Israeli/Hezbollah Pre Post Mortem

The picture is of Hugin and Munin (Thought and Memory) getting Odin's morning update the new fangled way. Courtesy of the Nordisk Journalistcenter

(Update: a bit more on the Merkava tank and the implications of the Hezbollah light infantry model.)

Perhaps it's a little early to begin the Israel/Hezbollah post mortem, but it's not too early to draw some conclusions and do a little looking back.

At the beginning of the war I assumed the Israelis could defeat Hezbollah in conventional military terms. While it's not clear that they couldn't in "theory" do so, in practice, they haven't. It’s worth looking at Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon to try and answer the question of why?

Let's deal with the Israelis first. First of all - clearly their intelligence service fell down on the job. They had no idea what they were facing - a dug in series of hardened positions with underground networks supporting them, manned by elite troops. They thought they could use aerial interdiction of supplies, and didn't realize they were fighting a light infantry force that could fight a long time without mechanized resupply.

Second, their army has been corrupted by occupation. Martin van Crevald likes to say that if you fight the weak, you become weak. 30 years of occupation "warfare", of killing weak Palestinian militants and civilians, has made the Israeli army from a battlefield supremacy army based on the German blitzkrieg model, into a force suited for protecting bulldozers and blowing away armed rabble.

More after the jump

In part this is reflected in equipment - the Merkava, for example, has lousy cross terrain mobility. The infantry is mostly equipped with light weapons. It's also evident in morale and unit cohesion - Israeli units seem to have broken far more often than Hezbollah ones. They aren't willing or able to take significant casualties. And the style of bunker warfare Hezbollah is using is designed to force attrition warfare. You can take the bunkers out, but you will take losses. You simply can't avoid it, though you could lower it by flying gunships really low nap of the ground. But then you'd expose the IAF to the possibility of losses, and the prestige loss of losing planes seems to be something the Israelis weren't willing to risk.

And that's the heart of the Israeli problem - an army that isn't as good as its reputation, that they aren't willing to take significant losses using. It's odd, and Stratfor, for example is still shaking their heads over it. They can't bring themselves to believe it:

In looking at Israeli behavior -- which has become the most interesting and perplexing aspect of this conflict -- we are struck by an oddity. The Israeli leadership seems genuinely concerned about something, and it is not clear what it is. Obviously, the government doesn't want to take casualties, but this is not a political problem. The Israeli public can deal with high casualties as long as the mission -- in this case the dismantling of Hezbollah's capabilities -- is accomplished. The normal pattern of Israeli behavior is to be increasingly aggressive rather than restrained, and the government is supported.

When a government becomes uncertain, it normally reverts to established patterns. We would have expected a major invasion weeks ago, and we did expect it. Something is holding the Israelis back and it is not simply fear of casualties. The increasing confusion and even paralysis of the Israeli government could be explained simply by division and poor leadership. But we increasingly have the feeling that there is an aspect to Israeli thinking that we do not understand, some concern that is not apparent that is holding them back from doing what they would normally do.

Hezbollah has fought well, but it is hard to believe that the Israelis can't defeat them or that Israel can't take casualties. (Interestingly enough, Iran and Hezbollah, who are aiming for an imminent cease-fire to claim victory in this conflict, have remained silent while the discussion of a coming cease-fire intensifies.) As the pressure to act mounts and Israel doesn't act, the question of what is restraining them becomes increasingly important. We can't speculate on what their concern might be, because we don't know it. However, Olmert is acting as if he doesn't want to become too aggressive, and the reasoning is unclear.

But personally, I cry Occam's razor. The simplest explanation for why the Israelis haven't fully committed their forces is they're scared of the losses. And one wonders, indeed, if they are scared of actually losing. The inability to take small towns, heck, villages, despite having complete air supremacy and artillery support, has been astounding. I suspect we're going to find out in the months to come that there were significant command and morale failures amongst front line troops.

The next part is Hezbollah. I said, day one of the invasion, that Israel could win battles against Hezbollah and reoccupy, but could never destroy Hezbollah as a military force. I was half right - I never expected the conventional arms victories of Hezbollah. At the same time it was always clear that Hezbollah was strong enough that the goal of destroying Hezbollah was nothing but a fantasy.

Still the extent to which Hezbollah had pre-prepared the battlefield with infrastructure - both defensive and supply caches and highly sophisticated tactics, has exceeded what I think anyone except Hezbollah themselves expected. Even they, I suspect, are probably somewhat surprised at how successful they've been. At a guess they expected to force Israel into an attrition battle, and to inflict heavy losses (but take heavier) but they probably figured Israel could push them back faster and further and easier than they have.

But what has become clear is that Hezbollah's army is effectively made up of elite light infantry who are also capable of operating as guerillas. Or as a military analyst friend of mine put it, "what do you call light infantry trained in insurgency warfare? Special forces."

Hezbollah took a core of men who had survived an 18 year occupation - the toughest of the tough - the survivors and veterans and used them as the cadre of their force. They appear to have received extensive conventional military training on top of that from either the Iranians or the Syrians, or both. The morale of their forces is extraordinarily high, they are keen to fight, and they are willing to take casualties. No one joined the Hezbollah military thinking that the odds against them were anything but bad. No one joined assuming that they wouldn't take heavy losses. There is an acceptance amongst them that losses, even fairly heavy losses, are to be expected. And that if those losses let you do you job, then that's acceptable.

And while Israel clearly had no clue what they were up against, Hezbollah appears to have known exactly what they were facing. They spent a lot of time thinking about supply; thinking about how to avoid the worst effects of Israeli air supremacy; about how to spoof or avoid Israeli e-lint and about how to avoid Israeli human intelligence (for example, contrary to many claims, Hezbollah appears to try and operate away from civilians so that informers can't sell out troop positions.) They know the weaknesses of Israelis arsenal as well - situating themselves, for example, on a loose gravel hill when fighting a Merkava, knowing it can't traverse the terrain.

The Lebanese factor and world opinion. One of my first thoughts, during the initial bombing campaign, was that the Israelis were trying to turn the rest of the Lebanese against Hezbollah, and perhaps to even start up the Lebanese civil war again. And indeed polls in the first few days showed a lot of non-Shia Lebanese upset with Hezbollah. But the bombing was disproportionate, and so, ummm, indiscriminate in attacking groups other than the Shia, that the Lebanese swung heavily behind Hezbollah. Israel had done what no one else had been able to do - unite Lebanon.

The disproportionate nature of the bombing campaign, combined with the daily coverage of dead children and refugees likewise hardened world opinion. The US may have stayed onside, but almost no one else did and the Arab leaders, largely coming out against Hezbollah in the first few days, quickly switched sides as picture of the dead inflamed their populations against Israel and for Hezbollah.

Perhaps more significantly, Hezbollah's ability to stand against Israel, and the fact that the other factions swung behind Hezbollah had a chilling effect on the idea of a multinational force "disarming" Hezbollah. It became pretty clear, to anyone with a brain, that if Hezbollah didn't want to be disarmed - Hezbollah wasn't going to be disarmed, unless you were willing to walk a trail of blood and tears. As one diplomat quipped pretty soon everyone was offering to handle the logistics for the force.

Facts on the Ground are simple - Hezbollah has imposed costs on Israel for the invasion that Israel is not willing to sustain. Israel has not been able to take out Hezbollah's strategic deterrent, has not been able to degrade Hezbollah's command and control, has not been able to break public support in Lebanon for Hezbollah and has not been able to break the morale or unit cohesion of Hezbollah's forces.

In fact, other than blowing up a lot of infrastructure and causing a huge refugee crisis, it's hard to see exactly what Israel has accomplished at all.

So Israel will be forced to withdraw, with various face saving BS like Lebanon taking over the border being put in place. No one in the Muslim world, or anywhere but the US (even Israel) will be fooled into thinking it is anything but an Israeli loss.

And Israel and Hezbollah and all the other armies in the region, and indeed the world, will spend a lot of time examining what exactly happened and trying to learn the lessons of this war. This is going to be one for all the military tactics and strategy books and it is going to be an historic war, as important in many ways as Israel's smashing victories of the 60's and 70's - because for the first time an Arab army is going to be seen to have defeated Israel unambiguously (the 2000 withdrawal was too unilateral.)

It should also make people start thinking more seriously about so called non state actors like Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers and the Islamic Courts Union and their similarities and differences from States. Such organization - with the support of a population and fulfilling most of the roles of the government, yet not internationally recognized, are likely to increase in number and efficacy over time - and as we have just seen, even now, they are a force to be reckoned with.

Welcome the new Middle East. It's not your father's Middle East anymore.

Ian Welsh August 12, 2006 - 1:17am

Ian Welsh's diary | printer friendly version |

Fascinating analysis!

Nicely articulated perspective.

wrongbutton August 12, 2006 - 2:40am

On target but..

comment removed - eds

tatcta August 12, 2006 - 9:22am

Missing the neocon factor

The one thing missing from Ian's articulate analysis is the neocon factor--the rightwingers in Israel and America are hammerheaded lunatics. It could be decisive; so long as you've got people like Olmert and Bush calling the shots, there may not be a cessation to the Israeli ground attack.

Hell, they might just grind their way right to the Syrian border and then bomb Syria, or do what that smirking general on Fox News said, maneuver behind Hezbollah's forces and drive them south towards the IDF's advancing infantry. You may conclude that such a strategy is unrealistic, but then you're still making the mistake of seeing these neocons as sane individuals. They're not. They're neocons. War is what they do, so long as other people's kids do the fighting and the dying. They realize that they can always keep attacking and that somebody will inevitably fight back and retalliate, allowing them to point and say, "See? I told you they were a threat."

Anyway, it would be nice if Israel drew back in horror at what they started, withdrew and toppled Olmert's government, but I wouldn't bet on it, not even if the UN demands a ceasefire. Unfortunately, Olmert has committed himself to eradicating Hezbollah, and if he stops now, his credibility with Israel's ruling wingnuts will disappear. "What, you're leaving remnants of Hezbollah to regroup?" That's bad news for a lot more innocent bystanders.

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

Jimbo92107 August 12, 2006 - 3:28am

Did not hear this

"Hezbollah has imposed costs on Israel for the invasion that Israel is not willing to sustain. Israel has not been able to take out Hezbollah's strategic deterrent, has not been able to degrade Hezbollah's command and control, has not been able to break public support in Lebanon for Hezbollah and has not been able to break the morale or unit cohesion of Hezbollah's forces."

on Fox.

You have four instances of 'not been able'. Leave it there. If Israel cannot do these things, why posit fear? Just say 'inability.'

That is what an Occamist would say.

mauberly August 12, 2006 - 6:48am

Have you noticed?

comment removed - eds

tatcta August 12, 2006 - 9:07am

strange

How could HA move their bunkers and tunnels? I guess they could dig their way into Israel, but getting to the U. S. would be very difficult. If you stay out of Lebanon, you don't have to fight Hezbollah's evil minions. Let's not fight them here or there, let's not fight them anywhere.

pihwht August 12, 2006 - 9:34am

Because I think if they were

Because I think if they were willing to commit full bore they could do it.

Ian Welsh August 12, 2006 - 8:55pm

Equilibrium and comming of age.

Could it be that the present situation in the Middle east, mark's the birth of a new assymetrical equilibrium between Israel and the Arabs. It probably marks the end of conventionnal mid-east war with collums of armoured vehicules facing each other.
Israel may carpet bomb whom ever they want, the boots on the ground eventually make it or break it. Israelis have everything to loose and the arabs are in such a bad economic shape that they have nothing else except life to loose, with odds like these, the "cornerd rat" is bound to have the cat retreat if it's resistance is fierce enough and be perceived as the ultimate victor.
Hezbollah probably has learned enough from the Vietnamese resistance tactics to force a stalemate on the ground and in doing so may be the beginning of a real peace process can start because in retrospect, if the Israelis can't feel safe anymore they'll emigrate in drove and leave the terrain to Hezbollah and the Palestinian faster than their demographic rise could predict.
And Israel having face an ennemy they can finally respect, not the kind of rag-tag uncoordinated nationnal armies they have faced in the past (Egypt-Syria-Jordan) and they have defeated in 3 weeks or less will come to term and push for peace.
So that new war may bring something positive for the Arabs Earning respect from Israel and finally peace.

Jelco Cathlon August 12, 2006 - 6:53am

Mutual Respect Essential to Peace

Your comment and observation strikes right at the core of what is needed for Israel and the Arabs to arrive at a sustainable peace accord. Arafat had such a chance in 1982 when the Israelis invaded Lebanon and threatened to fight in Beirut, but he lacked the will to accept the necessary casualties, including his own. Hezbollah clearly has that will and the Israelis clearly cannot shake it. Now, we must find it if the bulk of the Israeli populatio can shake off its old attitudes and accept the reality that they must relinquish all of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and other occupied areas, and agree in principle to the right of return for Arab refugees. I suspect that the latter could be overcome with a generous international compensation package for the refugees which just might even have the neighboring Arab states competing to attract Palestinian immigrants who can offer considerable investment capital. Everybody needs to undertake new directions and now just might be the time to initiate them. If only the United States could act as an honest broker at such a cusp in time.

VizierVic August 12, 2006 - 10:28am

Will Olmert survive?

Last update - 15:39 12/08/2006
Olmert bars Livni from attending UN Security Council sessions
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

The cabinet began Thursday its marketing plan to the Security Council to secure the end of the war and play up Israel's successes. Then the obligatory crisis erupted: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert barred Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni from attending the United Nations Security Council sessions.

Livni has been planning the trip for several days. She planned to address the council,speak to colleagues and meet the Jewish community. But Olmert said "No." His reasons were that Livni asked for his approval too late, that there was no point going after the resolution was drafted, and that Foreign Ministry professionals objected. But that was just the cover. Olmert brought his lingering animosity to Livni out into the open.

A short time after the fighting erupted, Olmert pushed Livni out of his close circle.

When he read she was displaying "independence," he sent Shimon Peres for diplomatic talks overseas. Thursday, one of his aides said: "Livni has been telling journalists for three days that she's going to the UN, but remembered to get Olmert's approval an hour and a half before taking off."

Livni objected to continuing with the military operation, which, she believes, had consummated itself in the first two days. She voted against bombarding Hezbollah headquarters in the Dahiya neighborhood in Beirut for fear of escalation. Since then, she has supported the decisions, but kept a low profile. She did not run from one television studio to another to justify the war and muster support for ground operations. She sought a diplomatic solution.

She suggested starting a political process at the same time as the military one, and sending an international force to South Lebanon. Olmert was not keen at first, but ultimately clutched at her suggestions like a life belt to get out of the military entanglement.

At the cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Livni made it clear to the IDF chiefs, who proposed an operation that would take a month or two, that if a political way out was found in a day or two, they would have to stop in their tracks.

"Have you completed the operation we approved the last time already?" she asked them.

"Not yet," they answered.

On Monday night, after visiting the Northern Command, Olmert was convinced that the war must be stopped. He did not like the operational plans he was shown, and was not thrilled with the army's performance.

For three weeks, he has been hearing daily that tomorrow the IDF will gain control of Bint Jbail and the town is still swarming with lethal Hezbollah fighters. He did not trust the army to stop the rocket fire even in a prolonged operation.

Since then, Olmert has mobilized a coalition to release him from the grand military operation, which, according to IDF estimates, would involve hundreds of fatalities.

In these times you have to be an optimist to open your eyes when you awake in the morning. ~ Carl Sandburg

Tina August 12, 2006 - 9:03am

I suppose that it's possible

the Israelis have no intention of honoring the cease fire. They're sure acting like it.

Tim August 12, 2006 - 11:17am

I do not say Lebanon 'won'

I do not say Lebanon 'won' the war. I do not even say Hizballah 'won' the war. But I do think that the IDF was humiliated, hence its continuing vengeful bloodlust.

The Lebanese Army didn't deploy effectively to the border in this war. What makes anyone think that they were capable of deploying effectively to the border six years ago? Yesterday they left Marjaoun and were bombed en route by...no, not Hizballah, but by the IDF.

My advice to the Lebanese Army now is to take some lessons from Hizballah on how to fire anti-tank missiles. And my advice to the Siniora government is to buy some good anti-aircraft and anti-ship missile systems from Iran or Russia or China so that the Zionist bastards know that if they ever choose to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure again, they will pay a very heavy price.

Hizballah did not ask Israel to bomb the country. Israel chose to do it. Hizballah had asked for a prisoner swap, minefield maps, a Shebaa Farms settlement, and an end to the continul violations of Lebanese sovereignty. Israel responded like the criminal rogue terror state it is. But not because it had to. It simply chose to act in a punitive, bloodthirsty way. And it was humiliated in the process, and condemned by most of the world,

But more importantly, it will also be made less secure. Ironically, its existence is more threatened now than it was prior to the war. By bombing Lebanon so brutally, Israel has got the whole Muslim world, but especially the Shia, more determined than ever, to undermine and ultimately destroy Israel as it is presently constituted (i.e. a Zionist supremacist state), one way or another (not necessarily just through warfare).

Meanwhile, Lebanon will be rebuilt and will prosper, helped in part by Iran's increased revenues from higher oil prices, and in part by the'blood money' of the international community which is shamed into paying it because of its ongoing failure to hold Israel properly accountable.

But if you look far enough ahead and consider the demographics of the situation, this war is really a case of Israel digging an even deeper grave for itself. The region's tens of millions of Muslims will never accept subjugation by Israel or by US client/puppet states, or by domestic comprador elites.

Slavery, Colonialism, Apartheid, Communism----all oppressive systems which looked impregnable for a long, long time, and which produced a lot of death and rubble along the way.

But decades of resistance ultimately won out against them all. What Hizballah achieved was a sizeable notch in the totem pole of resistance to an oppressive political structure.

stunster August 12, 2006 - 2:57pm

The weak Lebanese Army

What if the weakness is politically purposeful? They leave the dirty job to Hizbollah and do not attract Israeli Army all over the country. And it even worked.

-- Happy fishing in ocean of noise!

Gandalf August 12, 2006 - 11:27pm

Even more so

because Olmert, Peretz, Halutz & Co. are having to sacrifice Israeli soldiers at this late stage in order to save face while paradoxically getting egg all over it.

Proportionately to population base, the IDF's losses are like the United States losing 6000 troops in a month of fighting. Israel is so determined to appear as if it has won, it's losing. The longer Hizballah can go on inflicting casualties, the worse the IDF looks.

Consider: 30,000 IDF troops, 600 Merkavas, 1000 APCs, 300 F16s, 50 Apaches, 100 mobile artillery units, 2 Corps of Engineers, 10 satellites, numerous naval craft, the CIA, Shin Bet, Mossad and Aman up against a rather small guerilla force positioned on Israel's northern border.

Olmert's best bet is to cease firing now, get out, and then say, "Hey look honeys! We shrunk the rocket numbers!", while everyone with two neurons to rub together rolls their eyes.

Whoever was really in charge of this fiasco should be given the job of spearheading the Republican Congressional campaign this fall.

stunster August 13, 2006 - 12:31am

About campaign

Conspiracy theorists say that this war was to support the campaign.

But I remember Bush's appetite for pork.

-- Happy fishing in ocean of noise!

Gandalf August 13, 2006 - 3:22am

ISRAEL WON!

08:22 Defense Minister Peretz: Israel won and achieved the goals that were set (Army Radio)

07:38 Five Lebanese civilians were killed in an Israeli air strike on a village east of the Lebanese city of Tyre, local police say.

The report said the victims are a mother, her three children and a Sri Lankan maid. (AFP)

via

www.ynetnews.com

and

www.haaretz.com

stunster August 13, 2006 - 12:59am

Rebels vs The Empire. Warfare is going to change?

I think this is a new watershed for warfare. War has to change because the way America/Israel fights isn't effective for its enemy. Truly, what we have is that new world order we were told we had in the 90s. I think as our world becomes more and more globalized the only real threats will be small rebel groups resisting large armies and nations. I hesitate to say "terrorists" because that's an ignorant word and doesn't always describe the foe. Tanks and planes will become almost useless with this new model.

Realize too that tanks and plans were developed in the World Wars to face the challenges of trench warfare. That reality just doesn't exist.

After the huge problems in Iraq and the issues Israel has face in this conflict, it's clear the "regular" armies, even mobile ones (based on the Nazi WW2 model) aren't really effective anymore. Air power isn't going to win your objective and tanks are more of a liability than a boon. When everything is a bunker, and every enemy troop has an RPG, tanks are just too easy to destroy and disable. They block roads and kill scores of men in one hit. Airpower can't destroy infrastructure to armies that don't really have any to begin with.

I think, eventually, that the new model of war will be augmented human shock troops. Heavily armored and heavily armed, pushing the limits of human durability and firepower. How else can you kill 20 mobile missile toting troops hiding in bunkers and holes? You have to face them man to man and pretty much execute them in a way that leaves no room for doubt that you have killed them. I think with our “War on Terror” warfare will return to a very bloody point blank range affair with superior protection and overwhelming hand held arms being the only way to win. Almost a return to the way warfare was in the feudal world.

The focus of our defense contractors will have to be on augmenting the basic trooper and away from tanks, planes, and ships. Better body armor and maybe even fully encasing body armor. Better and stronger rifles and shotguns (for close quarters fighting.)

Maybe I'm totally off here, but it has been in the back of my mind these last few weeks.

I doubt our military will figure any of this out in the next 20 years. Defense contractors like getting huge grants to make billion dollar planes.

At any rate, Israel had the tools, the army, and the will, but poor planning and poor strategy really hurt them. (in more ways that one.)

If they would have went in with massive amounts of troops and slowly swept up the river and keep their planes on the ground, they would have accomplished more. The rockets fell regardless of their airstrikes. If they hadn't killed so many innocents and destroyed so much than maybe the whole world wouldn't be against them.

This is the same thing that happened in Iraq with the United States, except that Israel can pull out quickly without having to create a new government and we can't.

krptman40k August 13, 2006 - 6:00am

Picatinny Arsenal is working

Picatinny Arsenal is working on the next generation of man-portable weapoons systems:

http://www.pica.army.mil/PicatinnyPublic/warfighter/archive/index.asp

voightkampff August 13, 2006 - 4:10pm

I have every expectation

that our reliance on high technology will lead to the same ringing success it did in Vietnam.

Surely if we simply shovel more money into military technology it will solve the geosocial rage fuelling these disparate movements.

Escher Sketch August 13, 2006 - 4:22pm

I'd disagree with some aspects of this...

and also with some elements of the original entry. I don't think that this was primarily a technological defeat for Israel, and am not sure as well how far it can be generalised. It's unlikely that in many cases armoured forces will be coming into terrain that heavily prepped against their use, and opposing irregular forces with (a) that level of training and (b) that level of local knowledge. Not impossible - but from my point of view, the lesson here is that Hezbollah has been intelligently planning and preparing for this conflict since Israel left Lebanon after the last conflict - and Israel didn't.

ScottM August 13, 2006 - 4:36pm

And if they're smart, the forces in the position...

...of the IDF will be coming into the fight with a strategic objective that isn't so heavily focussed on attriting insurgent forces. To the extent that the IDF is doing poorly strategically, it is in large part because they either can't or won't strike at the Hizbullah strategic centre of gravity (about equal parts of both, I think). Tactically, I don't think this is quite so much a matter of the IDF doing poorly (as most commentators seem implicity to believe, having apparently bought into the IDF myth over the years), as it is a matter of Hizbullah doing superbly at the fight they have chosen - these are tough dedicated fighters and if I had to fight them, my entire focus would be on making them fight a different fight.

From a technological perspective, I agree - I think the counter-armour scenario might end up being quite different against another player. The IDF is a lot less about the audacious armoured thrust than is commonly believed and their training time available makes the requisite integration harder for them to pull off effectively, in cut up terrain and particularly in terrain this extensively prepared.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

JustPlainDave August 13, 2006 - 9:08pm

Disarming Hezbollah

is all well and good, but Hezbollah will still be in Southern Lebanon. That's where they live, whether they're fighting the IDF or not.

The villages close to the Israeli border are full of Hezbollah and their supporters. That won't change.

How comfortable will Israel feel knowing that their undefeated enemy is still in place despite Israel's commitment to destroying it?

Also, would there be a case for some of the Hezbollah militia being absorbed into the Lebanese armed forces?

stonehouse August 13, 2006 - 7:20am

Correct me if I'm wrong

but isn't the fear that the new Middle East won't be dominated by the Sunni ruling class? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, (who arrests the opposition) and Jordan, (ruled by the King) are totalitarian states, mostly non constitutional monarchies.

In contrast Shiite Iran is a theocracy dominated by Mullahs, Syria has retained authoritarian rule, but it reaps its benefits from Shiite Iran

Lebanon was the exception to these two forms of government. Listen to Growing Shiite Power Worries Arab Leaders Nassan Nasrallah, has sought a middle ground: Shiites in co-operation with Sunnis. Lebanon isn't a theocracy, nor is it autocratic.

The peace agreements that were signed with Israel represent the 'Old Middle East'. The Old Middle East is being threatened by Hisrallah's style of government. He provides services and funds social programmes...Wow...what a concept for the Middle East!!! Actual benefits for citizenry? ? ?

I really don't know if Hassan will be allowed to stay alive, but he does hold promise for Arab Middle Easterners -- not the old way, and it won't be the New Middle East President Bush wants. The Middle Eastern solution will be worked out by the Middle East themselves. Iran too could set a standard by throwing off the Mullah's--she does seek to be a leader of the Middle East. Hassan has shown them the way.

If Israel is smart, they'll make peace and not war with their new adversary. His influence has the potential to change the entire structure.

canuck August 13, 2006 - 1:41pm

how long will Lebanon stay

not a theocracy?

One of the worst aspects of the current Anglo-American Middle east adventurism has been the replacement of autocratic or dictatorial but
secular governments by theocratic ones- all in the name of bringing democracy.

The Middle East has become a region opposed to what is then seen as a a failed belief system - the Enlightenment that brought about secularism in the West. Egypt is next in line.

_{"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"}

nymole August 13, 2006 - 2:01pm

The Shia social revolution

Good post, Canuck.

Ahmadinejad is like Nasrallah in actually having a large degree of popular support among lower socio-economic groups and hence a measure of democratic legitimacy.

See also, Moqtada al-Sadr.

What is bubbling up to the surface is not a top-down imposition of theocracy. It's a movement from the base that is thoroughly fed up with the elites for social justice reasons, and this base is also socially conservative in the Islamic tradition (very like a lot of poorer Americans are socially conservative evangelicals).

And, it is absolutely furious at US/UK/Israeli foreign policies.

Bush and Blair are (either stupidly or cynically) lumping this burgeoning mostly Shia revolution in with al-Qaeda style Islamic terrorism, when they are in fact two very different phenomena.

stunster August 13, 2006 - 2:26pm

With the war in Iraq and a Shia majority rule

Shia Revival

there, Nasr argued that the subsequent demand for fair representation in an often Sunni-dominated Muslim world is not a localized phenomenon. However, Nasr cautioned that Shia, as a result of their recent ascendancy, are in grave danger of inciting Sunni extremism.

-----

Iraq is the first elected Shiite government which created fear in Sunni countries. It unleashed vengeful theocratic Shiites like Al-Sadr's militias. There is nothing admirable about Sadr, he's a fanatical Shiite cleric.

I don’t believe Hassan would welcome Sadr's help or his militas. Lebanon is not Iraq.

Iran does pose a danger to the Middle East if they remain a theocracy.

Nymole, your point is well taken...is Hassan capable of remaining a moderate Muslim if Iran continues to be ruled by Mullahs? I don’t know, but is Saudia Arabia, Jordan and Egypt making any attempt toward democracy? I don’t believe they are and are content to rule over their subjects rather than introduce Constitutional changes that would bring freedom to their countries.

The Shiites have been cut from power in the Middle East according to the author of the book and this interview conducted by NPO.

Hizbullah is nothing like the previous Amal Shiites in Lebanon according to the interview.

Palestinian ideology is not welcome in Lebanon because of the friction they cause with Israel. They were initially welcomed by Amal.

Pushes for Shia power with unity with Sunnis with positive Palestinians was Hassan's goal. Hizbullah doesn’t have the same ideology as Palestinians—they are distinct. They know they have to champion Sunni causes because Sunnis are dominant powers and populations. Whether Hassan is wise enough to know he also has to reject extreme religion, I don’t know. Iran was not able to get a foothold in the Arab world with their Shiite style of theological government. Lebanese Hizbullah is a compromise and does provide the model for Iran to be accepted as leaders in the Middle East. Plurality of the religions in Lebanon doesn’t allow them to be as singularly Shiite.

Balancing Shiites with Sunnis is controversial. Seems like Hassan has a new approach? Is it sincere and in the best interests of Lebanon? He does now have very strong support that possibly threatens Sunnis in other Arab countries.

Is also a balance of terror and fear that causes respect for sovereignty among nations needed for countries to survive in the Middle East? Until now Israel was the most feared. Does Lebanon need some too to protect her borders from invasion? How does their gaining it affect other countries in the Middle East? Is it possible for each to respect the other's independence?

canuck August 13, 2006 - 4:51pm

I did not mention Sadr

because I regard him as admirable! Same goes for Ahmadinejad.

I mention them all (those two plus Nasrallah) in the same bracket for the fairly simple reason that their constituencies are similar--historically impoverished but increasingly aspirational, assertive, and self-confident Shia lower classes.

But sure, Nasrallah is light-years more intelligent and skilled than Sadr. Ditto Ahmadinejad. Sadr's strategic error has been to be stridently antipthetic towards Iran. Current events in Lebanon may be inducing him to amend that stance.

However Sadr is altogether too young and too stupid and too thuggish. He will grow older. Perhaps he'll learn. But my guess is that he won't learn well enough, and that he will remain thuggish.

Prior to the recent wars, Iraq and Lebanon were much more alike than you might imagine. Both had significant Christian minorities (obviously more influential in Lebanon's case), as well as large Sunni and Shia populations, with a numerical preponderance of the latter. Both were relatively developed, both had highly educated cosmopolitan elites, both had very westernized, secularized capitals. Both had been through terrible wars (Iran-Iraq 1980-1988, Lebanese Civil 1975-1990 combined with Israeli occupation 1982-2000.)

Iraq today is a product of neocon misjudgement and mismanagement on a colossal scale, and Lebanon likewise though to a lesser extent.

stunster August 13, 2006 - 6:46pm

Sadly most of the Shiites

who have been subjugated, mistreated, in many cases tortured and killed, and isolated from power in the Middle East have turned to violence in reaction.

Stunster, Iraq's present makeup is predominately Shia. Their previous population characteristics are unknown to me.

In Iran's case, the outing of Mossadegh from power and the corrupt Shah who took his place was followed by Khomeini, a Shiite radical.

With such a bitter history between Iran and the West, it is very unlikely relations between them will improve. However, the bright light is that Iran sees herself as being a leader of the Middle East. Hizbullah now has a following that Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan feel is a threat. IF Nassan hasn't accepted Iran's ideology and is a unique leader, there is a possibility, albeit slim, that the theocractic part of Iran's government could be reduced because of Iran's desire to be a force in the Middle East.

Much will depend on the outcome of the Lebanon/Israel war. If Nassan should come to power in Lebanon because of his popularity, and doesn't embrace fundamentalism as their leader...Iran may re-think the advisability of retaining hers.

If Shiites are to be successful in the Middle East, it's compulsory for them to bring stability with them or their movement will stay small among the other predominate Sunni Arab countries.

canuck August 14, 2006 - 2:15am

Thank you Ian

for another excellent post that has drawn a very thoughtful thread. This is just the brain-food I needed to go with my Sunday morning coffee.

scrat August 13, 2006 - 2:10pm

I'd disagree with some of this...

on the military side. I know of no evidence that Merkava's mobility or protection are particularly bad: there seems to be an assumption that because tanks can be killed by hand-held weapons and guided missiles, there's something wrong with them. In fact, such weapons can penetrate tanks over most everything but the frontal arc: the issue is, how do you get back there to use them, during a combined assault? I know of at least three cases where M1A1 Abrams tanks in Iraq were penetrated by RPG-7s: one case led to the loss of the tank, and crew were injured in two cases. Merkava 1s stood up quite well to 125mm anti-tank rounds fired by Syrian T-72s during the first invasion of Lebanon. After that experience, Israel moved to _very_ heavily protected APCs built on tank chassis (Azcharit, Puma and etc) that really have no equivalent anywhere else. If they'd had American Abrams and Bradleys, I think that you'd find the infantry casualties would've been even heavier. The Israeli army carries fairly standard infantry systems: they're not especially lightly equipped.

In general, I think the deciding factor here was intelligent preparation of the battlefield by Hezbollah, and very dedicated tank-hunting teams with really intimate knowledge of the terrain.... plus, certainly, some Israeli mistakes.

ScottM August 13, 2006 - 4:43pm

See Stirling's article,

See Stirling's article, linked at the beginning. The chatter I am hearing is that the Merkava IV's official statistics are brought into heavy doubt by what has happened. The Abrams and the Merkava are rather different tanks with different profiles.

Taking out bunkers requires flamethrowers, grenadiers, a very high volume of covering fire and a willigness to engage in messy hand to hand combat. Israelis don't engage in that type of combat on a regular basis (when was the last time?) They do, however, blow away badly armed rabble on a regular basis.

Ian Welsh August 13, 2006 - 5:43pm

I did read it...

and I think he's wrong. When he says, "...The armor isn't sufficient to stand up to even hand held arms fire, let alone what 120mm anti-tank rounds could do...." he fundamentally misunderstands how tanks are protected. No tank is equally resistant over its whole area: any tank can be penetrated by hand-held weapons, as I noted in another post. An invulnerable tank wouldn't be able to move. And "... The tank is also too heavy - nearly as heavy as the M-1 Abrams...." What, in itself, is wrong with being as heavy as an Abrams?

ScottM August 13, 2006 - 6:05pm

Stirling is well aware of

Stirling is well aware of that. Sure, no tank is equally impervious everywhere, nonetheless the Merkava appears to have more vulnerabilities than it should. Weight matters depending on the power to weight ratio and the gearing of the tank for questions of mobility, and so on.

If you want to discuss it in detail with Sterling then you might wish to comment to his post - he will likely reply. He has the necessary military background to go through the details with you and make the case if he chooses. I have found him to know his stuff in the past, which is why I am willing to use him as a source in this matter.

Bottom line: Hezbollah's doing a damn good job of taking out Israel's main battle tank. If you want to argue that it's a great tank and Stirling is wrong about its weaknesses, that doesn't make it better for Israel - it makes it worse. And it means Hezbollah is doing even better than if the Merkava had significant weaknesses.

Ian Welsh August 13, 2006 - 6:36pm

As to the latter...

I entirely agree: that's why I'd worry about over-emphasising the technical. To my mind, Merkava (actually, I dunno if there would've been Merkava 4s in Lebanon, mostly 2s and 3s) is a modern tank, generally comparable to Western tanks of a similar generation, albeit with some different emphases in the mobility/firepower/protection triad. I'd like to hear about _specific_ weaknesses showing up in Lebanon (and they'd have to be dramatic, to be obvious this fast) before ascribing Israeli problems there to such weaknesses. But you're quite right: that makes it worse for Israel, not better.

To some degree, my impression of this so far is that what Hezbollah did was subject the Israelis to the armoured equivalent of the Karbala battle that beat up on American Apache helicopters in Iraq: prepared, distributed defences in depth, high densities of (often pretty unsophisticated [Sagger/RPG-7/RPG-29]) weapons employed against the Israeli vehicles from all directions, fairly straightforward command and control by people who knew the area. The only way to deal with that is with _lots_ of dismounted infantry around the tanks - and that's not the way the Israeli army works.

ScottM August 13, 2006 - 9:18pm

I agree with Scott and I daresay that any...

...of the guys that I know wearing black berets would, too. As Boyd would doubtless say - "People, ideas, equipment. In that order." This isn't nearly so much about the Merkava as it is about the guys driving it and the guys that are shooting at it. I'd agree with Stirling vis a vis the engine placement (it's an element of common wisdom in a post-Chobham [sp?] world), but this just ain't at the root of it all about the equipment - it's about how it's being used.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

JustPlainDave August 13, 2006 - 9:20pm

tanks

Do we have accurate account for how many Merkavas were destroyed or damaged and by what weapon systems ?

I wager its a bit too early to declare if the Merkava has a design flaw, esp. considering its the fourth or so iteration.

Mad Dog

MadDog August 14, 2006 - 7:49pm

No, AFAIK no such count exists...

they usually take some time to pull together. And frequently it's simply not possible to tell what weapon penetrated a tank, within broad categories.... ie, you can tell a maverick from a 120mm round from an RPG, but try distinguising say Metis-M from Milan.

ScottM August 14, 2006 - 8:58pm

If they control the battlefield at the end of the day...

...they should be able to get somewhere with this even with the guided ATMs. I've seen stills of tanks killed by TOW missiles where the sustainer booster was visible on the ground beside the burnt out hulls. It'll be far from perfect I expect but I'd guess that they'll be highly motivated to establish exactly what weapons killed their tanks and where the systems were sourced - I look forward to many years of indignant agitprop on this one ('course if it was my people getting killed and hurt I'd bitch pretty loud, too).

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

JustPlainDave August 14, 2006 - 9:07pm

Israel admits its war crimes!

Just before the ceasefire took hold, Israeli warplanes also dropped leaflets over Beirut blaming Hizbullah and its Iranian and Syrian "masters" for the destruction in Lebanon.

"With its isolationist, reckless and false policy, Hizbullah has brought you many achievements: destruction, displacement and death," said one leaflet.

"Can you pay this price a second time?

link

In this leaflet, Israel addresses Lebanon's civilian population, falsely ascribes civilian deaths and destruction of Lebanese infrastructure to Hizballah when everyone knows perfectly well they are the result of the IDF's bombing and shelling, and then threatens a repeat performance.

In other words, Israel in effect is saying that it has made Lebanon's civilian population 'pay' a toll of death and destruction and will readily do so again.

The leaflet implicitly admits that Israel is engaged in collective punishment and deliberate targeting of civilian residential areas (not least in south Beirut) and civilian infrastructure.

Of course, the whole war was simply one big war crime on the part of the Israeli government.

And their war crimes continue....

At least one child was killed and 15 people were wounded by ordnance that exploded as they returned to their homes in south Lebanon after 34 days of Israeli airstrikes, security officials said.

Lebanon's interior ministry issued a statement urging civilians to stay away from their homes until army engineers could inspect them for unexploded cluster bombs or artillery. (AP)

(08.14.06, 11:57)

link

stunster August 14, 2006 - 5:17am

Some good opinion pieces

Some good opinion pieces from The Star...the Jordanian one:

Birth pangs or death throes?

The crowds in Beirut last year demanding a Cedar Revolution, “the first shoots of democracy” supposedly planted by the United States, are a distant memory. Yesterday we saw in their place the fury of Details...

Condoleezza Rice: Midwife from Hell

After being one of the most inept national security advisers in the nation’s history, Condoleezza Rice is now earning the same grade as secretary of state. Her description of the conflagration in Details...

The final say

The spreading war in Lebanon has bared the bizarre contradictions and self-destructive nature of US Mideast policy. With one hand, the US sends $30 million of food and blankets to Lebanon for the Details...

War by proxy

A war by proxy in the Middle East is taking place. However, and contrary to their attempts to mislead the Arab World, it is not Hizbullah that is fighting on behalf of Syria and Iran. It is a Details...

Our Say... : The devil’s advocate

It’s been three weeks since the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah on July 12, which led to the Washington-orchestrated Israeli retaliation that caused the destruction of whole Details...

The American mediator is Israeli

Condoleezza Rice returns to the region with “new proposals” to address the crisis, of course without giving priority to a ceasefire. This priority, however, would be the final stage. In other Details...

Middle East Beat

Fuzzy logic When the Bush administration affirms its commitment, to the safety and security of Israel, it means diplomatically that, it supports the actions of the government of Israel. -The Details...

link

And Staying power adds to Hizbullah’s appeal

stunster August 14, 2006 - 7:59am

The Inquest Begins

"As for our obligation to conduct all the required inquiries and investigation, as the defense minister I plan to fulfill my share and definitely appoint a team which will conduct a comprehensive, thorough inquiry into all the events before the war broke out and during the war"

Peretz: We'll conduct inquiry into war

stunster August 14, 2006 - 9:01am

"It's going to take a while; it's important

to get the wording of the findings exactly right before we start."

Escher Sketch August 14, 2006 - 11:14am

exactly

If this were 1700, they'd be saying: "Since civilization began, slavery has existed. It's human nature." I would have believed it. If 1800: "Women will never vote. They are not born rational". I would have believed it.
2006: Make war irrelevant

bernadene August 14, 2006 - 5:16pm

Democracy, Lebanese-style

Here are some comments by non-Hizballah, mostly Christian Lebanese referring to the highly gerrymandered nature of the electoral law under which the last elections were held. This law is a hot-button issue in Lebanese politics because it preserves the factionalism and sectarianism of the civil war era. Despite the promise of the Cedar Revolution, the electoral system is not one that would pass muster in any 'normal' democracy, and progressive elements are calling for a genuine democratic reform of Lebanon's political system....

The Lebanese government is not democratically elected. Siniora is a Prime minister because of his sect. No one elected Siniora. The democratically elected people are positioned in the Parliament, and their opinion is not taken (in any decision) regarding this fiasco.

_________________
that is very realistic.but i would like to add that as siniora or berri are holding their respective positions due to their sects,many parliamentarians are no different.eventhough the parliament is directly elected there is what i would tag "charity representation".each sect whether it deserve more or less has a fix number of seats.no proportionality thanks to sectarianism.
______

I agree mehdi_soldier, but the actual executive government is not democratically elected ( Bush yesterday was screaming to the American people that the Lebanese government is democratically elected and Hezbollah is an outlaw terrorist organization that is not part of the Lebanese democracy). As a matter of fact if someone is elected in here it is Hezbollah and not Siniora. The US has forced Lebanon and the Lebanese people to run an elections campaign under a highly disputable electoral law, and the US is defending those that they pushed for the elections of under an illegitimate electoral law. They call that entity a democratically elected government when it is not the case.

Democratically the Lebanese people wish to have elections under an electoral law that the Lebanese people agree with, and not a law that the US agrees with.
__________________

well thats correct.but thats not news anymore.to bush,democracy is what he agrees with.hamas was voted for but what happened to their "democrats"?they were jailed by the "only democratic "state" in the middle east"!
__________________

stunster August 15, 2006 - 9:46am

Desert of trapped corpses testifies to Israel's failure

Robert Fisk:

Desert of trapped corpses testifies to Israel's failure

Published: 15 August 2006 Independent

They made a desert and called it peace. Srifa - or what was once the village of
Srifa - is a place of pancaked homes, blasted walls, rubble, starving cats and
trapped corpses. But it is also a place of victory for the Hizbollah, whose
fighters walked amid the destruction yesterday with the air of conquering
heroes. So who is to blame for this desert? The Shia militia which provoked this
war - or the Israeli air force and army which has laid waste to southern Lebanon
and killed so many of its people?

There was no doubt what the village mukhtar thought. As three Hizbollah men -
one wounded in the arm, the other carrying two ammunition clips and a two-way
radio - passed us amid the piles of broken concrete, Hussein Kamel el-Din yelled
to them: "Hallo, heroes!" Then he turned to me. "You know why they are angry?
Because God didn't give them the opportunity of dying."

You have to be down here with the Hizbollah amid this terrifying destruction -
way south of the Litani river, in the territory from which Israel once vowed to
expel them - to realise the nature of the past month of war and of its enormous
political significance to the Middle East. Israel's mighty army has already
retreated from the neighbouring village of Ghandoutiya after losing 40 men in
just over 36 hours of fighting. It has not even managed to penetrate the smashed
town of Khiam where the Hizbollah were celebrating yesterday afternoon. In
Srifa, I stood with Hizbollah men looking at the empty roads to the south and
could see all the way to Israel and the settlement of Mizgav Am on the other
side of the frontier. This is not the way the war was supposed to have ended for
Israel.

Far from humiliating Iran and Syria - which was the Israeli-American plan -
these two supposedly pariah states have been left untouched and the Hizbollah's
reputation lionised across the Arab world. The "opportunity" which President
George Bush and his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, apparently saw in the
Lebanon war has turned out to be an opportunity for America's enemies to show
the weakness of Israel's army. Indeed, last night, scarcely any Israeli armour
was to be seen inside Lebanon - just one solitary tank could be glimpsed outside
Bint Jbeil and the Israelis had retreated even from the "safe" Christian town of
Marjayoun. It is now clear that the 30,000-strong Israeli army reported to be
racing north to the Litani river never existed. In fact, it is unlikely that
there were yesterday more than 1,000 Israeli soldiers left in all of southern
Lebanon, although they did become involved in two fire-fights during the
morning, hours after the UN-ceasefire went into effect.

Down the coast road from Beirut, meanwhile, came a massive exodus of tens of
thousands of Shia families, bedding piled on the roofs of their cars , many of
them sporting Hizbollah flags and pictures of Sayed Hassan Nasrallah,
Hizbollah's chairman, on their windscreens. At the massive traffic jams around
the broken motorway bridges and craters which litter the landscape, the
Hizbollah was even handing out yellow and green "victory" flags, along with
official notices urging parents not to allow children to play with the thousands
of unexploded bombs that now lie across the landscape. At least one Lebanese
child was killed by unexploded ordnance and another 15 were wounded yesterday.

But to what are these people returning? Haj Ali Dakroub, a 42-year old
construction manager, lost part of his home in Israel's 1996 bombardment of
Srifa. Now his entire house has been flattened. "What is here that Israel should
destroy all this?" he asked. "We don't deny that the resistance was in Srifa. It
was here before and it will be here in the future. But in this house lived only
my family. So why would Israel bomb it?"

Well, I did happen to notice what appeared to be the casing of a missile hanging
from the balcony of a much-damaged house facing the rubble of Ali Dakroub's
home. And a group of Hizbollah militiamen, one of them with a pistol tucked into
his trousers, walked past us nonchalantly and disappeared into an orchard. Was
this, perhaps, where they kept some of their rockets?

Mr Dakroub wasn't saying. "I am going to rebuild my home with my two sons," he
insisted. "Israel may come back in 10 years and destroy it all over again and
then I'll just rebuild it all over again. This was a Hizbollah victory. The
Israelis were able to defeat all the Arab countries in six days in 1967 but here
they could not defeat the resistance in a month. These resistance men would come
out of the ground and shoot back. They are still here."

"Come out of the ground" is an expression I have heard several times these past
four weeks and I am beginning to suspect that many of the thousands of
guerrillas did indeed shelter in caves and basements and tunnels, only to emerge
to fire their missiles or to use their infra-red rockets on the Israeli army
once it made the mistake of sending troops into Lebanon on the ground. And does
anyone believe that the Hizbollah will submit to their own disarmament by a new
international force of UN and Lebanese troops once - if - it arrives? There was
a symbolic moment yesterday when Lebanese soldiers already based in southern
Lebanon joined Hizbollah men in Srifa to clear the rubble of a house in which
the bodies of an entire family were believed buried. Lebanese Red Cross and
civil defence personnel - representatives of the civil power which is supposed
to claw back its sovereignty from the Hizbollah - joined in the search. The
mukhtar, who so blatantly regarded the Hizbollah as heroes, is also a government
representative. And at the entrance to this shattered village still stands a
poster of Nasrallah and the Iranian President Ali Khamenei.

Far from driving the Hizbollah north across the Litani river, Israel has
entrenched them in their Lebanese villages as never before.

link

Check out The Independent's front page.

stunster August 15, 2006 - 9:55am

20 Questions

The Failures / Twenty questions

By Aluf Benn

1. How and why did Prime Minister Ehud Olmert decide to go to war in response to the Hezbollah attack and the abduction of two soldiers on July 12th? Who participated in the decision-making and which criteria were taken into account?

2. Did anyone consider the possibility of holding negotiations with Hezbollah over a prisoner exchange? Was the assessment that the IDF operation would pressure Hezbollah to release the abducted soldiers, with nothing in return?

3. Why wasn't the event where Hassan Nasrallah spoke bombed the same day? Was the possibility considered?

4. Why was the Vice Premier mocked at the cabinet meeting when he asked about the stages following the military operation?

5. Did Chief of Staff Dan Halutz give political leaders the impression that an air offensive would suffice to achieve the goals of the war (releasing the prisoners, deploying Lebanese forces in the south and disarming Hezbollah)?

6. What did Olmert and Amir Peretz know about the levels of IDF preparedness for a confrontation with Hezbollah before they decided on war? Were they warned of the shortcomings of the army and the home front?

7. Why was the state of alert lifted at the Northern Command on the eve of the Hezbollah attack? What was wrong with the way in which the force reacted to an attack by Hezbollah on July 12th?

8. Why did intelligence fail to locate the hide-out of Hezbollah's leadership?

9. Why was the IDF surprised by Hezbollah's anti-ship cruise missiles? And why were the defense systems of its advanced warship turned off during a mission off the Lebanese coast?

10. What intelligence was there on Hezbollah's advanced anti-tank missiles and were tactics developed to counter them?

11. What intelligence was there on the Hezbollah order of battle and was this passed on to the Northern Command?

12. Was the air force ordered to target homes near rocket-launching sites and, as a result, struck civilians in Qana on July 30th?

13. Were restrictions lifted on air force targetting, and did this cause further civilian casualties?

14. How was Israel dragged into a halting ground offensive in Lebanon, who ordered it and what were political leadership's aims and considerations?

15. Why was Bint Jbail targeted? Was it a PR exercise? What did we know about Hezbollah forces there?

16. Prior to the decision to go to war, did anyone raise the possibility that Hezbollah would be able to fire 100-200 rockets on a daily basis into the North, for a month?

17. Who was responsible for taking care of the population in the North prior to and during the war? Why was no orderly evacuation prepared?

18. How were reservist units deployed with insufficient logistical support?

19. What did the Prime Minister mean in his speech on August 1st that the achievements in the war were "unprecedented"?

20. Why did Olmert and Peretz decide to expand the ground offensive on Friday - a decision that cost the lives of many and damaged Israel's image abroad - just as the Security Council approved the cease-fire resolution?

link

stunster August 15, 2006 - 8:40pm

Truth about casualties a casualty

At least 809 - including 707 civilians, 34 Lebanese soldiers and 68 Hezbollah operatives - were confirmed dead by Lebanese police, security officials, civil defense and hospital authorities although others gave conflicting figures.

The Lebanese government's Higher Relief Council said 1,110 Lebanese had been killed in the conflict. Israeli security officials said they had confirmed the deaths of 165 Hezbollah fighters and estimated that about 400 others had been killed. (AP)

(08.16.06, 00:13)

link

Israel killed senior Hizbullah man before truce - army

Israeli troops killed a senior Hizbullah commander just hours before a ceasefire took effect this week between Israel and the Lebanese guerrilla group, the Israeli army said on Wednesday.

Soldiers killed Sajed Dewayer, head of Hizbollah's special forces, early on Monday, an army spokesman said, but declined to give further details or say why the military had delayed releasing the information. (Reuters)

(08.16.06, 00:58)

link

01:38 Hezbollah official denies claim IDF killed group commander before cease-fire (AP)

Last update - 01:41 16/08/2006

IDF: Troops killed top Hezbollah man minutes before cease-fire

By Gideon Alon, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz Service and The Associated Press

Israel Defense Forces troops killed a senior Hezbollah leader just before the UN cease-fire took effect, the army said Wednesday.

GOC Northern Command Udi Adam said IDF forces killed the head of Hezbollah's special forces, identified as Sajed Dawayer, during clashes in Bint Jbail. There was no immediate confirmation from Lebanon.

The IDF said Dawayer was killed moments before the cease fire went into effect at 8 A.M. Monday morning. Both sides continued attacks right up until the last minute.

A Hezbollah official in the southern Lebanese port city of Sidon dismissed the IDF report as "baseless," saying he had not heard of a Hezbollah military leader named Sajed Dawayer. Speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press, he said Hezbollah might issue a denial of the Israeli report later Wednesday.

During the fighting Israel Air Force planes bombed southern Beirut dozens of times, attempting to hit Hezbollah leaders.

Earlier Tuesday, a senior Hezbollah official said that no member of Hezbollah's top leadership was killed in Israeli attacks against Lebanon during the war.

"Thank God, no one in a leadership position has been martyred ... even though we hope to be martyrs one day," said Sheik Naim Kassem, Hezbollah's deputy leader.

Kassem spoke in an interview with Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV station, his first appearance since the start of the Israel-Hezbollah war on July 12.

Israel said its forces have killed hundreds of Hezbollah guerrillas, but the group said about 70 members were killed.

Kassem said Hezbollah scored a "strategic victory" against Israel in the war.

link

What does appear to be one truth about casualties is that Hizballah killed about four times as many Israeli soldiers as it killed civilians. Whereas, even by Israeli estimates, at least about twice as many Lebanese civilians were killed as were Hizballah operatives.

stunster August 15, 2006 - 9:00pm

Hezbollah Leads Work to Rebuild, Gaining Stature

Hezbollah Leads Work to Rebuild, Gaining Stature
By JOHN KIFNER
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Aug. 15 — As stunned Lebanese returned Tuesday over broken roads to shattered apartments in the south, it increasingly seemed that the beneficiary of the destruction was most likely to be Hezbollah.

A major reason — in addition to its hard-won reputation as the only Arab force that fought Israel to a standstill — is that it is already dominating the efforts to rebuild with a torrent of money from oil-rich Iran.

Nehme Y. Tohme, a member of Parliament from the anti-Syrian reform bloc and the country’s minister for the displaced, said he had been told by Hezbollah officials that when the shooting stopped, Iran would provide Hezbollah with an “unlimited budget” for reconstruction.

In his victory speech on Monday night, Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, offered money for “decent and suitable furniture” and a year’s rent on a house to any Lebanese who lost his home in the month-long war.

“Completing the victory,” he said, “can come with reconstruction.”

On Tuesday, Israel began to pull many of its reserve troops out of southern Lebanon, and its military chief of staff said all of the soldiers could be back across the border within 10 days. Lebanese soldiers are expected to begin moving in a couple of days, supported by the first of 15,000 foreign troops. [Page A8.]

While the Israelis began their withdrawal, hundreds of Hezbollah members spread over dozens of villages across southern Lebanon began cleaning, organizing and surveying damage. Men on bulldozers were busy cutting lanes through giant piles of rubble. Roads blocked with the remnants of buildings are now, just a day after a cease-fire began, fully passable.

In Sreifa, a Hezbollah official said the group would offer an initial $10,000 to residents to help pay for the year of rent, to buy new furniture and to help feed families.

In Taibe, a town of fighting so heavy that large chunks were missing from walls and buildings where they had been sprayed with bullets, the Audi family stood with two Hezbollah volunteers, looking woefully at their windowless, bullet- and shrapnel-torn house.

In Bint Jbail, Hezbollah ambulances — large, new cars with flashing lights on the top — ferried bodies of fighters to graves out of mountains of rubble.

Hezbollah’s reputation as an efficient grass-roots social service network — as opposed to the Lebanese government, regarded by many here as sleek men in suits doing well — was in evidence everywhere. Young men with walkie-talkies and clipboards were in the battered Shiite neighborhoods on the southern edge of Bint Jbail, taking notes on the extent of the damage.

“Hezbollah’s strength,” said Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a professor at the Lebanese American University here, who has written extensively about the organization, in large part derives from “the gross vacuum left by the state.”

Hezbollah was not, she said, a state within a state, but rather “a state within a nonstate, actually.”

Sheik Nasrallah said in his speech that “the brothers in the towns and villages will turn to those whose homes are badly damaged and help rebuild them.

“Today is the day to keep up our promises,” he said. “All our brothers will be in your service starting tomorrow.”

Some southern towns were so damaged that on Tuesday residents had not yet begun to return. A fighter for the Amal movement, another Shiite militia group, said he had been told that Hezbollah members would begin to catalog damages in his town, Kafr Kila, on the Israeli border.

Hezbollah men also traveled door to door checking on residents and asking them what help they needed.

Although Hezbollah is a Shiite organization, Sheik Nasrallah’s message resounded even with a Sunni Muslim, Ghaleb Jazi, 40, who works at the oil storage plant at Jiyeh, 15 miles south of Beirut. It was bombed by the Israelis and spewed pollution northward into the Mediterranean.

“The government may do some work on bridges and roads, but when it comes to rebuilding houses, Hezbollah will have a big role to play,” he said. “Nasrallah said yesterday he would rebuild, and he will come through.”

Sheik Nasrallah’s speech was interpreted by some as a kind of watershed in Lebanese politics, establishing his group on an equal footing with the official government.

“It was a coup d’état,” said Jad al-Akjaoui, a political analyst aligned with the democratic reform bloc. He was among the organizers of the anti-Syrian demonstrations after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri two years ago that led to international pressure to rid Lebanon of 15 years of Syrian control.

Rami G. Khouri, a columnist for The Daily Star in Beirut, wrote that Sheik Nasrallah “seemed to take on the veneer of a national leader rather than the head of one group in Lebanon’s rich mosaic of political parties.”

“In tone and content, his remarks seemed more like those of a president or a prime minister should be making while addressing the nation after a terrible month of destruction and human suffering,” Mr. Khouri wrote. “His prominence is one of the important political repercussions of this war.”

Defense Minister Elias Murr said Tuesday that the government would not seek to disarm Hezbollah.

“The army is not going to the south to strip the Hezbollah of its weapons and do the work that Israel did not,” he said, showing just how difficult reining in the militia will most likely be in the coming weeks and months. He added that “the resistance,” meaning Hezbollah, had been cooperating with the government and there was no need to confront it.

Sheik Nasrallah sounded much like a governor responding to a disaster when he said, “So far, the initial count available to us on completely demolished houses exceeds 15,000 residential units.

“We cannot of course wait for the government and its heavy vehicles and machinery because they could be a while,” he said. He also cautioned, “No one should raise prices due to a surge in demand.”

Support for Hezbollah was likely to become stronger, Professor Saad-Ghorayeb said, because of the weakness of the central government.

“Hezbollah has two pillars of support,” she said, “the resistance and the social services. What this war has illustrated is that it is best at both.

Referring to Shiek Nasrallah, she said: “He tells the people, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to protect you. And we’re going to reconstruct. This has happened before. We will deliver.’ ”

Hassan M. Fattah contributed reporting from Sreifa, Lebanon, for this article, Sabrina Tavernise from Taibe and Robert F. Worth from Jiyeh.

link

stunster August 16, 2006 - 12:26am

Lebanese Dig for the War’s Victims in the Rubble of Many Towns

As Cease-Fire Holds, Lebanese Dig for the War’s Victims in the Rubble of Many Towns
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
SREIFA, Lebanon, Aug. 15 — The reality of the war came out of the rubble in bits and pieces on Tuesday — an army boot in one town, a gold wedding ring in another, a pair of jeans elsewhere — all the pieces of lives lost in the destruction wrought by the monthlong conflict that came to a halt on Monday in a tenuous cease-fire.

On Tuesday, secrets buried in southern Lebanon’s ruins began to emerge as Lebanese Red Cross workers, health workers and Hezbollah members set upon the heaps of stone and concrete in towns along the Israeli border, digging out bodies of men, women and children trapped there for weeks. The work will last for weeks in towns with names that have become synonymous with tragedy.

In Ainata, about three miles from the Israeli border, Red Cross workers pulled out eight decomposed bodies buried in a home that was bombed 10 days after the war began. In Bint Jbail, a few miles away, rescue workers tried to dig out at least four bodies from a house near the old market and, in Ait al Shaab, Hezbollah members reportedly removed the bodies of five of their fighters from the debris.

They were just a small portion of the estimated hundreds of bodies thought to have been lying in the wreckage, but the act of digging promised some closure for a country struggling to rebuild. Bodies wrapped in clear plastic tarpaulins were carted away in ambulances with the horns blaring, most of them ending up in the central morgue in Tyre, where the piles of dead have continued to grow.

Late Tuesday, Lebanese Army soldiers removed 31 bodies from a refrigerator truck near the morgue and buried them in a temporary mass grave adjacent to two other mass graves that were set up weeks earlier.

In Ainata, Abbas Khanafer trembled as rescue workers began digging out at least 16 people buried in a house near the town center, including 7 members of his own family who had taken shelter there. In half a day of digging, eight bodies, some of them in pieces, emerged. Among them were the remains of an elderly woman and a younger one, and workers removed a gold wedding band and jewelry in hopes of identifying them. But as Mr. Khanafer examined the bodies, he could find nothing he recognized.

Mr. Khanafer lost three other relatives in the town of Marun al Ras in another bombing, as well as his elder sister, who he said was shot by Israeli troops in their parents’ home in Ainata when Israeli troops clashed with Hezbollah fighters in the vicinity.

“I did everything they told us to do, I tried to do it all right,” Mr. Khanafer said, referring to Israeli warnings to civilians to evacuate southern Lebanon. He asked a friend what he should do to have his relatives buried in a temporary grave. “Now, everything I have left is in Sidon,” he said.

Mr. Khanafer had fled north to Sidon with his elderly parents, his wife and children and a niece four days after the bombing in Ainata, and two weeks ago returned in hopes of digging up the bodies of his relatives when Israel called a 48-hour suspension of airstrikes. But there was not enough time to retrieve them.

On Tuesday, he came back to Ainata to try again. As the Red Cross workers continued digging, he drove with Hezbollah officials with an ambulance in tow to his parents’ home overlooking the Israeli border, where his sister’s body lay. The stench permeated the house and the floor crawled with maggots, as her body was wrapped in a plastic tarpaulin to be transported to a hospital in the nearby village of Tibnin.

Nowhere was the scene as stark as in Sreifa, where workmen picked through fields of rubble were the Hay el-Birki neighborhood once stood. Up to 18 buildings were pulverized when Israeli warplanes struck the neighborhood on July 19, killing dozens, said Hussein Kamaleldin, a local official.

Just days ago, Israeli warplanes pounded the town again as Hezbollah fighters moved into the area to face off with Israeli troops who landed in the hills nearby. Fierce fighting and bombing continued even into early Monday morning, until the United Nations cease-fire took hold at 8 a.m., residents said.

Muhammad Jaber looked on quietly as a crowd of men gathered around an excavator reaching deep into the rubble of what was once a three-story building here in Sreifa on Tuesday, wondering what he might have done differently to induce his son to leave.

“I told him to come with me, but he wouldn’t,” Mr. Jaber said, speaking of his 27-year-old son Bilal. He said he had a hunch why his son wouldn’t leave, but he refused to elaborate.

“He said he wanted to stay with his friends,” Mr. Jaber said. “I called him after we left, but he said he just wouldn’t leave.”

Within minutes, several men dove into an opening in the rubble and pulled out an army boot, then a walkie-talkie, a bulletproof vest and a machine gun. They belonged to one of Bilal’s friends. The jovial workmen went silent as Hezbollah security men told photographers to stop taking pictures, and Mr. Jaber’s hunch was confirmed: his son was one of the militia fighters.

Mr. Kamaleldin, the Sreifa official, estimated that up to two-thirds of the town’s homes and buildings were demolished, leaving more than 43 people buried in the rubble. A majority of them were fighters belonging to Hezbollah and the allied Amal Party, residents said.

“This will now be a place of tragedy and sorrow,” said Hussein Nazzal, who survived unscathed in his house, while all the buildings behind his house were destroyed. “Who could possibly deserve to die a death like this?”

Hours later, Mr. Jaber sat with his wife on the family porch grieving for his dead son, who was married with three children.

“I have seen all the wars and survived them, and three of my boys battled the Israelis in 1996,” he said. “I was lucky then, because they all came home. But this time, it seems, God decided to take one away.”

link

stunster August 16, 2006 - 12:39am

'Disarming' Hizballah

Lebanese Defence Minister Elias Murr said the Lebanese army would not disarm Hezbollah, but he expects the Shia militia to leave south Lebanon once troops are deployed there after the Israeli pullout.
"The army won't be deployed to south Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, something Israel wasn't able to do itself," the minister said on television.
"I assure you the (Hezbollah) resistance will provide maximum co-operation, and once the army is deployed there won't be any weapons or armed presence in the area except for the army and the UN forces."
UN Security Council resolution 1701 calls for Hezbollah to disarm. But Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has vowed that his fighters would not be forced to disarm by "intimidation or pressure".
Mr Murr said the question of disarming Hezbollah was an issue to be decided by Lebanon's National Dialogue Conference, which unites the nation's 14 major communities.
The conference, which began meeting in March, was due to address the question of Hezbollah's disarmament last month, but the talks were postponed due to the fighting that followed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
AP, AFP, Reuters

stunster August 16, 2006 - 1:04am

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

Israeli/Hezbollah Pre Post Mortem

Comment viewing options