Middle East - what's next

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Like mentioned before, the only way to win against an insurgency is to win over the people and take away its support.

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

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

Period.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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

Period.[/i]

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

[Flasch186]

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

otherwise Ill go back to leaving you alone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So that just leaves getting rid of the people. I don't think you are calling for genocide, so what are you calling for?

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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

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

[Flasch186]

JimG:

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

I would hope youre not suggesting the latter.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

are you saying "kill every last one" of the militants? or Lebanese? I would hope youre not suggesting the latter.

Militants, terrorists, what have you.

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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

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

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Hey they enjoyed peace before Hezbollah escalated the conflict with the raid and expanded rocket attacks. I'm saying they don't have the internal conflict going on as in Iraq, and that they are responsible for the goings on inside their borders. Israel has been asking for Hezbollah to be dealt with for years, The Turkish thing has only boiled up in past months, and only more recently have the Turks officially and publicly asked for the situation to be dealt with.

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

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

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

4) The Turkey thing is new?

PKK was founded and led by Abdullah Öcalan. It emerged as an organisation during the 1970s and developed into a paramilitary organisation which rendered much of southeastern Turkey a war zone in the late 1980s and 1990s, for details see the conflict in south-eastern Turkey. Its actions have taken place mainly in Turkey and against Turkish targets in other countries, although it has on occasions co-operated with other Kurdish nationalist paramilitary groups in neighbouring states, such as Iraq and Iran.

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

... I assure you that periodic air strikes won't.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

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

Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.

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

Insanity.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

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

4) The Turkey thing is new?


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

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


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

[MrBigglesworth]

Glen, here is your original statement on Lebanon:

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think you guys are missing my point about the Government doing nothing. They have armed forces, they have police, they also have the government itself, and the parlimentary structure to politically pressure Hezbollah. They didn't use even the meager tools that they had to tell Hezbollah to disarm, or that they could no longer practice their mischief in plain sight. They allowed Hezbollah to actively attack Israel, and lifted not one finger to intercede or even to impede Hezbollah activity. My standard isn't that I expected the Lebanese Government to crush Hezbollah, or even take them on in a full scale millitary battle. My position is that they should have openly opposed Hezbollah, and Hezbollah's mission. Instead they didn't address the problem, because it is admittedly a tough nut to crack. They are still the government, and are still responsible for what they allow to go on within their borders. I don't have a lot of trouble with Israel making them pay for their willingness to accomodate Hezbollah.

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

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

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

Periodic no, but Syria did a pretty good job of ending support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama back in 1982. Not sure anyone in this thread (well, maybe Jon) want to go down that road, but if you (as in Israel) is going to be accused of genocide and war crimes when using selective bombing and doing your best to avoid civilian casualties, strategically you might as well stop caring about civilian casualties. Morally, of course, it's absurd to even mention the idea. Then again, if no one steps in to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, all moral calculations are off in the long run anyway.

Originally Posted by Dutch

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".

Fuck no. The Turks would massacre every Kurd in the area if given the chance. Luckily the Peshmerga are about as good a fighting force as you can find in SW Asia, and a united Barzani/Talabani would stalemate the Turkish Army well before it reached Irbil, let alone Suleimanaiya or Kirkuk.

As it is, it's willfully misleading to compare the Hiz'b'allah and PKK situations, since the PKK is primarily an indigenous force fighting in Turkey that happens to have some bases across the border in Kurdistan compared to a Hiz'b'allah that is exogenous to Israel. If the Turks gave autonomy to the Kurdish part of Turkey, the PKK would lay down their arms (well, not lay down, but not squeeze the trigger finger.) Hiz'b'allah was still threatening Israel after Israel left the country (because they are a proxy for bigger issues, unlike the Kurds who are fighting a straightforward war for independence/autonomy.) Although there was that whole accusation of certain Turkish generals using the PKK to keep Turkey out of the EU, but who knows how much of that was true.

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

Agreed with all that, except I think the public opinion tide had already been turning before the Qana attack, which was the final nail in the coffin. Nice to see Hiz'b'allah rewarded for basing rocket attacks next to places filled with refugees, which will only encourage the future use of said despicable practice.

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.

There is also option (3) attack the Iranian embassy if Nasrallah really is there and not Damascus. If they capture/kill him in conjunction with an immediate cessation of air attacks, that could be the only way to credibly declare victory before a cease-fire. And maybe the mullahs in Iran would then be forced to declare war officially, which is the only way to change the dynamics in the long term.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

Just 'cuz I never got to this before. But if you are being serious, you must have a very different idea of successful than I do. In Haiti gang violence is at pre-election levels, Eritrea/Ethiopia appear eager to start another border war, Liberia I'd credit more to the exile of Charles Taylor, likewise India/Pakistan to both countries going nuclear - either way the over Kashmir has merely turned into a proxy war instead of an actual state conflict. And there is possibly ethnic cleansing going on in Kosovo, this time by the kosovar Albanians against the ethnically Serb kosovars. I don't know much about Morocco, Georgia, or Cyprus, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Both attributed to the inimitable Gen. George Patton.

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by 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.

So? What's your point?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

... that new paradigm isn't to simply lob more ordnance at the problem.

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

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

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

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

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

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Glen, here is your original statement on Lebanon:

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

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

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

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

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

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

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

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

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

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

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

Turkey does have troops in Iraq. Maybe 2000 from what I've occasionally seen. And they (and Iran on the other side) do shell PKK camps often. It just doesn't get the press Israel v. Arabs does. Then again, only US v. X gets that kind of attention.

[Edward64]

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

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

Did I miss something between #2 and #3?

Anyone know the reason for the turnaround?

[st.cronin]

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

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

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

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

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

Did I miss something between #2 and #3?

Anyone know the reason for the turnaround?

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

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'd guess Olmert and the cabinet saw the perception (that Hiz'b'allah had beaten Israel) and decided it would take down their government, given enough power to the hawks to increase force. I know there were some very pissed off people high in the Israeli politics/decision-making that were not happy about the limited war being fought from the beginning, and without more information I'd have to guess they beat the others in an insiders game.

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

Interesting that Syria has heightened its readiness.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

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

[Edward64]

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

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

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

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

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

Interesting that Syria has heightened its readiness.

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

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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

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

[Dutch]

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

What's your point?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What's your point?

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

The war's toll so far:

Lebanese: Up to 600 killed, 1,788 seriously injured, 5,000 homes damaged, 500,000 people displaced, 200,000 have left the country, 3 airports bombed, 62 bridges destroyed.

Israel: 19 civilians dead, 26 seriously injured, 374 less badly injured, 33 Israeli soldiers killed, 50 injured, 200,000 Israelis have left their homes in North Israel.

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

[Dutch]

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

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

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

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

No action led to Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel and killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

The sad thing is, you probably believe that.

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

hxxp://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html

The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them. The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

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

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

The sad thing is, you probably believe that.

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

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

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

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

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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