What's 'total'? Israel has the bomb, so if it were Total War I'd imagine Lebanon would no longer exist, or exist only as patches of scorched, radioactive earth. Suffice to say that the Israeli army is at war with Hezbollah. I believe we can agree on that much.

Agreed, Mark... and I am tired. I've been doing school between posts, when it should be the other way around http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

I will, however, drop this piece, a press release from July 30, issued by World Council of the Cedars Revolution. My butt is hanging out in the breeze here - a friend sent me a 7/30 press release, and I have not had the time to check their site. I am sure Israel is much more in their sites by now... but I will look after taking a shelling here!

Dan
------------------------------------------

HEZBOLLAH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MASSACRE

WORLD COUNCIL OF THE CEDARS REVOLUTION www.cedarsrevolution.org

email: cedarsrevolution@gmails.com

Press Release

New York, July 30, 2006

The World Council of the Cedars Revolution, after having observed the security developments in the last 48 hours and the horrific deaths caused by warfare between Hezbollah and Israel on Lebanese territories, and in the area of Qana in particular; and after having reviewed the causes of the civilian casualties, including children and women who were located in a shelter, the Council declares the following:

Its total dismay at the sight of innocent civilians who were killed during an exchange of long range fire between Hezbollah and Israeli forces. These civilians were put in a defenseless posture between the two warring parties, against all laws of war, and were killed and maimed as a result of irresponsible acts of war. Their deaths and the injuries caused by the shelling calls for an immediate investigation by the international community as to the causes of the fight and the particular military acts that lead to the massacre. The Council calls on the United Nations to dispatch a team to the region to investigate this and other incidents where civilians are caught in the firefight, and establishes the reasons for their victimization.
The Council, in view of the history of this conflict, which started by an irresponsible War launched by Hezbollah, without authorization by the Lebanese Government, and triggered harsh Israeli responses causing damages to the people and infrastructure of Lebanon, blames Hezbollah, its leadership and the Syrian and Iranian regimes for dragging Lebanon into the horrors of a suicidal War. The WCCR accuses Hezbollah and its regional allies of intentionally forcing the civil society of Lebanon, and in particularly the communities under the control of Hezbollah's militias, to become a shield for Hezbollah's military operations. By doing so, Hezbollah is breaching international law and must respond to international responsibility. Any military force, which is in control of the security of a civilian population in geographical areas, is responsible for their security. By maintaining that control over south Lebanon and th! e Bekaa valley, Hezbollah, even as a Terrorist organization is responsible for the safety and security of all civilians it has under its control. Hence the WCCR, representing the aspirations of millions of Lebanese inside the country and in its Diaspora, urges the United Nations to take immediate action by dispatching international troops to protect the civilian populations of Lebanon from the effects of the ongoing war on Lebanese territories.
The Council, after reviewing reports from South Lebanon, strongly condemns the deployment by Hezbollah of artillery and rockets in the vicinity of civilian population centers. This tactic, which puts civilians at risk of death and destruction, is a war crime to be sanctioned by international law. The Council attributes the responsibility of the deaths of Lebanese citizens by Israeli fire, to Hezbollah's leadership and to its Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. For installing guns and launchers just next to a civilian shelter and firing from it, during a military confrontation that already started two weeks ago, is a calculated decision to cause retaliation and deaths, which are being used in the media to further the image of Hezbollah. This tactic, while using the pro-Jihadi media in the region, and abusing the horrific images of corpses of Lebanese citizens, won't change the reality of Hezbollah's responsibility and won't be used to shield Nasrall! ah from the international community or from the popular majority of the Lebanese people.
The Council calls for an investigation of this war crime by questioning Hassan Nasrallah and the Hezbollah militiamen who were deployed at the location of the massacre. The Cedars Revolution is not going to allow Terrorists to use the blood and flesh of Lebanese citizens to shield their organization from disarmament. It won't accept that an entire Lebanese community is taken into hostage by a Pro-Iranian, pro-Syrian organization which aim is to obstruct democracy in Lebanon and reverse the Cedars Revolution.
As expresses its deepest condolences to the families of the massacre's victims, the Council calls on the Lebanese masses to resist the tactics of Terrorism and to upraise against Hezbollah's control of civilian centers. Let M. Nasrallah and his supporters chose another land to wage their personal wars with whomever they want. Lebanon is not their private property to use and abuse. The Council calls on the Lebanese people to mobilize in order to end this suicidal war, even if it is going to take another revolution.


The World Council of the Cedars Revolution

Joe Baini, President, Australia

Tom Harb, Secretary General for UNSCR 1559, USA

Dr Anis Karam, President World Lebanese Cultural Union

Fady Bark, Secretary General, World Lebanese Cultural Union

Attorney John Hajjar, North American director, USA

Attorney Joanne Fakhre, Director Caribbean Region

Toni Nissi, Coordinator Committee 1559, Lebanon

Sami Khoury, Chairman, Hispanic America

George Chaya, Media Chairman, Latin America

Iskandar Riachi, Secretary, Cedars Revolution, Brazil

Roni Doumit, Secretary General, WCCR, Europe

Kamal El-Batal, Human-rights, WCCR

It's my suspicion that Israel is planning to bite off the bottom third of Lebanon, and to that end, is peppering the countryside with just enough bombs to make the terrified citizens flee like frightened ants. Anyone who stays behind can be killed or arrested as "Hezbollah terrorists" and Israel has a new swatch of territory to do with as she pleases--useful for many things, including a "security zone" in the short term, and in the long term, as a bargaining chip if she ever gets around to formally making a Palestine (which everyone has been pressuring her to do). Especially since the Palestinians keep bitching about is they'd like some beachfront property, and look, here's some beachfront property now!

Of course, that's merely a suspicion, based on Israel's past history of territory acquisition and displaced civilians.

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"But to the point: is your contention that Israel is engaged in "Total War" against Lebanon?"

Don't know what that means. They're certainly not engaged in "surgical strikes." Hezbollah is a Shiite guerilla group. They're the alleged target. However, Lebanese Christians make up 40% of the populace and they're under fire. Isreal has effectively cut off the whole country from the outside world. They've bombed it in every quadrant. I don't find this retaliation what one would call "selective."

Bob

Kevin, I'm sure people will breathe a sigh of relief at this... but I can't get into it in depth at the moment.

Suffice it to say, the vast majority of land Israel has ever exercised authority over -- including Israel proper --has been ceded to Arabs. Israel is trying to give back more land, in Gaza and the West Bank. The results of those efforts are self-evident.

On the subject of those displaced from Israel proper in 1948, primarily by invading Arab armies, the depth required outstrips the time allotted.

Although your theory may have a certain je ne sais quois for the Evil Israel camp, for me it just has a certain je ne sais pourquois. One can suspect what one wants, but without a scintilla of evidence to that effect, the theory carries as much weight as belief in fraternal lodges manipulating currency exchage rates. That is, none.

Suffice it to say that Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Israel all share one aim, the withdrawl of all Israelis from Lebanon. Israel, however, includes the two individuals kidnapped at the start of this mess. Israel also wants Hezbollah disarmed, as agreed to by Hezbollah and by Lebanon.

Come to think of it, it sounds like we all agree here.

Dan

Cool! Then why aren't they doing that?

I don't know, but I do know this: anybody who'll put popups on other peoples' websites are capable of anything!
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...0.html?cnn=yes

Dan

We are talking about every but the 'elephant' in the room. The prophet said if your brother is hungry and you have plenty, you must feed him. Same with Jesus. Same with Amos. Same with Joel. But the oil Sheiks do not feed the hungry. Do they give Palestinians jobs with a fare wage? No, it's cheaper to buy them a gun.

Gun is good. Gun is God. I pray to gun, for gun is holy. Let me bow down to you and kiss you, gun.

...the usual 'Charlton Heston' garbage. I've seen Arab high rollers here in Vegas; and just like each and every other high roller, all of them think their riches make them special.

Robert Meyer

Robert,

Which "oil Sheiks" are you referring to? I am pretty sure the Saudis have made it quite clear that they hate and would never support Hezbollah. Its only supporters, materially, are Syria and Iran. The former has no oil, and the latter isn't Arab and has no "sheiks." I don't think you've described the elephant very well.

- Daniel

Kevin--a while back you asked who were the Hezbollahs? According to a captured "fighter" they were trained and armed in Iran.

Dick

Language is a funny old thing, isn't it? I've put "terrorism" in inverted commas, while Dick sees fit to isolate "fighter". I've stated my reasons, but I'm not sure what point Dick is making. In the reports I read, the Israeli's themselves use the word fighter (or guerrilla).

Dick, are you saying that Hezbollah guerrillas shouldn't be called fighters (that this noun perhaps confers too much dignity) even though the word seems about as succinct a description as one could reasonably wish, something we might even unanimously agree on? Whatever else Hezbollah may or may not do, their fighters certainly...well, er, fight. I don't imagine Israeli soldiers on the front line would argue with this. I could understand your objecting to 'freedom fighter' or 'heroic martyr', but nobody here is using these terms.

Call this hair-splitting if you like, but misuse of language (or scare-quotes) always makes me wince.

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited August 09, 2006).]

Dick's point was that the Hezbollah fighters were trained in Iran. I don't think the use of quotes around "fighter" is particularly relevant to what he said.

But to follow your tangent, though I think you are right that "fighter" didn't have to be in quotes because it can mean, quite literally, someone who fights, regardless of the justice of the fight, there are, in fact, senses of the word that would not necessarily apply to a Hezbollah combatant. According to Wikepedia, "Combat violence can be unilateral, whereas fighting implies at least a defensive reaction." So using quotes around the word may be interpreted to mean that the speaker disclaims any notion that the Hezbollah is acting defensively.

This is consistent with my sense that "fight" is quite often, though not necessarily, used with a slight connotation of virtue. We fight for our rights. We fight for freedom. We fight disease. We fight prejudice. We fight hunger. Yes, the word has broader meanings, but my own sense is that there is, indeed, often a tinge of virtue implied by the use of the word "fight."

When Al-Quaeda destroyed the WTC, it was violent, but it wasn't a "fight." We fight terrorism, but we generally don't think of terrorists as "fighting" us when they attack.

Anyway, Dick was making a different point, I take it. Whatever you call the Hezbollah-nik, he was financed by Iran.



[This message has been edited by Roger Slater (edited August 09, 2006).]

So? Sorry, Roger, I still don't get it. It's not as though Dick put "Lebanese fighter" or "Hezbollah fighter" in inverted commas, though even if he had it would still look peculiar.

I agree, broadly, with the first sentence. The second I have problems with, namely the following:

Firstly, who is 'we'? You? The US (including all its allies)? All right-thinking citizens? Who do you presume to speak for?

Secondly, to begin a sentence by declaring "We fight terrorism.." is to start on a false note. It sounds phony, a politician attempting to appeal to the crowd, as if 'we' all spoke the same language and 'terrorism' is as solid and definable a target as the Twin Towers. Whereas we all know by now (don't we?) that life, alas, just ain't that simple.

Thirdly, which kind of attack (and which kind of 'terrorist') are you talking about? If a Hezbollah 'terrorist' shoots an Israeli soldier at relatively close range, is that not 'fighting'?

By "we fight terrorism" I was not referring to anyone in particular, but was giving an example of how I felt the word "fight" is most commonly used. I was speaking for no one, not even myself. I was merely illustrating a usage, that's all. And the "terrorism" I was speaking of was also indeterminate, not referring to Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, Chechnan rebels, right-wing militias in Oklahoma, or anyone else.

But I think you know that, just as I think you know that "fighter," broad as it is, has the sorts of connotations that I mentioned, and which may call for quotation marks by one who desires to disclaim those connotations.

And by the way, I certainly hope that someone is fighting terrorism, though I have no first hand knowledge. And if you want to avoid understanding my point by questioning my definition of "terrorism," let me withdraw the word and simply say that I hope that someone is fighting to prevent a nuclear bomb from being detonated on the orders of some guy who lives in a cave and counts among his hobbies videotaping the beheading of foreign journalists. Yes, terrorism is broader than that, but I need not wish for everything at the same time.

Hezbollah fighters, terrorists, dudes, or whatever you want to call them, are at least sometimes, maybe most of the time, trained in Lebanon. It's easier to have a few hundred Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon than to move the Hezbollah guys to Iran for training; in fact, the hospital hit in the famous "savage" Israeli attack was a known training station according to some reports.

To bring us all up to date... Israel is acting coyly intrigued about the Lebanese offer to send 15,000 guys to the South. They are also holding off on the serious nasty action until the UN has met on their proposal (giving it 2-3 days. Supposedly.)

I don't think Israel goes for a Lebanese force solution. The notion that the Lebanese army will fight Hezbollah to protect the border's integrity strikes me as ludicrous. Lebanon "could not" control Hezbollah before -- how is it they can now? And if they "would not," why would they now -- unless of course the infamous coercive, terrorist, unwarranted, unnecessary, and illegal Israeli actions attached a sufficient penalty to inaction?

I doubt the Lebanese army is the instrument by which Hezbollah will be restrained; I think they know each other too well, and -- especially now -- are much cozier with each other than we may think. And I think that is the way the Israeli government views that prospect as well.

My guess is that Israel isn't going anywhere until there are boots on the ground from an international force, plus flak jackets, lots of ammo, rifles, and the rest. They're not going to be happy with another bunch of "observers."

But I've been wrong before.

Well, back to work - peace love n understanding dudes.

He was casting aspersions on their manhood by his use of sarcastic quotes.

I believe Dick was mocking the self-perceived Hezbollah view by his use of quotes around the word "fighter" just as you were mocking our view of the word "terrorist" by your use of inverted commas. No matter how you slice it, "doubt" comes to mind when a word is somehow isolated from it's companion words.

Media-truth is - one can call himself anything he wants...it's what others consistantly call him that eventually colors the way the world views him.

Lo

[This message has been edited by Lo (edited August 09, 2006).]

Strange as it may sound, I agree with this estimation. Whether the UN actually delivers on it is another point, of course.

As for Hezbollah, I'd suspect they have a few commanders and similar types trained in Iran, but the bulk of the fighters were likely trained (and I use that word lightly) in Lebanon.

As for "fighters" versus "combatants," we're into another "kidnapped" versus "captured" debate here. Yes, the words have shades of meaning, but for the most part are the same.

[quote]Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"They {Israelies} are also holding off on the serious nasty action until the UN has met on their proposal (giving it 2-3 days. Supposedly."

You mean we ain't seen nothin' yet?

"I don't think Israel goes for a Lebanese force solution. The notion that the Lebanese army will fight Hezbollah to protect the border's integrity strikes me as ludicrous."

Yes, I agree.

"Lebanon "could not" control Hezbollah before -- how is it they can now? And if they "would not," why would they now -- unless of course the infamous coercive, terrorist, unwarranted, unnecessary, and illegal Israeli actions attached a sufficient penalty to inaction?"

Put the string of adverbs and the adjective in quotes. It's become the fashion. Otherwise these words could be mistaken as your own.

"My guess is that Israel isn't going anywhere until there are boots on the ground from an international force, plus flak jackets, lots of ammo, rifles, and the rest. They're not going to be happy with another bunch of "observers.""

I agree.

Bob

Well, it looks like, to make up for the massacre that didn't actually occur (except for one death), Israel decided to have a real massacre. This one in Beirut:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...304923,00.html

From the London Times, caption to the photograph: <cite>Paramedics and rescue workers carry away the body of a young man from a destroyed apartment block in the Shiyah district of Beirut. At least 30 people were killed and about 60 injured</cite>

Moreover, this happened in Beirut. No business about Israel firing at Hezbollah and hitting innocent bystanders. Now She's just killing the innocent bystanders, forget Hezbollah. And people who'd been calling for a ceasefire are now chanting Hezbollah's support.

Forget "evil Israel." This latest act is not just evil but stupid.

Another article on what looks to be the same massacre:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...i040622D99.DTL

Death count is now up to 41, with 15 from the same family.

[This message has been edited by Kevin Andrew Murphy (edited August 09, 2006).]

Kevin, before a brief reply to your post, here's a value neutral snippet from your linked article. I found it interesting.

Rmeirty is the subject of the article. What a strange position to be in as a journalist, although granted, if it truly is news -- after all, suffering is news, and if it bleeds, it leads -- you can only fault that individual for choosing to be a journalist in the first place.

It's good that you're aware Israel's been bombing Beirut's southern suburbs (and at times other areas) now. They have been doing so for some time.

I assume you do know that:
1)Hezbollah is headquartered in Beirut;
2) Amal (whose turf your article says this area is), is an ally of Hezbollah at this point, and has become the "junior partner" in that alliance;
3) Israeli weaponry could be targeted at civilians - which it has not been to this point.

That civilians are caught in the crossfire is bad. We agree on that. That any war will result in civilian casualties is also bad. It's also bad to intentionally inflate and trump up casualty counts, war reports, and other items of international interest, as proponents of Hezbollah have done via Reuters, and as the PM of Lebanon did in the wake of the "one-man massacre."

Infinitely worse than all of that would be what you suggest Israel is engaged in, the intentional targeting of the civilians strictly to kill civilians.

We won't speculate on Israel using non-conventional weapons, like Syria has done, against civilian populations (by the way, 15,000 at a go? Now that's a massacre.) Israel neither talks about unconventional options, nor has employed them, unlike her adversaries.

But it's worth noting that if, as you assert, Israel's goal is to massacre civilians, 1,000 is a piss-poor total for a month's "work;" that's barely a day's work, by the standards such slaughters force us to use.

I am not concluding that it's "good" or "okay" to go out and kill 30 a day, for the sake of killing them. But if, as you say, that is Israel's goal, why is the total so low?

It's an insane argument to assert that Israel is doing her level best to systematically wipe out Lebanon's civilian population. It is also worth noting that the amount of damage and the number of deaths in the country does not represent what the news photos suggest, which is a whole country bombed into rubble.

I've just worked for about 3 days straight, so I'll keep it brief (for me.) Here is the situation:

Disarm Hezbollah, and remove them from South Lebanon, and this stops. The Israelis say they're encouraged that Lebanon says they'll send 15,000 guys. I would hope they hold out for real soldiers, who weren't being touted as "incapable" of disarming Hezbollah a month ago.

The cause of the destruction may be the hero of the story, in the eyes of the Times of London, and the five people one reporter chose to quote or reference. A few days ago Jumblatt was not "muted" in his criticism of Hezbollah, and I suspect in the future the same will be true. Finally, how can those interviewed be afraid of "slipping into civil war" as the result of attacks that have "unified the country behind Hezbollah"?

They should really label op-ed pieces as such.

All Israeli soldiers -- including the kidnapped ones -- need to go back to Israel. Hezbollah needs to be disarmed, as previously agreed. Israel's North must no longer live under fire. These are the unreasonable "demands" of the "terrorist" state of Israel.

If they are met, it seems there will be no further problem. Stay tuned.... I know I will.

Dan

Because from what I'm seeing, Israel isn't interested in outright genocide but is interested in coercion. To that end, you kill some people to show you mean business and could kill a lot more if you felt like it. Classic terrorism.

As for the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, what makes you think they're in Lebanon at this point? Or that they're even alive, for that matter? It's not that I don't feel for them, but there's something truly sick and wrong about killing a thousand people in an attempt to rescue two.

Oh, Kevin. Terrorism is such an inherently emotive, value-laden term. Don't you mean it's classic Fighting, or classic Freedom-Fighting? Wait, sorry, not if it's Israel.

Take a look at the number of munitions expended in the last month, then, and tell me if it's A. More than you would need to kill some subset of 1,000 individuals (whatever the true number is,) or B. Less than you would need to kill some subset of 1,000 people. My point is, the purpose of Israel's actions remains the same -- actions against Hezbollah -- and the horror of war remains constant. If anything it becomes more horrific because the enemy Israel fights, cynically diperses resources throughout Lebanon.

Again, although it's good for the "I hate Israel" club, your conjecture as to state of mind requires something like evidence to be taken seriously elsewhere. The real PTOCs (Purposeful Targeters of Civilians, in deference to adherents of the argument from semantics so recently seen here,) announce themselves as engaging in the tactic in the Middle East. Otherwise, the movement stalls. I am certain in some places the PTOCs prefer to remain anonymous, but in the Middle East, there have even been multiple PTOC claimants to a single murder. Your true PTOC relishes in results like what you have linked to.

Israel issues no such pronouncement gleefully claiming the deaths of non-combatants. Israel does not warn the "Christian citizens", or the "Non-Arab citizens," Israel warns all citizens ahead of time (in contrast to Nasrallah's calls to the "Arab citizens of Haifa.") Israel has shown by her actions, she is not interested in Civilian bloodshed. Hezbollah as shown by its actions and its own pronouncements that it does not distinguish between killing combatants and non-combatants.

And of course, for the Israel hate society, defending yourself against terrorism, is terrorism -- but terrorism itself is not.

Come back through the looking glass, Kevin -- it really is a good place to be, although it is somewhat less of a playground for a vivid imagination.

On a side note addressed to those who do not like the words "Terrorist" and "Terrorism": I'll stay out of that muck briefly, since PTOC is more precise. But lest the likes of KAM overwhelm their counterparts on the thinking side of this conversation with propaganda -- our poor brains!!! -- I'll go back to the more generally accepted nomenclature shortly if my value neutral "PTOC" meets with no acceptance.

Dan

Hezbollah, herself, appears to believe that even 2 dead Israeli soldiers are worth at least 400 live Lebanese captives. Is it any wonder that Israel thinks that 2 living Israeli ones are worth fighting for?

And what makes you think they are not alive? At the very beginning of the war, Nazrallah had this to say to reporters about that very question:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=16950

Meanwhile, Hassan Nasrallah, the head of the Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah, warned that two Israeli soldiers captured by his fighters will only be returned through a prisoner swap. "I thank our fighters, I kiss their forheads and hands," he said, adding: "This is the only available way to release (Lebanese prisoners in Israel).
The Israelis always first say they do not wish to negotiate, but eventually they accept."

(First Published 2006-07-12, Last Updated 2006-07-12 16:56:04)

While I, personally, wouldn't put it past him to lie I have a feeling it would not then, nor would it now, be in Hezbollah's best interest to expect Israel to exchange some 300 live-and-kicking reported Hezbollah captives for two dead Israeli ones.

Just because you're right, and occasionally the "dead soldier exchange trick" works, such as in 2004 when Israel bowed to Hezbollah demands and exchanged more than 400 Palestinian, Lebanese and Arab prisoners for one live Israeli businessman and the bodies of three dead Israeli soldiers, it doesn't mean that the current captive Israeli's are dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/12/mideast/

Once bitten, twice shy. Probably explains why Israel doesn't think too highly of bowing down to kidnappers demands. It seems to encourage still more kidnapping. (i.e. the above quote: "This is the only available way to release Lebanese prisoners in Israel.
The Israelis always first say they do not wish to negotiate, but eventually they accept.")

However, to make my point, (disclaimer: I am not saying that I agree with it, only that the facts themselves are there and Hezbollah herself is the one who laid them out on the line) you say 1000 Lebanese lives are not worth two Israeli ones....Apparently Hezbollah disagrees with you and has felt as recently as 2004 that they are worth at least four hundred of them. I believe, without time to look it up for confirmation, that the current number of Israeli prisoners of which Hezbollah is demanding a swap is 300.

Stupid argument, I know, but not any more stupid than saying The Israeli Army is a "classic" terrorist organization and that any attempt by any country to free it's kidnapped soldiers can and should be conceived as an act of terrorism.

I agree that the Israeli soldiers certainly might not still be in Lebanon (although you yourself wanted to place them at the bombed "non-working hospital" a few days ago.....complete with genuine nurses who were supposedly caring for them) - more likely they're in Syria or Iraq. The point is not where they are, the point is who took them there and who has the power to bring them back. That would be Hezbollah....and Hezbollah, right now, would be found in Lebanon.

Lo



[This message has been edited by Lo (edited August 10, 2006).]

On aug03 Svein asked the "why now..." Q. The following was sent to me and offers deeper insight, focusing on power struggles between Iran and Iraq over the last couple of years. Israel's position is somewhat minor by comparison.
------------------

Stratfor: Geopolitical Intelligence Report - August 8, 2006

Break Point: What Went Wrong

By George Friedman

On May 23, we published a Geopolitical Intelligence Report titled " Break Point ." In that article, we wrote: "It is now nearly Memorial Day. The violence in Iraq will surge, but by July 4 there either will be clear signs that the Sunnis are controlling the insurgency -- or there won't. If they are controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. If they are not controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. Regardless of whether the [political settlement] holds, the U.S. war in Iraq is going to end: U.S. troops either will not be needed, or will not be useful. Thus, we are at a break point -- at least for the Americans."

In our view, the fundamental question was whether the Sunnis would buy into the political process in Iraq. We expected a sign, and we got it in June, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed -- in our view, through intelligence provided by the Sunni leadership. The same night al-Zarqawi was killed, the Iraqis announced the completion of the Cabinet: As part of a deal that finalized the three security positions (defense, interior and national security), the defense ministry went to a Sunni. The United States followed that move by announcing a drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq, starting with two brigades. All that was needed was a similar signal of buy-in from the Shia -- meaning they would place controls on the Shiite militias that were attacking Sunnis. The break point seemed very much to favor a political resolution in Iraq.

It never happened. The Shia, instead of reciprocating the Sunni and American gestures, went into a deep internal crisis. Shiite groups in Basra battled over oil fields. They fought in Baghdad. We expected that the mainstream militias under the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) would gain control of the dissidents and then turn to political deal-making. Instead, the internal Shiite struggle resolved itself in a way we did not
expect: Rather than reciprocating with a meaningful political gesture, the Shia intensified their attacks on the Sunnis. The Sunnis, clearly expecting this phase to end, held back -- and then cut loose with their own retaliations. The result was, rather than a political settlement, civil war. The break point had broken away from a resolution.

Part of the explanation is undoubtedly to be found in Iraq itself. The prospect of a centralized government, even if dominated by the majority Shia, does not seem to have been as attractive to Iraqi Shia as absolute regional control, which would guarantee them all of the revenues from the southern oil fields, rather than just most. That is why SCIRI leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim has been pushing for the creation of a federal zone in the south, similar to that established for the Kurdistan region in the north. The growing closeness between the United States and some Sunnis undoubtedly left the Shia feeling uneasy. The Sunnis may have made a down payment by delivering up al-Zarqawi, but it was far from clear that they would be in a position to make further payments. The Shia reciprocated partially by offering an amnesty for militants, but they also linked the dissolution of sectarian militias to the future role of Baathists in the government, which they seek to prevent. Clearly, there were factions within the Shiite community that were pulling in different directions.

But there was also another factor that appears to have been more decisive: Iran.

It is apparent that Iran not only made a decision not to support a political settlement in Iraq, but a broader decision to support Hezbollah in its war with Israel. In a larger sense, Iran decided to simultaneously confront the United States and its ally Israel on multiple fronts -- and to use that as a means of challenging Sunnis and, particularly, Sunni Arab states.

The Iranian Logic

This is actually a significant shift in Iran's national strategy. Iran had been relatively cooperative with the United States between 2001 and 2004 -- supporting the United States in Afghanistan in a variety of ways and encouraging Washington to depose Saddam Hussein. This relationship was not without tensions during those years, but it was far from confrontational. Similarly, Iran had always had tensions with the Sunni world, but until last year or so, as we can see in Iraq, these had not been venomous.

Two key things have to be borne in mind to begin to understand this shift. First, until the emergence of al Qaeda, the Islamic Republic of Iran had seen itself -- and had been seen by others -- as being the vanguard of the Islamist renaissance. It was Iran that had confronted the United States, and it was Iran's creation, Hezbollah, that had pioneered suicide bombings, hostage-takings and the like in Lebanon and around the world. But on Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda -- a Sunni group -- had surged ahead of Iran as the embodiment of radical Islam. Indeed, it had left Iran in the role of appearing to be a collaborator with the United States. Iran had no use for al Qaeda but did not want to surrender its position to the Sunni entity.

The second factor that must be considered is Iran's goal in Iraq. The Iranians, who hated Hussein as a result of the eight-year war and dearly wanted him destroyed, had supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And they had helped the United States with intelligence prior to the war. Indeed, it could be argued that Iran had provided exactly the intelligence that would provoke the U.S. attack in a way most advantageous to Iran -- by indicating that the occupation of Iraq would not be as difficult as might be imagined, particularly if the United States destroyed the Baath Party and all of its institutions. U.S. leaders were hearing what they wanted to hear anyway, but Iran made certain they heard this much more clearly.

Iran had a simple goal: to dominate a post-war Iraq.

Iran's Shiite allies in Iraq comprised the majority, the Shia had not resisted the American invasion and the Iranians had provided appropriate support. Therefore, they expected that they would inherit Iraq -- at least in the sense that it would fall into Tehran's sphere of influence. For their part, the Americans thought they could impose a regime in Iraq regardless of Iran's wishes, and they had no desire to create an Iranian surrogate in Baghdad. Therefore, though they may have encouraged Iranian beliefs, the goal of the Americans was to create a coalition government that would include all factions. The Shia could be the dominant group, but they would not hold absolute power -- and, indeed, the United States manipulated Iraqi Shia to split them further .

We had believed that the Iranians would, in the end, accept a neutral Iraq with a coalition government that guaranteed Iran's interests. There is a chance that this might be true in the end, but the Iranians clearly decided to force a final confrontation with the United States. Tehran used its influence among some Iraqi groups to reject the Sunni overture symbolized in al-Zarqawi's death and to instead press forward with attacks against the Sunni community. It goes beyond this, inasmuch as Iran also has been forging closer ties with some Sunni groups, who are responding to Iranian money and a sense of the inevitability of Iran's ascent in the region.

Iran could have had two thoughts on its mind in pressing the sectarian offensive. The first was that the United States, lacking forces to contain a civil war, would be forced to withdraw, or at least to reduce its presence in populated areas, if a civil war broke out. This would leave the majority Shia in a position to impose their own government -- and, in fact, place pro-Iranian Shia, who had led the battle, in a dominant position among the Shiite community.

The second thought could have been that even if U.S. forces did not withdraw, Iran would be better off with a partitioned Iraq -- in which the various regions were at war with each other, or at least focused on each other, and incapable of posing a strategic threat to Iran. Moreover, if partition meant that Iran dominated the southern part of Iraq, then the strategic route to the western littoral of the Persian Gulf would be wide open, with no Arab army in a position to resist the Iranians. Their dream of dominating the Persian Gulf would still be in reach, while the security of their western border would be guaranteed. So, if U.S. forces did not withdraw from Iraq, Iran would still be able not only to impose a penalty on the Americans but also to pursue its own strategic interests.

This line of thinking also extends to pressures that Iran now is exerting against Saudi Arabia, which has again become a key ally of the United States. For example, a member of the Iranian Majlis recently called for Muslim states to enact political and economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia -- which has condemned Hezbollah's actions in the war against Israel. In the larger scheme, it was apparent to the Iranians that they could not achieve their goals in Iraq without directly challenging Saudi interests -- and that meant mounting a general challenge to Sunnis. A partial challenge would make no sense: It would create hostility and conflict without a conclusive outcome. Thus, the Iranians decided to broaden their challenge.

The Significance of Hezbollah

Hezbollah is a Shiite movement that was created by Iran out of its own needs for a Tehran-controlled, anti-Israel force.

Hezbollah was extremely active through the 1980s and had exercised economic and political power in Lebanon in the 1990s, as a representative of Shiite interests. In this, Hezbollah had collaborated with Syria -- a predominantly Sunni country run by a minority Shiite sect, the Alawites -- as well as Iran. Iran and Syria are enormously different countries, with many different interests. Syria's interest was the domination and economic exploitation of Lebanon.

But when the United States forced the Syrians out of Lebanon -- following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri in February 2005 -- any interest Syria had in restraining Hezbollah disappeared. Meanwhile, as Iran shifted its strategy, its interest in reactivating Hezbollah -- which had been somewhat dormant in relation to Israel -- increased.

Hezbollah's interest in being reactivated in this way was less clear. Hezbollah's leaders had aged well: Violent and radical in the 1980s, they had become Lebanese businessmen in the 1990s. They became part of the establishment. But they still were who they were, and the younger generation of Hezbollah members was even more radical. Hezbollah militants had been operating in southern Lebanon for years and, however relatively restrained they might have been, they clearly had prepared for conventional war against the Israelis.

With the current conflict, Hezbollah now has achieved an important milestone: It has fought better and longer than any other Arab army against Israel. The Egyptians and Syrians launched brilliant attacks in 1973, but their forces were shattered before the war ended. Hezbollah has fought and clearly has not been shattered. Whether, in the end, it wins or loses, Hezbollah will have achieved a massive improvement of its standing in the Muslim world by slugging it out with Israel in a conventional war. If, at the end of this war, Hezbollah remains intact as a fighting force -- regardless of the outcome of the campaign in southern Lebanon -- its prestige will be enormous.

Within the region, this outcome would shift focus away from the Sunni Hamas or secular Fatah to the Shiite Hezbollah. If this happens simultaneously with the United States losing complete control of the situation in Iraq, the entire balance of power in the region would be perceived to have shifted away from the U.S.-Israeli coalition (the appearance is different from reality, but it is still far from trivial) -- and the leadership of the Islamist renaissance would have shifted away from the Sunnis to the Shia, at least in the Middle East.

Outcomes

It is not clear that the Iranians expected all of this to have gone quite as well as it has. In the early days of the war, when the Saudis and other Arabs were condemning Hezbollah and it appeared that Israel was going to launch one of its classic lightning campaigns in Lebanon, Tehran seemed to back away -- calling for a cease-fire and indicating it was prepared to negotiate on issues like uranium enrichment. Then international criticism shifted to Israel, and Israeli forces seemed bogged down. Iran's rhetoric shifted. Now the Saudis are back to condemning Hezbollah, and the Iranians appear more confident than ever. From their point of view, they have achieved substantial psychological success based on real military achievements. They have the United States on the defensive in Iraq, and the Israelis are having to fight hard to make any headway in Lebanon.

The Israelis have few options. They can continue to fight until they break Hezbollah -- a process that will be long and costly, but can be achieved. But they then risk Hezbollah shifting to guerrilla war unless their forces immediately withdraw from Lebanon. Alternatively, they can negotiate a cease-fire that inevitably would leave at least part of Hezbollah's forces intact, its prestige and power in Lebanon enhanced and Iran elevated as a power within the region and the Muslim world. Because the Israelis are not going anywhere, they have to choose from a limited menu.

The United States, on the other hand, is facing a situation in Iraq that has broken decisively against it. However hopeful the situation might have been the night al-Zarqawi died, the decision by Iran's allies in Iraq to pursue civil war rather than a coalition government has put the United States into a militarily untenable position. It does not have sufficient forces to prevent a civil war. It can undertake the defense of the Sunnis, but only at the cost of further polarization with the Shia. The United States' military options are severely limited, and therefore, withdrawal becomes even more difficult. The only possibility is a negotiated settlement -- and at this point, Iran doesn't need to negotiate. Unless Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top Shiite cleric in Iraq, firmly demands a truce, the sectarian fighting will continue
-- and at the moment, it is not even clear that al-Sistani could get a truce if he wanted one.

While the United States was focused on the chimera of an Iranian nuclear bomb -- a possibility that, assuming everything we have heard is true, remains years away from becoming reality -- Iran has moved to redefine the region. At the very least, civil war in Lebanon (where Christians and Sunnis might resist Hezbollah) could match civil war in Iraq, with the Israelis and Americans trapped in undesirable roles.

The break point has come and gone. The United States now must make an enormously difficult decision. If it simply withdraws forces from Iraq, it leaves the Arabian Peninsula open to Iran and loses all psychological advantage it gained with the invasion of Iraq. If American forces stay in Iraq, it will be as a purely symbolic gesture, without any hope for imposing a solution. If this were 2004, the United States might have the stomach for a massive infusion of forces -- an attempt to force a favorable resolution. But this is 2006, and the moment for that has passed. The United States now has no good choices; its best bet was blown up by Iran. Going to war with Iran is not an option. In Lebanon, we have just seen the value of air campaigns pursued in isolation, and the United States does not have a force capable of occupying and pacifying Iran.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.stratfor.com/subscriptio...ce-reports.php
to register.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Middle East Crisis – Get Regular Updates and Breaking Intel at www.stratfor.com

https://www.stratfor.com/services/on...scriptions.php.

And: (from Stratfor Report above)

With the current conflict, Hezbollah now has achieved an important milestone: It has fought better and longer than any other Arab army against Israel. The Egyptians and Syrians launched brilliant attacks in 1973, but their forces were shattered before the war ended. Hezbollah has fought and clearly has not been shattered.


Is clearly related to in this, from the continuation of Times link posted by Kevein:


WEAPONS DISPERSAL

Military observers believe that Hezbollah long ago planted huge mines under all the roads crossing the border. Israeli tanks have therefore avoided the border roads.

Instead of stockpiling its munitions in a handful of arsenals, Hezbollah dispersed them in private homes, garages, basements, bunkers and caves, giving ready access to small Hezbollah units. The group is also thought to have night-vision goggles and a stash of Israeli military fatigues for ambushes.

A Hezbollah answer to your question:

Shortly after Hezbollah fighters attacked an IDF military vehicle between Zar'it and Shtula and kidnapped the soldiers, the Islamic militia's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, called the abductions as "our natural, only and logical right."

He further said that the soldiers had been taken "far, far away" and that no Israeli military campaign would secure their release. Hezbollah has demanded "direct negotiations" regarding a prisoner exchange with Israel.

"We want our prisoners released," Nasrallah said.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/12/mideast/

Now we know where they are - they're "far far away."

And now, without even using the words "coercion" or "kidnapping" or "terrorist act," we know why, too....they did it because it was "logical."

Lo

[This message has been edited by Lo (edited August 10, 2006).]

Lo,

Your economics don't make sense. One side should be willing to trade x for y if it values x less than or equal to y. That is, it should either have an absolute gain or at least not lose anything. However, normally, each side trades something they value less to get something they value more. The difference in value is called a consumer surplus. This is the motivation for trading. All this proves is that, while Hezbollah values two dead Israelis less than or equal to 400 live Arabs, Israel values the 400 live Arabs less than or equal to the two dead Israelis. If anything, it is Israel's values that could be questioned here.

- Daniel



[This message has been edited by Daniel Haar (edited August 10, 2006).]

Why? Mostly all it shows is that in 2004 Hezbollah couldn't allow a measly two soldiers to remain breathing - while Israel kept 400 of their prisoners alive.

Reads like compassion and respect and a healthy regard for (and understanding of) the rules of The Geneva Convention to me.

The "value" shown here is that Israel allows it's prisoners of war to live - and Hezbollah doesn't. If Israel truly "devalued" life, especially the lives of their self-professed "Arab" enemies as you put it, it would have killed the 400, not released them.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Lo

P.S. I put "Arab" in quotes because I disagree with you on this one, Daniel. Israel is not fighting "Arabs" in general, they are fighting Hezbollah in specific.



[This message has been edited by Lo (edited August 10, 2006).]

Lo, you can change the subject of the argument if you wish. But I was only pointing out that "Hezbollah, herself, appears to believe that even 2 dead Israeli soldiers are worth at least 400 live Lebanese captives" is a patently false statement. If you cannot see that, then you are letting emotions cloud your reason.

- Daniel

P.S. I wrote Arab, no quotes, because the referred to deal was for Lebanese and Palestinians in exchange for Israelis. Arab seems to be the best general term for the two nationalities, but we could say Levantine Arab if you wish to be more specific.

[This message has been edited by Daniel Haar (edited August 10, 2006).]

When the Iranians took our embassy people if Jimmy Carter had the balls of John Kennedy and threatened to declare war on Iran if our people weren't immediately returned to us alive --we wouldn't be in this mess today. Appeasement never works. I cannot understand why Bush is so neutered about Iran and Syria today. What good does the US get out of the UN?

Dick

Dick

Dan, why such bitter sarcasm? Do you really think there's an 'I hate Israel "club"' here, on this thread? I certainly hope nobody considers me to be a member! And are Kevin's views/comments really THAT detestable, that they brand him as, essentially, racist?

Some of the reactions to my points about the use or misuse of the word terrorism suggest, to me, that I am being suspected of trying hijack this discussion and bog everyone down in laughably preposterous lexical nitpicking.

I find such shortsightedness rather depressing. Most, if not all of us here, are united by at least one thing: a concern with poetry, therefore language, therefore words and their attendant meanings. So questioning the use of a word like 'Terrorism' is surely right on the mark. Nobody has to agree with my take on it, though I believe it is a pretty valid one.

As for that rather elaborate acronym, PTOC (Purposeful Targeters of Civilians), being less contentious, come on Dan, you're just trying to score a point here. As Lo said:

I agree. So what's the problem with saying Hezbollah (or Hezbollah fighters)? Only three syllables, unlike PTOC. Overlooking the fact that there ARE words more accurate than Terrorism/ist in the 'nomenclature' doesn't serve your argument. I might as well suggest that instead of 'Israelis' we use TWETSBBG: Those Who Escalated This Shit By Bombing Gaza.

Well Lo, maybe it was clear as day to you, but I wasn't sure just what Dick was (or was not) 'mocking'. But I'm a slow lorus at the best of times. Anyhow, I would have hoped it was perfectly clear that I was NOT mocking ANYbody's view, not even Dick's. I was, and am, in earnest here (Numinous Nothingness help me!).

Would it help if all percieved members of the 'I hate Israel club' preface each post in future by making an official declaration? Something like:

1. We find some of Hezbollah's methods (such as suicide bombing ) to be obscene
2. If it is proved that Hezbollah are using people as 'human shields' we find this obscene too
3. We find what we percieve to be Israel's heavy-handed use of force from the beginning to be, if not obscene, deeply disturbing
4. We believe in Israel's right to exist
5. We believe broadly in Israel's right to defend itself (even if we disagree about its methods)
6. We believe Lebanese AND Israeli victims (especially, though not only, civilians) are equally lamentable.

Just a rough draft, but if it's agreeable to everyone in the 'club' we could include it in each post and mail signed copies to anyone who asks for them (yeah, I'm kidding, but kidding in earnest).




[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited August 10, 2006).]

I'll happily sign off on this.

Originally posted by Lo:

"they did it because it was "logical.""

Aha! Now this crisis is beginning to make sense.

Shameless O'Clawson

"In the last analysis, terrorism is an idea generated by capitalism to justify better defense measures to safeguard capitalism."

Rainer Werner Fassbinder

This editorial from Greece makes good sense to me.


History repeats itself

Editorial by John Psaropoulos

More than four weeks into the Israeli offensive in Lebanon, the United Nations is still mulling over the wording of its first Security Council Resolution on the matter. The disarmament of Hizbullah is agreed upon. What remains is the question of satisfying Lebanese demands – ordering the Israeli army out of Lebanon and demanding a full cessation of hostilities (a ceasefire).

The demands are reasonable, but difficult to implement. Hizbullah says it cannot cease hostilities, let alone disarm, with Israel as an occupying force. On the other hand, Israel does not want Hizbullah fighters to re-infiltrate areas they have been cleared from before a peacekeeping force enters. Security Council members are trying to figure out a way of transfusing Israeli forces with a multinational force so that there is no security gap; but that transfusion will be tricky because any multinational force must come in under ceasefire conditions, not the present combat ones. The transfusion must follow on the heels of a ceasefire in a matter of hours, not days.

For all its suffering, Lebanon cannot seem to command the sympathy and support to satisfy these demands. In June 1982, when Israel last marched into Lebanon to remove a terrorist threat, the UN immediately granted them. Its first resolution came within 24 hours of the Israeli incursion. It demanded that all parties “cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities”. In contrast, the qualified demand in the draft resolution of last weekend, demanding an end to offensive action, left open a back door of defensive action. Since all military action against actual or potential terrorism is now justified as a pre-emptive defence, famously introduced by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a rationale for the thoroughly unnecessary invasion of Iraq, the distinction between offence and defence is practically meaningless.

Resolution 517, two months into the 1982 engagement, called for the “immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. ” It even censured Israel for failing to comply with previous resolutions.

The last quarter-century has bolstered Israel’s immunity from UN censure. Perhaps that makes little difference. The cartload of resolutions ordering Israel out of Lebanon in 1982 was ignored. But the gruelling process of negotiation in the UN is important. The leading voices of the UN, permanent Security Council members with vetoes, have positions of leadership in the world. It is in their interest to bolster faith in the world body politic by appearing fair and democratic. Allowing crises to spin themselves out would diminish them.

As the UN deliberates, a frustrated Israel is escalating its war. This is a major tipping point. Israel has done all it can – aerial bombardment, tank fire, commando raids, border skirmishes – short of a full-scale invasion. Hizbullah has matched Israel every step of the way. It has fought fierce hand-to-hand battles with the most highly trained and best-eqipped army in the Middle East, incurring losses that, if Hizbullah is to be believed, match its own; at the same time, it has actually increased the number of rockets being fired at civilians in Israel.

The Israeli government says it intends to march to the Litani river, about 20 kilometres north of the border at the nearest point. In 1982 the Israel Defence Forces reached the outskirts of Beirut within five weeks. Now, as they enter their fifth week of the campaign, they are still fighting over Bint Jbail, a southern Hizbullah stronghold just four kilometres from the Israeli border. The battle over that town is 18 days old as we go to press.

Whatever the damage to Hizbullah in men and materiel, it is clear that the foe Israel helped create in 1982 is stronger and more determined than ever. No doubt Israel’s assertions that it destroyed bunkers of rocket launchers and other materiel are largely true, but Israel has also made Hizbullah the Islamic world’s new front line against itself. That glamour surely revictuals Hizbullah as much as the war erodes it. It should be clear to the UN Security Council, and to Israel and Hizbullah, that there can be no military resolution of the conflict.

If that is indeed the common understanding, then it is time to put political pride aside – whether it is the pride of Israel and Hizbullah, or of France and the United States, the respective champions of Lebanon and Israel – and end the suffering of civilians. The war is doing more damage to the noncombatant population than the men in uniform. Sickening photographs of the crushed bodies of Lebanese children pulled from the rubble of their houses, bombed while they slept, are doing Israel no credit in the eyes of the world. Missiles launched into Israel are killing Arabs as well as Jews. Lebanon’s economy and infrastructure are now in tatters, and the longer that situation prevails the more difficult it will be do normalise the country after any ceasefire. History is slowly but surely repeating itself. Neither Lebanon nor Israel can possibly want that.

ATHENS NEWS 11 August 2006

There may be an end soon. See article . Let's just pray diplomacy can work.

We can certainly hope. It sounds like a workable plan, but the trouble will be getting everyone to go along with the program.

Thank goodness the French actually have troops to help with this mess. It's not like the US has any to spare.

Either I've been arguing all this time with Zionists, or my work here is done. Welcome aboard, Kevin!

In all seriousness, Mark (especially,) I have said here before that I think you've conducted yourself in a really civil way and have had only thoughtful comments... I would differ with you about whether "terrorism" as a useful term. You can say "Hezbollah," but to describe POTC (the former "Terrorism" in my nomenclature,)as "Hezbollahism" once again destroys a significant noun that has to do with a group's activities. Just saying "Hezbollah" and removing the fact that they purposefully target civilians, is fine for a discussion that has nothing to do with combatant/noncombatant status. Either we must start such a discussion -- from which I personally think I should obstain, because it would be an incomplete analysis -- or we have to stick with this discussion, which involves the intentional targeting of civilians. I honestly will just stick with POTC until it catches on, since "terrorism" is too charged a term. I need this noun, thank you. And no, I don't think of you as the "I hate Israel society."

and right now, I think of myself as the "I need sleep society." too tired to be verbose,

Dan

I don't often link to my own blog...but a friend who lives in Istael asked me if I could please post this picture and artice from Perth on the board as a favor.

I tried to post the picture and article directly, but the picture is too big for Eratosphere standards and so I have resorted to linking to a link to the original link. < sigh > Where's Dick Morgan and his picture uploading skills when you need him?

http://lauraheidy.blogspot.com/2006_...y_archive.html