From the Guest Blogger
Actually, I had not planned an entry until tomorrow, and find myself short on resources and research for today. So let me ramble for a bit on something that troubles me:
Something tells me that the conflict surrounding Israel at the moment will not have reached a ceasefire by the time Mike returns. Even the glib pundits of FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ET AL seem to have their doubts. Of course, they (and every ex-military "consultant" aired in recent days) persist in referring to Hezbollah's soldiers as "guerillas" and to the ongoing border war with Israel as a "guerilla action." Yet the events since early Israeli incursions at Bint Jabil appear to be a tooth-and-nail, set piece battle rather than a struggle against guerillas.
In fact, I admit to being impressed by the performance of Hezbollah on the battlefield, even considering that the IDF of 2006 is not the veteran force of the 1960s and 1970s (though they may have the opportunity to become battle-hardened over the next months). The question that bothers me is this: Why throw these troops away now?
There is absolutely no chance of Hezbollah accomplishing anything meaningful against Israel by itself. Negotiate for prisoner exchanges? They know better. Turn public opinion against Israel? Sorry, already there. Kill a few Israelis? Easier ways exist that are less punishing to Hezbollah itself. Disrupt Israel's economy by forcing activation of reserves and tossing (still fairly random) missiles at its cities? Do not bet on it. However, three possibilities behind the actions that initiated this new phase of the ongoing struggle do come to mind.
First, with its military mired in Gaza and Lebanon, Israel is about to face a massive attack from a Syrian Army backed by Iran. Having heard little about mobilization of forces for such an assault, perhaps I should forget about this one. Or perhaps the absence of odor simply means information is being sanitized.
Second, perhaps someone in _____ (fill in the blank with the country that you think is pulling Hezbollah's strings) has decided that Hezbollah is a threat down the road and has decided to expend it, similar to the manner in which Giap and Ho expended the Viet Cong in the Tet Offensive of 1968. I like this idea, as Syria would be the logical puppeteer -- a Syria concerned about its long term survival, and seeking to clean house before its own house gets cleaned. Of course, Iran has provided large stocks of missiles to Hezbollah, and I have noticed a decrease in the coverage of Iranian "nuke noise" in the popular media in favor of the fracas between Israel and Hezbollah....
Finally, Hezbollah's leadership may have lost control of local forces. Faced with a fait accompli by some local commander in seizing Israeli soldiers and dramatically surviving the immediate pursuit, the leadership took advantage of that success combined with Israeli distraction in Gaza, large missile stocks, and promises of support from Iran (and possibly Syria) for whatever purposes -- all bad. Of course, they probably figured that the United States would stop the IDF before it got out of hand (or rolled tanks through most of Lebanon). Bad guess so far, though Israel has just called a 48 hour hold on its air war (unless in direct response to missile attacks) due to heavy Lebanese civilian casulties today. The Israeli government has been careful to say that this suspension of air activity is not a ceasefire.
More tomorrow. -- W. Dudley (for M. Palmer)
Something tells me that the conflict surrounding Israel at the moment will not have reached a ceasefire by the time Mike returns. Even the glib pundits of FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ET AL seem to have their doubts. Of course, they (and every ex-military "consultant" aired in recent days) persist in referring to Hezbollah's soldiers as "guerillas" and to the ongoing border war with Israel as a "guerilla action." Yet the events since early Israeli incursions at Bint Jabil appear to be a tooth-and-nail, set piece battle rather than a struggle against guerillas.
In fact, I admit to being impressed by the performance of Hezbollah on the battlefield, even considering that the IDF of 2006 is not the veteran force of the 1960s and 1970s (though they may have the opportunity to become battle-hardened over the next months). The question that bothers me is this: Why throw these troops away now?
There is absolutely no chance of Hezbollah accomplishing anything meaningful against Israel by itself. Negotiate for prisoner exchanges? They know better. Turn public opinion against Israel? Sorry, already there. Kill a few Israelis? Easier ways exist that are less punishing to Hezbollah itself. Disrupt Israel's economy by forcing activation of reserves and tossing (still fairly random) missiles at its cities? Do not bet on it. However, three possibilities behind the actions that initiated this new phase of the ongoing struggle do come to mind.
First, with its military mired in Gaza and Lebanon, Israel is about to face a massive attack from a Syrian Army backed by Iran. Having heard little about mobilization of forces for such an assault, perhaps I should forget about this one. Or perhaps the absence of odor simply means information is being sanitized.
Second, perhaps someone in _____ (fill in the blank with the country that you think is pulling Hezbollah's strings) has decided that Hezbollah is a threat down the road and has decided to expend it, similar to the manner in which Giap and Ho expended the Viet Cong in the Tet Offensive of 1968. I like this idea, as Syria would be the logical puppeteer -- a Syria concerned about its long term survival, and seeking to clean house before its own house gets cleaned. Of course, Iran has provided large stocks of missiles to Hezbollah, and I have noticed a decrease in the coverage of Iranian "nuke noise" in the popular media in favor of the fracas between Israel and Hezbollah....
Finally, Hezbollah's leadership may have lost control of local forces. Faced with a fait accompli by some local commander in seizing Israeli soldiers and dramatically surviving the immediate pursuit, the leadership took advantage of that success combined with Israeli distraction in Gaza, large missile stocks, and promises of support from Iran (and possibly Syria) for whatever purposes -- all bad. Of course, they probably figured that the United States would stop the IDF before it got out of hand (or rolled tanks through most of Lebanon). Bad guess so far, though Israel has just called a 48 hour hold on its air war (unless in direct response to missile attacks) due to heavy Lebanese civilian casulties today. The Israeli government has been careful to say that this suspension of air activity is not a ceasefire.
More tomorrow. -- W. Dudley (for M. Palmer)
