Article

2006-08-01 Israel-Palestine-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-01 08:34|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 So the WSJ editorial board is ~~openly~~ shilling for Hezbollah now. Those who write for the WSJ oped board can't possibly be stupid enough not to realize that's the impact of this piece.

My money's on Israel.

Posted by 2b 2006-08-01 09:54|| 2006-08-01 09:54|| Front Page Top

#2 Yeah, Bret Stephens, formerly of the Jerusalem Post is openly shilling for Hezb'Allah. I think he realizes the impact of this article is to give Olmert and Paretz a swift kick in the pants, because that is what they need. Even though Perets makes it clear that we aren't allowed to criticize.

There is no case to be made that Israel is winning this war, only that Israel has not yet lost it and still has time to win if it gets its act together.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-01 10:10|| 2006-08-01 10:10|| Front Page Top

#3 Bret Stephens made some unfortunate remarks at the Davos meeting around the time that Eason Jordan was exposed. He's been 'moving and shaking' with the big money, i.e. Soros and the Saudis, for some time now.

Posted by lotp 2006-08-01 10:32|| 2006-08-01 10:32|| Front Page Top

#4 Yup, and I dumped on him here for it and his cute dinner with the German diplomat. But that doesn't mean he's in the tank for Hezb'Allah or that this analysis is incorrect.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-01 10:34|| 2006-08-01 10:34|| Front Page Top

#5 NS,

I'm with you on this one.

Once again, it looks as if another Western nation (if I may be allowed to classify Israel as Western) utterly lacks the will to take out the big hammer.

Somewhere in the first couple of chapters of On War, Clausewitz tells us there are only two ways to defeat your enemy: physically annihilate him or break his will to fight. So far, it appears the Israelis aren't attempting either path.

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-08-01 10:42|| 2006-08-01 10:42|| Front Page Top

#6 NS, you're right - it doesn't mean he's wrong. What I worry about is that NONE of the western countries seem willing to actually fight for our won cultural, economic and political survival in the face of these classic ongoing attacks by barbarian tribes at our edges.

Posted by lotp 2006-08-01 11:00|| 2006-08-01 11:00|| Front Page Top

#7 I agree, dreadnaught. But I also worry about the fact that so many are wanting Israel to do what we ALL need to be doing. I've been in Israel - it's about the size of New Jersey, folks. That's it. Time for the bigger countries either to step up to the plate or admit they are surrendering.

Posted by lotp 2006-08-01 11:01|| 2006-08-01 11:01|| Front Page Top

#8 Just for the sake of argument, lets just imagine for a moment a worst case scenario, and the goat boinking tribes of Allan actually defeated Israel. If a Dunkirk rescue effort were to unfold, please name if you will, the nations that would provide transport, sanctuary, and citizenship.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-08-01 11:07|| 2006-08-01 11:07|| Front Page Top

#9 Only one I can think of is the USA, the Americans would demand it.

Posted by djohn66 2006-08-01 11:10|| 2006-08-01 11:10|| Front Page Top

#10 lotp, what bigger country do you have in mind?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-01 11:11|| 2006-08-01 11:11|| Front Page Top

#11 Another thing I have talk to everybody that I know of around my neighborhood even the Bush haters and all have said that Israel needs to put a deep smack down on the hizzys.

Posted by djohn66 2006-08-01 11:12|| 2006-08-01 11:12|| Front Page Top

#12 What gives with this defeatist claptrap of late? Does anyone remember how Israel was caught off guard in the opening days of the Yom Kipur War in Oct. 1973?

For an upbeat assessment that includes links to the pessimists, see here. Check for periodic updates and chuck the negativity BS.

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-08-01 11:28|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp] 2006-08-01 11:28|| Front Page Top

#13 lotp,

I'm with you 100%. It's hard to get folks in the USA to understand the seriousness of this, but in a country where the rockets are literally raining down, I thought that sheer self-preservation would kick in and get the Israelis to fight in a serious fashion. Attriting rocket lauchers is fine, but Hizb Allah will just get new ones.

Of course, it is possible that these yahoos are such fanatics that the only way to break their will IS to literally annihilate them (a la Japan 1945).

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-08-01 11:32|| 2006-08-01 11:32|| Front Page Top

#14 What gives with this defeatist claptrap of late?

Nothing is wrong with defeatist claptrap if someone is being defeated. Do you think Israel is winning?

And Israel is not being defeated on the battlefield. It appears that Israel is defeating itself because it has a political leadership that adopts a strategy d'jour...or two.

And the consequences for Israel and for us of their defeat will be monumental. We need to do everything we can to prevent it. And so does the Israeli leadership.

Israel can win this thing. Easily. If their political leadership has the will. They appear not to. That's why leaders get tested early and why 2009 will not be a pleasant year, whoever wins in the previous November.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-01 11:46|| 2006-08-01 11:46|| Front Page Top

#15 as you well know, NS - I think you ARE defeatist, seeing clouds over every battle victory. I question your objectivity

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-08-01 12:08|| 2006-08-01 12:08|| Front Page Top

#16 Hey Frank G. it is always good to have a defeatist around just in case we get to high on the horse.

Posted by djohn66 2006-08-01 12:15|| 2006-08-01 12:15|| Front Page Top

#17 In this case, which battle victory?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-01 12:30|| 2006-08-01 12:30|| Front Page Top

#18 Nimble: I question your objectivity as well.

It's one thing to encourage as Horowitz did today and another to shill as this article does. The folks at the WSJ oped understand exactly what they are doing.

Posted by 2b 2006-08-01 12:35|| 2006-08-01 12:35|| Front Page Top

#19 I don't think NS is being defeatist, just pessimistic. A trait I share at this point.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2006-08-01 12:44|| 2006-08-01 12:44|| Front Page Top

#20 pessimistic is fine, and prudent.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-08-01 13:01|| 2006-08-01 13:01|| Front Page Top

#21 People whose job is to track financial markets fully understand the consequences of this type of pessimism in the op ed of an American paper.

Translate this to high school. "This is not to say that Miss Popular WILL lose the title of homecoming queen, but if she keeps eating like she did yesterday,s he is headed for the greatest public humiliation in history.

Sigh? How hard is this to understand?

Posted by 2b 2006-08-01 13:14|| 2006-08-01 13:14|| Front Page Top

#22 NS has a point about Israel's political will and the PR defeat she is suffering from of late.

However, anyone who thought world opinion would side with Israel is whistling past a graveyard.

As for taking the gloves off, exactly. It is basically the USA, UK, Israel, possibly India, Australia, and Japan (and throw in a few Eastern European nations) against the Islamist-Fascists and their enablers among the Leftist-besotted nations and communities, including our own Leftists.

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-08-01 13:22|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/Page9.html]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/Page9.html] 2006-08-01 13:22|| Front Page Top

#23 The world was prepared to let Israel have its way with Hezb'Allah after the kidnappings. It was a PR victory at that point. If they'd turned in victories, they'd still have the edge in the PR battle. But they didn't and Hezb'Allah capitalized with that manufactured Cana incident under the direction of Mr. Green Helmet. It is this wasted opportunity that has made me so upset.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-01 13:46|| 2006-08-01 13:46|| Front Page Top

#24 What's interesting is that TradeSports doesn't even have a market going on any of this, unless I missed it in a quick check. They had markets during the Iraq invasion. People aren't sure anymore how serious any of this is, I think.

Now, there isn't the groundswell of pushback against the Islamacists I would like to see. OTOH, people are beginning to realize this isn't Grenada or the Brits vs. Argentina on a windswept island, either. I think it's going to have to get very bad and overt before public opinion will rise up against Islamacist agression (including how they've taken over e.g. many aspects of the UN).

Posted by lotp 2006-08-01 13:54|| 2006-08-01 13:54|| Front Page Top

#25 "Israel can win this thing. Easily. If their political leadership has the will."

Easily??? Nimble, respectfully I disagree? To say that Hezbollah is a formidable opponent is a colossal understatement. Furthermore, politically speaking, it will be impossible to end this conflict with any perceived humiliation on either side. No amount of will can erase that fact. IMO, given all the other complexities, that makes it the exact opposite of easy.

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-08-01 14:03|| 2006-08-01 14:03|| Front Page Top

#26 I don't share the pessimism. Do you really think that these rampaging backwater monkeys who don't have anything to offer except hate, anger, blame, murder, and false belief in a KKK like superiority are going to do anything other than just get a bunch of people killed for no purpose whatsoever?

Here's an article to burst the pessimistic bubble. grownups meet

Remember, survival is an instinct. Israel is starting to act in terms of survival and so will we.

Posted by 2b 2006-08-01 14:05|| 2006-08-01 14:05|| Front Page Top

#27 A formidable opponent with no artillery, no air, no armor? Sure they have well laid out positions and tunnels and training and, you're right, it won't be easy. But neither should it be terribly difficult, nor should the outcome have ever been in question as it now is.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-01 14:43|| 2006-08-01 14:43|| Front Page Top

#28 pshaw. How is it in question? Has Israel stopped worrying about civilians yet? Has it used NBC's? Then they haven't lost yet. This isn't the 20th century anymore. Israel is fighting for survival and I'll bet Fred's tip jar that the Israelis won't just lay down and die. History's on my side - not yours. Pick up a Bible now and again and you might get a better clue what they are capable of.

Posted by 2b 2006-08-01 14:48|| 2006-08-01 14:48|| Front Page Top

#29 The issue isn't capability. It's will.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-01 14:50|| 2006-08-01 14:50|| Front Page Top

#30 you keep saying they don't have the will. Yet they are bulldozing their way to Beruit. What part of blood and tears don't you understand?

Posted by 2b 2006-08-01 14:54|| 2006-08-01 14:54|| Front Page Top

#31 Still, I'd be more certain of isreali will if Bibi was in charge, and not "land for ~~pieces~~ peace" kadima.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-08-01 14:57|| 2006-08-01 14:57|| Front Page Top

#32 I told you so. The problem is the Israel Political and Military department(just hearing the quotes from Halutz seems he is kid bragging but dont delivering).
This reached this stage starting with Rabin/Peres if you know MEMRI is from an Intelligence officer that got out protesting the delusional kumbaya vision that were propagated. Then came Barak and the retreat from buffer zone a self inflicted defeat, a treason to many Lebanese, emboldened Hizb and was a loss of inteligence assets. Then Sharon trading 400 prisioners for 3 death soldier bodies and one apparently corrupt Israeli and
Gaza retreat without any agreement.
This was supported by the majority of media establishment and Israel vote.
This is why i say that the problem is much more deep than just Olmert and the squezzed Peretz.

Posted by Clerert Uneamp2772 2006-08-01 15:47|| 2006-08-01 15:47|| Front Page Top

#33 That's a fair point, anon. I may have to eat my hat on this one, but I'm just not sniffing any weakness on Israel's resolve. To the contrary - I'm not going to be surprised if they smash on through.

Lot's of folks and the entire MSM counting on them not having the will. No matter how many people tell me it's true, I'm just not seeing that.

Posted by 2b 2006-08-01 16:45|| 2006-08-01 16:45|| Front Page Top

#34 The article makes the same points I and others were making over the past weeks. So just because the author has been repeatedly wrong in the past, doesn't mean he cannot be dead-on for once. "stopped clock" and all that applies.

1) You cannot expect this to go with airpower only. Ground units needed to be involved from day one in deep actions across Hezbollah's defense zone. Israel's political leadership did not do this, assumed they could use airpower only, pinprick assaults on the ground and keep casualties to a minimum. This is probably a residual effect of the "peace protester" mentality of the DM and PM and the last actions in Lebanon of the IDF - their "Vietnam". Now they are paying for their timidity with rocket attacks on their citizenry, and their troops will be battling and dying in larger number than had they acted earlier and more decisively.

2) You need to strike with Force Majeure - that is, to hit extremely hard at the weakest point of the enemy. Israel's political leadership has put troops in piecemeal, and wasted the impact they could have had. Read FM 100-5 or the USMC similar field manual on Operational Combat.

3) Telling the truth isn't defeatist - its the only way to victory. And truth is truth no matter where you find it. Unpopular opinions and analyses, if they are well formed and well informed, are the most valuable but usually the hardest to accept. I agree that Israel had some major intelligence failures - but the worst failure of all was the failure of the political leadership to command the military to act decisively and hit hard while it would have had immense impact.

4) Time is NOT on Israel's side. They needed to do a 48-72 hour prep from the air to isolate and degrade Hez forces, interdict the supply lines, etc. Then launch a massive invasion - including recon-in-force up to the Litani in places. This would "stampede the herd" as it were, and completely disrupt Hezbollah. Instead, they have allowed time and space for Hezbollah to reform and regroup repeatedly, and the lack of direct ground troops has lead to the civilians staying put to hide from airstrikes instead of fleeing the advance of an armored column (far more humane than dying as Hezbollah human shields in Israeli air attacks).

5) Indecisiveness. Israel squandered the opportunity by hesitating and doing things in fits and starts instead of acting in a decisive and forceful manner. The hokey-pokey with the occupation of Hezbollah towns, the inability to decide to clear a deep security zone along the border, the on-and-off air campaign, the lack of counterbattery capability, the call up of cadre but not combat troops...

It all smacks of martial incompetence on the part of the political leadership of Israel. They have squandered too many opportunities - the chance for a decisive strategic victory is slipping away, surely as the sun sets on every additional delayed day in the campaign. Only heroics and blood of the troops of the IDF and some bold actions by the military leadership can salvage this.

I told you this a while back and it still stands: a decisive ground campaign from Tyre to the Golan along the Litani will be the only way for Israel to achieve victory. Had they done that in the second week of the conflict, it would be over with by now.

Call me defeatist? Go ahead. But I challenge you to come up with a better interpretation in light of all the warnings and predictions made that have been on the money so far. Politicians and others may want to spin this a different way, but anyone that is tasked with the defense of their nation and the blood of their troops would be pretty pissed with the results so far, were they to be put in the position of an Israeli military commander. Yes they have accomplished some things and are starting to cover the ground - but not nearly as much as they could have and should have.

Israel must follow through, and the political leadership must learn the lessons they were taught early in the conflict, eternal military lessons that every military knows but politicians seem to repeatedly forget.

Surprise. Concentration. Tempo. Audacity.

Alternately, in the immortal words of Nathan Bedford Forrest:

"Get there first-est with the most-est"

Notably Israel has achieved none of these - no surprise, spread operations preclude concentration/impact of forces, tempo has been lethargic and sporadic on the ground and sporadic in the air, and they have shown little audacity in operations.

I had more to say but need to get back to the job.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-08-01 16:55|| 2006-08-01 16:55|| Front Page Top

#35 I'd agree Olmert has said the right things fairly consistently. It just hasn't been backed up by others like Peretz and Kaplinski and the evolution of action has been pretty slow. I certainly hope the train is now on the tracks and rolling. We all need a big victory and lots of dead Hezbers.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-01 16:57|| 2006-08-01 16:57|| Front Page Top

#36 Nutshell summary:

The political leadership began this more concerned with holding down military casualties than achieveing decisive victory.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-08-01 17:00|| 2006-08-01 17:00|| Front Page Top

#37 Don't forget that all of the same was said about Iraq - much of it true. We should-have/could-have done lots of things differently - but the end result is that Saddam will hang and there is a democracy in Iraq.

I've been taken astray from my original point. It's one thing for rantburg members to post concerns, etc - but quite another for the WSJ op-ed to feed the hopes of the jihadis that the western world will lose their will. What happens, is it gives them false hope that they can just keep killing us and we will not have the will to fight back. It's bad because it is not true. When pushed far enough we will fight and we will fight to win. The war in Iraq would have been over a year ago with lots fewer dead if they MSM hadn't kept that hope alive in their deranged brains. What will happen is that they will keep pushing and each time we will become a little more ruthless and a little less civilized as we fight back. One step at a time - we will lose our patience and the end result will be more bloodshed than was necessary if we nipped it in the bud early on. 60 million dead in WWII. 50+ thousand killed at Gettysburg in ONE DAY. The idea that the Americans or Jews are just going to allow ourselves to be terrorised by these barbarians is not correct. It's time to make that clear to these terrorists so they can begin to grasp what will happen when they finally push too far. I agree that the political will is lagging right now, but a few more big terrorist attacks and eventually we'll get into the survival mode. Don't kid yourself that we won't.

Posted by 2b 2006-08-01 17:22|| 2006-08-01 17:22|| Front Page Top

#38 I agree 2b - the bleatings of the MSM, the apologists for Western Civilisation and other fifth columnists are limiting the options that we have to stop this.

When the next big terrorist attacks occur, all that's going to be left is the mediaeval response. Someone really ought to point this out to the people that are going to be at the sharp end of that response...

Posted by Tony (UK) 2006-08-01 18:11|| 2006-08-01 18:11|| Front Page Top

#39 apologist (n.)

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution

Posted by Clerert Uneamp2772 2006-08-01 18:18|| 2006-08-01 18:18|| Front Page Top

#40 2b - Check your figures. Only 5000 KIA at Gettysburg in 3 days. Think your WWII numbers are off, even including civilian deaths. Casualties != Deaths.

Oldspook - I think a reason for the lack of a grand advance here is that the strategic need is different. The IDF doesn't want to bypass Hezbollah as they would a regular army - they need to kill as many of the terrorists as possible. Breaking up the units means the cadres can reform. Remaining in contact bleeds them white. The longer they stay in position in the south, the more losses they take.

Posted by Oldcat 2006-08-01 18:49|| 2006-08-01 18:49|| Front Page Top

#41 Check the map. Israel forces from Kyriat Shmona and other localities near western Golan could have advanced West to cut Hizb and another pince will reach near Tyre and move East. Then another towards Bekaa. This is what were done in 1982 except that the Tyre force went to Beirut.

Posted by Clerert Uneamp2772 2006-08-01 19:12|| 2006-08-01 19:12|| Front Page Top

#42 You know people, I was sure that the Oslo accords are the end of Israel. All these "strategic/tactical" analyzes are a pile of bull. Even if the desired results are not accomplished now, Arabs will provide us with another opportunity. The only important thing is that Israel no longer afraid of collateral damage.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-08-01 19:19|| 2006-08-01 19:19|| Front Page Top

#43 old cat - point is still the same though ;-)

Posted by 2b 2006-08-01 19:23|| 2006-08-01 19:23|| Front Page Top

#44 I admit I were puzzled by the Israeli leadership somewhat, and understand OS concerns. But there are some factors that may shed some light on the Israeli strategy.

1. Israel has been caught by a surprise. They neglected intelligence in the past several years as the HA is concerned--mainly the HA prep of the battlefield and logistics. I think they expected a different stratagem played by Iranian puppet masters and their intel was directed more in that direction. Not saying that Iran won't pull a fast one, yet, I think their strategy has several facets and HA attack was only the first card in the deck.

2. The previous 2 weeks, beside attacking the "hot" targets, were spend on gathering the intel needed for ground offensive. That means weapons delivery points in specific locations and the entry/exit points of underground structures. If the ground offensive started without previous mapping of these locations, the price paid may have been too high.

3. The Qana incident was a PR disaster for Israel, at least in the short term, but gave a pretext for announcing a break in aerial bombardment. The usage of terms "aerial activity" was a master move, because the enemy may have interpreted it as they wanted to and disregard their security while trying to resupply. I think Israel got the data it needed to start the ground offensive without going blindly into many traps HA prepared in the last 6 years.

To a degree, one can say that Israelis "muddled through" up to this point and were rather reactive than proactive. But the blank spots in the intel had to be bridged over--to put in place an effective millitary strategy to crush the HA scourge.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-08-01 20:06|| 2006-08-01 20:06|| Front Page Top

#45 Figures as soon as I say they lacked audacity, they finally show some. And re: US in Iraq - there was certainly a lot of audacity and operational surprise shown early on, and a fast op-tempo, which was lost when Bremer and his guys decided to sit on thier hands instead of immediately declaring and enforcing martial law and dragooning the old army into service. So early bold and hard moves are no guarantee of a hard and lasting victory.

Sometimes you just have to grind.

Don't take my comments on Israel as being completely pessimistic: there is still room for major victory, but its going to be a harder than it would have been earlier; the opportunities were far better.

The good thing is that Israel seem to, in cavalry terms, have found their "seat". Now if they can push the tempo, and keep sharp jabs coming at Hezbollah to keep them off balance while Israel goes after their logistics (Bekaa) and leadership - they can pull off a major win.

There are other things afoot that will come to light soon as well.

As far as current action, they mirror the ones I called for in a post here a while back. There are a few key roads and chokepoints that Israel needs to hit, and the launchpoints and targets are pretty obvious to someone that analyzes the map, and plots the Hezbollah hardpoints against roads and villages.

Good discussion, talk to you later.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-08-01 21:32|| 2006-08-01 21:32|| Front Page Top

11:36 Besoeker
00:31 mac
00:04 JosephMendiola
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:50 crosspatch
23:43 Pappy
23:43 Inspector Clueso
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:34 Barbara Skolaut
23:32 gorb
23:27 trailing wife
23:11 Brett
23:08 Dreadnought
23:04 Frank G
23:04 Frank G
23:03 Frank G
23:00 Flereng Angaitch4458
22:55 crosspatch
22:55 3dc
22:53 Frank G
22:46 Poison Reverse
22:42 Frank G
22:38 Frank G
22:34 Lone Ranger