QUOTE: Legitimacy for global guerrillas

"If there was just one Nasrallah in every Arab country -- one person with his dedication, intelligence, courage, strength and commitment -- Arabs would not have had to suffer stolen land and defeat at the hands of Israel for 50 years,"said an Arab celebrity, Kuwaiti actor Daoud Hussein on Al-Jazeera. (Faiza Saleh Ambah, Arab World Riveted by Coverage of the 'Sixth War." Washington Post. August 14, 2006.)

This quote reflects an increasingly common desire: that global guerrillas (non-state forces that use 4GW tactics) are the only way to provide protection against external foes (and potentially against the depredations of their own internationally impotent but domestically repressive governments). Hezbollah's victory (locked in by the ceasefire that will, despite its language, allow the group to retain both its tactical and strategic capabilities) has engineered a sea change in perception.

Comments

[jkd]

This is also especially notable because, notwithstanding Hezbollah's strategic victory, Lebanon lies in ruins - again. It's an awful situation they find themselves in, so fighting Israel to a standstill (the first Arab army to do so) is absolutely a victory in strategic terms and in terms of perception, but in this case, how many victories can a part of the world that is already severely economically atrophied survive?

[Duncan Kinder]

Remarkably lacking from the present so-called "War on Terror" - on either side - is any artistic accompaniment.

I am now thinking specifically of Verdi and his role in the Italian unification. Verdi had become so identified with repressed Italian nationalism that "Viva Verdi" graffiti was frequently painted on Italian walls. "VERDI" actually was a concealed acronym for "Victor Emanuel Rei D'Italia." So the graffiti had a dual meaning. Upon the launching of the final struggle to expel the Austrians, Cavour broke out into one of Verdi's arias. After the Republic of Italy had been founded, Cavour found it necessary to persuade Verdi - against his will - to serve in the Italian parliament, in order to boster the prestige of the new government.

Similarly, in Florence today, there are famous cafes where the Italian unification had been plotted out. You will pay $6.00 per Coke just for the privilege of being able to say that you have sat and eaten at that cafe.

This lack of imagery is strange - for tales of rebel heros - from Robin Hood to Zorro - are well known.

On the other side, for all the current American celebration of "the troops," there is a strange absence of "Willie and Joe" cartoons or anything like that.

[Chris]

The complexity of that sea change, its depth, is worth noting. These global guerillas, especially the Shiite clerics like Nasrallah and whomever may emerge in Iraq, can play upon religious and cultural mythologies to enhance their power with their populations. Hezbollah is vowing to rebuild 15,000 homes. Yet, some pundits wonder who has won. In Lebanon, the answer is clear.

[Devang]

This quote reflects an increasingly common desire: that global guerrillas ... are the only way to provide protection against external foes...

That would be the desires of the common arab muslim, and not the arab governments.

[Z]

With this example of successfull resistance, Hizbollah has indeed become a symbol of defiance against what many percieve to be injustice. This is especially true for Arabs and Muslms but probably even beyond.

That success, however, will make them the neverending target of U.S./Israeli/British plans. These nations will now exert every effort to deligitamize and eventually destroy Hizb, and will be happy to destroy Lebanon in order to acomlish it. Success breeds many enemies. Israel will use all its means to ally itself with Hizb's enemies within Lebanon, and the U.S. will exert all its efforts on halting the arms supply. Nasrallah and Hizb leaders, perhaps even ministers in government, will become the target of assination attempts. Iran and Syria will become the targets of the U.S.

Unless Iran is much closer to a nuclear weapon than anyone suspects, I'm not sure how Hizb will survive.

But that was a heck of a battle they fought!

[Cavolonero]

They really did ' save Hitler's brain ', and these guys have it. Maybe we'll have thousands or tens of thousands of Nassrallah-fuhers to contend with next ?

[tim302]

Duncan,
Whatever it is, it'll be on youtube.

[haydar]

WaPo and NY times are carrying essentially the same articles from intrepid reporters who have made it to the border town of Khiam. While Hizbullah was the best organized and armed, the Amal militia was also fighting, and I would suspect a lot of freelancers who became "Hizbullah" after the war started.

Was this war decided in the first battle for Bint Jbail? For all the discussion of tactics and weapons,Hizbullah clearly was ready and eager to fight on the ground, and Israel was not. No amount of artillery or air power was going to correct that deficiency.

[konaman]

Interesting article which is worth a read. --http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/07/1866019
"Theory abhors a vacuum as much as nature, so newer revisionists have popped up in profusion to fill the void left by the collapse of technocentric theories of war. One philosophy proposes to build a new theory of war around organizational and bureaucratic efficiency. Build two armies, so the proponents argue, one to fight and the other to administer, and the new age of more flexible and adaptive military action will begin. Another group of theorists seeks to twist the facts of history into a pattern that brings us to a fourth generation of warfare, one that makes all Clausewitzian theories of state-on-state warfare obsolete. Thus Western states are threatened by an amorphous, globally based insurgent movement. The inconvenience of Middle Eastern states collapsing and reforming in the midst of a state-dependent terrorist environment makes this fourth generationalist assault on the master difficult to sustain, if not actually embarrassing.

To be generous, each of these revisions contains some elements of truth. But none satisfies sufficiently to give confidence that Clausewitz can be amended, much less discarded. To be sure, networks and sensors are useful, even against terrorists, particularly in ground warfare at the tactical level. Armies should be reorganized to fight irregular wars more efficiently. And the influence of the state in irregular war must be revised to accommodate the realities of nonstate threats or, perhaps more accurately, not-yet-state threats; Osama bin Laden's first desire is for his own caliphate, or even emirate. But at the end of the day — and in light of the bitter experiences of recent years — it's clear that none of these rudimentary attempts at revision possesses the intellectual heft or durability to challenge the tenets of the classic master of conflict theory. "

Also interesting quote from Ralph Peters: the only morality in war is winning.

[Marshall]

It's the seventh Arab Israeli war - for some reason they always leave out the War of Attrition.

[John_tieso]

One would have hoped that the US (And its surrogate Israel)would have learned from the Vietnam experience that fighting against the leader of the locals never works. It doesn't matter that Nasrallah is not the elected leader of Lebanon. They never had elections until the French decided they needed democracy after their experiment with Faisal didn't work after WWI. Why should elections be important in terms of who actually rules?

Now, the US and its allies are criticizing Nasrallah for bringing money to the table quickly and actually starting reconstruction efforts before the US and its coalition are even having serious discussions about doing it in the future.

All the West is doing, by failing to take an even approach to getting peace in the area, instead supporting Israel, regardless of how it over-reacts, is pushing distance between itself and the locals--a distancing that will never be repaired.

[Adam]

John,

You've just jogged a memory for me; a funny story about Lebanese elections.

In 1941 Lebanon was ruled by the Vichy authorities. The British sent troops into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Once the smoke had cleared de Gaulle promised Lebanese independence (under the authority of the Free French).

Anyway elections were held in 1943 and the new elected Lebanese government unilaterally declared independence from everyone, including France. The 1943 declaration of independance is still the basic Lebanese constitution by the way (it gives Christians far too much representation as all parliamentary seats are based on the 1932 census. A new census is politically far too awkward to organise as it would give a lot more representation to Muslims). Anyway in 1943 they were hardly going to play in someone elses war. After all, what was in it for them?

The Free French (motto: you're only Free if you're French) reacted by sending troops in and throwing the new government into prison.

Sound familiar? Because it looks a lot like current US issues with Iraq, and Israeli issues with Hamas. Plus ca chose, plus ca meme chose....