What benefits to the West would a Shi'ite dominated Lebanon, run by Hezbollah and supported by Syria and Iran bring? If the US pulled out of Iraq like many here propose and Iraq then also came under the influence of Iran don't the anti-US brigade realise what a destabalising situation this would bring?
What for example, in a US troop free middle east, would then prevent the Shi'ites under the banner of the mad ayyatolahs in Tehran invading Saudi Arabia? The UN? Jimmy Carter?
Put aside your anti-US sentiments and consider what an Islamic fundamentalist controlled middle east would be like for the rest of the world. Those who dread this scenario surely must agree that allowing hezbollah to rebuild and lie about its 'victory' over the Zionists will only embolden the islamists and make this scenario all the more possible.
Message was edited by: batman
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
Who here, with the possible exception of Kiumars, wishes to see a Hezbullah controlled Lebanon? I think the point is not that we disagree too much with what we would like as an outcome but that we disagree on how to get there. Attacking the Lebanon has increased hugely the support for Hezbullah. It may have gained some benefit in that Lebanon is now sending the Lebanese army south and the UN force has been strengthened. It is doubtful that Hezbullah will be disarmed, however, although they may not be able to be so effective militarily and may be contrained politically. I would call it a draw militarily but the whole action has increased support for Hezbullah and decreased what support Israel had within the Christian community within Lebanon, so is not good politically.
The Iranian Shi'ites could not attack Saudi Arabia without a huge response and they know this. Saudi Arabia itself is not like Kuwait and can defend itself but, in any case, would not remain alone. The first Gulf war got UN backing and so would any defence of Saudi Arabia. But, yes, it would need the might of the US armed forces to stand up to this should it arise.
I would not like to see a fundamentalist controled ME any more than you but you seem to think the best way to stop this is by military means, yet every piece of evidence would suggest that this merely increases support for these people. Never in history has military attack resulted in people saying "hmm we better change our views or we will get attacked again". It always results in greater determination and in a suppression of moderate opinion.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
'Attacking the Lebanon has increased hugely the support for Hezbullah.'
Israel didn't have a choice but this is also mainly down to arab bluster. I think most Lebanese are aware of what the hezbollah ahs done.
'The Iranian Shi'ites could not attack Saudi Arabia without a huge response and they know this. Saudi Arabia itself is not like Kuwait and can defend itself but, in any case, would not remain alone. The first Gulf war got UN backing and so would any defence of Saudi Arabia. But, yes, it would need the might of the US armed forces to stand up to this should it arise. '
Whilst the US is in Iraq then no, Iran can't do this. My question was what would be the responce if an Iranian dominated Iraq sat by and infact supported an Iranian invasion of Saudi Arabia? How exactly would the UN be able to respond? Who would be prepared to contribute the hundreds of thousands of troops needed to repell such an attack? You can see the difficulty the UN has in musturing just 15,000 troops.
'Never in history has military attack resulted in people saying "hmm we better change our views or we will get attacked again". '
I think you'll find you are very wrong here. look at Germany and Japan today for example.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
I think it was a Roman saying "Be fierce in battle and magnanimous in defeat" and they knew a thing or two. They did not always follow this course themselves, however. Yes, you can change the views of a nation, or what's left of it, if you engage in a war of the devastation that was inflicted on Germany and Japan. You may think this is OK but I do not. The blitz on London did not have the demoralising effect on the British that Hitler expected and neither did the carpet bombing of Dresden. Both had the opposite effect in giving greater resolve to those that remained.
Mustering European UN troops for this mission in Lebabanon has proved difficult as the countries feel they are on to a lose-lose situation. I am encouraged by the article cited by Mike that the Lebanese will take a positive lead. Any attack on Saudi-Arabia would not be strategically or morally acceptable to most Europeans or Americans and they would get a force together whether or not the USA was in Iraq currently or not.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
englishman
'I think it was a Roman saying "Be fierce in battle and magnanimous in defeat" and they knew a thing or two. '
then you'll be pleased to know that immediately after the 1967 war Israel offered the captured land back in return for peace. Unfortunately the arabs did then and still do today have the intelligence and mentality of the barbarians and rejected any proposal toward peace.
' I am encouraged by the article cited by Mike that the Lebanese will take a positive lead'
You're either a priest or extremely dumb. Or perhaps both.
' Any attack on Saudi-Arabia would not be strategically or morally acceptable to most Europeans or Americans and they would get a force together whether or not the USA was in Iraq currently or not.'
As above. You do realise that such a force would require atleast 1 MILLION troops from outside the US? It would be akin to declaring war on Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran? Not sure that the non-arab islamic countries would like an invasion on 'muslims' without ignoring the home grown islamists.
Simply put, a Shi'ite dominate middle east can pretty much do as it pleases and the europeans would only have themselves to blame.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
I note that when you have no logical argument you revert to simple insults, batman. This is rather in the way that you revert to suggestions of extreme violence when you cannot see, or choose to see, political solutions. You cannot seem to discern it is people with a similar intransigent mentality to yours, but on the other side, that perpetuate conflicts like this. Your solution would seem to be, as you have more or less stated in other posts, to pursue a course of genocide on all arabs and on the Iranians (and on anyone else that disagrees with your world view) until they change their mind. Quite honestly, there is little point in debating this with you. As another Roman (Tacitus) once said "they made a desert and called it peace". Is that what you want?
Message was edited by: englishman
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
englishman
Amazing that you make a post without even the slightest attempt to refute my argument. Like a little child you run off crying to mum saying 'an Israeli just insulted me' bwabwabwa
How lame.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
batman, you had no argument to refute. I generally choose not to engage in exchanges of insults. If this is your method of debate, it is worthless to pursue.
Owly, not supporting Israel in an all out attack against the Lebanon does not mean support for Hezbullah. At least not on my part, as you and others could see from my posts. There are not many on this site that do, two or three perhaps. Is this another "you are either with us or against us" argument? I pointed out that there may be some strategic advantage in Israel's attack on Lebanon but there has also been political loss in the extra support that Hezbullah have gained as a result. This is the situation as I see it. Batman would like to beat the country to pulp and it seems so would you. I do not see the benefit to mankind from this. As I said before "you make a desert and call it peace".
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
englishman,
It is true that not so many have come out openly and said 'I support Hezbollah'. However I think if you read much of what has been posted on here the general tone of the comment would lead any reasonable person to conclude that support of Hezbollah underpins much of that comment. Loathing Israel is quite a fashion really and is part of the anti-American attitudes which are far too common. Again look at the tone and content to the posts. Where is the condemnation of Hezbollah for its acts of War ? And isn't the author of all the suffering of the people of Lebanon Hezbollah ? Why are they - something you seem to be doing - absolved of their guilt ??
Batman would like to beat the country to pulp and it seems so would you. I do not see the benefit to mankind from this. As I said before "you make a desert and call it peace".
And kindly read my post. I have not said I want Lebanon reduced to rubble. What I said was that the Israeli politicians were half hearted in the way they went about things and having begun the policy they ought to have seen it through. And as I have said before it looks a little to me as if the Lebanese Government were quite happy to allow the Israelis to do what they did. I note the Lebanese army remained in its barracks. Wouldn't you have thought you would have mobilized your army of you were attacked ?
As to your comment 'you make a desert and call it peace' I would suggest you direct that at Hezbollah. After all you seem to have forgotten that it was their actions which started the war. And those actions were certainly undertaken with the approval of Iran. Hezbollah and Hamas are not interested in peaceful co-existence, they are interested in war.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
Owly, I think people tend to react in argument by putting counterpoints which therefore give an impression of lack of common ground. I think few here would support Hezbullah and few would support those who call for the destruction of Israel. Disagreeing with Israel's policies on how it handles the Palestinian issue and, for that matter, its foreign policy (if it can be said to have one beyond relationship with the USA) is another matter. I don't know about you, but I tend to have the fiercest arguments with my closest friends and family members. From my perpective, I like Israel and its people (and have been there on several occasions) and know no Palestinians, one person of arab extraction and a few Iranians. That does not mean I have to agree with Israel's approach to solving its problems. I think their approach has been wrong, in a moral sense in the hardship that has resulted, and wrong in a political sense in that it has been counter-productive for all concerned. It is a policy which is bound to create more polarisation and muffle any on both sides that would call for a negotiated solution.
I think the same is true for those who criticise the USA. There may be one or two that believe that the USA is the epitomy of a capitalist society, beyond redemption, but the majority would wish to simply change the policy of its government. There are some Americans doing that on this site but they are not anti-american.
Hezbullah comprise Lebanese people with a good deal of support within Lebanon, especially from the Shi'ite population of the south. The organisation is regarded highly for its defence of Lebanon against the 20 or so years of Israeli occupation. This may well not be justified but it is always the way of things that such people would be regarded as heroes. It could be said this happened in Israel when the leaders of those that harrassed British forces claimed victory when the British left. Their political wing, with financial support from Syria and Iran, has done much good in Lebanon (from what I understand) and has done so without too much pushing of its politics or religion; a risky and counter-productive thing to do in a multi-cultural Lebanon. On the other hand they have a linked military wing and a raison d'etre that involves, like Hamas, the destruction of Israel. The Lebanese government should have tackled this situation before, although I can understand why they have not. Whilst this recent war has forced their hand, it will not have helped them in any attempt to disarm Hezbullah who now have a great deal of grass root support, incuding those within the Lebanese army. I disagree that the Lebanese government were happy to see their country attacked; they were not tears of joy from theit prime minister. The army remained in its barracks because it would have been relatively impotent and would have resulted in even greater destruction of their infrastructure and more pointless loss of life. A sensible decision in the circumstances.
Sabre rattling has been going on at the border for years. Any one of these rattles could have been used as a pretext for war, rather than an exchange of prisoners, which was the previous and expected solution. You have to ask why did Israel use this particular incident, at this time, to take such dramatic action. I have given my view, and I think very few would know for sure, in other posts. This does not mean that I think it is acceptable for Hezbullah as a force not under command of a country it is in, to have hostile forces operating in this way. I would take a longer view of how to solve this problem. This was not how it was done, and I think that the military solution was a poor option given that it did not disarm Hezbullah and will have had the effect of vastly increasing support for them.
Sorry this post is so long!
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
englishman
' I think their approach has been wrong, in a moral sense in the hardship that has resulted, and wrong in a political sense in that it has been counter-productive for all concerned. It is a policy which is bound to create more polarisation and muffle any on both sides that would call for a negotiated solution. '
So if you were prime minister of Israel, how would you have responded? As for your claim the attack was counter productive do you think the hezbollah will be launching any attacks on Israel in the near future?
'Hezbullah comprise Lebanese people with a good deal of support within Lebanon, especially from the Shi'ite population of the south. The organisation is regarded highly for its defence of Lebanon against the 20 or so years of Israeli occupation. '
Which is why Israel should have targeted the entire country and not just hezbollah areas. As for your claim it is regarded highly are these sentyiments shared by christians? You are aware that the South Lebanese Army, a Christian militia was allied with Israel?
'You have to ask why did Israel use this particular incident, at this time, to take such dramatic action. '
Coming just a few weeks after the palestinians kidknapped a soldier in the south I'm surprised that you're still surprised. Israel took hezbollah by surprise which is what you do to your enemy. You don't follow set patterns or concrete rules and it'll be a cold day in hell before ratsrallah, who has admitted making a mistake here, will do this again.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
Batman and Englishman,
I think this discussion is very interesting; however it stands on wrong perspectives. This war was not really just an Israeli/Hezbollah problem, but resulted from the US/Iran situation. Israeli couldnt conduct the war at their liking, with damaging result for the Israeli military reputation.
This is not my evaluation, but comes from Israeli security/intelligence analysts. They are saying things like:
"[...]Israel's deputy chief of staff Maj-Gen Moshe Kaplinsky revealed that at 1200 noon, July 12, four hours after Hizballah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed eight in a cross-border raid, no one on the general staff had any notion a war was in the offing.
[...]
The knife-edge threat that caught the Israeli army unprepared was welcomed in Washington. Our sources close to the Bush administration have learned that secretary of state Condoleezza Rice embraced the opening for an Israeli offensive against Hizballah in Lebanon. Vice President Dick Cheney also favored an Israeli air strike but worried about the lack of an Israeli plan for a parallel ground offensive. [...]
But the Israeli prime minister and chief of staff insisted that the air force was able to inflict a shock defeat on Hizballah and produce a fast and cheap victory.
US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was leery about any Israeli military offensive against Hizballah, fearing complications for the US army in Iraq at the peak of a surging sectarian civil war.
But Olmert talked Rice into asking President George W. Bush to back the air offensive. The US president acceded - only laying down two basic conditions: Israel must confine itself to an air campaign; before embarking on a ground offensive, a further American go-ahead would be required. The second was a promise to spare Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and only go for Hizballah's positions and installations."
http://debka.com/article.php?aid=1204
This war was very revealing in many ways: it surprised Israel and the US with the sophistication of Hezbollah tactics and even its electronic warfare! This does not bode well for the preparations for war against Iran:
"Until the watershed date of July 12, 2006, when the Hizballah triggered the Lebanon War, Israel was accounted an important world power in the development of electronic warfare systems - so much so that a symbiotic relationship evolved for the research and development of many US and Israeli electronic warfare systems, in which a mix of complementary American and Israeli devices and methods were invested.
In combat against Hizballah, both were not only found wanting, but had been actively neutralized, so that none performed the functions for which they were designed.[...]
This poses both the US and Israel with a serious problem in a further round of the Lebanon war and any military clash with Iran. "
http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=3166
We might even say this was a low level warfare for both sides, with Hezbollah resumed to launch WWII type rockets and Israel holding its ground offensive. From the 8 naval cruise missiles available, Hezbollah just launched one, and none of the long-range missiles at its disposal, that have the Israel nuclear plant of Dimona as primary target.
In a military assessment: not good for the US intentions.
In the political (and strategy) side, it comes to my mind the warnings many of us where posting here while the Iraqi war was being prepared. The problem with that war was that it started a reaction on other countries that are listed in the US "black book". It was inevitable that Iran and Syria would respond by preparing themselves for war. It was also inevitable that extremism would be fueled by the military actions.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
Eduardo, it is interesting to know of the machinations of the US and Israeli governments before and during the attack on Lebanon, but I wonder how much of this is speculation and how much is true. Much of it does not ring true to me. The USA has great influence over Israel but I am not sure they would, or could, change Israel's battle plans at such short notice. On one of the articles they talk about the Electronic Warfare capability of Hezbullah being a surprise to Israel and the USA. They say Hezbullah used "an optical fibre network" which prevented jamming. This is an area with which I am somewhat familiar so, although this sounds impressive, it is hard to see what an earth they are talking about. Optical fibre systems are not susceptible to jamming but there is really no way that Hezbullah have connected their various mobile bases with optical fibres. It is simply not practical without significant infrastructure and, even then, telephone cables would be just as good. They may mean for electronic control systems; optical fibre is used in some military "fly by wire" (more correctly fly by fibre) aircraft to prevent disruption of control systems by strong EM pulses that could be used and that would occur following detonation of a nuclear device. But then again the Katuyshka rockets do not have any such sophistication. This piece of doubful information is conveyed with the same confidence as the rest by debka.com which gives reason for doubting their sources.
Message was edited by: englishman
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
english
'This is an area with which I am somewhat familiar so, although this sounds impressive, it is hard to see what an earth they are talking about. Optical fibre systems are not susceptible to jamming but there is really no way that Hezbullah have connected their various mobile bases with optical fibres. It is simply not practical without significant infrastructure and, even then, telephone cables would be just as good. '
The hezbollah had many fixed underground bunkers and control centres and their bases were not mobile. Further their infratructure was indeed significant with 6 years of intensive Iranian development since 2000. The achievements the IDF made in 34 days I myself am only just starting to acknowledge bearing in mind the considerable hinderence the army had from the cabinet. Had the hezbollah been expecting such an attack and been fully in place and prepared I dread to think the damage they could have caused to the IDF. Perhaps not on the scale to what happened to the Russians in the first Chechen war but still very costly. Thankfully for the IDF and no doubt regretebly for you this scenario didn't play out.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
batman, I did not know that there were so many underground bunkers though I knew they had some. In any case my point was a technical one regarding fibre optic systems and would still apply.
If you read my posts with a less hostile eye you will note that I have not ever supported Hezbullah or their viewpoint so I question why you say:
"Had the hezbollah been expecting such an attack and been fully in place and prepared I dread to think the damage they could have caused to the IDF. Perhaps not on the scale to what happened to the Russians in the first Chechen war but still very costly. Thankfully for the IDF and no doubt regretebly for you this scenario didn't play out."
I had no desire to see Hezbullah "win" this mini war and would have preferred it to have not started. Given that it did start I would have preferred a quick and decisive victory to destroy Hezbullah's capability without the excessive damage to the Lebanon, which I have said would be counter-productive.
By the way I didn't know the IDF took out all the long range rockets early on. Do you have a reference to this?
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2330624,00.html
'I had no desire to see Hezbullah "win" this mini war and would have preferred it to have not started. Given that it did start I would have preferred a quick and decisive victory to destroy Hezbullah's capability without the excessive damage to the Lebanon, which I have said would be counter-productive. '
According to an article in today's Haaretz two thirds of non sunni Lebanese believe Hezbollah lost. This doesn't fit in with your assertion that lebanese are now flocking to the group. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/755860.html
One of the reasons I believe that Ratsrallah is openly saying that had he known what the Israeli responce would be he wouldn't have kidnapped the 2 soldiers (don't forget 3 others were killed and rockets were fired at Israel) is because he knows he has screwed up and like I've said, once the dust settles and those returning 'home' realise that a pile of rubble isn't home anymore his fan base will diminnish.
We won't know what the reaction from the rest of Lebanon not targeted would have been had the IAF bombed more than just hezbollah districts but the Israelis have made it clear that if rocket attacks resume they won't be spared next time. Its thus little wonder the LAF are moving so swiftly into the south. You may be right you may be wrong about not targeting the whole country this time but you can't really complain if Israel makes good on its promise if hostilities start again.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
Batman, you changed your post after I had replied. To answer your last point, in these situations both sides always claim victory. Even if the IDF had totally destroyed Lebanon this would have been the case. It has been Israels apparant need to humiliate the arabs in the past that makes it easier for groups like Hezbullah to get support.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
I find some encouragement in recent articles that suggest the Lebanese government may be gaining some control of Hezbollah as the result of the war.
Lebanon PM: UNIFIL won't disarm Hizbullah
In interview with Italian newspaper, Siniora says only Lebanese army will be entrusted with disarming group
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora made it clear Thursday that he does not expect the multinational UNIFIL force to take part in disarming Hizbullah.
"It's clear that the Lebanese army will carry out this mission," the Lebanese leader said in an interview with Italian newspaper La Repubblica. "The multinational force is not supposed to do that and should not bother itself with it. Hizbullah is a political party represented in the government and it agreed to the seven-point plan presented to the UN by the Lebanese government."
"I Hope the (Lebanese) army will be the only military entity to be recognized by all residents of southern Lebanon ," Siniora said, after noting that Hizbullah also agreed to the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south of the country.
'Hizbullah learned its lesson'
The Lebanese PM also told the newspaper he does not expect Hizbullah to drag Lebanon into a war again.
"I don't believe it can happen again," he said. "I don't think Hizbullah is in the same position where it was before the war, and won't be able to repeat what it did. It learned the lesson from what happened."
Turning his attention to Israel , Siniora said he hoped a peace deal between the two countries can be reached.
"I think that Israel learned from the war that violence isn't the way to ensure its wellbeing," he said. "The only way to achieve peace is through negotiations. The belligerent statements made by the Israeli government, even if they're meant to quiet internal criticism, do not assist the negotiation track."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3295251,00.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As blogger Michael Totten, a onetime Lebanon resident, notes, "it's telling that Seniora says he wants a peace treaty with Israel. No Lebanese politician could possibly have said anything like this two months ago without all but begging to be car-bombed on the way to work in the morning."
I think these statements may signal a change since Hezbollah largely operated autonomously and counter previous statements that the Lebanese government would NOT disarm Hezbollah.
I agree with englishman that military force is never a complete solution. It is merely one instrument of power at a country's disposal. It's time for diplomacy and economic carrots to make Hezbollah irrelevant. Having said this, I still remain only encouraged, not optimistic.
IM
--
Boring and enraging Liberals with the truth since 2004
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
'In interview with Italian newspaper, Siniora says only Lebanese army will be entrusted with disarming group '
Come on Mike, surely you've got better jokes than this? I've heard knock-knock jokes that are funnier.
'I agree with englishman that military force is never a complete solution. It is merely one instrument of power at a country's disposal. It's time for diplomacy and economic carrots to make Hezbollah irrelevant. Having said this, I still remain only encouraged, not optimistic.'
I agree but Olmert clearly both didn't use the military properly and switched to the diplomatic option way too soon.
Re: Is it not in the wests' interests to destroy Hezbollah?
Eduardo_Ferriera,
["Actually I don't care if you demonize Hezbollah or not, and neither does Hezbollah. What I care is if people are able to discuss these issues with rational arguments instead of using propaganda slogans that have zero logic and 100% emotional value".]
Thanks Eduardo for pointing out how ludicrous are the statments made by owly and batman, which make it so tiresome to respond to their 'arguments'.
Yours is a welcome voice of sanity and clarity.
