The strategy is?

[slothrop]

If Israel's response is seen as disproportionate, that's probably the point. They don't want to respond tit-for-tat, because Hezbollah is more willing to sacrifice "their" lives than Israel is.

 

Let's say someone detonated a nuclear weapon in the Promised Land. I bet the major cities of Syria and Iran would be turned to molten glass in 30 minutes, no questions asked.

[Jim]

Smallshoes, given how much this has hurt Israel's cause, do you really believe that Israel intentionally targetted innocent civilians? Really? Why would they do that?

 

And if that was their goal, who limit themselves to an artillery shell or two?

 

It'd be interesting to see the analysis in which Israel concludes that it can advance it's interests by deliberately invoking condemnation and outrage through intentionally killing civilians.

 

I feel like I must be missing something here. Israel has the capacity to kill every last civilian in Lebanon in short order if it chooses to, but only uses a fraction of it's millitary power, and takes as many precautions as is reasonably possible to avoid killing civilians, while Hezbollah holds nothing back and unleashes every bit of its arsenal while trying to kill as many civilians as possible, and use the civilian population as shields - but Israel is the actor singled out for condemnation?

 

Having said all of that, even if they were equally bad, I'd take Israel's side for strategic reasons alone, so I'm hardly an impartial observer on this one.

[JayB]

I'm not sure that Israel's tactics have been the wisest here, but it seems to me that they've done everything that they could to minimize civilian casualties - as if they elected to pay no heed to civilian lives they could have easily flattened any or all of Lebanon and been done with it. So by taking measures to limit civilian casualties as much as possible in the face of a massive rocket bombardment undertaken to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible, I'd say that Israel has lived up to it's moral responsibilities as a more powerful democratic state that's aspiring to live by a higher set of ideals than their enemies.

 

Tale of the tape: Lebanon civilian casualties : over 600

Israeli civilian casualties from the "massive" rocket attacks: 18

 

I'd say the response is over the top.

 

If this arithmatic were the result of Hezbollah's moral restraint, then the respective casualties would mean something. Given that the only reason that Israeli casualties are that low because Israel is prepared for such attacks, and Hezbollah's weaponry is less effective at killing civilians than they'd like, we are once again confusing things which are physically equivalent with those that are morally equivalent. By that logic if the Germans had succeeded in killing only a fraction of the number of German civilians that England had succeded in killing , despite the Germans's best efforts to kill many more, the German's would have been the morally superior actor in that conflict.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Tale of the tape: Lebanon civilian casualties : over 600

Israeli civilian casualties from the "massive" rocket attacks: 18

 

I'd say the response is over the top.

 

If this arithmatic were the result of Hezbollah's moral restraint, then the respective casualties would mean something. Given that the only reason that Israeli casualties are that low because Israel is prepared for such attacks, and Hezbollah's weaponry is less effective at killing civilians than they'd like, we are once again confusing things which are physically equivalent with those that are morally equivalent. By that logic if the Germans had succeeded in killing only a fraction of the number of German civilians that England had succeded in killing , despite the Germans's best efforts to kill many more, the German's would have been the morally superior actor in that conflict.

 

I don't know about that... the 18->600 strikes me as a disproportionate retaliation, which really has no parallel to WWII. A more apt parallel would be WWI where the assassination of one man escalated into the deaths of millions.

[JayB]

To Hezbollah, there are no civilians. They take "you're either with us or against us" to a new level.

 

Not responding would have been an interesting reponse, though. Might have thrown Nasrallah off his game. Israel could have let the outrage at the unprovoked Hezbollah raid marinate for a while, at least. But no, Iran/Syria/etc. read the political situation very well and took advantage.

 

All indications are that Hezbollah was expecting a rather different response than it got, so I wouldn't give them too much credit for foresight here. However, once things got started, I think you are correct that they realized that they had Israel in a catch-22, and have seized the opportunity that Isreal's actions have provided them.

 

I'd agree that Israel might have been much better off by letting the original offense go unpunished and turning their restraint to their advantage.

[JayB]

Tale of the tape: Lebanon civilian casualties : over 600

Israeli civilian casualties from the "massive" rocket attacks: 18

 

I'd say the response is over the top.

 

If this arithmatic were the result of Hezbollah's moral restraint, then the respective casualties would mean something. Given that the only reason that Israeli casualties are that low because Israel is prepared for such attacks, and Hezbollah's weaponry is less effective at killing civilians than they'd like, we are once again confusing things which are physically equivalent with those that are morally equivalent. By that logic if the Germans had succeeded in killing only a fraction of the number of German civilians that England had succeded in killing , despite the Germans's best efforts to kill many more, the German's would have been the morally superior actor in that conflict.

 

I don't know about that... the 18->600 strikes me as a disproportionate retaliation, which really has no parallel to WWII. A more apt parallel would be WWI where the assassination of one man escalated into the deaths of millions.

 

I still don't think that you can use the number of civilian deaths as the sole standard by which to determine who has the higher ground. The ratio in this case is solely the result of Hizbollah's inability to kill more civilians, rather than any moral restraint on their part. There's a massive difference between a force which uses all means at its disposal to kill as many civilians as possible, and a force which uses a fraction of it's destructive power and takes measures to limit civilian casualties. I think it's also important to consider the ends for which the two sides are fighting when assesing who's got the higher ground. Even when both actors have taken the gloves off completely, and the civilian casualties are equal on both sides, it's still possible to distinguish between the two sides by their motivations for participating in the conflict and by considering what they'd do if they won.

[greenfork]

Tale of the tape: Lebanon civilian casualties : over 600

Israeli civilian casualties from the "massive" rocket attacks: 18

 

I'd say the response is over the top.

 

Hmm... yeah, it would be much better if the numbers were equal. Wars should be fair! Tit for tat. Then it could go on forever!

 

Basically, you could argue that if you're winning a war, your response is "over the top".

 

(Of course, it certainly isn't apparent that Israel is winning anything here yet...)

Edited August 3, 2006 by greenfork

[chucK]

I think Hezbolla should be condemned for the blatantly provocative act of indiscrimately firing missles into a population center and starting the chain of events that is turning out to be very fucked.

 

There, can you stop saying that Israel is being singled out for condemnation now?

[JayB]

To me the balance of the criticism seemed to be falling on Israel, despite the clear distinctions between intentional versus incidental civilian casualties, hiding behind civilians, etc. Your perception is clearly different.

 

Thanks for the rolleyes, though. It's been a while. Not quite the rolleye/"strawman!" combo that I've become accustomed to, but a nice thought nonetheless.

[chucK]

In Yugoslavia during the German occupation Yugoslavian partisans (hiding behind the people) would sometimes kill a German soldier or sympathizer or two. The SS would respond with rounding up 10 times that many civilians and executing them. This 10:1 ratio was, I believe, determined afterward to be a war crime.

 

So far 600:18 that's 33 times retaliation. If that's OK, what would NOT be OK? 100 times? 1000 times? Would Israel be excused if they killed 1 million because "if they really wanted to" they could kill 5 million?

[Fairweather]

In general, that's the strategy, except you forgot to add.......no matter the innocent body count. Another Bushism - We've never seen a problem we can't solve with bombs.

 

So when Hezbolla sets up a missile battery on/near an apartment building full of innocents exactly who is responsible for the subsequent carnage? I think any reasonable person can see. Hezbolla.

[JayB]

"In Yugoslavia during the German occupation Yugoslavian partisans (hiding behind the people) would sometimes kill a German soldier or sympathizer or two. The SS would respond with rounding up 10 times that many civilians and executing them. This 10:1 ratio was, I believe, determined afterward to be a war crime.

 

So far 600:18 that's 33 times retaliation. If that's OK, what would NOT be OK? 100 times? 1000 times? Would Israel be excused if they killed 1 million because "if they really wanted to" they could kill 5 million?"

 

Do you really think that the situations are analogous? To my way of thinking, a more apt analogy would be an army that's shooting at other soldiers in an urban setting and inadvertently hits civilians while doing so, versus soldiers who enter a city with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible, but can't seem to off many despite their best efforts.

 

But whatever. If numerical equivlance = moral equivlance for you, that's fine. I'm just providing a contrary opinion.

[greenfork]

There isn't any magic number chucK.

Israel should do what they need to do to achieve their goals, as long as they are exercising reasonable restraint in accidentally killing civilians. Whether they are exercising reasonable caution with regards to civilian casualties is debatable.

 

I don't really understand the comparison to the SS... The SS in that case was intentionally targetting civilians in retaliation for one of theirs being killed. That sounds like something islamic fascists do, not Israelis.

[chucK]

No numerical isn't = moral but it seems like at some point the numerical has got to enter into the equation. I agree that good intentions help, but even if you've got the moral high ground, you still need to factor in whether the ends justify the mean.

 

I mean just because we hate dictators that have rape-rooms we really shouldn't go igniting a conflagration that'll end up killing 100,000 people, even though we have the obvious high ground, should we?

 

Oooh wait. Too late for that one.

Edited August 3, 2006 by chucK

[chucK]

I must have missed the connection between bombing Beiruit and getting rid of rocket batteries near the border of Israel.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

In Yugoslavia during the German occupation Yugoslavian partisans (hiding behind the people) would sometimes kill a German soldier or sympathizer or two. The SS would respond with rounding up 10 times that many civilians and executing them. This 10:1 ratio was, I believe, determined afterward to be a war crime.

 

So far 600:18 that's 33 times retaliation. If that's OK, what would NOT be OK? 100 times? 1000 times? Would Israel be excused if they killed 1 million because "if they really wanted to" they could kill 5 million?

 

I kind of agree with your POV on this one...

 

OTOH, I can't help but think of that movie with Samuel L... "Is this a m****?"

[greenfork]

I mean just because we hate dictators that have rape-rooms we really shouldn't go igniting a conflagration that'll end up killing 100,000 people, even though we have the obvious high ground, should we?

 

You have a point there, but I don't equate Iraq with the current Israel/Hezbollah situation. Israel is *much* more justified in its current actions than the US ever was for going into Iraq (in my opinion). But that's another argument altogether...

 

I suppose numbers come into it at some point. But I don't think of Israel as being wrecklessly murderous right now. Maybe they could be doing a better job preventing civilian deaths. But without being there, it's hard to judge, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt (especially considering how much civilian deaths hurt Israel's cause).

Edited August 3, 2006 by greenfork

[Fairweather]

....Meanwhile Iran, the likely instigator of this whole affair, continues to enrich uranium on page A-12. And the Jew-hating UN grants the ayatollas another 31 days to comply with demands....'or else'.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

look! Redneckus Cascadia! notice the mating mullet and torn tshirt plumage!

 

redneck... or an SOD fan:

 

Fuck the middle east

There's too many problems

They just get in the way

We sure could live without them

They hijack our planes

They raise our oil prices

We'll kill them all and have a ball

And end their fuckin' crisis

BEIRUT, LEBANON-Won't exist once we're done

LIBYA, IRAN-We'll flush the bastards down the can

SYRIANS and SHIITES-Crush their faces with our might

Then Israel and Egypt can live in peace without these dicks

 

 

[JosephH]

Hezbollah wasn't expecting the Israeli response because I would be willing to bet their leadership wasn't expecting the kidnappings either; that they knew nothing whatsoever about the kidnappings until it was too late. The "brains behind the operation" of those clueless kidnappings was probably a couple of local border rubes that decided entirely on their own that a copycat kidnapping would be a great idea for Hezbollah too; who knows, maybe one or two of them had a brother or cousin being held by the Israelis. I would further suspect once all this settles down the Hezbollah leadership will make an example of these clowns to insure this sort of stupidity doesn't happen again if they haven't already.

[cj001f]

I'm not sure that Israel's tactics have been the wisest here, but it seems to me that they've done everything that they could to minimize civilian casualties - as if they elected to pay no heed to civilian lives they could have easily flattened any or all of Lebanon and been done with it.

While Israel does take civilian casualties into some account they definitely don't do everything in their power to minimize, at least compared to the US militaries tactics. Perhaps Israel as indifferent to civilian casualties, Hezbollah actively desiring them, and the US actively avoiding them would be fair. Not that fair ever mattered in this conflict.

[murraysovereign]

So what should Israel's strategy be? Sit on their hands and watch the pretty rockets fly in from over the border? They're in an untenable position, with a terrorist organization using a neighbouring country as a base from which to terrorize Israeli citizens. What would any other country do? What did the US do, when faced with Al Quaeda operating out of Afghanistan? If the "host" state is unable or unwilling to eliminate the terrorists in their territory, you go in and do it yourself.

But the more important questionis - what can be done to bring this particular cycle to an end? It seems to me the underlying problem is the inability of the Lebanese government to maintain military control of its own territory. If the government in Beirut had the wherewithal to provide policing and security in the countryside, then organizations like Hezbollah would find it much more difficult to operate there. As it is, they can pretty much do what they want throughout south Lebanon, and do so with impunity, because the central government can't do anything to stop them.

So here's my suggestion: following some sort of resolution of the present hostilities - however that may come about is anyone's guess - the international community, including Israel, embarks on an assistance program to help the Beirut government develop a police structure and military force sufficient to maintain control over their own territory. It's in everyone's long-term interests (especially Israel's) to see Lebanon finally able to establish a lasting and effective security structure. The only ones who won't benefit are Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. So I say as soon as the dust and smoke clears "we" start working with Beirut to train and equip both a military and civilian police force, with the aim of finally allowing Beirut to enforce some stability, particularly in south Lebanon. That would force Hezbollah and their sponsors to find some other playground from which to operate.

[olyclimber]

its spelled "strategery".

[willstrickland]

Murray, I agree, you go in and do it yourself. But the tactics Israel has chosen are absurd. They would need to get in there with a shitload of ground forces, and root out the rockets and assholes launching them. But Israel in their limited attempts at ground incursions are seeing much stronger resistance than they anticipated. So, unwilling to pay up in blood to achieve their objective via a door to door type approach, they take the rabid dog approach...make the fuckers think you're crazy and will punish everyone and just destroy everything. It's a no-win situation for Israel, IMO. They've already lost.

 

What you do not do is hit well known, long established UN structures. You do not indiscriminately bomb highways and bridges, then tell the entire south of Lebanon to evacuate (on what road? over what bridges?). You don't then target the cars that are evacuating on your orders, and you certainly don't hit Red Cross ambulances with your helos. Tell me this was a mistake:

 

 

Yeah. Center punched the fucking cross on top and put about 100 20mm rounds through the roof. Whoops.

[cj001f]

What you do not do is hit well known, long established UN structures. You do not indiscriminately bomb highways and bridges, then tell the entire south of Lebanon to evacuate (on what road? over what bridges?). You don't then target the cars that are evacuating on your orders, and you certainly don't hit Red Cross ambulances with your helos.

Well, absent those egregious cases (though ones with a long history) - attacking Beirut airport, sea ports, a lighthouse, grain silos, bridges, roads, factories, medical and relief trucks, mobile telephone and television stations,fuel containers and service stations, and the country's largest dairy farm eviscerates the entire infrastructure of Lebanon, increasing the time and money required to turn Lebanon into a functional state.

 

It's some dark comedy. Turn the clock back 20 years. Great - you want Arafat? WTF?