islamofascist cow threat removed

One thing about the Israel-Hezbollah conflict is that it' the first time to my knowledge that a fourth generation military entity has laid down a formal challenge to a state in the old fashioned style, so to speak, rather than collapsing a state under government or an occupying power as in Iraq or Afghanistan. As such it’s a textbook confrontation between two styles of warfare. So, then, who's winning? Here’s William Lind:

So far, Hezbollah is winning. As Arab states stood silent and helpless before Israel’s assault on Hamas, another non-state entity, Hezbollah, intervened to relieve the siege of Gaza by opening a second front.

Its initial move, a brilliantly conducted raid that killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two for the loss of one Hezbollah fighter, showed once again that Hezbollah can take on state armed forces on even terms (the Chechens are the only other 4GW force to demonstrate that capability). In both respects, the contrast with Arab states will be clear on the street, pushing the Arab and larger Islamic worlds further away from the state.

Hezbollah then pulled off two more firsts. It responded effectively to terror bombing from the air, which state think is their monopoly, with rocket barrages that reached deep into Israel. Once can only imagine how this resonated world-wide with people who are often bombed but can never bomb back. And, it attacked another state monopoly, navies, by hitting and disabling a blockading Israeli warship with something (I question Israel’s claim that the weapon was a C-801 anti-ship missile, which should have sunk a small missile corvette). Hezbollah’s leadership has promised more such surprises.

In response, Israel has had to hit not Hezbollah but the state of Lebanon. Israel’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, referring to the initial Hezbollah raid, said, “I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror act but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without reason.” This is an obvious fiction, as the state of Lebanon had nothing to do with the raid and cannot control Hezbollah. But it is a necessary fiction for Israel, because otherwise who can it respond against? Again we see the power 4GW entities obtain by hiding within states but not being a state.

Well it can respond against the Islamofascist cow threat.

The production facilities of at least five companies in key industrial sectors - including the country's largest dairy farm, Liban Lait; a paper mill; a packaging firm and a pharmaceutical plant - have been disabled or completely destroyed. Industry insiders say the losses will cripple the economy for decades to come.

(tip – dsquared). They could have been Iranian cows, I suppose - cows bearing a remarkable similarity to, if not identical with, bovine entities employed by insurgents against British forces in Iraq.

Well, at any rate, if Israel sees no distinction between Lebanon and Hezbollah, why should the Lebanese?

Comments

[Arthur Davidson Ficke]

> In response, Israel has had to hit not
> Hezbollah but the state of Lebanon.

Not the state of Lebanon per se, but the infrastructure which would be used to resupply Hezbollah. The critical flaw in the above analysis is the notion that Isreal is simply lashing out randomly at anything and everything. This is just false.

They made the prudent, tactical decision to close the road to Syria and to close the airport and harbor, shutting of Iran.

Hezbollah is doing what they do best, trying to kill every Isreali they can as fast as they can.

[Alex]

Presumably the harbour (spelling, uncivilised brat!) was closed to ward off the threat of Iranian shipping passing out of the Persian Gulf, through the US 3rd Fleet, and either through the Panama Canal under the eyes of US Southern Command, or around the Cape and through the Straits of Gibraltar under the eyes of the Royal Navy, through the US 6th Fleet and the Israeli navy, and right into Beirut? Not to mention Iranian aircraft flying across either Turkey, under the eyes of NATO, or Iraq under the eyes of the USAF?

And why is it wingnuts can never spell Israel?

[dsquared]

Suez Canal rather than Panama I think, otherwise Alex is right. Presumably the decision to deprive Hezbollah of milk, toilet paper and aspirin is justified on similarly impeccable military grounds.

[Arthur Davidson Ficke]

> [...] and right into Beirut?

Sure; or whatever route the supply ship they sent in 2002 took. I doubt they would send in a Navy ship flying the Iranian flag.

> [...] eyes of the USAF?

If the airport remained open, how hard would it be to get a planeload of supplies in through whatever route they chose?

> And why is it wingnuts can never spell Israel?

Lack of intelligence.

[Alex]

Did this supply ship exist? As far as I recall the only evidence for it was the unsupported word of Israeli government spin doctors. I do not believe my own government implicitly - why should I believe anyone else's?

Seriously, the salient feature of Iranian state sponsorship since 1982 is that nobody ever actually finds them. Like the Beast of Bodmin - if they really were there, you'd expect to find a dead one now and then. In 18 years the Israelis never managed to catch even one Iranian advisor dead or alive. Either they are like Nestor Makhno - who the bullet saw not, according to the song - or else they are simply not there.

BTW, you seem to have oh-so-conveniently forgotten the fact your navy is patrolling the harbour entrance.

[Oliver]

The rockets have to come somewhence. Does anybody actually believe they are made in a clandestine factory Hizbollah is running? If not, there has to be a sponsor and supply routes. Both can be attacked.

[dsquared]

[If not, there has to be a sponsor and supply routes. Both can be attacked.]

This is conspiracist thinking. The clue is the words "has to be". There are actually about a zillion and one ways in which Hezbollah could be getting rockets, so you are not entitled to assume the specific one way which would justify a course of action that you find attractive for other reasons.

[Oliver]

Who cares about justification?
The question is whether it works or not.

[Paul Lyon]

Who cares about justification?
The question is whether it works or not.

The good folks, one hopes, at the International Criminal Court care about justification. Enough, at any rate, to start an investigation with the explicit intent of indicting Olmert et al for war crimes.

``whether it works or not'' has been the sole thought of political criminals for centuries. For that matter, why can't Hizbollah or Hamas say ``Who cares about justification, the question is whether it works or not.''?

[Oliver]

"For that matter, why can't Hizbollah or Hamas say ``Who cares about justification, the question is whether it works or not.''?"

They do so. What do you think suicide bombings against civilians are? If you are at war, you do what you must. No side can agree to rules of war that systematically favor the other side, however humane they may be. If you hide amongst civilians, civilians will be bombed. On the other hand, if you make a land grab with settlers, the settlers will be attacked.

[shmorgelborgel]

Alex criticized Arthur Davidson Ficke's orthography thus :"Presumably the harbour (spelling, uncivilised brat!)". "Harbor" is accepted US spelling. Ficke is guilty of several typos, which it is permissible to overlook, but "harbor" is a legitimate spelling, and is even gaining ground in the UK.