Lessons of a failed intervention

[sigatoka]

1. This article is just a nostalgic piece of sentimental mush to shore up the flagging Arab morale of being at the wrong end of the stick of a tiny country, Israel, which the Arabs united or otherwise, cannot "wipe it off the map" as is so fervently desires and dreams of.

2. It is the height of political and military inexpediency of the Hizbollah and the captive Lebanese govt to aggravate Israel to strike.

3. and then helplessly and impotently watch the country in rubble and in flames!

1. Just because it proves the West can not easily colonise the "savages" of the east? The U.S. the world's so called Hyperpower is unable to crush the rebellion by the ragtag group of arabs in Iraq. Israel similarly can not crush Hezbollah, the massacre of civilians is merely a lashing out by Israel for its frustration.

2. Hezbollah's strategy of continuelly hitting the Israeli's at the border in skirmishes was having successes. Israel has miscalculated by escalating far above that which was ideal. It is the height of insanity to continue on the same path that leads to failures. This is Israel's third adventure into Lebanon, and unless history is bunk again Israel will withdraw with its tail between its legs.


3. That Lebanon burns has no benefit to Israel, (unless they too indeed are all sadistic like you) in fact it is only counter productive. The reason is because

a) There is no benefit to Israel from watching Lebanon in flames (unless they are sadistic) and dont have access to action movies.

b) It increases support of Hezbollah and other such organisatsion in the Middle East and turns the Arab govt. further into opposition to Israeli interests.


It is incorrect to say that Arab govts. have always been against Israel to the same degree and that Israel's actions have no impact on their behaivour. Israel has benefited from peace with Egypt for over 20 years now.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

1. Just because it proves the West can not easily colonise the "savages" of the east? The U.S. the world's so called Hyperpower is unable to crush the rebellion by the ragtag group of arabs in Iraq. Israel similarly can not crush Hezbollah, the massacre of civilians is merely a lashing out by Israel for its frustration.

Guerrillas/ militants/ terrorists cannot be defeated and that is a fact of life since they are everywhere and yet nowhere. So be it the US, Israel, India or even Pakistan, none can defeat the guerrillas/ militant/ terrorists. They will wax and wane.

The Hizbs and Arabs too are highly frustrated. They have failed to wipe out Israel notwithstanding the hyperbolic rhetoric that emanates at regular interval including that of Osama and his gang. And that is why this foolish attempt of the Hizb to coCck the snoot at Israel with the kidnappings and other inane stuff, knowing well of the repeated thrashing the Arabs have received at the hands of the Israelis throughout recent history.

2. Hezbollah's strategy of continuelly hitting the Israeli's at the border in skirmishes was having successes. Israel has miscalculated by escalating far above that which was ideal. It is the height of insanity to continue on the same path that leads to failures. This is Israel's third adventure into Lebanon, and unless history is bunk again Israel will withdraw with its tail between its legs.

It is the Arabs who have their tail between the legs every time. Ofcourse, the Israelis will have to withdraw. They can't hop across and occupy area which is not disputed i.e. Lebanon. Lebanon is a country by international rights and its borders are defined. If indeed the Israelis have withdrawn with their tail between the leg from Arab lands, then what are they doing in the Golan heights and Sheeba Farms?

So one should not give vent to anger and frustration by stating issues contrary to the facts on the ground.

3. That Lebanon burns has no benefit to Israel, (unless they too indeed are all sadistic like you) in fact it is only counter productive. The reason is because

a) There is no benefit to Israel from watching Lebanon in flames (unless they are sadistic) and dont have access to action movies.

b) It increases support of Hezbollah and other such organisatsion in the Middle East and turns the Arab govt. further into opposition to Israeli interests.


It is incorrect to say that Arab govts. have always been against Israel to the same degree and that Israel's actions have no impact on their behaivour. Israel has benefited from peace with Egypt for over 20 years now.

Nothing of the above affects Israel materially. And so are not reasons why Israel should not attack the Hizbollah.

 

[parihaka]

1. Just because it proves the West can not easily colonise the "savages" of the east? The U.S. the world's so called Hyperpower is unable to crush the rebellion by the ragtag group of arabs in Iraq. Israel similarly can not crush Hezbollah, the massacre of civilians is merely a lashing out by Israel for its frustration.

2. Hezbollah's strategy of continuelly hitting the Israeli's at the border in skirmishes was having successes. Israel has miscalculated by escalating far above that which was ideal. It is the height of insanity to continue on the same path that leads to failures. This is Israel's third adventure into Lebanon, and unless history is bunk again Israel will withdraw with its tail between its legs.


3. That Lebanon burns has no benefit to Israel, (unless they too indeed are all sadistic like you) in fact it is only counter productive. The reason is because

a) There is no benefit to Israel from watching Lebanon in flames (unless they are sadistic) and dont have access to action movies.

b) It increases support of Hezbollah and other such organisatsion in the Middle East and turns the Arab govt. further into opposition to Israeli interests.


It is incorrect to say that Arab govts. have always been against Israel to the same degree and that Israel's actions have no impact on their behaivour. Israel has benefited from peace with Egypt for over 20 years now.

Firstly rhetoric proves squat. Secondly it doesn't reflect reality. Yes, Arab unity against Israel has increased and yes Arabs view hezbollah more favourably.
But.
Within two weeks Hezbollah will be down to 20 percent of their pre-conflict strength. The multi-lateral unilateral force that will be imposed by the west on the buffer zone will have the right to fire (on both sides), so Hezbollah will be unable to regain their previous threat level. The cold war that will be waged against them by the international spy agencies in Lebanon will be just as affective, as will the missile strikes, just like the ones that occuer in the gaza strip against Hamas.
Before you go off your nut, I'm not advocating these things or justifying them, simply stating what will happen because this is what already happens.
The role of both Syria and Iran is coming under greater and greater scrutiny and the passage of arms is being documented. When a Russian made missile, complete with registration number explodes in Isreal, every step of its journey can be traced and proved. Russia's sale, Iran's purchase, Syria's assistance, all are noted and wil be used for further sanctions against both countries. If like the author, your wish is for a deepening divide between east and west, your wish is coming true.

 

[sigatoka]

1. Within two weeks Hezbollah will be down to 20 percent of their pre-conflict strength. The multi-lateral unilateral force that will be imposed by the west on the buffer zone will have the right to fire (on both sides), so Hezbollah will be unable to regain their previous threat level.

2. The role of both Syria and Iran is coming under greater and greater scrutiny and the passage of arms is being documented. When a Russian made missile, complete with registration number explodes in Isreal, every step of its journey can be traced and proved. Russia's sale, Iran's purchase, Syria's assistance, all are noted and wil be used for further sanctions against both countries.

1. Continue on with your delusions, in three weeks of fighting Hezbollah has not lost more than 300 militia men out of a force of 5,000. Secondly even those 300 or so killed can be replaced with new recruits.

2. Scrutiny, not action. Nothing is happening to Russia (for Europe needs its gas exports), not much is happening to Iran either or Syria for that matter.

 

[parihaka]

1. Continue on with your delusions, in three weeks of fighting Hezbollah has not lost more than 300 militia men out of a force of 5,000. Secondly even those 300 or so killed can be replaced with new recruits.

Sure. Whatever you say.

2. Scrutiny, not action. Nothing is happening to Russia (for Europe needs its gas exports), not much is happening to Iran either or Syria for that matter.

Sanctions are being placed against Russian arms manufacturers AND their suppliers by the US as we speak. In other words, any company in the world that does business with these manufacturers will no longer be doing any business with the US or any US owned firm.

 

[sigatoka]

1. Sanctions are being placed against Russian arms manufacturers AND their suppliers by the US as we speak.

1. Russia and the U.S. are strategic rivals in terms of military exports (and influence) around the globe. Just because Communism collapsed doesnt mean that suddenly the interests of Russia and U.S. will totally align.

There is commonality in many areas between U.S. and Russia so they coperate. There are other areas where they compete. In the middle East Russia makes a killing from selling to Iran and Syria and the Gulf States. It competes directly in the region with the U.S. for exports.

Russia doenst ban exports to Iran and Syria because even if it does the U.S. is not going to compensate by giving enough business (they use mostly their own firms for domestic military acquisitions).

Also by selling to Iran and Syria, Russia indirectly weakens U.S. (however slightly). If we see influence as a zero sum game, Russia brightens its light by dimming the U.S.'s in the region.

 

[parihaka]

1. Russia and the U.S. are strategic rivals in terms of military exports (and influence) around the globe. Just because Communism collapsed doesnt mean that suddenly the interests of Russia and U.S. will totally align.

There is commonality in many areas between U.S. and Russia so they coperate. There are other areas where they compete. In the middle East Russia makes a killing from selling to Iran and Syria and the Gulf States. It competes directly in the region with the U.S. for exports.

Russia doenst ban exports to Iran and Syria because even if it does the U.S. is not going to compensate by giving enough business (they use mostly their own firms for domestic military acquisitions).

Also by selling to Iran and Syria, Russia indirectly weakens U.S. (however slightly). If we see influence as a zero sum game, Russia brightens its light by dimming the U.S.'s in the region.

I know. Your point being?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

1. Continue on with your delusions, in three weeks of fighting Hezbollah has not lost more than 300 militia men out of a force of 5,000. Secondly even those 300 or so killed can be replaced with new recruits.

It seems you have not read the Daily Times article "Understanding the Arab Military Mind".

If you care to read, you will realise that after a good whipping, the Arabs cry out and then ask for a ceasefire (remember the OIC wailing in KL?!)and say "Hey!~ We won!"; having lost a whole lot of territory and many dead!

If that is the type of "victory" that make s you feel good, so be it!

It is the Arabs and the Islamic countries who are deluding!

The Arabs are a whimpering dead loss to the Islamic fervour and cause!

 

[sigatoka]

1. It seems you have not read the Daily Times article "Understanding the Arab Military Mind".

2. If that is the type of "victory" that make s you feel good, so be it!

1. Where is the article (The title already makes me cringe that it will be some crass garbage)

2. What is a good strategy? It is one where you make moves that gives you the highest possible benefit given your opponents preferenece, your own and within the constraints of limited information.

Does a good strategy mean that you will inflict higher casualities on your opponent than you yourself suffer? Does it mean that you will gain territory? The answer is no if you start the game with fewer soldiers and worse capabilities. It would be impossible for Hezbollah to inflict more casualities than it suffers and gain more territory than it loses but it is equally true that Hezbollah's actions leading up to the fighting was rational (within the constraints of limited information.)

The way you define "Victory" means that following ones best strategy (if the weaker party) will almost always result in defeat.

I guess it just comes down to how you define victory.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The article is in the Daily Times. Google, if you can't find it.

If one knows one is facing defeat right at the start, then why undertake the war? Or do you think good strategy is getting defeated?

Do explain how Hizbollah strategy was rational?

If being roundly defeated, with massive casualties and the country devastated is good strategy, then one might as well take on the US abnd be blown off the face of the earth.

It would be the best strategy because then one willmeet his God and there will be real Peace!

 

[sigatoka]

1. The article is in the Daily Times. Google, if you can't find it.

2. If one knows one is facing defeat right at the start, then why undertake the war? Or do you think good strategy is getting defeated?

Do explain how Hizbollah strategy was rational?

1. Too lazy, was up late doing uni work

2. If you have a good job in the city, but to get to it you must cross the road; its a good strategy to cross the road even though there is a probability that a car wont stop and run you over.

What you are seeing is this.........your a bystander and this person crossing the road gets hit, so you proclaim, crossing the road is a bad strategy. The thing is that you cant just look at an outcome, but associated probabilities also.

When Hezbollah hit the border posts, there was high probability that Israel wouldnt have escalated this far. Even when it has, it hasnt destroyed Hezbollah. It was about calibrating action but this is extrememly difficult considering both sides possess limited information. Hezbollah ideally wanted to hit without inflicting too much damage (which they did in hindsight) so as to not lead to very high retalitory action. But inflicting too little damage is a wasted opportunity (wounding a single sodier). What they would have wanted to do is to inflict maximum damage without causing Israelis to escalate a great deal.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Having seen it all i.e. war, skirmishes, raids etc, I am not a bit concerned about the military aspects.

What saddens me is that because of some of this chaps, a whole lot of civilians have to wear the crown of thorns!

The military will move on, but imagine the civilians whose houses have been bombed. They will have to rebuild. No one will bother about them and they are the one who really suffer and nobody else.

Even when a military man dies, his civilian parents and family suffer. The govt and the military move on and maybe if they are caring, they organise an annual tamasha without any serious feeling of remorse.

 

[sigatoka]

Having seen it all i.e. war, skirmishes, raids etc, I am not a bit concerned about the military aspects.

What saddens me is that because of some of this chaps, a whole lot of civilians have to wear the crown of thorns!

When you say chaps i believe you mean Hezbollah. If my belief is correct, then it is a really hypocritical argument of yours. This is because Indians, U.S. and Israel express such moral outrage at terrorism and condemn it as having no justification while when Israel engages in terrorism it simply becomes a case of "Oh Hezbollah brought it on themselves".

If Israel's actions can be justified by that, then how do you reconcile AQ's and other terrorist groups justification that those perished brought it upon themselves?

Such line of thinking is merely a moral slippery slope trying to justify the unjustifiable.

(p.s. unless by chaps you meant both sides in which case i withdraw my post)

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

No, I meant the Hizbs.

While the problem of Palestine is understandable.

What is the reason for undertaking this aggravation in Lebanon?

And I am not justifying anyone's case, please.

 

[Bull]

Controversy: Understanding the Arab military mind —Barry Rubin
The Arabs never “lose” because they never surrender. Thus they do not formally give up anything. The leaders that brought on failure and the groups that did not triumph become heroes for being able to claim that they courageously fought the enemy without being crushed. The important points for them are that they gained revenge by inflicting damage

A key aspect of winning any war is to define the goals. This is especially true of the current fighting in Gaza and Lebanon. By trying to do too much — or believing that one can achieve more than is possible — the result can be failure and certainly will be disappointment.

In this case, the mistake is to think that Israel can destroy Hezbollah or eliminate it as a political and military entity. To claim otherwise plays into the hands of Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, which want to define their victory as Hezbollah’s survival.

Defining victory as merely survival is a pattern often typical of Arab (and Iranian) politics. It is simultaneously disastrous and sensible. It is disastrous because it courts defeat by attacking superior forces: the 1967 Six Day War, Saddam Hussein’s challenge to the United States and his attack on Iran, Yasser Arafat’s fighting an endless battle in which he was always defeated, and so on. The Arab side is left with tremendous losses in casualties and material, as is once again happening with Lebanon and the Palestinians.

But what is to a large extent a defeat in practical and military terms also can be considered a political victory. The Arabs never “lose” because they never surrender. Thus they do not formally give up anything. The leaders that brought on failure and the groups that did not triumph become heroes for being able to claim that they courageously fought the enemy without being crushed. The important points for them are that they gained revenge by inflicting damage, showed that they were real men, did not buckle under and survived.

Such a pattern is a formula for endless conflict and endless defeat. Yet defeats do not force new attitudes, policies or leaders. The pragmatic “lesson” remains unlearnt because those who take this view perceive a different lesson.

That is why the kind of tactics that work well in conflicts elsewhere in the world do not function in the Middle East. The rules of the game are supposed to be like this: the side that loses recognises that it is weaker and makes a deal involving concessions to avoid another costly conflict. The stronger side then gains deterrence, because recognition of its power stops the other side from going to war in the first place. Wanting to avoid war, all sides solve disputes by compromise, end the conflict forever, and move onto other things.

Instead, Hezbollah and Hamas thrive on fighting as an end in itself. Moreover, Hezbollah and its friends present themselves as absolute victors no matter what happens. And millions of Arabs and Muslims, given regime and media propaganda, believe them.

The underlying cause of conflict is not that Hezbollah or Hamas have grievances against Israel so much as that they view Jews as prophet-murdering, devil-aiding, imperialistic sub-humans whose state must be wiped off the map. Formal ceasefires or political solutions are inconceivable. At the same time, the conflict gives them money, power, and glory. Any losses or suffering that occurs as a result — except perhaps to the leaders personally — are a matter of indifference.

For its part, Israel will win an objective military and political victory but is not able to destroy Hezbollah for several reasons. First, Hezbollah has the support of most Lebanese Shia, who make up roughly 40 percent of the population. The Shiites back Hezbollah because it appeals to their communal pride, represents their interests domestically, and stirs their religious passions. The current fighting will not erode that support, which regards resistance to Israel as a victory in itself.

Second, Iran and Syria will keep backing Hezbollah because doing so gives them prestige, influence in Lebanon, and a way to hit Israel — all without cost. Their backing includes not only arms, but also financial subsidies that enable Hezbollah to buy popular support.

Finally, a lot of Hezbollah’s resources and forces are outside Israel’s range. Thus, only strong action by Lebanese groups could destroy Hezbollah. But they won’t act because they fear civil war and opportunistically use Hezbollah to promote their own goals or ambitions. For example, the current Christian leadership is a political ally of Hezbollah, even though the former opposed and the latter favoured Syria’s continuing occupation of Lebanon.

Naturally, most other Lebanese are unhappy that Hezbollah’s adventurism has dragged their country into war and inflicted great destruction on it. Many secretly want Israel to crush Hezbollah and rid them of their problem. Yet they will do nothing themselves to help, thus ensuring that the problem continues.

There are, though, two realisable goals that Israel can achieve. The first is to keep Hezbollah away from the border. Ideally, Lebanon’s army and government would enter the area and run it as part of their country. Alternatively, another international force may be able to accomplish more than its predecessors, which mostly waved at the terrorists as they passed. But even if international institutions or Lebanon do nothing, Israel will attack any Hezbollah forces trying to get close enough to cross the border or fire rockets at Israeli civilians.

The second attainable goal is to impose such a high price on Hezbollah as to be an effective deterrence in practice. Hezbollah will keep insisting publicly that it yearns for another confrontation, shout defiance and claim victory. At the same time, though, it will confine its threats mainly to the verbal level. More than this cannot — and should not — be expected. — DT-PS

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Centre, Interdisciplinary University, and editor of the ‘Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal’