Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Is Hezbollah on the ropes?

The question lacks context. The last time that Israel invaded Lebanon, it led to the creation of Hezbollah. It's like popping a zit. It may feel right to remove the cebum, but the underlying damage will only make it worse later.

And Syria and Iran getting nervous?

Not remotely.

It would be interesting to see what kinds of things have been stashed in the Bekaa Valley. Particularly of vintage early 2003...

Yes! Elvis has been found alive in the Bekaa Valley!

There is no reason that the bad guys would take WMD to Lebanon, when they could simply use them on American troops in Iraq.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 2, 2006 11:17 AM

Rand, we already know it won't matter what we find.

With Iraq's development of binary chemical agents, nothing is ever 'a chemical weapon'. The main ingredient is then a legitimate pesticide. And the empty binary agent dispersal shells get dismissed as... empty. This seems like it would simply go on. They aren't 'prefilling' the shells, so all the material will still be in drums. And cleverly disguised as something it actually is - pesticide.

Finding Sillkworms or Koranet - both of which were also forbidden to Iraq - really won't count either. There were several reports in the active fighting of the destruction of M1A1's - which requires something much better than an RPG, and was felt to be one of these prohibited weapons.

Posted by Al at August 2, 2006 11:19 AM

"There is no reason that the bad guys would take WMD to Lebanon, when they could simply use them on American troops in Iraq."

WOW!!! It's so simple!! Why didn't Saddam have you as an advisor? He would have surely won the war if he had just used his WMD's on the US instead of dispersing them thru Syria!

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 2, 2006 11:41 AM

On the ropes as in boxing, which is to say being pummeled badly. Or on the ropes as in Wrestling, or in other words ready to jump down and crush their downed opponent?

My guess is it depends on who you ask at this point but I'm betting on the boxer metaphor as the media is siding with the wrestlers which we know is phoney and the media has been wrong on pretty much every prediction since Sept 11 when I started noticing.

Posted by rjschwarz at August 2, 2006 11:41 AM

Why didn't Saddam have you as an advisor? He would have surely won the war if he had just used his WMD's on the US instead of dispersing them thru Syria!

No, he would still have lost. Besides, he had completely different objectives from the insurgents in Iraq now. They are as different as Ferdinand Franco was from the Irish Republican Army.

Nor was Saddam Hussein particularly allied with Syria. Syria even fought against him in the Persian Gulf War.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 2, 2006 11:54 AM

Hezbollah is in trouble. Israel cut off their escape paths via Northern Lebanon. Israel is attacking supplies from Syria the moment they cross the border into Lebanon. And the sea is blockaded. Hezbollah is isolated, and for all their talk, Syria and Iran have drawn a clear line in the sand at the Syrian border and neither they or Israel has shown a desire to cross that line.

Of course, this is all in the article, which provides plenty of context if one is so inclined as to click the link that Rand provided.

Posted by Leland at August 2, 2006 12:51 PM

Hmmm. The Silkworm is a sea-skimming anti-ship cruise misile. You could take out an M1A1 with one of those things if it could be made to somehow hit the tank, but that wouldn't be easy. The Silkworm is designed to look for much larger targets.

As for the Koronet, I've seen no verified reports that it can kill an M1A1, though it is apparently quite lethal to lesser armored vehicles. I don't know how widely available the Koronet is at the sort of black market Army/Navy stores where the jihadis do their shopping. I have to figure if the Koronet was both as good as it's alleged to be and as available as its lesser predecessor the Sagger once was, the Hezbollahim would be wreaking much greater havoc on Israeli Merkavas than they have apparently managed to actually do.

As to those allegedly "destroyed" M1A1's in Iraq... My understanding is that, while several M1A1's have been "knocked out" in combat - meaning rendered fully or partially inoperable, especially if also rendered immovable - none have been "destroyed" in the sense of being irreparably wrecked and the crew killed. We go out, drag the busted tanks back to depot maintenance and fix them.

I know during the initial conquest portion of the Iraq fighting several M1A1's were rendered temporarily hors de combat by Saddam Fedayeen units who got close enough with pickup truck-mounted 23mm anti-aircraft cannon to hose down the tail ends of the M1A1's and kill their engines. None of the crews were killed, though, and the tanks were all recovered and - as far as I know - repaired and returned to service. More than one can say for the unfortunate Fedayeen who developed this tactic. I'll allow that, by this time, there may have been a handful of Abrams's too badly chewed up to be worth fixing, but I have no definite information to such effect.

As for crew casualties, the only M1A1 combat fatalities I've heard of were crewmen that drowned when an Abrams with its top hatch still open drove off a bridge during a firefight the first week of the war. If anyone knows of any definite KIA's among Abrams crew troopies since then, please sing out because I have seen no mention of such.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at August 2, 2006 01:02 PM

There have been, but very few have been "under armor". Most tanker casualties have been in the hatch, with a small number by drowning after a flip.

However, I believe that there have been 1-2 incidents in which the entire crew was lost to mtultiple-155 IEDs. There's only so much that you can do about that.

As for the "mysterious circumstances" during the invasion, I remember reading one article that claimed that a pair of tanks were disabled from the rear by 25mm DU. I have no idea if the reporter completely botched the story, but he clearly didn't pick up on the blindingly obvious conclusion from the facts he claimed.

Most tanks that have been "written off" to damage were burn victims. The crew rarely suffers serious injury in these cases. It does make me wonder whether they should fiddle with the hassle of hauling less-flammable diesel up there for the turbines, which I believe can burn it just fine.

Posted by Big D at August 2, 2006 01:22 PM

They (Saddam and the Iraqi insurgents) are as different as Ferdinand Franco was from the Irish Republican Army.

Nor was Saddam Hussein particularly allied with Syria. Syria even fought against him in the Persian Gulf War.

I'm not sure if this is a sign of ignorance, idiocy, or both. It certainly defies rational logic for anyone who would otherwise claim basic knowledge of events from 1930 to 2003.

The fact that Saddam was at war with Iran just 3 years previously, didn't prevent him from sending his air force to Iran to prevent its destruction by coaltion troops in 1991. Considering this, how can anyone come to the logical conclusion that Saddam wouldn't protect his WMD resources by sending them to Syria because of events 12 years previously?

I have no idea how one comes up with this analogy - Hussein : Iraqi Insurgents :: Franco : Irish Republican Army

Posted by Leland at August 2, 2006 01:30 PM

Mike,
I don't know that Syria so much fought AGAINST Saddam, as they fought FOR Kuwait. The enemy of my enemy... Syria knew that Saddam was a threat to the entire region. They may be crazy in Damascus, but they are not stupid.

Oddly FOX and CBS, were saying just this morning that Hezbollah was almost out of rockets. Not sure if that's good intel, or if the Mossad knew how how many rockets there were, and they are now counting backward.

As to whether Iran and Syria are nervous, you have to be sane, to be nervous. Crazy people just let normal stuff go by, while at the same time screaming about things that don't exist.

Things like American Imperialism and The Elders of Zion, our REAL rulers.

Posted by Steve at August 2, 2006 01:32 PM

I question just how effective "closing the supply lines" is. Warbloggers reflexively briddle at the notion of Ho Shi Min Trail and its lessons. Fine, how about the steady flow of American materiel and supplies to Afghan mojaheds in 1980s? Also, the distances are miniscule in the case of Syria and Lebanon. So a guy with donkey loaded with rocket parts pops from a shelter, marches 3 hours, hides again. Without strikes at actual depots and staging ares in Syrian territory this will continue for years.

Posted by Pete Zaitcev at August 2, 2006 01:45 PM

I have no idea how one comes up with this analogy - Hussein : Iraqi Insurgents :: Franco : Irish Republican Army

You could reason that Francisco Franco was basically on the same side as the Irish Republican Army, since after all they were both Catholic. I'm sure that they had contacts, too. It's all one big war, you know, Catholics versus Protestants.

You could reason it, but you would be completely wrong. That is what establishes the analogy with Saddam Hussein and Islamic jihadists. They have no more in common than Franco and the IRA.

(But on one point I stand corrected — his name was Francisco Franco.)

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 2, 2006 01:55 PM

"Is Hizbollah on the ropes?"

I read that article twice and don't see any evidence indicating that they are on the ropes. There are some simple facts in this fight:

-airpower works badly at crushing guerilla forces
-airpower works badly at changing the opinions of civilian populations (rather than causing civilian populations to stop supporting the fighters, it convinces them that the fighters are right--see WWII for evidence of how poorly strategic bombing worked at destroying civilian morale)
-Hizbollah launched more rockets today than any previous day in the way (so after all this bombing, their rocket attacks are _increasing_)
-crushing insurgencies is extremely difficult even with ground troops (see Iraq for evidence)
-Israeli intelligence has been quite bad so far (they were unaware of the Silkworm that hit their patrol boat, for starters, and they have misjudged a lot of other things in this battle as well)

And finally, Hizbollah appears to be winning the propaganda war. Nobody really talks about the kidnapped soldiers anymore. They only talk about stopping the Israeli bombing.

So there's no evidence that Hizbollah is on the ropes. In fact, the evidence is the opposite, and depressing. And as soon as there is a ceasefire, expect Syria to resupply Hizbollah with more rockets.

Posted by David Cherson at August 2, 2006 01:57 PM

Regarding M1 Abrams losses, a quick Google search turned up this:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/galloway/13889046.htm

"Since the Iraq combat operations began in the winter of 2003 the Army has lost 20 M1 Abrams tanks; 50 Bradley fighting vehicles; 20 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles; 20 M113 armored personnel carriers; 250 Humvees; and some 500 Fox wheeled reconnaissance vehicles, mine clearing vehicles and heavy and medium transport trucks and trailers."

"This information and these figures are courtesy of The Army Times weekly newspaper, Feb. 20 issue, with thanks."

I remember reading that about a half dozen M1 Abrams tanks were lost during the initial invasion. Usually the crews survived but had to abandon the vehicles, which were then torched by Iraqis or by the US Army.

US Army helicopter losses have been significant, as have wheeled vehicles. And the number wounded who are incapable of returning to combat was well over 8000.

Posted by David Cherson at August 2, 2006 02:04 PM

Considering this, how can anyone come to the logical conclusion that Saddam wouldn't protect his WMD resources by sending them to Syria because of events 12 years previously?

The real point is not what Saddam would or wouldn't do, but rather that the search for WMD has degenerated to Elvis sightings. The conclusion in this blog is supposedly that WMD are a peripheral question anyway, yet here Rand is imagining that they will show up after all in the Bekaa Valley. Yeah, maybe, but has anyone checked the basement of Graceland?

My point about Iraqi insurgents was also not about what Saddam would or wouldn't do, but rather that even if there were any WMD either in Syria or in the Bekaa Valley, they would be free to walk back to Iraq and be used on American troops. But I acknowledge that this is a weak point in context. The stronger point is that whole question is as stale as rockabilly.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 2, 2006 02:08 PM

Hizbollah launched more rockets today than any previous day in the way

Yeah, I noticed that too in later news. It's going to be a long autumn of "last throes".

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 2, 2006 02:09 PM

israel has more power than hezbollah, so in that sense hezbollah doesnt stand a chance. if thats what it means to be on the ropes, then they are. i doubt israel will be able to eliminate hezbollah though. perhaps they will be perpetually on the ropes.

about the iraqi wmds, if saddam actually had these weapons, i would think invading would provoke him into giving them away or using them, as a desperation move. i dont think he had any, but if he did, i doubt well find them.

Posted by at August 2, 2006 02:30 PM

"Nor was Saddam Hussein particularly allied with Syria. Syria even fought against him in the Persian Gulf War."

You say that as if it were some well kept secret. Did you know that Hitler was allied with Stalin the day before Operation Barberosa commenced?

Ribbentrop-Malenkov pact anyone?

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 2, 2006 02:33 PM

Members of the IRA joined the Army of the Second Spanish Republic. That's was Franco's opposing army in the Spanish Civil War. There is no reasoning that both were on the same side based on Catholicism unless you're a bigot.

Posted by Leland at August 2, 2006 02:44 PM

Members of the IRA joined the Army of the Second Spanish Republic. That's was Franco's opposing army in the Spanish Civil War.

That's right, Leland, just like Bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein's secular regime.

But I'm sure that Franco and the IRA had "contacts".

There is no reasoning that both were on the same side based on Catholicism unless you're a bigot.

Bingo, Leland. The analogy works.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 2, 2006 02:58 PM

In the long run, the only metric that matters is Hezbollah's ability to recruit.

If the IDF kills or drives off 5,000 Hezbollah fighters and 6,000 new recruits join Hezbollah, any victory will be pyrrhic. That said, Israel has no choice here. Rockets that can hit Haifa chemical plants are unacceptable. Period.

My point is that military firepower is one necessary condition to defeating Hezbollah but by itself will not be sufficient.

Posted by Bill White at August 2, 2006 03:36 PM

A new recruit is not equivalent to a trained Hezbollah fighter. Israel is killing the cream of the crop. Of course, what's really needed is not just an international force on the Israeli border, but one on the Syrian border...

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 2, 2006 04:05 PM

It's all one big war, you know, Catholics versus Protestants.

Mike, I trust what you really meant to say is this,

"WAS all one big war,..."

Or in your opinion is there currently a war between Catholics and Protestants? If so, I failed to get the memo.

Hopefully the Inter-Christian war will end soon so we can bring back the Spanish Inquisition. That of course would put Catholics on the side of Hezbollah, a natural winning team.

Posted by Steve at August 2, 2006 04:13 PM

Here's a link to an Army Times article from October 2003 that talks - a little - about the damage an M1 received from some unknown weapon -- a "golden RPG" or something more advanced.

Army Times article

I've also run across a follow-up that describes the tactic of hitting M1s from the rear with a jeep-mounted anti-air gun. I'm not sure they're talking about the same incident, though -- from the pictures of the incident in the first article, the hole came from the side (through the shields that cover the track and into the turret)...

Winds of Change blog

for what it's worth...

Posted by snellenr at August 2, 2006 04:41 PM

Thanks to Big D and Cherson for the updated tank info. 20 tank losses and practically no crew fatalities in 3-1/2 years of fighting. Wonder what Patton's lads, especially Creighton Abrams, would have made of that?

As to the Hezbollah resiliency question, the answer is fundamentally tied up with what assumptions one cares to make about the scope of the conflict. If the fighting stays within Lebanon, the Israelis are in for a long, inconclusive slog. This does not favor them over the long term.

The reason is resupply. As Zaitcev noted, knocking out a few "fat" resupply pipes is a lot easier than knocking out a lot of "skinny" ones. As long as a certain, probably fairly low, level of ammo resupply is manageable, Hezbollah can continue fighting indefinitely.

This, of course, assumes that the ultimate supply "depots" - Syria and Iran - remain untouched. So long as they do, Hezbollah can be enabled in its mischief making at a level too high for the Israelis to accept over an indefinite term even if not at as high a level as is going on now, with Hezbollah benefitting from the preceding six year's worth of inventory building.

Cherson correctly notes the difficulties conventional nation-state militaries have against irregular forces. But irregular forces don't make their weapons and ammo, they get them from nation states that do. Nation-state militaries, fortunately, are designed to deal effectively with malignant nation-states.

From a strategic military point of view - and even more so from a geopolitical grand strategic point of view - the obvious solution to the overall problem, then, is to promptly, and thoroughly, grind the war-making potential of both Syria and Iran into fine powder. The number and size of Hezbollah's resupply "pipes" is irrelevant if there is nothing at the feeder ends to put in them.

Israel lacks the capacity to do a proper such job on its own resources but we don't. Therefore, a formal military alliance and joint operations with the IDF are the correct order of the day.

First, the B-2's and F-117's go in to wreck Syrian and Iranian air defense and C-cubed assets and make decapitation strikes on Baby Assad, Achmed the Mad and that gang of vicious old men in Qom. Also, hit the Revolutionary Guard as hard and lethally as possible the first night. Maximum Death. Tomahawks from subs and anti-personnel JSOW's from bombers in a TOT wave, I think.

Close behind, B-1's and B-52's do a Peenemunde number on Iran's nuke facilities and Syria's missile, gas and germ warfare works using target coordinates supplied by the IDF. Then it's mainly a matter of rendering both Syria and Iran military eunuchs - rip up the airfields, smash the air forces, shred the armored vehicles, sink the navies. Destroy the power plants and weapons plants where all those pesky rockets come from. The USAF has a new bunker buster that's apparently like a WW2 Tall Boy crossed with a JDAM. Should do even the hardest parts of the job nicely.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at August 2, 2006 04:43 PM

Israel is killing the cream of the crop.

Which means, in this case, a few months of good basic training, instead of either joke training or no training. It also means just a small fraction of the fighters with that modicum of training.

It's going to be a long year of "last throes".

If you look at all of Israel's history, it has only found any real security in one of two ways. It can either take territory and then grant citizenship to all residents of that territory; or it can negotiate peace. Those are the only two methods that have ever worked. Colonialism, as in the West Bank, has never worked and will never work. Hitting the bad guys without taking territory has never worked and will never work.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 2, 2006 05:02 PM

Kudos to Ehud Olmert!

Olmert hopeful on W. Bank plan Israel’s offensives in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip will help it carry out planned withdrawals in the West Bank, Ehud Olmert said.
In a Reuters interview Wednesday, the Israeli prime minister said that by fighting Hezbollah and Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists, Israel was building the stability needed to implement Olmert’s withdrawal plan.

“I genuinely believe that the determination that Israel manifests and the power that we project and the outcome of these operations both in the South and in the North will ultimately lay the foundations for movement in the framework of the realignment,” he said.

Continue to kick the snot out of Hezbollah and Hamas.

Simultaneously finish that Big Wall and create a de facto two state solution using the fear of Iran and the Shia to win support from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (Sunnis as are the Palestinians) for implementing that solution.

Finalize that two state solution and with U.S. developmental aid to the West Bank and Gaza and show the Islamic world that vinegar and hammers are given to terrorists while sugar and carrots are given to any Arab who accepts this new peace plan.

Posted by Bill White at August 2, 2006 05:11 PM

In the long run, the only metric that matters is Hezbollah's ability to recruit.

A good point. But I question the common trope that Hezbollah's ability to recruit is determined solely or principally by how angry the local population is at Israel. See, folks don't join up just because they're angry. They've also got to believe there's at least a small chance they can make a difference -- that the war might still be won, somehow, if they join up. If people think the cause is truly hopeless, then they won't join up, no matter how angry they are.

Look at it this way: if it were true that anger over the aggressor were sufficient to generate endless recruits, then no war would ever end, because near the end of a war the losing side is always about as angry as a human can get. War being hell and all, and the aggressor always managing to commit a few atrocities along the way.

I've no doubt that the typical 20-year-old Georgia lad in early 1865 really, really hated the Yankees, or that the typical boy of 16 in Tokyo in the summer of 1945 asked for nothing better than to take a few round-eyes with him when he died, wielding a pointed stick if nothing else.

But the Confederates had serious desertion and recruitment problems late in the Civil War, and the Imperial Japanese did surrender in 1945. When the cause is seen as truly hopeless, people don't in fact continue to throw away their lives, no matter how angry they might be.

So while it's true that Israel might be able to cut Hezbollah recruitment figures by being nicer, it can also do so by convincing potential recruits that the cause is utterly hopeless, that joining up just means certain and humiliating death. If they do so, then it doesn't matter how angry people get.

Naturally the jihadis would prefer that people give this possibility little credence, or even overlook it entirely. That's why they try so hard to cultivate the impression that they are insane as well as angry, so that we don't think they'll respond rationally to events, and will continue to join up and fight even if the cause becomes clearly hopeless.

Of course, trying to cultivate the impression that you're insane is, in this context, a very shrewd and sane thing to do.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 2, 2006 05:51 PM

"Israel lacks the capacity to do a proper such job on its own resources but we don't. Therefore, a formal military alliance and joint operations with the IDF are the correct order of the day."

Er... riiiigghhht.

Perhaps you haven't noticed it, but our dance card is a little filled up at the moment. We're bogged down in Iraq and have the North Koreans and (somewhat) the Chinese to worry about. Oh, and we have troops deployed to Afghanistan as well and that logistics chain to support. And now you're advocating that we go to war against Iran _AND_ Syria?

Seems a little bit daft, don't it?

Posted by David Cherson at August 2, 2006 05:59 PM

"See, folks don't join up just because they're angry. They've also got to believe there's at least a small chance they can make a difference -- that the war might still be won, somehow, if they join up."

Israel occupied Lebanon for how long? Did that have any effect on convincing the local population that their cause was hopeless? So you think they should go for occupying them for that long plus a couple years more?

Posted by David Cherson at August 2, 2006 06:04 PM

Seems a little bit daft, don't it?

Not really. It doesn't require a ground war. It can be done by air, since the purpose isn't to conquer them or take their territory, but to (unlike Lebanon) punish them. And it just so happens that we have a lot of assets in the region right now with which we could do that without breaking a sweat (not to mention B2s and Bf2s state side). It's a pretty short trip from Iraqi air bases to either Damascus or Tehran...

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 2, 2006 06:06 PM

Did that have any effect on convincing the local population that their cause was hopeless?

They weren't brutal enough, and they didn't cut off aid from Iran via Syria. The latter at least will have to change. As I noted in a previous comment (and should put into a blog post) we really need an international force along the entire Lebanese border, not just the one with Israel.

Posted by at August 2, 2006 06:08 PM

"20 tank losses and practically no crew fatalities in 3-1/2 years of fighting. Wonder what Patton's lads, especially Creighton Abrams, would have made of that?"

Probably not much. Iraq isn't a tank battle. It's a guerilla war.

The Abrams is impressive for many reasons as a tank. But it's not fighting the kind of war that it was designed to fight, and it has limited utility in this kind of war. In fact, one could argue that it's precisely wrong for this kind of war, because you don't fight guerilla wars with overwhelming firepower. You fight them with psychology and precision force.

Posted by David Cherson at August 2, 2006 06:08 PM

Hezbollah started fighting in 1982 and Israel eventually withdrew. It will take decades of pounding to persuade Hezbollah they cannot win again the exact same way. Can the Israeli economy support having its reserves called up for years on end?

Posted by Bill White at August 2, 2006 07:04 PM

It's a pretty short trip from Iraqi air bases to either Damascus or Tehran...

Yeah, but Sadr is itching for a fight and we will need infantry for that. And I betcha Iran as plenty of Silkworms stashed in caves near Hormuz. In addition, we would need to make sure that none of the longer range Iranian missiles hit Saudi oil facilities.

Now, if we had started a vigorous conservation program 3 years ago (just like they did in WW2, a favorite metaphor of yours, Rand) and had been pouring money into shale oil and the like for the last three years, we could weather that oil shock a whole lot more easily.

Posted by Bill White at August 2, 2006 07:07 PM

"Not really. It doesn't require a ground war. It can be done by air, since the purpose isn't to conquer them or take their territory, but to (unlike Lebanon) punish them."

And they're not going to respond in any way?

And you might have noticed that our intel on Iran's nuclear program sucks. There's no way to know where all their nuclear facilities are, thus no way to know that we've taken them out.
Ditto for Syria. Where are all their chem weapons stored? We don't know.

You're advocating engaging American airpower in Syria, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously.

Daft.

Posted by David Cherson at August 2, 2006 08:02 PM

So you think they should go for occupying them for that long plus a couple years more?

Oh no. I think they should (after broadcasting a suitable warning) simply kill everyone over the age of 18 in southern Lebanon who is found firing a weapon, carrying a weapon, or storing a weapon in his house, or who is observed by more than one witness to have advocated terrorism or violence of any kind against anyone in speech, writing, or even by hand signals.

Additionally, they should be much less careful about aiming airborne munitions, so that if you happen to be foolishly standing next to someone with a rocket you are quite often blasted to bits along with him.

Brutal enough for you? War is not a game. It's vicious organized murder, and it can only be justified if you are serious about it, and you settle some issue once and for all.

Posted by at August 2, 2006 08:06 PM

"we would need to make sure that none of the longer range Iranian missiles hit Saudi oil facilities"

... or the Green Zone.

Posted by at August 2, 2006 08:24 PM

Seems a little bit daft, don't it?

The Army and Marines are the ones doing most of the dancing. Popular opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, they are not even dancing as fast as they can. Also, a lot of the trouble we've had these past 3-1/2 years has been due to all but overt meddling by both Syria and Iran. Take them both out and the Iraq project becomes much more tractable.

Rendering Syria's and Iran's military and power projection (Hezbollah support) infrastructure null and void is mainly an Air Force job with a supporting role for the Navy. We have plenty of slack where we need it.

As for logistics, as Rand pointed out, we have a well-established logistics train into Iraq and another into Afghanistan. In combination with the IDF, we can smack both Syria and Iran from opposite sides simultaneously.

The North Koreans aren't nearly as big a problem with Iran out of the way. The two of them are more dangerous as a team than either is by itself. If necessary we can always spare a few B-2's to give the NK nuke infrastructure the same treatment the Iranians need to get. We can pass word by way of China that any attack on Seoul will be met with nuclear anhilation of those thousands of artillery emplacements the NK's have been eating grass to build and maintain just their side of the DMZ. The message needs to be that the last one into the fight against us gets the roughest treatment - so stay out.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at August 2, 2006 08:32 PM

Dick, those sound like the words of a man who has no experience with war.

Posted by Yche, eh? at August 2, 2006 08:53 PM

escalations of that magnitude are in response for the kidnapping of 2 israeli soldiers? conservatives really want world war it seems.

Posted by at August 3, 2006 12:45 AM

Yche, those sound like the words of a left wing pinko. In other words someone else who has no experience with war.

North Korea if they are dumb enough to start a conflict aren't going to get a war. It's going to be a series of thermonuclear detonations, then their country is going to radiatively cool for a couple of weeks.

Posted by Chris Mann at August 3, 2006 04:37 AM

escalations of that magnitude are in response for the kidnapping of 2 israeli soldiers?

No, it's just the excuse. Israel have been taking a beating from Hezbollah rockets for a decade while the rest of the Lebanese Armed Forces sit idly by and refuse to step in, and frankly they've had enough.

Posted by Chris Mann at August 3, 2006 04:45 AM

"Additionally, they should be much less careful about aiming airborne munitions, so that if you happen to be foolishly standing next to someone with a rocket you are quite often blasted to bits along with him."

Or if you happen to be cowering in a school next to someone with a weapon, you are quite often blasted to bits along with him. Even if you're a six-year-old girl.

Why not simply advocate nuking the entire country. That should solve the problem, no?

Posted by David Cherson at August 3, 2006 06:13 AM

Mike says: It (Israel) can either take territory and then grant citizenship to all residents of that territory; or it can negotiate peace. Those are the only two methods that have ever worked.

Yeah, they negotiated peace and ceded a large chunk of land, to which the other side only wanted more. They keep taking territory and want more.

Posted by Mac at August 3, 2006 06:43 AM

Mac, there can be no ONE "other side"

Unless Israel divides the "other side" into different camps, Israel will not be strong enough to prevail over a span of decades.

Split the Sunni from the Shia by pounding Hezbollah and driving north with infantry until all southern Lebanon is free of Hezbollah fighters AND offer the West Bank the sweetest deal that can be imagined.

For secuirty? Build that freaking Wall already. But withdrawing from much (not all) of the West Bank while pounding Hezbollah offers a chance to seperate Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia from Iran and Hezbollah. (Shia & Sunni)

Posted by Bill White at August 3, 2006 07:06 AM

PS - The bribery of Egypt with US tax dollars helped bring peace between Egypt and Israel. It "helped" but was not the sole cause.

Anyway, bribe the Palestinian people (West Bank) with aid and a two state solution at the same time IDF infantry (combat engineers) claw north clearing out Hezbollah bunkers and tunnels with flamethrowers and satchel charges.

Just like Iwo Jima and Okinawa for the WW2 analogy.

Posted by Bill White at August 3, 2006 07:09 AM

Bill says: Split the Sunni from the Shia by pounding Hezbollah and driving north with infantry until all southern Lebanon is free of Hezbollah fighters AND offer the West Bank the sweetest deal that can be imagined.

My point was that negotiation was tried, land was ceded, and everything failed because those having landed ceded to them only want more. That's all.

Posted by Mac at August 3, 2006 08:51 AM

Well Mac, its either try again or ethinc cleansing. Arafat was a total idiot for not making a deal in 2000 as Bill Clinton was leaving office. No argument.

But now, I support Olmert's approach. Negotiate a FINAL border if possible. If negotiation not possible, establish a FINAL border with the West Bank unilaterally and then build that Wall. Rockets fly over the Wall? Immediate massive counter battery fire.

But, be generous with the Palestinian Sunni? Why? To divide them from the Shia Hezbollah.

The Palestinians are victims of faraway Arabs and Muslims (in Egypt and Saudi Arabia etc . . .) who exploit the West Bank and Gaza for their own agenda.

Turn the tables on that.

Posted by Bill White at August 3, 2006 09:11 AM

Bill says: But now, I support Olmert's approach. Negotiate a FINAL border if possible.

Therein lies the problem. They've negotiated borders until they're blue in the face. It hasn't worked.

Bill says: Rockets fly over the Wall? Immediate massive counter battery fire.

Why build the wall? Its just a delay to the delay to the delay. Rockets came, get ready for the response. If negotiations have failed, ultimatums have been delivered, and still you're under attack, when is it okay to deliver the promised counter-attack? This is the same "Make Love, not war" crap that everyone failed to see in Iraq. The UN delievers final outlines that Saddam completely and blatently ignores. Saddam waits for the next set of "Final" outlines. He did that for many years. The US decides to back up the UN ultimatum with force and we're the bad guy. Israel backs up its talk with force and they're the bad guy. BS. Clean 'em out Israel, go get 'em.

Posted by Mac at August 3, 2006 10:38 AM

Or if you happen to be cowering in a school next to someone with a weapon, you are quite often blasted to bits along with him. Even if you're a six-year-old girl.

Ah, the old death of innocents canard. Yes indeed, innocents die in warfare. They also die for technological advances, did you know that? There are six year old girls who die from adverse effects to vaccines, or when new technology in their father's automobile doesn't work right, and if people start living in space -- why, six year old girls will die from accidents there, too. In any substantial human endeavor, there will be innocent six year old girls who die by accident.

I suggest you do two things: first, try to remember that there are other people involved besides your innocent six year old girl, and their more numerous lives may be just as valuable to people not fascinated with or maudlin over very young girls. In order to judge the ethics of a situation, mature adults often feel the need to do more than ask whether it contains even a single particle of tragedy. Second, try to remember the difference between death of innocents by accident and as a matter of policy. This will help you distinguish the two sides in this particular conflict.

Why not simply advocate nuking the entire country. That should solve the problem, no?

It would, yes. But I suspect that is more violent than necessary. Wasteful.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 3, 2006 12:23 PM

Mac, the Wall stops suicide bombers from sneaking into Israel and blowing up pizza joints.

It also sends the clear message that Israel will neither increase nor decrease its territory. In other words, the borders are FINAL:

(1) "Right of return" for displaced Arabs is forever off the table (no more whining about the 1950s) and;

(2) Growing Biblical Israel to encompass all the West Bank and Gaza is also off the table.

Posted by Bill White at August 3, 2006 01:32 PM

Bill says: It also sends the clear message that Israel will neither increase nor decrease its territory. In other words, the borders are FINAL:

Why do it again? They've already laid down the terms and came under attack. The clear message was there, now its time to act on it.

Posted by Mac at August 3, 2006 01:51 PM

"Ah, the old death of innocents canard. Yes indeed, innocents die in warfare...

"I suggest you do two things: first, try to remember that there are other people involved besides your innocent six year old girl, and their more numerous lives may be just as valuable to people not fascinated with or maudlin over very young girls. In order to judge the ethics of a situation, mature adults often feel the need to do more than ask whether it contains even a single particle of tragedy. Second, try to remember the difference between death of innocents by accident and as a matter of policy. This will help you distinguish the two sides in this particular conflict."

Done with your bizarre little tirade? Okay, now, then go back and read what I was responding to, which was this comment: "Additionally, they should be much less careful about aiming airborne munitions."

So, you're in favor of that? Of being "less careful" about not hitting civilians? So... you're basically taking Hezbollah's attitude here rather than the Israelis? You think that civilians should be fair game?

Just kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out, eh?

Or maybe that's not what you meant?

Posted by David Cherson at August 3, 2006 02:41 PM

Mac wrote in another thread that the violence was up because the insurgents were "more desperate." Turns out that the top US commander in Iraq says that the violence is up--because Iraq may be descending into civil war:

"Iraq Moving Toward Civil War, Top U.S. Commanders Say"
By William Branigin and Mary Jordan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 3, 2006; 2:22 PM

"The top U.S. commander in the Middle East told a Senate panel today that the recent wave of sectarian violence in Iraq threatens to push the country toward an all-out civil war."

So I guess that shows you how seriously we should take Mac's comments, huh?

Posted by David Cherson at August 3, 2006 02:57 PM

Dick, those sound like the words of a man who has no experience with war.

escalations of that magnitude are in response for the kidnapping of 2 israeli soldiers? conservatives really want world war it seems.

Working in reverse order: The wants of conservatives are irrelevant - we have a world war. All we can do now is decide to fight it as such or piddle around and lose on the installment plan. If you cannot see this, your judgement is as deficient as your signature.

Yche: True, I have no direct experience of war. This is not the same as having no knowledge of war.

My late father served through most of WW2 in the Army Air Force. He was a 32-year-old engineer with a physics degree when Pearl Harbor happened so he wasn't some gung-ho teenager filled with dreams of glory and Gary Cooper as Alvin York.

Being both "old" and a college man, he went in as a 2nd Looey and made Cpt. by war's end. He commanded companies of aircraft maintenance ground crews as well as depot installations like engine and propellor shops. He served under Tooey Spaatz in North Africa, Sicily, Malta, Italy, France and Germany.

He came under fire and knew his way around the inside of a bomb shelter in the dark. He learned a lot of things of which he would just as soon have remained ignorant. Two I recall: (1) The noise made when a human head comes into contact with a three-bladed, variable-pitch Hamilton Standard propeller driven by a Curtiss-Wright radial engine at taxiing revs. (2) How to get human flesh and bone out of the skin and structural members of a medium bomber.

War was never portrayed as a lark or even as a grand adventure at my house growing up. But it was acknowledged as sometimes utterly necessary.

We are now living through another of those times.

As for the application of overwhelming force - nuclear if necessary - to decide a conflict, the results on the ground at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are well known. Less commented upon by the habitual wailers and gnashers of teeth are the following two facts: (1) The Japanese war leadership were bloody-minded enough to think they still stood some kind of non-zero chance of prevailing even after Hiroshima. (2) Nagasaki didn't change their minds either - fortunately, it did change the Emperor's mind.

I don't regard the leadership of our - and Israel's - current enemies as a bit less brutally determined to prevail than Tojo and his cronies in the Imperial War Cabinet. Do you? If so - why?

Posted by Dick Eagleson at August 3, 2006 03:38 PM

Just kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out, eh?

Or maybe that's not what you meant?

No, that's not what I meant. I meant "be less careful" about aiming. That's why I used those particular words and not some others, you know.

So, yes, I'm in favor of being less careful about aiming munitions. Does that mean that I "basically" take Hezbollah's attitude? Not unless you're an idiot it doesn't. Hezbollah aims at civilians. What I am advocating is continuing to aim at terrorists, but not fretting as much about whether you miss by a little bit or not.

I'm not suggesting trying to hit civilians, I'm saying you can try too hard not to hit civilians, with the unfortunate consequence that you teach your enemies to hide among civilians, you prolong the war, and in both ways increase the final butcher's bill of innocents.

Now I realize it may be a bit of a stretch to comprehend the fact that good intentions and a nice soft heart do not necessarily guarantee good final results. But the world works that way, alas.

I won't attempt to explain further. Clearly in this battle of wits I'm playing Israel to your Hezbollah, and, much as I may dislike putting up with an incoming barrage of shopworn cliches and sophomoric sloganeering, I'm afraid the UN may step in at any moment and accuse me of atrocities should I continue.

Peace out, man. Or whatever your tribal farewell is.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 3, 2006 03:48 PM

David says: Turns out that the top US commander in Iraq says that the violence is up--because Iraq may be descending into civil war:

One "top" commander (What's his name?) says something and suddenyl its true? Puh-leeze. I have also mentioned its what I think only. The media won't release the names of the "top" commanders because they're probably the same people that screen movies and always write..."Irresistable!" "Astounding!" "A must see!" Except in your case David, he's writing "We're Losers!" and you're so desperate to believe that we're wrong that you jump on the doom and gloom bandwagon.

Posted by Mac at August 3, 2006 04:20 PM

dick, glad to hear you dont revel in war. honestly, most of this thread reads like that though.

i realize we are at war, but what you, and others, are suggesting is a radical escalation/expansion of that war.

obviously we need to be willing to fight against those who would attack us, but i dont think we will ever kill them all. an outright, decisive victory isnt going to happen in this war. if victory happens, it will be through terrorist organizations gradually losing any legitimacy they may have in the eyes of civillian populations (or as much as is possible). i think the goal should be to gradually make that fringe population smaller and smaller. this would seem to be the opposite to radically escalating the conflict.

this is why i disagree with your comparison to ww2. there a decisive victory was had. there the escalation (the nukes) worked.

Posted by at August 3, 2006 06:59 PM

"One "top" commander (What's his name?) says something and suddenyl its true? Puh-leeze. I have also mentioned its what I think only. The media won't release the names of the "top" commanders because they're probably the same people that screen movies and always write..."

General John P. Abizaid, commander of US forces in Iraq

and:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace

So now you're calling them liars?

Posted by David Cherson at August 3, 2006 08:56 PM

dick, glad to hear you dont revel in war. honestly, most of this thread reads like that though.

Perhaps you confuse a considered and rational conclusion about the least bad course of action to take as equivalent to rabid enthusiasm. If so, perhaps it is because you are young and are not yet accustomed to having to do things you have no great enthusiam for simply because they are before you and cannot be avoided. Me, I'm fat, 55 with only one good eye and do not look forward to spending my declining years in L.A. waiting for the blinding flash that accompanies some Muslim nutjob finally getting lucky with that nuke-smuggling thing.

So long as there are nation-states out there that can build the nuke and pass it to said nutjob, that's still a live possibility. Take away said malignant nation-states and the nutjobs can no longer do mega-scale mischief.

Ergo - given that the location of the political "tumors" is a short and well-known list, I favor their surgical removal from the global body politic as quickly as possible. The loose nutjobs we can marginalize and exterminate at our comparative leisure. Simple really.

Especially as each of the "tumorocracies" has already done a lot more by way of actionable provocations against us than, say, the Kaiser's Germany had done with that fiddlin' Zimmerman Telegram. In 1917 we found that more than sufficient as a cassus belli. But we've grown oh so much more refined and sophisticated since that "cowboy" Wilson was running things.

Right.

i realize we are at war, but what you, and others, are suggesting is a radical escalation/expansion of that war.

No, it's not. Syria, Iran and, in it's own idiosyncratic, non-Islamic way, North Korea are all as "at war" with us as they care to be at this precise moment in time. All have killed, and continue to kill, Americans whenever a quick, sneaky opportunity presents itself. We simply need to recognise that none of these arid little shitholes is going to reform on its own unless we kick out their jams first. They are already fighting us. I simply maintain we should return the favor by way of a pedagogical exercise.

The last 20 years have been a bad time for the institution of autocracy. The next 20 are likely to be worse. The autocrats know it too. That's why every tinpot caudillo from Chavez to Mugabe is making nice with N.K., Iran, Syria or all three.

Why is it the superior course of wisdom to leave the subject populations of the remaining Big Three belligerent tyrannies to the non-existent mercies of their power-mad rulers and subject our own population to significant - and building - risk over time when we can crush these miserable vermin now and be done with it? Not to mention the useful lesson served up to all of the remaining noisome despots of the world.

The world is going to be peaceful and free some day, dammit. But it won't get there on automatic pilot and the bad guys are not going to go quietly. The French aren't right about much, but they're right that sometimes you have to shoot a few "pour encourager les autres" ("to encourage the others").

obviously we need to be willing to fight against those who would attack us, but i dont think we will ever kill them all.

Glad you think it's obvious. That puts you way ahead of some of the clueless cretins who've preceded you in posting here. So I ask again, if it's both obvious and necessary - why not now?

As for killing them all - straw man. We didn't kill anywhere near all the Germans and Japanese, but we eventually got them to behave and now they've even come to rather like the new societies we gave them as a reward for good behavior. Sure Muslims are nuts, but they're not - IMHO - more nuts than the Tojo-era Japanese or the Sig Heilers of the late Third Reich. We don't need to kill them all, we just need to kill them enough! How much is enough? Damfino, but the number is pretty obviously north of where we have gotten to so far or they wouldn't still be nuts.

an outright, decisive victory isnt going to happen in this war.

It certainly won't if we keep allowing the worst actors to keep their sovereign territories as game preserves for native megalomaniacs. The complete crushing of Syria, Iran and N.K. would not, in all likelihood, yield quite so clean a victory point as we got in WW2, but we'd be within spitting distance of it.

if victory happens, it will be through terrorist organizations gradually losing any legitimacy they may have in the eyes of civillian populations (or as much as is possible).

Good luck with that. We're dealing with societies that were living and thinking like Apaches and Comanches even more recently than were the genuine articles here in North America. The cultural rebuilding job is immense compared to the job we had to do with the Jerries and the Nips. We need to keep the worst of them decisively away from any Oppenheimer-esque unpleasantnesses while we civilize the rest.

i think the goal should be to gradually make that fringe population smaller and smaller.

Ditto and likewise. We start with my previous Operation Round Hammer scenario, then move to infantry weapons and finish up with blindfolds and cigarettes for the surviving hardcases.

this would seem to be the opposite to radically escalating the conflict.

Victory, sir - victory - is the ultimate method of "de-escalating" a conflict.

this is why i disagree with your comparison to ww2. there a decisive victory was had. there the escalation (the nukes) worked.

It can work again. We simply have to fight our kind of war using our own strengths whenever and wherever possible. If the problem is that shit is rolling downhill, then you need to target the outhose atop the summit. Trying to catch all the turds as they roll is a mug's game and we should quit playing it.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at August 3, 2006 09:00 PM

Cherson,

Abizaid and Pace did not say Iraq is descending into civil war, they said there is a chance that it will. They also said they thought the prospect "unlikely." I was waiting for one of those sharp, professional, numerate leading lights of the Washington press corps to ask the obvious question, "General, in your opinion, how much of a chance do you see of this outcome occurring? Please state probabilities and confidence factors."

Right, like that would ever happen.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at August 3, 2006 09:10 PM

dick,
"
[me:]this would seem to be the opposite to radically escalating the conflict.

[you:]Victory, sir - victory - is the ultimate method of "de-escalating" a conflict.
"

yes, i realize that we have the same goal--an end to the conflict. but im proposing a gradual, rather than a romantic, decisive victory. i just dont think that will work. it will only radicalize them further.

actually, im not even sure we should be working towards a victory. would we work towards victory over crime? i think its going to be an ongoing struggle, so the only hope is that the struggle loses steam, rather than gains it, as you are suggesting. neither side will get tired of this battle, no matter how hard we bomb them.

i realize its not quite this simple though. perhaps some escalations are necessary (afghan war for example).

Posted by at August 4, 2006 03:51 AM

David says: General John P. Abizaid, commander of US forces in Iraq
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace
So now you're calling them liars?

Dick answers: Abizaid and Pace did not say Iraq is descending into civil war, they said there is a chance that it will.

Once again, a leftist is shown to take the worst conotation possible, especially one that was not said, and tries to use it as a drum to beat.

Posted by Mac at August 4, 2006 07:12 AM

Yo, Mike.

It was *Francisco* Franco of Spain. Ferdinand Franco was his hairdresser.

Two days and no one caught it. Tsk.

Posted by Simon Jester at August 4, 2006 10:27 AM

Post a comment