The TM fever is spreaing amoung the house. Sean Clancy and Joel Herring are now infected and suffering symptons. Benji unaffected.
Reading alot of Lind while my Opera browser moves slowly.
Bought some rice and some cheap but excellent ginger. Foriegn Affairs on Tunnel rd is great. do Shop there.
Prep shifts at the OEC. wierd. left my bob dylan in the OEC.
-
Lind
On War #179
August 17, 2006
Beat!
By William S. Lind
[The views expressed in this article are those of Mr. Lind, writing in his personal capacity. They do not reflect the opinions or policy positions of the Free Congress Foundation, its officers, board or employees, or those of Kettle Creek Corporation.]
With todays cease-fire in Lebanon, the second Hezbollah-Israeli War is temporarily in remission. So far, Israel has been beaten.
The magnitude of the defeat is considerable. Israel appears to have lost at every levelstrategic, operational and tactical. Nothing she tried worked. Air power failed, as it always does against an enemy who doesnt have to maneuver operationally, or even move tactically for the most part. The attempts to blockade Lebanon and thus cut off Hezbollahs resupply failed; her caches proved ample. Most seriously, the ground assault into Lebanon failed. Israel took little ground and paid heavily in casualties for that. More, she cannot hold what she has taken; if she is not forced to withdraw by diplomacy, Hezbollah will push her out, as it did once before. The alternative is a bleeding ulcer that never heals.
But these failures only begin to measure the magnitude of Israels defeat. While Hezbollahs leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, is now an Islamic hero, Olmert has become a boiled brisket in the piranha pool that is Israeli politics. The cease-fire in Lebanon will allow camera crews to broadcast the extent of the destruction to the world, with further damage to Israels image. Israels wall strategy for dealing with the Palestinians has been undone; Hamas rockets can fly over a wall as easily as Hezbollah rockets have flown over Israels northern border.
Most importantly, an Islamic Fourth Generation entity, Hezbollah, will now point the way throughout the Arab and larger Islamic world to a future in which Israel can be defeated. That will have vast ramifications, and not for Israel alone. Hundreds of millions of Moslems will believe that the same Fourth Generation war that defeated hated Israel can beat equally-hated America, its coalitions and its allied Arab and Moslem regimes. Future events seem more likely to confirm that belief than to undermine it.
The cease-fire in Lebanon will last only briefly, its life probably measured in days if not in hours. Neither Israel nor Hezbollah has genuinely accepted it. The notion that the Lebanese Army and a rag-tag U.N. force will disarm Hezbollah is absurd even by the usual low standard of diplomatic fictions. The bombing and the rocketing may stop briefly, but Israel has already announced a campaign of assassination against Hezbollah leaders, while every Israeli soldier in Lebanon will remain a target of Hezbollah.
Unfortunately for states generally, Israel appears to have no good options when hostilities recommence. It can continue to grind forward on the ground in southern Lebanon, paying bitterly for each foot of ground, and perhaps eventually denying Hezbollah some of its rocket-launching sites. But it cannot hold what it takes. It may strive for a more robust U.N. force, but what country wants to fight Hezbollah? Any occupier of southern Lebanon that is not there with Hezbollahs permission will face the same guerrilla war Israel already fought and lost. Most probably, Israel will escalate by taking the war to Syria or Iran, and what will be a strategy of desperation. That too will fail, after it plunges the whole region into a war the outcome of which will be catastrophic for the United States as well as for Israel.
Before that disastrous denouement, my Fourth Generation crystal ball suggests the following events are likely:
Again, a near-term resumption of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, with Israel succeeding no better than it has to date. In the past, the IDF has been brilliant at pulling rabbits out of hats, but this time someone else seems to occupy all the rabbit holes.
A fracturing of Lebanon, with a collapse of the weak Lebanese state and very possibly a return to civil war there (which was always the probable result of Syrias departure).
A rise of Syrian and Iranian influence generally, matched by a fall of American influence. If Israel and America were clever, Syrias comeback could offer a diplomatic opportunity of a deal in which Syria changed sides in return for a peace treaty with Israel that included the return of all lands. The crystal ball says that opportunity will be spurned.
A vast strengthening of Islamic 4GW elements everywhere.
Finally and perhaps most discouragingly, a continued inability of state militaries everywhere, including those of Israel and the United States, to come to grips with Fourth Generation War. Inability may be too kind of a word; refusal is perhaps more accurate.
Are there any brighter prospects? Not unless Israel changes its fundamental policy. Even in the unlikely event that the cease-fire in Lebanon holds and Lebanese Army and U.N. forces do wander into southern Lebanon, that would buy but a bit of time. Israel only has a long-term future if it can reach a mutually acceptable accommodation with its neighbors. So long as those neighbors are states, a policy of pursuing such an accommodation may have some chance of success. But as the rise of Fourth Generation elements such as Hezbollah and Hamas weaken and in time replace those states, the possibility will disappear. Unfortunately, Israeli politics appear to be moving away from such a course rather than toward it.
For America, the question is whether Washington will continue to demand that we go down with the Israeli ship.
William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_archive.htm
BBC
Olmert faces post-war disappointment
By James Reynolds
BBC News in Jerusalem
Many Israelis are disappointed with their Prime Minister
Israel's post-war post-mortem is being performed in public.
There seems to be a simple rule right now: if you have any kind of official title in this country, the chances are that you didn't come out of this conflict all that well.
That certainly applies for the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, whose first-ever turn as a wartime leader has not worked out as well as he had hoped.
"When Olmert entered into this war there's reason to speculate that he was hoping to emerge from it the way Margaret Thatcher emerged from the Falklands War," says Amotz Asa-El, a columnist with the Jerusalem Post.
"In other words, an operation that came in response to an unprovoked attack whose subsequent military action was swift, resolute and very crowning for whoever led it."
Popular disappointment
But it hasn't turned out like that.
Israel's military campaign has not achieved its stated objectives; the country's captured soldiers have not been returned, and Hezbollah has not been disarmed.
A few steps from Israel's border with Lebanon, children play in the small Kibbutz of Yiron.
From the border fence you can see the homes of a Lebanese village on the hilltop - with binoculars you can even see into their windows.
I think he [Ehud Olmert] went to the war without being really prepared
Ada Seremy
Many Israelis fled this kibbutz during the last month of fighting. Now they've come back, and they're disappointed with their Prime Minister.
"Look, I think he went to the war without being really prepared," says Ada Seremy, who has lived here since 1949.
"I think we had all the rights in this war because they (Hezbollah) were really doing bad things to us, but I think when you decide to go for a war you have to prepare."
This popular disappointment leaves Ehud Olmert with a very real problem.
He was elected earlier this year almost entirely on a single promise: to finish the job begun by Ariel Sharon and draw up Israel's borders for good.
Sharon started the job last summer when he withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip. Olmert was expected to finish it in the next few years by withdrawing from parts of the Palestinian West Bank.
But, then came this summer. Now Israelis are not so sure about another unilateral withdrawal.
Hard task
In parliament on Monday, Ehud Olmert found it hard to persuade his audience that he was leading Israel in the right direction.
He may not find all that much comfort from his allies either. Major General Giora Eiland planned last year's unilateral pullout from Gaza: part one of the Sharon-Olmert border plan. But now, even this man, the faithful general, doubts the chances of part two.
Today - to support unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, you have to be deaf, daft or blind
Meir Shetreet
"At least 70-80% of the people of Israel understand that unilateral withdrawal might create another proxy in the West Bank that might be supported by Iran just as Hezbollah was supported in Lebanon, and that is a risk that the state of Israel should not bear," says General Eiland.
This risk can be measured by the smell of burning rubber - the speed with which politicians are now running away from the same policy that got them elected.
Right now, Ehud Olmert's allies in the Kadima party are scrambling to say they had nothing to do with the idea of unilateral withdrawal from bits of the West Bank - and that anyone who even thinks about it is generally pretty crazy.
"Today - to support unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, you have to be deaf, daft or blind, "says Meir Shetreet, a cabinet minister.
So one question now remains.
Ehud Olmert is just three months into his term of office. If he can't carry out his promise of drawing up Israel's borders - what is he going to do with the remaining years of his administration?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5261686.stm
Reading alot of Lind while my Opera browser moves slowly.
Bought some rice and some cheap but excellent ginger. Foriegn Affairs on Tunnel rd is great. do Shop there.
Prep shifts at the OEC. wierd. left my bob dylan in the OEC.
-
Lind
On War #179
August 17, 2006
Beat!
By William S. Lind
[The views expressed in this article are those of Mr. Lind, writing in his personal capacity. They do not reflect the opinions or policy positions of the Free Congress Foundation, its officers, board or employees, or those of Kettle Creek Corporation.]
With todays cease-fire in Lebanon, the second Hezbollah-Israeli War is temporarily in remission. So far, Israel has been beaten.
The magnitude of the defeat is considerable. Israel appears to have lost at every levelstrategic, operational and tactical. Nothing she tried worked. Air power failed, as it always does against an enemy who doesnt have to maneuver operationally, or even move tactically for the most part. The attempts to blockade Lebanon and thus cut off Hezbollahs resupply failed; her caches proved ample. Most seriously, the ground assault into Lebanon failed. Israel took little ground and paid heavily in casualties for that. More, she cannot hold what she has taken; if she is not forced to withdraw by diplomacy, Hezbollah will push her out, as it did once before. The alternative is a bleeding ulcer that never heals.
But these failures only begin to measure the magnitude of Israels defeat. While Hezbollahs leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, is now an Islamic hero, Olmert has become a boiled brisket in the piranha pool that is Israeli politics. The cease-fire in Lebanon will allow camera crews to broadcast the extent of the destruction to the world, with further damage to Israels image. Israels wall strategy for dealing with the Palestinians has been undone; Hamas rockets can fly over a wall as easily as Hezbollah rockets have flown over Israels northern border.
Most importantly, an Islamic Fourth Generation entity, Hezbollah, will now point the way throughout the Arab and larger Islamic world to a future in which Israel can be defeated. That will have vast ramifications, and not for Israel alone. Hundreds of millions of Moslems will believe that the same Fourth Generation war that defeated hated Israel can beat equally-hated America, its coalitions and its allied Arab and Moslem regimes. Future events seem more likely to confirm that belief than to undermine it.
The cease-fire in Lebanon will last only briefly, its life probably measured in days if not in hours. Neither Israel nor Hezbollah has genuinely accepted it. The notion that the Lebanese Army and a rag-tag U.N. force will disarm Hezbollah is absurd even by the usual low standard of diplomatic fictions. The bombing and the rocketing may stop briefly, but Israel has already announced a campaign of assassination against Hezbollah leaders, while every Israeli soldier in Lebanon will remain a target of Hezbollah.
Unfortunately for states generally, Israel appears to have no good options when hostilities recommence. It can continue to grind forward on the ground in southern Lebanon, paying bitterly for each foot of ground, and perhaps eventually denying Hezbollah some of its rocket-launching sites. But it cannot hold what it takes. It may strive for a more robust U.N. force, but what country wants to fight Hezbollah? Any occupier of southern Lebanon that is not there with Hezbollahs permission will face the same guerrilla war Israel already fought and lost. Most probably, Israel will escalate by taking the war to Syria or Iran, and what will be a strategy of desperation. That too will fail, after it plunges the whole region into a war the outcome of which will be catastrophic for the United States as well as for Israel.
Before that disastrous denouement, my Fourth Generation crystal ball suggests the following events are likely:
Again, a near-term resumption of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, with Israel succeeding no better than it has to date. In the past, the IDF has been brilliant at pulling rabbits out of hats, but this time someone else seems to occupy all the rabbit holes.
A fracturing of Lebanon, with a collapse of the weak Lebanese state and very possibly a return to civil war there (which was always the probable result of Syrias departure).
A rise of Syrian and Iranian influence generally, matched by a fall of American influence. If Israel and America were clever, Syrias comeback could offer a diplomatic opportunity of a deal in which Syria changed sides in return for a peace treaty with Israel that included the return of all lands. The crystal ball says that opportunity will be spurned.
A vast strengthening of Islamic 4GW elements everywhere.
Finally and perhaps most discouragingly, a continued inability of state militaries everywhere, including those of Israel and the United States, to come to grips with Fourth Generation War. Inability may be too kind of a word; refusal is perhaps more accurate.
Are there any brighter prospects? Not unless Israel changes its fundamental policy. Even in the unlikely event that the cease-fire in Lebanon holds and Lebanese Army and U.N. forces do wander into southern Lebanon, that would buy but a bit of time. Israel only has a long-term future if it can reach a mutually acceptable accommodation with its neighbors. So long as those neighbors are states, a policy of pursuing such an accommodation may have some chance of success. But as the rise of Fourth Generation elements such as Hezbollah and Hamas weaken and in time replace those states, the possibility will disappear. Unfortunately, Israeli politics appear to be moving away from such a course rather than toward it.
For America, the question is whether Washington will continue to demand that we go down with the Israeli ship.
William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_archive.htm
BBC
Olmert faces post-war disappointment
By James Reynolds
BBC News in Jerusalem
Many Israelis are disappointed with their Prime Minister
Israel's post-war post-mortem is being performed in public.
There seems to be a simple rule right now: if you have any kind of official title in this country, the chances are that you didn't come out of this conflict all that well.
That certainly applies for the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, whose first-ever turn as a wartime leader has not worked out as well as he had hoped.
"When Olmert entered into this war there's reason to speculate that he was hoping to emerge from it the way Margaret Thatcher emerged from the Falklands War," says Amotz Asa-El, a columnist with the Jerusalem Post.
"In other words, an operation that came in response to an unprovoked attack whose subsequent military action was swift, resolute and very crowning for whoever led it."
Popular disappointment
But it hasn't turned out like that.
Israel's military campaign has not achieved its stated objectives; the country's captured soldiers have not been returned, and Hezbollah has not been disarmed.
A few steps from Israel's border with Lebanon, children play in the small Kibbutz of Yiron.
From the border fence you can see the homes of a Lebanese village on the hilltop - with binoculars you can even see into their windows.
I think he [Ehud Olmert] went to the war without being really prepared
Ada Seremy
Many Israelis fled this kibbutz during the last month of fighting. Now they've come back, and they're disappointed with their Prime Minister.
"Look, I think he went to the war without being really prepared," says Ada Seremy, who has lived here since 1949.
"I think we had all the rights in this war because they (Hezbollah) were really doing bad things to us, but I think when you decide to go for a war you have to prepare."
This popular disappointment leaves Ehud Olmert with a very real problem.
He was elected earlier this year almost entirely on a single promise: to finish the job begun by Ariel Sharon and draw up Israel's borders for good.
Sharon started the job last summer when he withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip. Olmert was expected to finish it in the next few years by withdrawing from parts of the Palestinian West Bank.
But, then came this summer. Now Israelis are not so sure about another unilateral withdrawal.
Hard task
In parliament on Monday, Ehud Olmert found it hard to persuade his audience that he was leading Israel in the right direction.
He may not find all that much comfort from his allies either. Major General Giora Eiland planned last year's unilateral pullout from Gaza: part one of the Sharon-Olmert border plan. But now, even this man, the faithful general, doubts the chances of part two.
Today - to support unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, you have to be deaf, daft or blind
Meir Shetreet
"At least 70-80% of the people of Israel understand that unilateral withdrawal might create another proxy in the West Bank that might be supported by Iran just as Hezbollah was supported in Lebanon, and that is a risk that the state of Israel should not bear," says General Eiland.
This risk can be measured by the smell of burning rubber - the speed with which politicians are now running away from the same policy that got them elected.
Right now, Ehud Olmert's allies in the Kadima party are scrambling to say they had nothing to do with the idea of unilateral withdrawal from bits of the West Bank - and that anyone who even thinks about it is generally pretty crazy.
"Today - to support unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, you have to be deaf, daft or blind, "says Meir Shetreet, a cabinet minister.
So one question now remains.
Ehud Olmert is just three months into his term of office. If he can't carry out his promise of drawing up Israel's borders - what is he going to do with the remaining years of his administration?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5261686.stm
guitargeek:
Noam Chomsky On Lebanon-Israel audio interview, Wakeup Call (July 24, 2006).