New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | August 16, 2006

James Joyner breaks down the military and moral misteps that caused Israel to lose its conflict with Hezbollah.

Comments

|8.16.06 @ 4:53PM|#

Propaganda war? That's basically something Muslims can never lose, and Israel can never win. No matter what Israel does, no matter how much restraint or care it exercises, 99.9 percent of Muslims will consider any action by Israel to be a war-crime or "genocide." (It's probably around 60 percent of the European population). Hell, most of them consider the fact that they have to live within a few hundred miles of Jew to be a crime against humanity.

Robert|8.16.06 @ 5:10PM|#

Even commando raids are too blunt & obvious a tool. Better would be assassinations & sabotage. Poisons could be used to great advantage. It's especially chilling when people start dropping like flies from unknown causes. Then the rumors start flying, which is even better.

|8.16.06 @ 6:32PM|#

Robert-
While no expert on assassination (except for that summer job in '95), I think we should hesistate to make it sound so simple. I'm sure the USA would love to pursue such a policy towards Bin Laden, and that hasn't worked out so well [see also: Castro, Fidel] . Granted, Hizbollah's leaders are more likely to be located in a specific area but even if they were to start "dropping like flies from unknown causes", don't you think everyone would assume the cause to be Israel? The Muslim world as a whole blames the west and Jews in particular for bad crops, earthquakes, and the common cold. I hardly think some sort of plausible deniability approach is going to achieve anything here.

|8.16.06 @ 6:41PM|#

Thats why the sniper is the most responsible man in the chain. No "collateral" damage.

|8.16.06 @ 6:51PM|#

It's probably a little early to decide who "won" or "lost" the war in Lebanon. The Arabs have a long tradition of claiming they have "won" a conflict if they are still around to discuss it after the confrontation.

Thus Egypt "won" the 1956 Sinai battle the six-day and the Yom-Kippur war. Likewise Saddam Hussein "won" the mother-of-all-battles in the first (or 2nd) gulf war.

In this recent confrontation Israel has probably gained two triumphs. They have got both the UN involved and the state of Lebanon committed to deploy peacekeeping troops to southern Lebanon.

In an ideal world Israel will have got the state of Lebanon and the international community to commit to & guarantee a peaceful southern Lebanon.

If either - or more likely both fail keep Hezbollah in check then Israel will have a much stronger argument when responding in kind.

More pertinently if the laughable 15'000 troops the UN seems to be prepared to contribute suffer from their failure to reign in Hezbollah - enjoying the same kind of humiliation - or worse - visited on the Dutch in Srebrenica then the international community may suddenly be more amendable to the Israelis taking a large scale solution to the problems they face.

|8.16.06 @ 6:56PM|#

I predict Ford will die before Castro.

|8.16.06 @ 7:27PM|#

"Thats why the sniper is the most responsible man in the chain. No 'collateral' damage."

Well, except for when "the chick got in the way": http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/06/le.00.html (The original NYT story doesn't appear to be accessible on-line.)

|8.16.06 @ 7:32PM|#

"In this recent confrontation Israel has probably gained two triumphs. They have got both the UN involved ..."

How is getting the UN involved EVER a victory? Unless, of course, you're a terrorist organization, a walking human rights violation, a heartless despot, or all three?

|8.16.06 @ 8:11PM|#

Monday morning quarterbacking a war is like Monday morning quarterbacking a game of pick-up sticks.

|8.16.06 @ 9:29PM|#

"Well, except for when "the chick got in the way"
I'd say the man is completely responsible, and will have to live with it.
Snipers live with it. Infantry lives with it. Cannoncockers, rocketeers, gunship crew, fighter/bomber crew dont have to. Bomber crew. They can & do say they aint responsible.
Snipers dont have that luxury.

|8.16.06 @ 10:35PM|#

Yes, I too have been a bit confused about all the claims that Israel "lost" this war. I have also seen various western talking-heads claiming things such as "Hezbollah fought well/skillfully/valiantly", which is an absolute lie that should NEVER be applied to any army that violates every rule of war and deliberately uses innocents and their deaths as tools. Taking pot shots from behind your families and then whining when they get hurt is the absolute opposite of "dignified" or "valiant". Anyone who says anything other than that Hezbollah fights like cowardly chicken-shits is feeding their propganda machine.

Israel did gain one thing in this war - a resolution which Hezbollah is sure to utterly ignore. This strengthens their hands in the next round.

|8.16.06 @ 11:59PM|#

Once again, Israel lost a war. But Israel can keep losing wars like this forever.

Syria won't mess with them. Lebanon won't mess with them. Egypt won't dole out any overwhelming assaults. Jordan will take a pass. Even Iran is probably thinking twice about voicing any specific ridiculous military goals.

I think a good contingent of the "Israel lost" crowd is made up of people who are trying desperately not to make a comparison with the US/Iraq situation. Israel blew up a lot of stuff, figured it could do no more good without doing too much bad, and then it left the country in the hands of more responsible parties (the non-Hezbollah folks). The US went into Iraq, kicked ass, did some good, and then hung around and did everything it could to keep the Iraqis from taking any meaningful steps toward sane self rule.

Of course that's cynical, but I'm suspicious of any invasion that puts more planning into the Frosted Flakes supply routes than the maintenance of civil law.

|8.17.06 @ 12:23AM|#

No matter what Israel does, no matter how much restraint or care it exercises, 99.9 percent of Muslims will consider any action by Israel to be a war-crime or "genocide." (It's probably around 60 percent of the European population).

Wherever did you get those fascinating statistics?

|8.17.06 @ 2:00AM|#

Over at the libertarian anti-war site, antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo also has an intriguing take on this.

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9533

|8.17.06 @ 2:44AM|#

The Israeli military might of only fought Hezbollah to a stand-off but it sure beat the Hell outa those Lebanese civilians.

Surely more seeds of terrorism against us have been planted in the bitterness of the Lebanese people who know that it was American tax dollars in the form of aid to the Israeli military that purchased the death and destruction that has been visited upon them. What could possibly sooth the burning resentment toward us of a Lebanese man and woman whose child has been killed or injured by weaponry that our government has paid for?

We need to stop this suicidal insanity and tell congress to quit giving the Israeli government our money. Contact your rep and senators:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Even if it wasn't unethical and unprincipled (especially libertarian principals), taxpayers being forced to finance the Israeli military is impractical. Israel is a wealthy (on par with the mean of Europe), industrialized nation.

|8.17.06 @ 6:45AM|#

The Israeli military might of only fought Hezbollah to a stand-off but it sure beat the Hell outa those Lebanese civilians.

My point is that Israel never showed the might of their army. They fought with two hands tied behind their back (and maybe only one on the final weekend) as they attempted to destroy as little of Lebanon and its civilians as they could.

Hezbollah gets NO honor at all until they fight by something approximating the Geneva conventions - by wearing uniforms, avoiding civilians on both sides, not using civilian buildings (hospitals, mosques, schools, homes) to launch attacks from, etc. When they want to come out and fight like men rather than fight from behind skirts, then they have the chance of claiming to be honorable. Until then, they are hypocritical cowards - and we should have the courage to say this.

|8.17.06 @ 8:21AM|#

Surely more seeds of terrorism against us have been planted in the bitterness...What could possibly sooth the burning resentment toward us...

Nothing of course! Resentment isn;t athletes foot...it is a personal issue that imprisons the person who requires others to help them get over it...Frankly, I don't care about their burning resentment...I have plenty of my own to overcome...except of course that I'm not occupying my life trying to wipe others from the face of the earth as the means to soothe my burning resentment.

And to your fun mixed metaphor...When the seeds stop turning into weeds, maybe we can quit using roundup...til then, good luck trying to feed the family man that herbicide-free field of yours.

|8.17.06 @ 8:25AM|#

Should have been...

And to your fun mixed metaphor...When the seeds stop turning into weeds, maybe we can quit using roundup...til then, good luck trying to feed the family of man from that herbicide-free field of yours.

Oh nevermind.

|8.17.06 @ 9:39AM|#

Good job, Rory. I thought switching from "eliminating the threat of a WMD attack" to "the Iraqis standing up" was a pretty dramatic change in the definition of victory, but to go from "the elimination of Hezbollah" to "getting the UN involved" - that's just brilliant.

We all know how much Israel love the UN.

The Israeli defenders keep saying that the UN's involvement will "strengthen Israel's hand next time around" or "then the international community may suddenly be more amendable to the Israelis taking a large scale solution to the problems they face."

Don't you get it? Israel HAD that strong hand when this war began. Everyone, the US press, the Europeans, everyone was shrugging their shoulders and saying "It's sad, but what's Israel supposed to do?" They already had exactly what you are declaring to be the fruits of their glorious victory, before they dropped the first bomb, and they blew it! And now, maybe, in few years, they might get it back - that's your victory?

|8.17.06 @ 9:45AM|#

"[Israel] attempted to destroy as little of Lebanon and its civilians as they could."

LOL, Chad. That must explain why you spent the war writing comments about the guilt of the Lebanese people and government, and justifying attacks on them.

Israeli pilots must really suck, if an "attempt to destroy as little of Lebanon and its civilians as they could" produced a million-person refugee crisis, who now can't find a bridge to cross the river to get back home. Who woulda thunk that so many rockets fired at military targets would miss and distroy supermarkets, roads, and bridges?

Gathara|8.17.06 @ 10:26AM|#

"Once again, Israel lost a war. But Israel can keep losing wars like this forever..."

No it can't. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iran were never likely to start, much less win, any war with Israel. However, they are more than capable of making life a misery for the Israelis.

The fact that 30,000 troops, supported by artillery, a massive air campaign and the latest technology failed to crush 10,000 guerillas hiding among the civillians, also raises questions as to the ability of Israel to pull off another Six-Day War type triumph.

Finally, someone explain this to me. What did Israel think it could achieve in 30+ days of fighting that it failed to achieve in 18 years of occupation?

|8.17.06 @ 11:06AM|#

My sympathy for the Lebanese people is absolutely zero at this point; part and parcel with terrorists using civilian shields is allowing yourself to be used as a shield. I have no love lost for people who watched terrorists de facto run their country forever and saw rockets in their backyard and said "meh, at least I can still go to the market and have a semi-normal kind of life".

|8.17.06 @ 11:45AM|#

Joe -- are you quibbling with Israel's execution of the war, or the fact that they invaded at all? What Israel had before the first bomb was dropped was victimhood (which is the ultimate prize for some).

|8.17.06 @ 11:51AM|#

Joe -- are you quibbling with Israel's execution of the war, or the fact that they invaded at all? What Israel had before the first bomb was dropped was victimhood (which is the ultimate prize for some).

|8.17.06 @ 11:52AM|#

Joe -- are you quibbling with Israel's execution of the war, or the fact that they invaded at all? What Israel had before the first bomb was dropped was victimhood (which is the ultimate prize for some).

|8.17.06 @ 1:53PM|#

When they want to come out and fight like men rather than fight from behind skirts, then they have the chance of claiming to be honorable. Until then, they are hypocritical cowards - and we should have the courage to say this.

Israel killed far more Lebanese civilians in this recent bombing more than the number of Israeli civilians Hezbollah killed ever. Look at the percentage of combatants-to-civilians-killed ratio and you will come to the conculsion who the real cowards were. Levelling apartment buildings in Beirut isn't less cowardly than launching a rocket into Haifa, unles you are blinded by your ideology. Don't give me this BS about Hezbollah hiding between civilians... Israel bombed ambulances and UN posts and shelters.

|8.17.06 @ 3:55PM|#

"Israeli pilots must really suck, if an 'attempt to destroy as little of Lebanon and its civilians as they could' produced a million-person refugee crisis, who now can't find a bridge to cross the river to get back home. Who woulda thunk that so many rockets fired at military targets would miss and distroy supermarkets, roads, and bridges?" - joe

Wow, it's sad to see a guy completely go off the rails of reality like that. It's mind-boggling to see people bemoan civilian casualties incurred during operations in which a militia uses civilians (willing, if not complicit, civilians in many cases) as human shields.

I never thought of joe, who reads military history, as the kind of guy who would bemoan attacking enemy rocket launch sites. Civilian casualties are sad, but that's the price civilians pay when they live cheek and jowl with Hezbollah types who are launching rocket attacks.

|8.17.06 @ 3:55PM|#

"Israeli pilots must really suck, if an 'attempt to destroy as little of Lebanon and its civilians as they could' produced a million-person refugee crisis, who now can't find a bridge to cross the river to get back home. Who woulda thunk that so many rockets fired at military targets would miss and distroy supermarkets, roads, and bridges?" - joe

Wow, it's sad to see a guy completely go off the rails of reality like that. It's mind-boggling to see people bemoan civilian casualties incurred during operations in which a militia uses civilians (willing, if not complicit, civilians in many cases) as human shields.

I never thought of joe, who reads military history, as the kind of guy who would bemoan attacking enemy rocket launch sites. Civilian casualties are sad, but that's the price civilians pay when they live cheek and jowl with Hezbollah types who are launching rocket attacks.

|8.17.06 @ 4:02PM|#

The 3:55 post was mine... Sorry for any confusion.

anon, where are you getting your "facts" about #'s killed and ratios of civilian-to-military?

|8.17.06 @ 4:07PM|#

The 3:55 post was mine... Sorry for any confusion.

anon, where are you getting your "facts" about numbers killed and ratios of civilian-to-military deaths?

I'd guess that one of the reasons for the disparities is taht Hezbollah is unable to accruately target where its rockets hit, which limits both Israeli casualties overall and increases the proportion of IDF-to-Israeli civilian casualties - because Hezbollah is less capable of targeting civilians as effectively as they are of shooting at IDF soldiers in proximity to them.

There are also more Lebanese civilian casualties because Hezbollah hides amongst the civilian population and launches rocket attacks from those locations. According to the principle of proportionality, some civilian casualties are acceptable in such a situation, particularly considering that Hezbollah is targeting Israeli population centers rather than military targets.

Targeting Hezbollah rocket launch sites to protect Israeli civilians doesn't seem like a bad thing, even if it takes out some Lebanese civilians. If a militia group in the U.S. was launching rocket attacks at Canadian population centers, I'd not shed a tear for Minnesotan civilian casualties who chose to live in proximity and were being used by the militia as human shields.

|8.17.06 @ 4:12PM|#

Damn you server squirrels!!!!

|8.17.06 @ 5:35PM|#

It's mind-boggling to see people bemoan civilian casualties incurred during operations in which a militia uses civilians (willing, if not complicit, civilians in many cases) as human shields.

Do you include the children as being willing, if not complicit? Do you include the people who were killed as they were trying to flee as "human shields?" Do you include the people who were no where near rocket sites or Hezbollah locations as "human shields?" Do you also consider it "mind-boggling" when people bemoan the tragedy at Waco, where a militia surrounded itself with women and children?

When they want to come out and fight like men rather than fight from behind skirts, then they have the chance of claiming to be honorable. Until then, they are hypocritical cowards - and we should have the courage to say this.

Despite my disgust at the way Israel has handled things, I completely agree with this statement.

|8.17.06 @ 5:51PM|#

It's mind-boggling to see people bemoan civilian casualties incurred during operations in which a militia uses civilians (willing, if not complicit, civilians in many cases) as human shields.

Do you include the children as being willing, if not complicit? Do you include the people who were killed as they were trying to flee as "human shields?" Do you include the people who were no where near rocket sites or Hezbollah locations as "human shields?" Do you also consider it "mind-boggling" when people bemoan the tragedy at Waco, where a militia surrounded itself with women and children?

When they want to come out and fight like men rather than fight from behind skirts, then they have the chance of claiming to be honorable. Until then, they are hypocritical cowards - and we should have the courage to say this.

Despite my disgust at the way Israel has handled things, I completely agree with this statement.

|8.17.06 @ 5:54PM|#

well, lessee. During the 80's it came out that all new major Chinese warships were fitted with state of the art Westinghouse & GE main propulsion units. Furtermore, the electronics on all Chinese night & bad weather inteceptors were provided by US, uh, "contractors". This during the glorious reign of Reagan.
Why not , under the same , um, conservative , high order principles, supply Hez with state of the art artillery, rocket guidance systems, gunships, naval forces- hey, its the MARKET!- and then they wont be reduced to shooting off WWII era ballistic unguided rockets.
Yep, under every collapsed building smeared with dead civs lies a suspect with a pistol.

|8.17.06 @ 6:56PM|#

"Do you include the children as being willing, if not complicit?" - Les

Nope. Next inane question, please.

"Do you include the people who were killed as they were trying to flee as 'human shields?'" - Les

Depends, quite frankly, on whether or not they are people who have chosen to live with Hezbollah. Next inane question, please.

"Do you include the people who were no where near rocket sites or Hezbollah locations as 'human shields?'" - Les

No, I see them as unfortunate casualties. I shouldn't even bother explaining the obvious, however... While the loss of 1 innocent life is a very bad thing indeed, if your nation harbors a militia that gets into a shooting war with another nation, don't be surprised if that nation starts conducting military operations against that militia. The fact that the militia is operating in your country means it's your country that is getting bombed. Military operations inevitably cause civilian casualties, which, tho tragic, is certainly no less tragic than Israeli casualties which IDF military operations are conducted to defend. Next inane question.

"Do you also consider it 'mind-boggling' when people bemoan the tragedy at Waco, where a militia surrounded itself with women and children?" - Les

If you honestly can't tell the difference between military operations against foreign agressor forces and a civilian, domestic law enforcement operation dealing with a nation's own citizens, then I think it says a lot about you and that what it says about you is not at all complimentary.

|8.17.06 @ 7:54PM|#

Wow, rob, I merely asked you sincere questions, hoping to better understand your position, and you responded to each one with an arrogant, condescending attitude.

I was going to follow-up and ask if you consider children to be civilians, but then why should I engage someone in conversation who's obviously not interested in having one? I think the way you converse says a lot more about you than the questions I asked say about me.

|8.17.06 @ 8:34PM|#

Wow, Les, I genuinely got the feeling that those questions were asked in a sincere effort to increase understanding... Allow me to point out that I answered those questions in exactly as earnest a manner as I believed them to be asked.

In other words, you got those answers because you asked leading questions that were about as genuinely interested in who I consider to be civilians as I am interested in exploring moral equivalency arguments intended to excuse barbaric attacks on civilians by a militia that hides behind civilians and targets Israeli civilians.

Bottom line: There's very little chance that I'm going to accept the presumption that the forces conducting the actual hostilities are equivalent. Yes, people are dying on both sides. But the legitimate operations of a nation's standing military, conducting operations in accordance with the theory of proportionality, is always going to have the moral high ground (regardless of body count) against an insurgency movement targeting civilian population centers and hiding behind civilians.

|8.17.06 @ 8:54PM|#

Allow me to point out that I answered those questions in exactly as earnest a manner as I believed them to be asked.

Sorry if I find that hard to believe. In none of my questions did I insult your beliefs or your character. I didn't describe your statements as "inane."

In other words, you got those answers because you asked leading questions that were about as genuinely interested in who I consider to be civilians as I am interested in exploring moral equivalency arguments intended to excuse barbaric attacks on civilians by a militia that hides behind civilians and targets Israeli civilians.

You're a terrible psychic, so you should avoid attempting to read the minds of people you don't know. I have never excused barbaric tactics of Hezbollah or any other terrorist organization (as the last statement in my post of questions to you clearly illustrates). I was attempting to ask questions about moral ways to fight an enemy. That those questions convinced you that I hold beliefs that I've never held indicates that your thoughts on this issue are more reflexive than reflective.

Bottom line: There's very little chance that I'm going to accept the presumption that the forces conducting the actual hostilities are equivalent. Yes, people are dying on both sides. But the legitimate operations of a nation's standing military, conducting operations in accordance with the theory of proportionality, is always going to have the moral high ground (regardless of body count) against an insurgency movement targeting civilian population centers and hiding behind civilians.

Well, this raises more questions. What are "legitimate operations?" Were the civilian deaths on each side "proportional"? Also, and perhaps most importantly, what was accomplished with this strategy? Is Israel safer? Does is have fewer or more enemies? Was the operation strategically sound?

Bottom line: I don't think it makes me a radical to believe that when children are killed while miles away from any enemy threat, they deserve a better response than "how unfortunate," followed by a justification of the action and promises to do more of the same (it's war, so it's going to happen!).

|8.18.06 @ 12:26AM|#

Les - Sorry I mis-read your mind. Wikipedia has the following useful bits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_Warfare

Also quite good bits on Westphalia, Hague and Geneva conventions.