I think I've already agreed with you that war is peace: the only way to bring peace is to go to war against as many people as possible for as long as possible. Take Iraq for example. We spent $1.2 trillion and going on 3,000 American lives, that's a small price to pay to make sure that Iraq doesn't invade the United States and destroy our way of life. That's making war for peace. The fact that things are going really well there and that it is becoming a model democracy with no ethnic violence or government death squads is just a bonus.

Israel has a right to defend itself. Hezbollah will probably be a non-entity within days. Bombing the hell out of a country and occupying it is a great way to destroy an insurgency (again, take Iraq for an example: if anything makes people go to your cause, it's being bombed to hell). If anything, Israel lacks the will required to REALLY take out Hezbollah, they should follow the shining example of the Soviets and how they completely pacified Afghanistan and Chechnya.

If any terrorist group came over the border from Canada, we would be systematically carpet bombing Ottawa within minutes. In fact, if any terrorists ever came across our border and attacked us, we would have laser focus and not rest until their organization was destroyed and we brought those responsible to justice, no matter where they went to hide. God forbid that ever happens, though.

It's a simple game really. When one is being proactive, we scream that it is too early. And when one is being reactive, we scream that it is too late. That's opposition politics and it will happen until you and I are both long gone from this world.


The beautiful thing about Canada--they send guys with WWII Missile Batteries to prison for firing off bombs into civilian populated areas. Why should we overstep their efforts?


The city of Quebec would have worked better for your musings. Consentiriez-vous? :)

Definitely. The only reason the Democrats and most of the Republicans and Independants, all the Libertarians, the Green Party, Reform party, etc, are saying things are going poorly in Iraq is because of opposition politics. That's all any criticism is, really, just opposition politics. And it's also why I actively support the bombing of nearly every country, from Iran to Germany. Better to be wrong too soon than right too late.

I agree, if a people's nascent government lacks the ability to punish lawbreakers, it's folly to help that government out. What the people (or, 'terrorists' as I call them) of the country deserve is a massive bombing campaign and, ideally, a brutal occupation. It's the only moral thing to do.

So your path to peace is to stop the violence. It probably is fair to suppose you insist the terrorists stop their violence as well? Great idea. I'm all for it.

Should I send the memo or will you?

No no no, it's nonsensical to talk to these bloodthirsty maniacs. All they know is killing and virgins in heaven, or whatever their heathen religion calls the place you go when you die (Arafat was never really at Camp David, that was done with a look alike on a soundstage, like the Moon landings, to fool terrorists into not killing for a day or two). You have it backwards. Don't you see Dutch, the only way to have peace is to kill all the terrorists. Then when we drop bombs on people's husbands and brothers and sons (and, like Qana, occasionally on their baby girls and wifes), they will see the error in their ways and come to love America...I guess, or something, I haven't thought that part through. I have thought the killing part through though, that part is integral.

Anyway, the point is, you can't have peace by not being at war. If Israel hadn't bombed Beirut, who knows hay many Israelis would have died over the next decade. 10? 20? This way, we can get them all out of the way now, and after the couple hundred or thousand Israelis die in the war, there will be blissful peace afterward because Hezbollah will be destroyed and nobody will ever hear from them again, thanks to the magic of killing people! Huzzah!

I honestly don't think you realize how unrealistic/disengenuous 99% of your facts and predictions are. You're entire argument that Israel is the root instigator of violence is simply an unrealistic fantasy.

Was the oppositions plan in 1948 invasion designed to kill 20 Isreali's? How about the invasion of 1967? Or the invasion of 1973? Or the daily terror attacks against International Security Forces in 1983 in Beiruit? How about the daily suicide bombing in 2002 in Tel Aviv? Or the thousand's of rockets Hezbollah has fired into Isreali cities?

The enemies of Israel are not the peace-loving entities that you portray them in your ramblings. And your solution of the USA and Israel to accept the violence from terrorists is not an acceptable option nor is it a solution nor does it bring peace. I'm sorry, it simply does not.

Your view that unicorns are at fault for the Empire's war with Narnia is just flat out wrong. I don't think you realize how disengenuous that is, nobody should listen to someone with crazy opinions like that that you are peddling around. I can't believe that you said that Nasrallah feeds off of the blood of baby christians, that's absurd!

...i saw that it was left hanging, but it was a "cross border" raid according to 99% of the news reports I read.

Sorry, but those damn unicorns are always up to something...

:D

There was an hezbollah spokesman on public radio this morning who described it that way, too.

I think the news are indicating Hezbollah is doing well against the IDF (relative to original expectations). There seems to be a significant lack of news on the 'wins' the IDF is having in the ground war. Not sure if this implies anything.

Surprising to me ...

(1) How Hezbollah can still launch a large number of missiles against Israel.
(2) Lack of Lebanese army activity, either for or against Hezbollah.
(3) Lack of other Arab states 'loudly' condemning Israel.

boy, i was WAY off on that week thing!

Absolutely, positively not surprising. Not even a little bit.

I think that the moderate Arab states are caught between their leadership's desires for better relations with the US, and their people's backing of the Arabs in the conflict.

At least things are still going well in Iraq.

Fascinating quote from Jamil Mroue, editor of Beirut's english-language paper:


bold is by me, the part that I found most interesting

I hope that by 'interesting' you don't mean that you agree with it, because that is the kind of talk that will get you labeled an Arab anti-semite.

Really though, why is that interesting? That's basically what I and the entire world have been saying for a couple of weeks now, save for the US and Israel.

I thought you had been saying the US needs to stop meddling in the MidEast altogether. Which is not at all what he's advocating.

dola

Basically he's begging the world to help Lebanon build a middle-class dominated society, which right now there is no political will either on the left or the right in the US to do. But it's the right thing to do, both in the Mid East and everywhere else.

Not being biased towards Israel is not advocating no involvement, I've said that I liked the 'honest broker' role we've previously at least attempted to play. I've said it's better to get a people on your side to foster institutions than to bomb the hell out of them, and also that Israel has no chance at destroying Hezbollah in this war.

Interesting analysis on the military campaign.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746281.html

Isn't that really the goal in Iraq as well? It doesn't look like the terrorists are willing to give up their power and allow the rest of the world, especially the US, restore order and promote democracy. I do agree with his premise, I'm just not convinced the terrorists are really out for the good of their fellow citizens to the point that they would willingly step aside.

Yes. The way I read Mroue's statement is that Hezbollah is against a middle class dominated society modeled after the US or Israel or Great Britain or Iceland or whichever free and prosperous nation you care to use as your model. They would rather see Lebanon blown to pieces than allow it to go down that path. Which is why I don't see anything wrong with executing every last one of those ghouls - I just think that's where the process STARTS, not ends.

drive them into the sea.

I think most people agree with that. But you cannot build a strong middle class without a secure environment that is free of terrorism. You should not bargain with terrorist, you should not accept them in any way or you encourage that as a method of bargaining.

I think you are reading it wrong. He is against Hezbollah, but his criticism is against the Israelis, that their goal should not be to blow up Hezbollahs guns but rather helping to promote a sustainable democracy in Lebanon.

It's the goal in Iraq, but we run into the same problem: democracy isn't reached at the end of a barrel of a gun. You are attempting to put all the blame on the 'terrorists' and don't seem to be recognizing that a lot of the fault lies with us. And besides, who are the 'terrorists' now in Iraq? The Sunni anti-government insurgents? The government sanctioned Shia death squads? Both? The PKK? The entire Kurdish population? The entire country? The 'terrorist' rhetoric is being used so much as to render the word meaningless.

The country of Lebanon was actually quite peaceful and democracy was coming along quite well, until Israel came and bombed the bejesus out of it (and again, Israel has a right to defend itself, I just think that they went overboard to the point where their actions were counterproductive). Again we run into the 'terrorist' problem as well. It's tough to call Hezbollah's attacks on military targets as terrorism, unless you are willing to call all of Israel's bombing of Hezbollah as terrorism. It's tough to call Hezbollah's rocket attacks into Israel terrorism, unless you call Israel's attacks on power plants and in Qana terrorism as well (yes, Hezbollah's attacks are more indiscriminate, but they would love to switch weapons with Israel and have smart bombs take out Tel Aviv's airport). It renders the word meaningless.

I think when you start out saying you see the path to beating terrorism as building up the middle class section, then when you get some replies, shift to saying Hezbollah is no more a terrorist organization than Israel, you lose any value you may have had in starting that conversation.

If you are an American and you have any value to self preservation, you would understand that Hezbollah and all radical Islamic terrorist are gunning for you too. Not because you are percieved to help Israel or anyone else. But because your country represents values that Islamic terrorist groups do not accept. It really is not much more complicated that that.

We didn't run into Iraq, and crush the civilian population. We invaded, struck millitary targets, and the Iraqi resistance crumbled. The millitary immediately shifted gears into security mode, and the goal became the promotion of democracy, and the restoration of law and order. The average citizen was pretty happy in the beginning, but the terrorists have been very successful in swinging public sentiment toward a US withdrawl. The people of Iraq just want the senseless killings to end, but the terrorists don't. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the participants of the insurgency in Iraq are anything but terrorists. I'm speaking in generalisms, but for the most part they are targetting civilians, and hoping to spread fear. That is pretty much the definition of what a terrorist does.

No, it's because we help Israel and have bases over there (Middle East).

Stop buying the GWB "They hate our Freedom" tripe.

The internal politics of the Middle East are incredibly complicated. Until you figure that out, you'll continue to be dead wrong on this topic. The black and white view of global politics has been an abject failure, and it's only sad that there are still people who haven't yet realized how far it has set back our foreign policy and our ability to influence events in the world. Everything is spinning out of control at this point, and the jackasses in Washington don't have the first clue what to do about it.

The choices are not limited to

a) breaking Hezbollah's guns

and

b) treating Hezbollah with respect.

Limiting their actions to a) is Israel's error. Thinking the alternative is b) is the error that most of Israel's critics are making.

I do agree that internal ME politics are very complicated but

(1) This does not mean the solution is not simple
(2) The overall issues cannot be condensed into a handful of overriding issues, and those issues be addressed

I personally prefer the simple approach/interpretation.

Ex. In my projects, I work with users and sometimes they ask 'what about this, what about that ...' and the questions are endless. Its a no-win discussion, once I answer a question, they have a ton more. My users get into analysis-paralysis or into minutae that does not really matter in the big scheme of things. What I tell them when they get into this mood is 'ask me 3 what-ifs and 1 worse case' ... this helps simplify the situation, keep the project going and the objective in focus.

With this said, this is not to say I support GWB current ME foreign policy. Regardless of right/wrong, who started it etc., I think Condi came up lacking when put to the test.

Well, maybe not. Apparently a US-French draft deal has been ironed out that is not as hardlined anti-Israel and gives Israel some wiggle room.

To be submitted to the Security Council. Should be interesting to see how the multi-national force is composed, lead and how it goes in.

Just like it gave and will give Iran wiggle room (and bought time).

No, they just advocate the destruction of an entire country and every single person in that country because they're a different religion.

To me, the whole Israeli conflict breaks down to this:

If the other Arab countries and the numerious terrorist organizations suddenly stopping attacking Israel; if they stopped bombing and killing innocents, if they suddenly just left Israel alone, Israel would too. All the "attrocities" some of you are alluding to would stop. There would be peace, as Israel would not instigate anything.

If Israel suddenly stopped, the terrorists and the Arab countries would continue to kill, kidnap innocents, and continue to attempt to wipe every single Israeli off the face of the earth.

Now, what side SHOULD we be on again? The answer, at least to me, is clear.

I agree with your statement about the terrorists, however I believe you generalize too much with 'Arab countries'.

Jordan and Eygpt are at peace with Israel. I can certainly see a negotiated peace with Lebanon (if terrorists 'Hezbollah' is tossed out) and Syria (if Golan is returned and economic prosperity is promised, Assad is secular and can be bribed/cajoled).

Palestine (ex. Fatah vs terrorist Hamas) is up in the air. I know Fatah could be labeled a terrorist organization but believe, right now, they are more interested in a peaceful resolution of their statehood than fighting Israel.

Reading through the on-line news this morning and saw this.


I think there comes a point in time when you concede that you have very little negotiating room, welcome any aid even at a loss of "face", suck it up and say "okay, where do you want us to sign?" and move on.

I hope he knows this is meanlingless posturing and may delay any ceasefire/peace/pullback.

Here is what's next


Good luck with that. Hezbollah will find a way.

I think this means the Arab states support this Resolution also.

Didn't really have any details on composition of UN forces, rules of engagement etc. but 15000 is pretty substantial considering last I heard the Israeli invasion force was 10000.

Sounds as if this agreement is still pretty advantage-Israel. Hope Lebanon can really enforce its part of the deal (ex. vs Hezbollah).

Tell that to the Likud party:

Israel okays plan. Lebanon okays plan. Hezbollah okays plan.


I don't get this, Lebanon/Hezbollah had already won the 'public opinion' victory and they are risking that perception with this balking.

Good thing the French seem to be taking the lead on this, let someone else play the bad guy instead of the US.

The Hezbollah leadership okays it but there are reports their "troops on the ground" don't. The leadership may not have the ability to enforce it. The Israeli ground force will stay in south Lebanon until the UN force moves in. Could be two weeks or more. I don't see Hezbollah leaving those troops alone.

So after all that, it looks like the only person better off is the Hezbollah leader. The Lebanese government is weaker than ever, Israel has acheived nothing in a strategic sense and more Isrealis have died than would have from decades of sporadic Hezbollah attacks, a number of Lebanese people are dead or displaced, and the Arab world distrusts the US even more. It's almost enough to make one think that the war was a bad idea.

This thread gets me laughing, but I don't know why.

I don't think anyone is really seriously disputing that venturing back into Lebanon or even bombing the Lebanese infrastructure might not have been a good idea for Israel. Like I said before in this thread, I don't know what they were trying to gain, but they are certainly within their rights to do what they've done. Their response was disproportional, but for all we know it might just have helped them achiev their goals.

I think that a lot of people were saying just that, that it was about time that Israel was 'doing something', that they couldn't just be attacked forever.

And yes I agree that it is within their rights, just a terrible idea. Like Iraq. Wars are all too often a lose/lose proposition, especially preventive wars.

Looks as if there is problems composing the 15K multinational force into Lebanon. Unfortunately, France seems to have backed off its leadership position prior to the cease fire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/5264450.stm


Instead of a larger European 'Christian' contingent, the force may be primarily composed of 'Muslim' nations forces to complement the Lebanese force.

I wonder if the French/Europeans are playing a game and trying to negotiate for a more favorable UN mandate, rules of engagement etc? I hope so, a predominantly Muslim UN force on the border is not going to make Israel feel any safer and possibly complicate matters if there is another border clash.


Also, seemingly lots of dissension in the IDF with their performance. I'm predicting that Olmert's government will fall.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209401,00.html

With over 20 "cease fires" in the past several decades, this one has the worse chance of holding for any length of time. No one has the guts, esp. the extremely weak UN, to disarm Hezbollah or to even attempt to create the buffer zone. It's hilarious, you make "a more favorable UN mandate" sound like that's worth something. History will keep repeating itself (which you and most others seem to forget that the exact same thing has happened multiple times in the past four decades) because everyone will just dance around the issue. Besides, I fully believe that the UN under Anan will be judged as the most worthless, ineffective and corrupt period in its history.

The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics.

It's not a matter of will, or guts, it's a matter of the limited abilities of modern militaries. The Soviets definitely had the 'guts' in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and look how that turned out.

Buccaneer. I can appreciate your passion on this subject. Here's my notes.

History will keep repeating itself. Too defeatist. In the large view, sure history repeats itself is easy to say and it does happen. When talking in generalities there are numerous examples. Also, given enough time, anything repeats itself.

However, my contention is that history does not need to repeat itself. Ex. There is hope Egypt/Jordan will continue to have peace with Israel.

My preference is not to say it can't be done because it has failed numerous times, instead we should say that we have not found the proper solution yet.

UN under Annan. Jury is still out but the scandal certainly does not help his cause. Specific to this ME situation, I'm not sure I can fault him for anything that has happened ... I think countries backed out of their initial bravado, leaving him to hold the bag.

Bucc is weak.

MrBigglesworth. I disagree with you. Certainly not a matter of limited abilities of modern militaries. It is almost always a lack of political AND civilian population will. I add the "civilian factor" because I believe that is key and explains the Soviet failures in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

If US political/civilian strongly supports the US military actions, the US military can most probably prevail and accomplish anything (given a little headsup to ramp up).

Of course, the US "civilian will" is finicky at best. I think the last time there was this example of US "civilian will" was in WWII.

Speaking of history repeating itself. Time and time again the population has proven that they go into any war "rah-rah". Then, when the war isn't won in a month, people start to question the leadership and grow tired of the situation. THIS is history repeating itself.

CraigSca. Yes, population is finicky but this did not happen in WWII and look what happened, a new world order ex. to our benefit.

No, but it did happen in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War and look what happened there.

Following the Revolutionary War, the transition of America from British colony to independent nation wasn't an easy one...even AFTER we had The Constitution in place. The Fed had to put down several home-grown uprisings, there were times of severe economic uncertainty, there was still strong Tory sentiment in certain parts of the country that lasted until after the War of 1812, and the European powers were circling like vultures waiting for our little experiment with a democratic republic to fail so they could swoop in and pick up the pieces.

Whether you realize it, you're siding with me, SFL. That's exactly the point I was trying to make.

This "cease-fire" really is laughable.

What pisses me off is that the UN can renege on the promises made to in order to get the cease fire, Lebanon can renege on their promises, Hezbollah can openly send more troops and weapons back across the border, and the media doesn't give a damn.

But the IDF finally does something about it, and the headline on al-CNN is "Israeli Raids Jeopardize Cease-Fire." I mean, WTF? Why not give the same treatment to the lies coming out of Kofi Annan's mouth on a daily basis?

Let's not leave out the fucking French.

Viva la France! French diplomacy makes American diplomacy look terrible. We had a situation here where each country during the conflict would prefer to return to the status quo, because the war was disasterous for both sides. But neither side wanted to be seen as the one backing down, and there was no way in hell that Israel/USA and Hez/Iran/Syria would ever negotiate with each other. Enter France. Chirac successfully completes two bait and switches, the major conflict ends, both Lebanon and Israel get what they want, and France doesn't have to use barely any of its resources.

Chirac is one smart motherfucker.

I hope that in calmer times, you look back on things like this and feel a bit sheepish.

But on the subject matter, now that things are back to pretty much the way they were before the war except that there were lots of lives and resources lost on both sides, are you ready to admit that this wasn't the best policy of Israel's to escalate the conflict? Or what went wrong, in your mind?

Like was said, it's impossible to prove the Green Lantern Theory wrong, because every defeat can just be explained away by a lack of sufficient 'will'. But, how could Iraq have gone better if the US political/civilian 'will' was stronger? An increase in our 'will' wouldn't make the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds love each other. Killing more of them wouldn't make them love us more. How can you look at Iraq and see anything other than a limitation of a modern army?

You're right about one thing. America wouldn't have backed out of the obligation it had made. I do question your point that by doing so, France looks smart. I understand your point, but I can't look at essentially a country reneging on its promise pragmatically. France may be getting what it wants, but it looks chicken shit, not "smart".

I don't know what France got that is so great. All it has are a bunch of people calling it 'chicken shit'. But what it did was stop the conflict that both sides wanted stopped and that the US was trying to keep going. I'm thankful that France stepped in so that the disasterous conflict didn't have to go on for one more day than it had to.

Think of it this way: who gets screwed by France reneging? Not France, not Israel (who wanted a way out to save face), not Lebanon (that also wanted a return to the status quo and didn't want to open up the whole representation thing again with their Shiites), not the UN (which did its job by helping bring about the ceasefire), not the US (who can now blame the French surrender monkies for screwing up what the US didn't want in the first place). Granted, it's not an ideal ending, but it's better than the alternatives.

As for 'who gets screwed by France reneging?' ...

France. Probably right, a little loss of face and although some parties will remember it, this renege won't be significant in the future.

Israel. Disagree, definitely got screwed. From what I've read, the IDF and Israeli population would have wanted a continuation of the war till a positive conclusion. Increasing from 10K to 30K troops in the last days was probably political manuevering but it shows some intent.

Lebanon. Agree, worked out the best for them.

UN. Agree, Kofi can't help it that France renege. But do wonder if a Chapter 7 mandate vs a Chapter 6 mandate is what France really wants?

US. Agree, I think US public opinion was not as positive on the Israeli's this time around and GWB/Rice could see the trend.

You forgot Hezbollah. Agree, if the 15K + 15K force is toothless (as it now seems to be), Hezbollah wins.

I think you are assuming 'good intentions' with your Green Lantern Theory, ex. win the hearts and minds etc. My point is there is plenty of examples of overwhelming military might subjugating a population into docility (for the most part) ... definitely not forever (don't think there are any examples of this) but for a long period of time.

Do you really believe that the US, given enough military/civilian will, could not subjugate Iraq (and bordering countries that mess with us) into submission?

Or think of it this way, if General x had a mandate to use whatever means possible to subjugate Iraq regardless of the political consequences over a time frame of 20 yrs with x increase in troop levels with x unlimited funds and a guarantee of 'civilian support/will' ...

Again, plenty of examples of overwhelming military might subjugating a population.

I think one of Israel's issues is PR, they seem to be very reactionary right now and surprising the world with their tactical actions. Maybe not the best example but I think of a rabid dog reacting aggresively to every movement. Israel's actions are very overt and public, Hezbollah/Syria's are not.

IMO, a better way would be saying "look world, here are some photos of Syria/Hezbollah violation #1 ... oh look world, here are some photos of another Syria/Hezbollah violation #2 ... okay world, with violation #3, all bets are off and we will start intercepting".

At least in the US, Israel will get more sympathy.

With France reneging and a significant UNIFIL force questionable (I think I read only 3500 committed so far) in the near future, I would recommend to Israel to stop transitioning territory to the Lebanese forces until there is a larger UN force in place.

I think this is the only trump card that Israel has to force a better UN committment.

Do you have any examples of the past 50 years?

We've spent a trillion dollars (and we have no more money) and we've had 150k troops in the country (and we have no more troops), and the thing is a disaster. So what do you mean by 'whatever means'? What could the generals do in Iraq that would help that they aren't currently allowed to do?

I'm sure the IDF wanted to keep going, and maybe the Israeli population, but the Israeli leadership knew it was hopeless. They had Israeli kids out there dying for no reason, Israelis at home dying for no reason. Hezbollah was tougher to root out than they thought. I can guarantee you that if they could have taken a do-over of the war, they would have never escalated it. Israel made a mistake, and the UN, with France's help, helped them out of it without making it look like they were backing down.

Lets say since 1900 (why 50 yrs btw?).

China - Civil war.
Soviet Union - Civil war.
WWII - US in Japan. Soviet Union over Eastern Europe.
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

I can probably dig up another dozen examples of petty African dictators and their civil wars etc. where they have kept the people in line.


Your first 2 sentences about money and troops are inaccurate. Kinda agree about the disaster statement. If you really believe we are out of money and troops, I don't think we will ever see eye to eye rationally.

In theory, whatever means means whatever means, no restrictions.

Was Genghis Khan worried about popular opinion? Was Stalin concerned? They effectively contained their population when they were alive.

We agree that Israel could not keep the war going but we disagree on the reason.

I think you believe Israel thought they could not acheive their military objectives and decided to take the cease fire.

I believe Israel would have expanded the war and would have been able to acheive their military objectives if the political price (both domestic and abroad) would not have been too high.

Yes, Israel could not wipe out Hezbollah in 30+ days. Pretty sure if it went on for 180+ days, Israel would be in much better shape than Hezbollah (public opinion notwithstanding).

Why 50 years? Because before that is an entirely different period in military history. Just a few examples from the past 50 years is all I ask.

We could, in theory, send every penny we have and every soldier we have to Iraq, but that is just a little absurd, isn't it? What does the Iraq effort need money for that it doesn't have already? Where would you take troops away from to put into Iraq, and if you have what we agree is a disaster with 150k, how many do you think we would need for it to be a success?

I'll ask again: what do you want the Iraqi generals do be able to do that they aren't allowed to do right now?

Our discussion is about the limited uses of a modern military. Our goal in Iraq is to bring about a stable democracy, something I don't think can be done militarily while you (I think) are arguing that it can. For your examples of how a military can bring about democracy, you use Ghengis Kahn and Josef Stalin. Are you saying that to bring democracy to Iraq, what we need to do is institute a nomadic ancient Mongolian style government that beheads everyone in each village it takes over? Or are you saying that to bring democracy to Iraq we need to instutute a brutal early Soviet style purging Communist government? Or what is it that you are trying to say?

I don't think anyone believes that Hezbollah would be able to defeat Israel, but you have to look at it from a cost/benefit approach: let's assume that Israel achieves its goal of getting rid of Hezbollah militarily. That still doesn't change the political climate which resulted in Hezbollah, so someone else will just come and take their place. Meanwhile, the cost to Israel would be huge: thousands of casualties, perhaps thousands of deaths, and billions and billions of dollars. Meanwhile, if they had just kept the status quo, they would have a dozen people killed every decade or so, with the possibility of creating a situation in Lebanon where they will be able to get rid of Hezbollah on their own.

Our goal militarily was to oust the former regime. Our military is not going to bring democracy to anywhere. The US Military is probably the most socialistic organization in America. So it's pretty impossible for them to provide democracy.

What the US military can do, is provide a security arm for the fledgling Iraqi government while it is forming. It is a crutch and obviously a much needed one at that.

The true gains remain the Iraqi government for forming and it's people for voting. The US Military can only get credit for helping fascilitate that, but the true credit goes to the Iraqi people who went to vote under threat of terror-retaliation.

And in the end, it will remain the Iraqi's who decide. They can now vote to allow Al Qaeda run the country for them if they wish, but I think they have had enough of war and would never do that.

In any event, the US Military is there to help. Something that a military under Ghengis Khan or Stalin would never be accused of.

I don't disagree with this. The cost/benefit equation is equivalent to my political price/public opinion factor.

I thought in a prior thread you implied that Israel accepted the cease fire because they could not acheive their aims regardless of cost.

I may have said that, I think it depends on what you define their aims as. If their aim was to create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, that was definitely possible, if there aim was to weaken Hezbollah militarily, that was definitely possible and achieved. If they wanted to get rid of Hezbollah and create a 100% representative democracy in Lebanon, that was pretty much impossible.

50 yrs was not a claim I made. The issue with the 50 yr limit is because of East/West polarization and the UN which limited large conflicts.

Nevertheless, see attached list. I'm sure we can find some examples of overwhelming might subjugating the populace.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

Yes, it is absurd because this example is the extreme. If you do not believe we can come up with another 500B or 100K troops, I do not believe we can have a intelligent discussion on this specific point.

You are making a point that about Iraq that I have not contested. I have not made a claim that Iraq can be fixed (although I have expressed hopes).

My premise was in response to your Green Lantern theory. Given US political and civilian will, the US military can assuredly overwhelm most any other country, and China/Russia is probable.

I have made claims that we do not have this political and civilian will.



I see our misunderstanding.

Modern Military. This probably implies past 50 yrs and implies East/West, not necessarily sub-saharan/latin-south american petty dictatorships.

Goal in Iraq is to bring about a stable democracy. Yes, that is definitely the goal, but not one I had in mind when I was theorectically talking about using US military force to overwhelm a country. I am actually a proponent of 'pax americana' (I know this is a dangerous statement without a clear definition, but that's another thread). England/Rome/Barbarians/Greeks et all ruled big chunks of the world quite profitably and for a long period of time without democracy.

I will concede (and agree with Dutch) that US Military might and democracy probably do not go hand-in-hand other than in the most optimal situations.

Can you pick an example out of that list of a military taking down a foreign insurgency? I don't see any. I see many failures: Kurds in Iraq, Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Chechnya...

I think we have a misunderstanding about the Green Lantern Theory. The GLT says that the military can do anything, it's just a question of will. But no matter how much will we have, our military can't bring about peace in Iraq. As Dutch alluded to (in the midst of disavowing his responsibility for the failure of the foreign policy that he has stridently supported for the past several years), the Iraqi people matter, and if they don't want to have our style of democracy we won't be able to force it on to them at the barrell of a gun. In a similar vein, Israel is not able to completely root out Hezbollah and similar groups from along their borders through their military. It's just not possible, and our lack of evidence to the contrary in the past 50 years supports that.

But GLT can not be proven wrong. Any failure, no matter how complete, can just be explained away as having a lack of 'will', like your explanation for Iraq.

And Russia/China? Do you mean we can beat them militarily, or pacify those countries?

MrBigglesworth. Lets define this discussion clearly. I am losing track of the definition of GLT and my/our suppositions ...

It is my understanding that from reading the website link you provided ...

1) GLT was discussed specific from the viewpoint of US Military
2) Assumed to be associated with 'modern military' as the viewpoint was of US Military
3) Assumed to be associated only with 'foreign insurgency' as the viewpoint was of US Military in Iraq

Under these specific assumptions, I concede the GLT is true.

However, if you add a 4th statement

4) No amount of US will can make our military acheive its military objectives in Iraq

I tend to disagree with. Our military objectives probably won't be acheived in Iraq because we do not have the "will" ... however, in theory, if we did have the "will" we could ...

This is where our discussion went off on a tangent. I was trying to use historical examples to point out "will" and "might" can subjugate a populace.

My added suppositions are:

1) Civilian as well as political will
2) Plenty of historical scenarios (not just 50 yrs, eh?) where military might was imposed and subjugated populace for a long period of time
3) Not limited to foreign insurgency, my comment was on military might imposed on population to control them, this includes the various civil wars with a military junta aspect to them.

Under these added suppositions that expands the GLT in timespan and other countries, I do not agree with GLT.

Feel free to add or correct to this list of assumptions, talking points and lets go from there after clearly defining the discussion parameters.

Specific to the above quote, is it not possible to prove (my expanded) GLT wrong if I can show historical examples of where will and might subjugated a population for a long and profitable period of time?

I know this may sound flippant and I do not mean it to be, I am trying to be as clear and blunt as possible. To answer your question, given enough political and civilian "will" we can most assuredly military beat and pacify them through a series of first strikes.

Maybe not China in 2050.

Edit: NM, I should real the whole thread first.

I think post-WWII history shows that as the use of force escalates, so does a resolve amongst the populace to resist such force, especially in the long term.

Also, I don't think you can consider the repression under the U.S.S.R. or China to be analogous. Both regimes relied not just on military power, but an extensive security infrastructure (read: secret police) to keep local populations in line.

I also think the comparison to African warlords is overblown. Most such states exist(ed) in relative chaos, and the warlord in question typically only has (had) full control wherever his troops are (were).

I think the point you're making is that given infinite troops, and infinite will to send them into harm's way, one can pacify any country. Hypothetically, I suppose that's true. If we put 5 million U.S. soldiers into Iraq, perhaps it would be peaceful. I think what MrB's pointing out is that from a non-hypothetical standpoint, the 2nd half of the 20th century is bereft of successful examples of this strategy. Perhaps the best example of this is Vietnam, where the United States (for a good long while) actually had the ability to send a very large number of troops into the country.


Edit: Ironically, as usual it's here that I agree with Dutch. U.S. troops are in Iraq (well, they're in Iraq for this reason now, but who knows why we originally went) to provide security in the hopes that out of such security a new government may be formed, get its legs, and get off the ground.

The U.S. military will fail in this mission, however, because it lacks adequate resources to accomplish it. While U.S. soldiers do lack "regular" resources such as working vehicles, ammunition, etc..., they key resource they lack, and have lacked since the beginning, is enough troops to provide security. This is the difference between the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" (fewer troops, more mobile military) and the Powell Doctrine (if you're going to provide security, do it with an overwhelming number of troops.

I'm not sure where Dutch stands with the above paragraph, but I believe that's where we agreed to disagree the last time.

Very questionable. Russia has second-strike nuclear capability--if there is military success to be had in the invasion of Russia, it will come at a great price. China does not have reliable 2nd strike capability at the moment, however...

What do you mean by "pacify"? The Mongols were the only power that managed to subjugate present-day Russia (and to some extent, China) for any significant length of time. The Germans and French failures in occupying Russia/USSR are well known, and they had the advantage of territorial contiguity. Even if there was tremendous political "will", I don't really see the US having the necessary manpower to occupy territories that are 3X the size of the US and have 5X the population.

I'd like to point out that this claim is, from a historical standpoint, ridiculously overblown. "Subjugate" suggests a population held in complete thrall to the overlords, which simply wasn't the case, especially outside of urban areas. Sure, the Mongols were the accepted overlords, but local communities continued to mostly regulate themselves, submitting to Mongol control only when the Mongols were in the area.

In fact, I'd suggest that it was only with the advent of "secret police" that the complete subjugation of a populace for an extended period became possible. The goal should be (and was, in successful instances) to make the populace fear each other, not just the State. If they only fear the State, they can continue to work together towards its eventual overthrow. If they're always worried that they'll be ratted out, it's much more difficult, and a good percentage will just give up and be subjugated.

Yes, subjugate is too strong a word. In fact, some postulate that the Mongols managed to maintain control over these territories because their rule was much more benevolent (in terms of religious freedom, rule of law, etc) and commercially advantageous than the regions' own rulers and systems of governance.

I highly recommend Jack Weatherford's recent book on Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire. It provides a good corrective to some of the Mongol stereotyping in this thread.

What people don't understand is that Hezbollah isn't a random group of angry people. It's a highly organized army, financed and supplied by Iran, which is dedicated to the eradication of Israel. They don't hide that, even though the international media paints a far rosier picture.

This army was entrenched on Israel's border, and for 20 years now, has been amassing weapons stockpiles.

If you look at the last few years in a vaccuum, Israel was wrong to respond in the manner it did. But if you look at history of the region, the Hezbollah attack that started the war demanded a response. It's naive to assume that Israel would have incurred less casualties had they simply ignored the attack.

In that vein, the IDF response was a lot like the first strike in 1967 which took out the Egyptian air force while tens of thousands of troops waited on Israel's border to attack.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1201

This article is optimistic from an Israeli point of view, but describes why it probably was a good idea for the IDF to respond more harshly than it had in the past.

However, it's clear from the anger coming out of Israel right now (http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3149) that the war was badly mismanaged from a strategy perspective. Israel's leaders did not see that Hezbollah wanted to highlight civilian casualties in Lebanon, and the effect that would have on the international media. They picked a poor initial strategy, which turned the media (being led to the site of every civilian casualty, as illustrated by the video showing how news reports were staged by Hezbollah). Then they kept changing strategies and would not fully commit. Nevertheless, they did take out an enormous number of weapons caches - and that's however many thousand missiles that will never see Israeli soil. And Hezbollah is significantly weakened, with the UN and France forced to accept a solid plan to gain a cease fire (though, as was inevitable, the UN seems to have no intention of honoring the more important parts of that plan).

I'm not sure it was worth it in the end, but it's by no means as big a disaster as Bush's decision to go into Iraq. With that kind of military buildup, Hezbollah was certain to launch a full-scale attack sooner or later. Did the IDF response force that to happen too soon?

I just hope this warning isn't true, as the story of Iran's military games takes on a bizarre religious slant based on Muhammad and 8/22. Ahmadinejad is nothing if not insane.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1203

Some middle-east 'expert' was just on Fox stating that according to her sources Iran will attack Israel, if not on 8/22 then in the early fall. She further states that Iran is doing this to unite growing dissent in their own country for regime change.

Your view of GLT is incorrect, you are arguing on the PRO side of GLT, not trying to prove it wrong. GLT states that our military can do anything, it's just a matter of will, which seems to be your position also.

I think you'd agree that keeping control of your own country is much easier than keeping control of a forieng country, for various logistical, cultural, religious, political, intelligence, etc reasons, so civil wars aren't a good example of the strategic tactics of battling insurgencies. Neither is going back to 500 AD when everyone lined up across from each other in big groups and engaged in hand to hand combat: you have to use modern militaries against insurgents with modern weaponry. And the track record for such insurgency battles is not good.
I don't think anyone doubts the military's ability to kill people. But turning Russia or China into a barren wasteland is not an optimal outcome. Killing every last man, woman, and child in Iraq is not a desirable outcome either. Those that are against GLT aren't against it because they believe the US is not able to win wars, but against it because they believe that the US military is incapable of achieving the goals that GLT supporters say are only a matter of 'will', such as bringing democracy to Iraq, or Israel rooting out Hezbollah, or other such missions that for the military are mostly just a waste of time, money, and, most importantly, lives.

If we had the will, what could we do differently in Iraq? I've asked this a couple times now, and the only answer that I think I have gotten is thinly-vieled insinuations of genocide, which isn't going to help democracy along in Iraq.

Why? There were hardly any casualties in the decade before, and Israel is now in a worse situation than they were before going forward. And I don't think anyone suggested that they should have just ignored the attack, I think the most common complaint is that they should have responded in a more measured manner.

Agree on the first part, but what's this about a 'full-scale' attack? It's not like Hezbollah tanks would come rolling into Tel Aviv, or that Hezbollah aircraft would lay waste to Jeruselem. You know as well as I do that Hezbollah would get destroyed in any kind of frontal attack on Israel: their only power is in insurgency. There was never going to be a full-scale attack beyond lobbing a few rockets over the border, which is not a desirable outcome, but the risk of that is a lot better than the certainty of it.

How did he make it up through the ranks of the dictatorial Iranian society while being obviously insane? What irrational acts has he committed?

Everytime he speaks about Israel is wildly immoderate. His defiance of internationally recognized nuclear proliferation treaties is alarming to say the least. Supplying terrorist camps and waging war by proxy with Israel isn't the most reasoned response towards legal sovereign nations.

Of course being fingered as one of the terrorists involved in the Iranian Hostage Crisis and being wanted as a murderer by Austrian authorities probably doesn't help.

That reads like a list of stuff we used to do against the Soviet Union.

I don't think he's insane. I think he's very committed to a particular worldview, with which I do not agree, but I don't think he's insane.

Now, Kim Il Jong? He's insane.

You are absolutely right, let me try the right POV. Lets try again to clearly specify the parameters of what the GLT theory states and lets agree on some baseline facts of the GLT before we discuss more, otherwise I suspect we will go around in circles.

1) GLT is specific to the US military
2) GLT is specific to current US military
3) GLT is specific to current US military in Iraq
4) GLT supposes that with enough political/civilian "will" the US military can accomplish anything in Iraq

My additional suppositions are

A) GLT is not specific to the US military
B) GLT is not specific to current (ex. within 50 yrs)
C) GLT is not specific to Iraq scenario
D) GLT does not exclude "civil wars"

The provided link http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/blog/ygl...of_geopolitics does not specifically exclude A,B,C,D.

MrBigglesworth. Does our discussion of GLT include my suppositions of A,B,C,D? Can you please specifically state include/exclude to the 1-4, A-D statements so I understand your interpretation of GLT? Feel free to add to either category.

Again, just trying to establish a baseline of understanding before we proceed any further.

I did not think the link to the Hostage Crisis was ever positively shown. Though I read US intelligence said he wasn't the one.

Can anyone give a link that shows one or the other?

flere-imasho. I know this was not directed to me but feel it was related to my discussion with MrBigglesworth on GLT and how, given enough "will", the US military can subjugate a population.

(1) I did not study the use of the word subjugate. Use what ever you wish, the point is that there are plenty of historical examples where a population was force to accept a military force's will for a long period of time.

(2) Your point of "secret police" is well taken, however I would contend that the military force came first, then the "secret police" continued environment of "subjugation". Same difference to me.

Yes, I am sure Russia can retaliate. Bottom line, pretty sure in a US first strike, Russia will be in much worse shape than US. Agree about China.

Regardless, in this extreme scenario, everyone loses but some (ex. US and allies) will lose less than Russia/China.

I did not mean to suggest 'pacify' include the ground occupation of Russia/China. Certainly the US could not do this alone, however I would contend that without US intervention, the Japanese would have occupied China quite easily even with the disportionate population. Let me define 'pacify' as no longer a significant threat or near-equal.

You are correct that it is very important to define terrain here. Any social theory has boundary points beyond which it doesn't make much sense. I don't know what the inventor(s) of GLT considered to be their boundaries, but in order for GLT to make sense I think your point (D) should definitely fall outside of them, and possibly point (B) as well.

(D): There are very distinctive characteristics at play in a situation where an insurgency/guerrilla military is fighting a foreign occupier that are not in play in a civil war (or at least not to the same degree). It is much more difficult for an outside force to subjugate a population than a local tyrant. The insurgents have a far easier time convincing the populace that the outsiders are to blame for everything in that scenario, and people have a natural tendency to not look very kindly on foreign control in any situation. A local tyrant necessarily has considerable local support (or would otherwise be unable to exert any force), and that support will not be easily swayed to the insurgency. I think there is ample evidence to show that in internal conflicts overwhelming force (generally assisted by an internal security apparatus) can subjugate a population. It is much more difficult to find examples of foreign forces doing the same.

(B): There are at least two important developments since WWII that probably impact the GLT equation. The first is telecommunications and mass media. Conflicts are fought much more in the public eye now than previously. The result is that excessive use of force exacts a much higher political price than before. The recognition of this fact by militants in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon is central to their strategic approach.

Additionally, for an occupying nation, a conflict that might in an earlier era have seemed abstract and remote is now far more accessible and immediate, again creating additional political costs and a steady attrition of public support for foreign occupation. Under GLT consideration, we may be ignoring this factor for the occupier (?), but it would remain an important international consideration (as far as I know GLT does not insist that we view events in a bilateral vaccuum), and as we saw with Lebanon (and a decade ago in Chechnya, and before that in Vietnam), international action (or the threat of it) can constrain policy options.

Another development (and this is a more arguable point) has been the development of overwhelming military technological superiority. Going back to WWII, the application of massive destructive force that broke the enemy spirit came in the context of full on total warfare. Carpet bombing an enemy city is always ethically questionable (to say the least), but less so in the context of a large scale military conflict with national survival at stake. Today there is far less conventional military conflict. None of our opponents has a conventional military that is even worth putting on the field against the US. We essentially skip directly to the occupation phase and asymetric warfare. I imagine that if we had forced a surrender from Germany and Japan and then executed half their military-age men and firebombed their cities the local and international reaction would have been somewhat different... On the other hand, the attrition inflicted on Vietnam by the US was proportionally probably in the same ballpark as WWII, but that didn't seem to work either, so there may be other factors at work here...