A question or two.
 

This is neither here nor there, but I think that the problem Israel is having is that Hezbollah would rather hide among civilians than entrench itself in fortifications. You can bomb the hell out of the latter.

Actually, it turns out you can bomb the hell out of the former, too.

A question or two.
 

I didn't mean to suggest that the idea of an international force was new. But was was new to me this morning on NPR was that Israel wants troops on just on the southern border, but also on Lebanon's borders with Syrian and Iran.

Regardless, there seems to be a strong likelihood that whoever is left holding the bag in Lebanon, especially if it is eithe Israel or a western coalition, is in for a mess.

Huh?

I never suggested that you did. Believe it or not, not everything is a personal attack.

A question or two.
 

Nowhere. FYI, I didn't vote for Bush and the whole "democratization of the Middle East" thing never held much appeal for me. I'd rather not see the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt.



Maybe. But until bombs started falling they seemed to find it pretty hard.



Hezbollah has been playing that card forever, and lots of people believed it. The card it seems to be playing now is that it is a serious military force -- one with laser-guided anti-tank weapons and cruise missiles. That looks a lot different than the rocks of the Palestinian Intifadah.



No idea. Did those protests accomplish anything? Did that government even pay lip service to the notion of removing the private army that had occupied the country's southern region?

A question or two.
 

I didn't mean to suggest that you were being a hypocrite, only to say that the denunciations of Hezbollah may have prompted by something other than the merits -- e.g., an effort by Arab dictators to say to the U.S., in essence, "back off of this democracy crap -- we're with you and they're not."

8, red, enough said.

A question or two.
 

I'm not sure what your point is, but mine is that Hezbollah will get props from many people for fighting Israel.

I think the protests achieved something, but progress is slow, and we seem to agree that the Lebanese government was not strong enough to get Hezbollah to disarm. Wrecking the country seems like a bad way to get a strong central government that Israel can deal with, though.

A question or two.
 

My point was (1) that they always have anyway, and (2) that the whole "David v. Goliath" thing wears a little thin when you pull out the cruise missiles and laser-guided anti-tank weapons.




My issue is not that the Lebanese government was not strong enough actually to get Hezbollah to disarm, but that it had no interest in doing so. I think that's where we disagree.

A question or two.
 

Hezbollah will derive more legitimacy and support from the conflict than they previously had. This doesn't help them if they're all dead, but our experience in Iraq has shown that laser-guided munitions don't work so well against an enemy that hides in a civilian population. To win, Hezbollah needs to retain the capacity to keep lobbing rockets at northern Israel. Is the bombing stopping that? Not yet.

I don't know why you think a central government -- any central government -- would be happy to tolerate a state within a state, with its own military. In a range of very practical ways, Hezbollah was acting as the government through much of the country. I can't imagine why the central government would want to let this continue if it had a choice, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that the rest of the country was keen on this arrangement.

I'm a 7

Audi-lover.

I drink vodka or scotch, i don't drink beer or soda, i would only drive a Chrysler, and by making hypo choices on each of at least those I had an 8.

A question or two.
 

I don't know why you think Hezbollah will gain greater legitimacy. First, Arab states that at least tacitly supported it have now done the opposite. Second, if they suffer heavy casualties, then their claims of being the army that would defeat Zionism will be shown to be hollow. (This leaves aside the benefits of dead Hezbollah soldiers.)

As for Israel's ability to damage Hezbollah.... I'm not sure that Iraq provides a meaningful guide. I suspect Israel's planning was a bit more thorough and more realistic. Don't you? Or do you think that Israel anticipated being greeted with flowers and sweets?

Certainly the bombing is not stopping the rocket attacks yet. That's why they are still bombing, and why they will likely have to cross the border in greater force.


But here's my real question: What would you have done? Does Israel simply let Hezbollah bomb and attack and kidnap, and do nothing? Or does it make more concessions -- prisoner releases, land given up, etc. -- in the hopes that this time, this prisoner or that acre of land will magically convince Hezbollah that Israel is a decent enough place to have a right to exist?





I don't know why you think a central government -- any central government -- would be happy to tolerate a state within a state, with its own military. In a range of very practical ways, Hezbollah was acting as the government through much of the country. I can't imagine why the central government would want to let this continue if it had a choice, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that the rest of the country was keen on this arrangement. [/QUOTE]

8. Retirement's a bitch on one's principles.

And anyone who followed my career knows I am a Saab guy. They are more blue than Audi, no?

2. I drink wine. that's blue, no?

nope - saab

JW Blue is definitely blue

Saabs are now GM pieces of crap.

Blue or red crap?

A question or two.
 

I'm not sure that the authoritarians who rule those states have a whole lot of legitimacy themselves. And those states aren't saying that Hezbollah is illegitimate -- they're disagreeing with what it has done.

When Israel's bombing finally ends, they will be able to claim victory for standing up to all that firepower, casualties or no.

Sure, but I'd be surprised if Israel plans to launch a large-scale invasion of Lebanon.

Perhaps bombing/raids focused on the portion of southern Lebanon controlled by Hezbollah and where the rockets are. I.e., not Beirut. There's a middle ground between rolling over and causing $2 billion of damage to the nation's infrastructure.

I don't think anything is convince Hezbollah that Israel has the right to exist. So the challenge for Israel to figure out how to supplant Hezbollah's control of southern Lebanon.

The limits of airpower.
 

David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy -- hardly anti-Israel -- writes:

• One reason I wonder about the judgment of Israeli leaders in the case is I get the strong sense that the military grossly exaggerated how effective air power would be against Hezbollah. Well before the current battle erupted, I had read the the IDF was begging the government to allow it to "wipe out" Hezbollah fortifications and missle launchers near the border. The implication was that the IDF believed, or at least claimed, this could be done rather quickly and painlessly. In the event, it looks like wiping out Hezbollah's military threat, if it's politically feasible given international pressures, will cost dozens of Israeli civilian and military casualties, and extensive damage to Israeli cities and its economy.

The limits of airpower.
 

I don't get his conclusions. He says that he "read the the IDF was begging the government to allow it to "wipe out" Hezbollah fortifications and missle launchers near the border." From this, he draws "the implication ... that the IDF believed, or at least claimed, this could be done rather quickly and painlessly." He also apparently draws the implication that this could be done solely with airpower.

What is the basis for drawing those implications? The IDF "begging" to wipe out positions implies neither reliance on airpower nor a quick and painless attack. And it seems unlikely that the IDF would have to "beg" to wipe out Hezbollah missiles if the Israeli leadership really beleived that could be done so easily. Why wouldn't the government readily agree to so damaging a sworn and dangerous enemy if the leadership thought it could be done so easily?

And there is ample evidence to refute his "implications." According to the NYTimes, among other sources, Israel has been planning this attack for about a year. The plan obviously included extensive use of ground troops, including armor and special forces -- note how quickly those were deployed. The plan may also have included calling up reserves, which I believe Israel has done. None of that is characteristic of a military or civilian leadership that believes it can accomplish its goals through simple, quick, and painless air strikes.

I get the "strong sense" that the implications this author draws are based more on his own preconceptions than anything else.



(Note that I did not go all Spanky on your ass and raise the question of just where he "read" the stuff on which he relies.)

A question or two.
 

Hezbollah controls portions of Beirut too, don't they? What's the rationale for leaving them a safe harbor? Or for leaving intact the roads, bridges, and airports used to transport heavy weapons to them?

Attacks on power plants and the like may well be done simply to make the other attacks easier and safer for Israeli soldiers, and to disrupt Hezbollah's ability to counterattack. I would probably agree with you on the issue of destroying infrastructure simply to destroy infrastructure (the "set Lebanon back 20 years" notion), but I think I'm less prepared to ignore tactical considerations.

I Love This Board
 

Sometimes all you need to do is give the shit a bit of stirring and things just take care of themselves.

I Love This Board
 

Fuck you, you son of a whore.



(Like that?)

I Love This Board
 

hehehe

The limits of airpower.
 

I realize that I know this guy's stuff and you probably have never heard of him before, so take it from me that I never seen him utter a critical word about the Israeli government before.

If the IDF launches major ground operations, then his speculation is wrong. We'll have to see.

A question or two.
 

Military commanders frequently will want to do things for tactical reasons that may not make strategic sense. To take a completely unrelated example, the British military thinks that our commanders in Iraq have done a whole variety of things for force-protection reasons that have had the effect of frustrating our counter-insurgency efforts. If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then politics must dictate military strategy.

The limits of airpower.
 

That's not the point. The point is that, from the snippet you've quoted, it appears that he's taken a position on the current situation and that he is drawing implications to support that position, rather than drawing implications that are supported by the facts and statements on which he relies.



Define "major". In my view, if you move tanks across the border right away, chances are you didn't assume you could accomplish your goals with airstrikes.

A question or two.
 

True enough. But from your earlier statements I had concluded that you believed that Israel did not have any military, tactical reason for what it was doing -- that Israel was simply engaged in wanton destruction.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 

I like that book a lot, but it ain't his best. His best is F&L. I was a fool to suggest otherwise. But his very best pieces were "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved" and the obit for Nixon in "Better Than Sex" (an otherwise lackluster book).

You can't evaluate Hunter on the strength of a single book because he was a journalist/poet. He was wildly erratic inquality, hitting the ball into orbit one moment, shitting the bed the next. I always liked his shit because that's pretty much been the story of my life. It's either sailing over the fence into the cheap seats or I'm going down whiffing, ala Dave Parker falling down on home plate after wildly flailing to pull a high outside fastball over the right field wall. If not for the Seinfeld rule that "everything always returns to stasis if you have half a brain and can handle a problem here and there" I'd be a penniless mushmouthed drunk, screaming "I been tied to the whippin post" into dumpsters.

A question or two.
 

Its just the Rapture, my dear boy. We'll all be nude in heaven soon.

A question or two.
 

My vision of heaven does not include any nude lawyers.*





*Subject to a small handful of FB-related exceptions.

A question or two.
 

:blush:

A question or two.
 

mine includes but is strictly limited to purse junkie. nude except for a vermillion togo birkin bag slung over her shoulder.

eta: also, clean shaven but wearing an auburn merkin.

A question or two.
 

No. But it's not going to be black or white. For example, in the Walzer thing I quoted, he suggested that destroying power plants is not without some military impact, but that it goes too far -- much as destroying the water system would.

That said, they do seem to be engaged in some conduct that seems tailored less to combat Hezbollah and more to punish Lebanon. E.g., destroying the airport's fuel facilities, and preventing relief convoys from reaching the country. Though it's hard to tell from the press reports.

Apparently I killed the board. Sorry.

Compassionate humanistic insight of yore
 

Hi!

You might recognize me.

I am the Mind of a Liberal.

I have a worldview shaped not by knowledge but rather by self-serving emotions and self-righteousness.

I am solipsistic. I cannot comprehend the mindset of those who came before me. I do not see history as sequence of events. I cannot understand that those who lived in the past made what I consider mistakes because they did not think the way my contemporaries do.

I am a sophist. I speak about things with conviction when I do not understand the basic facts. I believe that I am always right even when it is clear to all that I am not.

I create fantasies. I often ignore or do not know the facts of history. However this does not stop me from distorting them to support my childlike idealism.

I create victims. I cannot comprehend certain people being evil. I immediately take the side of the people I consider to be the victim, regardless of how despicable this group is. I am obsessed with suffering. I judge people not on what they have achieved, but on how much they have endured.

I preach moral idiocy. I cannot see the big picture. I cannot perceive the greatness humanity can and has achieved, but a dwell upon all of its wrongdoings.

I am myopic.

I am irrational.

I am a fool on a lonely hill of debunked ideology.

I am the sad, sad, twisted mind of a liberal, and I reside inside the head of many here, including Tyrone, SexualHarassmentPanda, Adder and Wonk.

Pity me, but never let your down your guard. Marx' legacy is waiting.

Compassionate humanistic insight of yore
 

Wow. And you accuse ME of popping in after years away to "hover rightly above the dregs," while reaching down to re-stir the shit?*

Either I inspired you or your sense of irony is dead. Both possibilities deserve pity.

CDF

* On the FB

Where did this come from? Am I just missing some sarcasm here? I always get the feeling that there is inside baseball going on and I am stuck in the parking lot without a ticket.

Translation: Ty posted something about the mideast, and no one posted anything here for more than 24 hours after that post. "Therefore," says Ty, "my brilliant bit of insight was so powerful that the tubes and wires of the Internets were singed, causing the LawTalkers Politics Board to crash for a day. Until I came back to say something else."