THE SECRETS OF HEZBOLLAH'S SUCCESS

"We are in a world today where we have a non-state actor using all the tools of weaponry... That’s what this new 21st-century warfare is going to look like. We have now entered an era where non-states or quasi-states do a lot better militarily than states do." Peter Singer (Brookings, author of "Corporate Warriors") in reference to Hezbollah's performance against the Israeli military. From a NYTimes article by Thom Shanker.

Although Peter Singer's statement is likely unsupported, he does stumble onto a conclusion that captures the essence of the moment. Hezbollah's performance in a set-piece battle with the Israeli military (arguably once, a top notch conventional military) is an excellent example of how non-state groups have radically improved their ability to conduct tactical and strategic operations. To wit, the continued success of its efforts has put the Israelis on the horns of a dilemma: either request a ceasefire that locks in military defeat - or - push for a full invasion of southern Lebanon (each are fraught with disastrous consequences).

Organizational Improvements

The central secret to Hezbollah's success is that it trained its (global) guerrillas to make decisions autonomously (classic 4GW), at the small group level. In every area -- from firing rockets to defending prepared positions to media routing around jamming/disruption -- we have examples of Hezbollah teams deciding, adapting, innovating, and collaborating without reference to any central authority. The result of this decentralization is that Hezbollah's aggregate decision cycles are faster and qualitatively better than those of their Israeli counterparts.

Hybrid Methods/Systems

Ancillary to the improvements in organizational design (unlikely to be replicated at the state level), Hezbollah also demonstrated its ability to supercharge antiquated conventional weaponry/tactics with off-the-shelf technology to create weapons systems and hybrid tactics attuned to defeating Israeli military systems. We can expect to see this behavior accelerate among non-state groups as readily available commercial technology continues its pace of radical improvement.

Extracting an Economic Toll

Hezbollah's success against Israel codifies two strategic methods that we will see global guerrillas emulate. The first is the value of strategic coercion through economic attrition. Ongoing disruption of the Israeli economy through rocket attacks attaches a quantifiable strategic cost to the conflict. This offensive decisively couples what was previously separate: ground/air offensives by the Israeli military against non-state groups in the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon -- and -- domestic economic/social activity in Israel (business as usual). If Hezbollah remains intact, nothing will be the same. With the economic clock ticking (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a day), Israel has been forced into an aggressive air campaign to accelerate progress on the ground against missile launch sites and interdict resupply of new missiles from Syria. This air campaign has backfired due to the asymmetry of targets, in that Israeli air strikes have alienated the Lebanese government and increased the moral cohesion of its foes.

Leveraging force protection and an aversion to casualties

A second strategic method is to trade territory (something a non-state organization is easily able to ante up) for the blood of professional soldiers and delay. The intent is demonstrated by Hezbollah's dispersal of units across a wide geographic area in small autonomous units (defense in depth, rather than concentrating its defenses along the border). This deployment clearly shows Hezbollah's willingness to trade ground for the lives of Israeli soldiers and time. It succeeds by leveraging the aversion to casualties and dedication to force protection found in modern Western militaries (these men are professionally educated and therefore considered too valuable for use as cannon fodder). An aversion to casualties ensures that assaults by conventional militaries will bog down if faced with stiff opposition, until intense applications of firepower to clear the path (which is made much less effective due to Hezbollah's high level of dispersion and fortifications). Time is a factor that clearly works particularly in the favor of Hezbollah (due to the potential of a widening conflict) and more generally in favor of any non-state group fighting a state.

Comments

[Z]

The other secret success, according to Mitch Prothero, is their secracy;

" "You can be a member of Hezbollah your entire life and never see a military wing fighter with a weapon," a Lebanese military intelligence official, now retired, once told me. "They do not come out with their masks off and never operate around people if they can avoid it. They're completely afraid of collaborators. They know this is what breaks the Palestinians -- no discipline and too much showing off." "

[Dan Shappir]

From my perspective Hezbollah has one major advantage over the IDF: their mandate of operation. By definition the mandate of the Israeli Defense Forces is the defence of Israel. Thus anything the IDF does is geared towards reducing Israeli casualties and suffering. Hezbollah, while it presents itself to an extent as the defender of Lebanon, has a totally different mandate. In fact, where Hezbollah has failed up to now, and suffered in the Lebanese public opinion, is with that pretence. In reality Hezbollah has done nothing to defend Lebanon or the Lebanese. Quit the contrary, it started this conflict with total disregard for the welfare of the people of Lebanon, and is continuously using them as human shields.

What Hezbollah has been most successful at is playing a double game of being both a part of the Lebanese government and yet a separate entity from the Lebanese state. This forces Israel to fight a Lebanese military force, while being forced not to fight the Lebanese state itself.

Moreover, as has been discussed here in the past, any harm done to the Lebanese state can actually work in favor of Hezbollah. The incident at Qana is probably the best thing that has happened for the Hezbollah in the conflict up to now. Where as the Israeli civilian casualties at the worst thing that has happened for the IDF. Bottom line, its always easier to have a nihilistic mandate that a constructive one.

[Z]

"This forces Israel to fight a Lebanese military force, while being forced not to fight the Lebanese state itself."

While I agree with some of what you say, I think its hard to argue Israel isn't also fighting the Lebanese state. You are, of course, correct that Hizbullah isn't burdened with encumberance of a state, while Israel is.

True also that mass civilian casualties work against Israel. But so long as casualties are a few at time, they tend to escape thw world's notice.

The same can be said for terrorism. It is viewed as dispicable by the rest of the world and tends to earn sympathy (rightfully so) for the victim. It also increases the public's support for the government and calls for revenge.

I disagree completely-as do most Lebanese- that Hizb does not protect Lebanon. While they did "start it" by attacking on Israeli teritory, this is hardly the first time Israel has struck Lebanon. The prime novelty is that this is the first time Lebanon has had any capability to strike back...a situation that neither Israel nor the U.S. can countenance.

The other novelty is that this is the first time Israel actually has a credible pretext. The pretext for 1982 was that the Abu Nidal group, which had no presence in Lebanon, attempted to assasinate an Israeli Ambasador (to England IIRC.) And the '78 pretext was two Israeli soldiers killed when they ran over a land mine IN LEBANON!

The third novelty is that, unlike other times, the IDF is reluctant to barrel through Lebanon. They may still do it, but they seem far less eager than in the past. Wether anyone wishes to admit it or not, that is deterence.

P.S., while you may sense that many people on this board are less than sympathetic to the Israeli POV, rest assured the opposite sentiment exists on any U.S. news channel, even after Qana II

[sammy small]

"Hezbollah's performance in a set-piece battle with the Israeli military (arguably, pound for pound, the best conventional military in the world) ..."

I heard this notion regarding the Israeli military during the 70's, post Vietnam era many times. While it may have been true then, I can't believe that anyone thinks that it still applies. The U.S. military has made incredible strides in tactical development and training over the past two decades which I would say are second to none.

On your other points regarding Hezbollah, I agree that they represent almost the perfect 4GW group for the situation that exists today in the ME. Being able to take advantage of the cover of a civilian populace (see this)
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html
with impugnity provides an incredible leverage for non-state groups. They have taken the time to understand the limitations of civilized warfare standards observed by state militaries and have successfully turned the odds in their own favor. Maybe Israel should declare Hama rules.
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/63P58.htm

[Marcello]

"The U.S. military has made incredible strides in tactical development and training over the past two decades which I would say are second to none."

For the conventional warfare part, yes.It is also obvious that at the same time they tried pretty damn hard to forget any lesson learned from counterinsurgency in Vietnam.
Which at the end of the day makes them a bunch of fools.

"Maybe Israel should declare Hama rules."

Then Olmert and his supporters would be the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein.And would deserve the same fate.

[Nicholas Paredes]

Hama Rules! I remember reading that op-ed shortly after 9/11... Is it really apt? And, what are the implications of such a devastating mode of action? Last night I chatted with some friends regarding the conflict, and as war buffs they lit up with the mention of the alternatives.

My belief that Israel can become South Africa, the Third Reich, or retrench and reconsider its plight. Hama rules imply a sort of ethnic cleansing within the state of Israel as the threat increasingly will come from within demographically speaking. A recent article described the alternatives: Israel as an island, or as an actor within the broader middle-east. Sadly for all, the state has chosen to ensure that a smooth surface free from contaminants exists along their border. These contaminants are pissed.

Pragmatically, trying to live an austere germ free life has its consequences. I prefer the role of states, interacting with alternative social structures. Pretending that these have never existed and that there are not models for engagement is silly. As if W does not pander to religious groups, unions, and have to deal with issues like organized crime. Often these actors play roles within different structures (crimal politicians). Israel can act until it sickens itself with brutality or recognize that these groups are very simply all that remains within a region devoid of effective representative states.

While the US continues to destroy states, will they also continue to argue that they have no one with which to speak? This all strikes me as delusional child's-play. Children with munitions of course... It reminds me of the final chapter of "Non-Zero" were the choice is to become either an actor within the larger world or retrench into feuding isolationism. Israel, the US, and the various religious extremist groups all seem to be playing their roles.

[Marcello]

Israel cannot have it both ways.
They can behave as a local thugocracy and proceed to bomb,nuke and torture anyone at their heart's content.But then no more propping up with billions of civilian and military aid, no more international sympathy (or what's left of it).If
ruthlesness succeeds, well.If they still go under,well, no tears shed.
OR they can play the civilized party, keep the billions and put up with the shit which comes with 4GW.

[g510]

Nonstate actors will always have an advantage in that they are lower on the entropy gradient than states. That is, a state is a more complex and highly-organized entity, and it must protect its complexity (economy, legal system, etc.) against those who intend to damage it by force.

A nonstate actor has no such constraints. To the extent that it provides any services to civilians, whatsoever, it will look "benevolent," even "heroic." Refuse collection once a month by a terrorist affiliate group is more "impressive" than refuse collection once a week by a government agency.

That being said, the primary problem in the Middle East is cultural:

Every culture in the region, almost without exception, operates on the premise of positive feedback cycles with regard to the use of force. An eye is repaid with two eyes, a tooth with two teeth, an insult to a family with an "honor" killing, two kidnapped soldiers with an invasion, and an invasion with hundreds of rocket raining down upon civilians.

We often think of the phrase "an eye for an eye" as a rationalization for barbarity, but the fact is that the Jewish prophets who advocated that position were attempting to DE-escalate from the prevailing culture of "two eyes for an eye." Jesus attempted to take it one step further by advocating an overtly *negative* (limiting) feedback cycle, with his exhortation to "turn the other cheek." I am hardly literate in Islam but it seems evident that the Prophet himself attempted to do likewise, for example (if memory serves me correctly) by advocating moderation in the conduct of warfare. So we see a constant thread throughout the history of the major Western monotheisms in the region, to do anything possible to counteract the positive feedback of force.

Yet to this day, the cultures of the region still suffer from "two eyes for an eye" and the escalating positive feedback cycle of force. And now they have nuclear weapons, with more on the way.

I'm going to say something that will probably be highly unpopular but on reflection you will see it is also correct (and I should preface this by saying that I find the "end-timers" who eagerly wish for Armageddon to be downright detestible):

These people will probably have to nuke each other into trinitite before they can finally break out of the thousands-of-years-old cycle of the positive feedback of force.

This is no different than a substance abuser "hitting bottom" or a habitual petty thief finally getting caught and sentenced to prison. When a pattern of dysfunction is so deeply engrained, it takes severe circumstances to change the behavior. And, those who attempt to intervene to prevent the worst of consequences are merely "enablers" whose interventions in fact allow the dysfunction to continue and deepen.

The rest of the world needs to put Israel, Lebanon, et. al. on notice: We will no longer intervene as moderators, we will no longer try to mitigate the consequences of your actions, we will not even stop your attempts to obtain atomic bombs. The positive feedback of force must stop, and this is up to you and you alone.

[Gerard]

g510, that certainly was blunt. We all hope that it doesn't come to that but I guess some of us differ in how far we should go to prevent the mid-east from "hitting bottom." I think you under-estimate how far down the bottom really is. Josh Marshall has been for the past few weeks saying about the Middle East: "It can always get worse."

You posit that a nuclear exchange (or worse - a one way strike) might be the rock bottom that ends the positive feedback of force. I think the desire for revenge would supercede any thoughtful reflection on "how it got to this". The region seems to have painfully long memories (one of the reasons Bush's "crusade" comment left such a mark.) I can only imagine the passion that would ensue if a Muslim city or holy site was nuked.

For our own selfish reasons I don't think we could throw our hands into the air and walk away anyway. With all this talk about Jihad we have forgotten McWorld, the world is becoming smaller and flatter. We in the west have many interconnections with the region aside from the obvious oil.

[Duncan Kinder]

"Nonstate actors will always have an advantage in that they are lower on the entropy gradient than states."

To quote myself from a post several months ago, the biggest, baddest transnational organization of them all is the Roman Catholic Church.

The level of relative organization depends upon the state and also the nonstate. Microsoft Corporation probably has a higher entropy gradient than, say, Chad, but I would not characterize it as a state.

Much of what is discussed on this blog is how networks and other ultra modern developments are simultaneously making non-state actors more effective and state actors less effective. If correct, that would mean that, with time, states will become less organized and non-states more so.

John Robb, if I understand him correctly, thinks that these resulting global guerrillas are criminals.

I question this. While, many obviously are criminal, permantly criminal organizations do not enjoy long shelf lifes. Also, many of these organizations at least profess various religious or other higher beliefs. Finally, if you look at - say the Chinese Revolution from between the Tai Ping Rebellion and the Communist takeover - you will find a similar melage of both criminal and ideological illicit organizations - some of which are now part of Global Guerrillas today.

Your argument that culturally the Mideast has positive feedback loops regarding force would be comforting to those who believe that its inhabitants belong to some other species. I, for one, believe they are Homo Sapiens and generally tend to react to things much as we do. I would suspect Mideastern feedback loops of force resemble those found in - say - Latin America. And, indeed, Latin American and MidEastern global guerrilla activity actually do resemble each other.

[g510]

Re. Gerard:

Underestimating the bottom: Seems to me that trinitite (glowing green slag) is about as far to the bottom as one can get.

If the desire for revenge persists after *that*, then clearly it (a nuclear exchange) wasn't enough to break the bad habits of the past, and more/worse is inevitable. But as I said, it can't get much worse than having your country turned into glowing green slag.

Now here's another terribly crass bit of truth: If for the sake of re-venge and re-re-venge and re-re-re-venge, they exterminate themselves down to the last man, then in the long term, archaeologists will view them as a failed subset of the human species, much as we view those peoples who burned through all of their natural resources until they rendered themselves extinct. Darwin does not choose favorites; the chips fall where they fall.

As for our selfish reasons as Westerners, the first thing we need to do is make a WW2-level effort toward full energy independence, using climate-clean sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar, wherever possible. Second, a full lockdown on immigration and travel from the entire region (for the obvious reason of preventing someone using themselves as a suicide-carrier of bio weapons via commercial air travel). In fact the former step by itself might be sufficient to put the regional powers-that-be on notice that we are moving toward letting them stew in their own juices until they figure out what's up.

As for individuals already in-country, as long as they abide by the law, no problem. If they violate the law (i.e. commit terrorist acts), they can be prosecuted same as anyone else (and without need for excessive and frankly unconstitutional measures).

Re. Duncan:

Re. the Catholic Church. If ever there were a single entity anywhere in the world, that was more responsible for our mad dash for the edge of the cliff of population overshoot and collapse, I have yet to find it.

Microsoft vs. Chad: Technical correction: should be "MS is higher on the entropy gradient..." think of it as an inclined plane, with anarchy at the bottom and increasing degrees of civilization as one moves up the slope, where civilization is defined as the condition of society where knowledge increases over time and violence decreases over time.

"...with time, states will become less organized and non-states more so." Good insight, makes sense, and also seems inevitable. Probably what will occur is a kind of leveling-downward toward a mean average. How to quantify that remains to be seen but would be an interesting exercise.

Criminals: These are usually qualified by the question of means: using criminal means toward whatever ends. What does one do with criminal acts that are side-effects of other means toward other ends? And where is the line crossed? For example, the institutional cover-up of a large number of child molesters over a period of decades, and institutional protection of them from prosecution by the proper authorities, with the result of literally thousands of raped children, would qualify any organization as a criminal enterprise. How is it that an exception is made for the Vatican...?

Re. the Middle East and "...another species." No, the racial arguement fails totally, as follows: Israelis of European ancestry who move into the region, seem to fall into the same pattern as Israelis whose ancestry is within the region. (Thus we could predict that persons who move from Western countries to Muslim countries in the Middle East would show the same dynamics.) And those (of any religion) whose ancestries are within the region, when they move to the West, are at least reasonably likely to give up the bad old ways. The bad ways correlate with the location rather than the genes. (There is a PhD thesis waiting to be done on this topic if anyone has the guts to try it!)

The root cause of the Middle East problem, all of the warped cultural variables and positive feedback cycles of force escalation, and the rest of it, is this:

Once it was a lush, fertile region, with ample supplies of food and water, and a moderate climate. Somehow (probably via mismanagement of agriculture and water works), humans managed to screw it up and turn it into a baked, barren desert. Yet the population levels only reluctantly adapted to the reduced resource base, and even today remain pressed up against the resource limits with practically zero wiggle-room.

In that type of environment, humans revert to a vicious type of collective survivalism that is based on genes and tribe (see also the Biblical obsession with begetting and begatting).

This is not a different species. It is what happens to our species when we overshoot the natural resource limits and crash the ecosystems on which we depend for our sustenance.

And we had better learn the lesson fast.

[noname]

lets get on-topic, please.

the reason of hezbollah's "success" against the IOF is a simple one and it has to do less with hezbollah than with the jews. if we take a step back from all the "global guerillas" and "4th GW" preaching, the human reality on the ground is what ultimately counts. it is as simple as it is intellectually unspectacular.

after 60 years as king of the hill, the IOF is accustomed to the easy kill, to always win any skirmish they engage with the racially inferior palestinians. shooting at 8-year-old boys or at 13-year-old schoolgirls from 100 meters away, demolish houses and stealing the property of a defenseless population without fearing consequences is what the IOF has become accustomed to.

the IOF operates on the assumption that all arabs are dogs or less, that they don't know how to defend themselves, that they are stupid and that it is ok and honorable to kill them wherever they are found, never mind that the impassivity of their arab neighbors has less to do with them not knowing how foght than with the total corruption of their political establishment by and for the western powers.

yeah, its exactly that. after 60 years of easy victories, the IOF have become accustomed to be manly and play it macho when fighting women and children and torturing the men cuffed to bars in their ample gulag.

so, now these manly cowards who know nothing but victory after victory go into southern lebanon and the first thing that happens is that they get they sorry racist arses kicked badly by the racially (and morally) "inferior" hezbollah (after all, the hezbollah has been labeled "terrorist" by the westerners). the golani unit sent in to boss them over was ripped apart, and, here is a small secret, the hezbollah got lucky and dan halutz was severely injured while pulling his "generalisimo" show at the front.

as a consequence we've been treated to a lidice memorial show in Qana yesterday. the IOF acted out like spiteful drag queens, angry for the beating they got in a fight on equitative terms, and angry for what happened to their cocksucker in chief. who would-a-thunk that gods chosen ones could be so badly wupped by these "beasts on two legs" worth less than cocroaches in their racist eyes ?

given their less than spectacular equipment, the hezbollah would probably have been smoked out by any other army, but not by the cowards of the IOF, who suffer many of the same ailments as the societies of nazi germany and of todays jewish society at large (lets not forget the americans, who fit in pretty well here): moral inferiority in means and in motivations for their engagement vis-a-vis their enemy because of deeply rooted racism and intense hate and disdain for all "lesser" (other) peoples.

to engage in gratuitious slaughter of defenseless civilians in order to "make up" for lost battles in the military realm just does not "make right" but puts to show a gross lack of moral and discipline of the perpetrating army. to murder the weak because of spite betrays some very deep-seated weaknesses in those who commit such atrocities.

that is what hezbollah has shown the world, and it is what will ultimately undo israel as a viable state. one could (rightly) argue that the hezbollah is also targeting civilians with their puny rockets, but it is IMO improper to assign to them the deep rot displayed by the israelis.

sun tzu said some simple as valid words about these things about 5000 years ago. the jews should have read those words with utmost care.

[Tangurena]

>Once it was a lush, fertile region, with ample supplies of food and water, and a moderate climate. Somehow (probably via mismanagement of agriculture and water works), humans managed to screw it up and turn it into a baked, barren desert.
Irrigating farmland tends to concentrate salts into the soil: water comes in, bringing salts, the plants take up the water, leaving the salt behind.

Over time, the crops that you used to plant perish from the salt, so you have to use hardier plants, which tend to have lower yields, until even those plants stop growing. Which is why some parts of the Iraq landscape SHINE in the sun: they have so much salt that nothing grows there anymore.

California has a similar situation in some places. Irrigation has raised selenium levels to toxic levels, so high that many animals perish before they are born. As thousands of years of selenium run-off gets concentrated in farmlands due to irrigation. The Colorado River is so depleted from farming irrigation that it is more of a marsh where it crosses the border into Mexico than an actual river. Yet the idea of stopping farming on these lands is anathema. Some folks claim that Doha round of WTO talks broke down because the US wouldn't give an inch on farm subsidies.

There are a number of books that describe this situation, including "Cadillac Desert" and "Collapse."

Collapse covers several civilizations that vanished because they were unwilling or unable to face the issues confronting them. For many peoples, that change would change them so much that they'd rather perish than change, and so they did perish.

Another book, The Ingenuity Gap, describes the gap between what is needed to survive and what people are capable of "inventing" to solve their problems. Some of the civilizations mentioned in Collapse weren't able to invent their way out of the corner they ended up in.

Bringing this thought back to the main thread of this post, many tribal subcultures, like the conservatives and neoconservatives, are obsessed with repeating failed actions, while blaming the failures on their political opponents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstosslegende
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=83795
http://www.harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html
And the "stab in the back" urban legend will get repeated until people believe it to be true, like the woman who dried her poodle in the microwave, or returning vietnam vets getting spat on.

Learning from past mistakes, and then "not doing *that* again" is the scientific approach to the world. The neocons have shown that they chose to invent their own "reality" which is distinct and separate from the world we live in, as well as virulent opposition to truth, science and rational thought. Most people would recognize that as a form of insanity.

[John Robb]

Here's an interesting topic of discussion. What if Hezbollah's missile capacity remains intact after the ceasefire (it is getting more likely by the day). Will it become a strategic deterrent to Israeli action in Gaza/West Bank?

Here's one potential formula: if an airstrike is made against a Gaza target, Hezbollah sends in 100 missiles over two days at a cost of $50 million to the Israeli economy (or you can suggest your own formula).

[Movie Guy]

"What if Hezbollah's missile capacity remains intact after the ceasefire (it is getting more likely by the day). Will it become a strategic deterrent to Israeli action in Gaza/West Bank?"

The answer is no. If you believe that Israel will shake in its boots and allow Hamas or Hizballah to perform another round of attacks as just occurred without any response, then you don't understand Israel. At all.

[DEATH FROM ABOVE]

I’m not a global guerrilla’s philosopher but in my opinion there are only two operational strategies to defeat Hezbo/Iraqi/Taliban/Hamas and this site’s labeled fourth generation warfare/4GW. The first is nuclear attack, providing a significant deterrent to future negative behavior from other radical Islamic terrorists and the second is overwhelming invasion/ground/air forces killing everything that moves (WWII and Fallujah order of battle examples). But because of world politics, media coverage (dead children), and public outrage/sympathy, neither strategy is currently feasible until a nation/state's survival is threatened to extinction where the former will become a reality (WWII bombings/invasion/conquer resulted from Allied nation/state survival from the Axis of the Nazis/Japanese aggression/world domination). Example: If a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb detonates in DC or NY, you'll see a nation/state (USA in this case) survival retaliation against those responsible (If, whoever is left in charge is able to determine who was responsible). The concern for "innocent" civilians who live in these terrorist inhabited/sponsored countries (Lebanese, Palestine, Syria, Pakistan or Iran) will be part of the problem because they support, sympathize and hide the terrorists so they will not be spared/immune from attack. These enemies do not wear uniforms or practice war in accordance with the Geneva conventions of warfare. Israel will not stop bombing/attacking Southern Lebanon until the launching of rockets/missiles into Israel ceases (Reinforced by Hezbo’s leader’s approval/orders) and a buffer zone is established to ensure the larger cities are safe from multiple rocket/missile attacks. Wasting time and soldiers lives with what is being practiced in Iraq and Lebanon today (IEDs and rocket/missile attacks are indiscriminate and are not of any military significance other than propaganda/fear)…provides the enemy with a political/media propaganda advantage. Bringing in a UN multinational force will not end the fighting from Hezbollah. I enjoy your site and readers responses. End of story.

[dan]

JR

I think it's a bit premature to be talking about a ceasefire at this stage - the UN meeting that was supposed to start the ball rolling has been postponed indefinitely, the IDF are still making ground incursions into Lebanon ( there was some nifty live footage of a tank being disabled that has been repeated all day on the UK news channels ) and Olmert is still insisting that there is no ceasefire.

The US, and Blair, are still giving sufficient diplomatic cover for this to continue for a few more days at least - and this "extension" allows the basic rule of the ME to remain in play: "it can always get worse".

The IAF is still bombing Lebanon - although at a much reduced intensity today. Hizbullah seem to have switched the Katyushas off for today, but there has been some mortar fire into Kiryat Shmona; I would not expect this to last, and if the Israelis go back into full offensive mode tomorrow, I think we can expect the rockets to ratchet up again.

There was a sustained bout of celebratory gunfire in Beirut this afternoon as the news that Hizbullah may have hit another Israeli ship was relayed.

Now a lot of civilians in the deep south are going to get take the opportunity to flee, and this will give the IDF the green light to ramp up the firepower again. We'll see if the Franco-Iranian meeting in Beirut delivers in the next 24 hours - my guess is that it won't, as the Israelis are still desperate to create facts on the ground so that they have something to show for all this effort.

[Barry]

"Sadly for all, the state has chosen to ensure that a smooth surface free from contaminants exists along their border. These contaminants are pissed."

Somebody put it as 'Israel wants security, but is not willing to allow any of their neighbors to have security'.

[Z]

"What if Hezbollah's missile capacity remains intact after the ceasefire (it is getting more likely by the day). Will it become a strategic deterrent to Israeli action in Gaza/West Bank?"

That is the crux of the matter. The Israelis (and the U.S.) are looking for the holy grail of security; The ability to strike at will without the slightest fear of retaliation. The idea of some kind of balance, which sounds reasonable at first glance, is unnacceptable when they feel they can achieve a total imbalance in their favor. If Israel is successful, and the U.S. manages to 'neutralize' Iran, then indeed that will be the case.

Then, in the ensuing instability, israel can resort to "massive Retaliation." Whatever the moral implications of such a policy, it is only practical if the other guy can't retaliate back.

"second is overwhelming invasion/ground/air forces killing everything that moves (WWII and Fallujah order of battle examples). But because of world politics, media coverage (dead children), and public outrage/sympathy, neither strategy is currently feasible"

I'm afraid you underestimate how much misery the world can watch on TV. With America's total political cover Israel could-and likely will-try to implement a sort of ethnic cleansing in Lebanon. After a few months of complaining, the world will forget.

How successful such a policy will be is less certain. Russia has been quite unrestrained in Chechnya, and previously in Afghanistan, and the results have been mixed, at best. And that is likley the scenario here; Beirut as Grozny.

[syberberg]

"Here's one potential formula: if an airstrike is made against a Gaza target, Hezbollah sends in 100 missiles over two days at a cost of $50 million to the Israeli economy (or you can suggest your own formula)."

John,

I seriously doubt that the economic side of things is bothering the Israelis, at least not yet. After all, their economic infrstructure is intact, whereas the Lebanese isn't and they can rely on American aid (either governmental or pirvate donations) to clear up any loss fairly quickly. Lebanon has already lost at least $2billion in tourist income and god alone knows how much it's going to cost to rebuild and clear up the mess.

Economically speaking, the Israelis have won, where they have lost everywhere else in this campaign. How much of a factor this will be in the long run, I'm not sure I'm qualified to conjecture.

[Marcello]

"With America's total political cover Israel could-and likely will-try to implement a sort of ethnic cleansing in Lebanon. After a few months of complaining, the world will forget."

Essentially what I defined in the past as "the easy way out of the 4GW conudrum".
Using the state superior firepower to wage a total war against the enemy civilian population.Ethnical cleansing, concentration camps and if all else fails outright extermination (I do not think that in this case Israel will go beyond ethnical cleansing, concentration camps and small scale killings).
Generally speaking it won't be feasible in many cases but here,as the average american either does not give a damn or is thirsty for arab blood,it might work.It is risky though given the possible ripercussion in the ME.
The soviets employed very brutal tactics in Afghanistan but they never attempted something as systematic as I am suggesting, although apparently some officers brought this possibility up back then. Chechenya is another matter altogether.

[g510]

Re. what if Hezb's missile capacity remains intact...? (Are we talking about missiles here or rockets? Thus far it's been rockets.)

1a) Hezb would probably relocate the rockets & supporting infrastructure during the cease fire. All other factors equal, it's a sensible move.

1b) IDF intel is apparently seriously lacking here. The lack of HUMINT and SIGINT is not particularly remarkable under the present conditions, but you would think IDF would have acceptable IMINT capabilities in this engagement (IDF drones; possible digests via USA NRO) ...and yet apparently they don't, else we would be seeing far different results. (This is interesting: why isn't the US helping out more in this department, eh? Methinks there are policy conflicts below the surface....)

1c) Thus the only way IDF can get a fix on Hezb. rocket emplacements is by backtracking the trajectories after they launch. We can reasonably assume Hezb can hide their rockets wherever they wish, and not worry about getting shot at until after they shoot. As long as they keep their launches below the threshold needed for that type of backtracking (and then move), they can keep shooting.

Does this constitute a deterrence capability? I'm doubtful.

2a) Israel appears stuck between the "regional superpower" mode and the "colonial power" mode: relying on superiority of conventional forces and conventional strategy & tactics, backed ultimately by a nuclear arsenal.

2b) I'm not convinced that IDF understands the decentralized warfare paradigm. As Tangurena remarked (paraphrase), smarts = the ability to change to respond to changing conditions, i.e. "not doing *that* again." Yet what we see appears to be a repetition of what "worked" before, whether or not it actually "worked" to begin with. (That is, the difference between merely temporarily suppressing, vs. long-term neutralizing, the capability of an opponent to attack and inflict damage.)

2c) Thus, Israel would likely not be deterred. Israel's policy inertia is too high, and the IDF could respond to rocket attacks as it has done in the past. If nothing else, this would be sufficient to placate Israeli public opinion.

Which brings us to a prediction or two....

3a) If Hezb. tries to utilize its rocket capabilities for deterrence, this will not succeed: Israel will continue to behave as before.

3b) Israel's response to Hezb. attacks will not deter Hezb. from further attacks, in fact quite the opposite: it will egg them on (positive feedback cycle of force).

3c) Hezb. will make regular use of its rockets to attack Israeli cities: small numbers of rockets at quasi-random intervals

3d) The rocket attacks add something new to the totality of forces impinging on the Israeli state. To the extent that Israel's attacks on Lebanon have degraded the Lebanese state and economy, Hezb. has little to lose by attempting to degrade the Israeli state and economy to a similar degree.

3e) Unchecked, the above development (3d) would constitute potential for pushing Israel down the entropy gradient by a small but measurable degree (i.e. slightly increasing the entropy of the Israeli state & economy). This would be an adverse strategic outcome for the US (at least according to present doctrines of US interests in the region).

3f) Therefore, what happens ultimately is that the US supplies aid both financial and military, to counteract the entropic impacts of Hezb. rocket attacks. In other words, Uncle Sam to the rescue (again).

Opinion:

4a) How long this goes on before someone realizes that "doing the same thing over and over again" isn't producing progress, is anyone's guess.

[Marcello]

"As long as they keep their launches below the threshold needed for that type of backtracking (and then move), they can keep shooting."

Insofar I know there is no "threshold".
We have moved beyond flash spotting and sound ranging for counterbattery.
Shell tracking radars and computers are used to plot the firing position very quickly,although accomplishing all the others tasks necessary for executing an CB mission may still require several minutes.
As I noted previously classical shoot and scoot is not the tactic which is probably being employed here.They are using relatively expendable single rail launchers which are probably left in place during the israeli CB fire.With a very simple cable remote and a reinforced position few hundreds of meters away they would not even have to move at all.

[Z]

According to the Haaretz news ticker, the plan is to push Hizb beyond the Litani and await international peace keepers. Anybody care to game that scenario? I'm assuming most civilians will leave, ig they haven't already.

Short of Iran aquiring nukes in the next few weeks, I don't see how Hizb can hold on. Though they will certainly put up a fight.

[DEATH FROM ABOVE]

BREAKING NEWS: Appears Israel realizes they are in the fourth quarter of this Middle East playoff game and has implemeted the 2-minute drill...an all out offensive to kill Hezbos and drive them back to their end zone before the French and Iranians broker a cease fire deal with the UN to save their radical Islamic coward asses. If that fails, I'm guessing Syria and (Iran; secretly) will want to enter the playing field to save them but I think someone needs to inform the red team that they are out of timeouts and challenge flags before they do. Israel may suffer heavy casulties but they will take a large number with them. Don't mess w/Texas Bush is the coach of this game and is determined not to lose this battle. I wouldn't be surprised if the US is providing B-52/B-2 bombing support during the hours of darkness? The fight is on.