[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Originally posted by Stephen Foot:

Kevin,

You’ve back-peddled from the “most obvious goal” to “one of the things”

Make your mind up.

Stephen

Stephen,

Ahem. The "most obvious goal" is indeed "one of the things." It's not necessarily the same thing as the "most important goal" which is not necessarily the same as the "most desired outcome" which is not necessarily the same as a number of other things.

Israel, as with any country, has goals. The "most obvious" one was one I could put my finger on immediately and thought I wouldn't get much argument about. Except, as it turns out, from you.

Do you equate "obvious" with "important" or "desired" or something?

Kevin

[Stephen Foot]

Kevin,

I’m not arguing that Israel did not bomb Southern Lebanon until the rubble bounced. I’m calling on you to make a persuasive case that their ‘obvious goal’ was to demonstrate a credible military deterrent and show of force. I’m still patiently waiting for the answer. Let me tell you a true story.

When I was at Art School back in the 70’s, I had a phone call from my father who rang to let me know my mother was well enough for me to visit her at Westminster Hospital. Someone, I don’t know his name, had cut her throat while she was sleeping. She was in intensive care for six weeks but thankfully she’s a tough old bird and pulled through.

Stephen



[This message has been edited by Stephen Foot (edited September 09, 2006).]

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Dick Morgan:

"quote from Shameless

I'd say that targeted raids would suffice, especially if Israeli intelligence ferreted out the rocket launchers and storage sites."

"There were two different rocket setups."

Yes, I know.

"One reguired a firing and erecting stand and couldn't easily be moved."

Yes, for the longer range jobbies. Adequate electronic intelligence could target these.

"The Katyushas, on the other hand, were mounted on the backs of flat bed pick up trucks. They employed a "shoot and scoot" strategy."

Yes, a tactic of the now popular "assymetric warfare."
They were also highly inaccurate, although effective as a terror tactic.

"They were not airborne high enough or long enough to get a radar back-track to use a missile to take them out."

True, but this indicates the fallacy of electronic intelligence being the best for our time. We have our own "stealth" missiles and planes that operate under the radar. "Under the radar" has even reached ordinary conversation. Given such common knowledge, I'd assume that the superior IDF would be able to employ special forces teams for ground reconnaissance, under the radar.

"Some of them were set up in olive groves and fired from timers or cell phones."

Send patrols into, or helicoptors over, the olive groves, or bomb the olive groves, not the farmhouses.

"There were thousands of these missiles."

Yes, but there were also 9,000 Israeli air raids. We may have a wash. Hezbollah launched its greatest flight of rockets on the last day before the cease fire, 250 plus. Something on the Israeli side wasn't working.

"If you were a general of the IDF how would you fight this kind of assault?"

Oops. Jumped the gun. See above.

"By the way, I've never seen you make an outright condemnation of Hezbullah--you always say (paraphrasing) "I've never condoned--etc.""

If you check my posts carefully (or even casually), you'll see that several times I've called them "lunatics" and "morons." I began by indicating my disbelief that they couldn't guess what lay ahead given the history of Israel's retaliations. I think at one point I said, "Arabs prick and Israel hammers."

Since 1948 (only the "modern" history of this specific region) very little has changed regarding the cycle of revenge or retaliation. I may also have said that instead of "tit for tat," it's been "tit for KABOOM!" or something to that effect.

There was, given my previous commentary on this ridiculous situation, a certain irony in my usage of Israel's superior intelligence. It appears to be no better than our own, re Iraq. Do you recall when George Bush claimed to have made his judgement re WMD on good intelligence?

You know, if you swallow how incredibly good the CIA and British intelligence USED to be, especially during the Cold War, our current reliance on electronic intelligence looks almost stupid. Yes, a satellite can read a license plate in a parking lot, but who's talked to the driver?

I'm a great believer in the value of spies, nefarious spooks working the hustings, reporting back in subtle codes. The word from the olive groves, so to speak. But, the U.S. has too few speakers of Arabic and its dialects. I would think that Israel would have thousands of trained spies, at least a brigade of them picking olives in southern Lebanon.

"In the world of Law Silence is considered affirmation of a described action."

I'm sorry, Dick, but I'm not familiar with the term, "Law Silence."

Anyway, I hope I've made my position clear once again. If it seems that I spend too much time writing about Hezbollah to indicate that NOBODY won in this recent engagement, it's only to question those who go to great lengths justifying Israel's action. I considered it an overreaction. I'm not alone in that. Dan spoke of something like world pressure, or world opinion. I'm trying to point out the futility of the destruction of a country in an attempt to wipe out a purportedly radical element within it.

Look at it this way. Hezbollah poked the skunk and got what it should have expected. Isreal may have poked a larger skunk and got surprised. Poking skunks of any size ain't wise.

Shameless O'Clawson



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 09, 2006).]

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"RJ, I guess you're saying you didn't request anything on the history of the region? That's what I said I wanted to talk to you and Kevin about"

Dan, this is disingenuous at best. I was referring to your implication that I was among the group jumping on Foot. I couldn't have made that clearer.

Regarding my asking you for information to back up your assertions in your previous post, where you disputed my critique of Charles Krauthammer, and I answered, I did nothing other than ask you to substantiate claims. That should be a part of normal debate even if the notion of political debate has been thoroughly corrupted by the charades on national television.

I have asked Seree for information regarding sources and she's provided it, given me the opportunity to explore the situation further, not attacked my position. She's not only a trustworthy debator, but also one who could teach me something, ie. enlighten me.

"I thought, in fact, you had referenced historical questions as well."

Who of us has not? However, you stereotyped me as an attacker of Foot to, I suspect, support your own position as a "civil" debator.

"If not, try not to take it too hard that you were mentioned in the same breath."

HOW condescending can you get?

"Kevin, if you feel the same way about being mentioned alongside RJ, my apologies to you as well."

Is this the "tone" you learned from me? Then I should apologize for infecting your normally civil delivery.

"I think you meant for me to retract something else as well,"

No, I just want to be disassociated from being one of those who "jumped ugly" on Foot. However you wish to revise your statement, you owe it to me to expunge my name from that post. I have not in any way abused Mr. Foot.

"as a sort of interpersonal requirement for further discussion, but it ain't gonna happen. Still playing? If not, that's fine."

Oh, you bet I'm still "playing." Your "Nazi," is relentless. Gail White may have dropped out, but I'm psyched.

Bob




[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 09, 2006).]

[Stephen Foot]

Bob,

I’m glad to see the debate has moved back to the nub of the problem, namely, “the futility of the destruction of a country in an attempt to wipe out a purportedly radical element within it”.

I made the point to Kevin that it’s too early to say if this was a succes, whether we are party to all the facts or not. To say this is a charlatan’s ruse is fallacious. Hezbollah will, of course, play up its successes, and in a limited incursion such as Israel’s, it does her goals no good to crow about a situation they must one day leave to others.

What is clear is that Hezbollah no longer fire rockets into Israeli suburbs, the IDF are still in Southern Lebanon, the Lebanese have ordered their ‘legitimate’ army South, the UN are, in their usual style, cobbling a force together that may make a difference this time.

Stephen

[Robert J. Clawson]

Sorry, I double posted.

[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 09, 2006).]

[Robert J. Clawson]

Posted by Dan H.

"One more one more note, specifically to Bob: Bob, when I come back to this thread, let's just drop the question of length."

I have a thing about length. I've heard too many denigrations of Robert Fisk's truncated statements without hearing any discussion of his comprehensive reporting in his over 1,000-page book. I suspect that Fisk's tome is too much of a challenge for busy people to read in order to gain greater knowledge of the region. I've heard no one criticize his BOOK. Unlike the quick read, "Revelations," his doesn't sound like an LSD trip. It's wonderfully enlightening.

So, it bugs me to read and try to parse long rationalizations of a generally obvious event: the destruction of Lebanon.

"I know I'm going on and on sometimes, but at the same time, the last couple posts here remind me that people DO want to soak up some facts in the region."

Remember Sergeant Friday: "Just the facts, Sir"?
They will do. Friday didn't say, "Just the logic, Mam."

"...from case A to case B to case C there are a world of differences, and getting at them can take some verbiage."

Reconsider "a world." Think of yourself as a journalist with a deadline and column-length discipline. You come off more as a preacher or antagonist. In formal debates, you'd have to speak against the clock.

"The mideast is a thicket."

Agreed.

"I find myself agreeing with you on Krauthammer on Iraq, and would perhaps have found myself agreeing with you on Krauthammer on Israel, circa 1995. I agree that turning the Cedar Revolution into an - ahem - neocon triumph, is silly. But I found his posts regarding the "victory" of Hezbollah to just be really on target."

Well, that's okay. So, I didn't. You shouldn't take that personally: I was knocking Krauthammer. When people knock Fisk, I ask if they've read him, that's all.

I meant no disrespect, by the way, in calling him Charles. I'd find typing out his full name, each instance, tedious and contrary to being pithy.

I have, myself, gone to great length in several of my posts. In my earlier posts, which I thought appropriately brief regarding enlightenment, I got called for being too cavalier, even preppy, as I recall. So, as you've probably noted, I've begun to take on your arguments point by point, which seems to be the only way to cope with the sheer volume of assertions, the lessons in logic, the implications that other members on this board don't read or can't possibly understand the Middle East.

I had an argument with a friend in the Foreign Service, who tried to shoot me down with, "But, Bob, I was THERE." And I countered with, "Well what did you learn?" And he fell stymied. I don't know why that happened to him. I do know that it doesn't happen to writers paid to report from the warfronts. So, I read the guys who are there and feel that I'm SEEKING information whereas Charles Krauthammer is a columnist with a thinly disguised agenda. He is not what Rush Limbaugh or other conservatives would called a member of the Liberal, biased press.

Do I feel that Charles Krauthammer may be, because he lives in D. C., better informed than I. Probably so, but that doesn't make him any more of a straight shooter than Dick Cheney.

So much for length. I've writ to long.

Bob

[Dan Halberstein]

Bob, I haven't much time this morning either. School to catch up to, guests in town this weekend, and yes, more football tomorrow/Monday, if I'm lucky - so I'm going to try to dispose of this as quickly as possible:

On RJ Clawson's Non-Jumping-Ugly on Stephen Foot:

My actual post says:

You guys jumped ugly on...

My post says this several paragraphs after the point where I mentioned you, Kevin, myself, and Lo specifically, in regards to the entirely different subject of pending discussions.

Where I learned to speak and write English, beginning a new thought or case is a function of paragraph breaks.

To clarify, since we did not all learn the same rule:

You guys means anybody who personally went after Foot. "by extention we guys" means that I personally did not do so, but included myself because I know I've been seen as uncivil, which, if true, lowered the level of debate. I stipulate to this being true, so we can all become more civil and move on. This is, in fact, just what it purports to be -- a general urging not to attack Foot on sight, and a plea for general civility,
not a personal slight against R.J. Clawson.

Any who are able to read the post urging civility, as a personal urging to RJ Clawson in particular, are way, way off the mark in that reading.

As regards my "chasing off" of Gail White:

Contrary to the notion I "chased off" this individual, in the sole post I recall directing toward Gail White, I told her that she had good points; she had in fact made half of my point for me, to wit, her point that Israel should be judged by the standard of other nations.

I then went on to make points regarding "detractors" [of Israel,] again, doing this in a separate paragraph, and not identifying Gail as a detractor of Israel either implicitly or explicitly.

As regards my personal use of "Nazi"
I really have to look back for longer than I have right now, to see if I ever claimed knowledge that you or others here are members of Nazi parties.

I did, however, make the charge of anti-Semitism against those who insist Jews be evaluated differently from non-Jews, or that a Jewish state should not use Jewish symbols, while Christian and Muslim states should, use Christian and Muslim symbols, etc. This was, of course, in reply to people who made anti-Semitic cases. You, Bob Clawson, decided to identify yourself as an anti-Semite, and apparently you see nothing wrong with that. To wit:

I've decided that I'm antisemitic. I think the Jews and Arabs are acting like lunatics.
A few days back, on NPR, I heard an Israeli say that his country's response was not over the top. He felt that Israel had to show its enemies that it wouldn't be perceived as weak and vulnerable, that its reaction to any incursion would be robust retaliation.
Could anyone in the Middle East not have already known this? Isreal has launched enough robust retaliations in the past half century to make its point. Do the Arabs not get it?
Given that history, must the point be made again? Where's it getting them? The Arabs prick the Jews. The Jews hammer them. So, the Arabs lie low for a while, build force and nerve, then prick the Jews. The Jews hammer them.
It's a Punch and Judy show. Dumb Semites.

From the looks of things, I believe you think that including both Arabs and Jews among the targets of your anti-Semitism somehow lessens the import of making such a statement.

I remind you of this proclamation to help you sort out why people call you anti-Semitic. As to your membership in any Nazi party, you will need to clarify that for us; all I can clarify is that I have no knowledge of your membership in such a party, only that I know you to agree with many of the founding principals of the original Nazi party, and several subsequently formed neo-Nazi groups. Although all Nazis are anti-Semites, however, all anti-Semites are not Nazis, and if I have actually specified your membership in one or another such party erroneously based on your anti-Semitism, I deeply regret the overgeneralization.

Thanks,

Dan

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Stephen Foot:

"Bob,

I’m glad to see the debate has moved back to the nub of the problem, namely, “the futility of the destruction of a country in an attempt to wipe out a purportedly radical element within it”."

Did I write that? If so, perhaps I should edit out "purportedly." Except among 35% of the Lebanese population, the Shiites, I think a good many of the Christian, Sunni, and Druze may have found Hezbollah "radical". They may also have been afraid because Hezbollah had won sixteen seats in the parliament and been appointed two cabinet posts, a good bit of power in a small, "democratic" country. Threatening, in fact.

I'm not sure how it now stands. I've read that Lebanese who were normally irritated by Hezbollah's posture, were horrified by Israel's heavy-duty response to the capture of two soldiers and killing of eight along a disputed border. But I find it difficult to understand why neither Hezbollah nor other Lebanese would be surprised by the response.

"I made the point to Kevin that it’s too early to say if this was a succes, whether we are party to all the facts or not."

I agree. To hear either side call it "Victory" disturbs me.

"To say this is a charlatan’s ruse is fallacious."

Sorry, I'm not picking up on this. Did I say something about a "charlatan's ruse"?

"Hezbollah will, of course, play up its successes,"

Yes, of course. When have any Arab groups stalled the IDF? They'll milk it.

"and in a limited incursion such as Israel’s,"

Unless you're speaking about just the ground troops in the south, I wouldn't call this a "limited incursion." The general bombing displaced 25% of the Lebanese. The country is pretty much destroyed. There's no way that "limited incursion" describes the breadth of Israel's response. They cut off Lebanon and bombed it with 9,000 air raids on strategic and civilian targets. That shouldn't be called an incursion.

"it does her goals no good to crow about a situation they must one day leave to others."

Sorry, but who do you mean by "her." If you're picking a side, consider this, every war "Must one day leave to others." Consider the cost of our own current wars. Who's going to pay for them? They're currently on the U. S. administration's credit card. Pity the poor Democrats if they win. Where will they get the money to pay for the Republican wars? Opium from Afghanistan? Oil from Iraq? No, it will have to come from American taxpayers. And guess, when the debt comes due, who's going to be blamed?

"What is clear is that Hezbollah no longer fire rockets into Israeli suburbs, the IDF are still in Southern Lebanon, the Lebanese have ordered their ‘legitimate’ army South, the UN are, in their usual style, cobbling a force together that may make a difference this time."

Yes, that's clear. As is usually the case with such limited clarities, however, some things have been omitted. The Lebanese of today will be no happier with the IDF in southern Lebanon, than the Lebanese of, say, 1988. The 'legitimate' army definitely deserves the quotation marks. It's about as strong and disciplined as several other proxy armies, such as the Iraqi army...and, are you old enough to remember the ARVN?

And what of the million displaced Lebanese? Let's call them what they now are, refugees. They're always a happy bunch. When you say that the U.N. force may make a difference this time, are you being ironic? Lebanon, as it suffers through its effort to rebuild its infrastructure, its economy, and its homes, will eventually seeth with the desire for revenge. As Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad grew out of conflict, so will newer groups, another generation of "freedom fighters" or whatever their parents take pride in calling them.

Sorry, but I don't find any winners now, and I see a pretty bleak future. I hate to be so pessimistic, but I feel the same way about Iraq. You know, Colin Powell's "You break it, you own it" rings so true to me. Such a simple thing to understand. Storefront logic.

Bob

[Stephen Foot]

Bob,

A quick response to your informative comments:

In all of Israel’s many conflicts not one of them was engaged with the intent to bring peace to the region. They were either a response to military aggression, or a pre-emptive strike when her enemies had pushed the stakes too high. Israel goes to war when her citizen’s are being killed, or their lives are threatened. However, this is not to say that on some of those occasions Israel baulks at exploiting her advantage. These conflicts are never waged in the belief that it’s possible to wipe out all opposition in an horrendous bloodbath, they are waged in order to prevent, or limit Jewish casualties. Each time a conflict ends it’s Israel’s hope that negotiations my bring a long-term peace, sometimes it even works.

I’m supposed to be decorating my mother in-law’s bedroom so please excuse the brief comment.

Stephen