A New Thread fot the Current Israel/Palestine/Lebanon mess

Please ignore my misguided point about Gaddafi & Libya (aka Lebanon).

http://redstateson.blogspot.com

"War is what Israel does best, and we're about to get a full bloody plate of it....

SUPPORT: The brave activists of Gush Shalom, who protested in front of Israel's Ministry of Defense, only hours after the bombing of Lebanon began. Let's hope their numbers grow."

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en

Before Friday's bombing of Beirut airport, the United States helped broker an unusual deal that allowed a runway at the Beirut airport to be repaired long enough to allow a private aircraft carrying former Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Nakati and five planes from Middle East Airlines to take off.

If we know how to do something, it's how to get the rich people out of the country! (sorry, total conjecture on my part, anybody know more about this?)

Americans in Lebanon were urged to consider leaving the country, and U.S. citizens were advised to defer travel to the region.

Leave the country, just don't use the airport, highways, or ports!

anyway, back to the current bloodshed (which I'm sure will be as instructive and productive as ever *sigh*)

Nothing good will come of this.

Just a few things that spring immediately to mind.

Holiday in Hell, indeed:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/holiday-in-hell-australians-stranded-in-lebanon/2006/07/14/1152637871546.html

Here's a question; if Israel presses too hard militarily, what's going to stop Lebanese militants from driving around and gathering up Western hostages as bargaining chips?

A comment from the inside:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/charles_chuman/2006/07/beirut_blues.html

...and this is not what they might want?

I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1213591,00.html

Just out of curiosity, is your brother one of the "the jews are the problem" Born Agains or is he of the "the jews are God's Chosen People" variety?

I have such a visceral reaction in these discusssions, that I don't honestly know. I would assuming not of the "jews are the problem" variety, which would shift him from my "crazy brother-in-law" to "my deeply objectionable brother-in-law with whom i would prefer not to have any contact."

-- San Diva Gyna (and a Masala DOsaNUT on the side) (dot@dot.dot), July 14th, 2006.

Sorry, should've been an x-post - I wasn't responding to you, and I think we're agreeing, that is what they want...(except what took me a paragraph to say you had in one sentence!)

agreed.

Apologies if this was discussed above, but given that Israel was prepared to go this far, why did they actually stop at Lebanon? Wouldn't the best way to stop Hizbollah to jump to the source and strike at Syria (or even Iran, although that seems a step too far). At least there were some moderate/democratic elements in that country, who are now probably totally anti-Israel.

This was the first thing that came to mind when NoTimeBeforeTime said I wasn't being grounded in reality when I brought up WWIII.

(hi ned)

The whole WWI parallel doesn't fly with me, frankly. This is a newer form of idiocy all its own.

Now, if, say, Israel attacked Lebanon and Iran/Syria IMMEDIATELY came to their aid, dragging in the US and Russia and then... that would be a lot closer to WWI.

I would actually just like to see them have a conversation. Putin seems so much more knowledgable on foreign policy lingo, etc. Also I bet Bush would slip up and call him "comrade".

In the 1980s, what Hezbollah did was take Western hostages. The United States is enormously sensitive to hostage situations. It led Ronald Reagan to Iran-Contra. Politically, the United States has trouble handling hostages. This is the one thing Hezbollah learned in the 1980s that the leaders remember. A portfolio of hostages is life insurance. Hezbollah could go back to its old habits. It makes sense to do so.

It will not do this while there is a chance of averting an invasion. But once it is crystal clear it is coming, grabbing hostages makes sense. Assuming the invasion is going to occur early next week -- or a political settlement is going to take place -- Western powers now have no more than 72 hours to get their nationals out of Beirut or into places of safety. That probably cannot be done. There are thousands of Westerners in Beirut. But the next few days will focus on ascertaining Israeli intensions and timelines, and executing plans to withdraw citizens. The Israelis might well shift their timeline to facilitate this. But all things considered, if Hezbollah returns to its roots, it should return to its first operational model: hostages.

Syria has no roof. It's air force would be gone in a day, or a night, if it chose to engage. So Syria is in a poor position if things escalate conventionally. It could stand to be greatly embarrassed if Israel chose to launch a variety of demonstration strikes.

As for attacking Iran, it would be easier for the US to apply a beatdown. Iran has a lot to lose in a conventional military engagement. Like it's entire air force, it's navy, all of it's air defense network, and whatever is above ground worth hitting. Behind the scenes, no one has any idea what is being said to Iranian leaders by diplomats. But in the past, it has been said, that walking diplomats up to the brink and telling them what will occur has been effective, maybe once.

So hostages -- that's an alternative. But it only works if the opposition hasn't passed a certain point of resolve and is determined to have its way with you. And since the crisis is already past the point of proportionate response and escalation, it might be argued logically that hostages -- since hostage-taking started this -- well, taking more of them isn't going to slow it down or give an advantage to the militarily weaker side.

Sure, but what is going to help Hezbollah? How did any of this help Hezbollah in the first place? Doesn't mean they won't get desperate.

And so it was and is logical to compare forces.

And in this case, if there is an engagement, Syria will come out a loser militarily in any force-on-force action with the IDF.

Iranian threats of force, on the other hand, aren't immediately relevant to IDF action in Lebanon. Iran has no way to project power other than through arms shipments and irregulars, the interdiction of which is one of the current action's goals. So while one can take whatever the crazy Iranian leader says seriously about "crushing" Israel, the IDF doesn't have to launch any immediate sally at Iran.

What I did reference above was the outcome of a potential Iranian beatdown administered by US forces, for any number of reasons.

Now their are plenty of people in leadership within the US, probably in government and the military, who think Iran has a beatdown coming. And they have thorough plans ready to go relatively quickly to apply it. But it's across the theatre, in a manner of speaking.

Whether or not this would happen and when, and under what conditions, is still wide open.

Coincidentally, and I really didn't know, like you, that it would escalate so quickly -- from my blog entry re Ultimatum, the game, yesterday, this excerpt:
====
Under "Uncontrollable Crisis Area Events," Ultimatum provides a deck of shuffle cards with various unpleasant and strongly negative outcomes. "At the beginning of each game turn, the American player should role the die. If a six results, the top card on the deck should be turned over and its instructions [applied]." Example: Israel invades Lebanon, bombs Beirut and . . . "
=====

Gallow's humor.