Billmon on Israel's Lebanon strategy
Like many, Billmon is puzzled by what exactly Israel hopes to accomplish in Lebanon, given that its ground incursions there have actually been rather limited:
I'll put forward my own theory: Israel is in Lebanon for similar reasons that the US is in Iraq: public outrage over a brzen attack was redirected by those who already had some kind of agenda. For the US, public rage and fear about 9/11 was manipulated and mischanneled into an Iraq invasion by people who already wanted to invade Iraq. When Hezbollah captured those two soldiers (by the way, by doing that Hezbollah was just askin' for it), perhaps Israeli public opinion shifted in such a way that enabled some faction within the Israeli government to execute a pre-existing desire to attack Lebanon. Or it could just be a simple lashing out. When you get hit (and much of what I've read says that for Israelis, having soldiers captured is a particularly devastating hit) you want to hit back. And often people aren't to particular about who they hit back.
I'll add the usual "of course Israel has the right to defend itself" statement here. Everyone has the right to do that. I just don't see how their bombing campaign in Lebanon is doing their security situation any favors. It hurts Hezbolloah a little, but seems to hurt Lebanon a lot.
And yes, I'm sure those Vietnam-style search-and-destroy missions will work every bit as well for the IDF as they have for the U.S. Army in Anbar province. And, given that Hezbollah -- by one estimate -- started the war with roughly 13,000 rockets dispersed across southern Lebanon, and has fired only about 10% of them, a week should give the IDF plenty of time to complete the mission. Definitely.He floats one possible explanation that is rather frightening:
It may be that the imprecise use of air power in southern Lebanon is designed to send a very precise message to the leadership class in Tehran: This is what could happen to your country if we (that is, the USA and/or Israel) decide to launch a full-scale air attack. We may not know where all your nuclear facilities are, but we know exactly where your bridges, power plants, sewage plants, airports and government office buildings are -- and we won't hesitate to flatten them. Maybe we can't stop you from getting the bomb, just like we can't force Hezbollah to disarm, but we can make you pay a terrible price for it.The other explanation he offers is that Israel's military establishment consists of "reckless boobs who don't have the slightest idea what they're doing, or even what they're trying to do." While I might believe that of the Bush administration, I have a hard time picturing Israel's goverment in quite such a light.
I'll put forward my own theory: Israel is in Lebanon for similar reasons that the US is in Iraq: public outrage over a brzen attack was redirected by those who already had some kind of agenda. For the US, public rage and fear about 9/11 was manipulated and mischanneled into an Iraq invasion by people who already wanted to invade Iraq. When Hezbollah captured those two soldiers (by the way, by doing that Hezbollah was just askin' for it), perhaps Israeli public opinion shifted in such a way that enabled some faction within the Israeli government to execute a pre-existing desire to attack Lebanon. Or it could just be a simple lashing out. When you get hit (and much of what I've read says that for Israelis, having soldiers captured is a particularly devastating hit) you want to hit back. And often people aren't to particular about who they hit back.
I'll add the usual "of course Israel has the right to defend itself" statement here. Everyone has the right to do that. I just don't see how their bombing campaign in Lebanon is doing their security situation any favors. It hurts Hezbolloah a little, but seems to hurt Lebanon a lot.
Comments