Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
(UPDATED) Who is in charge in Lebanon?
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, August 17, 2006

Although Lebanese troops are now moving into the south of Lebanon, it remains an open question as to who is actually in charge in Lebanon:
Hezbollah, widely seen here as a victor in the month-long war, was reluctant to cede complete military control over south Lebanon to the army, which stood by as Hezbollah militiamen battled Israeli forces. On the other side, some Lebanese politicians, particularly Maronite Christians, were eager to get started on disarming Hezbollah, not only in the border zone but in the entire country. In a sign of the postwar balance of power, they did not prevail.

Hezbollah asserted itself politically as soon as the cease-fire began. Fighters put down their guns and turned into relief organizers, and the group immediately started handing out money to families for reconstructing their destroyed homes. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora was outraged to see the government get outstripped in such a visible way, according to a political official who saw his display of anger.
Hezbollah has access to readily available cash supplied by Iran. And of course, now, after taking action which precipitated the Israeli response and the resultant destruction of much of southern Lebanon's infrastructure, it plans on using that cash to rebuild the area, further casting itself in the "hero" and "victor" role in the south and usurping the duties of the government.

Of course, such activity directly undermines the authority and sovereignty of the Lebanese government. But with an unwillingness to actually confront Hezbollah, what in the world, other than angry words and "visible outrage" can the government do? Right now, at least according to the cite, Hezbollah has won the political battle in Lebanon. Lebanon cannot survive as a nation with a rival authority within its midst. As they used to say in the old West, "there ain't enough room in town for both of 'em". Lebanon is close to a "fish or cut bait" decision.

In the short-term, the only possible way the situation might change is with the introduction of the 15,000 UN peacekeepers who actually have a mandate to disarm Hezbollah and run it north of the Litani River. For whatever reason, I have serious doubts that part of the agreement will be vigorously enforced. My guess is they'll be happy to keep Hezbollah from firing rockets into Israel, something from which (at least for the time being) Hezbollah will gladly refrain (until they regain their strength).

The proposed composition of the UN force is enough to temper any hope that they'll actually confront Hezbollah. France, Italy, Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia. The latter two have no diplomatic relations with Israel (and are unacceptable to Israel as well). None of the countries listed have a vested interest in ensuring Hezbollah is disarmed nor do they have a history of opposing Hezbollah's existence.

Nope. This will eventually have to come down to a confrontation between the government of Lebanon and Hezbollah. What needs to happen very soon within the Lebanese government, to put it crudely, is to grow a pair and do what is necessary to take back the south of Lebanon and establish their authority once and for all. Expressions of outrage simply aren't going to cut it. The question remains, do they have the ability? And even if they have the ability, do they have the will?

As I've pointed out, one of the results of the cease-fire is Lebanon is no longer afforded the luxury of claiming it "isn't responsible" for what happens in it's south. They now have the onus of keeping Hezbollah from attacking Israel. And if they don't, it is they, justly, who will suffer the consequences.

UPDATE: Ralph Peters thinks the latest dust-up was only round one of the war and that Israel lost it badly. I disagree because of the reasons I've discussed previously. However two points he makes need to be emphasized:
The U.N. resolution called for Hezbollah to disarm - a fantasy only a diplomat could believe. As soon as the refugees began flowing southward and packing the battlefield, Nasrallah told the international community to take a hike. He knows that U.N. peacekeepers won't try to disarm his forces - if they ever show up - and the Lebanese military not only won't try, but couldn't do it.
I pretty much agree with this, but unlike Peters, I don't see that as a particular disadvantage for Israel. It elevates the problem and shifts the responsibility. Hezbollah is finally Lebanon and the UN's problem. It will be interesting to see how that plays out vis a vis Iran and Syria.

Militarily:
Politicians and generals everywhere, repeat after me: "Air power alone can't win wars; you can't defeat terror on the cheap with technology; and (in the timeless words of Nathan Bedford Forrest) War means fighting, and fighting means killing."
Good grief. How many times in how many ways does this have to be emphasized? Air power is a combat multiplier. It can be an extremely powerful one, and, if properly used, can tip the balance for victory. But air power has never and will never win a war by itself.

Another interesting point by Peters:
Israel tried to fight humanely. Hezbollah was out to win at any cost. The result was inevitable.
That too is becoming more and more clear to military planners. And despite the fact that Israel tried to fight humanely, it got no credit for doing so. In fact, the international media and pundits discovered a new word to apply to their effort: disproportionate.

As an example of how Israel has indeed tried to do the right thing in terms of proportionality, here is an example:

Show/Hide

Their attempt a proportionality - fighting an ethical war - ended in failure. How does one win battles like that when only one side tries to keep to the rules?

As Peters warns, stay tuned for round 2.

(HT: Soccer Dad)

UPDATE II:
A little political ground truth from Lebanese blogs.

First:
Hezbollah is moving quickly to aid the citizens of Dahieh and southern Lebanon.

Professionals are volunteering their services to help those in need, while young people are offering their labor to help remove refuse and rebuild.

Given this effort, it is highly unlikely that the Shia will forsake Hezbollah. First off, there's no alternative in Lebanon's sectarian system. Secondly, they are tangibly gaining from Hezbollah.

If the Shia fully support Hezbollah, there is no way that the Lebanese government can reprimand Hezbollah for their actions or even think about disarming Hezbollah without a major sectarian battle.
He who moves quickest gets the credit (no matter what they did to cause the mess, apparently). And Hezbollah, with its Iranian bankers, is in the position to move more quickly than the Lebanese government. As this blogger notes, this builds popular support for Hezbollah and makes disarming them much more difficult.

Another view:
Our army is finally deploying in the south after half a decade of absence. Many Lebanese are cheering the significant event, but to others this is simply another extension of an amorphous blob of vagueness.

The skeptics don’t know how the Lebanese army will deal with Hezbollah’s weapons. Even Lebanese Ministers like Pierre Jmayyel and Joe Sarkis (representatives of Christian parties) thought the process was too “vague.”

The Lebanese government's position is that the Army will deploy in the south and that it will be the sole barer of weapons. The Government nevertheless assures us that no confrontation will happen between the army and their “brothers and families in the resistance.”

To a lot of people there’s a big “You’ll have to trust us” vibe coming out of the Government. People and international bodies don’t like that. They want clarity, guarantees, checks and balances. Why would they otherwise trust the south with their soldiers? Why would the Lebanese invest again in the south if there’s no assurance that the skirmishes won’t happen again? A lot of people are threatened by Hezbollah’s “hidden weapons” position.

For those familiar with the Lebanese intractable politics however, the picture is much clearer. This is the best possible outcome for anyone wishing for the Lebanese government to spread its authority southwards. The Lebanese political landscape is so filled with nuances and landmines that the government is run like a family business: Any important decision has to be taken with absolute unanimity, or else we’re in trouble.
And I'd say they're in trouble. But the characterization of the government as being like a "family business" seems pretty apt. Hezbollah being the brother that constantly does things which put the business in trouble, but the other brothers and sisters are loath to confront him about it or take action.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Who is in charge in Lebanon?
The....Joooos, because they’re in charge of EVERYTHING?
They now have the onus of keeping Hezbollah from attacking Israel. And if they don’t, it is they, justly, who will suffer the consequences.

That "onus’ll" sure cause’em worry. OK McQ believe what you will. All that will happen next time is a reprise of THIS time, with the same folks squawking about "State-sponsored Terrorism, being supported by the US taxpayer and committed by Israel" only this time the Lebanese Army will be bombed too. We’ll get Green Helmet and the same old lady lamenting the loss of her house/apartment/yacht/Oldsmobile, PLUS the lamentations of the widows and orphans of the Lebanese forces killed.

I only hope that after intense air and arty prep fires that the Israelis commit troops in overwhelming numbers EARLY on rather than dribbling them in.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
How does one win battles like that when only one side tries to keep to the rules?
Simply put, they do not.

You may recall, that I argued in these spaces against the attempts to limit ourselves to ’civilized warfare’, saying that if we were going to be the only ones sticking by the rules, we’d lose.

You may even recall the reaction I got, at the time.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
This is a truly worthy analysis. The ethical differences between Israel and terorist organizations like Hezbollah or Hamas are vast. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, for instance, has declared (it has been well reported) that Hezbollah will win because “Jews love life while we (Nasrallah’s followers) love death.”

We have no idea of the numbers of Hezbollah operatives who were killed, because Hezbollah is not part of a national government but rather a secretive terrorist organization that has hidden all the facts about itself, how many deaths, how many wounded, how many Lebanese civilians wounded because Hezbollah purposely used Lebanese civilians as shields, giving not a damn for how many civilian deaths, women and children, they caused.

Not a single one of the nearly 4,000 rockets Hezbollah fired at Israel was aimed at a military target. They fired missiles constructed will ball bearings to produce maximum death, and aimed them solely at Israel’s civilian population.

Finally, it is fantasy to think that Hezbollah is a stand alone organization. Whether you call it terrorist or freedom fighter, Hezbollah is armed with the best weapons, war-technology and defensive systems money can buy. This is an army any high-tech state would be proud of and it is not funded by guys with tin cups begging on street corners. If, as Hezbollah claims, it is a charitable institution, it is one that hands out butter while using the people it supposedly helps as human shields. At best, Hezbollah gives not a damn for Lebanese citizens except for the propaganda value of their deaths. At worst, Hezbollah actively sought the death and destruction in Lebanon in order to obtain gruesome images to broadcast on Al Manar and Al Jazeera.
 
Written By: decampe
URL: http://
I pretty much agree with this, but unlike Peters, I don’t see that as a particular disadvantage for Israel. It elevates the problem and shifts the responsibility. Hezbollah is finally Lebanon and the UN’s problem. It will be interesting to see how that plays out vis a vis Iran and Syria.

I don’t see why this would matter. Hezbollah has been Lebanon’s and the UN’s responsibility for years, and both have successfully not only shirked their responsibilities, but, by action and inaction, aided and abetted Hezbollah.

Why should we think that the Lebanese leadership or the UN is suddenly going to start taking responsibility now?

And regardless of the responsibility issue, Hezbollah is mostly an Israeli problem; they’ll re-arm, re-group, and no doubt resume their attacks on Israel in a near future. Neither the Lebanese nor the UN is going to stop this from happening.
 
Written By: Fredrik Nyman
URL: http://
Their attempt a proportionality - fighting an ethical war - ended in failure. How does one win battles like that when only one side tries to keep to the rules?

If they lost the war, it’s because regardless of whether they attempted to be proportionate, they failed. Hizballah killed about 50 civilians and Israel killed about 1000. When you kill more than ten times as many civilians as the bad guys, you’re not going to win the PR war.

If Hizballah had killed 50 civilians and Israel had chosen a method of response that killed, say, four civilians, they probably would have won the PR war.

It’s not complicated.

And it’s not going to be any different next time. And killing even more Lebanese civilians, contrary to the delusions of some, would not have achieved any greater success. The reason the ground war was a better idea than the air war was precisely because it was more discriminate.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Believe it or not, this is real diplomatic progress. When this inevitably fails, and Israel protects themselves again, they will be able to tell those handwringers and peacenicks to F* k off.

Don’t like it Kofi? Too bad, you had your chance. Don’t like it Jacques? You declined to send any meaningful troops to UNIFIL. Don’t like it Lebanon? Tough sh*t, you had the job and bungled it.

Of course, I’d chuck all this diplo. progress in the rubbish bin for Israel crushing these terrorists. But I’m putting a good face on it for now.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
...but unlike Peters, I don’t see that as a particular disadvantage for Israel. It elevates the problem and shifts the responsibility. Hezbollah is finally Lebanon and the UN’s problem. It will be interesting to see how that plays out vis a vis Iran and Syria.
Man this IS starting to sound like the 1930’s all over again. McQ you remind me of the zeks in the Gulag who wrote to Stalin, "If ONLY Comrade Stalin KNEW." More fools they, Comrade Stalin DID KNOW, he approved!

You keep acting as if by making the UN, France, and Lebanon "responsible" that something is going to change. I would posit that like Stalin, they knew and that THEY DON’T CARE WHAT HIZB’ALLAH DID OR DOES. NOT ONE THING WILL CHANGE.

You seem convinced that "THIS TIME" when the feces hits the rotary oscillator the World will sit up and take notice... well they’ve had the truth before them for 40-60 years and they haven’t given a rat’s patoot...I don’t see what some supposed "responsibility" is going to do. In short they never cared before and they won’t care now. Because Lebanon isn’t France, or Botswana or most any other UN nation and so if the UN "Fails" in it’s responsibility, SO WHAT?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Hizballah killed about 50 civilians and Israel killed about 1000. When you kill more than ten times as many civilians as the bad guys, you’re not going to win the PR war.
Well it wasn’t because of a lack of trying on Hezbollah’s part, but you’re right, ignorance is bliss and not paying enough attention to the particulars of why those numbers seem so "disproportional" (not to mention their ignorance as to what that actually means) as well as the inherent bias of many against Israel made it a foregone conclusion that Hezbollah would win the PR battle.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Don’t like it Kofi? Too bad, you had your chance. Don’t like it Jacques? You declined to send any meaningful troops to UNIFIL. Don’t like it Lebanon? Tough sh*t, you had the job and bungled it.
Yup ... that’s kinda the point, and it puts the next "PR" battle in an entirely new context. And it seems anymore that is where the real meaningful war is being fought.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Terrorists win the PR war either way according to Glasnot’s rule:

Kill less than your enemy, be seen as showing restraint.

Kill lots of your enemy, be seen as strong and bring attention to your cause.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Man this IS starting to sound like the 1930’s all over again. McQ you remind me of the zeks in the Gulag who wrote to Stalin, "If ONLY Comrade Stalin KNEW." More fools they, Comrade Stalin DID KNOW, he approved!
Joe, what can I say. It’s not my problem you don’t understand what I’m saying. And I’m tired of trying to explain it to you.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I understand it McQ...it’s YOU who has the lack of understanding. You keep thinking anyone gives a flying F&c9 about what happens in Lebanon. You keep acting as if the UN cares or will care or will be held responisble for something and that the Lebanese will be thought of as anything more than "victims" of Israeli "aggression."

I’ll make you a monetary wager, McQ... that when the war starts again, there will be NO APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE IN PR SPIN OR DIPLOMATIC CANT, between 2006 and 20XX. The exact terms we can negotiate. But I’ll make it a $25 wager, I’m a poor person who lacks understanding.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
You keep thinking anyone gives a flying F&c9 about what happens in Lebanon
Joe - I think the point is that the one group that actually gave a f&c9 about what happened in Lebanon was the Israeli’s. International pressure built up against them and they gave way. When (not if - WHEN) Hezbollah attacks Israel again, Israel will respond with (best Samuel Jackson/Jules voice) "Great Vengeance and FURIOUS Anger..." and that’ll be the end of Hezbollah as a group that warrants consideration.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Yeah ... they’ll "go medieval" on them and still win the PR war.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Yeah ... they’ll "go medieval" on them and still win the PR war.
Hope springs eternal.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
glasnost,

I have a hard time following your arguments on this issue because I don’t have a good understanding of your position. I’m genuinely interested in understanding it. What do you think Israel should have done and/or what should it do next time?

My view is that Israel really has few choices. I think the PR war is important, but I don’t think Israel can ever win the PR war. Their enemy is closed, with reports from them being taken at face value, or with skepticism limited to knowing they are lying but not to what degree. Getting to the truth is too difficult on that side while reports from Israel can be confirmed. For example, if Israel has 3 civilians killed we know they were civilians. If the other side has 3 civilians killed, we don’t know if those civilians were firing rockets as they were killed. Regardless of what Israel does, from air or ground, I think their enemy will adapt their PR to come out ahead.

If they can never win the PR war, what should they do if rockets are fired into their territory?

If it’s possible for them to win the PR war, how would they do that?

I’m willing to have my mind changed. I just don’t see what they can do other than ignore the PR war to kill the enemy guided by their own morals, or disband their country, or accept that they will be steadily attacked from outside and do nothing about it.
 
Written By: Scout
URL: http://
War means fighting, and fighting means killing."
War means killing, capturing or degrading the enemy.

One more time with the airpower. There is no indication that Israel can identify who amoung the Shia are Hezbollah or support Hezbollah. Israel occupied Southern Lebanon for 18 years and Hezbollah survived that occupation. Hezbollah does not engage in open combat against Israeli forces, prefering to act as a guerilla force attacking weak and isolated Israeli units. In a best case scenario invading Israel ground troops are tasked to locate and destroy Hezbollah weapon stashes, this means spreading out Israeli force across Southern Lebanon (isolating and weakening the force). Even if Israel wins every confrontation with Hezbollah and kills all the guerillas attacking them, Hezbollah still has the support, logistics, command, training staff not involved in attacks and preparing the next one. Only if Israel can gain human intel on where these Hezb are is it worthwhile going into Southern Lebanon.

The advantage of airpower is firepower, not precision or technology. An example of which is the Invasion of Japan not occuring because airpower won the war. The problem in Southern Lebanon was a lack of political will to use the firepower available and a lack of intel to allow the precision attacks to be effective.

Lack of intel meant the ground forces and airpower were both ineffective. If it is assumed the intel situation will not improve, the only way forward is to admit that Hezbollah is way too good at hiding amoung the trees (the local Shia) and remedy this by burning down ’the forest’. The easiest way to do this is with firepower from a standoff position. Sending in troops to log ’the forest’ face to face is going to be inefficient, slow and painful.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
War means killing, capturing or degrading the enemy.
Well yeah, that’s the sort of "official" definition, Unaha, but I think what Peters was getting at was the possible "casualty aversion" evident in the way Israel waged this war. A sort of "war is hell and people are going to die, so accept it and get on with it" appeal to go full tilt or not at all.
Lack of intel meant the ground forces and airpower were both ineffective.
Well that and they sort of piece mealed their effort. A few here, a little there. No shock and firepower demonstration, no real effort at combined arms and joint operations, no penetration and exploitation, just sort of a lot of half-hearted movements to contact then go to ground and call in the fireworks before the bad guys melt away. All indications are that militarily, it was poorly generaled (I won’t go as far as to say it was poorly fought because I simply don’t know how well the IDF actually fought Hezbollah).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Scout:

I’m not always advancing my personal argument for what Israel should have done. My belief that, by the most literal reading of the concepts and words, that Israel’s response was disproportionate is not the same as my opinion of what they should have done.

But, I don’t think that the PR war is unwinabble for Israel. Al-Zarqawi lost a PR was against the US, not just in this country, but in the civilized world. For one example. Hizballah is, use your own interepretation, smarter, saner, and/or genuinely less nihilisticly focused on death and destruction (a difference of degree) than Al-Zarqawi. That makes the PR war harder to win, but not impossible.

And losing PR wars affects behavior. Hamas has caused the Palestinians to lose serious ground to Israel in the PR war, with the suicide bombings. Definitely in the US and Europe. And while at it hasn’t clearly damaged them internally, Palestinian opinion fluctuates, and Hamas responds to it. In the latter half of 1998 and in 1999, Hamas carried out zero terror attacks. Palestinian public opinion was pro-peace, when it looked like they were going to get something about it.

This is the sort of energy you use to end wars and insurgencies.

So what should Israel have done? Applied as much military force as possible to Hizballah guerilla fighters in direct combat as possible **without** killing lots of bystanders and fence-sitters. A black op would have been a decent response. The direct ground combat doesn’t seem to have killed a lot of civilians and seemed to be capable of taking territory. Either of these without the air war might have caused Israel to not lose the PR war, or at least kept it close. Doing so might have resulted in a more effective deployment of the Lebanese army and a stronger UN resolution.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Glasnost,

I would argue that most of the civilians were probably killed as collateral damage when Israel struck the following:

Hezbullah offices

Rocket Launchers hiding in civilian areas
These would seem to be perfectly legit military targets. The problem is the media simply runs reports from stringers who interview a few local yokels. (Though they did catch the doctor who admitted that there had been a rocket launcher near his bombed out hospital.

Israel telephoned the friggin’ airport and gave them notice that they were to be bombed for chrisakes...what more do you want?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Harun: some discrete arguments.

on whether or not Hizbullah offices and rockets launchers are legit military targets:

This is only one point on the four-point ethical test (itself imperfect, though not bad) McQ brought up here a few weeks ago. Furthermore- are we talking Nasrallah’s headquarters, or one of Hizb’s many social welfare offices throughout the country? I can easily see the argument for "status symbol bombing", but that doesn’t make it morally right or - more to the point - smart. So, which were they? I don’t know. Moving on:

Rocket launchers are obviously a legit target, but authorizing a strike that kills tens of civilians to kill a Katyusha launcher that has been killing 1/100 of a civilian per shot is - I’m not making a moral judgement, just a literal reading of the word "disproportionate" - disproportionate - or, at least, when this scenario happens over and over, you soon end up with disporportionate results.

But beyond the moral argument, which is obviously controversial and prone to differing opinions - it wasn’t smart. It caused Israel to lose the PR war. In a situation like this where neither party is ever likely, and maybe not able, to destroy the other one, the PR war is magnified in importance.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
So here comes JPOD in this morning’s Corner, saying:

Andrew Sullivan appears extremely eager — desperately eager, hysterically eager — to believe there was far less to the British terror plot than meets the eye. Why? I suspect because of the news stories yesterday suggesting that it was broken up in part due to the use of torture in Pakistan. If that is true, Sullivan’s passionate project over the past two-and-a-half years to declare torture everywhere, at every moment, and in every circumstance unacceptable goes up in smoke.
So it does, John. So it does.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
To some extent I’ve agreed with Ralph Peters’ observations.

The next time, and I’m convinced there will be a next time, the Israeli’s should follow an indirect approach and knock off Syria. They would be following Sun Tzu’s advice to strike at the weakest member of an alliance.

Iran is an impractical target.

Hezbollah is a pseudo guerilla force that requires lots of face to face down and dirty bayonet in the chest combat. The IDF should refuse to play that game.

Syria is the weak sister, led by a none too qualified "second son". It just happens to be the logbase for Hezbollah. Sounds like a natural target to me.

That would sure re-arrange the correlation of forces in a hurry.
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
glasnost
Al-Zarqawi lost a PR was against the US, not just in this country, but in the civilized world.
Al Zarqawi bombed mosques and massacared shia to kick start a sectarian conflict to destabilise Iraq. If there is a sectarian conflict occuring in Iraq he suceeded and if not he failed.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
I will quietly point out that that particular uprising has been going on for something like 1400 years. It took someone with the strong arm tactics of Saddam Hussein to keep it in check. Zarqawi merely kick -started what already existed, for his own purposes. He was able to do so, because he knew that neither the Iraqi government nor the American military was willing to respond to such sectarian violence as Saddam had.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Steve,

Agreement - Confronting Hezbollah in Lebanon is a waste of time. No matter how well deployed the troops are within Lebanon they are only ever going to be fighting shadows. They do not have the ability to root out Hezbollah support staff as these staff do not show themselves and therefore can only kill fighters. Down and dirty baynet fighting is pointless as long as Syria and Iran are involved and the Hezb support staff are themselves supported.

Agreement - Syria would be a good target for aggression, but only if it is a definite to win. I have a hunch that the Syrian military might be more than just a mouthful for Israel. However this is the most noble route forward.

There is a way, as yet untried, to use Southern Lebanon as an effective battleground. Burn the forest - use terror tactics. Strategic bombing (carpet, cluster, fuel air explosive) campaign against Shia/Hezbollah civilian targets in Southern Lebanon and Beruit’s suburbs. This has an advantage over attacking Syria, as Hezbollah cannot strike back effectively. A PR war aimed at terrifying Shia civilians of the consequences of attacking Israel.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider