ISRAEL'S LEBANON MASHUP

In software development, a mashup is an application that includes bits of functionality and content from multiple applications within a new organic whole. It doesn't adhere to the standard categories of applications and content that we are familiar with. This type of development has taken off with the advent of the Internet (which has made it easy to do) and can result in new applications that have incredible power and functionality (or go horribly wrong, think Frankenstein). What we are seeing today in the Lebanon and Gaza is a typical 21st century warfare mashup -- since it breaks down categories of warfare. For example:

• Israel is fighting what looks similar to a classic air campaign (updated from carpet bombing with more accuracy) aimed at crushing enemy moral cohesion by bypassing military targets and terror bombing Lebanese civilians (Robb note: I updated this to make it clear that this was a use of conventional weapons to fight a moral war like 4GW). In contrast, Hezbollah started the recent the hostilities by a special operations attack on a military target.
• By sowing the 4GW seeds of menace, mistrust, and uncertainty, Israel may collapse a state (Lebanon). Failing states in the current environment is usually reserved for global guerrillas since it is often nearly impossible to put them together again. Again, in contrast, Hezbollah has cast itself as the defender of Lebanon.
• Most of this conflict is being fought in the media rather than on the actual battlefield. Also, most of this flare-ups long term impact is likely to be seen within the larger global and regional networks each participant belongs to.

UPDATEBill Lind chimes in:

With Hezbollah’s entry into the war between Israel and Hamas, Fourth Generation war has taken another developmental step forward. For the first time, a non-state entity has gone to war with a state not by waging an insurgency against a state invader, but across an international boundary (Robb note: I would argue that 9/11 was that developmental step). Again we see how those who define 4GW simply as insurgency are looking at only a small part of the picture.

I think the stakes in the Israel-Hezbollah-Hamas war are significantly higher than most observers understand. If Hezbollah and Hamas win—and winning just means surviving, given that Israel’s objective is to destroy both entities—a powerful state will have suffered a new kind of defeat, again, a defeat across at least one international boundary and maybe two, depending on how one defines Gaza’s border. The balance between states and 4GW forces will be altered world-wide, and not to a trivial degree.

Final Note: One major Hezbollah blunder, was its failure to use its extensive inventory of rockets to attack Israeli systems (like power stations and fuel depots), in a crude rendition of an effects based air operation. This would have been a clean extension of the earlier attacks on conventional targets (including the attack on the Israeli ship and the initial special operations attack that took two Israeli soldiers prisoner), and any casualties associated with an attack on a systems target would more likely to have been seen as collateral damage (as part of a war between two equivalent organizations). Further, it could have caused extensive economic damage. On the moral front, this approach would have placed Israel at a significant disadvantage when it opted to bomb Lebanese systems due to paucity of Hezbollah targets. Instead, Hezbollah opted for a useless, low yield civilian terror campaign on Haifa.

Comments

[Adam]

"Also, most of this flare-ups long term impact is likely to be seen within the larger global and regional networks each participant belongs to."

John,

You're bang on there. A certain Mr Bin Laden saw the imagery of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 when he was a young man and has said that this help radicalise him. Equally one of the 9/11 team was a Lebanese Sunni who was 8 when the Israelis invaded his country. Based on their actions some 19 years later neither can be called either happy with the US, or forgetful.

So, our starter for 10. How many future Bin Ladens are watching TV today? Do we think that they will like the West, or dislike it? When (not it) will this come back on the West?

None of these questions will have comforting answers; one guess would be that the War on Terror 2 (doubtless the next generation) will be continuing in 2015 or so from today's 8-15 year olds.

[Cavolonero]

I guess ' Mashup ' is what we used to call ' Cluster Fuck '.

not that it affects the point you're making here, but "mashup" originally referred to remixes that blended two or more songs into an organic whole. it was later applied to software.

[Ryan]

Ok, as interesting as this blog is, I'm getting pretty tired of the constant referral of the losing party (regardless of what it does) always either being;

A)Israel

B)USA and Western Allies

C) See above

Israel has forced Beirut to actually now (in the future) to enforce the projection of Lebanese army power to the Southern Border, which if I recall correctly, would of prevented anything of this scale from happening in the first place.

And lastly, I doubt this will destroy or collapse the Lebanese security forces as it's clear that they've been largely out of the fight and relegated to positions of defence in the northern sector of Lebanon. Also make note, that the Israeli defence forces haven't been making serious attacks against the Lebanese army or security forces, only that of the Hezbollah Militia and it's elements.

The Strategic initiative is clearly in Israeli hands as it hasn't projected ground troops in Lebanon in large numbers, and has relegated it's attacks to air and sea, two areas in which Hezbollah cannot oppose meaningfully. Israel is taking the Kosovo scenario and moulding it in its own image.

[Gerard]

I'm confused about this post. I understand all the different elements at play but strategically what's in it for Israel to collapse the Lebanese state? I would figure that's the last thing they would want to do.

Ryan I think you over-estimate the power of the central government in the south, Hezbollah has been the de facto provider of what we would call government services in that region. Lebanon is not even a generation removed from a long civil war and only a few years removed from occupation. Lebanon might not yet be a failed state but its close.

[John Robb]

Ryan, I don't think pointing out that the conflict in Lebanon is a 4GW/conventional mashup is painting Israel as a loser. It is more of a brief on how confusing things are getting as warfare begins to change.

However, since this blog has the decline of the state, systems disruption and the rise of open source warfare as trends it is following, I don't think its a good place to find good news.

[Tangurena]

Israel spent (wasted?) two decades occupying Lebanon and trying to "crush" Hezbullah and others. Hamas was cooked up by Israel to offset the predominantly marxist PLO with a more religious group to take strength away from the PLO. If Israel wasn't able to "win" Lebanon, despite controlling it militarily for more than 20 years, then it isn't very likely that a "win" is even possible.

[TM Lutas]

The Israeli spin is that they are going after legitimate military targets that try to hide among civilians. In John Robb speak, this translates to "Israel is fighting what looks like a fourth generation warfare campaign that uses airpower against civilian targets." This counters Israeli spin

The Hezbollah spin is that they are defenders of Lebanon's sovereignty and honor. In John Robb speak, this translates to "Hezbollah started the recent the hostilities by a special operations attack on a military target." and "Hezbollah has cast itself as the defender of Lebanon." both of which reinforce the Hezbollah spin.

I agree that "Most of this conflict is being fought in the media rather than on the actual battlefield." When you counter the spin on one side and reinforce the spin of the other, you're doing more than just observing. You're a minor participant as are all so many of us.

Hezbollah is trying to have its cake (participating in the Lebanese government) and eat it too (attacking Israel on its own). The resulting hostile reviews from the rest of the arab world seem to indicate that they are not amused at this.

I think that trapping 4GW movements into political legitimacy has real potential in defanging them, if handled correctly. Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Sunni insurgents of Iraq are all test cases for the proposition. It's not going to be an instant solution or a magic bullet but I think it can work over the space of a year or three.

[redcurve]

Interestingly, we may now be witnessing the appearance on the world stage of 5th generation warfare.

5th generation warfare would be a situation where a hegemonic aggressor state collapses itself, deliberately and intentionally.

Point: I agree there is a very good chance Lebanon will, indeed, substantially implode in consequence of the Israeli onslaught. At the very least the Lebanese government, such as there is of it, will enter a major legitimation crisis and not be able, or allowed, to exit that condition.

The credibility of the Lebanese government is severely damaged and will remain so for quite a long time. Israel’s strikes have demonstrated the impotence of Lebanese forces of all kinds, not only those of the military and police, and that situation is tantamount to the Lebanese political landscape having collapsed.

Point: The Israeli leadership is, in all probability, perfectly aware its assault will cause the Lebanese political system to implode. For that reason, a rational scenario analysis might conclude that rendering Lebanon into a failed state constitutes an important goal of the Israeli political elite.

Point: Failed states are, of course, environments very conducive to the establishment of bazaars of violence, global guerilla activity, etc. Lebanon, as a failed state, would in effect be one big Baghdad from north to south, east to west.

Point: Ergo, Israel wants, and in all likelihood needs, at least one and perhaps many failed states in its region and even on its borders. The goal, then, would not be to stop rocket attacks raining down on its civilian populations (in Haifa and other cities) but, to the contrary, to ensure that such attacks continue – and preferably increase – more or less perpetually into the future.

BUT, the big question: que bono? (who benefits?).

That matter will be taken up in my next post, which I might not get around to for a day or two.

redcurve

[Duncan Kinder]

Essentially, if we were to take the logic of this blog ( as I understand it ) and apply it to Israel's defensive needs ( or - perhaps better put, Israelis' defensive needs ) then the logic would be to rely upon - not conventional weapons such as F-16s and Abrams tanks but rather upon counter-networks.

Islam is hardly a monolithic block. The Shi'ite / Sunni split is well-known. A leading Shi'ite cleric in Pakistan recently was assasinated - presumeably by Pakistani Sunnis. The Sufi's and Wahabbis oppose one another. Actually, recently the Chechen sufi's declared a jihad on Wahabbi's.

There are non-Muslim populations, such as the Lebanese Maronites and the Egyptian Copts.

In short, if Israel alone pits itself against a unified block of Arabs and Muslims, its prospects are grim. If the Israelis position themselves as one element in a much larger Mideasten potporri, then their chances are reasonable.

(I, for one, have engaged in thought experiments as to how - if global guerrilla techniques had existed in the 1930's and 40's - the Jews of Europe might have used them to defend themselves against Hitler.)

So, Israelis - rather than struggling against global guerrillas - ought to begin some guerrilla activity themselves.

(BTW - and not entirely besides the point - the Israeli mafia is already part of the global guerrilla effort.)

[Marcello]

"I, for one, have engaged in thought experiments as to how - if global guerrilla techniques had existed in the 1930's and 40's - the Jews of Europe might have used them to defend themselves against Hitler"

That would have not been possible.The state could in many cases easily solve the 4GW conudrum by turning it into a war of extermination.It would have been a bit difficult for a jew carrying out sabotage while simply being a jew meant an automatic death sentence.Today it would not be politically feasible (not yet at any rate) simply killing every single iraqi, palestinian or lebanese.Back then things were different.

[Veteran]

Looks like Israel is fighting on a spectrum from 2GW to 3GW and Hizballah is fighting 4GW with pulses of 2GW just to keep the ball in Israel's court.

What happens when Hizballah's sloppy missile supply runs out and the Israelis take the bait and invade up into Beirut's densely-packed slums again?

Then, Hizballah will make the fighting in Baghdad look like Disneyland.

[dan]

A few observations on the media battle.

Large numbers of British evacuees are now turning up at Beirut docks, Cyprus and since yesterday, the UK itself. Both BBC News 24 and Sky News ( the rolling news channels ) are interviewing large numbers of these people, asking about their experiences. I've yet to hear a single person endorse the Israeli "strategy", and more than a few blond-haired, blue-eyed northern lassies have denounced the Israelis as war criminals. There's nothing like being in the midst of a bombing campaign to get you to sympathise with the intended targets.

Sky get notably uncomfortable with this - to the extent of pulling away from interviews with people who start explicitly denouncing Olmert ( I just witnessed Sky do this within the past 5 minutes when a rather canny blonde, middle-aged Englishwoman started to question why they were bombing dairy factories ) for the indiscriminate and excessive application of Israeli force.

I suspect that similar attitudes are being replayed in the rest of the European media. Would love to hear about the US version of events....

[Duncan Kinder]

"That would have not been possible.The state could in many cases easily solve the 4GW conudrum by turning it into a war of extermination."

Chiang Kai-shek's Fifth Extermination Campaign attempted to do that.

My current thoughts: the guerrilla objective should be to split up the state into contending factions. See. eg. the Sian Incident.

[Marcello]

"Chiang Kai-shek's Fifth Extermination Campaign attempted to do that."

Well, if I understand correctly the communists had to run for their lives after that.
But what I was describing was rather the disposing of the enemy population as a whole, either by nazi style extermination
or by deportation/concentration camps like Stalin did with the chechens.
When everyone is dead or behind the wire, problem solved.

"There's nothing like being in the midst of a bombing campaign to get you to sympathise with the intended targets."

I am wondering how many people in Lebanon are
going to perceive the Hizbollah as the only thing standing between them and some IDF thug brutalizing them at a checkpoint.That's is the critical issue I suspect.

[Duncan Kinder]

"But what I was describing was rather the disposing of the enemy population as a whole, either by nazi style extermination
or by deportation/concentration camps like Stalin did with the chechens.
When everyone is dead or behind the wire, problem solved."

That takes time to organize. Hitler came to power in 1933 but the Holocaust did not get underway until 1941.

When I say I am engaging in thought experiments, people must understand the sketchky nature of what I am saying.

Nevertheless, Germany, in 1930-33, had the potential of being reduced to a failed state.

Systematic Jewish industrial, economic sabotage during that inderval could have reduced Germany to that status, preventing subsequent organized extermination efforts.

Beyond that, I have certain Indiana Jones / Dr. Fu Manch scenarios lurking in my mind.

[Duncan Kinder]

Just to follow through on my prior post, the Holocaust depended upon the train system.

Global guerrilla tactics intended to disrupt the German rail system would have subtantially impaired the Holocaust.

[jon]

"There are non-Muslim populations, such as the Lebanese Maronites and the Egyptian Copts.

In short, if Israel alone pits itself against a unified block of Arabs and Muslims, its prospects are grim. If the Israelis position themselves as one element in a much larger Mideasten potporri, then their chances are reasonable."

The Israeli's already tried to align themselves with the Maronites, after the '82 invasion. That didn't wind up all that well.

As for the holocaust, guerrilla action may have slowed it down, at least in the short term, but the event that allowed the holocaust to really move foward at high speed was the advent of WWII. Before that it would have been much easier for believable information to escape Germany and Europe. After the fall of the the low countries and France it was almost impossible for Jews to get out of occupied Europe. If there had been a concerted effort to sabotage Germany, it would have led to reprisals like they did in Czechoslovakia after the SOE assasinated Heydrich. While they may have not had the ability to transport all of the Jews right away, they would have made Kristallnacht seem like the work of a band of teenagers.

[Duncan Kinder]

"If there had been a concerted effort to sabotage Germany, it would have led to reprisals like they did in Czechoslovakia after the SOE assasinated Heydrich."

That buttresses the viewpoint that 1930-33 would have been the optimal time to reduce Germany to failed state status.

Germany from, say 1936 to 1940 does appear to have been a tough nut to crack.

Perhaps, however, it might have been possible to induce Germany, when it was attempting reprisals, to commit an Iraq-type blunder.

[Marcello]

"That takes time to organize. Hitler came to power in 1933 but the Holocaust did not get underway until 1941."

It's not like it took 1933-1941 to build the gas chambers et all.As I understand the logistical stuff (apart from the census of 1939 and few others things) was mostly done with WW2 already well underway.It did not take all that much.

As for the railways,IIRC blowing them up was quite a common sport in occupied Europe.
I will see if I can come up with some data.

[jon]

Yes, but Duncan Hitler was not in power until 1933. So they would have been fighting against the last vestiges of the Weimar Republic, which for the most part,(not counting communists) the Jews of Germany supported. If it were found out that it was Jews blowing things up all over Germany at the time, the latent anti-semitism in many of the Germans of the time would probably have come out faster and more forcefully than it did.
Finally, pretty much everyone thought that the Nazi's were just one more right wing, anti-Semetic party which Germany had many of during the time, the Iron Helmets is the first that comes to mind.
Also, IIRC until WWII started and SOE started dropping supplies to resistance groups most acts of violent defiance to the Nazi party were limited to street brawling and shootings. High Explosives were not as readily available as they are in Iraq or Lebanon today.

[Duncan Kinder]

"Finally, pretty much everyone thought that the Nazi's were just one more right wing, anti-Semetic party which Germany had many of during the time, the Iron Helmets is the first that comes to mind."

Obviously, my hypothetical ascribes to these Jewish global guerrillas 20/20 hindsight and insight into the true nature of the Nazi regime that few - including many actual Nazi members - had at the time. There is a certain contrivance to my hypotheticals, for which I am guilty as charged.

"the Jews of Germany supported. If it were found out that it was Jews blowing things up all over Germany at the time, the latent anti-semitism in many of the Germans of the time would probably have come out faster and more forcefully than it did."

These are Jewish GLOBAL guerrillas. Under worse case - and these are concededly grim circumstances - while your conjecture is quite possible - we are also talking about the Jews of elsewhere in Europe. I am not saying an effective global guerrilla response to Hitler would have yielded a pretty picture.

[Z]

The Holocaust is not really a valid analogy to any modern 4G War today. That targeted a minority that was geographically dispersed throughout Europe and for the most part were members (with varying degrees of integration) wth the community. They used the same public transport, roads, legal system, shops as everyone else. Their livelyhood depended on business relationships and being on good terms with others. Hard for middleclass people to give up all that so as to jopin a guerilla movement.

A mor appropriate comparison would be resistance movements in occupied countries. Every nation occupied by germany had some sort of resistance. While the effect they had on Germany is debatable (I think John Keagan argues they were minimal) they did exist. More to the point, they tended to be most active in countries where Nazi oppression was greatest (Poland, Yugoslavia, occupied parts of Russia)

Extreme brutality, while certainly effective, is not 100% reliable.

[Adam]

In the case of an Israeli invasion of Lebanon the disturbing statistic issue is that at the start of the invasion Israelis killed the PLO at 5:1, an acceptable rate for regulars versus amateurs. But by 1996 that ratio had fallen to 1:1 and in that time Israel had moved onto the defensive which means that the ratio had shifted very significantly against Israel. Its these numbers that are the problem behind the Israeli response.

As a result whats been fascinating in the last few days is the way Israel has been backing down. From 1) Hizbollah must be destroyed, to 2) Hizbollah must be disarmed, to 3) Hizbollah must be made to stop shooting back, to 4) could Hizbollah stop shooting (please?). Its been like watching someone slide down a splintered bannister - it clearly hurts all the way down.

For Hizbollah winning means surviving, they've already made their point. They exist, and can operate, and the US will not lift a finger to help a new democracy that is attacked by the Israelis. Hizbollah has, almost in passing, shown that Muslim democracy means nothing to the US, even though Lebanon was considered 3 weeks ago, to be a major US success. Who remembers the Cedar Revolution?

Israel on the other hand has to do something notable otherwise they will have failed to win, which for a nation against a guerilla group is the same as losing.

Now that air power has proved to be a dismal failure aganst Hizbollah (it worked just fine against the Lebanese state which wasn't - at the start - an Israeli enemy) I think that the Israelis will launch some more ground attacks, perhaps with 2-3 brigades, but a full scale 3-division invasion is looking less likely. In other words it'll be a massive raid rather like 1978, than a full scale invasion like 1982. The problem is that it is neither 1978 or 1982 and Hizbollah isn't the PLO.

As for scary and more than slightly iffy WW2 analogies I'd go for Gaza and Lebanon being like the Warsaw Ghetto where people living under deadly threat in conditions of impoverishment and daily humiliation from a foreign and callous occupying power seeking Lebensraum rise up to resist their technologically and militarily superior enemies. Its as valid as any other WW2 analogy being used to describe these days. Doubt if Speilberg will film it though.

(on the other side of things the US gave Turkey permission to invade the Kurdish areas in Iraq, when the Turks complained that Israel was allowed to wade ankle-deep in slaughter and they weren't. This permission was given almost in passing. Nothing like knifing your only Iraqi ally without realising)

[Z]

Adam, I do think the enormity of the task Israel's leaders have chosen for themselves is only starting to dawn on them.

But I simply no longer see them as accepting a ceasefire on anything less than their terms...at least not for month or even years. While they prefer to accomplish this on the cheap; First airstrikes on Lebanon to "increase the preasure" on Hizb, then strikes on Hizb itself, then limited ground incursions. In the end, if all this fails, the will invade. And they will resurrect the extreme measures of the past, either by expelling the shiites from the south, or by making conditions so miserable that they leave.

I'm afraid the reaction of the international community (which wont even be as strong as in '82) will deter them.

They may fail in this, but I don't see them giving up. Too much is at stake for both the U.S. and Israel. If Hizb is seen to have stood toe to toe against goliath and stay standing at the end, every pro U.S. government will be at serious risk. Iran's street cred, even among sunnis, will become enormous. They simply can't have that.

The other factor, which the MSM is oddly silent about, is Iraq's shiites. If they start fighting against the U.S., I wonder if anyone will put 2+2 together?

"Nothing like knifing your only Iraqi ally without realising"
No need for allies when you can make your own reality.

[dan]

Z

The Israelis have a big problem. Unlike in 1978 and 1982, both Gaza and the West Bank are permanently active fronts already - and this puts something of a crimp on the manpower resources that the Israelis have at their disposal.

The level of human resources that the IDF would have to employ to make any sustained incursion into Lebanon will entail a very, very substantial reserve call-up; the by-product of this is that the productive sector of the Israeli economy comes to a screeching halt. Hizbullah, Hamas, Fatah and the Israelis all know this. As the IDF are well aware, getting into Lebanon is the easy part - getting out is liable to be a messy, expensive and protracted business as the initial strategic objectives prove to be unachievable.

[Adam]

"No need for allies when you can make your own reality."

:-D Thanks, I needed that laugh. As you'll appreciate its been a long couple of weeks. Actually at the moment what we can hear is the sound of an entire barnyard of US foreign policy chickens coming home to roost.

That said, I am genuinely not sure that the Israelis can do what they did in 1982, which was what we would now call ethnic cleansing. It was a period when the Israeli military were largely convinced that the only thing that Arabs understood was violence. Mass executions, gang rapes, houses destroyed were all part of "Operation Peace for the Galilee" which was run by Ariel Sharon ("a man of peace"). It was during this period that the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps entered political history when Israeli auxiliary troops (Christian milita given weapons, alcohol, and encouragement) heroically slaughtered the unarmed refugees, including the red cross staff there.

Even Reagan was compelled to act in the face of these atrocities, but the problem was that by 1982 the US was clearly pro-Israeli rather than an honest broker, result: dead US troops. In 1958 the US had invaded Lebanon and the main danger that US troops faced was the clap. In 24 years a lot had changed.

And in the 24 years since 1982 to today (odd coincidence, but there you go) even more has changed. The Pinochet decision means that even the most pro-Western war criminal cannot guarantee that they can escape from their crimes. Israeli generals are already having to cancel meetings in Europe one step ahead of the War Crimes Police and an awful lot of people are watching Israel very closely indeed. Although the Irish are being blamed for the holdup on the US-British extradition treaty its also an Israeli issue. Under the new treary any Israeli soldier or politician in the US can be arrested and returned to the UK for a war crimes charge. And that's going to be awkward.

[Adam]

John,

A completely unrelated point but I think I've found the anthem for the Mashup thesis. I was just doing some work when Ian Dury and the Blockheads came on the ipod, I suspect that recent events give a whole new spin on this song:

He’s got his little pension and he’s got his little plan
He’s got his little policy in hand
He’s got his little lap-top and he’s got his little pen
And wants a bit of Wembley up his Rio Grande

Don’t call Harry a human potato, don’t fry Harry Tonight
Don’t give Harry a chip on his shoulder, Harry’s doing alright

Mash it up, mash it up, mash it up Harry
(repeat 4 times)

[Z]

Thanx Adam,

But I'm afraid the U.S. will give Israel tonns of political cover. They will presure Europe into keeping quiet and Israel will do as it pleases. Besides, Arabs have been deligitamized in the media and public mind in the past few years. (remember the cartoon protests?)

This time there is another factor in America's thinking, in addition to the usual total pro-Israel bias; The Iraq war. The Neocons likely hope Israel can quickly (a few months) win a guerilla war. Then they can say the Israelis have shown us how its done. It will be a big morale booster for the Iraq true believers.

They can't afford to have both the U.S. AND Israel stuck in a never ending war. Iran would be the Supreme Victor in that case.

And so they will employ extreme measures-possibly to include ethnic cleansing-to prevent it. I truely weep for Lebanon.

[rue]

As I sit here, the MSM is marveling over the fact that the IDF is allowing live footage of "imminent" deployment across the border. Strange times indeed.

What if a raid in force is all the IDF really has in mind, a honeypot to lure as many of the Hizbollah fighters as possible into sustained conflict for long enough to be destroyed by artillery and airstrikes? Perhaps with a co-ordinated area bombing campaign to cut off retreat to Beruit, and encourage the Hizbollah fighters to stand and fight? I think that the IDF will be doing well if they can maintain a 3:1 casualty ratio -- do you think the IDF will be able to sustain 2 to 3K casualities before popular opinion in Israel swings from support for justifiable defensive incursions to support for a ceasefire?

Unfortunately as previous posters have noted, the IDF cannot afford a draw. Hizbollah may be able to survive as a tattered remnant of its former self, but isn't the only "victory" scenario for the Israelis to inflict a mortal blow on the organization as a whole? This would entail a lot more than "degradation". A more or less decisive engagement and a lot of money invested in rebuilding the Lebanese infrastructure they are so busy blowing up, would go a long way for toward both justifing their actions, and temporarily reducing the security problems on their northern border. In the long run, the Lebanese government has to replace Hizbollah as the primary provider of government services in southern Lebanon, which means even more money, no?

[Marcello]

"It was a period when the Israeli military were largely convinced that the only thing that Arabs understood was violence."

That's what the average american right winger thinks too.And at least in the immediate the american right wing is the only public opinion in the world that actually matters.
Any treaty is meaningless if the US says so.

[liontooth]

Why isn't the focus on how, once again, the UN is completely useless? All the UN has become is another support mechanism for terrorists. Another case where the party forced to enforce a UN resolution is considered the one acting illegally.

Resolution 1559:

“3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

“4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8181.doc.htm

[P-]

'... the by-product of this is that the productive sector of the Israeli economy comes to a screeching halt.'

No wonder we've such a staunch supporter of Israel 'cause if we didn't nobody would be willing to risk investment capital to do and advance much of anything. It'll be just to gret(risk) if not a political liability

[Azrael]

Sun Tzu claimed that the victor and the vanquished of a conflict could be determined at the onset of hostilies. Here, we can see the might of a large, more or less, conventional citizen army possesed of the most advanced u.s. equipment organized by a modern nation-state versus a ragtag religious militia fielding everything from ak clones to kosar anti-patrol boat missiles.

An analysis by some fan-boy arm-chair general would quickly yield the conclusion that the far-superior IDF would prevail against the numerically and materially inferior Hizb-e-allah armed wing. Yet, if we look at the goals the two adversaries have set for each other, we can draw a different, more nuanced conclusion. Israel, has determined that her national interests rest in the extermination of hizb-e-allah military capability. This is a goal that the IDF ws unable to accomplish in 18 years of occupation of southern lebanon. That was at a time where a small group of Lebanese, the SLA, didn't share the absolute hatred of the Israelis that seem to be so commonplace after 10 days of IDF bombardment of the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon in an attempt to cripple the logistics of the Hizb-e-allah and to exert pressure on the the Lebanese government to rise up aginst Hizb-e-allah. Hizb-e-allah's, stated goals seem to be less far-ranging, hold on to the two IDF POWs until the the Israelis are willing to negotiate a prisoner swap.

The Israeli population is firmly behind the IDF aerial bombardment of Lebanon, but at some point the pictures of the civilian costs of the IDF campaign coupled with the inability of aerial bombardment to achieve any impact on the Hizb-e-allah will begin to corrode public support for such actions. The hizb-e-allah goal of a prisoner swap, to retrieve lebanese civilians including women and children taken by the israelis during the occupation of south lebanon, seems to be a perinially popular topic with the Lebanese population. It seems the bombardment will only intensify demands by the Lebanese civilians for the release of their countrymen, if for no other reason then to justify the high cost the civilian population has been made to pay by the IDF.

Considering the relative objectives of the opposing sides it is hard to escape the conclusion that this conflict was won by Hizb-e-allah the minute Olmert, rather predictably, sought a purely military solution to the capture of two IDF soldiers. Israel, is doomed to lose this conflict on almost every level imaginable. Militarly, Hizb-e-allah will survive as a viable threat in south Lebanon. Economically, this conflict has destroyed Israel's summer tourist season. Politically, Israel has won no friends regionally nor internationally, in fact it may have helped plant the seeds for quite a few persistent regional enemies with it's over reaction. Israel's friends in the near abroad, such as Jordan , Saudi and Egypt have endangered their own long term surviability with their overt criticism of Hizb-e-allah. And Israel's single greatest ally( alright , her only ally) the u.s. has suffered a serious blow in the region and beyond with her wink and nod approach to what is being percieved around the planet as Israel's attempt to collectively punish the Lebanese civilian population.

Maybe, Israel's attack against Lebanon was like Zidane's head butting of that Marco Maccoroni fellow; it may have felt good but it cost too important a match.

[Adam]

Liontooth,

You're right the focus should be on how the UN is completely useless under the Bush Administrations somewhat religious foreign policy; and I'd agree that this is another case where "the party forced to enforce a UN resolution is considered the one acting illegally".

Sadly its Hizbollah that's enforcing the UN resolutions, not Israel. The UN resolutions are very clear - Israel has to leave Lebanon. Its just that Israel ignores them.

You mentioning 1559 reminds me that most Americans don't recall that there are many more anti-Israeli UN notes than pro-Israeli ones. Most people here know that I am not a fan of how history is taught in the US, which is badly. Even the pro-Israeli notes aren't that supportive. The one you are citing simply does not say that Israel can bomb Lebanon for example (nor, in fact does it mention Israel).

I was going to go through all of them for work yesterday as part of a general presentation on Lebanon to some people next week but life's too short and the weather was far too nice. And the pub was far too close. I stopped at the 1980s - only 20 years out of date minimum and Sadaam got invaded for less.

Some resolutions are pretty meaningless. 250 is a UN resolution against Israeli victory parades in Jerusalem. 251 is the resolution deploring the fact that the Israelis did it.

Others have bureuacratic impact: 252, 267 298, 476 are pretty important. They declare invalid the Israeli position that Jerusalem is Israels capital city.

Some are just full of historical resonance. 262 is about the Israeli attack on Beirut airport (this was back in the days when bombing civilians was considered to be wrong). 279, 280, 285, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 450, 467, 478, 498, 501, 509, 515, 515, 518, 520, 587 (I probably missed a few) demand Israel leave Lebanon and release their prisoners. It is among these remaining prisoners (especially the women and children) that Hizbollah is demanding be released at the moment.

Others have historical impact: 446 said that the new Israeli settlements were an obstruction to peace (!) and a breach of the Geneva Conventions - Article 4 as it happens (an issue that 471 returned to). 452 then demanded a halt to building settlements. 465 then ordered member state not to assist Israels settlement programme (please don't laugh at this - it does mean an awful lot of money and supplies from the US to Israel is in breach of UN resolutions). 592, 605, and 607 are another reminder of Israels disobedience of the Geneva conventions, this time broadly linked to the Israeli massacere of students at Birzeit University in 1986.

497 is the order for Israel to leave Syria's Golan Heights. Like that'll ever happen.

Now a question: if you were an Arab and you were being ordered to obey 1557, wouldn't you expect Israel to perhaps sort of obey a few of these first? I've only bothered to go up to 1988 - there's another 18 years to go through! Or is it the case that the Arabs have to obey quickly and cheerfully, whilst others do not? If so, don't they have a legitimate grievence that there is one law for them and another for us? All hard questions to answer.

But the fact remains is that Israel is in breach of many UN resolutions and Hizbollah is enforcing them. The fact that its a non-state actor is probably the thing causing the issue right now, but thats 4GW for you.

[Andy]

Something that I think is, as John Boyd would say, "very interesting" is the Lebanese political leadership stating that the Lebanese Army will fight along side Hizbollah.

The only other time I can think of a nation state aligning with a non-state actor would the Taliban led Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.

So this is quickly becoming quite a mess, especially since Bush and Co. had been using Lebanon as a beacon of light shining democracy down upon the savages of the Middle East (that's sarcastic on purpose so I don't offend anyone whom might miss it).

So we are now faced with instability from the Mediterranian to the Indus. And Barnett must be puffing some high grade reefer if he thinks the forces of order are going to get furthered involved in this mess.

Pandora's Box was opened in 2001, and furthered opened in 2003, and I think there is a very real possibility that the conflict between Israel and Lebanon/Hizbollah will keep the lid open for quite some time. The blood will continue to flow freely in the Middle East...and only God knows where and when it will stop, and he isn't talking much right now.

I think Lind just might be right, and I wish that he wasn't, but this does have all the trappings of 1914 again.

[liontooth]

"You're right the focus should be on how the UN is completely useless under the Bush Administrations somewhat religious foreign policy"

The useless of the UN has nothing to do with Bush. The UN resolutions regarding Iraqi's WMD did nothing to force Hussein to comply with them during the entire 8 year Clinton Administration.

"The one you are citing simply does not say that Israel can bomb Lebanon for example (nor, in fact does it mention Israel)."

The resolution refers to Hizbollah not existing at all in Lebanon. It couldn't have kidnapped the Israelis and thus their response.

"Now a question: if you were an Arab and you were being ordered to obey 1557, wouldn't you expect Israel to perhaps sort of obey a few of these first?"

No. But if I was going to disobey 1557 and I kidnapped Israeli soldiers, would I be complaining when Israel retaliates? No.

It is interesting that arabs in Lebanon have no qualms about being used as Persian cannon fodder by Iran. Notice how reaction by Sunni Arab governments has been muted against Israel but not against Shia Hizbollah? The realities of a Shia dominated Iraq are already making their presence felt in the region.

Most of this conflict is being fought in the media rather than on the actual battlefield.

Well, thoughtful observers have realized this has been the case for quite some time.

Recall the Churchill quote that the next war would be fought "in the minds of men, not on the battlefield"

The largest problem with the way the USA has been waging the War is they have been unable to conceptualize this, and place this understanding at the very center of their strategic thought.

[Duncan Kinder]

"But the fact remains is that Israel is in breach of many UN resolutions and Hizbollah is enforcing them. The fact that its a non-state actor is probably the thing causing the issue right now, but thats 4GW for you."

I think this reaches a difficult question of what, if anything, does "law" mean in a non-state context.

I mean nothing so crass as to suggest that non-state actors are beyond the pale - hence not worthy of consideration, etc.

Rather, I am trying to figure out how people might proceed to live civil lives in some meaningful sense in a non-state context.

In this context, Hezbollah's defending its action upon the basis of a United Nation's resolution makes as much sense as a group of Presbyterians upholding their actions on the basis of some fatwa.

[Z]

The idea that Israel is retaliating against a specific aggression might make sense if the raid on the Israeli patrol was the first act in the conflict.

It isn't. Prior to this, the world watched cassually as Israel turns Gaza into a modern Warsaw Ghetto. Israel "arrests" thousands of Paestinians who are unrelated to any act of violence, hold them indefinately, and, if Amnesty International is to be believed, tortures them.

In addition, it overflew Lebanese airspace on a reular basis and conducted assasinations of people on Lebanese territory...all acts of war for which Lebanon is legally entitled to retaliate though clearly it cannot.

Israel also hlds 9 Lebanese prisoners, mostly captured during the illegal 1982 invasion.

The Hizbollah raid may have been a terrible mistake for giving Israel an "excuse" to destroy Lebanon. But it was hardly an unprovoked attack and the U.S./Israel are really in no position to be morally indignant about it.

[John Robb]

I've added some updates to the initial brief this morning. Thanks.

[Z]

"One major Hezbollah blunder, was its failure to use its extensive inventory of rockets to attack Israeli systems (like power stations and fuel depots), in a crude rendition of an effects based air operation."

I don't think that is within Hizbollah's capabilities. I think they were trying to hit the Haifa oil refinery early on, but couldn't. I doubt their missles have that kind of accuracy, especialy if they are under constant pressure from the air.

They also seem unable to hit Tel Aviv. It may be their missles were destroyed, as Israel claims, or that they never even had them. It is also a very distant possibility that they have chosen to hold them in reserve untill a Kafr Qana-like disaster occurs, allowing them to regain the moral initiative. But that's doubtful.

Hitting Israely systems would indeed be a great morale booster to Hizbollah and its supporters. But if that is beyond their means, then the constant civilian bombardment, though having minimal effect, is a sign that they are still there and still fighting. It is not entirely painless on northern Israel and it taunts their high command.

It may be that Hizb has decided its best bet is to prolong the conflict with small but constant attacks rather than trying any spectacular strike.

[Duncan Kinder]

"For the first time, a non-state entity has gone to war with a state not by waging an insurgency against a state invader, but across an international boundary (Robb note: I would argue that 9/11 was that developmental step). Again we see how those who define 4GW simply as insurgency are looking at only a small part of the picture."

As applied to my hypothetical Jewish global guerrilla assault upon Germany during 1930-33, note that this would involve the Jews of Europe, not just the German Jews.

Germany was not an economically self-sufficient unit - as the WWI naval blockade demonstrated. Therefore, concerted efforts to disrupt Germany's imports and exports could have degraded her economy significantly - and the German milatary or German mob action would have no easy means to strike back.

[dan]

JR:

I think you're underestimating the economic impact that the relatively low-level katyusha attacks are having on the North of Israel - activity has ground to a halt, with large segments of the populations effectively hunkered down in their shelters.

There was a very telling image that was shown on UK TV in the wake of a volley of Katyushas hitting downtown Haifa yesterday: a merchant ship heading into the port simply turned tail and ran.

Nasrallah threatened the industrial/petrochemical/refinery areas North of Haifa last week, explicitly stating that these "could" be targets if they chose to make them so.

[Marcello]

"One major Hezbollah blunder, was its failure to use its extensive inventory of rockets to attack Israeli systems (like power stations and fuel depots)"

You need accuracy for an EBO campaign.That means either somebody placing demolition charges or PGMs.Battlefield rockets are simply too inaccurate to achieve that effect,at any rate not without a disproportionate expenditure of ammunition.
The "useless, low yield civilian terror campaign on Haifa" are apparently shutting down the local economic life just as well.

[Z]

One should also keep in mind that israel has struck Lebanon many times in the past. This is the first time they had to worry, even a little, about retaliation on their own soil.

[P-]

"One major Hezbollah blunder, was its failure to use its extensive inventory of rockets to attack Israeli systems (like power stations and fuel depots), in a crude rendition of an effects based air operation."

I think thats because they may lack intelligence(satellite) as to where these value targets maybe. You won't be able to get them from Israel; nor U.S.; Europe??? NOT unless Europe doesn't mind being frowned on... so you may heve the only alternative to rely solely on ground intelligence... BUT the flip side is even more fascinating... How doesn't the U.S.(military and EB/Administration) view sharing intelligence w/(Israel) in the context of the world NOT just as a staunch all of thge sovereign nation with its' enforcible borders within another state. I wonder how much of it aided in the bombing of value targets in Iran long ago...

[Marcello]

"I think thats because they may lack intelligence(satellite) as to where these value targets maybe. You won't be able to get them from Israel; nor U.S.; Europe???"

Getting intelligence on industrial targets in Israel should not be that difficult. Maps, commercial satellite photos, on the ground recon etc.
The real problem is the in built inaccuracy of a device like this. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/images/raad-image1.jpg
Even if the firing positions are accurately preplanned you probably will not be able to set up those ramps so that they are perfectly aligned with their targets which are tens of km away in some cases.Not when there is an helicopter gunship after you.
Then there is a gazillion of others factors messing with accuracy, from wind speed and direction to weapons tulerances (any guess about DIO quality control?).
In short:good enough for hitting cities, power plants are an other matter.

[Valdis]

I have been playing around with a network model of Mideast alliances...

http://www.orgnet.com/mideast.html

[Duncan Kinder]

Re: "The balance between states and 4GW forces will be altered world-wide, and not to a trivial degree."

While all eyes are fixed on Israel and Lebanon, Islamic militants now seem posed to takeover Somalia, threatening to turn it into another Afghanistan:

See, eg:
"Somalia edges closer to war as peace talks fail"
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article1191868.ece

"Analysts now fear that negotiations will be replaced by a conflict that is likely to include many of Somalia's neighbours.

"Ethiopia, which shares a long, porous border with Somalia, is determined to prevent the rise of a radical Islamist state on its doorstep. As well as sharing American fears that Somalia could become a "safe haven" for terrorist cells, Ethiopia has concerns that a strong Islamist government may wish to create a Greater Somalia, annexing the Ogaden region within Ethiopia's borders.

"A UN report earlier this year accused Eritrea, a long-time enemy of Ethiopia, of supplying weapons and personnel to the Islamists. Across the Gulf of Aden, to Somalia's north, Yemen is also thought to be providing support to the Islamists."