Here is what Ivan Eland of The Independent Institute has to say about it.
Yes they will defeat Hizbollah as an organization. A few diehards will remain but not enough to be called an organization.
Let’s Check the Track Records
July 23, 2006: by James Dunnigan.
Hizbollah’s rocket offensive is faltering. While up to a hundred rockets were launched into northern Israel on some days last week, the number has fallen to about 40 a day. Fewer of them are the longer range (up to 40 kilometers, or more). Most are the 122mm rockets, with a range of about 20 kilometers. These have shut down most economic activity in many parts of northern Israel, and killed or injured over a hundred Israelis. This has caused some 80 percent of Israeli voters to back the operations against Lebanon.
Israel’s Northern Command can mobilize over 180,000 troops. The Lebanese army has only 70,000 soldiers, so a battle with the Lebanese army is unlikely, despite Lebanese promises to send troops to the assistance of Hizbollah. In addition to its guerrilla fighters, Hizbollah has a couple of brigades armed and trained for conventional operations. These may be the best trained “regular” troops in the region, barring those that Israel isn’t likely to fight (Jordan, Egypt, Turkey), and it’s believed that Hizbollah hopes that they could take on Israeli troops in a conventional battle. To that end, sending Israeli ground forces into southern Lebanon is intended to draw Hizbollah’s conventional forces out, in anticipation of an invasion. In that way, Hizbollah might lay its conventional forces open to air and artillery attack, and probably selective ground and commando action.
The Lebanese Christians are probably more enthusiastic about fighting Hizbollah, than Israelis, and the Sunnis probably not much less so. But Israel has to be careful to avoid open clashed with Lebanese regular troops. Israel has always maintained communication with the various factions in Lebanon, either directly (as with the Christians) or indirectly. In this way, discussions, sometimes heated, have taken place over what to do with Hizbollah. It breaks down like this. To most Lebanese, the Shia (about 35 percent of the population), sold out to foreigners (Syria and Iran) in order to increase Shia power in Lebanon. The Shia had long constituted the poorest segment of Lebanese society, but this has changed since Syrian troops moved in during the 1980s, and assisted in the establishment of Hizbollah. This turned the Lebanese civil war (which began in 1975) into a deadlock, and led to a peace deal in 1990. But that didn’t end the civil war, it just brought about a cease fire. The Christian and Sunni majority put up with the Syrian occupation of the country until last year, when a popular uprising led to the Syrian withdrawal of their troops. But Hizbollah, which was supposed to disarm as part of the 1990 “peace” deal, continued to control the southern third of the country. Worse, many in Hizbollah, inspired by their Iranian patrons, talked about how great it would be if all of Lebanon were an Islamic republic, just like Iran.
Many Lebanese see the Hizbollah attack on Israel as a way for the Lebanese Shia to avoid a resumption of the civil war, over the disarmament of Hizbollah. Lebanese Shia remember what it was like to be at the bottom of the economic and social pecking order, and don’t want to return to the bad old days. Hizbollah (which got over $100 million a year from Iran) brought lots of jobs, as did the Syrian army of occupation. The Lebanese Shia see all that slipping away. By causing a war with Israel, the Lebanese Shia see an opportunity to unite all Lebanese behind them. Unfortunately, the Christian and Sunni Lebanese, while angry with the Israeli air campaign, are not enthusiastic about dying to maintain Hizbollah power. Israeli negotiations with the Lebanese agree on one thing; Hizbollah has to go. Lebanon cannot be free as long as Hizbollah maintains its own army, and controls a third of the country. The expulsion of the Syrian army last year was wildly popular, except among the Shia. The Israelis are waiting for public opinion among the Lebanese Christians and Sunnis to go against Hizbollah. This is why there has been no large scale movement of Israeli troops into southern Lebanon. Small units (no more than battalion strength, under a thousand troops) are going in to destroy Hizbollah bunker complexes that cannon be destroyed from the air.
To that end, Israeli orders for American deep penetrators (bunker buster bombs) have been speeded up, and those bombs are being delivered now. Israel already had several hundred of the GBU-24 penetrators, but last year ordered a hundred of the larger (2.5 ton) GBU-28. The GBU-28 can penetrate 100 feet of earth, or 20 feet of concrete. The lighter GBU-24 can manage less than half that.
Israel has watched (from the air, and via spies on the ground) as Hizbollah used lots of its Iranian money to build underground bunkers in the areas of southern Lebanon that Israel withdrew from in 2000. Hizbollah knew about the capabilities of the GBU-24 and 28, and built accordingly. That doesn’t make the Hizbollah bunkers invulnerable. The entrances can be destroyed, and if you can get all the access tunnels, you turn the bunker into a tomb. But with some of the bunkers, not all the access tunnels were known. There’s only so much that spies and air reconnaissance will tell you. However, the Israelis have had over six years to plan for this sort of operation. Based on past performance, you can expect some clever ideas. It’s not smart to underestimate the Israelis. For example, Israel shut down the Palestinian terrorists over the last few years. The pundits had declared this to be impossible. So was the Six Day war, and the creation of Israel itself. So, before you pick a probable outcome here, check the track records of the contenders. On the other side, you have radical Islam, which has accomplished very little. Terror is the tactic of the weak, or those short of better ideas. The Palestinian leadership has a long record of bad decisions and inept performance. Hizbollah succeeded via powerful backers (Iranian cash and the Syrian army). Now the Syrians are gone, and Hizbollah is caught between angry Israelis, and Lebanese fans, most of whom (the Christians and Sunnis) are cheering on Hizbollah through clenched teeth and forced smiles. Most Lebanese are content to see Hizbollah and Israel fight it out. But the Israeli war plan recognizes that, without some cooperation from the Lebanese Christians and Sunnis, Hizbollah will just keep it up. The Lebanese have to decide if they want a future with, or without, Hizbollah. While the Lebanese media speaks of Lebanese unity against Israeli aggression, private discussions in northern Lebanon are more about how to make the most of this opportunity to eliminate Hizbollah.
Another perspective. Less tactical, more political.
Blame the Terrorists, not Israel
Alan Dershowitz in the Boston Globe:
The Hezbollah and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists can exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies. By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option.
There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media, and human rights organizations should stop falling for this gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda. Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of “overreaction,” “disproportionality,” and “violations of human rights.” In doing so, they play into the hands of the terrorists and cause more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides.
If instead this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a win-win situation for the terrorists.
It should be obvious by now that Hezbollah and Hamas actually want the Israeli military to kill as many Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as possible. That is why they store their rockets underneath the beds of civilians. That is why they launch their missiles from crowded civilian neighborhoods and hide among civilians. They are seeking to induce Israel to defend its civilians by going after them among their civilian “shields.” They know that every civilian they induce Israel to kill hurts Israel in the media and the international and human rights communities. They regard these human shields as “Shahids,” or martyrs, even if they did not volunteer for the lethal jobs. Under the law, criminals who use human shields are responsible for the deaths of their shields, even if the bullets that kill them come from policemen’s guns.
…
The world must come to recognize the cynical way in which terrorists exploit civilian casualties. They launch antipersonnel rockets designed to maximize enemy civilian deaths, then they cry ``human rights" when their own civilians – behind whom they are hiding – are killed by the democracies while trying to prevent further terrorism. The idea that terrorists who use women and children as suicide bombers against other women and children shed crocodile tears over the deaths of civilians whom they deliberately put in harm’s way gives new meaning to hypocrisy. We all know that hypocrisy is a terrorist tactic, but it is shocking that others fall for it and become complicit with the terrorists. Let the blame fall where it belongs: on the terrorists who seek to kill enemy civilians and give democratic enemies little choice but to kill some civilians behind whom the terrorists hide. Those who condemn Israel cause more civilian deaths and make it harder for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.
at the risk of sounding redundant:
Nuke Iran, Blame the Jews
Who Benefits from the Israel-Lebanon Flare-Up?
by Jorge Hirsch
Members of the Jewish faith and others correctly point out that Jews are often blamed for the sins of others. They may be about to be proven right again, in a big way. The current conflict may escalate to the point where the US will use nuclear weapons against Iran, in what will be the first use of nuclear weapons in war since Nagasaki. And the world will blame it on the Jews.
Israel’s hugely disproportionate response to Hezbollah’s actions is causing immense suffering, is in blatant violation of the Geneva conventions, and deserves the strongest of condemnations. It is especially important for Jews today to distance themselves from Israel’s immoral government policies and US’s support for them. Fortunately some are doing this [1], [2], [3], unfortunately, many are not. “Thousands of American Jews clogged the streets” in New York and elsewhere in the US [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] in support of Israel’s actions, reports the Jerusalem Post. Both Houses of the US Congress have just passed solidly backed bipartisan resolutions supporting Israel’s actions in Lebanon [1], [2], to “solidify long-term backing of Jewish voters” according to the Washington Post.
The irony is, Israel’s war crimes are going to be dwarfed in comparison to the crime against humanity that will take place if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. Israel, by its disproportionate reaction and by accusing Iran (without proof) of being behind Hezbollah’s actions [1], [2], [3] , [4], will be seen as having played a key role if the conflict escalates to engulf Iran and the United States. Yet the motivation for those that want this to happen [1], [2] is not to ensure Israel’s hegemony in the Middle East, rather it is to ensure US hegemony in the world.
Israel’s Interests
It goes without saying that Israel would benefit from the destruction of Hezbollah. Yet it is hard to see how the indiscriminate attack against Lebanon that is taking place will achieve anything other than strengthening the already strong support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Arab world. Shmuel Rosner argues in a Haaretz OpEd that Israel is “America’s deadly messenger”, being used to promote Bush’s “democracy agenda”. It certainly appears that Israel’s current actions are irrational and self-destructive. Unless their real aim is to draw Syria and Iran into the conflict, following directions from Washington. At the very least it is clear that Israel would not be doing this in the absence of a guarantee from the US that it will intervene if the conflict widens, which in any event Bush has already publicly announced.
If Iran enters the conflict and shoots a single missile against Israel, the US will step in and destroy the military infrastructure of Iran by aerial bombardment. As suggested by Seymour Hersh and others [1], [2], [3], [4], this is likely to involve the US use of nuclear “bunker busters”.
It has been predicted that if the US or Israel attack Iran, Iran will unleash Hezbollah who will carry out devastating attacks against Israel. “Hizbollah was also seen as a means of tying our hands on the Iranian nuclear threat,” says an Israeli official. Well, we are in the dress rehersal, and we are seeing that despite all the hype, Hezbollah is a paper tiger. Green light for the Iran attack.
Iran’s Interests
What is really unusual about the current flare-up in the Middle East is the barrage of strident denunciations against Iran, from the Bush administration, politicians from across the political spectrum [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and the mainstream media [1], [2], [3], [4], that uniformly accuse Iran (without presenting evidence) of being behind the Hezbollah actions. This has never happened before when there was conflict in Lebanon where Hezbollah was involved, why now?
One argument is Ahmadinejad’s stated animosity against Israel. However, that has been Iran’s stated position since 1979.
The other argument is that Iran is trying to “divert attention” from the nuclear issue. That defies the most elementary logic. If Iran was really intent in getting nuclear weapons and destroying Israel, it would try to keep things as quiet as possible until it gets those nuclear weapons, several years into the future.
The reality is that, whether one ascribes to Iran evil or benign intentions, Iran draws no benefit whatsoever from the current turmoil in Lebanon. Neither does Syria. Consequently the rhetoric from the US and Israel suggests a deliberate attempt to draw Syria and Iran into the conflict.
The US’s Interests
A US attack on Iran has been predicted by analysts for several years. The US policy vis-a-vis Iran is clearly directed towards confrontation rather than accommodation. There are many reasons for the US to attack Iran, including the control of energy resources, suppression of a regional power opposite to US and Israeli interests, etc. However I have argued for many months that the key reason for the US to seek a military confrontation with Iran is that it will “force” the US to cross the nuclear threshold and use low yield nuclear weapons against Iranian installations. And this is seen as essential to further US geopolitical goals.
The United States used nuclear weapons against Japan not because it had to. It did so to demonstrate to the world that it was in possession of a new weapon that packed the destructive power of thousands of bombing missions into a single one. To tell the rest of the world, beware.
Since then, it has spent over 5 trillion dollars in building up its nuclear arsenal, but nuclear weapons have become “unusable” after 60 years of non-use. America has achieved nuclear primacy but it is useless, until it shows that nuclear weapons are usable again.
Everything has been put in place. The US is likely to have obtained classified “intelligence” concerning hidden Iranian chemical and biological underground facilities. Low yield B61-11 nuclear bunker busters must have been deployed, just in case “surprising military developments” give rise to “military necessity”. Once Iran is drawn into a conflict and shoots a single missile against Israel or US forces in the region, the US administration will argue that the next Iranian missile could carry chemical or biological warheads and cause untold casualties among Americans, Iraqis or Israelis. A low yield nuclear bunker buster will be touted as the most “humane” way to prevent further loss of life.
Why it may happen
In 1941, a vast military effort was started by the United States to create nuclear weapons, culminating in the Trinity test and subsequent bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The effort was shrouded in secrecy and any moral qualms were set aside. When it succeeded, it was argued that many American and Japanese lives had been saved by nuking Japan into surrender.
Any speculation during the period 1941-1945 that the United States had 100,000 people devoted to create a secret weapon million-fold more powerful than any known weapon would have been dismissed as the ultimate “conspiracy theory”.
Similarly, much evidence indicates that a deliberate project, shrouded in secrecy, exists today that will culminate in the nuking of Iran, to “save lives”. Many are privy to parts of the plan, as Seymour Hersh revealed, only a few know the plan in its entirety. Low-yield nuclear bunker busters will be used, untested but as reliable as the untested “Little Boy” that leveled Hiroshima. Americans will buy the “military necessity” argument because it will be true: American troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks facing Iranian missiles, with or without WMD warheads.
After the US uses nuclear weapons again, it will have established the usability of its nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear countries. It will be possible to wage war “on the cheap”, saving many American lives in future conflicts. “Support the troops” is the one thing all Americans, no matter how diverse their views are, agree on.
It should not be allowed to happen. The President has sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. We know from previous actions of this administration what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are capable of. There have been radical changes in US nuclear weapons policies and in preemption “doctrine”, and the Bush announcement that the nuclear option is “on the table”. In response, there needs to be a strong groundswell call to restrict the absolute presidential authority of this President to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. By the general public, by “antinuclear” organizations, by scientific, political and professional organizations. To push Congress into action before it is too late. Without a “nuclear option”, the US will be more interested in negotiation than in confrontation with Iran.
Cui Bono?
In the short term, Israel certainly will benefit from the destruction of Iran’s military capabilities. But Israel will not enjoy peace as a result, because the nuking of Iran will create enormous animosity against Israel in the Muslim world and beyond. To the extent that the world buys the US fable that the nuking of Iran was required by “military necessity” and not premeditated, Israel (and Jews worldwide) will bear a heavier than deserved brunt for having contributed to “precipitate” these events.
The US will reap enormous benefits. Flexing its nuclear muscle, it will establish its absolute hegemony in the Middle East and Central Asia and beyond, and gradually squeeze China and Russia into nuclear disarmament and complete submission.
In the end of course we will all lose. Because the nuclear genie, unleashed from its bottle in the war against Iran, will never retreat. And just like the US could develop nuclear weapons in only 4 years with completely new technology 60 years ago, many more countries and groups will be highly motivated to do it in the coming years.
Think about the current disproportionate response of Israel, applied in a conflict where the contenders have nuclear weapons. 10 to 1 retaliation, starting with a mere 600 casualties, wipes out the entire Earth’s population in eight easy steps. Who will be willing to stop the escalation? The country that lost 60,000 citizens in the last hit? The one that lost 600,000? 6 million?
As the nuclear holocaust unfolds, some will remember the Lebanon conflict and subsequent Iran war and blame it all on the Jews. Others will properly blame Americans, for having allowed their Executive to erase the 60-year old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, first in doctrine and then in practice, despite having the most powerful conventional military force in the world. Others of course will blame “Muslim extremism”.
And then the blaming will wither away as a three-billion-year old experiment, life on planet Earth, comes to an end.
Jorge Hirsch is a Professor of Physics at the University of California at San Diego, a fellow of the American Physical Society, and organizer of a recent petition, circulated among leading physicists, opposing the new nuclear weapons policies adopted by the US in the past 5 years. He is a frequent commentator on Iran and nuclear weapons. Email to: jorgehirsch@yahoo.com.
israel is not in any war, it’s americas war. israel is only a puppet on a string.
[quote]mazilla wrote:
israel is not in any war, it’s americas war. israel is only a puppet on a string.[/quote]
Who’s civilians are being targeted by Hezbollah rockets?
Who’s soldiers are dying?
Looks like war to me.
Dude, quit posting, nobody is going to buy your bullshit. It’s just sad.
[quote]vroom wrote:
mazilla wrote:
israel is not in any war, it’s americas war. israel is only a puppet on a string.
Who’s civilians are being targeted by Hezbollah rockets?[quote]
who’s civilians are being targeted by Israeli missle’s, tanks, jets, soldiers?
Who’s soldiers are dying?[quote]
who’s indeed? since hezbollah don’t have legitamite soldiers, i’ll assume you mean israeli.
Looks like war to me.[quote]
yes, Americas war
Dude, quit posting, nobody is going to buy your bullshit. It’s just sad.[/quote]
it’s not for sale.it’s in front of your face, but you still cant smell it.
[quote]mazilla wrote:
israel is not in any war, it’s americas war. israel is only a puppet on a string.[/quote]
…right. If Israel is a puppet on a string, then wouldn’t it be America putting it’s puppet… in a war?
[quote]mazilla wrote:
israel is not in any war, it’s americas war. israel is only a puppet on a string.[/quote]
This is not exactly true. It’s like a revolving door with these to.
[quote]vroom wrote:
mazilla wrote:
israel is not in any war, it’s americas war. israel is only a puppet on a string.
Who’s civilians are being targeted by Hezbollah rockets?
Who’s soldiers are dying?
Looks like war to me.
Dude, quit posting, nobody is going to buy your bullshit. It’s just sad.[/quote]
Who’s civilians are being murdered by the Israeli army?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
vroom wrote:
mazilla wrote:
israel is not in any war, it’s americas war. israel is only a puppet on a string.
Who’s civilians are being targeted by Hezbollah rockets?
Who’s soldiers are dying?
Looks like war to me.
Dude, quit posting, nobody is going to buy your bullshit. It’s just sad.
Who’s civilians are being murdered by the Israeli army?
[/quote]
Who’s citizens elected Hezbollah into their parliament? Who’s gov’t allows a terrorist organization to control the southern half of its country? When you play with fire…
[quote]mazilla wrote:
israel is not in any war, it’s americas war. israel is only a puppet on a string.[/quote]
Yes, I saw that the 3rd Armored Division just struck north into Lebanon, supported by the Big Red One.
[quote]mazilla wrote:
israel is not in any war, it’s americas war. israel is only a puppet on a string.[/quote]
THAT was a stupid comment. Cease and desist!..ok?
Analysis via Dunnigan at Strategypage.com.
You Can Look It Up
July 28, 2006:
Hizbollah is a slave to its own rhetoric. Hizbollah is the Lebanese arm of the Iranian Shia revolution. The Islamic radicals who run a religious dictatorship in Iran, carried out a coup in the 1980s, taking control of the government during a desperate war with Iraq (which had invaded Iran in 1980). The religious zealots in Iran believe the world would be a better place if everyone were Moslem, of the Shia variety (which predominates in Iran and Lebanon, but not with 90 percent of Moslems, who prefer the Sunni, or other minor sects.) Iran also believes that Israel must be destroyed, and Iranian leaders have not been shy about repeating this again and again in public. Hizbollah leaders repeat this demand. This basic Hizbollah goal, the destruction of Israel, makes negotiations with Israel difficult. Israel has apparently decided to forget about negotiations, and instead, take Hizbollah apart piece by piece.
Israeli troops have been fighting Hizbollah gunmen for over a quarter of a century. You have many Israeli infantrymen fighting in Lebanon now, who got practical advice from their fathers, who had battled Hizbollah back in the 1980s. Israel knows how to defeat Hizbollah, as they have been doing it for decades. But until the recent Hizbollah raids across the border, Israel has avoided going after Hizbollah on a large scale. This was an attempt to keep things quiet on the Lebanese border, and give the Lebanese a chance to settle the problem with Hizbollah peacefully. That seemed more likely, after a popular (and largely peaceful) Lebanese uprising last year that forced Syria to pull its troops out of Lebanon.
Since the 1980s, Syria had a force of over 30,000 soldiers in Lebanon. Originally sent in a peacekeepers during the 1975-90 Lebanese civil war, the Syrian force soon became guardians of Hizbollahs growing empire in southern Lebanon, and protector of Syrian economic interests (many of them criminal, like drug smuggling) in Lebanon. Without those 30,000 Syrian troops, Hizbollah, and the Lebanese Shia (about 35 percent of the population) were more vulnerable than they had been in over two decades. Intense negotiations commenced. No one wanted a resumption of the civil war, but all Lebanese were concerned about this state-within-a-state that Hizbollah had created in southern Lebanon. The UN was concerned as well. As part of the deal, when Israel pulled out, Hizbollah was to disarm and a force of 2,500 UN peace observers (UNIFIL) would watch over a new era of peace in the south. For the last seven years, Hizbollah has refused to abide by that deal, and most Lebanese were tired of the delays. Increasing the attacks against Israel seemed like a good idea, as it made Hizbollah seem more useful, if Israel did not strike back. The rest of the Lebanese political parties were not making threats, yet, about Hizbollahs refusal to disband and let southern Lebanon become part of Lebanon once more. Hizbollah wanted to make their autonomy in southern Lebanon permanent, but was unsure of how to do it. Hizbollah stumbled into war with Israel while seeking a solution to its problems with the rest of Lebanon.
Getting accurate news about the fighting in southern Lebanon is complicated by the fact that Hizbollah, the Lebanese and most of the media are more concerned about producing propaganda and excitement, than in reporting facts. Hizbollah knows, from long experience, that they cannot defeat Israel. But Hizbollah knows that it can spin the media. The Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000 was a peace offering that was, in typical Hizbollah fashion, simultaneously spurned and exploited. The same techniques are being used during the current war.
But now Israel is determined to cripple Hizbollah, a move that will lead to the organization either dying, or fading into insignificance. Hizbollah had made lots of enemies in the last 25 years, many of them in the Lebanese Shia community. If Hizbollah losses most of its economic and military assets, that will make it weak enough for other Lebanese groups to overwhelm it militarily and politically. This appears to be the Israeli plan, and the way things work in the Middle East, it appears to be working. Support for Hizbollah from the Arab world has been muted, compared to similar situations in the past. Even Iran is not happy with Hizbollahs actions, and has pointedly not sent any new weapons. Naturally, the Sunni Arab world is down on Hizbollah (and its explicit goal of replacing Sunni Islam with the Shia variety). While Lebanese politicians have been vocal in their support for Hizbollah, there has been no rush to provide any material support.
Israel has destroyed most of Hizbollah’s economic assets, and is now going after the military ones. There are thousands of bunkers, fortified buildings and tunnel complexes in southern Lebanon that Hizbollah can use to fight from. Israeli troops may have to battle through all of them to cripple Hizbollahs military strength. Israel has done this successfully against the Palestinians for years. This will not be reported very accurately in the media because that would be boring. Israeli tactics are methodical and, well, not very dramatic. The mass media needs excitement, and when they can’t find it, they invent it. Think back to the many battles Israel has had with the Palestinians, or the reporting on the American three week march on Baghdad in 2003, and remember what the pundits were saying, compared to what was actually happening. The mass media depends on most people not retaining any memories like that, and being willing to accept breathless, and inaccurate, reports of the current wars.
What makes war unpredictable is the fact that, while genius may have its limits, stupidity doesn’t. Hizbollah is basically stupid. They are part of a movement dedicated to taking over the world. Israel just wants to survive. Hizbollah is part of an Arab military tradition that takes pride in a long string of defeats because that means eventually the enemy will get tired of beating on us and go away. This is how they turned the 2000 Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon (actually a peace offering) into a great military victory for Hizbollah. Another example of stupidity without limits.
When the dust has settled on this war in Lebanon, the remnants of Hizbollah will be busy rearranging the facts in order to produce another victory. But Hizbollah will no longer be the force it once was, and Lebanese soldiers and police will once more be patrolling southern Lebanon, rolling past the wreckage of Hizbollah bunkers and military facilities. The hundreds of buildings and bridges destroyed by Israeli bombs will be a reminder to the Lebanese of what happens when you allow part of your country to he hijacked by a bunch of religious maniacs. The majority of Lebanese were never happy about Hizbollah, but lacked the courage to do anything about it. Israel’s not going away, but Hizbollah is. It’s members can easily go back to being Lebanese, or get killed by an Israeli smart bomb, or sniper. Israelis have no such options, and have no choice but to fight and win. That makes a big difference on the battlefield. You can look it up.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Who’s citizens elected Hezbollah into their parliament? Who’s gov’t allows a terrorist organization to control the southern half of its country? When you play with fire…[/quote]
absolutely true.
Let’s have another ceasefire so Hezbollah can rebuild their weapons stockpiles, this time maybe with biological or chemical weapons! Yeah, ceasefires are GOOD!
HH
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Let’s have another ceasefire so Hezbollah can rebuild their weapons stockpiles, this time maybe with biological or chemical weapons! Yeah, ceasefires are GOOD!
HH[/quote]
Are you pimping your wmd bullshit again?
Israel can win this battle, but not the war. I’m not even sure they’re going to win this battle.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Israel can win this battle, but not the war. I’m not even sure they’re going to win this battle.[/quote]
You are very mistaken IMHO.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Let’s have another ceasefire so Hezbollah can rebuild their weapons stockpiles, this time maybe with biological or chemical weapons! Yeah, ceasefires are GOOD!
HH
Are you pimping your wmd bullshit again?
Israel can win this battle, but not the war. I’m not even sure they’re going to win this battle.[/quote]
Considering that Israel has the support of the U.S I don’t see any war that they couldn’t win… except maybe if China AND Russia decided to attack Israel at the same time… which I doubt they ever would/have reason to.
Ok, let me explain my position. Hezbollah is much more than a terrorist organisation. That is only their military arm. Hezbollah is also a social organisation, well entrenched in civilian life. They run hospitals, they distribute food. They run schools where children get a decent education and at least 1 decent meal a day.
This is something that gets you a lot of loyalty anywhere, especially in that part of the world.
Hezbollah has been holding it’s own against the might of IDF for a couple of weeks now. They have been hurt, but they aren’t destroyed. Not by a long shot. Again, something that gets you loyalty and respect.
And support.
Especially in that part of the world.
So short of committing genocide and clearing out the entire south Lebanon, Israel would find it very hard to really destroy Hezbollah.
It seams they don’t want to commit to boots on the ground, so they’re limited to air strikes and artillary shellngs.
There’s only so much you can achieve with those.
In the mean time, international support for Israel is limited to the US alone. So their is an unlimited supply of weapons. But again, there’s only so much you can achieve with those.
Diplomatically, they’re isolated and the longer this mess continues, the more isolated they’re gonna get.
But hey, your guess is as good as mine.
