Lebanon: Rules of Engagement

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What do you think is the appropriate level of severity that should stand as the "rules of engagement" under which the IDF should prosecute the current conflict in Lebanon? [poll attached soon]

1. Israel should eradicate all opposition South of a line running from Saida to Damascus, using any conventional means and using tactical nuclear weapons if needed to remove Hiz’bollah strong points. All current residents should be forcibly deported North of this line so as to create a completely depopulated security zone.

2. Israel should eradicate all opposition South of a line running from Saida to Damascus, using any conventional means. All current residents should be forcibly deported North of this line so as to create a completely depopulated security zone.

3. Israel should defeat or force the evacuation of any Hiz’bollah forces South of a line running from Saida to Damascus, using any conventional means. Israel should establish a security zone in the conquered region, allowing for limited Lebanese sovereignty but leaving the area under IDF control.

4. Israel should defeat or force the evacuation of any Hiz’bollah forces South of a line running from Saida to Damascus, but should continue making efforts to warn off the Lebanese population and minimize non-combatant casualties in the current fashion.

5. Israel should defeat or force the evacuation of any Hiz’bollah forces South of a line running from Saida to Damascus, but should continue making efforts to warn off the Lebanese population and minimize non-combatant casualties. These efforts should be stepped up, and a greater degree of self-restraint in bombardment imposed.

6. Israel should defeat or force the evacuation of any Hiz’bollah forces South of a line running from Saida to Damascus, but should step up efforts to warn off the Lebanese population and minimize non-combatant casualties. Any target that cannot be conclusively identified as Hiz’bollah should not be attacked.

7. Israel should withdraw from Lebanese territory and restrict itself to counter-bombardments in direct response to a Hiz’bollah strike. To prevent Lebanese casualties, any target that cannot be conclusively identified as Hiz’bollah should not be attacked.

8. Israel should immediately withdraw any forces from Lebanon and avoid any bombardment of Lebanese territory. In future it should restrict military action to direct defense of its Northern border from Hiz’bollah incursion. No targets are to be engaged unless positively identified as an active enemy.

9. None of the above reflect my view of the situation – as usual – and I have a better view of the situation – as usual [attach comments].

10. Gah. I might be smart enough to have a considered opinion on the issue, but prefer to answer “gah” to fulfill some smug need to feel better – at least in my own eyes – than others who actually answer the poll.

[Don Corleone]

I think option 7 is the closest to where my views lie. Israel isn't doing itself any favors by responding too harshly. By the same token, laying there and allowing Hezbollah to shell it and kidnap it's citizens is going to invite even more attacks. You'd see Jewish teenagers being beheaded on a videotape, which I imagine would have been about 4-6 weeks off had Israel done nothing.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself why did Hezbollah go to such great lengths to provoke this response. Well,

1) Iran doesn't want anybody giving any business about their nuclear weapons program. Between this and Russia & China's cover at the security council, mission accomplished.

2) Syria wanted to get back into Lebanon every since April 26, 2005 when they officially left (though I doubt all their intelligence & special-ops folks did). Again, mission accomplished.

Bush really screwed the pooch on this one. Iran is rather untouchable, as nobody would have been happy with us messing with the world's oil supply. Syria, which has no oil, is another matter entirely. We should have bombed Damascus weeks ago, and continued to every day until they called Hezbollah off.

[Geoffrey S]

I'm tempted by six. I don't like it much, but Israel should inflict more damage directly on Hezbollah before pulling out if it wants to prevent a very dangerous situation; namely, that Hezbollah gains more credit than either the Israelis or the Lebanese government in the eyes of the people of Lebanon and the further world.

I'm against extensive airstrikes and believe Hezbollah can only truly be damaged, both militarily and politically, by ground strikes. These airstrikes are unacceptable in terms of civilian casualties and in terms of the propaganda benefit to Hezbollah. Israel must face the casualties such ground strikes would entail, because the current methods will lose them much support, quickly.

More effort should be made to involve the Lebanese government in combatting Hezbollah, possibly with the help of the UN. Again, these airstrikes do Israel no favours in pursuing such a goal. In the end a stable, strong democratic Lebanese government is beneficial to Israel, the people of Lebanon, and long-term to the Middle East.

Absolutely every effort must be made to protect civilians. They are the future of Lebanon, and could be a future friendly neighbour or an enemy.

[Tribesman]

What do you think is the appropriate level of severity that should stand as the "rules of engagement" under which the IDF should prosecute the current conflict in Lebanon?
They should stick to their own 11 point doctrine , especially points 1&2 .
Which pretty much corresponds with your option #7

[Duke John]

9. Israel should not bombard the country. They are looking for small groups hiding in civilian houses. They should use their ground forces more directly as opposed to pressing buttons from a distance. If they want to clear an entire area, then they should set up refugee camps for the civilians. They should put more effort into showing that they are after the ones who are firing rockets and that civilians can return to their normal life once that threat has been removed. Of course everything with as much cooperation with the Lebonese government as possible.

[Don Corleone]

Every time Israel crosses the Lebanese border, they are feeding the propaganda machine throughout the Middle East. The moment they set one foot over the border, they become aggressors and invaders. Aside from which, the first people OUT of the settlement when the Israelis come across the border would be the local Hezbollah. All that would be left would be innocent civilians. What earthly purpose can incursions serve other than making the IDF look as though it wants to steal Lebanese territory?

[Duke John]

All that would be left would be innocent civilians.
Isn't that what Israel desires? A border inhabited by innocent civilians?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I tend to agree with Tribesman and Don. (How many times do you see that sentence? :grin:)

Except that I would go a little further, and have them restrict activities to defence - whilst helping build up the Lebanese army and security forces, on the basis of a signed peace treaty. Israeli intelligence activities along with Lebanese security forces should be able to root out most military Hezbollah activity before it got to the rocketing stage.

Make Lebanon into an ally, rather than a victim. It was happening, step-by-step. Sadly, now that's another generation of hatred and mistrust created amongst the dust and bodies.

Oh and Israel should pay entirely out of its own pocket for the damage and reconstruction. Maybe by rebuilding Lebanon they might convince some of the Lebanese that they had a future as allies.

[Don Corleone]

Isn't that what Israel desires? A border inhabited by innocent civilians? But it will only remain that way as long as the IDF are in southern Lebanon (and being taken to task by the rest of the world). The moment they leave, Hezbollah will come back and start another round of rocket attacks & kidnapping. It would be like the police announcing 24 hours in advance that they intend to raid a crack den. Who do you think they're going to find there? What do you think will happen once the police leave again?

[Idaho]

The poll and thread options don't match...

Er.. I think the score so far is:

Israel soldiers dead 33
Israel civillians dead 12
Israel injured 40

Hezbollah dead 38
Lebanon soldiers dead 12
Lebanese civillians dead 515
Lebanese injured 1600

I think the rules should be based around a certain degree of parity in the casuality figures.

[Xiahou]

I think the rules should be based around a certain degree of parity in the casuality figures.
That doesnt seem like a very sensible way to prosecute a war- you dont win with parity.


I think Israel (if they want to come out ahead) needs to continue killing as many Hezbollah as they can until the international community can get together a proper force to occupy southern Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah. It's too bad that it takes another Israeli invasion before (maybe) the UN is willing to enforce it's own resolution and disarm Hezbollah.

OTOH, if it just results in an Israeli cease fire, (Hezbollah will never "cease" fire) it will be a disaster for the Israelis. Hezbollah will be quickly resupplied by Syria/Iran and be back to its original strength with the only difference being even more negative opinion against Israel for invading.

[Don Corleone]

The poll and thread options don't match...

Er.. I think the score so far is:

Israel soldiers dead 33
Israel civillians dead 12
Israel injured 40

Hezbollah dead 38
Lebanon soldiers dead 12
Lebanese civillians dead 515
Lebanese injured 1600

I think the rules should be based around a certain degree of parity in the casuality figures.

So the rules of war demand that both sides take equal casualties? Sounds like carte blance for larger countries to outright attack smaller ones. Attack a neighbor, inflict and take equal casualties, call for a cease fire, rinse, repeat. If we tried this approach with Canada and attacked them 3 times a year, we could have them exterminated by the end of the decade, as we outnumber them roughly 24:1. If we demand that equal numbers of Canadians die every time they defend themselves against one of our attacks, we can't lose.

Don't you think at some point whoever starts the current round of aggression bears an unequal share of that aggression?

[Duke John]

Don't you think at some point whoever starts the current round of aggression bears an unequal share of that aggression?
So in your eyes, the Lebanon civilians started the agression? They are after all suffering the most. 38 Hezbollah dead of how many total warriors? With that rate it will take months and by that time the entire area is bombed to dust.

Edit: of course you don't, but it should be clear that the Lebanese civilians or Lebanon at large is not the target of the IDF. And because of that the Hezbollah should be taken care off like criminals. You don't bomb a house if you know the location of a serial killer. Yet that method Israel is using.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think Israel (if they want to come out ahead) needs to continue killing as many Hezbollah as they can until the international community can get together a proper force to occupy southern Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah. It's too bad that it takes another Israeli invasion before (maybe) the UN is willing to enforce it's own resolution and disarm Hezbollah.

There's no way that an international force will go in to enforce a disarming of Hezbollah. No-one is that crazy - it would be a recipe for yet more body bags coming back from the Middle East. The international force suggested is to try and keep an agreed peace and enough distance apart for the combatants to stop shelling each other. I don't have much confidence that anyone will agree to it, especially since the last attempt has been such a spectacular success.


OTOH, if it just results in an Israeli cease fire, (Hezbollah will never "cease" fire) it will be a disaster for the Israelis. Hezbollah will be quickly resupplied by Syria/Iran and be back to its original strength with the only difference being even more negative opinion against Israel for invading.

That's exactly what is going to happen. PM Olmert has no exit strategy other than running back home, as they've tried occupation previously and it didn't work. Heck, in 1982 Sharon even occupied Beirut - and through the murderous actions of his allies, created Hezbollah as we now know it.

One day, politicians are going to realise these problems will never be solved by military force, only compounded.

[Somebody Else]

One day, politicians are going to realise these problems will never be solved by military force, only compounded.

Peace in our time (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob66.html) hmm?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Peace in our time (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob66.html) hmm?

*Sigh*

[Don Corleone]

Duke John, If you'll read my comments in this thread and elsewhere, 1) I agree that Israel's reaction is excessive and 2) of course I don't think the Lebanese civilians deserve what's happening to them.

There were civilians in Berlin, Hamburg, Nuremburg and every other major city we bombed (Dresden is a touchy subject so I'm purposely excluding it). Does that mean we were wrong to fight the Nazis?

I agree, it is clear that Israel is not doing a very job at avoiding civilian casualties. But your suggestion, that Israel just roll over the border and occupy southern Lebanese villages every time they get shelled is a forumula for disaster. For one thing, if they don't fire on their way in, they're going to take heavy losses. If they do, civilians will die. What's more, either way, the Arab world is going to get enraged every time they step over the border.

Better selection of target, and taking action to force Syria's hand to exert influence to stop Hezbollah, this is the only way to end this.

[Don Corleone]

One day, politicians are going to realise these problems will never be solved by military force, only compounded.

Israel's only course of action is to remain within it's own boundaries. This, I agree with you. But you're talking about Hezbollah as though they hoped to achieve something and they would stop the moment they got it. I disagree. If Israel hadn't responded, Hezbollah would have ratcheted up the frequency and the tone of the attacks. You would see Suzie Cohen, 15 year old Haifa discotech abductee beheaded on Al Jazeera, by my estimation, maybe 4 weeks time. They wanted Israel to fire into Lebanon, and would have done anything to get that response.

The answer is not 'just ignore them and they'll go away'. The answer would have been: 1) force Syria to stop driving & arming Hezbollah in their current campaign and 2) reward Lebanon heavily for taking steps to neutralize Hezbollah, isolate them and withold aid if they refuse. Unfortunately, the US and the EU told Israel to pound sand, so they took matters into their own hands.

If you want to know why Hezbollah started all this, look no further than here: What haven't we been paying attention to these past few weeks? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206555,00.html) Personally, I have to give Iran a lot of credit. They've played this like pro's. They're betting that the Security Council will never do anything to actually force them to stop weapons development, and I'd say that's a pretty safe bet. The one lever the Security Council was willing to use, public opinion, has been eliminated by the current Hezbollah-Israel conflict. Say what you want about President Ahmadinejad being a madman... in my book he's crazy like a fox. Why don't we just save ourselves all a lot of trouble and authorize Russia to sell him some nuclear weapons. The Russians want him armed, they need the cash, he wants the weapons, and at the end of the day, nobody has the cojones to force the Iranians to stop anyway. This way, at least we can point the finger at Russia after Iran uses one.

[Duke John]

There were civilians in Berlin, Hamburg, Nuremburg and every other major city we bombed (Dresden is a touchy subject so I'm purposely excluding it). Does that mean we were wrong to fight the Nazis?
Those bombings were terrible and not something I could make a decision over. But there is difference; Germany as a nation was at war, fighting with it's army. And top of that it was carrying out genocide.

Hezbollah is not the army of Lebanon, nor has Lebanon declared war. Yet Israel has already killed more Lebanese civilians than has been killed by those Hezbollah rockets. This does not make any sense at all, yet people continue to support even more bombings.

[Don Corleone]

You say that Lebanon is completely blameless and that Hezbollah operates within Lebanon without their support. You say that anything Hezbollah does within the boundaries of Lebanon, the Lebanese are blameless of. Who do you think comprises Hezbollah? Who do you think voted them in as one of the largest parlimentary factions back in June of 2005?

Nobody is advocating more bombing of civilians. But at the end of the day, Hezbollah isn't stopping the rocket attacks of their own free will. Israel's only chance at stopping the rockets is to destroy Hezbollah's capability of launching them in the first place.

Or are you arguing that Israel should just take a few for the team and let the rockets continue to fly, until Israeli casualties catch up to Lebanese ones? Is that how the Dutch have fought wars in the past?

[Duke John]

I already replied on what I think should be done as opposed to bombing: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1206865&postcount=6


Is that how the Dutch have fought wars in the past?
...you should try to agitate someone else.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not trying to agitate you. I'm seriously perplexed as to how you think Israel would just ride into Lebanon every time Hezbollah fires a rocket, and manage to do it with no civilian casualties, and manage to keep the rest of the world from condemning them for not respecting Lebanon's sovereign right to maintain a border.

I also don't understand the concept that if Hezbollah attacks Israel, and Israel fires back, if they kill more civilians then Hezbollah, somehow Israel is solely to blame.

I'm having a really hard statement understanding the logic behind this statement:
Yet Israel has already killed more Lebanese civilians than has been killed by those Hezbollah rockets. This does not make any sense at all, yet people continue to support even more bombings. Hezbollah (who are Lebanese) hasn't stopped firing rockets at Israel, yet because Israel has killed more Lebanese then Lebanese have killed Israelis, Israel is to blame. How do you reach that conclusion?

Should Israel work on the targeting of their bombing and be more selective? If at all possible, absolutely. They've done a piss poor job of containing collateral damage thus far. But a big part of the reason for that is Hezbollah's decision to launch rockets from within heavily populated civilian areas. If Israel stops, Hezbollah wins. What's more if Israel stops, Hezbollah will ratchet up their brutality. Why? Because Hezbollah WANTS Israel firing at them, because Syria and Iran have told them get Israel to do it.

[Pannonian]

I'm not trying to agitate you. I'm seriously perplexed as to how you think Israel would just ride into Lebanon every time Hezbollah fires a rocket, and manage to do it with no civilian casualties, and manage to keep the rest of the world from condemning them for not respecting Lebanon's sovereign right to maintain a border.

I also don't understand the concept that if Hezbollah attacks Israel, and Israel fires back, if they kill more civilians then Hezbollah, somehow Israel is solely to blame.

There is the principle of proportionate violence. In Palestine, Israel was firing more than 10x the number of shells as they had been receiving. We all know what's been happening with Lebanon.

If Hezbollah had fired 20 rockets into civilian areas (military targets don't count), Israel would be justified in sending back a similar number, perhaps even up to 2x or 3x. The Lebanese themselves were expecting that kind of response, so even they would not have complained had the Israelis retaliated thus and inflicted civilian casualties. But Israel, as is their wont, overdid it exponentially. If they wanted to take their gloves off, they should have declared war on Lebanon before going in.

[Redleg]

Israel has alreadly chosen its Rules of Engagement - and it seems to be one of contradictions.

What Israel needs to focus on is what is the end state of the operation and what is their exit stragety.

And as someone as alreadly noted - from what I am reading there is no exit stragety except escalation.


DAMASCUS(AFP) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has ordered his forces to step up their readiness in the face of Israel's continuing offensive on Lebanon as the military marked Army Day.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060801/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictsyria_060801171954;_ylt=AngJbpLi.BEhd21CF8CgkgILtUsB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVR PUCUl

And then there is this


Three weeks after the war erupted when Hizbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid, Israel's security cabinet agreed to step up its offensive, entailing a ground sweep 6-7 km (4 miles) into Lebanon, a political source said. Arab TV networks said three Israeli soldiers were killed.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060801/ts_nm/mideast_dc_680;_ylt=AtOEDupIqbrhryb1qH7VbRAUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Then there are the air strikes that are getting very close to the Lebanon-Syrai border by Israel. As is alluded in this particlure passage.


Peretz said Israel would target vehicles carrying weapons from Syria to Lebanon but reiterated that Israel was not trying to draw Syria into the war. Israel has repeatedly accused Syria of allowing Iranian-made weapons to be shipped through its territory to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Syrian President Bashar Assad called on his army Monday to increase readiness to cope with "regional challenges." Travelers from Syria have reported that some reservists have been called up for military duty — a sign that Syria is concerned the fighting in Lebanon could spill over.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060801/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel;_ylt=AkmHdipyfvH2Nt1dk.t3oOKbOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

And of course the United States government continues to back Israel, looking for what is being called a substainable peace.

This article will last about a day - then it will require one to register at the site to review it, or at least that is what it alludes to in the clearing house where I found it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usmideast1aug01,0,2261928.story?coll=la-home-world

[Don Corleone]

There is the principle of proportionate violence. In Palestine, Israel was firing more than 10x the number of shells as they had been receiving. We all know what's been happening with Lebanon.

If Hezbollah had fired 20 rockets into civilian areas (military targets don't count), Israel would be justified in sending back a similar number, perhaps even up to 2x or 3x. The Lebanese themselves were expecting that kind of response, so even they would not have complained had the Israelis retaliated thus and inflicted civilian casualties. But Israel, as is their wont, overdid it exponentially. If they wanted to take their gloves off, they should have declared war on Lebanon before going in.

Now this I understand. Too many barrages, too many places hit that weren't confirmed to be Hezbollah occupied at the time of the launch, yes, I agree. I got the impression from Duke John's post that his position is "Well, since Israeal seems to miss and hit the wrong targets, no more firing artillery into Lebanon". That I don't understand. Proportionality of response is an important consideration.

I'd be really interested in Redleg's opinion, as an artilleryman, why he thinks there's such an excessively high amount of collateral damage in Israel's actions over the past few weeks (and yes, I know a lot of what they're doing is air strikes as well). But honestly, do you think it's that the Israelis are being sloppy/lazy... i.e. "Well, we have an intelligence report from a week ago that Hezbollah might be in that building, go ahead and fire a few rounds at it". Do you think it's intentional? Or is it the nature of what they're doing just leads to a lot of collateral damage?

[Redleg]

Now this I understand. Too many barrages, too many places hit that weren't confirmed to be Hezbollah occupied at the time of the launch, yes, I agree. I got the impression from Duke John's post that his position is "Well, since Israeal seems to miss and hit the wrong targets, no more firing artillery into Lebanon". That I don't understand. Proportionality of response is an important consideration.

Counterbattery fire is a tricky thing wihen one does not have physical observation of the target. There is more to it then that - such as response time of the counterbattery fire. For instance how long does it take a Hezbollah missile team to leave the firing site? The answer to this question will inform the individual to why so many barrages seem to miss the intended targets.


I'd be really interested in Redleg's opinion, as an artilleryman, why he thinks there's such an excessively high amount of collateral damage in Israel's actions over the past few weeks (and yes, I know a lot of what they're doing is air strikes as well).


The type of ordance Israel is firing near building happens to weaken the structures. As Tribesman alluded to in this thread or was it the other one about the 54 civilians killed, the amount of ordance fired in promity to buildings that lack sufficent re-inforcement to their concrete can cause the building to collaspe. What must be evalated is the size of the ordance, the promity to the building, and the type of building fired close to. For Instance - I don't think Lebanon building codes require a lot of structural steel and rebar reinforcement in their contrete. A sufficient about of ordance fired close to the building can cause structural damage that is often associated with the type of damage of earthquakes. I remember once having to do a report on a wooden house in Washington that was built to close to the Impact Area. Over a period of five years the artillery fire had basically had condemned the house as structural unsound.



But honestly, do you think it's that the Israelis are being sloppy/lazy... i.e. "Well, we have an intelligence report from a week ago that Hezbollah might be in that building, go ahead and fire a few rounds at it". Do you think it's intentional? Or is it the nature of what they're doing just leads to a lot of collateral damage?

The nature of the conflict is what is leading to the number of civilian casualities. Hezbollah is fighting and firing from locations that endanger civilians - and Israel is responding to Hezbollah. As long as Hezbollah maintains the initiative, Israel will lose - not in the military sense, but in active recruiting for Hezbollah and in the puplic opinion throughout the world.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, I think Israel would be better served by going for the source of the problem.

Continue building up forces in and around the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Continue attacks to degrade Hiz/bollah capabilities in the region.

Once forces are amassed, turn right 45 degrees and attack Syria. Once Assad's regime and army are kicked apart, withdraw back to Southern Lebanon and a wider defense zone near the Golan.

Let Iran try to support Hiz'bollah without the help of Syria (which will be in a civil war and too busy to bother).

[Tribesman]

Once forces are amassed, turn right 45 degrees and attack Syria. Once Assad's regime and army are kicked apart, withdraw back to Southern Lebanon and a wider defense zone near the Golan.

Let Iran try to support Hiz'bollah without the help of Syria (which will be in a civil war and too busy to bother).
Thank god you ain't in charge over there Seamus :no:

[Idaho]

Actually, I think Israel would be better served by going for the source of the problem.

Continue building up forces in and around the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Continue attacks to degrade Hiz/bollah capabilities in the region.

Once forces are amassed, turn right 45 degrees and attack Syria. Once Assad's regime and army are kicked apart, withdraw back to Southern Lebanon and a wider defense zone near the Golan.

Let Iran try to support Hiz'bollah without the help of Syria (which will be in a civil war and too busy to bother).

People like you run the US. God help us all... :no:

[Idaho]

That doesnt seem like a very sensible way to prosecute a war- you dont win with parity.
I am just calling for pairty in civilian deaths. At the moment there is negligible deaths on one side and a massacre on the other.

[Don Corleone]

I know it would never happen, but I would love for Israel to have turned the tables on Hezbollah in this episode. Rather than opening fire and flattening southern Lebanon and large sections of Beirut, they should have asked UN observers to enter Haifa and other northern villages. Perhaps an empassioned plea on the floor of the UN begging China, Russia and France to stop their support of Iran and Syria, who would then be forced to stop their support of Hezbollah.

Oh wait, one problem with my pipe-dream... nobody but the US seems to care when Israelis die.

[Don Corleone]

Seamus,
I can appreciate your goal, but you're not thinking about this. Plenty of elements in Europe and the Middle East already accuse Israel of being expansionist. Can you imagine how a land invasion of southwestern Syria would play out? Frankly, if Israel set troops into Syria, I would be surprised if Iran DIDN'T intervene, and I wouldn't even be surprised if the Russians didn't send some troop along to boot. Nor could the US actually occupy any Syrian territory.

I do understand your aim. After all the mayhem they've caused, Syria certainly has bought and paid for a little destabalization at home. I'd go a different route. With Assad's domestic leadership capability, there must be some sort of insurrection formenting. Encourage it. Arm it. Fund it. Maybe introduce counterfit currency into their money supply. Forclose on some of their larger IMF loans. Stuff like that. That will keep Assad to busy at home solving his own messes to keep screwing up Lebanon.

[Idaho]

Oh wait, one problem with my pipe-dream... nobody but the US seems to care when Israelis die.
I'm frankly astonished by statements like this... I don't know where to begin picking them apart other than to say the absolute opposite seems to be true.

A few Israelis get killed and the nation is given carte blanche to indescriminantly bomb and kill whoever. Do you see the Lebanese army shelling Tel Aviv?

I think the problem is that you yanks geniunely see arabs as subhuman terrorists who deserve all they get.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus,
I can appreciate your goal, but you're not thinking about this. Plenty of elements in Europe and the Middle East already accuse Israel of being expansionist. Can you imagine how a land invasion of southwestern Syria would play out? Frankly, if Israel set troops into Syria, I would be surprised if Iran DIDN'T intervene, and I wouldn't even be surprised if the Russians didn't send some troop along to boot. Nor could the US actually occupy any Syrian territory.

...and Israel would finally be fighting the conflict on its terms against an opponent who couldn't duck. They'd kick both, and a REF if necessary. I don't want anybody occupying Syria, just smash the current regime and move on. Yes, I realize there would be a power vacuum with all that implies, but all of the Northern border would stabilize for years. I actually think it would improve the Iraqi occupation too, though this is more nebulous.

I agree with you that it isn't likely to happen.


I do understand your aim. After all the mayhem they've caused, Syria certainly has bought and paid for a little destabalization at home. I'd go a different route. With Assad's domestic leadership capability, there must be some sort of insurrection formenting. Encourage it. Arm it. Fund it. Maybe introduce counterfit currency into their money supply. Forclose on some of their larger IMF loans. Stuff like that. That will keep Assad to busy at home solving his own messes to keep screwing up Lebanon.

This would be preferable, I agree, but the long-term dictators are effective at gutting any real domestic opposition. I don't think that would work here.

[Don Corleone]

I'm frankly astonished by statements like this... I don't know where to begin picking them apart other than to say the absolute opposite seems to be true.

A few Israelis get killed and the nation is given carte blanche to indescriminantly bomb and kill whoever. Do you see the Lebanese army shelling Tel Aviv?

I think the problem is that you yanks geniunely see arabs as subhuman terrorists who deserve all they get.

Hmm, yes Idaho. I've wallpapered the backroom with just such statements. I don't agree with the level of Israel's response. I've said that,numerous times, and I do think they're not being discriminatory enough in terms of choosing targets. I'm pretty sure I've said that in multiple places too.

But where were your anguished cries 3 weeks ago when it WAS one-sided over there? Would you really tell an Israeli mother who's son got killed "tough luck, not enough of you have died yet to make a difference"?

Edit: P.S. 5 points for the ad hominem rascist attack, mate. That must put you back out in the lead.

[Shaun]

Actually, I think Israel would be better served by going for the source of the problem.

Continue building up forces in and around the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Continue attacks to degrade Hiz/bollah capabilities in the region.

Once forces are amassed, turn right 45 degrees and attack Syria. Once Assad's regime and army are kicked apart, withdraw back to Southern Lebanon and a wider defense zone near the Golan.

Let Iran try to support Hiz'bollah without the help of Syria (which will be in a civil war and too busy to bother).

You are assuming that all the Muslims in the ME are all out supporting each other. This is wrong.


Oh, and your masterplan missed out one thing, bomb all UN outposts on the way, and remember to aim for the children.

[Pannonian]

I know it would never happen, but I would love for Israel to have turned the tables on Hezbollah in this episode. Rather than opening fire and flattening southern Lebanon and large sections of Beirut, they should have asked UN observers to enter Haifa and other northern villages. Perhaps an empassioned plea on the floor of the UN begging China, Russia and France to stop their support of Iran and Syria, who would then be forced to stop their support of Hezbollah.

Oh wait, one problem with my pipe-dream... nobody but the US seems to care when Israelis die.
Asking the UN to come in and intervene makes Israel look weak. That's not something they would willingly do. Their defence and foreign policy is based on being strong and imposing themselves on their neighbours. The only times Israel has been forced to acknowledge the existence of others is when American support slackens. There is no risk of that with the neocons in power, therefore Israel sees no point in deviating from its policy of unilateralism.

It's not that no-one other than the US cares if Israelis die, it's that Israel doesn't care about the opinions of others (positive or negative) except the US.

[Pannonian]

...and Israel would finally be fighting the conflict on its terms against an opponent who couldn't duck. They'd kick both, and a REF if necessary. I don't want anybody occupying Syria, just smash the current regime and move on. Yes, I realize there would be a power vacuum with all that implies, but all of the Northern border would stabilize for years. I actually think it would improve the Iraqi occupation too, though this is more nebulous.

If you have a petty dictator causing trouble for you, thank your lucky stars and make the most of the situation. What you don't do is fragment the opposition into lots of different factions whose reactions you can't predict nor even know the identities of. What you are suggesting for Syria is what the US did to Iraq. Given hindsight, would you rather have the current Iraq or the old Iraq where Saddam was very effectively keeping a lid on Islamic fundies and sectarian conflicts?

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

You mean smash the regime like in Iraq? Sure, that would be the best thing to do. It will not create a power vacuum. Americans will never learn...

[Somebody Else]

Could always do another '67...

(Kind of like us trying to repeat '66)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you have a petty dictator causing trouble for you, thank your lucky stars and make the most of the situation. What you don't do is fragment the opposition into lots of different factions whose reactions you can't predict nor even know the identities of. What you are suggesting for Syria is what the US did to Iraq. Given hindsight, would you rather have the current Iraq or the old Iraq where Saddam was very effectively keeping a lid on Islamic fundies and sectarian conflicts?

You do realize that, at least implicitly, you are suggesting that the only thing that will work as "leadership" in the Middle East is crushing tyranny? Not exactly a happy view.

For the record, neither the old Saddam regime nor the poorly planned efforts at nation-building suit my preferences. Anywhere I deployed U.S. troops (and God forbid that it's my call), I would insist on a 10+ to 1 ratio of troops to insurgents/opposition for any deployment lasting longer than 90 days. All opposition to the USA has been guerilla style, and the 10-1 ratio is needed for suppression thereof. Only a near-total suppressive effect would have allowed for some chance at effective nation-building. Moreover, with Iraq, I would never have bothered trying for one unified state as a first choice, it should be 3 entities.

[Pannonian]

You do realize that, at least implicitly, you are suggesting that the only thing that will work as "leadership" in the Middle East is crushing tyranny? Not exactly a happy view.

If an existing crushing tyranny succeeds in doing what I want it to do, I am satisfied, whether it is friendly or hostile to my country. It may be even better were it supposedly a hostile country, since we won't have to acknowledge it is doing us a service and pay it.

I am not satisfied with a free liberal democracy that fails to keep a lid on unrest hostile to us. Chaos is by definition unpredictable, and it is difficult to make policy based on such. My country matters most to me, and the fact that Iraqis enjoy a free liberal democracy is poor compensation (they don't, anyway).

Going out of our way to replace a stable, predictable tyranny with an unpredictable anarchy masquerading as a democracy is foolish. Whatever the supposed system of government, chaos is bad, since we cannot sensibly deal with it, but can only cross our fingers and hope. Spending shedloads of money on bringing this about is simply stupid. Paying a supposedly hostile tyranny to keep quiet would be cheaper, and less injurious.



For the record, neither the old Saddam regime nor the poorly planned efforts at nation-building suit my preferences. Anywhere I deployed U.S. troops (and God forbid that it's my call), I would insist on a 10+ to 1 ratio of troops to insurgents/opposition for any deployment lasting longer than 90 days. All opposition to the USA has been guerilla style, and the 10-1 ratio is needed for suppression thereof. Only a near-total suppressive effect would have allowed for some chance at effective nation-building. Moreover, with Iraq, I would never have bothered trying for one unified state as a first choice, it should be 3 entities.
Israel doesn't have the manpower to carry out such an occupation. Bringing about the fall of Syria will only result in a void. The void would be the equivalent of the current mess of nation-building in Iraq, minus the nation-building. Instead of an interim occupation before giving it all up as bad news and accepting the mistake, Israel would be throwing up their hands and accepting it as a mistake from day one. Mind you, at least it would be cheaper.

[Idaho]

Moreover, with Iraq, I would never have bothered trying for one unified state as a first choice, it should be 3 entities.
This says it all. You would effectively plunge the entire region into war by dividing it.

Alas you yanks seem to insist on steaming in with grand ideas but little background knowledge, make a mess then desperately try and extracate yourselves whilst blaming everyone else.

[Fragony]

This says it all. You would effectively plunge the entire region into war by dividing it.

Alas you yanks seem to insist on steaming in with grand ideas but little background knowledge, make a mess then desperately try and extracate yourselves whilst blaming everyone else.

England isn't in Iraq after all. Thank god for the yanks huh?

[Idaho]

England isn't in Iraq after all. Thank god for the yanks huh?
Damn you got me. Exposing my fervent support for Blair's poodling to Bush. What a hypocrit I am :dizzy2:

[Fragony]

Damn you got me. Exposing my fervent support for Blair's poodling to Bush. What a hypocrit I am :dizzy2:

Oh my bad, I thought you only meant the american yanks.