[AHN] Lebanese Army To Engage Israel If Lebanon Is Invaded]

[r35352]

Lebanese Army To Engage Israel If Lebanon Is Invaded (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004288660)

July 21, 2006 9:41 a.m. EST

Komfie Manalo - All Headline News Foreign Correspondent

Beirut, Lebanon (AHN) - The fear that Lebanon's crisis will escalate into a full-blown war is becoming a reality as the Lebanese defense minister Elias Murr said Friday his country's army will engage Israel into battle if it invades Lebanon.

The warning came as the Israeli Defense Force has reported to have activated its reserve troops in preparation for an eventual major ground assault into the already devastated Lebanon.

A frustrated and angry Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told CNN in an interview that Israel's attack has devastated his country so much that the fight is no longer between Israel and Hezbollah but against the Lebanese people as well.

He said, "This attack is no longer against Hezbollah, it is an attack against the Lebanese and Lebanon."

The Prime Minister said Israeli jet planes have destroyed 55 bridges and are also targeting ambulances and medical convoys carrying the wounded to the hospital for treatment.

Bombed-out roads and bridges are hampering aid efforts and the United Nations had warned that the humanitarian crisis was worsening by the hour in the beleaguered country.

An estimated 500,000 have been displaced since the conflict started.

[Azadre]

Who funds the Lebanese army?

[tigermission1]

What army? The Lebanese are lovers, not fighters. ;) I propose all sides get together over some hummus and kebba and discuss peace.

Come on! How can two peoples that enjoy the same wonderful cuisine go at each other like that?

[HayesStreet]

So they can engage Israel but they can't disarm Hezbollah?

[wnes]

So they can engage Israel but they can't disarm Hezbollah?

Engage could be protesting, demonstration, hunger strike, etc.

[tigermission1]

So they can engage Israel but they can't disarm Hezbollah?

IMO, it would be foolish for the Lebanese to try and disarm Hezbollah, what they do need to do, however, is contain them and keep them away from instigating anything with the Israelis. Really, this whole incident could have been avoided had the Lebanese military deployed its own troops along the shared border with Israel. That's what they're paying for, right now...

[KingCheetah]

I don't blame them Israel has destroyed their country.

With all Israel's military might they can't get the terrorists out of Gaza - how can they possibly expect the Lebanese army to get rid of Hezbollah?

[HayesStreet]

Engage could be protesting, demonstration, hunger strike, etc.

Um, so you're saying the Lebanese Army is going to go on hunger strike to protest the Israeli action?

Put

The

Crack

Pipe

Down

[wnes]

Um, so you're saying the Lebanese Army is going to go on hunger strike to protest the Israeli action?


Didn't Gandi lead Indian people using non-violent protests to expel the British colonialists?

[TracyMcCrazyeye]

Didn't Gandi lead Indian people using non-violent protests to expel the British colonialists?

ghandi and the lebanese army...HMMM...

[HayesStreet]

Didn't Gandi lead Indian people using non-violent protests to expel the British colonialists?

Er, yes. But that's not the context the statement was made in, wnes. I'm pretty sure you know that - I guess you're just bored.

[Major]

So they can engage Israel but they can't disarm Hezbollah?

Israel's army is not intertwined within communities of regular Lebanese, nor does it serve as a provider of social services to the Lebanese people.

We can engage Iraq's army, yet we can't identify or shut down all the terrorist groups on US soil.

[HayesStreet]

Israel's army is not intertwined within communities of regular Lebanese, nor does it serve as a provider of social services to the Lebanese people.

We can engage Iraq's army, yet we can't identify or shut down all the terrorist groups on US soil.

The most proffered reason for the Lebanese Army not disarming Hezbollah is that they are not strong enough. As the Israel Army is the most powerful in the entire region I find it doubtful that they can take Israel on yet no be strong enough to confront Hezbollah. Social services has nothing to do with this - as other people have already documented Hezbollah's popularity has been waning, not increasing in Lebanon. If there was a terrorist group that number in the THOUSANDS with tens of thousands of rockets sitting on the Texas-Mexico border, I'm pretty sure we could deal with that.

[tigermission1]

The most proffered reason for the Lebanese Army not disarming Hezbollah is that they are not strong enough. As the Israel Army is the most powerful in the entire region I find it doubtful that they can take Israel on yet no be strong enough to confront Hezbollah. Social services has nothing to do with this - as other people have already documented Hezbollah's popularity has been waning, not increasing in Lebanon. If there was a terrorist group that number in the THOUSANDS with tens of thousands of rockets sitting on the Texas-Mexico border, I'm pretty sure we could deal with that.

Quick Hayes, what's the purpose of having an 'army'? If your country is attacked, what should you do, watch and cheer?

They have said that they will engage the Israelis ONLY if they invade Lebanon. Moreover, the Israelis have already killed nearly a dozen or more Lebanese soldiers, which going by Israel's own logic is a "declaration of war".

[Major]

The most proffered reason for the Lebanese Army not disarming Hezbollah is that they are not strong enough. As the Israel Army is the most powerful in the entire region I find it doubtful that they can take Israel on yet no be strong enough to confront Hezbollah. Social services has nothing to do with this - as other people have already documented Hezbollah's popularity has been waning, not increasing in Lebanon. If there was a terrorist group that number in the THOUSANDS with tens of thousands of rockets sitting on the Texas-Mexico border, I'm pretty sure we could deal with that.

Fighting a foreign army and fighting an internal group are two totally different things, as we've learned in Iraq. You don't defeat a group like Hezbollah with sheer force, fancy weapons, etc. We have an insurgency numbering in the tens of thousands in Iraq and have shown no ability to deal with it, because they can easily go underground and mix with the populace when necessary. They don't have much support across Lebanon as a whole, but they have support within the communities where they locate because of the social services they provide.

Besides which, the Lebanese Army said they would fight Israel - not defeat them. They would lose any military battle between the two, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't at least defend their country - that is their job.

[thacabbage]

The most proffered reason for the Lebanese Army not disarming Hezbollah is that they are not strong enough. As the Israel Army is the most powerful in the entire region I find it doubtful that they can take Israel on yet no be strong enough to confront Hezbollah.
Whoever said they were strong enough to take on the Israeli Army? Just because they've said they will fight doesn't mean they're strong enough...

I assume you might respond in questioning why they weren't willing to take this same action against Hezbollah regardless of strength. Considering sheer practicality alone, their country has been obliterated by Israel - I think it is a bit of a more pressing issue...

[OldManBernie]

So they can engage Israel but they can't disarm Hezbollah?

Well, Israel certainly is a more imminent threat than Hezbollah right now. They're being bombarded and possibly invaded by Israel for crying out loud.

[OldManBernie]

The most proffered reason for the Lebanese Army not disarming Hezbollah is that they are not strong enough. As the Israel Army is the most powerful in the entire region I find it doubtful that they can take Israel on yet no be strong enough to confront Hezbollah. Social services has nothing to do with this - as other people have already documented Hezbollah's popularity has been waning, not increasing in Lebanon. If there was a terrorist group that number in the THOUSANDS with tens of thousands of rockets sitting on the Texas-Mexico border, I'm pretty sure we could deal with that.

I'm thinking that the Lebanese government's impression is that if they don't stand up to Israel in a ground invasion of Beirut, the public will consider them a lame duck. If the people don't trust the government, the government will be overthrown (hopefully not by Hezbollah). This is all speculation on my end, but just food for thought.

[thacabbage]

Hayes - Please explain your stance on this as I am completely bewildered. Are you actually criticizing the Lebanese Army for entering the theater?

If a militia on the Texas border carried out terrorist attacks against Mexico but had also driven out a Mexican occupation previously, and Mexico obliterated Texas, you would criticize the U.S. government for joining the war after not taking care of the problem?

[r35352]

The most proffered reason for the Lebanese Army not disarming Hezbollah is that they are not strong enough. As the Israel Army is the most powerful in the entire region I find it doubtful that they can take Israel on yet no be strong enough to confront Hezbollah.

By all accounts, Hezbollah is far stronger, better trained and better armed than the official Lebanese Army. Also fighting Hezbollah would mean a Lebanese civil war and you might recall that they tried that already with devastating results so aren't keen to try that again as there was relative peace and stability in Lebanon.

The Lebanese defense minister's statement is not meant to indicate that the Lebanese Army would in any way be capable of fighting the Israeli Army. In fact Hezbollah itself would be more effective. But it is however signaling that Lebanon ese Army isn't going to stand by and do nothing while Israelis forces invade and wreak havoc on the entire country under the pretext of two captured Israeli soldiers.

[RodrickRhodes]

Wow it's a wild Fri. night/early Sat. morning in here.... ;)

From what I understand and I could be wrong (because it's early in the morning and this is all off the top of my head), Hezbollah was the only group out of the many that fought in the 2nd Lebanese Civil War of 1975-1990 that was allowed to keep its weapons as part of the Taif Accords signed in Saudi Arabia, which signified the official end of that conflict. So it's not a matter of the Lebanese army being unable to disarm Hezbollah, but legally they can't iirc.

[Azadre]

Wow it's a wild Fri. night/early Sat. morning in here.... ;)

From what I understand and I could be wrong (because it's early in the morning and this is all off the top of my head), Hezbollah was the only group out of the many that fought in the 2nd Lebanese Civil War of 1975-1990 that was allowed to keep its weapons as part of the Taif Accords signed in Saudi Arabia, which signified the official end of that conflict. So it's not a matter of the Lebanese army being unable to disarm Hezbollah, but legally they can't iirc.
Has the IDF invaded yet?

[HayesStreet]

Fighting a foreign army and fighting an internal group are two totally different things, as we've learned in Iraq. You don't defeat a group like Hezbollah with sheer force, fancy weapons, etc. We have an insurgency numbering in the tens of thousands in Iraq and have shown no ability to deal with it, because they can easily go underground and mix with the populace when necessary. They don't have much support across Lebanon as a whole, but they have support within the communities where they locate because of the social services they provide..

Actually there are plenty of examples of using sheer force to defeat groups like Hezbollah, from Carthage to Malaysia to Bosnia. Iraq is really not a good comparison. There you have multiple opposing groups all fighting as insurgents rather than one group like in Lebanon. The other groups in Lebanon don't like an armed Hezbollah either. Not a good comparison at all.

Besides which, the Lebanese Army said they would fight Israel - not defeat them. They would lose any military battle between the two, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't at least defend their country - that is their job.


Whoever said they were strong enough to take on the Israeli Army? Just because they've said they will fight doesn't mean they're strong enough...

I assume you might respond in questioning why they weren't willing to take this same action against Hezbollah regardless of strength. Considering sheer practicality alone, their country has been obliterated by Israel - I think it is a bit of a more pressing issue...

Well, Israel certainly is a more imminent threat than Hezbollah right now. They're being bombarded and possibly invaded by Israel for crying out loud.

I'm thinking that the Lebanese government's impression is that if they don't stand up to Israel in a ground invasion of Beirut, the public will consider them a lame duck. If the people don't trust the government, the government will be overthrown (hopefully not by Hezbollah). This is all speculation on my end, but just food for thought.

Hayes - Please explain your stance on this as I am completely bewildered. Are you actually criticizing the Lebanese Army for entering the theater?

Not criticising. More interested in the idea of them taking on Israel instead of Hezbollah. These aren't independent problems with one more important that the other - they are inextricably linked. Israel is bombing Lebanon because Hezbollah attacked Israel. As Lebanon, when faced with the prospect of squaring off with Israel or Hezbollah, I'd take Hezbollah.

[r35352]

Not criticising. More interested in the idea of them taking on Israel instead of Hezbollah. These aren't independent problems with one more important that the other - they are inextricably linked. Israel is bombing Lebanon because Hezbollah attacked Israel. As Lebanon, when faced with the prospect of squaring off with Israel or Hezbollah, I'd take Hezbollah.

Many anti-Hezbollah Lebanese do blame Hezbollah for starting this whole thing by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers. HOWEVER, while Lebanese expected some small scale retaliation as appropriate, no one anticipated or expected or sympathizes with this full scale assault on Lebanon. Few Lebanese, even anti-Hezbollah ones, are going to sympathesize much with Israel because the overwhelming majority of Lebanese consider the all-out attack to be a dis-proportionate response to 2 kidnapped soldiers.

Even under "normal" circumstances, the Lebanese army would find it difficult to face off against Hezbollah who are much better armed. Many Lebanese soldiers would probably refuse to fight fellow Shiite Lebanese. And under the present circumstances, it would be ridiculous. It is Israel causing all of this massive destruction, not Hezbollah, and almost no Lebanese feel the massive Israeli attack is justified based on two soldiers being kidnapped so Lebanese blame Israel more than Hezbollah.

Israel may have intended to use this pretext to destroy Hezbollah. Indeed with the "Cedar Revolution" and the withdrawal of Syrian forces, Hezbollah was weakening politically. Now Israel may have instead strengthened Hezbollah, gained it even greater support in Lebanon and now might even reverse the Cedar Revolution completely. And if the Lebanese Army is engaged against Israel, you might find something happening which during the darkest days of the Lebanese Civil War seemed impossible, namely the regular Lebanese Army commanded by a Maronite Christian fighting alongside Shiite Hezbollah against Israel!

[HayesStreet]

Many anti-Hezbollah Lebanese do blame Hezbollah for starting this whole thing by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers. HOWEVER, while Lebanese expected some small scale retaliation as appropriate, no one anticipated or expected or sympathizes with this full scale assault on Lebanon. Few Lebanese, even anti-Hezbollah ones, are going to sympathesize much with Israel because the overwhelming majority of Lebanese consider the all-out attack to be a dis-proportionate response to 2 kidnapped soldiers.

Even under "normal" circumstances, the Lebanese army would find it difficult to face off against Hezbollah who are much better armed. Many Lebanese soldiers would probably refuse to fight fellow Shiite Lebanese. And under the present circumstances, it would be ridiculous. It is Israel causing all of this massive destruction, not Hezbollah, and almost no Lebanese feel the massive Israeli attack is justified based on two soldiers being kidnapped so Lebanese blame Israel more than Hezbollah.

Israel may have intended to use this pretext to destroy Hezbollah. Indeed with the "Cedar Revolution" and the withdrawal of Syrian forces, Hezbollah was weakening politically. Now Israel may have instead strengthened Hezbollah, gained it even greater support in Lebanon and now might even reverse the Cedar Revolution completely. And if the Lebanese Army is engaged against Israel, you might find something happening which during the darkest days of the Lebanese Civil War seemed impossible, namely the regular Lebanese Army commanded by a Maronite Christian fighting alongside Shiite Hezbollah against Israel!

Yep......

[gotoloveit2]

And if the Lebanese Army is engaged against Israel, you might find something happening which during the darkest days of the Lebanese Civil War seemed impossible, namely the regular Lebanese Army commanded by a Maronite Christian fighting alongside Shiite Hezbollah against Israel!

Doubt it. All just lip-service, Lebanese style.

[Cohen]

Fighting a foreign army and fighting an internal group are two totally different things, as we've learned in Iraq. You don't defeat a group like Hezbollah with sheer force, fancy weapons, etc. We have an insurgency numbering in the tens of thousands in Iraq and have shown no ability to deal with it, because they can easily go underground and mix with the populace when necessary. They don't have much support across Lebanon as a whole, but they have support within the communities where they locate because of the social services they provide.
...


Wasn't Lebanon supposed to put it's troops on the Israeli border? Did they even try?

So, is it Israel's fault that Lebanon did nothing to reduce the threat to Israel from terrorists who controlled Lebanon's southern border?

I will not defend Israel's attacks on the Lebanese infrastructure elsewhere in the country, but I see where they have a right to attack hezbollah including invading.

[Dubious]

I wouldn't put too far past the crazy conspiracy theory to think the Lebanese army may use Israels presence as a pretext to move into to Hezbolla territory and perhaps displace them. Israel and Lebedon wouldn't really be allies but they wouldn't really be enemies.

Lebanon says " we are moving the Lebanese army to the border to defend our nation, Israel skermishes with Hezbollah but never enters Lebanon in force. If Hezbollah clashes with the Lebanese troops they just tell Israel where they are. They keep deniability because they are defending the country but they are infact displacing Hezbollah, over running and confiscating their weapons...in the name of Lebanon.

Good Plan huh.

[Sishir Chang]

So they can engage Israel but they can't disarm Hezbollah?

They can't do either but they're looking from the standpoint that their country is being invaded by a foreign power while even though many in Lebanon don't support Hezbollah they will still fight on their side if it means defending their homes.

It would be akin to if Iran invaded the US saying they were getting the Bush Admin. Democrats would still fight to repel the Iranians.

[Sishir Chang]

Actually there are plenty of examples of using sheer force to defeat groups like Hezbollah, from Carthage to Malaysia to Bosnia. Iraq is really not a good comparison. There you have multiple opposing groups all fighting as insurgents rather than one group like in Lebanon. The other groups in Lebanon don't like an armed Hezbollah either. Not a good comparison at all.

As I mentioned in another thread I don't know where you got the idea that sheer force defeated the Malaysian insurgency. Also none of the Bosnian insurgents, Serb, Muslim or Croat were wiped out through sheer force. They agreed to a cease fire that was motivated by force but they weren't defeated and even now still hold onto most of the territory they ethnically cleansed. the only example of the three of total victory is Carthage and that was a long time ago with far different tactics. Also Hanibal wasn't an insurgent since he wasn't fighting on his own soil. He was an invader. If you want to use a Roman example of sheer force crushing an insurgency a better example would be the defeat of the Judean Rebels.

[blazer_ben]

Iran has trained and armed hezbollah reall well. hezbollah posses high tech missels, tanks and guns. however, unless ira directly gets involved, isreal will still demolish hezbollah with an ground offensive. isreals army is frightningly strong.

[tigermission1]

Iran has trained and armed hezbollah reall well. hezbollah posses high tech missels, tanks and guns. however, unless ira directly gets involved, isreal will still demolish hezbollah with an ground offensive. isreals army is frightningly strong.

They couldn't do it the last time around when they occupied Lebanon for a long period of time, what has changed this time around?

[wnes]

They couldn't do it the last time around when they occupied Lebanon for a long period of time, what has changed this time around?

Maybe it's because this guy got a raw deal:

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dreamworks_skg/house_of_sand_and_fog/ben_kingsley/house.jpg

[Rocket River]

So . .do armies fight internal issues
I don't think the army took down David Koresh
I think it was another group

I maybe wrong. . but if a terrorist cell
or even a couple of thousand were in america
It would not be the ARMY that took them down
ATF, FBI, CIA, Local State and few Cops

but not the ARMY

Rocket River
. . why can we expect Lebanon's ARMY to fight Hezebellah
when our ARMY would not do the same?

[HayesStreet]

As I mentioned in another thread I don't know where you got the idea that sheer force defeated the Malaysian insurgency.

Well, it is fairly well recorded that force is the starting component of a successful campaign.


It's worth noting that the counterinsurgency most often cited as a model of success, the British-led fight against the communist insurgency in colonial Malaya after World War II, began with great difficulty. In the first three years of what became a 12-year war, serious errors were made, high-ranking leaders had to be replaced, and the communist movement grew in military and political power. Then the British started getting it right, and nine years and several elections later they were able to grant independence to the new, mostly peaceful and politically stable country of Malaysia. An excellent study of the Malaya and Vietnam conflicts and the U.S. military's institutional capacity to usefully assess its own experiences is John Nagl's Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/insurgency/can/

Differences in organizational culture is the primary reason why the British Army learned to conduct counterinsurgency in Malaya while the American Army failed to learn in Vietnam. The American Army resisted any true attempt to learn how to fight an insurgency during the course of the Vietnam Conflict, preferring to treat the war as a conventional conflict in the tradition of the Korean War or World War II. The British Army, because of its traditional role as a colonial police force and the organizational characteristics that its history and the national culture created, was better able to quickly learn and apply the lessons of counterinsurgency during the course of the Malayan Emergency. This is the first study to apply organizational learning theory to cases in which armies were engaged in actual combat.

John Nagel, Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam to Malaysia: Learning to Eat Soup with A Knife, 2002

Also see Thomas Mockaitis, British Counterinsurgency, 1919-1960 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990)

Like other conflicts, the Malayan Emergency offers lessons that have applicability to future wars. It is one of the few examples of a low intensity conflict that was won by the government in power and thus is a favorite subject of case studies on insurgency. In addition, it stands as one of the best illustrations of a coordinated political-military effort that actually defeated a guerrilla force. Such coordination remains essential to the resolution of any conflict on any level of intensity, but it is particularly critical for low intensity conflicts and the growing field of peace operations. Finally, it reveals how military power—or airpower—can support low intensity operations.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1622.pdf



Also none of the Bosnian insurgents, Serb, Muslim or Croat were wiped out through sheer force. They agreed to a cease fire that was motivated by force but they weren't defeated and even now still hold onto most of the territory they ethnically cleansed.

The objective was achieved by force. That's the point. It isn't necessarily required to 'wipe them out.'

As far as your assertions on El Salvador:

A strategicvictory does not validate all the victor’s operationaland tactical methods or make them universally ap-plicable, as America’s defeat in Vietnam and its suc-cess in El Salvador demonstrate.

Dr. Kalev Sepp, "Best Practices in Counterinsurgency," Military Review, May-June 2005

During the 12-year-long Salvadoran Civil War, 25 SFfield advisers and 30 staff advisers were the coreof the effort that trained the 50,000-man SalvadoranArmy that battled insurgents to a draw and forcedthem to accept a negotiated end to the war.

Dr. Kalev Sepp, "Best Practices in Counterinsurgency," Military Review, May-June 2005

Other examples of successful counterinsurgencies can be seen in Greece, the Philippines, and the (American) Indian Wars.

[Uprising]

IMO, it would be foolish for the Lebanese to try and disarm Hezbollah, what they do need to do, however, is contain them and keep them away from instigating anything with the Israelis. Really, this whole incident could have been avoided had the Lebanese military deployed its own troops along the shared border with Israel. That's what they're paying for, right now...

That's exactly how i see it. It's very unforunate that they never did just that with their army. It could have kept this whole mess from unraveling.

[Saint Louis]

I didn't know Lebanon had an army. Is the term Lebanese army and oxymoron? The Lebanese army chances of fighting the Israeli army head on are about as good as the Polish army fighting the Germans during WWII.

[blazer_ben]

They couldn't do it the last time around when they occupied Lebanon for a long period of time, what has changed this time around?


This time it will be allout war. the isrealies are fighting for there survival. make no mistake, iran and hezbollah are trying to dismantel and abolish isreal once and for all. the last time the isrealies fought the hezbollah, it was just hezbollah trying to regain there terrotories. this time they are trying to attack the isrealie borders itself. isreal will unleash it's full arsenal of weapons. convential or no-convential if they have to. you do not wanna stir a sleeping giant. if the isrealies start a allout attack, they'll destroy any country in the region probaly except iran who has a very strong army and missell program.

[KingCheetah]

This time it will be allout war. the isrealies are fighting for there survival.

Yeah, those little rocket attacks are shaking Israel to the core.

[HayesStreet]

Yeah, those little rocket attacks are shaking Israel to the core.

I can understand that people might want to conclude that Israel is in the wrong in this case, but I think this response has to be considered either ill thought out or disingenous. If rockets were exploding in our cities indiscriminately, or if you could envision that, your response might be different.

[blazer_ben]

Yeah, those little rocket attacks are shaking Israel to the core.


It's not just those "little" attacks. it is quiet obvious in the last year with ahmadinejads comments about the destruction of isreal and the rescent hezbollah cross border aggression, there is something really sinister taking place. isreal can feel it. this time hezbollah is out for blood. iran is in it's neck with there nucelar problem in the international community. what better way to divert the attention to get it's proxy and ally hezbollah to start a allout war in the region. dont be fooled, iran is is pulling hezbollah's chain. unless a resolution and a cease fire can be reached, this is going to be a very bloody conflict which will gradually involve the other heavy wheights of the region.

[tigermission1]

Yeah, those little rocket attacks are shaking Israel to the core.

I think they're definitely a threat to the Israelis, but it's ludicrous to consider this a 'fight for survival' against Hezbollah...Israel is far and away the superior force at work here, the Lebanese are the ones who're 'hanging on' hoping to survive the Israeli onslaught.

I think it's dramatic language, nothing more...

[blazer_ben]

Iran is sending it's suicide armies to lebanon. there goal is to start a allout war.the final battel

http://www.iranvajahan.net/english/

[KingCheetah]

Israel is not wrong IMO for going after Hez, but the massive attack across all of Lebanon is out of proportion completely. Lebanon had a gov. in place that was sympathetic and did not support Hez -- those feelings are long gone now to the point they will engage Israel to the best of their abilities. This could have been handled in a much better way.

[blazer_ben]

I think they're definitely a threat to the Israelis, but it's ludicrous to consider this a 'fight for survival' against Hezbollah...Israel is far and away the superior force at work here, the Lebanese are the ones who're 'hanging on' hoping to survive the Israeli onslaught.

I think it's dramatic language, nothing more...

Again, hezbollah is iran's proxy. ahmadinejad would love nothing more then to start a regional conflict. his goal is the destruction of isreal. through his proxies hammas, hezbollah, islamic jihad and others, he thinks he can do it.

[blazer_ben]

They are not wrong IMO for going after Hez, but the massive attack across all of Lebanon is out of proportion completely. Lebanon had a gov. in place that was sympathetic and did not support Hez -- those feelings are long gone now to the point they will engage Israel to the best of their abilities. This could have been handled in a much better way.


Maybe. they should have tried ti impower the lebaneese army to try to deal with hezbollah first. no doubt. but the lebaneese didnt want to start a civil war. tough situation for all parties concerned to be in.

[tigermission1]

It's not just those "little" attacks. it is quiet obvious in the last year with ahmadinejads comments about the destruction of isreal and the rescent hezbollah cross border aggression, there is something really sinister taking place. isreal can feel it. this time hezbollah is out for blood. iran is in it's neck with there nucelar problem in the international community. what better way to divert the attention to get it's proxy and ally hezbollah to start a allout war in the region. dont be fooled, iran is is pulling hezbollah's chain. unless a resolution and a cease fire can be reached, this is going to be a very bloody conflict which will gradually involve the other heavy wheights of the region.

Honestly, I just don't see it that way. The Iranians might be 'talking a good game', but it's strongly doubtful that they are intentionally attempting to provoke a regional conflict which would "involve other heavy weights of the region"...Why? Because any large regional conflict in the Middle East that involves Israel will also involve the United States; there can be no doubt that the U.S. will come to the defense of the Israeli state if their survival was truly at stake. The Iranians know this, the Syrians know it, the Arabs know it, which is why no one risks it.

Moreover, the Iranians would be foolish to believe that Arab 'heavyweights' (i.e. the Egyptians and Saudis) would come to its aid, they view the Iranian military buildup and new-found influence in the region as a 'threat', they don't believe Iran is a friendly nation, at least the Saudis and other Gulf Arab nations don't.

[blazer_ben]

Honestly, I just don't see it that way. The Iranians might be 'talking a good game', but it's strongly doubtful that they are intentionally attempting to provoke a regional conflict which would "involve other heavy weights of the region"...Why? Because any large regional conflict in the Middle East that involves Israel will also involve the United States; there can be no doubt that the U.S. will come to the defense of the Israeli state if their survival was truly at stake. The Iranians know this, the Syrians know it, the Arabs know it, which is why no one risks it.

Moreover, the Iranians would be foolish to believe that Arab 'heavyweights' (i.e. the Egyptians and Saudis) would come to its aid, they view the Iranian military buildup and new-found influence in the region as a 'threat', they don't believe Iran is a friendly nation, at least the Saudis and other Gulf Arab nations don't.

When you have a delusional physico-path like ahmadinejad who thinks he is getting orders from god himself, anything is possible. the saudis are continuesly funding hammas, but thats where there involvment stops. what ahmadinejad is trying to do is evoke the emotions of the normal muslim in egypt and saudi and other parts of the region. he wanted this isrealie reply in lebbanon. just to say, see i told you so, this guys are barbaric animals. they'll bomb woman and children. there killing our fellow muslims. he is trying to play the sympathy card. the a certian degree, it's worked wonders. no thanks to the isrealies themselves.

[tigermission1]

When you have a delusional physico-path like ahmadinejad who thinks he is getting orders from god himself, anything is possible. the saudis are continuesly funding hammas, but thats where there involvment stops. what ahmadinejad is trying to do is evoke the emotions of the normal muslim in egypt and saudi and other parts of the region. he wanted this isrealie reply in lebbanon. just to say, see i told you so, this guys are barbaric animals. they'll bomb woman and children. there killing our fellow muslims. he is trying to play the sympathy card. the a certian degree, it's worked wonders. no thanks to the isrealies themselves.

Again, what "emotions" is he trying to evoke? The average Arab is already fuming over what he perceives to be an American-Israeli hegemony over the Arab world, which is enabled not only by American/Israeli 'colonial' presence in the region, but even more so through dictatorial Arab leaders who are 'appointed' by the Americans to suppress that anger and 'keep the Arab down'; that's the prevailing view of the average Arab. I don't think anything Iran does will further enrage the Arab street...Why do you think Islamists have been winning/gaining almost every time there is a 'free and fair' election? It's a direct reflection of that anger, and the Arab world is increasingly turning to political Islam (aka 'Islamism') as their rallying, unifying force; this is happening from Morocco to Indonesia, there are signs everywhere you look that Muslim anger is 'boiling over'. The mindset is something along these lines: "We have tried secularism for the past century and look where it got us; we're weak, poor, and pathetic despite our massive human and natural resources. It's time to return back to our former glory, when Islam ruled and united us; 'Al-Islam howa al-hal' (Translation: Islam is the Solution...this is the official motto of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and a variation of this slogan is popping up all over the Muslim-majority world)"

[blazer_ben]

Good point^^^. you're addressing the basic problem which creates terrorisim. the terrorist leaders (binladen) use those harbouring hatereds which exsists in the muslim world and use it to there advge. untill there is'nt a fair and final resolution and peace deal is'nt reached over the isrealie palestinian conflict, unfortunately we'll allways have sinister Individuals like ahmadinejad, khomenie, binladen and so on using this conflict to farether there own sinister agendas.

[Mr. Brightside]

Yeah, those little rocket attacks are shaking Israel to the core.

Hezbollah soldiers are better and more committed than IDF fighters. Hezbollah will vanquish their enemy if it comes to a war of attrition.

[tigermission1]

Hezbollah soldiers are better and more committed than IDF fighters. Hezbollah will vanquish their enemy if it comes to a war of attrition.

I don't know about 'better', but the IDF itself has admitted to how difficult it's to battle Hezbollah fighters, which is largely the reason as to why they're unwilling to undertake a full-scale invasion of southern Lebanon once more. The Israelis are staunch realists, and they know that they have little to gain and much to lose if they invade and attempt to occupy Lebanon; I would trust their assessment.

[Sishir Chang]

The objective was achieved by force. That's the point. It isn't necessarily required to 'wipe them out.'

But your examples and this statement totally contradicts your earlier assertion

This really isn't true. The most successful cases of assymetric war involving a state have been when the state has pursued a total annihilation strategy regardless of good will.

and

Actually there are plenty of examples of using sheer force to defeat groups like Hezbollah, from Carthage to Malaysia to Bosnia.

How is engaging in political reform to accomodate the demands and even the leadership of insurgents using sheer force to defeat the groups?

What you're saying is that sheer force cannot win a battle with insurgencies because the applicable definition of "sheer" is absolute and utterly but what you're saying is that absolute and utter force cannot win.

[Sishir Chang]

When you have a delusional physico-path like ahmadinejad who thinks he is getting orders from god himself, anything is possible. the saudis are continuesly funding hammas, but thats where there involvment stops. what ahmadinejad is trying to do is evoke the emotions of the normal muslim in egypt and saudi and other parts of the region. he wanted this isrealie reply in lebbanon. just to say, see i told you so, this guys are barbaric animals. they'll bomb woman and children. there killing our fellow muslims. he is trying to play the sympathy card. the a certian degree, it's worked wonders. no thanks to the isrealies themselves.

I think there might be something there to your analysis. Looking at the situation in Lebanon I could't figure out what Hezbollah had to gain by precipitating a crisis with Israel. They had already succeeded in getting Israel out of Lebanon but precipitating a fight with Israel over the Sheba Farms doesn't seem rational or in regard to getting back some Hezbollah prisoners. The only thing I can conclude is either Hezbollah badly underestimated Israel to the point of ludicrousness or else they have some wider motivation.

[blazer_ben]

I think there might be something there to your analysis. Looking at the situation in Lebanon I could't figure out what Hezbollah had to gain by precipitating a crisis with Israel. They had already succeeded in getting Israel out of Lebanon but precipitating a fight with Israel over the Sheba Farms doesn't seem rational or in regard to getting back some Hezbollah prisoners. The only thing I can conclude is either Hezbollah badly underestimated Israel to the point of ludicrousness or else they have some wider motivation.

As i said and posted a link earlier. iran and hezbollah are trying to instigate a regional conflict. they feel the americans are stretched in iraq and afghanistan, hence they wont come to isreal's rescue. they feel they are ready to once and for all to takeout isreal. iran has reportedly sent a wave of suicide bombers to lebanan. they'v sent scores of fajir, zelzela and other sophisticated missiles to hezbollah. personally, either the mollahs are naive or they are delusional in thinking they can takeout isreal in such ways..

Isreal is not going anywhere. the sooner people except this fact and start a final peace process which would equate to a long lasting peac solution, the whole world and humanity will be better off.

[Sishir Chang]

personally, either the mollahs are naive or they are delusional in thinking they can takeout isreal in such ways..

Isreal is not going anywhere. the sooner people except this fact and start a final peace process which would equate to a long lasting peac solution, the whole world and humanity will be better off.

I agree with you that the Mullahs are delusional to think that Israel can be taken out but I'm not sure if that is what they are shooting for. It seems to me, and this is pure speculation on my part, that conflict in Lebanon does take pressure off of Iran's nuclear program by removing the UNSC's focus. The UNSC hasn't shown much of a capability to deal with more than one issue at a time and further since the UNSC is deeply divided regarding issues around Israel this could paralyze them and prevent them from coallescing on action on Iran.

[blazer_ben]

Also, i was reading somewhere that iran and hezbollah wanted isreal to attack in such devestating fashion. now there playing the sympathy card to recurit volunteer jihadists to send to lebanan to fight the " Barbaric" isrealies who are killing there muslim brothers and sisters. iran and hezbollah cleverly orchastrated a Trap for the isrealies and they fell for it something crazy.

[blazer_ben]

I agree with you that the Mullahs are delusional to think that Israel can be taken out but I'm not sure if that is what they are shooting for. It seems to me, and this is pure speculation on my part, that conflict in Lebanon does take pressure off of Iran's nuclear program by removing the UNSC's focus. The UNSC hasn't shown much of a capability to deal with more than one issue at a time and further since the UNSC is deeply divided regarding issues around Israel this could paralyze them and prevent them from coallescing on action on Iran.


That is the exact reason for this conflict. iran is heading or was heading down a path of confration with the International community over it's nucelar program, but now, the international community has to focus on the isrealie and the hezbollah conflict. hence more time for iran to develope the nuke.