Soccer Dad

Haveil havalim daily edition 08/03/2006

In Depth:
Charles Krauthammer, like a number of pundits I cited earlier, argues that Israel is losing in Israel's Lost Moment. (also here.)

The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war cabinet meetings to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Divisive cabinet debates are broadcast to the world, as was Olmert's own complaint that "I'm tired. I didn't sleep at all last night" (Haaretz, July 28). Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence.

Krauthammer argues that the United States supports Israel not out of love for Israel but because it views Hezbollah's new aggressiveness as a threat. Given that Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran, the administration views Israel's war as the West's first line of defense against Iran, but that so far the administration has been disappointed with Israel's performance.

But what choice does the United States have? Unless it's willing to commit troops or offer any sort of logistical help to Israel, I can't see the United States reversing its position in terms of its diplomatic support. In fact this week, Tony Blair seems to have strengthened his support of Israel - even at a potentially great political cost. And now there are rumors that the United States may be sending Israel even more sophisticated aircraft. Certainly the support from Blair is an indication of continued American support and if the Raptor rumor is true that support is even clearer. And would Ahmadinejad be calling for a ceasefire prior to the destruction of Israel if his proxies were winning?

There seems to be a concensus that Israel didn't start off the war very well by focusing on air power first. But that has changed.

Also what must be remembered is that Israel came into this war at a disadvantage. The NT Times reported two weeks ago Arming of Hezbollah Reveals U.S. and Israeli Blind Spots. Unfortunately the article didn't explain the reason for Israel's blind spots. It is, of course, the retreat from Lebanon six years ago that left Israel blind as to Hezbollah's capabilities. It also, no doubt, prevented Israel from being able to prevent the arms shipments.

So I wouldn't look for an inquiry into Israel's intelligence failures after the war. (I would like to see some introspection on the parts of journalists, diplomats and politicians who advocated the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and then failed to make any effort at exerting pressure on Syria and Iran to stop arming and supporting Hezbollah. Of course I won't see that happen.)

There are things that will hurt Israel. Whether it is the unfair focus on the number of civilian casualties - with little or no accounting of Israel's military gains or reporters who see no reason not to give valentines to Hezbollah in the form of unfiltered propaganda. (BTW, the Israeli soldiers apparently were not killed in an ambush but in a surprise encounter.) So Israel needs to defeat its enemies in battle. It's up to Israel's supporters to fight the political and pr battles.

I don't know that Krauthammer's column helped either.

UPDATE: Roger L. Simon seemingly agrees with me that "...Krauthammer is perhaps too harsh in his condemnation of Olmert in today's WaPo."

Israel Matzav, though, reads it as a necessary admonishment to the Olmert government

"...it is readily apparent that the Olmert government does not understand what is at stake in Lebanon, and by refusing to take off the gloves and go all out against Hezbullah, it risks jeopardizing Israel's special relationship with the United States. Somehow, the Olmert government must wake up before it is too late for Israel."

Last week, Ralph Peters was lamenting Israel's loss in the war, but this week he seems to feel that "Israel Gets Serious" about the war.

To maintain its jumped-up credit rating in the Middle East, Hezbollah has to be perceived as unvanquished. To that end, the terrorists will struggle to keep dumping rockets on Israel.

That means they'll have to take ever-greater risks as the IDF advances. That means presenting more targets. In war, the side under the greatest pressure generally makes the most mistakes. And mistakes are deadly.

The paradox of this kind of war is that, while air power alone is not only ineffective, but often counter-productive (as at Qana), once ground troops enter the fight, they force the enemy to come out of hiding. That's when air power comes into its own, popping the rabbits flushed out by the grunts.

It's great to see the IDF looking like its old self again - a determined fighting machine.

But Israel must be uncompromising for its sacrifices to date to have enduring worth. You can't defeat terror with hugs and kisses. Hezbollah sets up women and children as sacrificial targets (and not only at Qana). The terrorists use ambulances to restock their weapons or smuggle their leaders to safety. They claimed a rear-area headquarters was a "hospital," yet an Israeli commando raid on Baalbeck killed 10 terrorists at the scene and captured five terrorist leaders in the building (they couldn't seem to find the charity ward).

Meanwhile, the gullible (when not pro-terrorist) media refuse to investigate Hezbollah-staged "Israeli atrocities."

Hezbollah's broken virtually every provision of the Geneva Convention. Even if the Baalbeck raid's target had been a working hospital, the laws of war state firmly that, if used for military purposes, the facility's immunity is canceled. In other words, Israel was right either way. And Hezbollah's in the wrong in every way.

(via Israpundit)

Outside the Beltway seems less concerned with Krauthammer's exhortation than his analysis that Israel-Hezbollah war is a pivotal one in the war on terror. It shines for all also seems to focus on this aspect of the column.

And from the left Taylor Marsh expects those neo-cons to turn even more belligerent.

More including Israelly Cool! via Buzztracker or Memeorandum.

Regular stuff.

Daled Amos wanders into the Wonderland like world of defining terrorism.

Michael Freund on America's "friends."

More men from West Bank Mamas' yishuv have been called to the north.

Willow Tree gets a sad message from her son.

View from a Height wonders if the (American and British) support mentioned above comes with a price.

Boker Tov Boulder notes an irony.

It's Almost Supernatural derides the reasoning of Israel's critics.

Jewish Current Issues is visiting Israel at War. Here's part III.

See Atlas Shrugs about the trip to Sderot too.

Assignment desk:
Cozikin Corner has written a letter to ombudsmen asking them to clarify exactly what happened in Qana.

I'd like to focus on Jefferson Morley's the Qana tipping point. the premise of his thinking is that Israel's success or failure is to be judged by collateral damage not by any military standards. Morley writes

"At the start of Israel's siege on militants in Lebanon, world opinion tilted toward Jerusalem -- even some Arab governments made hushed noises against Hezbollah," said Spiegel Online. "But after an attack on a Lebanese village killed over 50 civilians on Sunday, that honeymoon is well and truly over, writes the German press."

This of course is his approach. (His description of what happened in 1996 was

The Daily Star and many other sites emphasized a historical angle that most Americans were probably unaware of: that Qana had been the site of an unprovoked Israeli attack on a refugee camp in 1996 that killed 106 civilians.

I suppose that I was unaware of an unprovoked attack. I was aware of an Israeli response to Hezbollah gunners that missed the gunners and hit a building. But facts don't mean much to Morley. (I notice that he didn't fix his own blog entry on the death toll from Qana this week; an editor appended a correction.)

Morley isn't really different from most reporters and pundits; just a little nastier and a little less honest. His colleague, William Arkin, though surprised with a defense of Israel's war against Hezbollah.

He starts well

First, we have to dispense with a core fallacy suggested by those who consider Israel's military campaign excessive and see it as as a "failure": If Israel were militarily "successful" against Hezbollah because of different tactics, would the hatred on both sides really have dissipated?

I, for one, have a hard time conceiving of any Israeli military tactic that would have convinced a prejudiced Lebanon population -- or the "Arab street" -- that the Jewish state was merely defending itself and justified to do so.

Thus Israel in theory is granted the right to use force in self defense and yet any actual use of that force is ruled unacceptable, at least by the chattering classes. It is as if war can be condoned as a chess game but not as an actuality.

I don't agree with the next paragraph though

That isn't to say that Israel has done the right thing in targeting civilian infrastructure in its air strikes -- they may or may not have produced the military effects the country was seeking. The only real justification under international law and the law of war for such attacks would be if Israel could "prove" that the bombing of civilian infrastructure has had demonstrable military impact on Hezbollah.

I believe that the proof is in the thousands of rockets and mortars and other materiel that Hezbollah has accumulated. The civilian infrastucture is what made the shipments through Syria possible.

Still, Arkin - while pointing out his differences with Israel - notes

The missing ingredient here though is how well Israel is doing against Hezbollah.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says Hezbollah has "suffered a heavy blow" and that Hezbollah leadership "fears for its life."

The Israeli Defense Force said Friday that Israeli troops had killed about 200 Hezbollah fighters while Hezbollah was reporting only 35 casualties.

Moreover, Hezbollah's long-range firepower is significantly depleted. Israeli air strikes and counter-battery fire has destroyed an estimated 1,000 Hezbollah weapons. Hezbollah has also fired more than 2,000 rockets, artillery and mortar rounds, Israeli intelligence estimates. That means that if the group had 11,500 to 13,000 rockets at the start of the conflict, it might have lost one-third or more of its capability since July 12.

Israel's shift this weekend to attacks in far eastern Lebanon, to the Golan Heights area, also could indicate that Hezbollah has shifted its rocket firings and activity away from the central areas where Israel was having greater success.

We readily accept that this is a different kind of conflict and Israel is not fighting a conventional foe. Shouldn't we also then apply different standards to measuring success?

It's annoying that Arkin has to keep on saying that he disagrees with what Israel is doing, but he's absolutely right. The war is being judged by PR standards not by military ones.

The assignment: Critique a news or opinion article about Israel's war in Lebanon and show how it does or does not adequately describe Israel's progress or lack of it. Send me your entry at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.

Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Haveil Havalim Daily.

Posted by SoccerDad at August 4, 2006 3:24 AM