QUOTE: Israel's use of systems disruption to coerce Lebanon

Israel's message to Lebanon's government through its bombing of Lebanese infrastructure: "If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land."

Gal Luft (a friend of the Global Guerrillas weblog) to the Washington Post.

Note: this is global guerrilla logic (using an airpower effects based operation to accomplish it). Here's the problems with this approach.

• First, the goal of coercion must be within the capabilities of the target state (it's not in this case).
• Second, coercion like this is only useful if the objective is to get a state to give up a policy (the more ancillary it is to the state's existence the better) than to get them to act proactively -- particularly since large scale systems disruption rips down states. Lebanon is getting weaker by the day and Hezbollah is now existential to the state.
• Third, if the state doesn't officially relent and the state fails, global guerrillas can still achieve a de facto victory. This doesn't work for Israel. The failure of Lebanon only makes things worse.

IF this method of coercion is repeated in both Syria and Iran (and it looks like it will since an EBO is a war on the cheap for the aggressor and current tensions are leading in this direction), what we will end up with are failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas. In my view, this is a recipe for the acceleration of the epochal war.

Comments

[Duncan Kinder]

According to John Robb, the United States, in its efforts to destabizie Iran, will utilize Kurdish guerrillas.

However, as spinoff from Israel's action against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Turkey now asserting the right to take similar action against Kurdish guerrillas based in Iraq.

While the United States has apparently responded to Turkey by promising to curb these guerrillas, that could only be effected by offending the Kurds.

[Terence Dodge]

" In my view, this is a recipe for the acceleration of the epochal war."

If getting access to heaven is your prime goal then this is a logical step, faith based goverments are taking note and perhaps issueing tickets. "recipe" does imply a plan which is a bit of a reach for a fast food nation.

Terence

[John Robb]

Duncan: and the point is that it is messy? Terence: ;->

[Cavolonero]

See these eyes so green
I can stare for a thousand years
Just be still with me
You wouldnt believe what I've been thru
It's been so long
Well its been so long

And I've been putting out the fire with gasoline
Putting out fire
With Gasoline

[Friendly Fire]

worth reading in full

In fact, although no one is making the point, Hizbullah’s rockets have been targeted overwhelmingly at strategic locations: the northern economic hub of Haifa, its satellite towns and the array of military sites across the Galilee.

Nasrallah seems fully aware that Israel has an impressive civil defense program of shelters that keep most civilians out of harm’s way. Unlike Horowitz I won’t presume to read Nasrallah’s mind: whether he wants to kill large numbers of Israeli civilians or not cannot be known, given his inability to do so.

But we can see from the choice of the sites he is striking that his primary goal is to give Israelis a small taste of the disruption of normal life that is being endured by the Lebanese. He has effectively closed Haifa for more than a week, shutting its port and financial centers. Israeli TV is speaking increasingly of the damage being inflicted on the country’s economy.

Because of Israel’s press censorship laws, it is impossible to discuss the locations of Israel’s military installations. But Hizbullah’s rockets are accurate enough to show that many are intended for the army’s sites in the Galilee, even if they are rarely precise enough to hit them.

It is obvious to everyone in Nazareth, for example, that the rockets landing close by, and once on, the city over the past week are searching out, and some have fallen extremely close to, the weapons factory sited near us.

[Duncan Kinder]

John: "Duncan: and the point is that it is messy?"

The point is that it is nonlinear.

[redcurve]

“ . . . what we will end up with are failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas. In my view, this is a recipe for the acceleration of the epochal war.”
Posted by John Robb on Wednesday, July 26, 2006

As a general rule, statements of this sort imply that ‘epochal war’ ‘from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas’ is a problem, or at any rate, an undesirable outcome.

But “failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas” is not a problem, but the solution to what will otherwise be much worse, much more intractable problems.

Engendering “failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas,” that is to say, is the goal.

A world in ceaseless war is simply wonderful for American capitalism. The armaments industries hum along and profits continue to pour into Wall Street. Where’s the problem? Oh sure, innocents die left and right. But just exactly when has that ever stopped the military/industrial complex? Vietnam? Gulf Wars I and II?

Currently, Hezbollah’s main problem is how to integrate and train the tens upon tens of thousands of new recruits rallying to its banner. That fact, in itself, guarantees war without end.

That fact also represents a spectacular success for Israeli policy.

Israel needs war without end to sustain its state/military system. In every effective sense of the term, there IS no Israel other than its existing as a perpetual warfare state.

Without war, Israel implodes.

In MY view, ““failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas” simply DEFINES Israel’s strategic intentions.

redcurve

[Duncan Kinder]

"A world in ceaseless war is simply wonderful for American capitalism. The armaments industries hum along and profits continue to pour into Wall Street. Where’s the problem? Oh sure, innocents die left and right. But just exactly when has that ever stopped the military/industrial complex? Vietnam? Gulf Wars I and II?"

Ceaseless war actually would not be good for American capitalism, which in recent decades has featured managing risk over manufacturing products.

This is particularly the case when the war takes surprising zigs and zags based upon factors which financial models have not taken into account.

[sammy small]

redcurve

Without war, Israel implodes.

Only by way of circling the drain of the leftist/liberal mindset.

"Only by way of circling the drain of the leftist/liberal mindset.

Posted by: sammy small"

Sammy small, evidently incapable of replying to a post with alternate analysis, resorts to insult.

Hmmmm. "Small" in more ways than one?

redcurve

[sammy small]

"In my view, this is a recipe for the acceleration of the epochal war."

My take: you can either force the epochal war on your terms or the epochal war will find you on it's terms. Maybe keeping the epochal war pre-nuclear would be the lesser of the evils.

We can accelerate the development of defensive systems, but ultimately we will either have to kill off the infestation or invite it in to live with us and take over.

[syberberg]

"but ultimately we will either have to kill off the infestation or invite it in to live with us and take over."

We already have. They're called "corporations" and "shareholders". ;->

Dark scarsam (in the classroom) aside, this perpetual war is what the current crop of facists need (on either side of the conflict) in order to justify their existance and hold on to power.

Of course, it's more complex than that, a good propaganda machine is always usefull, so is keeping the majority of the population in debt so they have more to immediate things to worry about than what's going on Over There (where ever "There" might be).

Keeping a relavtively large part of the population poor and illeducated as well helps, by making the Armed Forces seem attractive in the way of pay and benefits, a way out of their situation, sometimes the only way.

Sorry, strayed off the track a little there.

[redcurve]

Here’s what Professor Oren Ben-Dor said, posted today at:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article1197235.ece

Yes, Ben-Dor is Jewish, born and raised in Israel, although currently residing and teaching in England.

A few relevant quotes:

Ben-Dor: “Israel was created through terror and it needs terror to cover-up its core immorality. Whenever there is a glimmer of stability, the state orders a targeted assassination, such as that in Sidon which preceded the current Lebanon crisis, knowing well that this brings not security but more violence. Israel's unilateralism and the cycle of violence nourish one another.”

Ben-Dor: “In Hebrew, the word elem (a stunned silence resulting from oppression or shock) is etymologically linked to the word almut (violence). Silence about the immoral core of Israeli statehood makes us all complicit in breeding the terrorism that threatens a catastrophe which could tear the world apart.”

“To sustain that mentality and to preserve an impression of victimhood among outsiders, Israel must breed conditions for violence. Whenever prospects of violence against it subside, Israel must do its utmost to regenerate them: . . . .”

Ben-Dor: “What exactly is being defended by the violence in Gaza and Lebanon? Is it the citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state? I suggest the latter. Israel's statehood is based on an unjust ideology which causes indignity and suffering for those who are classified as non-Jewish by either a religious or ethnic test. To hide this primordial immorality, Israel fosters an image of victimhood. Provoking violence, consciously or unconsciously, against which one must defend oneself is a key feature of the victim-mentality. By perpetuating such a tragic cycle, Israel is a terrorist state like no other.”

To repeat: “Israel is a terrorist state like no other.”

BUT; Israel’s MASTER also needs terror, and war without end. The production of offensive weapons of war accounts for in excess of 40% of all Israeli “value-added” production.

Israel’s military/industrial complex has significant links to and integration with the American military/industrial complex. Both wealthy Israeli citizens AND the Israeli Armed Forces are heavily invested in American arms manufacturers. Israel and its nearly ceaseless consumption of U.S. war material constitutes both a crucial market for the American military/industrial complex as well as a vital testing ground for concepts and strategies of combating so-called “4th Generation Warfare.”

As John Robb so insightfully wrote:

“. . . what we will end up with are failed states and global guerrillas from the Mediterranean to the Caspian seas. In my view, this is a recipe for the acceleration of the epochal war.”
That’s the key. Israel is driving the instability, and dragging the U.S. into it. Israel is attacking unilaterally, but trying to blame ‘terrorists.’ Israel is grabbing the lands of other people, then blaming them when they try to defend themselves.

redcurve

[redcurve]

Duncan Kinder wrote:

“Ceaseless war actually would not be good for American capitalism, which in recent decades has featured managing risk over manufacturing products.”

Well no, Duncan. Capitalism TAKES risks, along with producing new risks in the process of creating new needs.

The idea that “American capitalism . . . has featured managing risk over manufacturing products” may sound pleasant to the ears of second-year economics students but it correlates very poorly, if at all, with the actuality of U.S. state-capitalist policy.

In case you haven’t noticed, the current ‘managers’ of domestic and international capitalism in Washington and London have thrown the ‘management’ of risk out the window, and are engaged in almost non-stop risk taking.

You yourself indicated as much in your second paragraph when you said:

“This is particularly the case when the war takes surprising zigs and zags based upon factors which financial models have not taken into account.”

At a certain point, risk-takers have to STOP taking various factors into account and just leap. That, among many other things, it what led to Iraq. Bush and the NeoCons wanted the oil, so they simply took the risk, went for it, and took it. That’s not ‘management;’ that’s piracy, or buccaneerism, or theft, of old-style colonialism, or choose your favorite term.

We’re in the era of non-stop resource wars. The dominant feature of American capitalism is theft. There’s the oil; America simply takes it.

Currently, the hyper-right wing Wall Street Journal is screaming that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is a ‘terrorist.’ But absolutely nobody can cite a single instance of Chavez’s ‘terrorism.’

That’s because he simply has not done any terrorism. Nobody can find any.

But he has oil. So the WSJ is preparing the ground for overthrowing the democratically-elected Chavez, occupying the country, and taking the oil.

Do you call that ‘managing risk’?

redcurve

[subadei]

"A world in ceaseless war is simply wonderful for American capitalism. The armaments industries hum along and profits continue to pour into Wall Street. Where’s the problem? Oh sure, innocents die left and right. But just exactly when has that ever stopped the military/industrial complex? Vietnam? Gulf Wars I and II?"

Of course. We Americans are, naturally, a simple collection of savants that foster international aggression in the name of profit. The idea that the US is an intellectually complex system of free thinking individuals is simply untrue, fantastic even. Our Modus Operandi is simple destruction in the name of raw profit. You've hit the nail on the head now haven't you.

[redcurve]

Sammy Small wrote:

“My take: you can either force the epochal war on your terms or the epochal war will find you on it's terms.”

That is just a fascinating concept, Sammy.

On the basis of concluding that an “epochal war” is coming, you propose to “force” an epochal war.

And after that, I suppose all that’s left is to blame the victims, eh?

And just who are they accusing of engaging in “unprovoked terrorism”?

redcurve

[syberberg]

It would appear the the Israeli soilders that were captured had actually crossed the Lebanese border:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html

So, a recce troop was told to cross the border with the purpose of being killed/captured. Charming.

I also fail to see how the destruction of the UN outpost was a "tragic mistake". The IDF knows full well exactly where the UN has it's positions. It looks to me like the Israeli's way of saying "Sorry, we don't want a UN Peacekeeping Force along that border. We want more time to try and draw Syria and Iran into the fight first."

redcurve, I agree with you. I wonder how long it'll be before the IDF decides to hit Syria. I'll give it maybe 10-14 days max. What would your estimate be?

[redcurve]

"redcurve, I agree with you. I wonder how long it'll be before the IDF decides to hit Syria. I'll give it maybe 10-14 days max. What would your estimate be?"

syberberg: I would love to wade in here, to support you as you supported me, but in truth on that specific matter I honestly don't know.

Eventually, in accord with the inner logic of the Israeli program of perpetual war, Israel must and will hit Syria. Israeli provocations have been constant for years. Only a few weeks ago, as many of us will recall, Israeli jets buzzed one of Syrian President Assad’s residences.

The only comment I feel justified in making is to point out that the driving dynamic will manifest somewhat counter-intuitively.

IF Israel pacifies (that is; ethnically ‘cleanses’) Lebanon up to the Litani River,

THEN my understanding is that Israel will require some time to digest its new (favorable) strategic position. Under that scenario, Israel will forego carrying the war into Syria.

That’s counter-intuitive because, of course, it would seem that Israel would want to ‘sustain the momentum,’ militarily. However, an Israeli “success” in Lebanon can only come about on the basis of a massive slaughter of innocents throughout Lebanon, so after (if) they ‘win,’ then the Israeli-American-European-quilt-tripped propaganda machine will need to be given some time to bury the evidence of what Israel will have done to the Lebanese people.

On the other hand:

IF the war goes badly for Israel (i.e., causalities in excess of 500),

THEN, the ruling Israeli clique is, in my view, likely to initiate massive operations against Syria, the goal being to take Damascus at all costs. Causalities will then be MUCH higher, of course, but the ‘gain’ will be sold to the Israeli population as being worth it.

Wild Cards In The Mix –

I don’t think Iran is likely to try anything directly, but may try to get Sadr to put pressure on the Americans in Iraq. If intelligence chatter indicates the Iraqi Shia might stir things up a bit for the gringos, then Rumsfeld may find he has to tell Olmert to cool things down.

Up to the current moment this war as been a plus for the Republicans vis-à-vis the upcoming November elections.

BUT; if Sadr wades in in support of Hezbollah, U.S. deaths in Iraq could conceivably rise to twenty per week, and by the time November rolls around Israel’s actions could come back strongly to damage the NeoCons in Congress.

That is; just enough additional American voters will make the connection that Israel’s actions in Lebanon caused more U.S. deaths in Iraq that the Republicans would lose an extra two or three seats in the House. As things are they already stand to lose about twenty, so an extra two or three would be most unsatisfying for NeoCon plans to further roll back the Constitution domestically.

I could go on and on because there are, of course, many more factors to consider. Doubtless others will chime in. On balance, however, as far as my predictive/analytic abilities go, the waters are far too murky at this early stage to make too definite a statement about Syria’s prospects.

EVENTUALLY Israel will attack Syria, with or without provocation, but that could be a year from now.

Hope this helps.

Thank you again for your support.

redcurve

[arash sotoodeh]

Thanks Mr. Robb for this good analysis, I have a question, how important do you concider the fact that other islamic nations( like Egypt or Marocco) could put themselves against US when a war in Syria or Iran starts? That would be at all crazy having war on five nations(Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria and Iran) and trying to feel secure of terror attacks.
I could think of a reaction of the islamic world , that they once say it´s enough war , we do not accept it anymore that in the name of war on terror, one islamic nation after another is attacked. Let´s hope it comes not so far. I have this bad feeling that when Iran is attacked, US has to deal at once with whole islamic world, ok, just a thought, thanks Arash

[enigma_foundry]

My take: you can either force the epochal war on your terms or the epochal war will find you on it's terms. Maybe keeping the epochal war pre-nuclear would be the lesser of the evils.

Israel is very conscious that these are the last years in which it can reliable be said NOT to face a nuclear armed adversary.
It wants desparately to defeat Hizbollah, and it hopes that it can isolate them by very rapidly attacking them affter they attack Israel. The attack is disproportionate, because Isreal is playing for keeps now--it needs this defeat to hope to isolate Hizbollah.

It is very risky, and they must realize their exist a significant chance for failure, but the are disparete to get this tage out of the way soon, it would appear. Why so soon? What's suddenly driving them now...?

[syberberg]

redcurve,

Cheers for the reply, there's a lot of good logic in there. I was working on the "momemtum" side of things. Like you, I'm trying to tie the threads together and can't quite see how it will unfold.

It all seems to hinge on how long it will take for the IDF to ethnically cleanse to the Litani...

It's fairly obvious that the attack on Lebanon is designed to anger both Syria and Iran. The "Israeli-American-European-quilt-tripped propaganda machine" (wonderfull phrase!) has already rolled on to accuse Iran of ordering the capture, which I strongly doubt as Hezbollah has a history of prisoner exchange.

Iran has already said that if Syria is attacked then they will join in and, as the ripple expands, we then have to consider how Russia and China will react. Not to mention the other Arab States, like Egypt and Saudi. Egypt and Saudi being the most likely to "do something" (mainly so Mubarak and the House of Saud can retain power) to apease their respective populations.

A wild card in the US is the far-right Christian fundamentalists, who see all this as the run up to the "rapture", pushing the US Administation into widening the conflict.

Another wild card is the Iraqi military itself, will they turn against the US/UK forces if Iran is attacked?

A big wild card in the UK is the growing weakness of Blair's position. An attack on Iran by the US/Israel may well force his hand to withdraw our troops from southern Iraq.

So, Syria attacked late August/early September at the soonest, middle of next year at the latest?

[syberberg]

enigma,

"Why so soon? What's suddenly driving them now...?"

For Israel, water. For both Israel and the US (and the wider world), peak oil.

[sammy small]

J Robb

In considering the idea of Israel accelerating the creation of a failed state (Lebanon, not its parasite Hezbollah), I am wondering what your definition of a "failed state" is in the context of your premise. I can think of quite a few conditions which could or could not put a state into the failed category.

Do you consider a state with a stated policy of violent confrontation a candidate for failed status?

Lebanon chose to accept rather than fight Hezbollah. Maybe they were just tired of their civil war and just wanted to get back to a more normal life. I guess I can't blame them. But making a short term deal with the devil never lasts long. The balloon payment is coming due. Its too bad. They chose failure quite a few years ago, just living on borrowed time since then.

If Israel can perform radical surgery without hurting too much more of their infrastructure, maybe they will be able to focus on rebuilding in a more positive direction and put the radical surgery behind them. If not, it will certainly follow what you predict.

[jimbo]

'"Why so soon? What's suddenly driving them now...?"'

"For Israel, water. For both Israel and the US (and the wider world), peak oil."

I would also like to suggest the Neocon agenda is playing an important part in this as well. In order to fulfil PNAC objectives the Neocons can ill afford to lose power. After spending years in the wilderness I cannot help but think they are going to do everything in their power to retain the White House. If that includes widening the conflict in the Middle East, I believe that would be more than acceptable to them.

It seems to me their time is running out. There are only two years left for the Neocons. They are also facing a possible weakening in the autumn. They simply must act now in order to foster the conditions whereby one of two outcomes are possible. First would be the election come 2008 of an acceptable Neocon president. Second, far more likely in my view, is the suspension of the election process as a result of the widening conflict. Effectively keeping the current administration in power for as long as the conflict endures.

The Neocons have done an excellent job in expanding the powers of a war time president. The Rumsfeld promise of the Long War makes these powers appear to be long term. The sooner they act the sooner they may be able to ensure Neocon continuity.

I think the conflict in the Middle East is simply the tool through which they seek to control both access to oil and to retain control of the US.

[Marcello]

"Another wild card is the Iraqi military itself, will they turn against the US/UK forces if Iran is attacked?"

Even if they did it would not exactly be an earth shattering event from a strictly military point of view.The NIA does not have really useful weapons for that scenario (no high end RPGs,ATGMs and MANPADS) and is wholly dependant on the US for everything.They are basically a sort of police force with a few obsolete tanks (the same T-72M1s which were massacred in 1991 and 2003) and some APCs.All I can imagine they could pull off would be shooting their american advisors, maybe some small american unit nearby and then melting immediately into the insurgency.