Adjusting The Timeline?
Good piece in the Washington Post that expands on the strategic moves Israel is making with U.S. consent, albeit one that contradicts the reporting of the Jerusalem Post of a 48-72 hour window for Israeli action in Lebanon:
Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.
For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat — or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.
For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.
Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants — with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike.
“What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas,” said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of sensitive diplomacy. “Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats to take down Hezbollah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant.”
Note the tacit acquiescence of the moderate Arabs, and combine that with Israeli determination, and you may be looking at the last days of Hezbollah as an effective policital and military force:
Hezbollah’s cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others has provided a “unique moment” with a “convergence of interests” among Israel, some Arab regimes and even those in Lebanon who want to rein in the country’s last private army, the senior Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing conflict.
Israel and the United States would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled.
“It seems like we will go to the end now,” said Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon. “We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We’ll have to go for the kill — Hezbollah neutralization.”
White House officials said Friday that Bush has called on Israel to limit civilian casualties and avoid toppling the Lebanese government but has not pressured Israel to stop its military action. “He believes that the Israelis have a right to protect themselves,” spokesman Tony Snow said in St. Petersburg, where Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit. “The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel.”
Specifically, officials said, Israel and the United States are looking to create conditions for achieving one remaining goal of U.N. Resolution 1559, adopted in 2004, which calls for the dismantling and disarming of Lebanon’s militias and expanding the state’s control over all its territory.
“We think part of the solution to this is the implementation of 1559, which would eliminate that [armed group operating outside the government] and help Lebanon extend all of its authority throughout the whole country,” national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told reporters with Bush in Russia yesterday.
Meanwhile, bottomfeeders from the left such as the heavily-worshipped fool Billmon hold forth with claptrap like this, and the ‘progressive’ know-nothings applaud like rabid monkeys:
There is something qualitatively different about the latest cycle of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although I’m having trouble in my own mind hanging a label on it.
Maybe it’s the fact that the Israelis have more or less abandoned the pretense that they’re fighting specific “terrorist” groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and are openly waging war on the Palestinian people (and now the Lebanese people) as a whole.
Maybe it’s because the proximate triggers for the current fighting – the Palestinian raid on an Israeli outpost on the Gaza frontier and Hezbollah’s ambush of an Israeli patrol just inside the Israeli border — were both military attacks against legitimate military targets, instead of explicit acts of terrorism, like the 2000-2001 Palestinian suicide bomb offensive.
This garbage is wrong on so many levels: it’s wrong factually, strategically, and philosophically. And if the apologetics for terrorists doesn’t nauseate you, than I assume you are, in fact, Noam Chomsky…
If this lefty premise is correct, then if/when the Lebanese govt moves troops into the South then there will be no ‘civil war’ in southern lebanon.
My gut tells me that this is working to the advantage of the non supportive(towards Hezbollah) group in the Lebanese govt, which is probably 60-70% of the Lebanese govt.
By forcing Hezbollah’s hand, the Israelis have driven a spike between the Syrain/Iranian funded terrorists groups and the rest of lebanon.
Civil war is coming to lebanon, and its length will be determined by how long syria and Iran can continue to support their terrorists, within Lebanon. The left is funny-they smile to themselves everytime they hear about an Israeli killed-ignoring the fact that for every one Israeli soldier/citizen killed, 3-5 palestinians usually balnce the equation.
It is exactly the same thinking that Hezbollah works under. So long as the Israeli’s are being killed, the citzens of Lebanon don’t matter, except to show how cruel the Israelis are. When civilian deaths become propoganda, and nothing else, it is clear evidence that they are losing.
A parallel situation for the left to consider?
If folks in montana were launching rockets in Canada, crossing the border to kidnap Canadian soldiers, to a point where Canada invaded Montana ot deal specifically with those launching the missiles becuase US politcians did not want to deal with it/or feared dealing with it, would they blame the Canadians?
One more issue that makes this time around different.
IN 72 and 82, the Israelis could push the enemy back to where they were no longer in range.
It’s 25 years later, and the strategy of pushing terrorists back beyond their range is impossible due to technolgical advancements-the Israelis have to force Syria’s hand.
Thanks(?) for the links to Billmon.
Much as Fartingdoglake has become the bastion of the legally naive, Billmon is becoming the bastion of anti-semitism.
For a guy to begin his piece with:
“He who fights terrorists for any period of time is likely to become one himself”, pretty much sums it up.
Let’s see if you don’t fight it-you are an appeaser. In the US targeting of Al-Queda were are becoming terrorists. I have a sense that Billmon is pushing against an envelope, without knowing what lays outside the encelope.
Under BM’s logic of permisiveness, the US would be justifed in staging attacks against Syria and crossing their border(from Iraq) and conducting military actions. If the Israelis are supposed to sit their and take it, then Syrai should as well.
If Israel should not respond to incursions across their border by foreign powers, then why should he care if we were heading into Syria?
Hypocrisy? Not for the left, who can ignore all other comparable situations to justify their hatred of america and Israel.
(Worth noting that there is a Kurdish population in Syria, enough for the US to conduct similar actions of Iran and Syria via this proxy. Not something workable now, but soon it will be.)
I think it is ironic that there have been many posts in other threads depicting Jimmy Carter as being weak and indecisive, but I have yet to see any posters remarking about the paralysis which the Bush administration finds itself in. We have no cards to play and no leverage to use, so you are left with Bush pleading with the Syrians to call of the dogs (as if they would listen to him in the first place).
There are many reasons why we are paralyzed. Previous administrations viewed the Isreali-Palestinian conflict as central to any solution to the Middle East, and assigned people like Dennis Ross as high-level emissaries to the region. By abandoning this approach and relegating the conflict to back burner status, we lost the ability to play the honest broker.
By adopting a my-way-or-the-highway approach to foreign policy, this administration has no diplomatic leverage to use against Syria or Iran. By refusing to talk to them — and, in Iran’s case, including it in an axis of evil — we have walled ourselves off as well as them. It’s all well and good to be a chest thumper and declare that we won’t negotiate with regimes which support terror, up until the point when you need something from them. American diplomacy has found a way to work with repugnant regimes such as those of Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, Riza Pahlevi, and the Fahds, to name a few. By branding Damascus and Tehran as rogue regimes and ceasing dialogue with them — despite any opportunities which may have been available with new regimes in both countries — the only leverage which remains to us is military force.
Needless to say, the adventure in Iraq has exacerbated the whole situation. By destabilizing Iraq, we lost any credibility we may once have had and we have weakened what passes for moderate governments in the Middle East. Our troops are bogged down and we lack a credible military threat against Iran, much less North Korea. We have made ourselves vulnerable to Iran by giving them the ability to harrass our troops by proxy. Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Haditha, and the daily bloodshed in Iraq — not to mention sending Karen Hughes to lecture the Saudis about how they would have more fulfilling lives if they could be more like us — has made the hearts-and-minds battle a complete loss. Although I don’t know how you would measure these things, it is hard to imagine a time when we were more despised in the Middle East than we are today.
Say what you will about Jimmy Carter, but he had an intensive diplomatic effort aimed at the Middle East, which was a far less dangerous place under his watch. Far from improving things, the current administration has created problems which it has neither the resources nor the ability to find a solution for.
Bush pleading with the Syrians to call off the dogs? Interesting concept – totally divorced from reality, but interesting nonetheless, in the same manner as a Salvador Dali painting of a melting timepiece…
Yes, Jimmy Carter did a fine job at Camp David (perhaps the only triumph of that miserable presidency) but I find it odd that you would choose as your model for dealing with Radical Islam the man who stood impotent before the world in a 400+ day hostage crisis.
Suit yourself…
A followup: I realize Bush has publicly asked Syria to pressure Hezbollah to return the soldiers and quit firing rockets – and who in the world would expect him to do less? When the President makes a public statement, he is sending a signal – and in this case, combined with his continued focus on Israel’s right to self-defense and his constant reiteration of who the culprits are, the message is this:
Until your needs are met, fire at will, Israel….
“We have no cards to play and no leverage to use, so you are left with Bush pleading with the Syrians to call of the dogs (as if they would listen to him in the first place).”
Where to begin? Not today…
But I would ask-is Israeli foreign policy abandoning US support(money and military) to attack unialerally or are they acting in conjunction with the US?
Your earlier statement(no cards to play) implies that we have no affect over any ME country, whether by financial aid or implicit support…
Sorry Peter, but whatever the outcome, the opportunites presented still have the potential for good, and the US is not without the ability to affect the region or indivdual countries in the region.
We also have more control over the outcome than any other country, ask the Palestinians.
Jimmy Carter’s mistake? ( he believed and obsessed over one outcome, ignoring all others)
It is my understanding(open to correction) that the hostage crisis could have been averted had he taken the people out of the embassy. His fear was that the appearance of an unwillingness to negotiate would deepen the quagmire.
By leaving the people in for political reasons that he thought he understood, he brought about his own demise. Looking back, when he evacuated non-essential employees, he should have taken them all out.
(I haven’t seen some good carter bashing in a while-any chance you got the links?)
one more swipe at BM:
“There is something qualitatively different about the latest cycle of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although I’m having trouble in my own mind hanging a label on it.”
no label?(the implication of the choice of word say a lot)
How bout-borders are not being observed by either side?
The label is quite simply- ‘war’.
“Your earlier statement(no cards to play) implies that we have no affect (sic) over any ME country, whether by financial aid or implicit support”
We do have influence on Israel and Egypt, by virtue of the fact that we give them billions of dollars every year. However, my point is that we don’t have the leverage — short of military invasion or blockade — to influence events towards a positive outcome. Kind of brings back an old Nixonism about being a “pitiful, helpless giant.”
Peter-when you are out there grabbing at grammaticals, you really have admitted you’re up a creek…
“However, my point is that we don’t have the leverage — short of military invasion or blockade — to influence events towards a positive outcome.”
When did we have that option? I mean Reagan got out in 82, so clearly that we didn’t have the power then.
The US still remains the most powerful figure on the board. The katushya(go ahead correct the spelling) rockets don’t exactly disappear. We are assisting the Israeli in their targeting…
I don’t see a big rush on the part of Israel. While word is spreading that a ground invasion is pending, I’m guessing the Israeli’s are taking their time letting things play out a little more. They await the pending rxn from Iran and Syria-both are not acting in a manner that will help their cause and outside factors will be weighing in.
For Carter and Nixon-they couldn’t go any further…Carter stymied by the hostages, Nixon by the growing unrest of Vietnam-with impeachment hanging over his head.
The US hasn’t moved a man to theatre(nor do I wish them to)-but it is one of many cards left to play.
“Say what you will about Jimmy Carter, but he had an intensive diplomatic effort aimed at the Middle East, which was a far less dangerous place under his watch.”
Peter, I can think of at least 52 Americans who would disagree with that assesment very strongly.
To add to my theory that the Israeli’s have paused-
they are striking the same targets. This current state is more for effect than actually effort.
whether it is to scare the bees out of their nests to find locations for future strikes, or to create images that draw out Syria and Iran, couldn’t tell you…
I would bet a used piece of 8×11 1/2 lined notebook that they don’t move in for at least a week, but it may stretch into several weeks IF AT ALL. There is no hurry-fortified positions make better targets-they will kill far more hezbollah by scouting and performing airstrikes, then by putting their soldiers further at risk by full scale invasion. There is no timetable driving them, unless they invested troops heavily into Lebanon and as casualties mounted, it would weaken their overall effort.
The best game they have going is threatening a full scale invasion, so perhaps Iran and Syria can be caught in direct support.
An airstike on damascus…which is what the Israeli would love, has a better chance of ending this early than any other action they have taken. It is a card the Israeli have yet to play.