll become preoccupied with "filling potholes" and other elements of satisfying voters' daily needs.

If it wasn't for all the dead and wounded, I'd find that theory hilarious.

I understand Hezbollah rose in popularity among Shiites, Christians and other Lebanese because it's largely credited with forcing Israel out of Lebanon. I understand that a big part of why it continues to be popular is because it's seen as bulwark against further Israeli incursions. ...and it ran schools and hospitals long before Israel left Lebanon.

I maintain that a terrorist organization with electoral legitimacy is more intransigent and dangerous than it would be otherwise. ...and that Israel is likely to see it that way.

If the Taliban won an election in Afghanistan, I could care less--we should wipe them off the face of the earth anyway. ...but if the Taliban won an election in a big way, that would be a big warning sign--a sign that we should do something. To a certain extent, I imagine Israel sees Hezbollah's success in Lebanon like that. ...except that Afghanistan isn't on our border and Lebanon is on theirs.

|7.18.06 @ 3:49PM|#

Tim, are you suggesting that on the other side that the real players are the Shi'ite's and Sunni's that "could be" using Israel/Hezbollah as pawns in a much bigger ME turf war game? Is there a new ME Bozorg in the offing?

|7.18.06 @ 5:12PM|#

Great Scott! You mean Hez is recieving arms from a Furrin Power?
Seems to me the entire Israeli air assault is a "US airstrike".
By what lack of logic does Hez getting outside military equipment "bad" while the entire Israeli military machine depending on outside support get a pass?
What was that Marx quote? (hey, even a broken clock is right 2x a day) "If you want to understand the depravity of bushwah culture, you dont look for it in the Mother Country, but in the Colonies, where it strides forth naked"........substitute "bushwah culture" for Israel, and the West Bank for colonies, & there you go.
And so......Im supposed to see treachery in Iran shipping tech to Hez et al, & see no problem w/ the US propping up Greater Israel by orders of magnitude?



"They've already turned up two Iranian missiles (the one that hit the Israeli warship, and the one they shot down at launch that reportedly had 100m range). How much more Iranian advisors and hardware can they parade before a US airstrike is justified? "

|7.18.06 @ 5:21PM|#

Tim's article is thoughtful, as usual. However, some of the mental gymnastics is caused by the US only disease of assuming at the begining that Israel=good, Arabs=bad. So you get the: I know Israel is good and right, so why, oh why are they doing all these horrendous things? They must have some master plan perhaps.
Balls.
The Israeli's are human beings. Pumped with paranoid Zionism (understandable isnt it?), the hate that decades of conflict engender in any human group, and the knowledge that in the eyes of the US they can do no wrong thanks to their propaganda machine (look at NRO or any conservatice christian website today) they are acting in a totally inhumane, illegal, and foolish way. And while every media outlet in America is parroting the party line more and more folks cannot ignore the crazy actions of the IDF in front of them and are forced to spin, spin, spin. Do the math (now hundreds of civilian casualties for 2 abducted soldiers), read the international news, get outside one's US MSM box and you will see strong agreement in the world that this military action is wrong.

fyodor|7.18.06 @ 5:36PM|#

Ken,

What you say is pretty much true, yet besides the point. Even if some individual or grouping thereof constitutes the embodiment of pure evil, his or their actions still will generally presumed to have goals. So the question still remains, what are the Israeli government's goals? Unless you are insinuating that Israel is killing for killing's own sake without any other strategic purpose (in which case, please say so), you have not answered, nor have you even seemed to have attempted to, the question Tim set out to try to answer.

|7.18.06 @ 5:44PM|#

Joining in the good thoughts for the continued safety of Tim's family.

|7.18.06 @ 6:09PM|#

What is Hamas doing during all of this? I haven't heard anything about palestine since the soldiers were kidnapped.

|7.18.06 @ 6:17PM|#

Ken,

Just because your country's paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to kidnap, torture and murder your soldiers, citizens, and anyone else in your borders, and exterminate your country forever from the face of the map.

So, what would YOU have Israel do in response? (Other than just "calibrate the response better"). When one's soldiers are attacked and kidnapped in one's own territory, and missiles are launched killing one's civilians, what's the right reaction? Alas, not even the clever Jews have managed to devise bullets or missiles that will only target Hezbollah soldiers and equipment. Therefore, civilians and their property that Hezbollah sets up next to, inevitably get hit. Speaking of illegal....

And since when does world opinion (even if any one person knows it) determine what's right and what's wrong? History suggests otherwise.

|7.18.06 @ 6:23PM|#

At first I thought I'd counter fyodor's post with the question: what's the purpose of The Dance of the Salted Slug? But then I realized, the Dance of the Salted Slug doesn't hurt anyone. ...except for the dancer, maybe. So anyway, I may never know the purpose of the Dance of the Salted Slug, but I think I might have stumbled onto something of its meaning.

fyodor|7.18.06 @ 7:03PM|#

Ken Schultz,

what's the purpose of The Dance of the Salted Slug?

To answer in the context of Tim's piece, perhaps the "Dance" is merely a hissy fit!!! :-) But then, that's why I'm a musician (and dancer?) and not a prime minister!!

|7.18.06 @ 8:06PM|#

"So the question still remains, what are the Israeli government's goals?"

I think, but do not know, they are pretty reasonable, yet morally hideous, to destroy an Arab state that they hate (Lebanon). Their goal is immoral, and so is their method.

"So, what would YOU have Israel do in response? (Other than just "calibrate the response better"). "

Isn't this easy? I would surely not have my government kill hundreds of civilians in response to 2 soldiers captured. You wouldn't? Please explain the principles you have that would justify the death of 200+ civilians for the lives of 2 soldiers. I, for one, would love to hear such reasoning which defies not only usual moral thinking but arithmetic.

|7.18.06 @ 8:09PM|#

"Therefore, civilians and their property that Hezbollah sets up next to, inevitably get hit."

I'm curious if you have, other than IDF allegations, any proof that this is so. Are the targets that the IDF is hitting really known Hizbolah targets, near civilians, or are they just crippling Lebanon's infrastructure, for reasons we don;t accept.

|7.18.06 @ 8:11PM|#

Ken:

No, I didn't ask what you would NOT do, but what you WOULD do. Or at least, what you would have Israel's government do. Not respond at all? Send a stiff letter to Syria? Remember, it wasn't just the soldiers attacked on Israeli soil and kidnapped (others were murdered in the attack) -- but also missiles launched into Israeli cities.

|7.18.06 @ 8:28PM|#

'As to Bush: "His strategy on the Arab-Israeli conflict has always been to let nature take its course". A very wise strategy. The only one there is. All other approaches have failed.'

A wise strategy indeed. The U.S. gov't should adopt it. Israel has been at the top of the list for and received the lion's share of U.S. Foreign Military Aid (or whatever it's called these days) for decades. Add in the FMA the police state in Egypt receives for making peace with Israel and you've probably got about 2/3 the entire budget on average. Unless the checks have stopped the notion that the U.S. is just sitting back and letting nature take its course is laughable.

温度记录仪|7.18.06 @ 8:40PM|#

填料函

|7.18.06 @ 9:09PM|#

One would think that we are setting in the Israel planning and operational war room or maybe these are just opinions, some sounding absolute. Israel is a civilized nation. They do not harbor terrorist or wait for some caliph or cleric, from inside or outside their borders, to tell them how to operate. Their leadership is not like Chavez or Ahmadinejad.

When you are dealing with a hornets nest it's hard to separate out the good hornets from the bad ones. If we had a hornets nest in our backyard where our children play I suspect most would destroy it even though some are just baby making hornets that cause no harm. I have no problem extrapolating that way up the food chain.

Our children must live in this world. I want them to have the best lives possible with no risk of towers crashing on them or a bomb being placed on their public transportation.
M.O.

|7.18.06 @ 9:54PM|#

Ah, so the Lebonese civilians are hornets. Mm, not really buying it.

I'm not going to sit here and defend Hezbollah, but I can't think of much of one for the Israeli's either.

After you beat the crap out of that strawman Don come join the arguement.

|7.18.06 @ 10:33PM|#

Chris, since this is your first post on this thread
which argument are you presenting or inviting me to join?

|7.18.06 @ 10:47PM|#

I can't make a point better than those already made.

|7.19.06 @ 5:52AM|#

Don Coyote: When you are dealing with a hornets nest it's hard to separate out the good hornets from the bad ones. If we had a hornets nest in our backyard where our children play I suspect most would destroy it even though some are just baby making hornets that cause no harm. I have no problem extrapolating that way up the food chain.

Is this clever satire? This looks like a paraphrase of a(n in)famous racist, I can't remember which one though.

|7.19.06 @ 7:34AM|#

Barry,

I am fairly sure that Israel goes through a target selection process that is reviewed, prioritized and approved. We do.

Many times the target is in an area that presents the complication of non-combantants. You select a weapon that will do the job with the least amount of collateral damage. Sometimes options are limited. I think Israel does this and I would also.

Don't know about the racist part just seemed a fit analogy, the bad and good hornets. Seemed it touched some sensitivities.

Seemed that targeting or willie-nillie bombing was part of the argument.

|7.19.06 @ 12:19PM|#

Since the IDF is targetting general infrastructure, its hard to buy the argument that lebonese civilan casualties can be qualified as 'legit' collateral damage (which seems to be defined as killing people who happen to be next to military targets, just as the 'harmful' wasps are found next to pacifistic ones). In fact there is basically no difference between bombing infrastructure and civilians, since they occupy the same space.

About killing 200 for 2: nations value their own soldiers (and citizens) much more than they value civilians on the other side; in fact when it comes to equivalencies, I wouldnt be surprised if, for most countries, no amount of opposing cvilians could equal just one of their own - I think this is basic human behavior, assuming that (in times of war) most people think the same way about their country as they would their family, certainly a debatable point. Nonetheless, if it weren't for fear of reprimand from other countries, I'm sure that israel would have little problem with flattening much of lebanon if they thought it would guarantee elimination of hiz (and, in a world in which they actually had the means, its fairly obvious that hiz would do the same against israel).

We all have the instinct to moralize about civilian losses in war, but in the end I think its a sadly pointless exercise. To propose some allegedly detached ethical system to determine what number of civilian casualties is 'justified' in situation x is bound to be absurd. I've personally become so fatalistic about this conflict as a whole (rougly defined as israel vs. a good portion of the middle east) that I have absolutely no doubt that a "resolution" will come only at the "cost" of many, many more massacres on both sides. As far as war is concerned, history has made it painfully clear a bajillon times that utter annihilation seems to be the only guarantor of peace, especially when its between groups of people that have a history of mutual hate. Such knowledge makes it difficult for me to have any sympathy for any of the governments or organizations involved.

|7.19.06 @ 1:31PM|#

Thoughtful points Leif.

Target selection is aimed at accomplishing missions, objectives. There are limited amount of bombs that can be dropped, limited sorties for aircraft and limited time to accomplish certain objectives. Sometime infrastructure, to an outsider, is attack on civilians but except for a few stray bombs/shells it is always mission related from a military viewpoint. War is...

I think this is basic human behavior, assuming that (in times of war) most people think the same way about their country as they would their family,...

Much truth here. It is like circles of security/defense. From, allies, country, region, state, country, city, neighborhood, family. The closer conflict gets...

What did happen to Neanderthal?