Michael Young explains why the conventional wisdom is wrong, and why Nasrallah and Hezbollah met their defeat at Israel's hands.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
stubby | August 24, 2006, 2:09pm | #
Cool. I'm glad to see someone with a whole lot more expertise than me thinks the way I do - I was starting to think I'm stupid or something (ok, it's not proof that I'm not, but still...) I think Hassan and the Hezzies got beat up a lot worse than anyone wants to admit, and I think the slavishly enthusiastic way the media has portrayed this whole tragedy as a Hezzobollah victory has been rather disgusting. I don't think Hassan and the Hezzies will be walking on sunshine for much longer.Now I'm off to find some of those porno librarian glasses I saw mentioned in the Alaska primary thread. Hope they come in bifocals.
Didn't we beat up Tom Friedman just yesterday for a similar inability to understand human nature? Sure, Hezbollah lost, but kind of won by not losing as bad as everyone thought. If your kid's tee-ball team plays the Yankees, and gets beat 2-1 in a hard fought game, did the kids lose? Yep.
Contrarian views are always interesting, but does Young really confront the opposing argument? Haven't opinion polls suggested that most Lebanese (even Sunnis and Maronite Christians) blamed Israel more than Hezbollah for the destruction, and that formerly anti-Hezbollah segments of the population came to see Hezbollah as their defender against a foreign aggressor? Maybe those reports were wrong, or maybe Young is saying that as the reality of living with destruction sets in, the population is coming to blame Hezbollah. But I don't see any evidence for either of those propositions in his article. From Hezbollah's point of view, the destruction is good if Israel is blamed for it and they're seen as defenders.
The bottom-line is that Hezbollah shot its wad and it wasn't that big of a deal. They shot every rocket they could into Israel and killed less than a hundred people; and this is Iran's big deterrence against Israel or the U.S. bombing their nuclear facilities? They can stand on the rubble and talk shit all they want, but Young is exactly right; Israel devastated Shia areas of Lebanon and cost the Iranians millions all the while loosing fewer people than you would in a good pizza shop suicide bomb on the West Bank. Rockets don't grow on trees and neither do the people who fire them. Hezbollah now has to rearm and rebuild after having lost so much and accomplished absolutely nothing beyond surviving. More importantly, they have already given Israel everything they have and not accomplished much. If Hezbollah rockets are the deterrent to Israel bombing Iran, I think the Iranians might want to re-think their strategy.
It is interesting that you guys talk about point spreads and expectations. Hezbollah and Iran have both been talking shit for years about how Hezbollah rockets would devistate Israel and were a knife at the Israelis throats. It didn't quite work out that way. Now we hear how if Hezbollah only survives the Israeli onslought they have won. They certainly weren't talking like that before this all started.
Ruthless | August 24, 2006, 3:39pm | #
It's not so much the point spread as what do people really think beneath the propaganda?Like the war on drugs... surely the majority realizes what a disaster it has been. They are afraid to speak up.
joe | August 24, 2006, 4:02pm | #
Remember when Michael Young declared a couple years ago, the day Hezbollah organized the largest protest in Lebanese history with over 1 million marchers, that it marked the end of Hezbollah as an important player in Lebanese politics?This column is even less convincing than that one.
joe | August 24, 2006, 4:10pm | #
Young makes a convincing case that this was a loss for Lebanon, but no one has been saying otherwise.As far as Hezbollah becoming less popular and less powerful in Lebanon, I'll believe that when I see it. I'm certainly not going to take Young's word for it.
In fact, I'll bet Nasrallah is more popular now than he was before this battle, and that he is more popular in Lebanon than Olmert is in Israel. Young makes the point that the other parties in Lebanon have been working feverishly to undermine Hezbollah's popularity. He doesn't say anything about their efforts working, and the fact that they have to make this effort tells me that the collapse in popular support he postulates isn't happening.
And if the relative levels of devastation were how one judged victory in a war, Vietnam would be remembered as the greatest victory in American history.
Whether you like it or not, Olmert just handed Hezbollah a victory, and has substantially set back his nation's security.
John | August 24, 2006, 4:15pm | #
A victory that means what Joe?Yeah Hezbollah is still there and they still want to kill every Jew in the world. Short of killing every Shia in Lebanon I am not sure how the Israelis can win if destroying Hezbollah is the standard. Hezbollah fired everything they had at Israel and managed to kill less than 100 people. How is their presence a deterence against to the Israelis doing anything? How are they a strategic asset to Iran anymore? As far as them being popular, if I am Iran and I have to bankroll rebuilding Southern Lebanon and seen my one means of dirctly striking Israel exposed as a fraud, I don't think I am too conforted by being up in the polls.
John | August 24, 2006, 4:18pm | #
"Whether you like it or not, Olmert just handed Hezbollah a victory, and has substantially set back his nation's security."How Joe? Hezbollah has a lot fewer rockets and a bunch of fantatics who want to exterminate the Jewish race are dead. Yeah, that may not solve everything, but I can't see how 100s of dead Hezbollah is anything but a good thing. More importantly, Lebanon couldn't control Hezbollah when they were unpopular. Hezbollah has never been held to any agreement and done whatever the hell it wanted to regardless of how popular they were in Lebanon. How does them now being popular, assuming they are, change anything? What exactly can Hezbollah do now that they couldn't and weren't doing before?
chamberlain | August 24, 2006, 4:22pm | #
John,I think Iran has plenty of oil dollars to resupply Hezbollah with.
Israel, however, can't afford to replace what it lost in the conflict so easily. And America is too broke to help Israel out much.
Israel will lose spending wars against Hezbollah and its oil-rich backers.
John | August 24, 2006, 4:28pm | #
Camberlain,Israel has a higher GNP than the entire Arab world combined. They have penty of money. As far as the U.S. goes, the U.S. has a 13+ trillion dollar economy. We can literally print our own money. I don't think the Iranians are going to win a war of attrition against the Israelis or the U.S. unless you count them wearing down the U.S's will to fight and playing on the explosion of anti-Semetism happening on the American left and Paleo Right.
Ruthless | August 24, 2006, 4:31pm | #
"Which propaganda, Ruthless?Israel's or Hezbollah's?"
When I wrote it, I meant Hez's, but, now that you mention it...
Lamar | August 24, 2006, 4:46pm | #
"Hezbollah and Iran have both been talking shit for years about how Hezbollah rockets would devistate Israel and were a knife at the Israelis throats. It didn't quite work out that way."Thank you, John. Since the US said that the Iraqis would welcome us with roses and it didn't quite work out that way, I think we can definitively say that we lost the Iraq war. Any fan of George W. Bush knows that when our stated goals aren't met, we simply redefine success. That's the same shit Hezbollah is trying to pull. I said earlier, it really depends on how you define victory. If its about achieving stated goals, it should be the same across the board. If its about expectations (which doesn't apply to the US because we're expected to win everything), then Hezbollah has a case. I wouldn't call it a win, but to go on what Hezbollah said were its goals (destruction of Israel) isn't tenable. Also, it appears that Hezbollah has gained a popularity it didn't have before the war. It doesn't make their performance a win, but it is a gain. Israel is perceived to have acted out of political desperation. In the world of terrorists, where media coverage is just as important as the campaign (if not THE campaign), Israel's stern and what is perceived as an unfocused response gave it an uphill road to claim victory.
Russ 2000 | August 24, 2006, 4:59pm | #
joe,I'm sure a lot of Red Sox fans were yelling "Yankees suck!" at Fenway late Monday afternoon.
MUTT | August 24, 2006, 5:05pm | #
Ah, yes: another Victoly!!! for the Peepers Levorushun!!!Of course Uri Avenery, who writes for Ha'aretz, (in Israel) isnt a two fisted, fire breathin REAL patriot, like Dick Cheney, or lil billy kristol, but still, heses actually there, been there, and done that. A few more victories like this & Israel will be in Brooklyn.
http://beirut.indymedia.org/en/2006/08/5446.shtml
joe | August 24, 2006, 5:14pm | #
John,"A victory that means what Joe?"
I dunno. It's going to be a real hoot finding out.
"Yeah Hezbollah is still there and they still want to kill every Jew in the world." You're thinking of Hamas or Al Qaeda. Hezbollah has never indicated that it has global ambitions.
"Short of killing every Shia in Lebanon I am not sure how the Israelis can win if destroying Hezbollah is the standard." I think the standard is the reduction of Hezbollah's political and military power, not the destruction of it. Israel's actions appear to have increased Hezbollah's political power within Lebanon, and international Shiite extremism's within the broader Arab world. They also seem to have weakend the democratic forces in Lebanon, and reduced their ability to be openly anti-Hezbollah.
If I am Iran and a million and a half people are recipients of my largess - people who are now a couple notches further down the anti-American/anti-Israel scale - I would consider that a victory.
Also, I doubt you'd be describing over a hundred American dead in a terror campaign in such dismissive terms. And the inability of Israel to stop the assault only harms their military prestige while enhancing Hezbollah's.
"Hezbollah has a lot fewer rockets and a bunch of fantatics who want to exterminate the Jewish race are dead." Both of which will be in greater supply in six months than before the conflict began. Sadly, terrorists are a renewable resource.
"How does them now being popular, assuming they are, change anything? What exactly can Hezbollah do now that they couldn't and weren't doing before?" They gain the support of a larger segment of the Lebanese population, and come closer to controlling the Lebanese government. Terror groups with a state at their disposal = teh suck.
joe | August 24, 2006, 5:21pm | #
Lamar,Hezbollah's stated goals when this conflict began were to continue their resistance to the Zionist blah blah blah.
Mission accomplished.
I really don't think those terrorist bastards care how many Lebanese people die in their jihad, including their own foot soldiers. Unlike John, who seems to think there are a set number of ducks to knock down, Nasrallah realizes that he's good a deep well to draw from. One that just got deeper.
I don't think Israel's First CEO Prime Minister is any more capable of winning a war than America's First CEO President.
Lamar: If those tee-ball kids are actually another pro team in disguise and cheat in every way imaginable, while the Yankees play with both hands tied behind their backs and blindfolded, losing 2 to 1 doesn't look so impressive.
Jacob | August 24, 2006, 5:33pm | #
"Haven't opinion polls suggested that most Lebanese (even Sunnis and Maronite Christians) blamed Israel more than Hezbollah for the destruction, and that formerly anti-Hezbollah segments of the population came to see Hezbollah as their defender against a foreign aggressor?"It doesn't matter so much who blames whom, and who is more popular or more loved. What matters is: will Hezbollah start another war anytime soon ?
The answer is: I don't think so.
They aren't dumb. They can claim victory, but they surely understand perfectly well that they don't need another such victory any time soon. If they have some sense left, they will sit back and enjoy their victory and glory for a decade or so, and not go for another one !
joe | August 24, 2006, 5:35pm | #
It's odd that there is even a debate about this in the United States. There certainly isn't in Israel. Even the New Republic decribes this as a defeat for Israel, and chronicles the backlash it has induced against Olmert."If you don't want it to be true, then it isn't true," is a luxury that is available to Americans thousands of miles away from the events. Israelis, on the other hand, have to be more reality-based.
joe | August 24, 2006, 5:40pm | #
And, as usual, I find myself having to remind the Israel hawks of the timeline.Once again:
1. Hezbollah attacks a group of Israeli soldiers, killing one and capturing two.
2. Israel begins bombing campaign against Lebanon.
3. Hezbollah begins rocket campaign against Israel.
Is Hezbollah going to be afraid of another large-scale Israeli campaign in response to another such provocation? I think not. Israel just demonstrated that its large-scale military response will improve Hezbollah's standing among the Lebanese, without causing significant damage to Hezbollah's military capacity.
The worst military outcome from this conflict that John could come up with is that Hezbollah no longer has the thousands of rockets it was able to launch without interruption for four weeks as the Israelis tried to defeat them. Think about that.
Bye Bye | August 24, 2006, 5:43pm | #
Even the New Republic decribes this as a defeat for IsraelSelf-loathing Jews saying they lost when they won and arrogant Arabs saying they won when they lost. Been that way for centuries.
In a clash between the capitalists and the serfs, the serfs always lose.
See ya!
chamberlain | August 24, 2006, 6:08pm | #
John,Israel's GDP is about $100 billion, far smaller than Iran's or Saudi Arabia's. If you want to see how broke Israel is...follow the budget cutting decisions they are making to pay for the recent conflict.
I don't think Israel is counting on aid from the U.S. Israel already gets about 20% of U.S. foreign aid spending.
joshua corning | August 24, 2006, 6:10pm | #
Haven't opinion polls suggested that most Lebanese (even Sunnis and Maronite Christians) blamed Israel more than Hezbollah for the destruction, and that formerly anti-Hezbollah segments of the population came to see Hezbollah as their defender against a foreign aggressor?you should reexamine your question...Lebanese may blame Israel more but it is the Hezbollah that are close enough to kick around....and did not that defender fail miserably against a foreign aggressor?
But hell Ray Naggin did get reelected so what the hell do i know.
Anyone that knows anything about the history of war knows that you can never, ever, ever defeat a geurilla army in country A if they are recieving aid from country B unless you are willing to attack country B. The Viet Cong/Minh fought for 30 years. How hard was it for Hez to survive the Isreali attacks? Not hard at all. Like all geurillas when it gets to hot they just run away. After the enemy sweeps through, finds nothing and leaves the geurillas come back. Easy as pie. The problem was Isreali shouldn't have been bombing Beruit they should have been bombing Damascus.
Shawn Smith | August 24, 2006, 6:29pm | #
joe,Most people would consider the following part of the timeline as important:
0. Hizbollah sporadically fires Katyusha rockets into Israel since the Isreali pullout in 2000.
Ilya | August 24, 2006, 7:01pm | #
Thanks to Michael Young for his article “Hoodwinked by Hezbollah”. Even though it wasn’t a total success because they weren’t eradicated completely, if you look clearly at the situation as is, not through the foggy glasses of the commonly accepted wisdoms of the day pushed by the pundits, it is clear who paid the heavier price.Lebanon got the message that if they do not take control of the situation then they have to get used to being leveled to the ground every few years. Hezbollah, even though the numbers are not available, has by some reports half of its fighters in Southern Lebanon, facing Allah face to face at this very moment. Its katusha rockets even though very effective as a terror weapon have not much military significance.
Next round will involve newly developed specialized equipment such as new and upgraded armor on tanks, and modified strategies for this kind of warfare, and United State is less willing to yank Israel’s chain.
To me, the opinion of experts, both on the right and left, means very little. It’s a circus with the chief clown being Koffee Kup Anaan. Memory of their analyses of the past conflicts demonstrated how little predictive value they had. This makes me feel a little better about my own, uninformed opinions.
Hezbos proclamations of victory reminds me a little of my own childhood in Kazakhstan. How, from time to time, after administering a hefty kick to a misbehaving rooster in our back yard, he always proceeded to perform victory dance for the benefit of the hens. It is a manifestation of the same principle. Needless to say it only accelerated his inescapable ascendance into a pot of chicken soup.
Ken Shultz | August 24, 2006, 7:17pm | #
...into a pot of chicken soup!Welcome to the party Ilya--hope you stick around.
MUTT | August 24, 2006, 7:40pm | #
Two things. One, Hez didnt flee. thats the POINT. They were dug in & defended, very cleverly. The standard Zionist "thumb on the scale" of Arab troops fleeing didnt figure in, .......and thats why the Z offensive ground to a halt.And how many chickens did that rooster impregnate before it was finally consigned to the pot???
Myself? I dispise theocracies. And economic aristocracies, (Central American oligarchs, anyone?) which seem close to some "libertarian" hearts. I aint got a dog in this fight, but some how Im paying for one dogs upkeep.
Paul | August 24, 2006, 7:48pm | #
I think Hassan and the Hezzies got beat up a lot worse than anyone wants to admit, and I think the slavishly enthusiastic way the media has portrayed this whole tragedy as a Hezzobollah victory has been rather disgusting. I don't think Hassan and the Hezzies will be walking on sunshine for much longer.I don't think that it matters. I don't really buy Michael Young's take on this. For the radical Islamists, a Pyrrhic victory is still a victory. Yes they lost billions in infrastructure, to simply be repaired by the international community as usual. Also, the Shiite civilians will simply blame Israel for their destruction. Rarely does a populace blame its leadership for the bombardment by a foreign force. It can happen, but it often takes years of protracted war. There's some evidence this occurred in WWII Germany towards the end when the Russians and the Allies were overrunning ze Motherland. But in the case of the Arab populace- especially in Lebanon- I don't see an 'Ah-ha!' moment where the Shiite civilians will connect their suffering to the actions of Hezbollah.
Michael Young's thinking, in my opinion, reflects a kind of wishful thinking. I'm an unapologetic supporter of Israel, but I think that Israel misstepped on this one. They caused a lot of destruction and civilian casualties and allowed Hezbollah to appear that it stood up to the Great Satan(tm) and the Zionist forces. I fear that Israel may have created the next Arab lying sack of shit: Nasrallah is the new Arafat.
Knowing how this world works, I see a Peace Prize in Nasrallah's future.
Paul | August 24, 2006, 7:57pm | #
Rarely does a populace blame its leadership for the bombardment by a foreign force.Sorry, I need to postscript what I wrote above. This does occur here in the United States.
See: Americans blame 9/11 on Americans.
So yes, sometimes a populace does immediately blame their leaders for the bombardment by a foreign force.
Don Coyote | August 24, 2006, 8:24pm | #
Israel received black eyes from the fight but the opponent was crippled and his playbook compromised.Israel learned much of Hezbollahs current capabilities, especially anti-armor, sophistcated electronic and radar jaming abilities and PR. It is likely that Iran also leaked some of its operational capabilities as they supplied/trained Hezbollah. Of course Israel will take the lessons learned and adjust as necessary.
BTW: Israel has purchased two more Dolphin class subs from Germany. Israeli subs can launch cruise missle that can travel 1500km and are capable of being mounted with a nuclear warhead. They have no requirement to send aircraft to hit Iranian nuclear facilities.
joe | August 24, 2006, 8:43pm | #
Shawn Smith,That bit is certainly important in setting the scene, and demonstrating the depravity of Hezbollah. But my point was to refute the assertion that Israel was forced to launch such a broad military campaign in response to hundreds of rockets being launched at its cities. In fact, it launched that campaign because the big tough guys decided that they didn't want any "tit for tat." The thousands of rockets launched at their cities were the consequence of this decision, not the cause.
chamberlain | August 24, 2006, 9:27pm | #
I disagree, don.Military technology history has two parallel tracks:
1. The development of war machines like fighters, helicopters, subs, tanks, etc.
2. The augmentation of individual soldiers with equipment like body armor, machine guns, night vision goggles, anti-tank missiles, etc.
Track 1 (war machines) development has largely been stagnent for the past 40 years or so, with most of the its improvements going to counter other war machines.
Track 2 (individual soldier augmentation) however, has been growing in leaps and bounds recently. We are now at the point where an individual soldier can take on an a $20 million attack helicopter or a $3 million tank with a $10,000 missile and be victorious.
Track 1 countries like Israel face ever-increasing costs and ever-decreasing effectiveness when taking on Track 2 forces like Hezbollah.
The only place Israel has to go on Track 1 is buying some $250 million a copy F-22s and $2 billion a copy B-2s from the U.S. or some $700 million subs from Germany.
Hezbollah can pick up cheap anti-aircraft missiles, better anti-tank missiles, better body armor, etc. for a very low cost.
In other words, Hezbollah has far more surprises in store for Israel in the future than Israel has in store for Hezbollah.
Don Coyote | August 24, 2006, 10:49pm | #
chamberlain,First, The IDF is not a force designed for any type of occupation. Israel knows the neighborhood in which it survives. It's forces are designed more like a "Beware of Mad Dog".
---
Agree that Israel cannot just barge across the border with its heavy armor and overwhelm Hezbollah. Those days are gone (a lesson learned), even with a heavily prepped battlefield. Reason: The nebulous enemy and your Track 2. They will adjust the tactics/sequences of ground forces/air mobile/armor to "ease" the antiarmor threat if a repeat is necessary.
Israel can punish from the air with current a/c. Here they remain ahead of the curve but must adjust to electronic/radar jamming they encountered (only 1 helo loss) to become more effective. Their increased use of electronic intell, predators, drones, special ops, leadership targeting is vital to the eternal battle Israel faces.
I am not sure Israel wants to be a good neighbor or just left alone. One thing is for sure, that dog will bite as hard as necessary.
anon | August 25, 2006, 12:31am | #
Most people would consider the following part of the timeline as important:0. Hizbollah sporadically fires Katyusha rockets into Israel since the Isreali pullout in 2000.
How about -1 and -2 of the timeline:
-1 Israel kidnaps hundreds of Lebanese and jail them for years.
-2 Contineuous Israeli violation of Lebanon's air space, bombings, and never giving the maps for the landmines they planted all over southern Lebanon.
Joe | August 25, 2006, 5:32am | #
I don't think that this article quite grasped the point that Arab propaganda on this subject has been trying to make. It certainly missed the parallel our country's imaginary 'War on Terror' and the propaganda that promotes it. It is a war of ideas and identity, of hope, and dread and generally of human emotions (ok so most everything we care about is). The various rubrics this article applies to measure the victory are all essentially moot, because they are not any of them the one that the 'victors' are choosing to apply."Didn't we beat up Tom Friedman just yesterday for a similar inability to understand human nature? Sure, Hezbollah lost, but kind of won by not losing as bad as everyone thought. If your kid's tee-ball team plays the Yankees, and gets beat 2-1 in a hard fought game, did the kids lose? Yep."
This, on the other hand, in my opinion hits the nail on the head.
The bottom line is that the Arab world wants an opportunity to be free of western meddling; unfortunately for them, they are burdened with the dubious privilege of having most of the world's traditional energy reserves stored away beneath their sands. Which means we will never even consider leaving them free to do this on their own, thereby potentially enabling them to be nasty and prude with their energy favors.
Jacob | August 25, 2006, 5:40am | #
"Is Hezbollah going to be afraid of another large-scale Israeli campaign in response to another such provocation? ""Being afraid" ...that's not the point. When you go to war you calculate. Hezb didn't forsee Israel's reaction to their "minor" incident.They surely didn't anticipate the destruction they, and their shia supporters suffered.
The previous incidents in past years didn't result in such a blow, they figured correctly that Israel hesistates to retaliate because the katiusha deterrence.
Next time, before starting an incident, they will have to factor that in their calculations the possibility of another 15,000 homes destroyed.
ajay | August 25, 2006, 9:38am | #
I can't believe a sane individual would use the argument "Israel killed a lot of Lebanese civilians, therefore it must have won."(sigh) War is not the same as competitive genocide, and you don't automatically win if you have a higher body count than the other fellow. See WW2. Vietnam. And others.
War is the use of violent means to gain a political objective. So you can work out who has won by 1) listing both sides' objectives and 2) checking whether they have been achieved.
Let's try a simple case: the 1982 Falklands conflict.
Argentina: wanted to annex the Falkland Islands and bring them under Argentinian rule;
Britain: wanted the Falklands to stay under British rule.
At the end of hostilities, the Falklands were under British rule. Therefore, British victory. OK?
Now, look at the recent fighting in Lebanon.
Israel:
1) wanted to retrieve its captive soldiers
2) wanted to remove Hezbollah from the Leb-Israeli border area (both according to defense minister Amir Peretz, talking to BBC news, July 13)
Hezbollah:
1) wanted to survive
2) wanted Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
Now, looking around him from Beirut, Michael Young can see that the Israelis have not retrieved their hostages. And, at present, Hezbollah still exists in the border area. And Israel is withdrawing.
Who's won?
Ajay: OK, so let's see, Hezbollah won because they achieved two objectives that were already theirs before they kidnapped a couple of Israelis? Oh, they still have the hostages, so I guess that's a victory, although the price paid seems a little steep. I think you need to try another metric.
Ken | August 25, 2006, 11:38am | #
The real losers, as is usual in our slavish/irrational support for Israel, is the United States. Our soft power becomes even weaker, our allies in the region are more threatened, and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are more at risk (since the war inflamed the populations there and further undermined the governments). We are seen as a joke and a dishonest broker by everyone in the world: notice how noone suggested the US play a large role in the cease-fire role. The worlds largest super power wasn't even invitedt to play, since everyone knows they are irrationally in Israel's pocket.I have to say I have long tried to like Young's articles, but he consistently seems incorrect on this issue. Methinks he does not get outside of a small group of folks in Lebanon (and I don't blame him) and uses too many Chalabi-like informants. Most obective evidence shows Hez coming out smelling like a rose (admired now in ahte whole Muslim world). If Israel had such a resounding victory why is Olmert looking like his days are numbered? Why do Israeli newspapers scream disappointment? Can Israel hawks ever see reality?
MUTT | August 25, 2006, 12:45pm | #
Again, this is a very stimulating forum....a good bunch of thoughtful people, (by which I dont mean just those I agree with)& a couple of radio parrots for comic relief in these grim times. Ken & Ajay apply reason.What a concept.
joe | August 25, 2006, 1:52pm | #
Let's not get out of hand with the timeline thing. Yes, there are grievances that go back...and back...and back.There's nothing to gain from that conversation, and it wasn't my point to assign anybody moral superiority based on who hit who first.
The hail of rockets into Iraeli cities is not what precipitated Israel's attack on Lebanon; rather, Israel's attack on Lebanon precipitated Hezbollah's rocket campaign. That's all I was trying to say.
Paul | August 25, 2006, 4:34pm | #
I think the article was wrong.If you want the antithesis to it, read Gary Brecher.
http://www.exile.ru/2006-August-11/gophers_by_tko.html
deadhippie | August 27, 2006, 12:05am | #
If I remember correctly, Young predicted early on in the conflict, that "massive" IDF "firepower" was going to "grind down" Hezbollah so they'd fold like the Italians at Caporetto.Maybe my reading skills aren't up to par, but that seemed to imply that Hz were facing a battlefield defeat after an escalated bombing campaign complemented by a vicious ground attack...
I'm no Carl von Clausewitz, but events didn't unfold as Young so smugly predicted.
Indeed as others have mentioned, when a gang of bomb-throwing militants fight what many consider one of the world's finest armies to a standstill, it's anything but a defeat (and invoking the first, and primarily conventional Iraq war is a pretty piss poor analogy).
As for his heartfelt belief that killing 1000 civilians is the first step towards winning hearts and minds, that doesn't even pass the laugh test.
This is classic CYA journalism: define victory downward so people don't call you on your boneheaded predictions...