I urge you to familiarize yourself with recent reports from Afghanistan. As Klingerware stated, it's essentially a pretty lawless country right now, and the Karzai government doesn't have a lot of sway outside of Kabul. The coalition itself also doesn't have a lot of power to project in the area and has been unable to provide security throughout the country, hence the local warlords taking the power back.

On top of this, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other terrorists continue to operate with impunity from across the border of our supposed ally Pakistan. This (Pakistan) is a country with a military dictator who's routinely the object of assassination attempts and has no clear successor. On top of this, this is also a country with a working nuclear program and a recent admission that they've been working on a plant since 2000 to produce plutonium. On top of this, this is also a country whose head of its nuclear program, A.Q. Khan, is suspected (by the U.S.) of selling nuclear secrets to rogue states including North Korea. Pakistan, however, won't give him up to the U.S. for questioning.

The area's a complete mess, and to think that we "solved" Afghanistan before (or even while) we went into Iraq is to greatly overlook the situation.

Regarding the thread title, this may be what is next:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13990129/site/newsweek/

Glen, why isn't the United States attacking these Kurdish guerrilla groups in Iraq the way you say the Lebanese government should have been attacking Hezbollah? They should do it at all costs, right?

why wouldnt turkey attack the guerillas, not the US....and yes I see this as a pandora's box sort of situation wherein other countries can say, "we're doing what Israel is doing." that is not a good thing.

Because the guerillas are attacking over the border from Iraq, Iraq is controlled by the US, and the Kurds are supposedly our allies.

Ah, Israel.

hxxp://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/26/mideast.main/index.html


Defending themselves, huh.

I find it hard to believe that Israel intentionally targetted the UN post, but Kofi seems pretty adament about it.

I still don't know what Israel's end game is. They seem to have backed themselves into a corner and the US is unwilling to play their usual role as peacemaker (surprise, surprise). Israel are in pretty much the same situation that we are in in Iraq: they can't back off, or it will be seen as a victory for Hezbollah. There are no troops willing to go in and occupy the area. They are faced with having to keep their military there indefinitely. They rushed in without a plan. The military that took control of the Sinai in 2 days in 1967 and surrounded an entire Egyptian army in 1973 has been fighting to take over Maroun al-Ras, a village about 500 meters inside Lebanon, for 5 days now. It's not a failure of the IDF, but a failure of strategy.

Yeah. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but it's so odd that they would repeatedly shell an area (or even strike an area) that they were so unsure of.


Yep. IMO, this will mean more long-term problems for Israel.

Uh oh... things could get real ugly, real fast if Erdogan feels threatened enough that he has to respond to Kurdish attacks in Turkey. The last thing needed is Turkey bombing/invading parts of Iraq.

Obviously it would be a huge embaressment for the US if that happened, but I think the worst thing would be if the Kurds in Iran got involved. And a part of me is scared because I know that that is something that a lot of the people in the administration WANT to happen.

Lets get back on topic here:

That's it, I'm changing my name to Beirut.

I know things like RoE often prevent offensive operations, but even when they don't, UN peacekeeping forces are useless. If you really want to argue that they can be successful, by all means start listing success stories. There are at least 3 or 4 out there somewhere at some point.
Of course we couldn't destroy the Taliban - we weren't allowed to chase them into NW Pakistan. (And it seems everyone in the security forces/whole country is hugely corrupt, so arresting someone does little good.) And of course the drug problem exists (I've said for years now that we should end the War on Drugs if for no other reason than what groups are funded by illegal narcotics.) But we went into Afghanistan more or less to achieve the limited goals of destroying/scattering al-Qaeda and eliminating the training camps. Unless the Taliban gets control over large swaths of the country (not just significant influence and the occasional attack but actual control) and starts allowing al-Qaeda back in, we've achieved those goals. A democratic government, a flourishing (non-opium based) economy and women's rights would be nice too but I don't think anyone expected that in the near future in Afghanistan.

(FWIW - I'm curious why you say things like "the drug lords influence is growing" "Afghanistan is quickly headed towards narcocracy" and "we didn't give Karzai's gov't enough resources to consolidate his hold on the country"? When you know as well as I the war lords have always controlled their parts of the country. We got a fair amount to switch to our side, effectively by bribing them, but we never fought most of them.)That was w/regards to terrorist training camps, many of which appeared in Somalia within a couple years. And just knowing what I've heard about the Islamic courts and the US supporting other warlords who lost recently, I wouldn't be surprised if we're helping Ethiopia some there. That's the type of situation where one SF team and no media coverage can do better than 20,000 peacekeepers sent in.I know all about Pakistan, but I'm not really sure what you want to do with them. They kind of seem to be a necessary evil right about now.

And I'll repeat that I don't think we "solved" Afghanistan or that it isn't a complete mess, just that we achieved our security goals regarding al-Qaeda. If the Taliban want to try an offensive in Afghanistan, that's too bad, but our main goal was preventing attacks being planned globally.

Addendum - Since y'all mentioned it, I did go look for recent news reports on Afghanistan and from what I see, it's basically in 4 of the 26 provinces - no surprise there - and aside from a PR victory or two - most significant being killing the local police in 2 provincial capitals, massing a couple hundred Taliban and then running when police and army reinforcements arrived - they are being destroyed whenever they pop up. Sorry, but they're gonna have to get up to late-90's FARC level before I accept your proposition that we are losing control over Afghanistan.Because the Kurdish peshmerga would kick their ass if they began attacking in Iraq. Even without the US getting involved. There's a certian level of give and take on both sides - rebel bases in Kurdistan and the occasional recon forces/shelling from Turkey and Iran, but neither of those countries actually wants to get into a fight with the Kurds that would get their own minorities rising up.



PS - Can we please stop using that picture? Titties are nice and all, but damn that's a hideous face if I've ever seen one. (OK, maybe Fergie from BEP still beats her out, but it's close.)

Just current successful UN peacekeeping missions: Eritrea/Ethiopia, Morrocco, Haiti, India/Pakistan, Cyprus, Georgia, Kosovo, and Liberia.

Some places where the UN is helping things spiral out of control: Congo, Ivory Coast, and Burundi.

But I would say that there are not enough UN peacekeepers to keep the entire globe peaceful.

that girl is not good looking....talk about trying to divert attention from the face. Buttah

what makes you think they were "unsure" of the area? That oupost has been there for more than a decade, is very well known to the Israelis (the post was on high ground, within the area formerly occupied by Israel), and obviously was deliberately targeted (hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling). It's hard to see how anyone could deny that except with the romantic notion that "they wouldn't do that."

I think there's very little, if any doubt that the UN was intentionally targeted. I also think there is no doubt that Israel considers the UN forces in the area to be Hezbollah sympathizers.

On the military front, it looks as if Hezbollah is holding its own ...

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/743027.html

I'm not sure I understand the Israeli cabinet's position not to expand the war (ex. my interpretation is no additional ground troops to push north). This would seem to indicate they think they can (1) inflict enough damage via air and (2) don't want to expose their troops to any more 'unnecessary' mano-a-mano.

I like the idea of an international buffer force. If I was China/India, I would jump at the chance of putting troops there to increase and enhance visibility and 'soon-to-be-super-power' status.

Yetch. I would pass on this one.

CNN just reported 4 countries volunteered troops for the buffer force if Rice can pull off a cease-fire. France, Norway, Turkey and (one more).

(I guess it pays to have a French Foreign Legion, I love their winged dagger).

So what, France will head-butt any violators of the buffer zone? :D

Missed this.

First take. You are making a bad analogy, but that is par for the course. They(the millitary) have attacked the Kurdish millitants in the past, and I suspect the Kurdish sepratist's recent activities have earned themselves some more attention. As far as why haven't we dealt with them in earnest to this point. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the Kurds haven't been squeaking near as much as the various millitants/terrorists/criminals in Central Iraq. These types of things change that to the point that the US is going to have to put some effort into this issue.

Dola,

That only works on Italians. The French spine is otherwise far too delicate.

Actually, the analogy is very apt and the obvious double standard is causing major problems for the Turkish government right now. You might want to rethink your response to MrBigglesworth's question.

winning hearts and minds.

Killing all the Jews and giving the land to Palestine wouldn't win the hearts and minds that you so desperately seek, so I find the decision to take the fight to Hezbollah favorable to the opposition's choice of bliss.

You say that as if those were the only two options.

Yes, there is always the option of a cease fire, so we can do this all over again in 5 years. Probably a few other options as well, all of which are about as effective as the aforementioned.

So, what Turkey is saying, and I agree with them whole-heartedly, that if the so-called coalition running Iraq does not exercise more control over the militants crossing the Turkish border and attacking them without provocation, they will be forced to strike themselves.

Perfectly reasonable. Another so-called coalition was expected to serve the same function in Lebanon. It failed.

Could someone please remind me of exactly WTF it is we're trying to do in Iraq right now? We can't even get the group of Islamic militants who supposedly like us to leave people to live in peace.

Meanwhile, it's hard to expect Israel to try and win hearts and minds in Lebanon when Lebanon is the staging ground for the Iran-led Hezbollah terrorist group which is bent on Israel's destruction at all costs.

I ****ing hate the "winning hearts and minds" pablum. Who actually believes this? You'd be better off asking the interns at ESPN to win the hearts and minds of their sports analyst tormenters. At least there's a chance diplomacy can win within the walls of Bristol, Connecticut. In the world of Islamic fanaticism, there's just no room for rational thought.

ahhhh, Bristol, CT. No other city in the country screams of serenity like the home of ESPN. Now that is bliss.

Well, at least you're keeping your mind open to other options....

You, the Bush administration and the Israeli government are very much of the same mind on this. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other extremist groups, I assure you, care a great deal about hearts and minds. And that's why American and Israeli interventions in other countries end so disastrously. We're not even playing the right game. We still think it's about major combat operations.

"Hearts and minds" is a gigantic crock of shit when you're dealing with vermin, as you're giving far too much credit to the enemy having either.

Grab them by the balls on the other hand ...

Hezbollah would agree with you.

That is another reason why the Israelis are in a difficult spot. While engaging Hezbollah appears to be a necessary choice for the Israelis in guaranteeing security in the northern half of Israel, Hezbollah can probably cause more actual damage to the Israelis and score more PR points in a protracted guerrilla war against the IDF than with random terrorist attacks.

Ultimately, I see Syria and Iran as being strategic winners here. As the Israelis can do very little to punish Syria or Iran for their sponsorship of Hezbollah, the net result here is that they managed to draw Israel into a costly and likely long-term conflict, at very little cost to either Syria or Iran.

Iran here also has to be gloating with regards to its influence in the middle east--the moderate Sunni governments in the region despise Iran for its attempts at regional hegemony especially via its use of radical islamic insurgents to foment destabilization in the region. Ever mindful of self-preservation, now many of the moderate states are backing away from condemning Hezbollah (now that they've been portrayed as freedom fighters) for fear of inciting islamist (read anti-government) currents in their own countries.

As I said before, as crass as it may seem, it does seem like brilliant strategic thinking on the part of Hezbollah's sponsors. Even if the IDF manages to destroy Hezbollah, which is certainly not a given, it would still be worth it for the Syrians and Iranians, since they will manage to destabilize and perhaps weaken Israel a little bit, at little cost to themselves.

It would be nice if people would keep their minds open to options that will actually work rather than pine away at options that have failed several times in the past.

Maybe it's just me, but isn't this what happens over there? Somebody fucks with Israel, Israel punches them in the mouth hard, people get all fidgety shouting omg it's WW3, other people get all mad at Israel for whatever reason, lots of people die, and then some sort of tentative truce comes into play. This has been the pattern for how long now? It's almost not even newsworthy anymore.

No the analogy isn't apt. Lebanon = Sovereign Government not fighting any internal conflicts. Iraq= Not a Sovereign Government fighting essentially an ongoing conflict with a number of distinct factions. The Iraqi government and the United are struggling to bring law and order to Iraq. The Lebanon government essentially enjoys peace. The Lebanese government averts its gaze while elements of its population wage war with a neighbor. The Iraqi government nor the United States are turning a blind eye the the Kurdish separatists.



The Turks have only now said "Do something about this group" Israel has been calling for the same for years.

Lebanon is a government neglecting its responsibilities. Iraq is a government having difficulties living up to its responsibilities. The difference is vast.

Hezbollah politicians back peace package

By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah politicians, while expressing reservations, have joined their critics in the government in agreeing to a peace package that includes strengthening an international force in south Lebanon and disarming the guerrillas, the government said.
ADVERTISEMENT


The agreement — reached after a heated six-hour Cabinet meeting — was the first time that Hezbollah has signed onto a proposal for ending the crisis that includes the deploying of international forces.

The package falls short of American and Israeli demands in that it calls for an immediate cease-fire before working out details of a force and includes other conditions.

But
European Union officials said Friday the proposals form a basis for an agreement, increasing the pressure on the United States to call for a cease-fire.

President Bush and British Prime Minister
Tony Blair said Friday they too want an international force dispatched quickly to the Mideast but said any plan to end the fighting — to have a lasting effect — must address long-running regional disputes.

"This is a moment of intense conflict in the Middle East," Bush said after his meeting with Blair in Washington. "Yet our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity and a chance for broader change in the region."

By signing onto the peace proposals, Hezbollah gave Western-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora a boost in future negotiations.

Going into Thursday night's Cabinet session, Hezbollah's two ministers expressed deep reservations about the force and its mandate, fearing it could turn against their guerrillas.

"Will the international force be a deterrent one and used against who?" officials who attended the Cabinet meeting said in summing up Hezbollah cabinet ministers concerns. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the debate.

But afterward, Information Minister Ghazi Aridi announced that the package had been agreed on by consensus in a rare show of unity by a divided administration.

While all sides seemed to be looking for a way to stop the fighting, details of plans taking shape on all sides were still fuzzy. And it was not at all certain Hezbollah would really follow through on the Lebanese government plan that would effectively abolish the militants' military wing. It may have signed on to the deal convinced that
Israel would reject it.

But the agreement presents Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice with a package she might find hard to ignore when she returns to the region.

The plan approved by the Cabinet was an outline that Saniora presented at an international conference in Rome on Wednesday.

It starts out with an immediate cease-fire. Following that would come:

• the release of Lebanese and Israeli prisoners; Israeli withdrawal behind the border; the return of Lebanese displaced by the fighting.

• moves to resolve the status of Chebaa Farms, a small piece of land held by Israel and claimed by Lebanon. The proposal calls for the
U.N. Security Council to commit to putting the area under U.N. control until a final demarcation of the border.

• the provision by Israel of maps of minefields laid during its 18-year occupation of the south.

• "the spreading of Lebanese government authority over the entire country," meaning the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south, with the strengthening and increasing of the small, lightly armed U.N. peacekeeping force currently there.

The provisions do not spell out the order in which the steps must take place, but Saniora has said the government cannot spread its authority in the south unless the Chebaa farms issue is resolved. Israel's hold on Chebaa has provided Hezbollah with a rationale to maintain its arsenal and its "resistance" against Israel.

U.N. experts have previously determined that the territory is part of
Syria's Golan Heights, now held by Israel. But Syria has said the patch of land is Lebanon's.

Also left undetermined is the contentious issue of the size and mandate of a peacekeeping force in the south. The current nearly 2,000-member force, deployed since 1978, is virtually ineffectual and its main task now is to patrol the Blue Line, monitor and report violations and deliver aid. Four U.N. border observers were killed in an Israeli airstrike this week.

The Lebanese government has previously rejected international demands that it disarm Hezbollah and move the army into the south. Without Hezbollah consent, the move could tear the country apart due to the movement's deep support among Shiite Muslims.

The rare united stand between Hezbollah and anti-Syrian politicians who dominate the government could give Lebanon a stronger say in any resolution of the conflict. A divided government may encourage unilateral U.N. Security Council action on the Lebanon crisis without consulting Beirut.

Visiting EU envoys, led by Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, met Friday with Saniora and parliament speaker Nabih Berri, the de facto negotiator for Hezbollah.

Tuomioja, representing the EU Finnish presidency, said the troika appreciated the Lebanese government's plan which "we think forms a good basis for a regional agreement."

I was in Turkey preparing for the "northern front" back in 2003. Obviously, the thought was that it could help ease the stress on the massive convoy/assault that would come from Kuwait in the south.

Prior to the invasion, the Turks were in Iraq. You may remember when the Turks and the US assaulted the same PKK hot spot early in the war and a Turkish squad "surrendered" to US forces? (I say surrendered because they laid down their arms when our forces quickly/hurredly explained they were not here to fight Turks.) I remember it pretty well, because the Turks were ready to string that Turkish commander up by his nut sack for surrendering regardless of what the circumstance was.

The Turks have watched 35,000 people die at the hands of the PKK since 1980(?). The Turkish army wanted to go in with/behind the US forces so they could clean up the PKK forces in a massive military campaign.

But politics came along and ruined the Turkish armies plan.

The people were pissed off at the USA for not obeying the UN and didn't want the US forces to go through Turkey. So the Turkish leaders let Parliament vote on whether to allow the US and Turkey to work together in northern Iraq.

This was a very public vote. The Turkish generals were pleading with Parliament and to the TV and newspapers that this "wasn't about war and peace, it was about war and a bigger war." and to allow the US and subsequently the Turks go into northern Iraq.

Despite the 90% dissaproval rating by the Turkish people towards war, the Islamic ruling party voted heavily in favor of allowing the US to go into Northern Iraq. But it wasn't enough to over-rule the minority parties and they failed to get 2/3 vote. The 2nd strongest party in Turkey (the pro-EU party) voted unanimously against the US plan.

So the US Army forward deployed units in Turkey packed up their gear and headed for Kuwait. (Yay for peace.)

The Turks voted to not go into Iraq. That is their right. But if they wish to go into Iraq now, it would have to be a priviledge, maybe Iraq will put it to a vote for them?

In any event, Iraq is crawling with terrorists. It's not like anybody can wave a magic wand and they go away. You have to systematically hunt them down and destroy them. The PKK, while a huge threat regionally to Turkey, is not a direct threat to the US. We have Al Qaeda, Al Sadr (I'm assuming he's still fighting), and whatever is left of the Baathist resistance to take care of first. We all know that the US forces in Iraq have their hands full. Getting mad at them for not fighting the PKK as well is crazy. However, one thing the Turks don't have that the US Military and Iraq do have, is negotiating power and the US and Iraq have said they will be aggressive about that, something Lebanon can not say with regard to Hezbolla. The US is no friend of the PKK terror group, but while we can differentiate between a PKK terrorist and a Kurdish civilian, I'm not so sure the media handling of US aggression against PKK will be clear about that.

Personally, I think the Turks should get involved with Iraq and we let them handle security in northern Iraq. But if we do, it's possible that the Turks could make the Israeli's look like media darlings. The Turks, with regard to PKK, probably don't quite understand "hearts and minds".

Glen, you still don't get how it is impossible for Lebanon to reign in Hezbollah at this moment. You make excuses for why Iraq can't, but can't extend those same excuses to Lebanon. You're trying to tell me that Lebanon, who you said has been launching rockets daily into Israel for months, who just kicked out the Syrians a year or so ago, who was occupied by the Israeli's for twenty years until 2000 during a violent civil war which wrecked the country, and who is currently being shelled daily by Israeli artillery and airstrikes, is a country that 'enjoys peace'. I don't think so.

Jon, what would you have Israel do? How'd our glorious Iraq ball-grabbing go?

hey, we're just about to turn the corner in Iraq.

You know who really knew how to grab someone by the balls, who didn't care about hearts and minds? The Soviets:

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchr...r/collins.html

Of course we all know how that turned out: Afghanistan was immediately pacified, worldwide terrorist organizations failed to sprout there, and it remains a paradise and moderating influence to the region to this day.

Wikipedia has all the answers:

The IDF really screwed up with Qana and all the children casulties. I believe this will be a turning point that will force other Arab countries to start voicing their concerns.

Hezbollah is winning the public opinion war. Israel cabinet votes to not expand the war etc.

I do not get the Israeli strategy. It no longer seems coherent, they are asking the US for an additional 10-14 days to finish this but I don't really know what they hope to accomplish?

1) 2 Israeli reservists are probably not going to be rescued
2) Hezbollah leadership is probably not going to be bombed (out of the Iranian embassy in Beirut, chicken sh*ts)
3) Without expanding a ground war and pushing further north, its not as if the Hezbollah troops will be wiped out by air
4) Without expanding a ground war and willing to hold southern Lebanon, its not as if northern Israel will be safe from rockets

So it seems to me the strategy now is to inflict as much damage to Hezbollah (with the understanding it won't be wiped out), live with the collateral damage (and all the bad media) and hope there is an international force (with teeth) patrolling the border.

I would suggest Israel (1) cut their losses and support an immediate international force or (2) expand this war, really fight Hezbollah (ground, not air) and be prepared to hold southern Lebanon.

You're giving the latter way too much credit. We've played public relations with the situation there far far too much for it to be anything remotely resembling an effective by-the-balls strategy.

As for what Israel "should" do? So far I'd say this latest round has been handled pretty well ... at least absent me having access to any detailed intel on what opportunities may have been missed, after action reports, etc. that might adjust my assessment up or down. My biggest worry right now is that they will either stop a little too soon or make the mistake of giving anything of value away in any cease fire talks. But that's politics, not military.

edit to add: A couple of quotes that come in handy right about now.
1) "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.""

and

2) "May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't."

Both attributed to the inimitable Gen. George Patton.

"Hearts and Minds" cannot be won when the propaganda machine is stronger than the truth. For people to even suggest that the Middle Eastern propaganda machine before the Isreali counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas was ever fair-handed is a joke.

More fun -

Edit: That was too harsh. No one's likely to be thrilled by this.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

I'm not sure that was called for.

Which is why I edited it - that was too harsh. Its just getting frustrating. I have Lebanese friends whose country is getting torn apart, and no one want's to do shit to stop it.

I seriously ask, if you could give me some idea about how youre friends (im assuming not members of Hezbollah) feel about the kidnappings & Rockets. I will not listen to answers that are questions back (IOW "We kidnap because you kidnap, etc.") I just want to hear the morality judgments. I am aware that nothing is as vanilla as that but I simply hate that both sides dont answer questions with answers but answer questions with more questions or deflections. Anyways, if you could perhap type a bit from their POV regarding individual events and not the history per se that would be appreciated by me.

I can't understand how you can say that things are going well. Israel has backed themselves into a corner. Just look at the practical effect of all this:

- From May 2000 (when Israel first left Lebanon) to June 2006 in all of Hezbollah's attacks they killed 13 soldiers and 7 civilians. (and keep in mind that during this time, Israel fought back) So far in the past three weeks or so, Israel has had 33 soldiers and 19 civlians die. In other words, the Hezbollah attacks could have gone on for another 18 years or so and not inflicted the damage on Israel that this war has so far.

- Hezbollah will not be destroyed. In all likelihood they will be more popular in Lebanon.

- Like mentioned before, the only way to win against an insurgency is to win over the people and take away its support. Israel has done absolutely nothing wihch would further this goal, and is in actuality further from it today than before the war.

- Not only a mistake by Israel, but a mistake by us. We chose to forget about our traditional role as peacemaker, before we could at least nominally be considered an 'honest broker'. That's gone.

There just aren't any good things that came out of this. Israel had to answer to political pressure, not common sense.

Which is where you're wrong, and why there's no way for us to reconcile the difference in how we see this.

The sad truth is that the only way Israel will ever be able to live in peace is when they eliminate the ability of those dedicated to attacking them to do so.

Period.

Golda Meir phrased it quite well in 1969 when she said "We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon – no alternative".

I think your best bet would be to read some first person accounts are Lebonese blogs:

http://proudlylebanese.com/blog/index.php
http://urshalim.blogspot.com/
http://meastpolitics.wordpress.com/
http://www.peacemiddleeast.blogspot.com/

...will probably give you a wide range of views, but you could find your own I'm sure.

Jon, insurgencies gain their power from the people's support. As long as the people support it, it will continue. So there are really only two things to eliminate to rid them of their ability to attack: the support and the people. Ignoring 50 years of military history, you have already said that getting rid of the support is the wrong action. So that just leaves getting rid of the people. I don't think you are calling for genocide, so what are you calling for?

im not looking for those, ive read those and their rhetoric. Im looking for individual judgements of each act, like the Lebanese PM did (which no one even batted an eye about) instead of the circle of blame. Crossing the border? killing the soldiers? kidnapping the soldiers? UN not enforcing the resolution? Hez. not disarming? Israel attacking? Israel dropping warning pamphlets? Hez. hiding arms in civilian homes? Israel's collateral damage? etc. etc.

otherwise Ill go back to leaving you alone.

Biggles, if the only way to eliminate the attacks & threats is to kill every fucking one of them then by all means I would support doing so. And yes, I do mean every single one if necessary.

In reality, at some point before that you eliminate their ability to effectively wage war/terror/pose a threat, rendering absolute annihliation uneccessary.

All right, so you are calling for genocide. My mistake. Don't let the Soviets complete failure in Afghanistan make you rethink that strategy at all.

JimG:

are you saying "kill every last one" of the militants? or Lebanese?

I would hope youre not suggesting the latter.

Militants, terrorists, what have you.

That said, there's also a quote worth noting from (I believe) a guy that I'm not otherwise likely often to be in agreement with. The line is attributed to John Wolfe, spoken in Saudi Arabia in 1991. I suspect that the speaker is now one of the veteran-against-the-war-in-Iraq candidates seeking office, although that's really neither here nor there. In any event, here's the quote:
"In combat civilians serve only one purpose, that purpose being visual cover for the enemy."

Hey they enjoyed peace before Hezbollah escalated the conflict with the raid and expanded rocket attacks. I'm saying they don't have the internal conflict going on as in Iraq, and that they are responsible for the goings on inside their borders. Israel has been asking for Hezbollah to be dealt with for years, The Turkish thing has only boiled up in past months, and only more recently have the Turks officially and publicly asked for the situation to be dealt with. If you can't see the differences between a peaceful Lebanon and an insecure Iraq, then you aren't really being intellectually honest with even yourself.

My point is that Lebanon is responsible for the actions of the Hezbollah millitants within its borders. They have a responsibility to reign them in and prevent them from attacking Israel. The fact that it is a difficult task, doesn't let them relinquish that responsibility. They didn't make the effort to act responsibly. I don't have an answer for their problem. The problem is that neither do they. The difference is that they are responsible to work on a solution, yet they have simply chosen to ignore the problem.

To contrast this against Iraq. Iraq has quite a few fish to fry, including this PKK group. Now that the PKK has made enough noise, they will start to get attention. Iraq and the United States aren't just going to ignore the problem and defer dealing with it. They are going to have to address it. If they don't, then your argument starts having some merit. As of now...still a bad analogy.

I think the winning hearts and minds thing to end an insurgency isn't completely correct. I think the vast majority of the people in Iraq are against all of the varoius millitant groups. They are for security. They don't like living in the dangerous circumstances that now confront them. The millitant groups in Iraq aren't winning the people's hearts and minds, rather they are spreading fear and insecurity. The people of Iraq don't want the US to pull out because they don't like the Iraqi government or because they hate the removal of Saddam. They want peace, and some believe that with the Americans gone that some of the millitant groups will leave, and the killings will stop.

In other words I don't think it is possible for public sentiment to overcome the murdering and fear that is spawned by groups like Hezbollah or the terrorists/millitants in Iraq.

1) Hezbollah's raid was in line with what they have been doing for the past 6 years, it wasn't an escalation and they can't be given all the blame for the escalation

2) Lebanon has no internal conflicts? I don't think you know much about Lebanon. They just got through with a 2 decade long civil war not too long ago. Their constitution gives extra representation to the Lebanonese Christians at the expense of the Shia, and in return much of Lebanon is run autonomously away from the central government in Beirut by the various Shia groups. This arrangement, while not ideal, keeps civil war from breaking out. About a year ago Lebanon finally kicked out Syria, but there is always the threat that they will come back. And there is the constant struggle with Israel and where the border is.

3) Israel has been dealing with Hezbollah for years, but the Lebanese have had their current government for under a year, during which time support for Hezbollah was waning...until the Israelis starting bombing the Lebanese infrastructure and killing dozens of children at a time trying to hunt down Hezbollah.

4) The Turkey thing is new?

No, it's not new. It's been around for a long time. Attacks have escalated lately, as opposed to the Hezbollah attacks which were consistently sporadic. In fact, more Turks have died from the recent PKK attacks than Israelis that died in 6 years of what you say were 'daily rocket attacks'.

This would work great if there were a finite number of terrorists/militants, like if this were a video game or something. But in reality, for every extremist you kill, you'll incite others to take up the cause.

This is an unprovable proposition, something lots of people say, but what does it really mean? When a terrorist is killed, non-terrorists suddenly become terrorists? That doesn't make any sense. Terrorists are the product of a specific culture, not the result of something George Bush does. People don't suddenly completely change, for example, the way they value the lives of innocent people because Zarqawi got blown up.

Everybody, whether Lebanese, Israeli, Portugese, Tibetan, or Irish is better off with terrorists dead as opposed to terrorists appeased.

Do the math Molson, as long as you kill them faster than they breed eventually they run out of sufficient numbers to be of concern.

A nuke might pull that off, but I assure you that periodic air strikes won't.

Culture is effected by experiences. When a whole generation of people have close family/friends that have been killed by the "enemy" - recruiting is much easier. I don't think people are born terrorists.

I'm not saying a dead terrorist isn't a good thing. I'm just saying the solution is more way more complicated that just trying to "kill them all". Short of full scale invasion, with many innocents slaughtered, you'll never eliminate every single individual terrorist/militiant.

Go back up the thread a bit, somewhere in there I mentioned my concern that a cease-fire might be accepted too soon.

Jerusalem Post reports that the US is telling Israel to attack Syria:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Insanity.

Last things first. I didn't say the PKK thing was new. What the hell? I said the development of the PKK attacking across the border from an Iraq in turmoil was new. Turkey has only just started to ask publicly for the situation to be addressed.


On Lebanon, again you are just looking for nits to pick. Yes Lebanon was in turmoil for the 18 plus years of Israeli occupation, as well as the initial vacuum left when Israel pulled out. But the last few years have been distinctly different, and nothing like Iraq. There is simply not a comparison between life in Lebanon a month ago, and life in Iraq. I don't think it matters how long the government is in power, it still has responsibilities to enforce law and order. When a government allows an armed force within its borders to attack a neighboring state without recourse, then that government is abdicating its responsibilities.

Glen, here is your original statement on Lebanon:
You can say everything you said there about Iraq and the PKK. And yet Lebanon is to blame for being bombed, but we are not to blame about the PKK. I think it is obvious that for the central governments of both Lebanon and Iraq, it would be completely destabalizing to go after their indigenous groups. It's simply impossible for these new democratic governments to gain control over the country and the people while actively dividing them.

Periodic no, but Syria did a pretty good job of ending support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama back in 1982. Not sure anyone in this thread (well, maybe Jon) want to go down that road, but if you (as in Israel) is going to be accused of genocide and war crimes when using selective bombing and doing your best to avoid civilian casualties, strategically you might as well stop caring about civilian casualties. Morally, of course, it's absurd to even mention the idea. Then again, if no one steps in to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, all moral calculations are off in the long run anyway.Fuck no. The Turks would massacre every Kurd in the area if given the chance. Luckily the Peshmerga are about as good a fighting force as you can find in SW Asia, and a united Barzani/Talabani would stalemate the Turkish Army well before it reached Irbil, let alone Suleimanaiya or Kirkuk.

As it is, it's willfully misleading to compare the Hiz'b'allah and PKK situations, since the PKK is primarily an indigenous force fighting in Turkey that happens to have some bases across the border in Kurdistan compared to a Hiz'b'allah that is exogenous to Israel. If the Turks gave autonomy to the Kurdish part of Turkey, the PKK would lay down their arms (well, not lay down, but not squeeze the trigger finger.) Hiz'b'allah was still threatening Israel after Israel left the country (because they are a proxy for bigger issues, unlike the Kurds who are fighting a straightforward war for independence/autonomy.) Although there was that whole accusation of certain Turkish generals using the PKK to keep Turkey out of the EU, but who knows how much of that was true.Agreed with all that, except I think the public opinion tide had already been turning before the Qana attack, which was the final nail in the coffin. Nice to see Hiz'b'allah rewarded for basing rocket attacks next to places filled with refugees, which will only encourage the future use of said despicable practice.There is also option (3) attack the Iranian embassy if Nasrallah really is there and not Damascus. If they capture/kill him in conjunction with an immediate cessation of air attacks, that could be the only way to credibly declare victory before a cease-fire. And maybe the mullahs in Iran would then be forced to declare war officially, which is the only way to change the dynamics in the long term.Just 'cuz I never got to this before. But if you are being serious, you must have a very different idea of successful than I do. In Haiti gang violence is at pre-election levels, Eritrea/Ethiopia appear eager to start another border war, Liberia I'd credit more to the exile of Charles Taylor, likewise India/Pakistan to both countries going nuclear - either way the over Kashmir has merely turned into a proxy war instead of an actual state conflict. And there is possibly ethnic cleansing going on in Kosovo, this time by the kosovar Albanians against the ethnically Serb kosovars. I don't know much about Morocco, Georgia, or Cyprus, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

As it applies to Lebanon, I think the UN's long list shows that they clearly aren't going to lead any force with both the capacity and will to use the muscle necessary to enforce any cease-fire.

Patton was a great general, but the days of that type of warfare are long gone. We need a new paradigm to fight the challengers of the 21st century, and as the IDF is finding out, that new paradigm isn't to simply lob more ordnance at the problem.

So? What's your point?

I still say that, depending upon the goal of a specific action, would depend upon how much ordnance is put on target. For example, if the initial goal is to disrupt and discomfit operations in a given area, there is almost certainly a tipping point where enough ordinance will accomplish that goal.

Frankly, I'm still amazed by the incredible restraint that Israel shows with regard to areas like southern Lebanon.

I don't completely agree with your statement that the US/coalition goals in Afghanistan were limited to destroying al-Qaeda, it was clear that the ouster of the Taliban government was also a key aim.

Even if what you say is true, and US goals were limited to the destruction al-Qaeda, it still seems rather short-sighted not to maintain enough resources in the country to help a nascent (and presumably pro-US) central government consolidate its hold outside of Kabul.

I also agree with you that democracy is not really necessary, nor an expected goal. But, from a US perspective, a stable and reliable government should be. Not sure what really can be done at this point (as you point out, by necessity, the warlords were allowed to maintain their power and autonomy), but so long as true power in Afghanistan is not in the hands of the central government but is in the hands of those that have historically pledged their loyalty to the highest bidder, there is always the risk that Afghanistan will revert to governance that is hostile to the US and could perhaps be amenable to hosting terror groups again in the near future...

Lebanon is responsible to stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel. Iraq and the United States are responsible for stopping the PKK.

Got that. That is my position, and if I follow most of what political leaders around the world are saying, that is their position as well. Israel isn't getting flak from very many about the fact that they attacked Lebanon. Most criticism comes from the intensity of their response, no one is saying that Hezbollah or Lebanon should be granted some sort of immunity. (Well maybe you and probably Rex)

What distinguishes the two is that Iraqi/US forces have hit PKK targets. The government of Iraq, and the United States, has lifted a finger to intervene. That is not the case in Lebanon. If the US and Iraqi government don't do anything further to interdict the PKK, especially now that the Turks have asked, then Turkey would have every right to come across the border and protect its interests.

The premise is simple. Governements have certain responsibilities that can't be abdicated.

This I agree with, at least the part where you disagree with Bishop about the goals entering Afghanistan.

The single biggest problem I had with the timing of the invasion of Iraq was that we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan first. We should have gone in, and taken care of business there first. I would still have been all for addressing the Iraq situation, including removal of Saddam. That is unless Afghanistan proved to be as tough a nut to crack as post war Iraq has.

I didn't mean to be that absolutist - I think I pointed out that we had to remove the Taliban from power, but not necessarily destroy them. The thing that prevents doing that partly was/is a function of the corruption/willingness to switch sides of so many warlords in Afghanistan. There was the core Taliban that we wanted to eliminate, but also many ostensible parts we could just buy off to switch sides - someone like Ismail Khan in Herat. For all the simplicity in saying the Taliban were in charge of the country, they really only ruled the Pashtun area, had control of Kabul and a tenous peace with many warlords - in addition to the actual war being fought mostly by the Tajiks in the north.

Overall, since 2003, I think we have been taking steps to help consolidate the power and centralize the government, but if you push too hard you face another part of the country in insurgency. As far as Afghanistan resorting back to a hostile gov't amenable to training camps, that's why we kept the NATO force there. Any individual warlord or part of the country may want to declare war on Kabul, but we can play them off each other and keep the NATO force there as easily the most powerful. And no one group other than the Taliban has shown a willingness to take on the Americans and the other ethnic groups. Of course with drug money and a safe haven in Pakistan/possibly Baluchistan, we're never going to eliminate the Taliban, but as my FARC reference alluded to, as long as they are restricted to spoiling attacks in their part of the country and don't control any territory, I'm not worried and think that might be the best possible scenario. Unless you're actually eager to commit more lives and money to possible incremental progression in Afghanistan, instead of just as a foil for those spent in Iraq.
Turkey does have troops in Iraq. Maybe 2000 from what I've occasionally seen. And they (and Iran on the other side) do shell PKK camps often. It just doesn't get the press Israel v. Arabs does. Then again, only US v. X gets that kind of attention.

1. A week ago, Israeli cabinet decides not to expand the ground war.
   
2. A couple days ago, Israel decides on a 48 hr ceasefire.
   
3. Yesterday, Israel decides continue the air bombing campaign.
   
4. Today, Israeli cabinet decides to expand the ground war.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Did I miss something between #2 and #3?

Anyone know the reason for the turnaround?

What do people think would happen if whoever speaks for Hezbollah came out and said this:

"We are returning the hostages. Whatever border the international community wishes to draw between Israel and Lebanon, we will respect. We are laying down our arms, and no longer take any interest in the state of Israel, as long as they agree to leave us alone; from here on out we are concerned ONLY with making Lebanon a better place to live."

Ok, I know it's a pipe dream. But that's the only way this is going to end.

Not me. I thought Israel might call a cease-fire, stop for a bit and then wait a day or two, then say, hey, we gave peace a chance and go back at it even harder. But I did not anticipate this. I'd guess Olmert and the cabinet saw the perception (that Hiz'b'allah had beaten Israel) and decided it would take down their government, given enough power to the hawks to increase force. I know there were some very pissed off people high in the Israeli politics/decision-making that were not happy about the limited war being fought from the beginning, and without more information I'd have to guess they beat the others in an insiders game.

The 48 hour break was due to the killing of the women and kids.

Didn't think about internal pressure and the image of 'Hezbollah had beaten Israel'. Probably a factor.

Interesting that Syria has heightened its readiness.

History in the making, our kids will read about this war in HS world history.

There is also the fact that Rice left just as Israel said they were dialing it down. The US may have asked to be thrown a bone so that it wouldn't look like they aren't doing anything to stop the war.

Looks as if there was a new military operation in Baalbek.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14128276/

Those guys look rough, wouldn't want to mess with them.

Funny, I never thought of the IDF having airmobile capability. I'm sure they didn't play Wagner.

Only because no one remembered what went on before. Do you even remember what happened in 67 or 73 or that Israel occupied Lebanon until recently? Edward, try a little perspective instead of hyperbole.

I'm not sure what you mean. Take my statement at face value. We have history in the making.

I learned about 67 and 73 in high school history. I think future generations can handle 67, 73, 82, and 06.

Allowing the continued action against Hezbollah is a way to stop the war. No action led to Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel and killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

Very true Dutch, this unprecedented Middle Eastern violence came out of nowhere.

What's your point?

I have no point, I'm just agreeing with you that the attack by Hezbollah was the first ever violent act in the Middle East, nothing led up to it and it was completely unpredictable.

I'd also like to agree with you that continuing the fighting is one way of ending the war. War is, after all, Peace.

The war's toll so far:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...289202,00.html

Peace is peace. Terrorism is a crappy substitute for true peace. And sadly, sometimes war is a means to and end.

The Hezbollah terror wing and the Hamas terror wing (and the old PLO terror group) are designed to not allow for peace. Ever. And when will they disband, exactly? When every Jew is dead. That doesn't sound like a very easy peace for Israel.

The sad thing is, you probably believe that.

Hezbollah has apparently said that if Israeli soldiers came into Lebanon, they'd kidnap them.

Way too early to make this claim. If 82 and 96 didn't make it into American history books then this conflict won't since, as it stands right now, the current conflict is basically more of the same. Hell, 48, 67, and 73 barely get a mention now and they were much more significant conflicts.

American textbook publishers don't even bother addressing many significant American campaigns against insurgencies as it is. How many of us studied the Philippine-American War in high school? So, I doubt they would bother with some other country's low-intensity conflicts...

This is news to me. I thought Hezbollah launched a 'daring' cross-border raid to capture the Isreali soldiers?

According to Forbes and other sources, that's not correct.

I agree. Warmongering is a peaceful strategy. Israel must be allowed to keep bombing Lebanon, pretty soon they will destroy Hezbollah, just like our three year war in Iraq killed all the terrorists there, which the media isn't bothering to report.

If the "west" doesn't retaliate against "terror", you're saying that will bring peace?