Middle East - what's next

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Yeah, the Taliban still has influence in some southern parts of the country, and managed to launch a (quickly destroyed) offensive from across the border, but overall we took them out of power, made Afghanistan no longer a safe haven for al-Qa'eda, and destroyed the terrorist training camps.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

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

The Next Front
Pressure is building on Ankara to deal more harshly with cross-border terrorist attacks from Iraq.

By Owen Matthews and Sami Kohen
Newsweek International

July 31, 2006 issue - Israel launched airstrikes on Lebanon in response to attacks by Hizbullah earlier this month, and George W. Bush called it "self-defense." But what to tell the Turks, who over the last week lost 15 sol-diers to terror attacks launched by sepa-ratist Kurds from neighboring Iraq? Many Turkish leaders are pressing for cross-border tactical air assaults on the guerrillas. But Bush, fearing yet another escalation of the Middle East's violence, urged Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to hold off. "The message was, unilateral action isn't going to be helpful," says a senior U.S. official, describing the 15-minute phone conversation. "The president asked for patience"...

The Turkish press has been baying for action, with even the solidly pro-American Turkish Daily News railing in an editorial that "Turkey is no banana republic that can leave its security to the mercy of others." Another editorial posed the question more directly. "Why is it that Israel has the right to 'self-defense'," the paper asked, "and not Turkey." The country's usually fractious parliamentary opposition, in a rare moment of unity, called for active intervention. "Opposition," says True Path Party leader Mehmet Agar, "ends at Habur"—Turkey's border crossing with Iraq.

Can Washington keep the lid on this bubbling pot? Not for long, many experts fear. Despite past assurances, the U.S. military has been unwilling or unable to mount operations against the guerrillas.

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?

[Flasch186]

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

why wouldnt turkey attack the guerillas, not the US...

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

[rexallllsc]

Ah, Israel.

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

irestorm
Israeli leader expresses regret at tragedy, talks in Rome fail

Wednesday, July 26, 2006; Posted: 11:41 a.m. EDT (15:41 GMT)

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- A diplomatic furor erupted Wednesday after four U.N. observers died in southern Lebanon in what the U.N. secretary-general said was an "apparently deliberate" Israeli airstrike.

Israel angrily denied the accusation.

The U.N. observers were killed when an Israeli bomb made a direct hit on their bunker in southern Lebanon on Tuesday. They had called an Israeli military liaison about 10 times in the six hours before they died to warn that the aerial attacks were getting close to their position, according to a U.N. officer. (Full story)

Lebanese security sources told CNN Wednesday at least three precision-guided bombs were dropped by Israeli aircraft on the U.N. observers' bunker.

A Western diplomat familiar with preliminary U.N. assessments of the scene also said that it appeared the munition that hit the bunker was precision-guided.

But Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni denied that the strike was deliberate.

"Of course it was not a deliberate action," she said.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and "expressed his regret at this tragedy in Lebanon."

Annan was attending tense diplomatic talks with key Middle East figures in Rome. Those negotiations -- being held to agree to a plan to halt the hostilities in Lebanon -- have failed, according to sources involved in the talks and sources in Jerusalem and Washington. (Full story)

The stormy meeting, which saw the United States pitted against European and Arab leaders, resulted in calls for a truce but little concrete action to end the fighting. (Watch leaders outline their differences -- 8:43)

The talks had been made even more urgent by the observers' deaths, in what Annan called an "apparently deliberate" strike that "deeply distressed" him.

"This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked U.N. post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would be spared Israeli fire," he said in a statement.

The airstrike came as Israeli forces continued to battle Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, seeking to end the Islamic militia's rocket attacks on northern Israel.

At least 398 Lebanese people, the large majority civilians, have been killed and as many as 1,486 wounded since strikes began, Lebanese security officials said Wednesday.

The Israeli military said 41 people have been killed -- 19 civilians and 22 soldiers -- and more than 300 civilians and more than 60 soldiers have been wounded. Those figures do not include the casualties suffered by Israeli forces in intense fighting near the southern Lebanese city of Bint Jbeil on Wednesday.

The conflict began July 12 when Hezbollah militants killed three Israeli soldiers and seized two in a cross-border raid.

Defending themselves, huh.

[MrBigglesworth]

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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.

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.

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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?

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

[duckman]

Lets get back on topic here:

[st.cronin]

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

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

A lot of UN forces don't have the authority to "prevent breaches of the peace" (ie, fight) because of the threat of veto by the US or Russia or China if they were given such a right.

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.

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

The US ejected the Taliban from power, but could not destroy them--their influence is growing, and their influence is allowed to grow because the US did not leave Karzai's government enough time or resources to consolidate their hold on the country. Consequently, Afghanistan is quickly headed towards narcocracy--drug lords, and not the central government, increasingly have effective control over significant portions of the country outside of Kabul. Many of these drug lords are allying themselves with the Taliban in many cases. Granted, cozying up to the Taliban will probably not end well for the drug lords, but in the meantime, the relationship (safe haven and an infusion of opium cash) will help to foster a rebuilding of Taliban power.

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.)

Bishop, I'm not sure what this reference is to re the Ethiopia-Somalia conflict--but the US is not really involved at the moment...

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.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

why wouldn't turkey attack the guerillas

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.)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

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.

[Flasch186]

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

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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.

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."

July 26, 2006
U.N. Says It Warned Israel Not to Fire on Post
By WARREN HOGE

UNITED NATIONS, July 26 — The United Nations said today that its top officials in New York and its officers on the ground in Lebanon made repeated calls Tuesday to the Israeli mission and the Israeli military protesting repeated firing on its outpost in Lebanon where as many as four peacekeepers ended up being killed.

Jane Lute, the assistant secretary general for peacekeeping operations, told an emergency meeting of the Security Council that over the six-hour period in which the warnings were being conveyed to the Israelis, the patrol base at Khiam in southern Lebanon continued to come under fire, subjected to a total of 21 strikes from the air, 12 of them artillery rounds.

She described the site as “well known and clearly marked” and added that no Hezbollah firing was taking place in the area during the period.

Ms. Lute said the United Nations was so alarmed by the incidents that she enlisted Mark Malloch Brown, the deputy secretary general, to join her in placing the calls.

When the United Nations force in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, reported losing contact with the outpost, it secured safe passage from Israel to send in Indian troops, who found the shelter collapsed and the remains of three of the four peacekeepers. The fourth is presumed dead, she said.

“Firing continued during the rescue operation despite repeated requests to the I.D.F. for an abatement,” she said, speaking of the Israeli Defense Forces.

[continued]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/wo...=1&oref=slogin

[st.cronin]

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.

[Edward64]

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by duckman

Lets get back on topic here:

Yetch. I would pass on this one.

[Edward64]

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).

[Galaxy]

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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?

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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

Dola,

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

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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.

TURKEY/IRAQ: Pressures grow for action against PKK
Monday, July 24 2006
Oxford Analytica

EVENT: Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul last week summoned the US and Iraqi ambassadors to warn them that Turkey would act in self-defence if effective measures were not taken to end the presence in northern Iraq of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party).

SIGNIFICANCE: The PKK was responsible for the killing of 14 Turkish soldiers and policemen the previous weekend. The basically cautious government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) is making what may prove to be its last attempt to make the US administration live up to its declaration that it opposes the PKK as it does any other terrorist organisation.



FULL ANALYSIS: Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul last week summoned the U.S. and Iraqi ambassadors to warn them that his country would act in self-defense if effective measures were not taken to end the presence in northern Iraq of the PKK, or Kurdistan Workers Party.

The party was responsible for the killing of 14 Turkish soldiers and policemen the previous weekend. The basically cautious government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), is making what may prove to be its last attempt to make the U.S. administration live up to its declaration that it opposes the PKK, as it does any other terrorist organization.

The support given by the U.S. administration for Israel’s massive assault on Lebanon — and the understanding shown by the rest of the G-8 — has compounded Erdogan’s difficulty in containing domestic pressure to disregard U.S. and European Union warnings against a cross-border operation to root out PKK bases in northern Iraq.

Accused of indecision by the opposition and pressed by his own supporters, Erdogan has to respond to the demand for national self-assertion, in spite of the misgivings expressed privately by some of his ministers.

Upsetting the United States and world financial institutions would be a more serious matter. The publicity given to the message delivered to the U.S. ambassador and to a “political directive” to the general staff to set in hand preparations for an assault on the PKK on both sides of the border is for the moment a substitute for a major cross-border incursion.

However, if the security situation does not improve — and particularly if the PKK were to succeed in mounting a spectacular attack in a metropolitan area — military action could not be delayed indefinitely. The three opposition parties represented in parliament — the center-left Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the center-right True Path (DYP) and Motherland (ANAP) parties — have hastened to assure Erdogan of their support for a cross-border operation. Although more cautious voices are also heard — from a small group of liberal columnists — Erdogan and the AKP cannot disregard majority opinion as they prepare for presidential elections in May next year and then for legislative elections the following November.

Effective action against the PKK is needed not only to safeguard internal security but also to control the political situation in Turkey’s southeastern provinces inhabited by the Kurds. As long as local people, and the politicians for whom they vote, fear the PKK (often more than they fear the security forces), the government will find it difficult to rely on elected local authorities in its efforts to end Kurdish disaffection through liberalization and regional aid.

According to Turkish authorities, in the 18 months to the end of June, PKK militants killed 148 members of the armed forces, 17 policemen, 18 village guards and 72 civilians. The number of injured exceeded 1,000. PKK losses amounted to 286 militants killed and 15 captured.

Gul is reported to have presented the U.S. ambassador with evidence of the presence in northern Iraq of some 150 leading members of the PKK and of the infiltration of men and military supplies into Turkey.

The PKK relies largely on long-range rifles and mines detonated from a distance for its hit-and-run attacks. Most of these weapons are said to come from former Iraqi army stocks.

Turkish patrols cross the Iraqi border frequently in pursuit of the PKK and have observation posts in Iraqi Kurdistan. However, a major operation would be needed to strike at the PKK headquarters on Qandil mountain (near the border with Iran) and Makhmur camp nearer the Turkish border.

After his meeting with Gul, the ambassador said that, rather than send troops into northern Iraq, Turkey should rely on the “three-way mechanism” — the process of consultation between Turkey, the Iraqi government and U.S. authorities in Iraq — that was established after earlier Turkish complaints.

However, after the last meeting of the three parties, arrest warrants were issued against the PKK leadership but no action was taken to implement them. Turkish authorities realize that U.S. forces are in no position to take action against the PKK in northern Iraq and that the Kurdish regional government will have to do so.

They also know that, contrary to conspiracy theories, Washington would be happy to see the back of the PKK but that the Iraqi Kurdish leaders may see some use in the PKK in their conflict of interest with Turkey, which opposes their demand for quasi-independence and their claim to Kirkuk and its oilfields. The Turks hope that the declaration of a “shared vision,” issued after Gul’s recent visit to Washington, means that they carry more weight in U.S. calculations than the Iraqi Kurds, for all the help that the latter gave (and the Turks refused) in ousting Saddam Hussein.

The Erdogan government has to respond to domestic demands for effective action to stop the PKK from using northern Iraq as a sanctuary from which it can attack targets inside Turkey. Although unwilling to send a significant force into northern Iraq, it will have to authorize a large-scale cross-border operation (by land, air or both) if terrorist incidents continue and Washington does not force the Kurdish regional government to eject the PKK.

http://www.oxan.com/display.aspx?Sto...ive_html_about

[yabanci]

winning hearts and minds.

The stakes are high for Hizbullah, but it seems it can count on an unprecedented swell of public support that cuts across sectarian lines.According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

Lebanese no longer blame Hizbullah for sparking the war by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, but Israel and the US instead.

The latest poll by the Beirut Center found that 8 percent of Lebanese feel the US supports Lebanon, down from 38 percent in January.

***

Ghassan Farran, a doctor and head of a local cultural organization, gazes in disbelief at the pile of smoking ruins which was once his home. Minutes earlier, an Israeli jet dropped two guided missiles into the six-story apartment block in the centre of Tyre.

"Look what America gives us, bombs and missiles," says this educated, middle-class professional. "I was never a political person and never with Hizbullah but now after this I am with Hizbullah."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by yabanci

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[Solecismic]

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.

[Flasch186]

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

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.

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

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I ****ing hate the "winning hearts and minds" pablum. Who actually believes this?

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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 ...

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

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.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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.

[st.cronin]

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by yabanci

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.

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.

[Flasch186]

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."

[Dutch]

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".

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"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 ...

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

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

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

Although initially, Soviet operations were directed primarily against the mujahidin, once the Soviets realized the popular support for the resistance movement, they deliberately turned to a terrorist strategy of "migratory genocide" and "rubblization."....Fighter-bombers and medium bombers hit targets deep inside guerrilla territory, seeking to destroy the village infrastructure supporting the mujahidin.

"Free-fire" zones were created along the main roads and extended back to the hills behind them, and the villages within these zones were "virtually obliterated." In addition, field crops, food storage facilities, and the irrigation systems so vital to Afghan agriculture were bombed in the attempt to drive the people off the land. Soviet aircraft also deliberately attacked civilian caravans coming into or leaving the country, thus causing many casualties among women and children. Small bombs shaped as toys or other attractive objects were used with the intent to maim children, and these caused many livestock casualties as well.

....Since the war began, probably more than 200,000 Afghans have been killed and more than one-third of the population has been forced to flee to Pakistan, Iran, or the Afghan cities....There has been enormous slaughter of livestock....and the famine in places has been compared to that in Ethiopia.

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:

Originally Posted by counter-insurgency

According to Liddell Hart, there are few effective counter-measures to this strategy. So long as the insurgency maintains popular support, it will retain all of its strategic advantages of mobility, invisibility, and legitimacy in its own eyes and the eyes of the people. So long as this is the situation, and insurgency essentially cannot be defeated by regular forces. Mao Zedong attempted to neutralize this advantage by simply taking away the civilian population that shielded the insurgents; however, this had the forseeable effect of alienating the populace and laying the seeds of later conflict. In the current operations against insurgents in the "War on Terror", such ruthless tactics are not available to commanders, even if they were effective. Another option in combating an insurgency would be to make the presence of troops so pervasive that there is simply no place left for insurgents to hide, as demonstrated in Franco's conquest of Republican Spain during the Spanish Civil War or the Union occupation of Confederate States with Federal troops following the American Civil War. In each of these cases, enormous amounts of man-power were needed for an extended period of time to quell resistance over almost every square mile of territory. In an age of ever shrinking and increasingly computerized armed forces, this option too is precluded from a modern commanders options.

Essentially then, only one viable option remains. The key to a successful counter-insurgency is the winning-over of the occupied territory's population. If that can be achieved, then the guerrilla fighter will be deprived of its supplies, shelter, and, more importantly, its moral legitimacy. Unless the hearts and minds of the public can be separated from the insurgency, the occupation is doomed to fail.

[Edward64]

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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.

[Dutch]

"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.

[Crapshoot]

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

ANA, Lebanon (CNN) -- Israel said it mistakenly destroyed a four-story building near a Hezbollah rocket-launching site in Qana, Lebanon, on Sunday where officials said 60 people died, including 19 children.

It was the deadliest attack in 19 days of fighting between Hezbollah militia and Israeli forces, which began after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid.

A Red Cross official said the Qana airstrikes hit a residential building that housed refugees, which Israel said was near Hezbollah rocket launching sites. Officials said they believed at least another 11 children were still under the rubble.

More than 60 bodies have been pulled from the rubble, Lebanese representative to the United Nations Nohad Mahmoud said.

"I saw several bodies of children, women and old men," reported CNN's Ben Wedeman. "Residents were digging with the their bare hands, taking more and more bodies out. Parts of the town were completely bombarded, as if hit by a giant mallet in many places. I was told by one Lebanese army officer that they counted more than 80 individual strikes on the town." (Watch Qana residents say poor couldn't heed Israeli warning to leave -- 1:52)

During an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council on Sunday, Secretary-General Kofi Annan again called for an end to the fighting.

"We must condemn this action in the strongest possible terms," said Annan. "I am deeply dismayed that my earlier calls for immediate cessation of hostilities were not heeded, with the result that innocent life continues to be taken and innocent civilians continue to suffer. I repeat that call once again." (Full story)

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday that Israel needed 10 to 14 more days to complete its mission against Hezbollah militia.

Senior U.S. State Department officials said Rice will leave Jerusalem for Washington on Monday to negotiate a draft resolution to present to the Security Council this week aimed at bringing a halt to the crisis.

In Beirut, outrage about the attack sparked violent protests at the U.N. compound. ( Watch how angry protesters use rocks, boards and poles to break into U.N. compound -- 2:30)
'We can't do anything for them'

The IDF said that residents of Qana had been warned to leave by radio announcements and by air-leaflets because it was a combat area.

"The building itself was not targeted," Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisen told CNN. "The building itself was next to the rocket-launcher sites and we are targeting all of those rocket-launcher sites. This was a mistake and we will have a full investigation."

A Lebanese emergency official -- speaking live on Al-Arabiya TV -- said rescuers lacked the heavy equipment to remove people still trapped under the collapsed building.

"We can't do anything for them under the rubble because we do not have the right equipment," the unidentified official said.

Red Cross worker Sami Yazbak, who was helping to pull bodies from the building, said many of the children who were sleeping inside were handicapped. (Grieving Lebanese wail over loss of life -- 2:23)

Video broadcast by Arab TV showed the bloodied bodies of women and children who appeared to be wearing night clothes. Many of the bodies were under rubble in the basement of the building.

IDF spokesman Jacob Dalal told CNN that Hezbollah has used the village to fire rockets into western Galilee, including the coastal town of Nahariya. Dalal said Israel was exercising its right to defend itself with the airstrikes.

Dalal said "there was a specific Hezbollah asset" the IDF was targeting. "We have been hitting rocket launchers from that village for several days," Dalal said.

"Clearly, we did not know the civilians were in the way," he said.

Dalal said Hezbollah turned the village into a war zone.

"Hezbollah has chosen this as their launching ground for their attacks on us intentionally endangering their civilians because they know that something like this is liable to happen," Dalal said.

Qana, 10 miles east of the southern Lebanese coastal city of Tyre, was the location of an attack by Israeli forces 10 years ago in which more than 100 Lebanese refugees were killed. On April 18, 1996, Israeli artillery pounded a U.N. center crowded with civilians. Israel later said the attack was a mistake. At that time, Israel accused Hezbollah militants of hiding behind civilians.

[Dutch]

More fun - I'm sure Dutch is thrilled by this:

I'm not sure that was called for.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As for what Israel "should" do? So far I'd say this latest round has been handled pretty well ...

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.