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.