Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
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.
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
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.
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
...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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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.
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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).
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.
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
...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?
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
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...
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Could always do another '67...
(Kind of like us trying to repeat '66)
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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.
Quote:
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.
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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.
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imao
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?
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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:
Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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.
