Israel-Lebanon War: What Democrats Need To Say

Hmmm. It seems that Hezbollah may in fact be a clear existential threat to Israel indeed.

Yours,
Wince

Only if Israel is so foolish as to follow Hezbollah’s plan for her. Israel’s aggressive militarism is the existential threat to Israel.

You know what? I'll take the existential threat to Israel that you describe.

It's the ones that come strapped to a guided missile that I want to eliminate.

The freedom of the Israelis to live in their own land is paramount. As we know: the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution. The same cannot be said of the other side.

Agreed.

A careful, all-out campaign on the missile sites and a strengthened border. That's a measured and thoroughly defensible response.

Good enough for me.

Not good enough. Israel must be able to strike Hebollah's command structure - which means Beirut - and prevent resupply from Iran - which means bridges, highways and ports. The kinds of artificial limitations you are making, shep, are the kinds of limitations that lose wars.

Yours,
Wince

Try a dose of Strategy Page. It is odd to maintain that Israel doesn't know the local politics and is therefore messing up:

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.

Yours,
Wince

“The kinds of artificial limitations you are making, shep, are the kinds of limitations that lose wars.”

Ethics and long-term geopolitical thinking are human constructs so, of course, they are “artificial.” Thank god that people who understand those things are here to provide “limitations” to the militarist’s imperative to kill. That is the kind of artificial imperative that perpetuates war.

shep,

The "militarist’s imperative to kill"? Utterly meaningless in this context. No one is exibiting such an imperative.

I call big fat strawman.

In other words, big swing, big miss.

Try again, and this time with some strategy.

Yours,
Wince

"No one is exibiting such an imperative...I call big fat strawman."

I call comforting self-delusion.

Ha!

You resorted to ad hom!

I win!

Again!

Woo hoo!

Yours,
Wince

P.S. If you want to do science you must be able to do math. If you want to do international politics you must do military strategy - even if your goal to to deter war, not make it. In which case you should study, so you can support your beliefs.

An article titled Hizbollahs Clever Plan for Victory might be germaine.

Wince, you grab for the all the gusto when one cold-one will be an ample thirst quencher.

Although it might not be your intent, you come across as wanting to solve the inherent problems of Lebenese instability, and by extension Middle Eastern turmoil, in this one engagement. As do many of your friends at Tiger Hawk and Strategy Page.

You write in such mild-mannered tones, but there's always this bit of blood-lust that seems to creep through. (OT: Is there a John Wayne movie you haven't seen twice?)

The existential threat only becomes real if Israel resorts to a full invasion after they are done with their Shock & Awe.

By definition that is limiting, and winning, if they refuse the bait.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion, as it seems are the Egyptians, Jordanians and Saudis (who no doubt are ahead of me in this thinking by decades if not centuries) that the trouble with the ME is not Zionism, the Palestinians or "Radical Islam".

It's those uppity Shi'a, 10% of the Islamic world, yet the focus so much trouble eminating from Iran, Southern Lebanon, and now Iraq, where they enjoy political dominence.

These folks really have an axe to grind, as do the Sunni that hate them from Pakistan to Tikrit and on through the Bekka Valley.

I've seen several analyses of the split, mostly historical. Yet, as with the scism between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, I haven't seen too much on the doctrinaire differences in their beliefs.

I'll have to do some more research, but it's weird. You don't get a history lesson when looking for the differences between orthodox, reformed and conservative jews. You get a mix of history and dogma when learning about the protestant sects differences with the Vatican.

Not so with Shi'a/Sunni differences. Mostly you see it portrayed as a battle over whose dynasty has the right to rule the world, but not a difference in belief structure or ritual differences.

The best explaination I can find is here which boils it down to Arab (Sunni) nationalism vs. Shi'a Persians. But it still just glosses over the theological differences.

I really don't get it.

It's those uppity Shi'a, 10% of the Islamic world, yet the focus so much trouble eminating from Iran, Southern Lebanon, and now Iraq, where they enjoy political dominence.

And here's a central irony to the story: we toppled the one guy who (among other things) had ruthlessly crushed the Shia in Iraq and fought them to a draw in Iran.

It's probably safe to say that no one in the US State Department thought extensively about the unintended consequences of his removal.

"You write in such mild-mannered tones, but there's always this bit of blood-lust that seems to creep through. (OT: Is there a John Wayne movie you haven't seen twice?)"

Wince is a militarist and a Christian militarist at that (and he thinks I haven't done the math). You know what they say, if your only tool is a hammer, pretty soon all problems look like nails.

Ara, "irony" isn't the word I was looking for, but "fucking stupidity" is just redundant when referring to the neo-con-poops.

BTW, there were some at State and CIA (many of whom are now working elsewhere -- like Brookings and Cato) who saw this comming, just nobody working under Rumsfeld.