Southern Lebanon

The Times on Israel's plan of attack for southern Lebanon:

Troops Ready, but Israel Bets on Air Power

By STEVEN ERLANGER

JERUSALEM, July 22 — On Israeli intelligence maps of southern Lebanon, the stronghold of the Hezbollah militia, there are numerals in circles that overlap many villages. One is marked “8,” others “7” or fewer.

The figures represent the number of rockets fired toward Israel from each village as registered by Israeli surveillance planes and radar. The villages, whose names cannot be published under Israeli Army censorship regulations, stretch north to roughly the Litani River, some 15 miles from the Israeli-Lebanese border.

“This is where Hezbollah has most of its 10,000 rockets,” said a senior Israeli commander, who would not allow his name to be used because he has access to sensitive information. “And these villages are where most of the rockets are kept, with their launchers, and where they’re fired. This is where the command and control is located, and the weapons storehouses.”

...

For the last three days, Israel has been telling the residents of southern Lebanon, through leaflets, radio broadcasts, taped telephone messages and conversations with the local authorities, to leave these villages and move north.

But the preparation now seems to be less for a ground invasion than for more punishing airstrikes to try to eliminate Hezbollah military assets and stockpiles, which the Israelis say are distributed and hidden through the civilian population, in houses, garages and apartments.

...

The overall aim, Israel says, is to weaken Hezbollah sufficiently so that the international community can help the Lebanese government to carry out United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 and exercise its sovereignty all over Lebanon, expelling any foreign fighters and disarming Hezbollah.

Israel is more interested in having an international force patrol the border than it has been in the past, officials say, especially if the force has rules of engagement that will allow it to ensure that Hezbollah cannot reinfiltrate to the border.

...

Israel needs to “restore our military deterrence against terror organizations, whether Hamas or Hezbollah,” the officer added, “and this goal is already achieved.” Israel must show again that “Israeli soldiers on the ground can defeat any enemy,” the officer said, pointing to Gaza, where Israel has killed about 100 Palestinian fighters since June 25 and lost only one soldier, who was killed by another Israeli by error.

General Halutz, the chief of staff, put it this way: “The restraint which we showed over the course of years is interpreted by those among the terrorists as weakness. On this count, they made a horrible mistake by assuming that we would persist in holding back and restraining ourselves. Our duty as an army was — and we did as such — to recommend a halt to this development, which stems from a sense of us not having an answer.”

An international force with teeth, Israeli officials say, would help deal with serious Israeli concerns about the loyalties of the Lebanese Army, even after the Syrians have gone.

Israelis note that the Lebanese Army, while some 50,000 men strong, has never been willing to try to displace Hezbollah in the south, even though Hezbollah has many more rockets than organized fighters — perhaps 6,000 of them, the Israelis say.

“The Lebanese Army is not a strong army, and half of it is very close to the Hezbollah,” the Israeli officer said, citing the large number of Shiites from southern Lebanon who serve in the army. Asked if the army would, even if deployed along the border, prevent reinfiltration of Hezbollah fighters, the officer said, “I look for Hezbollah to understand that any future move against Israel will be very counterproductive and to concentrate on becoming a real political party.”

Syria, he said, had far more potent and dangerous weaponry than Hezbollah, but it has always kept to its cease-fire agreement with Israel, deterred by the losses it knows Israel could inflict. “There’s a state in Syria that controls its territory,” the officer said. “We hope the international community will help Lebanon become a real state and keep the border calm.”

MORE:  For people having trouble getting nervous about the Lebanon situation and the difficulty of the task facing Israel, consider this from Gregory Djerejian:

But Hezbollah garnered the second largest number of electoral seats in the Lebanese parliament, having joined up with Nabih Berri's Amal Party. Hezbollah, in fact, has some 35 seats in a 128-strong parliament, second only to the 72 seats of "Future Tide", Said Hariri's anti-Syrian coalition. How do you just eradicate an entire political party, that enjoys major support from the country's Shi'a population (keeping in mind the Shi'a are the single largest religious sect in Lebanon, representing 30-40% of the population)?

One of his readers expands on this theme in an excellent UPDATE.  An excerpt:

In 2005, Lebanon held an election. Hizbullah and Amal formed a common voting bloc entitled the Resistance and Development Bloc. It won all 23 seats in the south, on a platform that opposed the disarmament of Hizbullah. I am not happy about this development, and am no fan of hizbullah, but there it is. I have seen no evidence (by you or otherwise) - or even seen it asserted - that the election does not accurately reflect sentiments among the Shia in southern Lebanon.

Under these circumstances, please tell me what it means to "defang" Hizbullah? What can it mean to "liberate" the south, "expel the occupier" and "give it back to the Lebanese" when 1) the local population supports the "occupier" (which is made up of local residents) and hates the proposed liberator; and 2) the proposed liberator has already sought to "liberate" the area once before, in 1982, which led to the present antagonism, and the creation of Hizbullah in the first place?

Comments

[Slomo Tionberg]

Intellectual confusion on terror
Source: The Washington Times

"Two days ago, the New York Times suggested an out-of-character response to dealing with the crisis in the Middle East should the U.N. Security Council fail to enforce Resolution 1559, which requires Hezbollah to disarm. "If the Security Council isn't willing to issue such explicit demands or link them to clear punishments," the paper editorialized, "the United States, Europe and key Arab allies, who are also eager to see the fighting and Hezbollah contained, will have to bring serious pressure on their own." Of course, the editorial continued, "[t]he United States will have to take the lead."
The NYT's argument that the United States may be forced to assemble and lead a coalition if the Security Council fails to act represents a remarkable change in perspective from just three years ago.
This is the same editorial page, after all, that claimed in March 2003 that it was "persuaded of the vital need to disarm Iraq. But it is a process that should go through the United Nations." The Times consistently chided President Bush for not being more patient with the United Nations, even when it became clear that no action could be expected from the Security Council. It's curious that the Times predicated the necessary action to resolve one dangerous situation on U.N. approval (an editorial, also in March 2003, declared that "[t]he threat of force... should not give way to the use of force until peaceful paths to Iraqi disarmament have been exhausted and the Security Council gives its assent to war") but is now willing to wave that condition in order to deal with Hezbollah. Friday's editorial fails to explain why the Times believes two situations should be handled so differently."

http://washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060722-112047-5538r

[Gambit]

There be nothing more than Gen-X slack-jawed morally equivalent youths behind the wheel of that paper.

It's a tree killing version of slashdot.org

The same government that they hate for everything else should be employed to take out the eeeeeevil Micro$oft. Of course originally, this was supposed to have been done by the open source community and Linux.

The parallels are just spooky.

[PeterUK]

WGAF what the NYT thinks?

[Extraneus]

We've already taken out two terror-sponsoring states: Afghanistan and Iraq. If the overall objective is to defeat Islamofacism (aka, "global terror") before it gets any stronger, and the strategy involves taking out the regimes in Syria and more importantly Iran, and we're working behind the scenes with Israel on this larger objective, the events in Lebanon must be associated with a larger plan. Whatever the next steps in this plan, our military forces are obviously well-situated, but if Israel can't provoke Syria or Iran into defending Hezbollah, and an international force ends up patrolling Southern Lebanon instead, you have to wonder what the next step is.

[Extraneus]

Perhaps "must" is too strong. The events in Lebanon "may" be associated with a larger plan. :-)

[Jane]

I don't think "must" is too strong, and I hope you are right exreaneus.

[Cecil Turner]

WGAF what the NYT thinks?

No kidding. It's like polling French grand strategists: the only possible reason it'd be of interest is as a caution of what not to do.

I don't think "must" is too strong . . .

Neither do I.

[lurker]

I had a feeling that this war is part of a bigger plan.

I wonder if the reason the troops are waiting is the arrival of the US rockets that can penetrate those Hizbollah bunkers.

Fox News' Mike Tobin said this morning about how hard it is to find the individual rocket shooters. An individual Hizbollah soldier may come out of his hiding to shoot a rocket, then scurry before Israel had a chance to locate the origin.

Which leads to ground incursions and, possibly, invasions.

Hearing this morning of another week of green light.

Let's see what Condi comes up with as well.

Easy to see how this is a multi-front war - military, financial, and diplomacy. Will the Kos Kids see the multi-fronts? Nah!

[PeterUK]

Delete,"must" and "may" replace with "are".We have between now and when Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

[PeterUK]

Lurker,
The Osraelis are counting Hezbollahs guns,as per TM's post.

[noah]

I have seen multiple spellings for ?HezBalla?...today I saw a new one for me...HizbAllah (IIRC) which I think should be adopted since it brings to the fore the "Army of God" meaning...which perhaps would remind our moonbat brothers that are reflexively anti-Israel that they are supporting religious zealots.

[lurker]

Thanks, PUK! Fox News reported that Hizbollah having 10,000 today as opposed to 12,000 yesterday.

Hizbollah continues to shoot rockets into Israel.

Speaking about rockets, check these two links:

North Korean missiles and Iran

Via link inside this article above:

North Korean Missile Tests May Have Succeeded

[lurker]

Sick but no surprise!

Iran's Ahmadinejad tells Israel to pack up and go

[Cecil Turner]

From Drejerian:

Three years ago, I would have poo-pooed anyone using the word "radicals" to describe the neo-cons. No more. Any group that can so brazenly (and breezily) avoid a real reckoning with the continuing crisis in Iraq--which is descending into civil war as we speak--any movement that has the gall to suggest as some panacea that we mount significant military operations in Iran and Syria and god knows where else (with Israel in Lebanon to boot), well, their credibility is at a very low ebb indeed, and they very much need to be urgently reined in.

Oh please. The hard nut of mideast terror sponsors on 9/10 was Iran/Iraq/Syria, and failed state Afghanistan, and benign neglect or support from Pakistan and Libya. The very real danger was of terrorist access to national level weapons programs including WMDs. Today, Afghanistan and Iraq are completely defanged, Pakistan and Libya neutral to on-side, and only Syria and Iran remain as active terror sponsors. Those are the true US security threats, not the continuing violence in Iraq. Further, it's obvious that much of the violence in Iraq is due to the remaining terror sponsors, who are not constrained by fuzzy thinking like Drejerian's into believing we're all happy fellows in the community of nations.

AS to the connection between the jihadist catspaws, the common tactics (e.g., the latest: kidnapping soldiers as hostages) demonstrate that beyond any real argument. And yes, the obvious strategy is to hold the sponsors accountable for their proxies. In the current crisis, that means the Iranian suppliers of Hizbullah and their Syrian conduit. The risible pretence we can solve this through diplomacy requires ignoring several decades of historical data. If we had a decent dirty tricks section on-side at CIA, we'd already see some indications of toppling regimes. And yes, military action (or at least the credible threat thereof) is an important part of the equation.

[clarice]

Maybe the editors have been reading Claudia Rossett on the sly,Slomo.

Israel was quoted as having said that it will accept a result which leaves Hezbollah as a political party but it must be disarmed. Late last night the rumor was that France, Italy, India and Germany might make up the buffer force along the border.

[Extraneus]

Re: lurker's link, I know appearances can be deceiving, but Biden strikes me as an idiot who doesn't have a good grasp of his own limitations. At any rate, I somehow doubt he's regretting his comments regarding NK missile tests or anything else, for that matter. I think there's a better chance he's wearing a new smoking jacket and looking in the mirror, possibly asking someone for comments on it. Maybe I'm wrong and he's a real geopolitical strategist, but I haven't noticed the evidence.

[lurker]

Will Hezbollah agree to the disarmament? Nah.

Another condition that I read Hizbollah must agree to was that they can no longer espouse the extremism of their ideas. Will they agree to it? Nah!

CQ reports that Israel might agree to the NATO troops.

Hizbollah continues to shoot rockets all day local time.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

I hope it's not that group. India is the only one of them deserving of any trust. The new Italian government is almost the equal of Spain's in fecklessness.

I continue to root for Poland as the spearhead and Turkey as the supplement. The corruption in France and Germany runs way too deep for them to be entrusted with any task that does not involve surrender.

[lurker]

Rick, I was wondering about involving France, Germany, and Italy as to whether they would be as ineffective as UNIFIL.

What the negotiations should include is Plan B and C, etc., in case the first troops to provide buffer zone protection were ineffective.

The issue of Iran building rockets that they can shoot from their own country all the way to Israel remains.

Guess Israel will have to start setting up anti-missile systems.

I find this one hard to believe at this point:

Report: Hizbullah willing to talk

[Rick Ballard]

Cecil,

I'm curious as to where you would place the the Saudi faction which funds the radical Wahhabist actions in your schemata. Do you believe that they have been effectively marginalized to the extent that al Queada has been entirely deprived of their financial support?

Lurker,

At least as ineffective as UNIFIL. Possibly more so, if that is possible. France remains 'aligned' with Tehran, as does Germany to a lesser extent. There's money involved and France and Germany have supreme loyalty to trying to steal a buck where they can. They even beat Kofi in that respect.

[PeterUK]

"Will Hezbollah agree to the disarmament? Nah."

The only thing that renders Hezbollah a significant political force is the fact that it is armed to the teeth.
There are parallels with the IRA regarding this.

[SteveMG]

Cecil:
Re BD's characterization of the (well, some: those advocating attacks on Syria and Iran) neo-cons as "radical" and you're dismissal.

Do you think the country is prepared to take on the mission that Kristol et al. advocate? We can debate whether to call what they're proposing "radical" or not. Or even whether fundamentally they are correct in their analysis of the long term problem we and the West face.

But to advocate the type of larger expansion of the war right now when the country has not been prepared for such a adventure can be justly criticized.

The old chestnut applies: Nations fight wars, not armies. And it's pretty clear to me that this nation at this time under these circumstances is not behind such a response.

Certainly not elite opinion. And if I'm right, not mainstreet opinion either.

As another president said at another time, with the people, anything is possible. Without them, nothing is possible.

SMG

[Patton]

I think if everyone else wants to treat Hezbollah as if they are a country then Isreal should as well. Just start calling the piece of Lebanon below the river as Hizbonia.
Tell everyone that Lebanon effectively gave that land to the Hizbollians when they became squatters there and Lebanon did noting to stop it.

So the fight is between Isreal and Hizbonia
and Lebanon can shut the h-ll up.

It would be fun seeing Isealis on CNN asking CNN why they don't have Hizbonias Ambassador to the UN on, or they elected President or Leader of their Senate, etc.

[Patton]

"""But to advocate the type of larger expansion of the war right now when the country has not been prepared ..""

Gee, I thought we already had a Global War on Terrorism. I thought Congress already voted on that issue.

Why has noone learned at this point that being nice to terrorists invites more, while kicking their as-es brings people to our side.

We saw Clinton be nice to Muhommed Atta, giving himj netry into the United States when his VISA had expired, and how did he repay our niceties? Sept 11th

We saw Clinton giving BJs to Arafat in the Oval Office and begging him to take the best deal the PLO was ever going to get. How did he repay that, he laughed in Clintons face and lauched Atifadah II.

We saw Clinton be nice to Osama Bin Laden, not taking him when Sudan offered him up. What did we get? He moved to Afghanistan and declared war on us.

We saw Clinton be nice to Osama again after the Embassy attacks when Clinton didn't kill Bin Laden becaue he feared he may hurt a couple for humters...Osama repayed him with the USS Cole and launching the Sept 11th attacks.

I don't think it still gets through peoples heads that you have to kill these people off, topple their regimes and force them into the 19th century.

[PeterUK]

"I don't think it still gets through peoples heads that you have to kill these people off, topple their regimes and force them into the 19th century."

The 18th would do,if they could only catch up with The Enlightenment.

[SteveMG]

Gee, I thought we already had a Global War on Terrorism. I thought Congress already voted on that issue.

Well, the AUMF gave the president the authority to go after those involved in the 9/11 attacks (e.g., anyone who harbored, planned, authorized et cetera: Link).

Was Syria involved in the attacks? Certainly we could probably link Iran to that day.

More important, my point was to the public's support now for such an expansion of the war. Not whether the president has the authority to do so.

Let's assume, to strip down the debate somewhat, that he has the legal authority to go after Syrian and Iran.

Is the nation ready for such actions?

I think not. And if the country isn't ready, neither is the US military.

A nation's committments cannot exceed its resources. And one of those resources in a war is the willingness of the public to suffer the hardship of that endeavor.

SMG

[Other Tom]

Somebody wake me up when there is a Cleo sighting. I believe she is still suffering from acute Admiral Roy Hoffmann Foundation disease. Get well soon, sweetheart.

[ed]

Hmmm.

1. Israel should annex the land.

2. Evict all current residents.

3. Control the area using strongpoints and UAVs along with on-call artillery.

Anybody moving through the Zone get's their back scratched by a brace of 155mm shells.

[Extraneus]

Re: SMG's concerns with the unpreparedness of the U.S. public for further military adventures in the GWOT, I was thinking about the difference in public opinion between when we were on the march and had the initiative in Iraq vs. after we'd begun crouching and gotten bogged down. Seems like there's been a pretty clear correlation, at least regarding Iraq, and that people prefer offense over defense. Of course the Democrats would be foaming at the mouth over any overt move Bush would make, unless there was a preliminary provocation that pissed off the public. But if there were, and the public was convinced it was deserved, I think most Americans would probably be happy to see another light show on TV.

[clarice]

Actually, I think our problem all along with public opinion is that we treat the weirdbeards as the players rather than their state sponsors.

McLaughlin was a piece today on the Administration in the WaPo which Powerline neatly demolishes. I tried to link to it but somehow couldn't.

The two points I make are not unconnected. We didn't make the public case about Saddam's support for terrorism and backing for 9/11 as strongly as we could have IMO because the CIA was incompetent and because it stuffed what little it had under the carpet as a matter of preference--remember Sheuer, Pilar, et al. believed terorism was no big problem just something we had to learn to live with.

[Patton]

All of the BS you see on CNN and from these so-called World Leaders boils down to Anti-semitism.

Can you imagine them having this double standard with any other country? I mean why do we even have a seat at the UN.

If we want France do do something, we can just start lobby missiles with ballbearing warheads into their cities and kidnapp some of their citizens/sodiers.
When France complains or attempts to stop these acts, we just say, well sure we will stop, but, here are our terms you must agree to...

In fact, someone could start shooting hand grenades at the UN and then start talking terms for the UNs disbandment...

[Cecil Turner]

Do you believe that [the Saudi faction has] been effectively marginalized to the extent that al Queada has been entirely deprived of their financial support?

Absolutely not, but it's also not their center of gravity. There is no shortage of crazy imams, willing jihadists, and sympathizers willing to provide money. What they lack is military capacity . . . particularly free training and staging areas and access to national weapons programs. Tracking and stopping financial streams is great stuff, but can't be the primary focus. National sponsors are.

But to advocate the type of larger expansion of the war right now when the country has not been prepared for such a adventure can be justly criticized.

I'd submit both Syria and Iran are already fighting, so "expansion" isn't really apt. Further, I suspect that if we wait until Iran amasses a nuclear arsenal, there'll be plenty of voices clamoring about how we squandered a "window of opportunity." This is reminiscent of nothing so much as the public scoffing at Winfield Scott's Anaconda plan, and those who thought they could half-fight the US Civil War, which just served to inflate the eventual butcher's bill.

I think not. And if the country isn't ready, neither is the US military.

We have less than 10% of our military tied up in Iraq, in what's essentially a peacetime rotation schedule, which is where most of them would need to be deployed anyway in the most aggressive military option. I think you're seriously underestimating the military.

[Patton]

Dirty little secret. Iran couldn't do squat if we started a robust bombiong campaign to take down their military capability. Would they unleash some terrorists, sure. Would we be stupid enough to leave our people unprotected like 30 years ago? I would sure hope not.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
When did the "Heart of Darkness" become the Department of Paperclips,a bureaucratic sinecure for the mediocre?
All very reminiscent of a manager some provincial Soviet factory producing brown bootlaces,always fulfilling his quotas and shipping them off to some vast warehouse where they would disappear for ever.
Regular as clock work he would send his figures to the Commissar of production who could report to the Central Committee that the USSR outstripped the world in manufacture of brown bootlaces.

[Patton]

We are not talking about a land invasion or Iran...most of the airforce isn't tied down with anything.

You can launch alot of cruise missiles to take down their surface to air missile systems. Then run long range bombers with more cruise missile not even entering their airspace.

You could do a lot of damage to their military capability which would greatly reduce their threat in the region and
make the Arab countries stand up and reduce their ability to intimidate other countries..

We are at war with Iran...its just us that doesn't realize it yet.

Besides, as we have learned with Isreal and CNN, if you start lobing missiles into another country, that country, Isreal, is supposed to cow down and say its all their fault and give into your demands....

[SteveMG]

Iran couldn't do squat if we started a robust bombiong campaign to take down their military capability.

How about shutting down the Persian Gulf? Unleashing the Revolutionary Guard and their Shi'a supporters in Iraq?

How about their fellow radical Muslims in Pakistan? Or Indonesia? Or Egypt? Or Jordan? I could see Mubarak falling. The Hashemite Kingdom being overturned.

They're not ten-feet tall, sure. But this would be, it seems to me, a far more complex action than Belgrade or even Iraq.

And again, not be too repetitive: The American public isn't ready for such a response. A response that would entail not just overturning these radical regimes; but requiring us to help replace them with more friendly governments.

Nation building times a hundred.

SMG

[Jane]

>As another president said at another time, with the people, anything is possible. Without them, nothing is possible.

Sad but true, and an indication that the Bush administration's greatest weakness has been marketing.

We don't need Nato troops to protect the border, we need Muslim troops. We either let the sunni's and shia fight it out once and for all, or they will both turn on us, and we are sunk.

[Cecil Turner]

How about shutting down the Persian Gulf? Unleashing the Revolutionary Guard and their Shi'a supporters in Iraq?

They could probably interdict the Shatt al-Arab and Strait of Hormuz--at least temporarily--and mine some parts of the Gulf. They'd almost certainly stop their own oil shipments. The "unleashing" bit is less compelling. And if the alternative is a nuclear-armed Iran (which will inevitably lead to nuclear-armed Hizbullah) . . .

The ironic part is that a credible threat would probably obviate the necessity. And our chattering classes--most opposed to military action--seem to be doing their utmost to make the threat non-credible (and hence actual conflict more likely).

[clarice]

PUK, I l*o*v*e you..it was a brilliant analogy..The Weekly Standard article on actionable intelligence this week says the same thing but it takes them longer.

[Gary Maxwell]

Egypt? Or Jordan? I could see Mubarak falling. The Hashemite Kingdom being overturned.

Steve while you do have legitimate concerns about consequences, I think you fail to understand Iran and Arabs. Persians ( Iranians) and Arabs dont really get along. I contend it has to do with Persians believing they are superior in every way to Arabs. If I am wrong on the cause I am not wrong on the effect. They dont like each other and will not willing support each other on more than a very superficial level. And not that many residents of either Jordan or Egypt are Shia either. There just aint much that would ignite the populace there. Shia are located in Iran ( but mostly Persians) and Iraq ( arabs) and Lebanon ( again arabs). Syria is mostly made of Alewhites with some Druze ( who are also in Lebanon ). The Druze and Alwhites are Muslims but many Shia and Sunnis would not agree and have nothing to do with them.

[SteveMG]

Persians ( Iranians) and Arabs dont really get along.

Right good point. And one that we should try to (carefully) exploit.

But this isn't pan Arab nationalism that we're facing; this is Islamism that has replaced or filled in the vacuum left by the decline of nationalism.

Nasser's gone; Qutb has replaced him.

SMG

[clarice]

There have been consistent reports from Iran(confirming what Iranian friends have told me) that the Iranians hate the Arabs and resent Iran's support of the Palestinians and Hezbollah particularly as their own economy is so dreadful. Whilte the mullahs have their feet on the throats of their people, do not assume that they wouldn't be stoking resentment at home if they continue to expend the nation's resources on a prolonged battle.

[Barney Frank]

The Persians are a slight majority in Iran. Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis and others are a potent problem for the mullahs.
So not only do they have the intrareligious schism of shia/sunni to contend with and the Arab/Persian ethnic and political conflict they have internal strains that threaten their rule. Expansionism seems invariably the route sought by tyrants to relieve these strains. Reagan's great strategy was to see the weakness of the USSR if it was forced to play defense. If we ever had the brains to seriously put Iran and Syria on defense by supporting and equipping their internal opponents I suspect they would fold up in just the same way as the USSR. What would take their place might not be too pleasant but it seems worth the risk.

[Gary Maxwell]

Steve

I dont see Islamists bringing down the governments of Jordan or Egypt either. The Sunni Shia divide is pretty deep, many Sunnis think of Shias as infidels too. If Islamists are going to bring down a country, train your eyes on Saudi Arabia or to a lesser extent but still possible Pakistan. Wahabists are much closer to the Islamist rhetoric than even they will admit.

[PeterUK]

Barney,
"“Always keep a hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse”.

The powers that be use this excuse without ever explaining what it is that could be worse.Are there level of perdition like the Nine Levels of Hades?

[Jane]

>If we ever had the brains to seriously put Iran and Syria on defense by supporting and equipping their internal opponents I suspect they would fold up in just the same way as the USSR.

I'm pretty sure we have been doing this in Iran for quite some time. But the government seems very ept at curtailing the opposition.

[PeterUK]

A very well concise analysis of Hezbollah its structure,organisation and connections to Iran.
Hezbollah IS the Iranian Revolution.

[Jane]

Great article PUK. Chilling, but great.

[Patton]

I see some still are afraid of that vaunted "Arab Street" ("Persian Street") rising up against us.

Do we really need another boogie man?

You won't get any control over terrorism unles you topple the Regimes that support it.

Imagine how tough Hezbollah would be without Irans 100 Million dollars a year.

This isn't a question of 'if', this is a question of 'when'. Some apprently think its best to wait until they have Nukes, then they can say, you can't possible go after Iran, they have Nukes!

Then they will be free to spend 1 Trillion on Hizbollah, Hamas, undermine Pakistan, Iraq, etc. etc. because then they will have a Nuke and we won't be able to do anything.

So all the boogie men you see, will just get worse.

[Patton]

"How about shutting down the Persian Gulf?"
Well, we would of course take out all the Silkworms we can find but I don't think it would endear them which many of their neighbors and would kill their own economy.

"Unleashing the Revolutionary Guard and their Shi'a supporters in Iraq?"
That same Guard that couldn't be the Republican Guard? Unless they can fly, they will die. It would be nice if they Shia supporters in Iraq showed themselves, makes it easier to kill them.

"How about their fellow radical Muslims in Pakistan? Or Indonesia? Or Egypt? Or Jordan? I could see Mubarak falling. The Hashemite Kingdom being overturned.""

If they had the power to do any of this, why haven't they? They easiest way to deal with terrorists is to get them to come out of hiding, then they always lose.

"They're not ten-feet tall, sure. But this would be, it seems to me, a far more complex action than Belgrade or even Iraq."

Once they get Nukes, they will be ten, no twenty feet tall. You wouldn't be able to stop them from doing all the things you think they can do above and you would be powerless to stop them for fear of losing Tel Aviv to a Nuke and then the Isreali response..etc.

"Nation building times a hundred."

I don't intend to rebuild them, let them sort that out..I do intend to leave them with not much left in the way of military offesive capability. Then even if the radicals stay in power, they will have to attack us with guns instead of Nukes.

[SteveMG]

I don't intend to rebuild them, let them sort that out

Whoa, we can't overthrow governments and, at the very least during that action, damage heavily their economies (among other things) and then just walk away.

We have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to help the people out.

Besides, didn't we do that in Afghanistan? And look how that turned out. A failed state was fertile ground for radical elements to grow.

SMG

[Carol Herman]

Nope. Nothing worth believing in the paper.

But Israel has to produce something for the demented media to feed on. So they shove this stuff out at the end of a very big stick.

I'll even bet America used something similar up when Osama was thought to be in the caves of TORA BORA. Remember? We flushed Osama out. And, to prove it he made a video.

Well? How often do you get your opponent to drop his cards?

What did Israel do? It dropped a candygram on Nasrallah's hideouts. Including the money palaces. But how would it know what those bombs accomplished? Little green men don't drop by to visit. And, photograph what's happening on the ground.

So a pretty good way to do it would be to "announce" you killed nasrallah. Do you think that anyone really knew where nasrallah was going? He had choices. And, maybe, there were even fears he stowed away on a ship heading to England? Lots of people were making for the exits. I'm sure it was chaos.

So, it was helpful when Nasrallah came up and thinking he was flush with victory, he made his video. And, then, the Israelis KNEW. (They looked at their list of possible places. And, they KNEW he didn't make it to Hermel. Didn't make it to Cypress. Didn't have the resources to put to sea. As to getting about, now that the roads and bridges to syria have been demolished, nasrallah's choice is to live by going from one hiding place to another. If he's like Saddam. Then he's living on a traveling bus.) But if his bus headed towards syria, it got walloped. Did you notice the things that got put on the "hit list?" Some passing parade.

The media is the ENEMY. The Internet, as a matter of fact, grows strong. Do you know why? Millions of paper open HERE. And, don't even get newspapers, anymore, for their coupons. And, the TV news is NUMBING. It's for the brain dead.

How many stories have you punched holes in recently?

How about the one where nasrallah said people in Tel Aviv had ONE HOUR to clear out of town. (That was last week.) And, as soon as it popped up on Little Green Footballs, people just like me, who comment, already addressed it.) Nasrallah was looking to spook out the Israelis. And, cause a panic.

Didn't.

Trick didn't work.

MSM missed the story.

Do you still care?

Remember the story about Nazareth? How the arabs complained the Jews saw to it that their sirens were broken? Did you know what the sirens were put out of commission? BECAUSE THE ARABS DIDN'T WANT TO BE ANNOYED WITH THE SIRENS THAT COME ON REMEMBERANCE DAY (for the soldiers), and HOLOCAUST DAY. For the 6 million killed in the crematoria.

That's why they didn't have a WARNING system. Does it matter? The MSM said the arabs blamed Israel. And, when you're too stupid to be able to see the truth, you deserve the lies.

While the Internet GROWS. And, we can turn lies around on a dime.

The news you read from the IDF is planted. Some of it is true. There's been a call up of reserves. And, it's possible there is a large contingent of foot soldiers going into Lebanon. But I doubt it. I think the tunnel structure; once it's identified, will be destroyed by air power. Those jolly air bursts that sucks the oxygen out. And, means that those inside the bunkers just get to stay there. Dead as doornails.

Warfare with monsters in tunnels goes back to the Pacific. And, WW2. Hard fighting. And, yes, the need to slug it out. But we did it. We did a lot in Vietnam, too. But the costs were too high. Why bother to claim victory. The Vietnamese can keep thanking China for all I care.

So there's nothing new under the sun.

A shame though that the American MSM is so hostile. But they are. And, our good President just shrugs. Why not? I know how to read between the lines.

[clarice]

Hezbollah is running out of rockets. Syrian has been caught trying to resupply them but the bridges and roads are now destroyed so that job is now almost impossible. The Hezbollah troops in Northern Lebanon are refusing to move south to relieve their embattled brothers.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007598.php

Over a million Israelis are living in bomb shelters. Given its size, it would be the equivalent of many millions of Americans living in bunkers. Did they go whining to CNN? No. They operated out of common will and faith in their troops and their government and that faith does not appear to have been misplaced.

Assymetrical warfare (terrorist attacks) can be successful against a disciplined modern army only if sniveling civilians allow it to be.

[clarice]

An interesting taped interview with the Lebanese head of Hezbollah in which he says he told the Lebanese govt that he would kidnap Israeli soldiers, and which he expresses surprise at the Israeli, Arab and world community reaction. Again, this underscores my thought that this was a poorly conceived action and a strategic mistake.
http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1200wmv&ak=null

[Patton]

"""Whoa, we can't overthrow governments ""

Don't plan to..I plan to take away their toys..destroy their ability to project power, kill their air force and air defense so I can beat em' up later if they continue to act like sh-t. Then kill all their nuclear capabilities and missile forces, and alot of their armored forces.

I'd hit some regime elements just to shake them up. Then if they want to fight, start hitting things that really hurt. Being without power for a few weeks tends to concentrate the mind on your own needs rather then geo-global politics.

[Patton]

Ohh, and I'd convert their Navy to all open air submarines.

Then I'd tell them for every truck bomb, you lose a electrical grid, for every suicide bomber, you lose a military facility, etc. If you don't straighten up, I come after you and yours.

[Atlantica online Gold]

I like your written, but I also like Atlantica online Gold.