by hilzoy
I haven’t commented on the Lebanese ceasefire before, since it seemed to me way too early to know what to make of it, beyond the obvious fact that even a lull in the war is a wonderful thing for the civilians who were trapped in the middle of it. However, our President has no such hesitations:
” Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis. And the reason why is, is that first, there is a new — there’s going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon, and that’s going to be a Lebanese force with a robust international force to help them seize control of the country, that part of the country.”
When I read that yesterday, I thought: Hezbollah lost? Really? You could have fooled me. I can see the case for saying that it was a draw, or that it’s too early to tell, but a defeat for Hezbollah? And what’s with this certainty about what’s going to happen next? As of this morning, the truce looks pretty shaky, and the international force doesn’t seem to be coming together. If it all works out, I suspect it will be due to Israel’s eagerness to get out of southern Lebanon and European countries’ willingness to send their troops into harm’s way to avert a catastrophe. But whatever happens, Bush’s happy talk is more than usually out of touch with reality.
Billmon comments:
“The bottom line, which an odd member of the punditburo might even get one of these days, is that this is an administration that no longer makes any sense at all — not even on the most formal, semiotic level. Shrub’s speechwriters have literally been reduced to babbling, a relentlessly on-message babbling that shows just how ill suited the tools of domestic politics are for conducting a half-way serious foreign policy, much less an extremely serious war.
The sonic results are equally strange: Bush keeps belting the stuff out with his usual gospel fervor, even though it has degenerated into near gibberish. At times it starts to sound almost like accidental poetry, like listening to an old recording of Allen Ginsberg reciting Howl — “I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, etc.” Except Ginsberg had a better sense of meter and wasn’t a war criminal.”
I think this is right (and I love the idea of Bush as Allen Ginsberg), but I’m not sure it applies to this particular case. Bush’s claim that Hezbollah lost wasn’t part of his prepared remarks. It was something he said in answer to a reporter’s question, and it seemed to be off the cuff. Moreover, he didn’t have to say it at all. For that reason, I suspect that he might actually think it’s true. And that’s really scary.
Think about it. The President and his administration allowed a country to be bombed to smithereens because it was unthinkable to accept a mere ceasefire that did not address the root causes of the problem. As a result of our willingness to let Lebanon be flattened, we now have a ceasefire that does not address the root causes of the problem. Hezbollah will not be disarmed by the Lebanese, nor will the international force take action to disarm them, since other countries are understandably reluctant to fight Israel’s wars. This is a deal we could have gotten very early on; had we done so, hundreds of lives would have been saved. Because the US and Israel blocked an early ceasefire, Hezbollah’s standing has been greatly increased, Israel’s deterrent has been compromised, and our interests have been severely damaged. Moreover, as I said earlier, the ceasefire could easily fall apart at any moment. It’s hard to see how anyone could think what the President apparently thinks.
But having a President who is completely out of touch with reality seems to be the new normal. From another story in today’s NYT:
“President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday. (…)
More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.”
It’s worth stopping to think about what you’d have to not know in order to be puzzled by Shi’ites demonstrating against the US. You would, for starters, have to not know how pictures of the ruins of Lebanon look to people in the Middle East, and you’d have to not know that Iraqi Shi’ites would identify with Lebanese Shi’ites. You’d probably also have to not know that there were some very good reasons why Iraqis might be frustrated with the US even before they saw those pictures — reasons like our staggering failure to provide even minimal levels of security for ordinary Iraqis, or to do anything like a decent job on reconstruction. Not to mention Abu Ghraib. You’d also have to be ignorant of basic facts about human psychology, like the fact that we tend to resent people who invade our countries.
Most important of all, you’d have to be unaware that Iraq is melting down right before our eyes:
“July appears to have been the deadliest month of the war for Iraqi civilians, according to figures from the Health Ministry and the Baghdad morgue, reinforcing criticism that the Baghdad security plan started in June by the new government has failed.
An average of more than 110 Iraqis were killed each day in July, according to the figures. The total number of civilian deaths that month, 3,438, is a 9 percent increase over the tally in June and nearly double the toll in January.
The rising numbers suggested that sectarian violence is spiraling out of control, and seemed to bolster an assertion many senior Iraqi officials and American military analysts have made in recent months: that the country is already embroiled in a civil war, not just slipping toward one, and that the American-led forces are caught between Sunni Arab guerrillas and Shiite militias.”
So here’s a question for those on the right: do you think that Bush actually believes what he says, or that he’s lying? (Lying, for these purposes, does not include the kind of spinning that involves saying only true things, but focussing on those truths that support your position. It means lying.) If, like me, you’re inclined to suspect that he really believes what he says, does it worry you to have a President who is so badly out of touch with reality?
And what could we all do to make sure that the next President we elect feels a responsibility to have at least a passing acquaintance with reality?
And what could we all do to make sure that the next President we elect feels a responsibility to have at least a passing acquaintance with reality?
Electoral reform.
(Well, it would be a start to make sure that the next President you-all elect actually gets into office, wouldn’t it?)
Billmon wrote:
Shrub’s speechwriters have literally been reduced to babbling, a relentlessly on-message babbling that shows just how ill suited the tools of domestic politics are for conducting a half-way serious foreign policy, much less an extremely serious war.
The sonic results are equally strange: Bush keeps belting the stuff out with his usual gospel fervor, even though it has degenerated into near gibberish. At times it starts to sound almost like accidental poetry, like listening to an old recording of Allen Ginsberg reciting Howl
Maybe Bush is speaking in “tongues” and only his followers can interpret the language of freedom-angels from liberty God.
” The President and his administration allowed a country to be bombed to smithereens because it was unthinkable to accept a mere ceasefire that did not address the root causes of the problem. As a result of our willingness to let Lebanon be flattened, we now have a ceasefire that does not address the root causes of the problem. Hezbollah will not be disarmed by the Lebanese, nor will the international force take action to disarm them, since other countries are understandably reluctant to fight Israel’s wars.”
Would a day one ceasefire have led to an international force in Lebanon?
George Will made a crack about the necessity for Bush’s supporters to be delusional.
On the right there is a huge, deeply hysterical need to feel like a winner. The need to feel like a winner is far more important than the need to know what one is fighting for or how the fighting is done. If the Republican party gets the blame for losing Iraq–and they should–they will be marginalized from American politics for a generation. Hence the desparate scurrying around looking for a scapegoat. Blame the Democrats, blame Bush for not being a real conservative, blame the Iraqis for not supporting us….
Don’t most Iraqis Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, believe the United States encouraged Hussein to go to war with Iran?
To ignore the West’s century of meddling, in the region, really does not bode well for America’s right-wing of freedom spreaders.
You think Bin Ladden banked on our collective denial?
… do you think that Bush actually believes what he says, or that he’s lying?
hilzoy,
I thought William Saletan came up with a good answer to this question. I defer to your judgement on whether Plato deserves the blame.
But what I want to know is, what the hell got into Chirac? Is there some benefit to France in putting troops into no-mans-land between belligrents who really don’t keep ceasefires very well?
it’s hard to know when he’s lying and when he’s just demonstrating ignorance. and, it’s possible he’s doing both at the same time, here.
Hezbollah didn’t win, it got beat up, chased around a lot and didn’t defeat Israel – Israel is still there and still capable of much more than it gave Hezbollah over the last few weeks. so, maybe in a carefully-tailored binary (lose = opposite of win) sense, Hezbollah lost. and maybe that’s enough to convince W that he can just stay on-message and let the nitpickers worry about the details.
it’s the same logic that says finding a handful of forgotten, degraded, harmless chemical shells proves “we found the WMD”. sure, it’s a lie in the bigger sense, but if you phrase the question just right, cross your finers behind your back, and are careful who’s around when you say it, you can get away with it.
Typo: Bush’s claim that Hezbollah won wasn’t part of his prepared remarks.
I think this isn’t what you meant to say. Either that, or it’s contradicted elsewhere in your post.
In any event, I say something almost (but not quite) exactly the opposite: to claim that Hizbollah won anything at all requires a complete redefinition of victory.
Me, I score it as more or less a draw, with both sides vying heavily for loser.
or, shorter me: W’s just a mendacious hack
Kevin: But what I want to know is, what the hell got into Chirac? Is there some benefit to France in putting troops into no-mans-land between belligrents who really don’t keep ceasefires very well?
This may offer an answer to that question. The historical/diplomatic ties between Lebanon and France are real and of long standing: France formed the Lebanese Republic in 1926, and the Free French recognised Lebanese independence from France in 1941 (the Vichy government not until 1943). If this comes off, Chirac and France look good and the Lebanese benefit: if it doesn’t come off, Chirac may still get points for trying.
So just who are these “speechwriters” who have been putting the happy-babble into President Bush’s mouth? Have they hired on Mohammed Said al-Sahaf*?
Sadly, hilzoy, the “tools of domestic politics” seem to be all that the Administration has left to work with, since, as has been long demonstrated, putting on a “tough” front for the home audience and working (or attempting) the news for its maximum political advantage has always been this Adminstration’s main, and possible only real strength. Even more sadly, there seem to be so damn few of the “opposition” (or, for that matter, any responsible/non-delusional parties) who will publically call them out out on their apparent separation from reality. Oh, sorry: there’s that “reality” thing again….
*a.k.a. “Baghdad Bob” – remember him?
In any event, I say something almost (but not quite) exactly the opposite: to claim that Hizbollah won anything at all requires a complete redefinition of victory.
Depends if you’re talking about a football game or not. A better question would be “Is Israel better off today than it was a month ago?” Or Hezbollah? The reports of Hezbollah fighters high-fiving each other a few kilometers from the Israeli border seems to indicate that they’re feeling pretty good about life right now.
Both sides were wrong and both sides lost. Well, I hope both sides lost–neither side deserves to feel like it won.
Now which side actually “won” as defined by how they perceive victory isn’t clear, but it’s probably Hezbollah, because they held up so well against the IDF and this has made them heroes in the Arab world. Though maybe in the long run the (non-Shiite) Lebanese will reflect a bit and start blaming them for causing this stupid war.
That was Thomas Friedman’s hope in a recent column. I suspect Friedman believes that this justifies Israel’s brutal behavior. I don’t agree, but it might still be true that Hezbollah’s current high standing in Lebanese public opinion will drop when people start to think about what they want their country to be like. They probably won’t come to the point where they thank Israel for killing hundreds of civilians and causing billions of dollars worth of property damage.
And of course “best minds of my generation” doesn’t exactly apply either. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln…
Chirac is not that different from Bush. A lame duck after a completely failed presidency. Perhaps, the similarity fueled their dislike.
In domestic politics Chirac can no longer manoeuver. An active foreign policy looks mighty good and enhances French status in the UN pecking order.
What troubles me is not the Bush basket case (Europe has survived many a mad king) but the ongoing strong support and ignorance of a sizable portion of the US public. Bush is only a symptom.
And of course “best minds of my generation” doesn’t exactly apply either. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln…
This was a huge victory for HA.
Israel did not achieve any of it’s war objectives. HA did.
To recap, Israel did not get it’s soldiers back or dislodge HA from southern lebanon or convince HA not to shoot missiles at them.
There will be no disarming of HA.
How this can be interpreted as anything other than a win for HA is beyond me.
And of course “best minds of my generation” doesn’t exactly apply either. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln…
Given that they’re alive, still, even I think that’s warranted.
And of course “best minds of my generation” doesn’t exactly apply either. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln…
“Have they hired on Mohammed Said al-Sahaf*?”
Isn’t he the one that absolutely, definetly was certainly not the trade envoy to Niger which the former Prime Minister of Niger thought wanted uranium (and who didn’t bother trading in anything else once it was clear that uranium was not on the table)?
[backs away slowly]
🙂
In any event, I say something almost (but not quite) exactly the opposite: to claim that Hizbollah won anything at all requires a complete redefinition of victory.
Certainly, although the fact that they’re still armed, still defiant, still within sight of Israel, still have rockets, and are filled with a sense of dignity and pride may have something to do with it as well.
The anticipation of new recruits, new sources of funding, and the street cred of being the most effecient Arab fighting force in the world may come into play as well.
Oops, that was in response to this by Slarti: Given that they’re alive, still, even I think that’s warranted.
requires a complete redefinition of victory.
Someone better tell the Vietcong they lost.
“The anticipation of new recruits, new sources of funding, and the street cred of being the most effecient Arab fighting force in the world may come into play as well.”
Just effective enough to start a fight, but not effective enough to do anything about it once it started? Hezbollah claims to be the only force that ‘protects’ Lebanon from Israel. The only protection I saw was Hezbollah trying to protect itself by hiding behind civilians.
You are probably right about how the Arab street redefines winning. But when the only thing you bring to the table is the ability to ruin your country’s economy at the drop of a hat, you are really just a thug.
But when the only thing you bring to the table is the ability to ruin your country’s economy at the drop of a hat, you are really just a thug.
Just a question: Who rebuilt S. Lebanon after the Israelis withdrew?
Maybe they bring more to the table than you are prepared to acknowledge. Sucks for those who seek comfort in a black and white worldview, but there you go.
Meanwhile, someone travel back in time and tell every resistance group there ever was they’re just thugs.
But when the only thing you bring to the table is the ability to ruin your country’s economy at the drop of a hat, you are really just a thug.
Irrelevant, since that doesn’t apply to Hezbollah. Really should use the view of Hezbollah used by those in Lebanon–world of difference there.
But when the only thing you bring to the table is the ability to ruin your country’s economy at the drop of a hat, you are really just a thug.
Wow. I think the chocolate ration just increased from 30 grams to 20. Those weren’t Hezbollah bombs levelling the country, Sebastian.
Slarti, in addition to what dpu and Ed Finnerty have said, there’s the reality of what constitutes ‘winning’ for a guerrilla army, which is different from a win for a regular army.
Hezbollah is an anti-occupation guerrilla army, which ‘wins’ if Israel is unable to reoccupy more of Lebanon and/or suffers significant losses in the effort to do so, without dislodging HA fighters from south Lebanon. It remains to be seen if or when IDF ground troops will withdraw entirely from Lebanon.
The worldwide reputational damage to Israel, from the IDF’s assault on civilians and civilian infrastructure far from the rocket-launching sites, is just a bonus for Hezbollah. The Israeli military were not forced by Hezbollah to respond in that way; they planned that response far in advance and had it endorsed by their backers in Washington DC.
The continuing naval and air blockade of Lebanon will inflict similar reputational damage the longer it goes on. France today called for it to end.
Just a question: Who rebuilt S. Lebanon after the Israelis withdrew?
Just to be concise: That would be after the Israelis withdrew the first time.
And it will likely be Hezbollah that will rebuild South Lebanon the second time.
The disclaimer that should be unnecessary: do not mistake this as love of Hezbollah.
Slarti: “Bush’s claim that Hezbollah won wasn’t part of his prepared remarks.
I think this isn’t what you meant to say. Either that, or it’s contradicted elsewhere in your post.”
— I don’t get this. What I meant to say was: Billmon attributes this to Bush’s speechwriters. I, however, do not. The speechwriters presumably wrote the prepared part of his remarks, which he delivered at the beginning. This was not in that prepared part. It seemed to be off the cuff. Thus, I attribute it to Bush himself.
“to claim that Hizbollah won anything at all requires a complete redefinition of victory.” — I think there are things that Hezbollah won. I don’t think they won, period. But that’s mostly because I don’t really think that anyone won here, at least among the actual combatants. (One of the many respects in which war is unlike football: in football, someone has to win. In war, alas, not.)
To my mind, if there has to be a “winner”, it’s the side that gains the most in terms of its long-term strategic objectives, not the side that comes out ahead militarily. Militarily, the fight between Israel and Hezbollah seems to have been a draw (unlike the fight between Israel and the Lebanese infrastructure and citizenry, which Israel definitely “won”.) But in terms of strategic objectives, I think Israel clearly lost a lot, while Hezbollah’s gains and losses are a lot less clear.
(Partly this is because its objectives are also less clear. I mean: it gained a lot of prestige. Does it have a plan for what to do with its increased prestige — how to turn it into some useful result? Its military gained a lot of credibility: again, what does it plan to do with that? What’s its objective, and how do these gains work to secure it? I don’t know.)
But since I think Israel clearly lost a lot, while it’s just unclear how Hezbollah did, and since that unclarity doesn’t come from any problem identifying things Hezbollah achieved, but from seeing a strategic vision that they play into, if I had to pick a winner, it would be Hezbollah.
Seb: I think we might well have gotten an international force in there early on. It’s not clear what form the international force will take now, but it does seem likely, to me, that they will not be tasked with disarming Hezbollah. That means that if they prevent attacks, it will be by just being there, not by ‘attacking the root causes’, etc. And since they are unlikely to stay there forever, the basic problem remains.
I really do not see how this was worth it.
do you think that Bush actually believes what he says, or that he’s lying?
I’ve thought they were drinking their own koolaid since it became clear that they hadn’t prepared fake WMDs to find in Iraq
What’d Hizbollah win, by analogy?
If Bush egged them on May 23, then of course he’s going to say they won. Nothing bad can possibly be his fault. Delusion has been a winning strategy for him.
The guys firing the rockets may or may not be thugs, but IMO that’s dangerously underestimating the guys on the border taking on Merkavas with old antitank weapons (and occasionally succeeding).
And given that Israel is just as well armed, still just as committed, and still has bombs, aircraft and observation drones, I’d say it points more toward preservation of status quo. Which, truth be told, might be Hizbollah’s aim, but that they’re being bankrolled by Iran certainly got much wider media exposure than was the case before this began.
And of course you might argue this, too, is a victory for Hizbollah.
And a note on ruining the economy. I read an interview with someone from South Lebanon who described Hezbollah trucks loaded with windows, doors, and young men who would appear after Israeli air raids in the past, and quickly do repair work free of charge. Imagine what things like that do in terms of popular support.
Now Iran has announced that it will be pumping some 150 million into South Lebanon to repair the infrastructure. Who do you suppose will be the recipient of the goodwill that will result?
“…willingness to let Lebanon be flattened….”
What’s the definition for when a country is “flattened”?
Is it when under one-tenth of one percent of its structures have been “flattened”? More? Less? What’s an objective measure?
Um…Bush didn’t claim Hizbollah won, hilzoy.
Slarti:
Oh.
Oh.
Oops.
Pretty remarkable what you can fail to notice when you “know” what you wrote.
Moving right along:
“What’d Hizbollah win, by analogy?” — Before this started, Hezbollah was facing a problem about its mission. It was supposed to be protecting Lebanon from Israeli aggression, but the Israelis weren’t around any more. Moreover, the Syrians, who had backed Hezbollah, had left, and Lebanon was supposed to turn into a normal country in which you don’t have armed militias running around. There was basically no reason for their military wing to go on existing, apart from the pretty transparent pretext of the Sheba’a farms. But while parts of Hezbollah (the parts that do the social service work and so forth) seemed to be OK with turning into a political party, the militia part didn’t really want to go out of existence. It just had no obvious reason not to.
That was then. Now things are altogether different. The idea that Lebanon doesn’t need to be protected from Israel is now laughable. The idea that the Lebanese army can do it — well, what did they do to protect anyone during the last month or so? Hezbollah now has tons of popular support, and moreover the demand to disarm it has been recast as an external demand to be resisted. It has, moreover, proved its worth to its funders. And it will do a lot better than it would have before in Lebanese elections.
I think it gained a lot.
What’d Hizbollah win, by analogy?
Compare & contrast South Lebanon & Gaza.
Do you think that if Gaza had a militia as well armed, trained and lead as Hizbollah is that the Israelis would get away with this kind of crap?
Oh.
Oh.
Oops.
Pretty remarkable what you can fail to notice when you “know” what you wrote.
FWIW hilzoy, I couldn’t figure it out either until Slarti’s 1:32.
Is it when under one-tenth of one percent of its structures have been “flattened”? More? Less? What’s an objective measure?
Guess it depends on which one-tenth of one percent. While power stations, highway overpasses, bridges, and civic and communication centres may be one billionth of the area of the county, destroying them would be considered “levelling” in my books, even if slightly hyperbolic.
Perhaps we can agree that the infrastructure and economy have been levelled…
Been there, done that.
Another question: why is the Hezbollah (Party of God) suddenly being referred to as “HA” by some this morning? Does fashion change overnight, or what?
Another question: why is the Hezbollah (Party of God) suddenly being referred to as “HA” by some this morning? Did fashion change overnight, or what?
That was asked in response to spartikus’ comparison of Hizbollah to the Viet Cong.
Don’t forget oiling the beaches. That will probably do more damage to Lebanon’s economy than anything else.
I see one person referring to Hezbollah as HA, and one person does not a fashion make. Or did I miss some others?
“I see one person referring to Hezbollah as HA, and one person does not a fashion make.”
Two, however, does.
I’m just wondering if I missed a memo; I believe you know the feeling.
What’s the definition for when a country is “flattened”?
Potential GNP reduced by X per cent, where X is whatever figure you have in mind.
Jes,
Thanks for the link. I thought the most compelling suggestion was: “France wants to avoid the possible emergence, from the Lebanese as from related crises, of a new conflict of civilisations between the west and the Muslim world.” That’s a worthy aim, but up against Bush and Ahmadinejad it seems far too ambitious for France, or even the entire EU.
“Potential GNP reduced by X per cent, where X is whatever figure you have in mind.”
This seems an unhelpful measure of military effect, since GNP can be reduced by a variety of utterly non-military measures, such as embargos and sanctions.
As well, I’m looking for a measure without an “X,” but with an actual number or measure that can be applied.
Next?
HA is just a convenient contraction of the name for typing purposes – similar to referring to the IDF.
Sebastian: Would a day one ceasefire have led to an international force in Lebanon?
Would it have led to three quarters of a million homeless and $2.5 billion in damages? Quit reckoning only the positive consequences. I would gladly take a functioning Lebanon over a miniscule international peacekeeping force.
Gary, just what are you trying to measure and why?
That was asked in response to spartikus’ comparison of Hizbollah to the Viet Cong.
Which Hilzoy’s answer more than adequately answered, and in the spirit of the question to boot. If you don’t see or care to see “the analogy”, so be it.
“power stations”
Did Israel destroy any power stations?
“The idea that Lebanon doesn’t need to be protected from Israel is now laughable.”
That seems silly to me. Lebanon is unthreatened by Israel in the absence of Hezbollah attacks – you might as reasonably say “The idea that Lebanon doesn’t need to be protected from Hezbollah is now laughable.” And it’s apparent that Hezbollah was unable to prevent e.g. the airstrikes in southern Beirut.
That seems silly to me. Lebanon is unthreatened by Israel in the absence of Hezbollah attacks
I’m sure those returning to their rubblized homes and neighbourhoods are blaming Hezbollah instead of the Israelis. Or maybe not.
Bush also seems to be under the impression that the international peacekeeping force, rather than being confined to a 20 mile band at the southern border will “secure Syria’s borders“. And also that the ports around Lebanon will be “sealed off”.
I have no idea what he means by this. But I’m wondering: who told him this? Is this an indication of the policy to follow? Will the US interpret the UN resolution as demanding, in effect, a blockade of Lebanon?
“Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis..”
Katrina was defeated, wasn’t it? The 13th floor of the World Trade Center won, didn’t it? The polar ice caps are winning the melting race, compared to, say, the ice cubes in my freezer, aren’t they? The Cubbies suffered a great victory when they lost Derrick Lee. My embalmed grandmother is winning the war on putrefaction.
I’m with Von on this war; it’s a stupid little war and who can say yet who won. I’m with Hilzoy on Bush; he’s a stupid little man, but he sure is a winner.
Did Israel destroy any power stations?
From The Times:
“Just a question: Who rebuilt S. Lebanon after the Israelis withdrew?
Maybe they bring more to the table than you are prepared to acknowledge. Sucks for those who seek comfort in a black and white worldview, but there you go.”
This is the classic broken window fallacy. If the thing you do is setting up situations to break things so that you can fix them, you aren’t really helping things. Of course, I won’t deny for a minute that it is an effective fallacy. Capone and the Medellin Cartel did a great job of making neighborhoods very unsafe while also ‘protecting’ the neighborhoods.
Hilzoy: “I think we might well have gotten an international force in there early on. It’s not clear what form the international force will take now, but it does seem likely, to me, that they will not be tasked with disarming Hezbollah. That means that if they prevent attacks, it will be by just being there, not by ‘attacking the root causes’, etc. And since they are unlikely to stay there forever, the basic problem remains.”
I don’t really understand this. Do you believe that there was a likelyhood that an international force would have been tasked with disarming Hezbollah before Israel attacked? It seems very unlikely to me. As for “since they are unlikely to stay there forever, the basic problem remains.” this is the argument against all ceasefires without destroying the enemy. Like a ceasefire, if the international force keeps things calm for four or five years, perhaps good can come of it.
I’m skeptical that an international force can do such a thing. I see it far more likely to be a chance for Hezbollah to prove (again) what it really is. But that is probably a necessary thing before Hezbollah can be dealt with.
This is the classic broken window fallacy.
Ah…so Hezbollah only rebuilt schools, roads, social services and what not for the expressed purpose of provoking their destruction at some date in the future. Cunning. And telepathic.
“Would it have led to three quarters of a million homeless and $2.5 billion in damages? Quit reckoning only the positive consequences. I would gladly take a functioning Lebanon over a miniscule international peacekeeping force.”
I’m sure, as you weren’t in Israel living under the rocket attacks before Israel counter-attacked, that seems true for you. I’m sure, that since the IDF is not funded by people who want to wipe Lebanon off the map, that seems true for you.
What is “a functioning Lebanon” from Israel’s point of view? I suspect it is a Lebanon that can keep Hezbollah from attacking Israel from within Lebanon’s borders. I suspect it is a Lebanon that can keep Hezbollah from being sent weapons from Iran.
There wasn’t a functioning Lebanon. And that, is the problem.
If you don’t care to explain this analogy, so be it. If someone else wants to, please, I’m all ears.
“Ah…so Hezbollah only rebuilt schools, roads, social services and what not for the expressed purpose of provoking their destruction at some date in the future. Cunning. And telepathic.”
No. They have social services for the same purpose that Capone and the Medellin cartel do–to derive enough popular support to allow them to have a safe base of operations to carry out their illegal and highly violent activites. Does militant-Hezbollah exist to serve Social Service- Hezbollah? The question can be answered by analyzing which group could survive without the other.
If you don’t care to explain this analogy, so be it.
As I said, Hilzoy did very well. If you aren’t grokking it, then you will naturally assume it wasn’t. As such, it’s an impasse.
Honestly, and to no one in particular, I don’t see how you can develop a successful strategy for countering Hezbollah if you are not prepared to assess them, as the facts on the ground suggest, as more than simple thugs.
dpu, the quibble is “destroy” vs “damage” – it’s been noted here a number of times that Israel had been taking out transformer banks to disable power plants while minimizing the repair time. Whether that was always the case in Lebanon is not known to me.
“I’m sure those returning to their rubblized homes and neighbourhoods are blaming Hezbollah instead of the Israelis.”
Different question.
Someone remind me what the Israelis claim the estimated damage to Hezbollah was? I saw a figure of 100s of fighters (10%? 15%?) and a larger proportion of materiel somewhere but can’t put my finger on it.
Without once paying service to the Vietcong half. If that’s better than you could do, I’m guessing you’re not prepared to explain it at all.
It wasn’t what?
There wasn’t a functioning Lebanon. And that, is the problem.
This is getting tedious. Most of the debators here from both sides of the fence agree that the situation was not a good one. Both seem to agree that a disarmed Hezbollah was a good thing. Pretty much everyone agrees that Israel has a right to protect themselves.
The disagreement rests on the best long term solution to the problem. While it’s true to say that Lebanon was not a fully functioning democracy, there were some extremely good indicators that it was going that way, and that there were moderate factions withing Hezbollah that could be encouraged to eventually take power from the extremists. That, and that alone, is the sole hope for peace on Israel’s northern border in the long term, and now that is far more distant than it was four weeks ago.
It’s astonishing that those who have, for the last few years, supported a doomed US Middle Eastern Policy continue to use the same flawed reasoning that backed that effort.
A miliary solution will. not. work. A political solution is required, and the longer it is sabotaged by what can only be described as an emotional thrashing about with high explosives, on both sides, the worse off we will all be.
There wasn’t a functioning Lebanon.
If the status quo was so unsatisfactory, why was the response to proposed negotiations Lebanon can wait?
“No. They have social services for the same purpose that Capone and the Medellin cartel do–to derive enough popular support to allow them to have a safe base of operations to carry out their illegal and highly violent activites. Does militant-Hezbollah exist to serve Social Service- Hezbollah? The question can be answered by analyzing which group could survive without the other.”
I don’t know how one could know this. And I don’t see the survive-alone question as dispositive.
Sebastian Holsclaw: Does militant-Hezbollah exist to serve Social Service- Hezbollah? The question can be answered by analyzing which group could survive without the other.
You mean the same way the public school system and Medicare are simply tools for gaining popular support for the U.S. Army?
It’s astonishing that those who have, for the last few years, supported a doomed US Middle Eastern Policy continue to use the same flawed reasoning that backed that effort.
Why would this be a surprise? Once people make a decision, they become emotionally invested in the position and are unlikely to change their views even in the face of rather strong evidence to the contrary.
Seb: “Do you believe that there was a likelyhood that an international force would have been tasked with disarming Hezbollah before Israel attacked? It seems very unlikely to me.”
Ah, I see the problem.
Presently, it seems very unlikely to me that the international task force that people are currently trying to put together will be tasked to disarm Hezbollah. As I read the text of the ceasefire agreement, disarming Hezbollah is a long-term goal, not part of the international force’s immediate mandate. Moreover, the press has been reporting for a while — before the ceasefire, at any rate — that the force under negotiation would not be tasked with disarming Hezbollah.
So, no, I don’t think that any international force we had gotten in very early would have disarmed Hezbollah, but I don’t think this one will either. If it were tasked with disarming Hezbollah, I don’t think anyone would sign up, unless Hezbollah had clearly agreed to disarm, which also strikes me as very unlikely.
I think that what’s going to happen, assuming the whole thing doesn’t fall apart, is: a multinational force will go in. It will have rules of engagement that permit it to defend itself, and to stop anyone from e.g. firing rockets in its presence. It will keep things under control, though it will not prevent Hezbollah from rearming. Eventually, it will leave, at which point either enough time will have passed for some more permanent solution to have come into view, or we’ll be back where we started.
Had Hezbollah in fact agreed to give up its arms, there would be something to show for all this. As it is, I really can’t see that there is, other than a lot of damage — most obviously to Lebanon, but also to the chances for peace in the region, and to our and Israel’s interests. I hope there will be no further damage to our troops in Iraq.
Hilzoy is correct, Hezbollah is not to be disarmed. In my view, the ceasefire allows Hezbollah to regroup, and as I believe that Hezbollah’s intent all along is to get into a ground engagement with Israel, they will likely utilize the ceasefire to get into an advantageous position to do so.
All speculation on my part, of course. My dedicated phone line to the Tehran leadership seems to be on the fritz.
Seb: Here’s Condi Rice on the subject:
So: we ask them to disarm voluntarily, and if they don’t — well, then we’ll call them terrorists. Sounds like a plan to me.
Best headline award goes to ‘Aqoul:
Rubenesque Conflict Seeks Single, Professional, Peacekeeping Force
You mean the same way the public school system and Medicare are simply tools for gaining popular support for the U.S. Army?
Hey, keep it down, Gromit. That’s not for public consumption.
“Gary, just what are you trying to measure and why?”
What an objective measure of what it is to “flatten” a country.
Why? So as to have an objective measure to discuss, rather than subjective opinion, which isn’t useful.
Larger goal: establish facts over impressions.
“So: we ask them to disarm voluntarily, and if they don’t — well, then we’ll call them terrorists. Sounds like a plan to me.”
Sounds like something worthwhile to me – a high-profile acknowledgement from the world that Hezbollah shouldn’t be armed. It should give Israel a bit of a moral boost in future if Hezbollah should attack it again.
I suspect that HA = Hezb’allah. A contraction based on the two parts of the organization’s name viewed as separate linguistic entities, instead of concatenated as they usually are in English-language media.
Sounds like something worthwhile to me – a high-profile acknowledgement from the world that Hezbollah shouldn’t be armed. It should give Israel a bit of a moral boost in future if Hezbollah should attack it again.
Uh, really? What are they called now?
rilkefan: well, it’s worthwhile in the sense of being good in isolation. A small good thing, but good.
But in context: Seb was saying that this war really had achieved something, and asked (as I read it, in support of his claim) whether there would have been an international force tasked to disarm Hezbollah if we’d forced a ceasefire early on. I said ‘no’, and then adduced the quote from Rice to illustrate that whatever is under discussion, it’s not a serious plan to disarm Hezbollah.
Maybe it is a serious plan to get the world to call Hezbollah terrorists, although frankly I don’t see who will do this who wasn’t already. But it’s not a serious plan to disarm Hezbollah.
“Uh, really? What are they called now?”
The defenders of Lebanon? The charity with a sideline in protection? A normal part of the Lebanese govt?
Five years from now there will either be no attacks on Israel from Lebanon, in which case I’d guess the recent unpleasantness worked out better than I expected, or there will be attacks by a non-disarmed Hezbollah clearly flouting the UN’s expressed will, and every conversation about it will include “in contravention of UN resolution blah”.
“HA is just a convenient contraction of the name for typing purposes – similar to referring to the IDF.”
IDF stands for Israel Defense Forces; it’s not a “contraction,” it’s an acronym. What does “HA” stand for?
Ara: “Would it have led to three quarters of a million homeless”
Homeless? As in homes destroyed, rather than “temporarily fled, but are returning today”? (After all, over a million Israelis were also “homeless” if it’s the latter definition.)
If it’s the former definition, homes destroyed, do you have a cite for that, please?
rilkefan: “Someone remind me what the Israelis claim the estimated damage to Hezbollah was?”
It seems to vary a lot, depending on who is speaking. The strongest claim seems to be that they killed ~500 fighters out of a total active force of ~2000.
Hezbollah, of course, claims far fewer fighters killed.
Then there are quite a few sources who assert that the ~2000 fighters figure is misleading, because Hezbollah has a far larger reserve of possible fighters, perhaps as many as 10,000.
The most frequent estimate I’ve seen of Hezbollah missiles destroyed or depleted seems to be about 1/3rd or a bit more.
What the facts are, I don’t know, and outside Hezbollah’s leadership, I doubt anyone really knows.
dpu: “While it’s true to say that Lebanon was not a fully functioning democracy, there were some extremely good indicators that it was going that way, and that there were moderate factions withing Hezbollah that could be encouraged to eventually take power from the extremists.”
There were? I haven’t read anything about such indicators; could you give some pointers, please?
Hilzoy: “Had Hezbollah in fact agreed to give up its arms, there would be something to show for all this.”
I assume you realize this could just as well be put forward — as indeed, many do — as part of the argument that the Resolution was a bad one, the cease-fire premature, and that that fight should have been allowed to go on for at least several weeks more.
I’m not making that argument, myself. But the point seems worth noting.
“Rubenesque Conflict Seeks Single, Professional, Peacekeeping Force”
It looks to me more like a polyamorous relationship. Probably a somewhat dysfunctional one, I suspect.
The defenders of Lebanon? The charity with a sideline in protection? A normal part of the Lebanese govt?
Therfore your thinking is that those who call them that now will call them terrorists when they fail to disarm?
That’ll teach ’em.
…or there will be attacks by a non-disarmed Hezbollah clearly flouting the UN’s expressed will, and every conversation about it will include “in contravention of UN resolution blah”.
Sounds a lot like what went on for the last month, to be honest.
Got one of those in your back pocket? Or know someone who does?
Got one of those in your back pocket? Or know someone who does?
Hezbollah can be disarmed quite easily if you move them from Column A [Irregular militia] to Column B [Lebanese Army, Southern Brigade]
Gary, try here.
“Uh, really? What are they called now?”
Providers of social welfare, apparently.
Rilkefan: “Five years from now there will either be….”
Or there will be a renewed war long before that, which seems not particularly unlikely.
The “you” in this hypothetical is?
I’m with double-plus-ungood on this one.
Sebastian: I am a bit puzzled that you seriously think that there was nothing to lose in Lebanon from the point of view with Israel, since Lebanon was not “functioning from Israel’s point of view”, such that Israel had nothing to lose w/r/t Lebanon’s function (as opposed to considerations like deterrence). I would be appalled if I thought you considered that to be the only moral consideration.
Hilzoy: is this it for that democratic peace theory?
This is an interesting Lebanon Profile post as well.
Hilzoy is right.
Read the text of the UN resolution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4785963.stm
Especially:
11.e. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;
The UN force is to assist the Lebanese government. So if the Lebanese government doesn´t try to disarm Hezbollah – as media reports indicate – the UN force won´t do anything about it IMO.
Also IIRC I´ve read that this resolution is a “weak” chapter 6 (?) UN resolution and not a (peace-enforcing) chapter 7 resolution. Due to resistance from Russia, China and Arab countries.
(Hope I´ve got the “chapters” right.)
So in a best case it will lead to a (temporary?) truce. In a worst case the UN force will be the scapegoat. They will be blamed if fighting erupts again.
On Gary’s question about the use of ‘HA’ for Hezbollah: I can only speak for myself. I’m not attempting to create or follow any fashion trends; I’m using an acronym of the two words that make up the organization’s name (Hezb Allah) to reduce the amount of typing necessary when making repeated references to Hezbollah.
When writing comments or posts, I make an effort to use the full word on the first occurrence. Depending on the length of what I write and the number of occurrences, I’ll revert to the full name once or twice more to avoid being too ‘acronymmy’ (not a word, I’m sure, but I mean by that the kind of thing that’s found in a lot of military and and bureaucratic communication).
Though not as long as ‘Israeli Defense Forces’, ‘Hezbollah’ is still a longish word to type over and over. I don’t want to use a made-up nickname, for the same reasons that I (and you) avoid words like ‘Repugs’. Until recently, in the files where I save excerpts and links, I’ve used ‘Hezb’ to save time, but have been reluctant to use that in public communication. Recently, though, I have seen the acronym — at American Footprints and at least one other blog — and it seemed to me to solve a problem.
If there is a problem with the usage, I’m certainly open to other suggestions.
It’s hard enough to decide how to write the group’s full name. After reading a discussion of the correct way to spell it in English, I decided that the best thing I could do was to settle on one spelling and stick with it.
I would be eager to hear what the incentive for Hezbollah to disarm would be. I know that if I were in their shoes, the last thing I’d be doing is giving up weaponry. And I’m a peace-loving anti-gun freak.
“Therfore your thinking is that those who call them that now will call them terrorists when they fail to disarm?”
I suspect Nasrallah eating a live puppy on TV wouldn’t change perceptions among the committed backers of the PoG, but other groups in Lebanon will find the resolution useful, and people who aren’t pro-H but are anti-Israel (e.g. in Europe or the UN) will find this rhetorically limiting. And for those just discussing the issue, the resolution will be a data point, or a meter stick to hold up to Hezbollah’s actions.
Certainly the UN resolutions against Israel have been a thorn in her paw. Now Hezbollah has a(nother) thorn.
“Gary, try here.”
Thanks; perhaps I’ve just not been reading the right sources (easily possible; I make no claims to be an expert on the dynamics of the Iranian leadership, or the workings of the Hezbollah leadership), but most of his claims seem to me unique ones that I’ve not seen from any other source. Do you have any pointers to sources that indicate that his views — for instance, that Khatami remains — or ever was, for that matter — a deeply significant and influential political figure in Iran and Lebanon — are widespread, or even representative of a significant number of analysts of Iran and Lebanon?
Or even representative of anyone besides himself?
He repeatedly cites Khatami about 485 times; does anyone else think Khatami is a significant power? What’s up with that? He makes some bows to acknowledge that Khatami is, in fact, not, but still, the entire post revolves around Khatami this and Khatami that.
So I kinda don’t get it, I’m afraid. It’s like reading an analysis of American politics based on the doings and plans and desires of Dennis Kucinich.
I’d imagine, given spartikus’ last comment, that they’d give absolutely anything to become part of the Lebanese Army.
The IRA didn’t disarm until 11 years after the 1994 ceasefire. Trying to make disarmament the first step in a peace process is never going to work.
the group’s official name in Arabic ‘Hizb Allah-Al-thawra Al-Islamiya fi Lubnan’
“Hezbollah” is an abbreviation.
“HA” seems like a fair abbreviation, too.
via this
Rilkefan: “Five years from now there will either be….”
Gary: “Or there will be a renewed war long before that, which seems not particularly unlikely.”
I meant, “there will either be or have been”, or somesuch awkwardness, hence the compression.
Thanks for the estimate figures, btw. The next question might be, how much of a loss is say 1/4 to a guerrilla force. A Roman army suffering those losses would I guess be considered broken, but that’s not a good comparison (a slip-shod classical education doesn’t get me very far in these areas).
They have social services for the same purpose that Capone and the Medellin cartel do–to derive enough popular support to allow them to have a safe base of operations to carry out their illegal and highly violent activites.
In fact this has always been pretty standard procedure for outlaw and guerrilla groups. Provide protection, social services, etc. to the people who will provide semi-passive support and cover in exchange.
Mao, among many others, understood this well:
…the relationship that should exist between the people and the [guerrilla] troops. The former may be likened to water the latter to the fish who inhabit it. How may it be said that these two cannot exist together? It is only undisciplined troops who make the people their enemies and who, like the fish out of its native element cannot live.
“If there is a problem with the usage, I’m certainly open to other suggestions.”
No problem; I’ve just never seen it before, in 24 years of reading about Hezbollah (although there are a variety of spellings, of course), so it seemed very curious to suddenly find two different people using it on this thread this morning.
“This is an interesting Lebanon Profile post as well.”
Yeah, I thought so when I linked to it on ObWi back in July. Although the name of the blog is “Lebanese Political Journal.” 🙂
More fog of war?
Someone better tell the Vietcong they lost.
==========
What’d Hizbollah win, by analogy?
Lebanon.
————————————–
Just effective enough to start a fight, but not effective enough to do anything about it once it started? Hezbollah claims to be the only force that ‘protects’ Lebanon from Israel. The only protection I saw was Hezbollah trying to protect itself by hiding behind civilians.
————————————-
Actually it was the Israeli army that came across as cowardly. They retreated after their first feeble advance, they hurried to find an out when it became clear that head to head was hard and bloody. THEIR reports claimed a 2 to 1 advantage fighting Hezbullah face to face.
Hezbulah committed war crimes in the rocketing of Israel. But the destruction of infrastructure and the collective punishment of all Lebanese was questionable. And because as in so many aspects the Israeli military was incompetent the reports we get is attacks on rocket sites minutes after they’re fired. Of course these rockets can be fired on improvised lauchers and the rocket teams are gone in seconds, but the goal is to blow up the neighborhood from which they were fired.
And Hezbullah did offer to stop it’s rockets if Israel stopped bombing civilian areas. israel could then have gone face to face with all it’s heavy weapons. But it would be a ong bloody war it which it was outmatched. Israel has not engaged in large unit training for years, it’s tactical choices were absurd such as sending unprotected tanks into valleys were they could be destroyed by oldish weapons including clones of the TOW missles that Ledeen sold Iran.
Nobody believes that Hezbullah is going to disarm, less than a quarter of it’s forces were in the south and it didn’t need to call up reserves. The evidence is strong that it will increase it’s power. It has gained credibility it has the only functional military force in Lebanon, it is not made up of nice people, they are willing to kill their domestic enemies, they have the power and it’s very smart within the context of that environment. It is getting huge sums from Iran so it can control the rebuilding.
Meanwhile the Israeli government is almost certain to fall. And the myth of it’s invulnerable military is destroyed. The nature of it’s offence did bother the world and while individuals such as the one I quoted were unaware of any real events because all their attention was spent on “proving” events like Qana were a fake and that Hezbullah engaged in propaganda, the rest of the world does see a massive offensive that punished a country while doing little to hurt the armed foe. They saw Israel claim victoey within days and all the rest.
So it is a defeat for Israel, a defeat for Lebanon and a defeat for the middle east. Pragmatically it moves Hezbullah and it’s allies to increased power and influence. One can put it within Bush’s reality of the battle between good and evil and evil won.
The fact that the alleged represenatives of good lie and tyry to put a happy face on it shows that they are deeply corrupted and not so noble as they would claim. the thing is that there is a reality out there and it does at time knock us about, the faith based realities of the Limbaugh worshippers in which we always have perpetual victory and the only threat is the liberals within may be fun, but it sets us up for unpleasant surprises.
Lebanon.
I must have missed something. Does Hizbollah rule substantially more in Lebanon now than they did a couple of months ago?
rilkefan: “or there will be attacks by a non-disarmed Hezbollah clearly flouting the UN’s expressed will, and every conversation about it will include “in contravention of UN resolution blah”.”
— why wouldn’t 1559 have been a perfectly good value for ‘blah’?
Gary: “I assume you realize this could just as well be put forward — as indeed, many do — as part of the argument that the Resolution was a bad one, the cease-fire premature, and that that fight should have been allowed to go on for at least several weeks more.”
— I would be more impressed by this argument if I thought that several more weeks of fighting would have led to some desirable result, and not to more dead people and Hezbollah still around and armed.
Slarti: “Got one of those in your back pocket? Or know someone who does?”
No. I mean, short of wiping out all life within the borders of Lebanon. That’s why I don’t particularly object to this feature of the ceasefire: I think that an international force that keeps the lid on things is as good as it’s going to get. (Provided their rules of engagement allow them to keep a lid on things, as opposed to just having to sit and watch while they are fired on, or something.)
But that’s also why I think this war was a completely pointless and counterproductive exercise: I didn’t think that anything Israel was doing would achieve this either.
And I hope I don’t need to say this, but I would very much like to be wrong. The amount of sheer destruction and death that we’ve seen would be awful under any circumstances, but if you could point to something and say: well, this good thing happened, then it wouldn’t just be pointless and wholly stupid death and destruction.
Slarti: “Hizbollah rule substantially more in Lebanon now than they did a couple of months ago?”
Yes. Even more, I predict, after the next elections. They will be a lot more popular, especially since they seem to have gotten a jump on everyone else as far as rebuilding and providing services goes.
rilkefan,
I suspect the second number (around 10.000) Gary Farber quoted is possibly more realistic.
I´m not an expert but I searched for a Lebanon map showing the distribution of religious groups.
http://tinyurl.com/qhqwu
It´s an older map. But it shows three centers for Shia Muslims in Lebanon.
Southern Lebanon almost up to the town of Sidon. A small region directly south of Beirut, and a large region in the North East (Bekaa Valley?).
Why would they train fighters only in Southern Lebanon? It´s much more likely they´ll train fighters everywhere they can, isn´t it?
Now according to media reports, Hezbollah itself was surprised by the Israeli reaction to the kidnapping. So they probably didn´t have all of their guerilla force in South Lebanon prepositioned to await an Israeli attack?
Maybe the number 2,000 – if it is correct at all – was the number south of the river Litani? While 10,000 describes their overall strenght in Lebanon?
Just trying to get at the meaning behind the criticism of Rice’s statements as a “plan”. So, I gather that the critique wasn’t so much that this wasn’t an optimal plan as that it isn’t a plan at all?
“– why wouldn’t 1559 have been a perfectly good value for ‘blah’?”
Because (I guess) the disarm-militias part was a side provision, because almost half the UNSC didn’t vote for it, because this has a bit more of an enforcement mechanism and is hence a bit more serious, because in future conflicts this will be the frame people will use. Also because these things are probably cumulative.
Also I think that 1559 was in fact useful for the pro-Israel side in arguing about the conflict, as was the UN certification of the border.
Is there some objective measure of this increase in popularity, or is this all opinion?
More fog of war?
heh. check out the trackbacks on that one. the wingnuts are going ape-sh!t over it. not even a lack of evidence can convince the convinced.
Slarti: “Just trying to get at the meaning behind the criticism of Rice’s statements as a “plan”.”
— It was a follow-on to my earlier response to Seb. He had asked, in support of his statement that the war had achieved something, whether there would have been an international force tasked to disarm Hezbollah if we’d forced a ceasefire early on. I took him to mean this not as an idle question, but as indicating that he thought that the current ceasefire actually involved an international force tasked to disarm Hezbollah. So I brought up the quote from Rice as evidence that the current international force does not have, and is not part of, a serious plan to disarm Hezbollah.
It was just evidence against (what I took to be) Seb’s claim that the international force was supposed to disarm Hezbollah. Had that been true, as I said, there would have been more to show for the war than rubble and corpses and serious damage to the interests of Israel, Lebanon, and the US.
heh. check out the trackbacks on that one. the wingnuts are going ape-sh!t over it. not even a lack of evidence can convince the convinced.
Yeah, Jeff Goldstein’s title: “Andrew Sullivan Dementia Watch,” is charming.
Does Hizbollah rule substantially more in Lebanon now than they did a couple of months ago?
Did Bush rule substantially more in America on 9/12/01 than he did a couple of months before?
I realize that’s a question/comparison that would make many unhappy and angry. But let me gently suggest that anyone who doesn’t consider it carefully is unlikely to ever understand this situation.
And to prepare for such consideration, it might help to get in the mood first with this Daily Show segment: “Tough day — great opportunity!”
Is there some objective measure of this increase in popularity, or is this all opinion?
See:
Specifically, I note this — “a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February.”
Bush approval, Gallup, 8/24/01: 55%
Bush approval, Gallup, 9/14/01: 86%
…a rise of 31 percent.
Hezbollah supporters, I believe, have a word for those who don’t support it now. It is “traitor.” I don’t know where they picked up that kind of ugly behavior.
Can I quibble over “a force not tasked to do x” and “a force tasked to do x but not planning to”, if that’s a correct reflection of the difference here?
Yeah, I thought so when I linked to it on ObWi back in July. Although the name of the blog is “Lebanese Political Journal.” 🙂
I live in fear of this daily. I couldn’t remember if it were you or that Totten fellow that steered me to that post.
Eighty percent of Christian and Druze support Hezbollah? Pull the other one.
Anna wrote–
“Actually it was the Israeli army that came across as cowardly.”
I’m one of the Israel critics around here, but I don’t think this is true, any more than I think one can dismiss the Hezbollah fighters as mere thugs who hid behind civilians. The Israelis seemed to have great respect for the military abilities of their opponents this time. And though my knowledge of military tactics is rather limited, it’s always been my impression it takes two sides to get in a firefight. Not having been involved in any gunfights in my boringly uneventful life (thank God), I’m not inclined to call participants in such things “cowards”.
Hilzoy wrote–
“The amount of sheer destruction and death that we’ve seen would be awful under any circumstances, but if you could point to something and say: well, this good thing happened, then it wouldn’t just be pointless and wholly stupid death and destruction.”
I know what you mean, but I’m going to be perverse and hope that people on both sides will look at this stupid little war and say it was just a spasm of pointless death and destruction that accomplished absolutely nothing for anyone. The idea that people on either side could look at this and think about what they did with some sense of accomplishment bothers me.
As it happens, I’m guessing that Hezbollah will be the short term “winner”, so they may be feeling that wholly undeserved sense of accomplishment.
Donald: Basically, I agree with you. I just always wish, whenever something awful happens, that there is something, anything, good that comes of it. When it’s something that happens to me, or that I’ve done, then I think: I have to make something good come of it — not that that will in any way make whatever it was OK, but that somehow it’s all I can do at that point. SImilar feeling here.
rilkefan: I don’t think we really know what the international force will be tasked to do yet, exactly, but the ceasefire doesn’t task it to disarm Hezbollah. Relevant part:
The closest thing to a mandate to disarm is 11(e):”e. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;” — Para. 8 calls on Israel and Lebanon to come up with a long-term solution based on certain principles, one of which is that militias should disarm. But 11(e) is still a long way from an explicit mandate to disarm Hezbollah.
Eighty percent of Christian and Druze support Hezbollah? Pull the other one.
Have you watched the Daily Show segment?
Gee, it’s only been linked three or four times from here, so: no.
I’m sure it’s all accurate portrayal of all parties, though.
“But 11(e) is still a long way from an explicit mandate to disarm Hezbollah.”
Fair enough, my claim for the resolution’s use above was overoptimistic.
I’m sure that any polls conducted by The Daily Show would be highly accurate and representative, though, the ace pollsters that they are.
Eighty percent of Christian and Druze support[ed] Hezbollah?
— in the conflict between HA and Israel, while that conflict was in progress. I’ve no idea how sound the poll was, but the result is not so very surprising. When Party A is dropping bombs that are keeping you awake at night and Party B is firing rockets at Party A, the normal human tendency is to identify with Party B.
Of course, if Party B weren’t being utter pricks, Party A wouldn’t be dropping the bombs in the first place. So, naturally, I’d be tempted to pal around with Party B, too. Only, at a distance. If permitted.
But, wait: is there anyone at all who thinks that Israel would still be bombing Lebanon if Lebanon were making nice with Israel?
I’m sure it’s all accurate portrayal of all parties, though.
I’m going to say something that I know is going to upset you, which I regret, because that generally prevents any actual communication. But on the off chance it might work, and because I believe it’s legitimate, I’m going to go ahead:
Your tone here reminds me very strongly of discussions I had before the invasion of Iraq when I tried to tell certain people there was a high chance Iraq had no WMD. They had a very strong emotional attachment to a certain perspective, and were unable to evaluate evidence rationally. Instead, they clung tenaciously to their preferred view of reality, dismissing anything that contradicted it out of hand.
This didn’t serve them well. Let me gently suggest that you consider the possibility you’re doing the same thing here, and that it similarly ill-serves you.
To start with, you might think about this, from a September 23, 2001 Washington Post story:
Also, think about this statement:
…and consider whether there were any people saying analogous things in the U.S. on September 12, 2001. Then, consider the general reaction most Americans had to such statements if they heard them.
Jon (S), I think it’s fair to say that Slart has a relatively consistent record of skepticism – I’d argue the data, not what you perceive as his tone.
I’d argue the data, not what you perceive as his tone.
Well, I’m happy to do that. I have no attachment to that poll being correct, and am glad to consider all evidence. But on the other hand, there’s no argument on his part — just assertions that it can’t possibly be accurate.
I’m going to, in turn, gently suggest that your supposition of my mental and emotional state and its relevance to your anecdote isn’t really all that useful, Jon, nor does it address any particular point. But your suggestion that I just might have some denial or…whatever it is you’re suggesting…going on is noted. I’d just like to make it clear that I prefer to discuss things directly, rather than try to figure out what’s the motivation behind the argument, and what’s behind that, ad nauseam.
Me, I’m going to continue being skeptical until some more data shows up.
Note to self: PIMF.
Rilkefan is better at this than I am, apparently.
Slart, Jon (S), perhaps it would help if you check out the poll itself? Asking people whether they support the “resistance” against foreign “aggression” may not be as useful as some other questions I can think of, and it’s very unhelpful not to know how the MOE breaks out for different populations, but neither is it outrageous to get 80% support when you do ask it that way. If you want to argue about how people react when they are attacked, or whether the resemblance between the post-9/11 US political environment and post Israeli-bombing Lebanon is meaningful, then fine. But at least argue it on merits.
Jon S: I’ve been mulling over a comparison between our reaction to 9/11 and the reactions we somehow expect the Lebanese to have to the bombing for a while, and have held off on it because I wasn’t sure I could make it clear enough that I was not (not! not!!) interested in a moral comparison, let alone the dreaded “moral equivalence”, but just in comparing the responses people tend to have when their country is attacked, which is completely different. (Psychology, not ethics.) The hope would have been just to say: to the extent that you can find something understandable (in a sense of ‘understandable’ that in no way involves approval), you’re more likely to deal with it effectively; and things we’ve seen here are likely to strike us as comprehensible in ways that things people in distant countries do sometimes don’t. So that if our reactions are any use in illuminating theirs, that would be a good thing. As I said, though, I wasn’t sure I could make it clear enough what I was and was not doing.
But what the heck:
I really think that anyone who thinks that the Lebanese are likely to think soberly and dispassionately about whose fault this really is should recall what happened to people in this country who suggested that we might want to understand why people were mad enough at the US to fly airplanes into towers. Even when those people were not interested in excusing anything, they were vilified, accused of wanting to make the terrorists seem like poor misunderstood people who had a right to fly airplanes into buildings, told that they wanted to respond to an attack by psychoanalyzing the attackers, not by fighting back, etc., etc., etc. I thought this response was wrong, but very, very understandable. When you’re attacked, you tend to be really impatient with people who want to fussily sort out the precise degrees of fault that everyone has. I devoutly hope that the Lebanese do not follow us in this, but I rather suspect they will.
Also, anyone who expects the Lebanese to promptly disown people on what looks like their side as soon as those people do things that are just plain wrong should consider the responses by large chunks of the right to Abu Ghraib. In my experience, people do not always respond to this sort of thing nearly as quickly as one might wish; some of them don’t respond to it at all. (I mean, there are still lots of people who buy the Limbaugh line on all of this: hey, it’s war, things get messy, and why are you worried about the terrorists anyways?)
Again, it’s worth thinking about why people had this reaction, and asking whether there’s any obvious reason to suspect that the Lebanese will be more ready to condemn Hezbollah for its war crimes than some of us were to condemn our government.
When people have been attacked, they generally want to strike back, and they can react badly to the very suggestion that things are not black and white; that there are actual complexities around that are worth thinking about. It’s not just that they’re e.g. intellectually lazy; it’s that just bringing up those complexities seems like a wimpy attempt to duck the task at hand, which is vengeance. — It’s not, of course; but it’s completely understandable, to me, that people react that way. They did here after 9/11; again, I hope the Lebanese don’t, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they did.
Their country was attacked. A lot of people were killed. A lot of targets that don’t have any obvious relation to Hezbollah — like gas stations and homes — were destroyed. A lot of people who had built up whole lives in a village now have nothing. This would make anyone angry.
Whatever you think about the rights and wrongs of the war, I think that our experience after 9/11 ought to make us question the idea that the Lebanese are likely to want to sort out those rights and wrongs just now. I don’t think that’s how people react. Personally, I wish they did — if only because anger is a lot more effective when you take the time to make sure that you’ve identified its object correctly, and that you’ve chosen the right thing to do in response to it — but they don’t. We didn’t, at any rate.
“Note to self: PIMF.”
That’s a dangerous acronym – I just googled it as “Please ignore my f***up”, used by perfectionists to correct typos, before finding “preview is my friend”.
“Rilkefan is better at this than I am, apparently.”
Just concision-obsessed.
Hilzoy: “Had Hezbollah in fact agreed to give up its arms, there would be something to show for all this.”
I assume you realize this could just as well be put forward — as indeed, many do — as part of the argument that the Resolution was a bad one, the cease-fire premature, and that that fight should have been allowed to go on for at least several weeks more.
I’m not making that argument, myself. But the point seems worth noting.
It’s also an argument for Israel to have actually devoted itself to fighting Hezbollah, and not primarily to bombing the Lebanese in general. Most of the damage done by Israel had nothing to do with fighting Hezbollah.
As for the ceasefire that actually resulted, does anyone doubt that Bolton, Bush and Condi were against such a proposal had it been made on the second day of the war? This is not how they wanted it to end, but they can always blame it on the French.
________________
I know what you mean, but I’m going to be perverse and hope that people on both sides will look at this stupid little war and say it was just a spasm of pointless death and destruction that accomplished absolutely nothing for anyone. The idea that people on either side could look at this and think about what they did with some sense of accomplishment bothers me.
If only it was true that the participants would see it as a “spasm of pointless death and destruction.” Unfortunately, even when its pointless, the historical trend is that the same forces that caused the first war will cause a second war. I am sure current Bush foreign policy would support a resumption of the war by Israel whenever it felt like it. And Hezbollah will certainly renew the fighting when it deems it opportune.
“Whatever you think about the rights and wrongs of the war, I think that our experience after 9/11 ought to make us question the idea that the Lebanese are likely to want to sort out those rights and wrongs just now.”
Dunno about the analogy – imagine 9/11 on Gore’s watch, or Clinton’s early in impeachment. And plenty of people in Lebanon have actual good reasons for disliking the other. And, well, Bush was just derelict pre-9/11 – he didn’t provoke it.
Though I have more hope for the longer term than the “just now” on this score.
If Hezbollah believe they won and the Lebanese agree, then they won.
This is true whether, or not, reality may have something else to say about the matter. Also, as a citizen of the U.S. who hasn’t been in a coma for the past few years, to call this kind of victory an “Arab Streets” thing…well, that almost gives me a chuckle.
should consider the responses by large chunks of the right to Abu Ghraib.
Heard an interview on NPR last night with the whistle blower, he wouldn’t disclose where he lives or works due to the threats he had received. Very sad. To his credit he said he would do it all over again.
Me, I’m going to continue being skeptical until some more data shows up.
You might find this April, 2005 Zogby poll useful (pdf).
On the question of whether Hezbollah should be disarmed, 41% of Lebanese disagree outright, 31% say “only if Hezbollah agrees,” while only 6% agree outright and 18% agree “if peace exists”. 8% of Maronite Catholics disagree outright, 51% say “only if Hezbollah agrees,” while 18% agree outright and 17% agree “if peace exists.”
On the question of whether people supported or opposed the role of Hezbollah in Lebanon, it was 74%/23% support/oppose. Among Maronites, it was 43%/53%.
Given that there are other Christians in Lebanon besides the Maronites, and the Maronites are generally the most anti-Hezbollah Christians, the wartime poll seems perfectly plausible to me.
In any case, I’m sure there will be more polls before too long. I’d be very surprised if there’s much change in the near term, but who knows?
A piece on the mere thugs of Hezbollah and their redefinition of victory. Biased, of course. Treat with care.
The 9-11 analogy seems badly inapt on almost any level of ‘provoked’ that I can think of.
And the logic applies with about ten times the force to Israeli citizens I would think. Attacked almost without ceasing for full generations, enemies on all sides who publically proclaim that the destruction of Israel is their goal.
Israel is always asked to extend courtesy to its enemies which is not returned and which is not even asked of its enemies.
And the logic applies with about ten times the force to Israeli citizens I would think.
Um, we aren’t talking about Israelis here.
Since when?
“Um, we aren’t talking about Israelis here.”
Yes, you aren’t.
Yes, you aren’t.
And you don’t wonder why there aren’t solutions in the Middle East?
If you’re ignoring the various factions and insist on imposing an Israel-centric viewpoint on things, then don’t be surprised when people react violently to that.
That wasn’t Israel-centric, that was Israel-inclusive.
Not that you’ve made such claims, Jon S., but I note that it’s impossible to reconcile claims that Lebanon has been largely, let alone entirely, devastated, flattened, destroyed, etc., with the notion that accurate polling can be done, which would require everyone to be sitting at home, with their phone lines just fine, and the folks inclined to have a nice chat with a pollster.
Nor was a margin of error cited, nor a total number of respondents, nor a methodology.
In short, while I find it plausible that Hezbollah’s popularity has grown somewhat with some for the moment (while others are said to be less pleased with Hezbollah than they were in June), I find the notion that that a poll could be accurately taken in the middle of the war to be ludicrous, and the idea that anyone would take the notion seriously and cite it unquestioningly, um, well, anyway.
“The closest thing to a mandate to disarm is 11(e): “e. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;” — Para. 8 calls on Israel and Lebanon to come up with a long-term solution based on certain principles, one of which is that militias should disarm. But 11(e) is still a long way from an explicit mandate to disarm Hezbollah.”
Hilzoy, there’s also this this:
And this:
And 1559 calls for: “…for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.”
Have now read radish’s link at 5:42 PM to the survey; it seems fairly problematic as regards the lack of information on the methodology, and also considering the context of the question of who might have been standing around nearby in Hezbollah-controlled territory; moreover, I couldn’t reconcile the list of questions and purported responses.
Regardless, I’m still at a loss as to how to reconcile the notion that Lebanon was flattened, destroyed, leveled, razed, but everyone had time and inclination to be polled.
For the record, I certainly agree with Hilzoy’s points of 5:45 PM.
dmbeaster: “…and not primarily to bombing the Lebanese in general.”
Obviously they didn’t do that.
“Most of the damage done by Israel had nothing to do with fighting Hezbollah.”
Again, you continue to make claims that it’s perfectly and clearly obvious you couldn’t possibly have the information necessary to reach such a conclusion.
gwangung: “If you’re ignoring the various factions and insist on imposing an Israel-centric viewpoint on things, then don’t be surprised when people react violently to that.”
It’s not “Israel-centric” to also mention Israel while discussing the Lebanese side, it turns out.
“gwangung: “If you’re ignoring the various factions and insist on imposing an Israel-centric viewpoint on things, then don’t be surprised when people react violently to that.”
Second thought: if someone here made this comment: “If you’re ignoring the various factions and insist on imposing an Lebanon-centric viewpoint on things, then don’t be surprised when people react violently to that.”
What would people’s response be to that?
From the cited NY Times story:
That was quick.
Gary to the rescue. I’ll reweigh my optimism.
It’s not “Israel-centric” to also mention Israel while discussing the Lebanese side, it turns out.
Granted. But I think it does little good to be labelling Hezbollah thugs if a substantial segment of Lebanon supports them. I don’t believe Israel can impose a stable solution unilaterally; it has to work with segments of Lebanese society. And I do not think Israel will sucessfully work with Lebanese elements without understanding how Hezbollah works within Lebanon and that Hezbollah represents a large segment of Hebollah society.
(and it can claim that it represents a rather large part of Lebanese sentiment now)
That was quick.
Yeah, maybe FEMA should hire them.
“But I think it does little good to be labelling Hezbollah thugs if a substantial segment of Lebanon supports them.”
It’s extremely arguable that it does good, insofar as it’s accurate, and that it’s the way the majority of the rest of Lebanon views them, outside the momentary context, which clearly is the case. The March 14th anti-Syrian/anti-Hezbollah demonstration was the largest ever seen in the history of the country:
This was an extremely famous event; you can find innumerable accounts of it. Everyone agrees that Hezbollah is a minority movement in Lebanon, and a movement of the poor Shia, centered in South Beirut and the South of Lebanon and the Bekaa valley, and not in the rest of the country. Although it has 2 members in the Cabinet and 18 in the Parliament, that’s a tiny minority of both.
“And I do not think Israel will sucessfully work with Lebanese elements without understanding how Hezbollah works within Lebanon and that Hezbollah represents a large segment of Hebollah society.”
Sure, that’s inarguable. (And one might say that Hezbollah represents a 100% segment of Hezbollah society, but I’m pretty sure you meant “of Lebanese society,” which is obviously true; but an unpopular minority prior to the war nonetheless, and I’ll be surprised if the surge in popularity lasts very long now that the bombs are no longer falling. Hilzoy pointed to the rally-round-Bush factor after 9/11, but look how unpopular Bush is now.)
Datapoint. (I don’t point out this piece about Israel out of lack of concern about Lebanon; this article simply happens to be about Israel; if I see a comparable one about Lebanon, I’ll note it as well.)
Both sides suffered a great deal.
And not least the many massacred Israeli Arab villages, and children, as well as adults, killed by Hezbollah.
It’s extremely arguable that it does good, insofar as it’s accurate, and that it’s the way the majority of the rest of Lebanon views them, outside the momentary context, which clearly is the case. The March 14th anti-Syrian/anti-Hezbollah demonstration was the largest ever seen in the history of the country:
If you are trying to paint me as ill-informed…you’re probably quite correct. However, it still seems to me that with such a fractured society, treating Hezbollah as a renegade faction is a mistake (and that there is strong streak of thug-ism in tribal-dominated nations). Unpopular they may have been, but it was far too soon to treat them as illegitimate parts of Lebanese society.
ure, that’s inarguable. (And one might say that Hezbollah represents a 100% segment of Hezbollah society, but I’m pretty sure you meant “of Lebanese society,” which is obviously true; but an unpopular minority prior to the war nonetheless, and I’ll be surprised if the surge in popularity lasts very long now that the bombs are no longer falling. Hilzoy pointed to the rally-round-Bush factor after 9/11, but look how unpopular Bush is now.)
Yet that unity behind Bush persisted for quite some time, and it arguably could have lasted far longer if Bush handled the local politics more adroitly and with a much more subtle hand.
No guaruntee that Hezbollah will use a more canny hand…but there is no guaruntee that they won’t and that they’ll return to being a disliked minority.
Gary: I didn’t mention the part of the resolution you cite because I was talking about what the international force was going to be ‘tasked’ to do, and that’s not part of it.
Seb: I didn’t mean to imply that what I said at 5:45 does not apply to Israel. I talked about Lebanon because I have heard people say things like: well, surely they’ll understand that Hezbollah was at fault and decide to rein them in. I think some will, but I think the psychological dynamics work against this. Likewise: I’ve heard people ask why the Shi’a would tolerate war criminals if they weren’t, as some people might put it, thugs in their hearts; and leaving aside the matter of Hezbollah’s social services, etc., I think it’s worth considering whether everyone who dismisses Abu Ghraib reveals him- or herself to be a torturer at heart. (I have always assumed not; that there’s a large group of people who are not opposed to Abu Ghraib for reasons that have a lot more to do with loyalty to what they take to be their side than with having a secret torturer inside them.) Had I heard people saying such things about Israelis, I would probably have said the same thing in response.
For the record: I have a lot of sympathy for the people on all sides of this conflict who are just trying to live their lives (as distinct from their leaders.) I think that much of what people do, on both sides, is perfectly understandable, in a sense of ‘understandable’ that doesn’t mean right. When I think they’re wrong, I tend to have zero confidence that I wouldn’t respond the same way.
That’s one reason why, when it seems to me that people are making horrible mistakes, it really gets to me: I can see whole chains of perfectly understandable responses spiraling out into the future, and it breaks my heart.
But yeah, of course the Israelis respond this way, and of course it’s understandable. It’s also understandable that both sides tend to regard themselves, in a very deep way, as the victims in the whole thing, and to see what they do as defending themselves, and to have a hard time seeing the point at which defending yourself turns into something else. It’s understandable that people on both sides cannot see how things that are blindingly obvious to them could possibly not be blindingly obvious to their opponents. It’s all understandable, and it’s all heartbreaking.
As far as declarations of victory, and how did Hezbollah “Win”?
They don’t feel they lost. And that’s what it takes to end a war. One side to feel like it lost. Smaller forces can rout larger forces if they are able to strike where the larger force considers itself stronger, or take more punishment then the stronger force.
Who wins the PR battle when the 90 lb weakling is still willing to get up after the heavy weight boxer knocks him down to the ground? Who is more suprised? Who is more dismayed?
Not a perfect analogy, nor even a good one due to force multipliers, but it is an explanation as to why Hezbollah can be thought of as “winning”.
“Unpopular they may have been, but it was far too soon to treat them as illegitimate parts of Lebanese society.”
After the Lebanese civil war, all the other militias disbanded. And UN Resolution 1559, in 2000, demanded that all militias disband. Since all the other militias had disbanded many years ago, this was solely directed at Hezbollah.
“Illegitimate” is an unclear word in this context; there’s no doubt that Hezbollah represents, to varying degress, some of the interests of the poor Shi’ites of Lebanon, as well as the interests of Syria and Iran (they claim Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei as their leader, and Ayatollah Khomenei as their inspirational leader; huge banner pictures of them hang and hung everywhere in Hezbollahland; this is not a secret or obscure). Of course, as others here have pointed out numerous times now, many support Hezbollah merely because of Hezbollah’s social services and support, rather than because they are enthusiastic or fanatic followers of the Iranian Ayatollahs and their mandates and views, or of other of Hezbollah’s political goals (a full-fledged fundamentalist Shi’ite republic of Khomenei style, but the leaders of Hezbollah aren’t stupid, and know that isn’t going to happen any time soon, so they don’t push that sort of thing very far outside the borders of their own Hezbollahland — within which they’re fairly brutal about enforcing sharia law, not unlike the Saudis or Iranians or Taliban, in their own way).
On the one hand, if Hezbollah was completely “legitimate,” they wouldn’t be hanging onto their weapons, continuing to bully other factions, continuing to threaten other factions (as they have threatened to “take action” once the war stopped against internal Lebanese enemies), and acting indisputably like thugs in their own territory, beating anyone who questions the instructions of a Hezbollah man (always a man, of course).
But they do have genuine support from many poor Shi’a, for various reasons, as previously stated. So I don’t know how useful either “legitimate” or “illegitimate” is in this context, as a description.
But whatever they are, it’s hardly too “soon” to judge them, given their ~24-year history.
Hilzoy: “I talked about Lebanon because I have heard people say things like: well, surely they’ll understand that Hezbollah was at fault and decide to rein them in. I think some will, but I think the psychological dynamics work against this.”
I think you’re quite right, for now, but that every day of bombs not falling, and Hezbollah fighting with and resisting the government, will diminish this. How it will work out can only be answered by the Might Forces of Cliche: stuff like “only time will tell” and similarly monotonous thoughts.
It’s going to be a matter of Lebanese politics, so long as fighting with Israel doesn’t resume again. And I find it difficult to imagine that, absent a context of Hezbollah fighting a foe who is perceived as attacking the country, non-poor-Shi’ites are going to be sympathetic to Hezbollah notions of good policy, beyond feeding and supporting and rebuilding the poor.
After all, it’s not as if the Iranian mullah model is very popular in Iran these days. It’s hardly likely to be more popular with Sunnis, Christians, Druze, secular Lebanese, etc.
“It’s hardly likely to be more popular with Sunnis, Christians, Druze, secular Lebanese, etc.”
I should have said that it, of course, hasn’t been so far, and no surprise, and that there’s no clear reason as to why this will change in future, no matter the current, temporary, blip of solidarity against Israel. The dynamics are what they are. Lebanon, with Beirut, the “Paris of the Mideast,” as its capital, isn’t interested in converting to Iranian Shi’ism, except insofar as those who already are poor Shi’ites are poor Shi’ites. Although, to be sure, they do have a demographic strength in having lots of kids (and, of course, obviously, being allied with Syria and Iran; but that doesn’t exactly buy them popularity with most of the rest of the Lebanese; the opposite, instead).
The eagerness to declare victory by folks on both sides reminds me of the aftermaths of presidential debates, when Republican and Democratic spinmeisters rushed to the TV lights to proclaim victory.
As for the post-war scoring, Hezbollah caused minor damage to Israel, and Hezbollah wasn’t much degraded. If anything, it’s a loss to Israel because Hezbollah remains a threat, and it’s a loss to Lebanon because their south region is a Waziristan. The ceasefire is a joke because Hezbollah will not accept Resolution 1559.
The President and his administration allowed a country to be bombed to smithereens because it was unthinkable to accept a mere ceasefire that did not address the root causes of the problem.
That’s a low statement, Hil. It wasn’t as if the whole the country were just one big bulls eye. Since the ceasefire will do basically nothing, I take it that you must be in favor of kicking the can down the road. Hezbollah will simply get richer, better armed, more belligerent and more entrenched. Since it’s likely they’ll strike again, worse destruction awaits because the root causes were sidestepped in this go-round.
As a result of our willingness to let Lebanon be flattened, we now have a ceasefire that does not address the root causes of the problem.
I don’t see how you can get to that. The only ceasefire that will address root causes is one that disarms Hezbollah, and last I heard, we’re not going to get their arms until we pry them from their cold dead hands. It would be more accurate to say that we now have a ceasefire that does not address the root causes of the problem because of our willingness to let Hezbollah not get flattened. Ohlmert blinked, and he is going to rue the day.
To answer your main question: “do I think that Bush actually believes what he says, or that he’s lying?”
I think Bush is part believing and part spinning. Spin is part of the job, and as I recall, the previous president was pretty good at it.
More importantly, Bush shouldn’t be complaining about the Iraqi underperformance when it’s his own underperformance that’s at fault. He is showing painfully poor judgment by keeping Rumsfeld employed as Defense Secretary, for a start. I can’t remember who said it, but we need 35,000 U.S. troops in Baghdad right now to quell the violence. So far, a fraction. Bush is starting to hear more criticism from conservatives about his poor management of operations in Iraq, and I’m going to be one of those conservatives joining that chorus.
Charles: as I said when this first started, I do not believe that military action by Israel can deliver any sort of decisive blow to Hezbollah. Therefore, I don’t see any alternative to “kicking the can down the road”. Of course, we can kick it with or without a lot of dead and wounded civilians, billions of dollars in damages, and the possibility of any sort of peace wrecked for the foreseeable future. For some reason, we chose “with”.
If there was a way of disarming Hezbollah, the question would be entirely different. As it is, the whole thing just seems pointless to me. And whether or not I’m in favor of kicking cans has very little to do with it — in this case, I don’t see that there’s an alternative.
“Bush is starting to hear more criticism from conservatives about his poor management of operations in Iraq, and I’m going to be one of those conservatives joining that chorus.”
The pro-Bush faction seems to be shrinking by the day. As d-p-u noted, even Glenn Reynolds and Dean Esmay have had microseconds of doubt.
And some of the more, ah, full-throated, Bush-is-a-failure-because-he-hasn’t-made-enough-war crowd have thoroughly dissected Bush as a “failure” by now. (Bill Quick’s was notable, though not at all new from him.)
Of course, the answer from many of such views tends to be we-must-ruthlessly-slaughter-more-Iraqis, and generally act a lot more like Saddam did. That’ll show the rascals who’s boss!
“Charles: as I said when this first started, I do not believe that military action by Israel can deliver any sort of decisive blow to Hezbollah.”
Can’t, or can’t because Israel wouldn’t want to be as ruthless as it would take, or why?
“If there was a way of disarming Hezbollah, the question would be entirely different.”
Hezbollah’s small arms — rifles, machine guns, grenades — don’t matter. It’s the long range missiles that matter most, and the short-range Katyushas that matter second-most. Then there’s the defensive network of tunnels, underground bases, fortified houses and emplacements, etc., which proved to be far larger, vaster, and far better fortified than Israel anticipated, which is the overwhelmingly largest reason that Israel didn’t make nearly as much progress both from air and ground as they’d initially anticipated.
All of that seems destroyable, given time and effort, and, yes, some terrible “collateral damage,” aka “killing of innocent civilians,” as well as of those who simply can’t be told apart from Hezbollah fighters.
That there would be a lot of angry, willing to fight, young Hezbollah males, left after that, might not be all that important, in the long run, if measures can be taken to keep more such heavy weapons from being smuggled into Lebanon in large numbers, and if south Lebanon can be kept from refortifying other than by the Lebanese Army.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily worth it to plunge back into fighting again any time soon, but are we sure that that sort of “disarmament” of Hezbollah, which is the only sort that really matters is impossible?
I’m happy to hear arguments that it is, but I’m not sure going in that they’re correct. I will read with interest the case you make, if you make it, Hilzoy.
…or can’t because Israel wouldn’t want to be as ruthless as it would take…
As Israel has nukes, that goes without saying. I suspect that many of us are especially critical of Israel’s actions is that it is largely considered a humanitarian and compassionate society.
As my parents used to say to me, you’re the eldest, we expect more from you.
There should be and “the reason that” in my post above, somewhere between “suspect” and “that”.
Currently (about Hezbollah fortifications and arms):
What Siniora says:
I hope people realize that, as I’ve pointed out many times, the current Defense Minister, Amir Peretz, is the head of the Labor Party, and a longtime peace activist and labor organizer; it’s the Israeli left and the peace faction that’s been in charge (which is part of why in the first couple of weeks of fighting, Jewish Israel was united in support of fighting the war, something like 92% or so, possibly more); this government is still intending to withdraw from most of the West Bank, and part of the rationale for taking a tough stand in the south was so as to preserve the option of withdrawing from the West Bank, over the objections of those who assert that withdrawal is always simply taken as weakness, and that if gives enemies further territory to attack from; with all these recriminations about the war, the most likely replacement opposition leader in waiting is Benyimin Netanyahu.
This would not, needless to say, be a step towards peace.
“Bush is starting to hear more criticism from conservatives about his poor management of operations in Iraq, and I’m going to be one of those conservatives joining that chorus.”
This statement struck me funny. I imagined Redstate with an ad hawking Jellies,
because some prominent conservatives started trumpeting this exciting new fashion.
“As Israel has nukes, that goes without saying.”
I should hardly be necessary for me to say that I wasn’t implying that anyone was suggesting Israel should nuke south Lebanon, or any other part of Lebanon, or anywhere else on planet Earth. (Unless they could figure out who decided American tv should be ruled by “reality tv”; a very tiny one might be in order in that case.)
And I’m all for legitimate criticisms, queries of, and looks askance at, any questionable Israeli act.
Well, at the very least, from Israel’s perspective, there are no more rockets landing within its borders. From the Lebanese perspective, the Lebanese person-on-the-street now knows that Hezbollah knows that should they again choose to launch rockets across the border, Israel is liable to come back and bomb the s**t out of the country again. I wonder what those Lebanese public opinion polls would say if Hezbollah launched another unprovoked rocket attack knowing full well that it would be Lebanese cities, not Israeli cities, that did the vast majority of the burning. I think that this outcome has at the very least increased the political cost to Hezbollah of choosing to attack Israel.
So, at least one good result in that limited sense for Israel. But. Was it worth the cost of achieving it? Was there no other way of accomplishing this goal? Was this the Israeli goal at the outset? Is this modest gain outweighed by the very real and damaging perception that Israel’s best and hardest shot could not destroy the Army of God?
Actually, I think a somewhat similar analysis could be applied to another nearby war, should it ever end.
And I’m all for legitimate criticisms, queries of, and looks askance at, any questionable Israeli act.
I’m sorry, Gary, but it just seems of late that if you do the above without explicitly stating in every single comment you don’t make the sweet love to Hezbollah that you are…well…in trouble with Gary.
Just sayin’
Gary wrote–
“I hope people realize that, as I’ve pointed out many times, the current Defense Minister, Amir Peretz, is the head of the Labor Party, and a longtime peace activist and labor organizer; it’s the Israeli left and the peace faction that’s been in charge (which is part of why in the first couple of weeks of fighting, Jewish Israel was united in support of fighting the war, something like 92% or so, possibly more) ; this government is still intending to withdraw from most of the West Bank, and part of the rationale for taking a tough stand in the south was so as to preserve the option of withdrawing from the West Bank, over the objections of those who assert that withdrawal is always simply taken as weakness, and that if gives enemies further territory to attack from; with all these recriminations about the war, the most likely replacement opposition leader in waiting is Benyimin Netanyahu.”
Presumably most of us realize this. I did. What this shows is that it’s simply not the case that liberals in power always act like doves and conservatives act like hawks. Often it’s the liberals who feel compelled to strut around and act tough just to show that they’re not “soft”, which in effect is what the rest of your post confirms. The last time Israel killed a bunch of civilians at Qana was under that other dove Peres in 1996, who also felt compelled to demonstrate his manliness. It’s also been true in American history–the liberals plunged us into Vietnam, for instance.
It’s easy to forget, with Bush in power, that liberals in office aren’t necessarily to be trusted with keys to the armory. But they aren’t.
I should hardly be necessary for me to say that I wasn’t implying that anyone was suggesting Israel should nuke south Lebanon, or any other part of Lebanon, or anywhere else on planet Earth.
Indeed, and I apologise if I implied that was what you meant. My meaning was that Israel has military superiority by a magnitude, and that failure to eradicate the military threat posed by Hizbollah can, to my mind, by attributed to restraint rather than incompetence. There was a good comment as to the nature of that restraint by democratic and humanitarian societies a few days ago by Matthew Yglesias that is relevant. And I do hope that I didn’t find that post through my reading of your blog…
Alternatively, it may appear from my perspective that if I don’t explicitly state in every single comment that I don’t make the sweet love to the Israeli right that I am… well… in trouble with many people.
Just sayin’.
“It’s easy to forget, with Bush in power, that liberals in office aren’t necessarily to be trusted with keys to the armory. But they aren’t.”
In Israel, Donald, as I’m sure you know, someone has to be trusted with keys to the armory. I’m open to suggestions as to who would be the best choice.
Meanwhile (same link as before):
I don’t expect it to come out very complimentary to the current leadership, myself.
Gary: the basic case is simple. Like you, I am not worried about small arms, but I am worried about Katyushas. Katyushas are 9-10 feet long. They can be hidden and smuggled easily. They do not require a launching pad or anything complicated; they can be launched from more or less anywhere with a pipe and a car battery.
That being the case, I think it’s impossible to get rid of the Katyushas in Lebanon (without doing something like nuking it), and also impossible to prevent more from being smuggled in (without much better security on the Syrian/Lebanese border than most countries have yet managed on their own borders.)
I mean, I really do not see that it can be done. Eliminating drones, longer-range missiles and their launching facilities, yes. Eliminating Katyushas, no.
Of course, eliminating people willing to join Hezbollah would also work, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon either. (Via either the good route of Hezbollah losing support or the bad route of destroying all the people in the area, and thus a fortiori all the Hezbollah supporters.)
I was always under the impression that Tehran, Iran supplied the financial and material support and Najaf, Iraq supplied the intellectual and ideological support.
From the Neocon’s A Clean Break to Cole, Najaf is the heart of Hizba’Allah.
I had thought highly of Peretz until this war, Gary. His actions were disappointing. Not surprising at all, for the reasons that others have mentioned–when your citizens are attacked, people rally around the flag and start cheering for stupid acts of violent revenge. And for the reasons I mentioned–liberals feel even more pressure to react. But disappointing.
Someone I’d prefer? Apparently the kind of person who wouldn’t have a prayer of ever getting elected, or of keeping his job if he did win. Failing that, I’ve seen it suggested that Sharon would not have responded to the initial kidnapping in this way. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know. The reason I’ve heard is that he had learned his lesson about engaging in Lebanese wars, and there’s also the whole “only Nixon could go to China” effect that in this case would allow a known war criminal to get away with a softer response in a time of crisis. Would I still want Sharon in office? Yuch. But for the past month, maybe.
“Eliminating Katyushas, no.”
I agree that it would be impossible to get rid of every last one.
But it does seem to me — until I see convincing arguments otherwise; I’m not insisting I must be right about this — that the larger missiles can be largely eliminated, and also that most of the defensive infrastructure, the tunnels and fortifications, can be destroyed, for the most part (again, not every last one), whether by Israeli action, or far far preferably, by the choice of the Lebanese government and the beefed-up UNiFiL, if they make that choice (which I’m not saying will happen; I’m saying that if they were to make that choice), and that would be sufficient.
A smattering of Katyushas is not a serious strategic threat, any more than the small arms are. There’s a qualitative difference in the quantative difference between thousands, or hundreds, of them, and a couple of dozen or so.
“Of course, eliminating people willing to join Hezbollah would also work, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon either.”
Agreed. But most countries manage to prevent independent, highly armed and aggressive militias from running around their sovereign territory, so I should think Lebanon, given the right opportunities and support, should eventually be able to manage it as well.
“From the Neocon’s A Clean Break to Cole, Najaf is the heart of Hizba’Allah.”
News to me. Hezbollah has been around since 1982, and had earlier predecessors; I’ve never seen anyone claim that Najaf under Saddam was providing significant support to them.
Donald: “Failing that, I’ve seen it suggested that Sharon would not have responded to the initial kidnapping in this way. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know.”
Nor I. We’ll never know. (And what’s left of him is likely not to be around much longer, if the reports of his deterioration are indicative.)
“Would I still want Sharon in office? Yuch. But for the past month, maybe.”
As I’ve mentioned many times, I thought that after 1982, Sharon should have been tried for war crimes, and imprisoned; certainly he should never have been allowed back into Israeli politics.
His acts in his last couple of years I was surprised to find myself approving of. But I’ve not changed my mind about his actions in 1982 (or my despisal of him for other acts prior and subsequent), either. Sometimes life presents us with contradictions.
Gary: I don’t see why it would stay at “a smattering”. Thousands of Katyushas can do an awful lot of damage, as we’ve just seen.
I neglected to mention this interesting quote:
“Gary: I don’t see why it would stay at “a smattering”. Thousands of Katyushas can do an awful lot of damage, as we’ve just seen.”
Obviously it would presuppose the Lebanese Army and the UNiFiL taking steps to present massive reinfiltration of Katyushas, and the aforementioned breaking up of most of the defensive infrastructure.
You’re not suggesting that Hezbollah’s lifespan as an independent, aggressive, armed militia in Lebanon is eternal, surely? It’s a rather unnatural situation, isn’t it?
It’s not as if the rest of the Lebanese haven’t been pushing for and desiring its disarmament for a long time now. Presumably eventually that will come about, one way or another.
Meanwhile:
Oh, jolly good, eh, wot?
First thing I did, radish, before typing “pull the other one”. What aroused my suspicion was that the sole description of the sample polled was “800 citizens”. For some reason I’d imagined that practically anyone else discussing this poll would have reached a similar conclusion: practically the only mention made of the Beirut Center for Research and Information I can find anywhere is a) the organization’s own webpages, and b) the many, many newspaper and weblog references to this one survey. Why practically everyone took it at face value…well, I thought perhaps there was a good reason, only no one was talking about it.
Interesting, though not necessarily directly relevant, reference to the pollster (Abdo Saad) here.
And it’s true because you say so! I wish I had that super-power. On the other hand, if Israel believes it has won and the Israeli people agree, then the entire universe explodes.
In another conversation; one where we weren’t indulging in before/after conflict comparisons, certainly. Data is good and useful. The degree to which the Lebanese people appear to support Hezbollah, though, alarms me. Imagine if they ALL supported Hezbollah unconditionally, and that Hezbollah continued its attacks on Israel. IDF might then consider itself justified in using much less regard for civilians in attacking Lebanon. And yes, indeed, it can get much, much worse.
No, the governor of Louisiana already has dibs.
Good cite, Slarti; I’d recommend that Jeffrey Goldberg piece on Hezbollah as a valuable backgrounder to all who aren’t quite well-read on Hezbollah.
I’d emphatically recommend that everyone read it, to be clear.
Slarti, I’m not saying they won. If it pleases you, read it, “they effectively won.”
Point being: if the Lebanese see Hezbollah as the victors, who’s to tell them otherwise. Maybe some more destruction? Maybe, maybe not. But, in the meantime, Hezbollah move forward and Israel two steps back.
To make something clear, I now feel the need to echo this, “I don’t make the sweet love to Hezbollah.”
Why practically everyone took it at face value…well, I thought perhaps there was a good reason, only no one was talking about it.
Well, I can talk about it. I consider it credible based on (1) pre-war polling, (2) my experience of human nature (e.g., the tendency of people to rally around the flag when bombed), (3) the fact the Daily Star, which is highly westernized and couldn’t be described as pro-Hezbollah, said it was “fair” to ask whether the results were “distorted by wartime angst,” but gave no indication of suspicion they were fabricated, and (4) my knowledge of Lebanese society based on reading and discussions with family members who’ve lived there, including family members who are Lebanese.
This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s accurate, but it does lead to frustration on my part if it’s simply dismissed based on assertion rather than evidence. In any case, as I say, I’m sure there will be further information available soon.
And thanks for the reference to Abdo Saad. I’d read that article previously, but I didn’t make the connection to the current poll.
The degree to which the Lebanese people appear to support Hezbollah, though, alarms me.
Does this give you a sense of why Bush’s reelection alarmed much of the rest of the world?
Gary: “You’re not suggesting that Hezbollah’s lifespan as an independent, aggressive, armed militia in Lebanon is eternal, surely? It’s a rather unnatural situation, isn’t it?
It’s not as if the rest of the Lebanese haven’t been pushing for and desiring its disarmament for a long time now. Presumably eventually that will come about, one way or another.”
First of all, about “the rest of the Lebanese” no one has any idea what proportion of the Lebanese are Shi’a, since no one has been allowed to do a census since — oh, I forget, but I think it was around 1937. But estimates I’ve seen run at or over 40%. So they’re close to having a majority.
Second, no, I don’t think that Hezbollah will last forever. I think that at some point the Lebanese government will get strong enough that Hezbollah actually using the rockets will attract the notice of what will then be the Lebanese law enforcement agencies, who will have a much easier time maintaining both popular legitimacy (and thus informants) and serious presence in Lebanon than the Israelis. I also expect that this will take a while.
Of course, Hezbollah could take over the state instead.
Unless that happens, though, I expect that Hezbollah will wither away as the Lebanese state gets stronger. I do not expect that there will be a military solution to the problem of its having rockets. They are just too easy to get hold of and keep hidden, and Hezbollah has too many willing suppliers.
Man, I’d forgotten one particularly funny aspect of that NYer article.
I’m on record calling Goldberg an idiot, though I shouldn’t have made that judgement based on a single example.
Incidentally, I blogged the Goldberg piece in 2002. 🙂
Oh, and Part 2 is here, and an interview with Goldberg is here.
Also essential.
“Man, I’d forgotten one particularly funny aspect of that NYer article.”
I think the general sense of the sources of the attributions there are pretty clear, actually. Basically, five out of six are what’s commonly “said” by Hezbollah sources and folks who hear them. #5 is clearly, if still anonymously, sourced to “according to intelligence officials.”
Goldberg has reported endless pieces for the New Yorker, who indeed have exacting standards; every quote has to be given an attribution to the fact-checkers, and checked upon; he’s regarded as an exemplary reporter, even if, heaven forbid, some blogger is horrified that a reporter uses a handful of anonymous quotes in a piece that otherwise is chockablock with sourced quotes.
And, indeed,
I think both sides lost a great deal, but given that combatus interruptus occurred, we might not find out who actually won for a few years, if ever.
Which part of the rest of the world do you think was most alarmed? I’ve got absolutely no problem with people being alarmed, in general.
But that aversion to alarming the rest of the world just might explain John Kerry for President. John Kerry: less alarming than Bush. Somehow that doesn’t inspire, though.
The Dutch were quite alarmed Slarti
(from the first stage of our holiday, Brussels, were there is a computer but an old one. As from tomorrow I’ll be in France for two weeks though, so I’ll be out of touch)
OT, some bloggers are undoubtedly going to be making light of this:
Offhand, I’d guess just about everyone except Islamicists, who were likely delighted.
Well then, if you perceive the world in this way, you can surely empathize with the support of some Lebanese for Hezbollah.
Then there’s the defensive network of tunnels, underground bases, fortified houses and emplacements, etc., which proved to be far larger, vaster, and far better fortified than Israel anticipated
This particular Israeli intelligence failure surprised me. It also leads me to wonder how good Israeli intelligence actually is, and to be more skeptical of the intelligence behind bombing targeting in Lebanon above the Litani than I was already.
Gary, and all, I’d welcome pointers to information about the extent to which sharia law and other aspects of mullah rule are practiced in areas of Lebanon where Hezbollah support is concentrated. I’ve read conflicting assertions about that, but not nearly enough reporting and description to assess the claims.
“It also leads me to wonder how good Israeli intelligence actually is, and to be more skeptical of the intelligence behind bombing targeting in Lebanon above the Litani than I was already.”
If their intelligence was less perfect than you assumed, that makes it far less likely that they were targeting civilians than you initially assumed.
Sebastian, why is that? Wouldn’t it make it more likely that they would try to pressure the civilian population if they knew Hezbollah were there but couldn’t figure out exactly where?
“Wouldn’t it make it more likely that they would try to pressure the civilian population if they knew Hezbollah were there but couldn’t figure out exactly where?”
Maybe if they had flattened the whole city. But they didn’t did they? They hit a very small number of targets in Beruit. They hit a very small number of targets elsewhere. An enormous number of their hits were in a 3 x 3 or 3 x 4 block area.
One thing I found annoying, even offensive, about the Goldberg article is the trivializing attitude he takes towards Khiam, where Israel and its SLA allies ran a torture center. An “alleged” torture center. Goldberg can’t be bothered to care whether it’s true. One would think that someone writing an article about Hezbollah and its motivations would find such a question interesting, but he limits his interest to pointing out the cheesiness of the museum Hezbollah had erected on the site.
I read part of Robin Wright’s book “Sacred Rage” which came out in the 80’s I think, and has a portion devoted to the rise of fundamentalist Muslim groups in Lebanon. (She is clearer on why the Shiites who initially welcomed the Israelis in 1982 had turned violently against them within a few years. Goldberg doesn’t seem interested in that part of the story.
We know the Israelis were trying to pressure the Lebanese as a whole because they said so. They also hit targets all over Lebanon. They also hit rescue groups working on homes already bombed–I just deleted several lines of sarcasm and will quit before I am tempted to put that back in.
So, is this a war crime?
Because stuff like this happens a lot.
Might be. It depends on the circumstances. But there aren’t US officials proclaiming the need to send Afghan civilians a message. There’s no incentive to do this kind of thing deliberately in Afghanistan as far as I know.
There have been air strikes in the Iraq War that I think were quite possibly war crimes, or anyway inexcusable. We apparently used cluster munitions in Iraq and killed many civilians because of it (I say cluster munitions, remembering a certain problem that came up with definitions when I said cluster bombs once.) And sometimes you read accounts where the US claims to have killed Iraqi insurgents and the Iraqis on the scene claim it was mostly civilians. There aren’t many of these stories, and my suspicion is that the US government is happy that it is hard for reporters to wander around Iraq to investigate such claims. I recall a NYT story from the fall of 2004 about unnamed Pentagon officials who spoke of how civilian casualties in the bombing of Fallujah might result in them turning against the Fallujah insurgents–exactly the way some Israelis have talked about Lebanese civilians in this most recent war.
So yeah, civilians can be killed accidentally in war, and then again there are also cases where there are good reasons for suspecting that the collateral damage isn’t entirely accidental.
Cnarles:
The President and his administration allowed a country to be bombed to smithereens because it was unthinkable to accept a mere ceasefire that did not address the root causes of the problem.
That’s a low statement, Hil. It wasn’t as if the whole the country were just one big bulls eye.
Well, if not the “whole” country, most of it was under the bulls eye.
Sebastian:
They hit a very small number of targets in Beruit. They hit a very small number of targets elsewhere. An enormous number of their hits were in a 3 x 3 or 3 x 4 block area.
Frankly, it a little obscene to refer to bombing of 3 x 4 block areas of apartment buildings in the cities which were outside rocket range as allegedly part of a military campaign against Hezbollah. In this day and age, that is terror bombing.
_______
These comments by our conservatives reflect a basic misunderstanding about the scope and nature of the Israeli bombing campaign. There seems to be a desire to trivialize its horrendous scope, or otherwise justify it without taking account of its actual scope. Here is one map of the bombing through the first 10 days (from the Lebanese Maronite Christian news service run by Gen. Auon) — I would love to see the Israeli version also, but don’t know of one.
It was anything but the pinpoint bombing like that in Iraq in 2003, and cannot be described as simply bombing Hezbollah military targets. It was a generalized bombing campaign against civilian infrastructure throughout Lebanon. It inevitably would involve large number of civilian casualties that cannot possibly be described as a byproduct of trying to hit Hezbollah military targets.
Some examples: bombing airports, bridges, highways, power plants, oil storage facilities, Lebanese army facilities, many areas in the far north in Christian or Sunni areas, whole blocks of apartment buildings in urban areas far outside rocket range.
Then there was the bombing of civilians fleeing on the roads — just errors or something else?
I don’t think Israelis tried to target civilians deliberately, but the pattern of bombing shows that they were not that concerned about killing them in order to attack civilian infrastructure. The justification for the bombing as targeting Hezbollah military that was improperly mixed in with the citizenry is largely bunk. Maybe it happened in some instances, but it cannot describe most of the bombing.
Analysis of the bombing needs to be fact based — not the imaginary version of what happened.
“Well, if not the ‘whole’ country, most of it was under the bulls eye.”
I, for one, have no idea what that means, though it sound teddibly ominous.
“Frankly, it a little obscene to refer to bombing of 3 x 4 block areas of apartment buildings in the cities which were outside rocket range as allegedly part of a military campaign against Hezbollah. In this day and age, that is terror bombing.”
You say it, yet that doesn’t make it true. When Clinton blew up the Iraqi intelligence HQ with cruise missiles, in the middle of downtown Baghdad, was that “terror bombing”? There were, after all, no missiles there.
The rule that, in war, only missiles may be struck, is purely made up by you, and quite entirely cuckoo.
“It was a generalized bombing campaign against civilian infrastructure throughout Lebanon.”
Either you are misinformed, or you are intentionally being untruthfl. I’ll assume it’s the latter.
“Some examples: bombing airports, bridges, highways, power plants, oil storage facilities, […] army facilities,”
Here’s a hint: those are all classic military targets, which is why the U.S. has attacked them in every 20th century war it’s been in.
“Then there was the bombing of civilians fleeing on the roads — just errors or something else?”
Lebanon has, as I keep pointing out, 3,874,050 people. You are welcome to give cites for how many civilians you believe were bombed fleeing on the roads.
Unless it was thousands of them, or even hundreds, obviously there was no campaign to hit civilians traveling on roads, so obviously any who were hit were hit by mistake (most likely because they were believed to be Hezbollah targets); obviously, one can’t check IDs from the air.
“Analysis of the bombing needs to be fact based — not the imaginary version of what happened.”
Just so. And by unbiased people, not people who make up their own facts, and make claims based on mindreading.
“I’ll assume it’s the latter.”
Whoops. Apologies. I meant “the former.” Sorry about that.
I hesitate to wade in here, but my problem with Seb’s statement
If their intelligence was less perfect than you assumed, that makes it far less likely that they were targeting civilians than you initially assumed.
is that it suggests that the Israeli campaign is just a ‘whoops, I thought I saw a Hezbollah site’. As for whether bombing classical infrastructure sites, as was done in wars between states, was appropriate in this case, I leave to other to argue.
“I hesitate to wade in here, but my problem with Seb’s statement
If their intelligence was less perfect than you assumed, that makes it far less likely that they were targeting civilians than you initially assumed.
is that it suggests that the Israeli campaign is just a ‘whoops, I thought I saw a Hezbollah site’.”
No, it could be that they had intelligence that it was a Hezbollah site, but it either wasn’t, or it was but it can’t be proven to be so after Hezbollah has had time to clean things up.
In your opinion, what percentage accuracy is normal for actionable military intelligence in a war? Do you expect 100%? 90%? 80%? some other percentage?
“…is that it suggests that the Israeli campaign is just a ‘whoops, I thought I saw a Hezbollah site’.’
[scratches head] I don’t know how you get that. It suggests that there were inevitable errors.
Then, as I’ve said about a bazillion times now, any questionable strike/attack should be investigated by competent neutral authorities, and if anyone is guilty of anything ranging from criminal negligence to worse, they should be prosecuted, and if guilty, punished.
But how you leap from any given incident, or handful of incidents, to the entire campaign, I can only imagine.
Gary wrote–
“Some examples: bombing airports, bridges, highways, power plants, oil storage facilities, […] army facilities,”
Here’s a hint: those are all classic military targets, which is why the U.S. has attacked them in every 20th century war it’s been in.
————————————————————————————
I don’t think I’d use U.S. bombing practices in its 20th century wars as any kind of moral standard. The targeting of Iraqi infrastructure in the Gulf War, for instance, was deliberate and meant to hurt the civilian population, as described in a Barton Gellman article in the Washington Post on June 23, 1991. (Which you can look up–I’ve cited it so often I just spout it from memory.)
And look at earlier wars and there’s less and less pretense we were trying to avoid killing civilians.
I’m not so sure the bombing of Iraq by the US in 2003 was quite so pinpoint either, though much of it was. Human Rights Watch, I believe, had some criticism of the use of cluster munitions as the cause of many civilian deaths.
What’s always interested me about the Barton Gellman article and the one I saw in the NYT about the bombing of Fallujah and now with the latest Israel/Lebanon war is the plausible deniability aspect and how the cat is let out of the bag when some official (often a military guy presumably less skilled in diplomatic doubletalk) says “Yeah, we’re trying to pressure the civilian population” or talks about the beneficial aspects of collateral damage. It’s what you’d expect. Western culture has gradually moved to a position where it’s not supposed to be acceptable to deliberately kill civilians. Only those evil terrorist types do that. Yet there’s also this feeling on the part of some that (in the logic of strategic bombing) you might be helped in achieving your goals if you go ahead and kill some civilians. So what to do? I know–assert with great conviction that you don’t target civilians and then target things that will probably hurt the civilian population and increase their death rate (sometimes directly, by blowing them up). And deny that you have any evil intent–all those targets are,of course, militarily justifiable. So long as nobody blurts out the underlying motive, you are guaranteed that a great many people on your side will believe in one’s pristine motives–better yet, even if someone does blurt out the truth they’ll still believe it.
There’s also the other option of supporting some proxy force that doesn’t have any inhibitions about killing civilians, something the US has also done. Israel too, on a smaller scale. But that’s not relevant here.
Seb, Gary
I think it is problematic when the argument is made ‘well, if you think that Israeli intelligence was bad, you can’t argue they were targeting civilians’. Seb made no mention of percentages in that comment, and now clarifies it by saying that this should appply to a small number of strikes. Yet you have statements made on the record and then withdrawn about the punishment aspect of this campaign. I suggest that it is the lack of intelligence that encourages this attitude, so the first statement was what I was addressing.
Gary, I also think it is problematic when you take a comment directed at a specific comment made by a specific commentator as a reason to point out your stances. I am not going to try the faux naivete (this is not to say that it is faux on your part, perhaps you are confused as to whose comment I was addressing) but I view your stance and Seb’s as contradictory, with Seb suggesting that poor intelligence as a mitigating factor and you suggesting that intelligence that targets a 3×4 city block as good enough for targeting purposes. Of course, this is not to hold you responsible for what Seb writes nor vice versa, but if they are contradictory, then conflating the two positions creates a lot of avoidable confusion.
I do agree with Donald’s points, and I think it is good that our threshold for balking at military action is a lot lower than it was previously. I’ve always thought that our (in the sense of mankind’s) aim should be to reduce military action to the level of policing, with the concomitant hesitancy to endanger innocent civilians that police are expected to have. That it is not going to happen overnight is understood, but that should be a goal in the distant future.
Anecdote:
Of course, there are also plenty of quotes in the article from southern Lebanese praising Hezbollah.
“perhaps you are confused as to whose comment I was addressing) but I view your stance and Seb’s as contradictory, with Seb suggesting that poor intelligence as a mitigating factor and you suggesting that intelligence that targets a 3×4 city block as good enough for targeting purposes.”
I don’t think they are generally contradictory because poor intelligence can be a mitigating factor in general AND that 3×4 block area indisputably was one of Hezbollah’s main headquarters in particular.