"To Be, Or To Cease Fire" That Is The Question (UPDATED)

Click Image

The YouTube link has unfortunately been taken down, but you can watch it (pay per view) here. The movie is excellent, an absolute must see.

UPDATE I:  Richard Rimbaugh directs me to the latest from Haaretz informing us that the expanded incursion into Lebanon would continue "for the time being," despite agreeing to a cease-fire resolution drafted by the UNSC (FULL TEXT OF RESOLUTION). Israel will press ahead with its military offensive in south Lebanon until Israel's Cabinet sits on Sunday, with Olmert advising it to accept the proposal. Sigh...

Strong words and critical disagreement from two retired IDF military men, giving us pause to think.

First Effie Eitam, a previous commander of IDF forces in Lebanon, condemning Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz for having delayed a ground offensive far too long and for blocking Wednesday's decision to send thousands of ground troops to reach the Litani River. He advocates, that Israel has no choice but to fight man to man; it is the only way for Israel to emerge politically and militarily strengthened from the war. The choice he presents is: "To be, or to cease fire".

We must understand that Hizbullah and its rockets have successfully captured a large section of Israel. What's at stake now is no different than crossing the Suez Canal during the Yom Kippur War, or pushing the Syrians off the Golan Heights, or moving the war to enemy territory during the Six Day War.

South Lebanon is the object of Israel's counter-offensive, in order to loosen the stranglehold Hizbullah enjoys over northern Israel.

Israel 's civilian home front is bearing the burden of this war with a stubbornness and a unity unseen since the War of Independence. This is the moment and this is the purpose for which the state and the army were created. The army must act now to carry out any action necessary, wherever necessary, to restore our civilians' basic right to life, even if soldiers must die to restore it.

If the prime minister and defense minister still fail to understand the fatefulness of the current situation. If they retreat into hesitation and delusion, and if they choose to hide behind empty, twisted words, or even worse – behind a phony shield that the IDF is not, it will become clear that this government does not, and never did, deserve the faith of hundreds of thousands of Israelis who have born the brunt of this war so far

On the other hand, argues Avshalom Vilan, a 25-year IDF Special Forces veteran, ...

...The Cabinet decision to expand operations in Lebanon came too late, and appears like someone is trying to cover up a month of snowballing warfare, and less like someone able to strike a decisive blow in this war.

The stated goals of the war - bringing kidnapped IDF soldiers home, quiet along the northern border, getting Hizbullah out of south Lebanon and installing an multi-national force to bolster the Lebanese army - will eventually be realized by diplomatic negotiations. There is no knockout punch to be delivered that will tip the scales in our favor, certainly not deploying all the way to the Litani. [...]

This fight need not be a politicians' fight for ratings, or for our national pride, or our deterrent ability. It is about taking calculated risks, measuring cost versus benefit, military success against casualties, and mainly: The ability to translate military gains into diplomatic processes.

The process of moving from the battle field to the negotiating table must begin immediately. We must stop harboring false hopes and look at reality with open eyes. We must build a process that will lead to Syria's exit from the cycle of violence, even if we must give up the Golan Heights. [...]

The more we internalize the limits of modern military power, strong as it may be, and we understand that against a guerilla organization that doesn't count casualties and is prepared to go all the way, we will understand that the solution to the current conflict is to be found in negotiation.

It's an important debate, but one held in the dark. We don't know what Olmert and Peretz learned from massive intelligence obtained during the past 4 weeks. However, until we do, it is hard to resist judging that both may have shown themselves to be poor strategists.

Dan Halutz, Israel's chief of staff, too. One or more of them will probably have to pay the price. They have failed to realise the political importance of tangible military gains and have relied on an implied threat of force. The aerial prelude has actually worked to Hizballah's advantage since it has turned world opinion around, making Israel the culprit. [...]

"[Hizballah leader Hassan] Nasrallah will continue to mock us, and in the end there will be another war," said one. [...]

Olmert's failure will prove expensive for Israel. No Islamist gunman or sympathiser will be in the least impressed by Lebanon's demolished infrastructure. They will be impressed by Hizballah's resilience and its sustained ability to strike and hurt Israel under heavy fire. The Israeli army will have to find ways to deal with Hizballah's tactics, which will naturally be employed against Israel by other groups in the future, from Gaza and the West Bank perhaps, maybe from Lebanon again, or Syria ...

I wonder whether in time, we will remember this conflict as the war during which forty years of Israel's unchallenged supremacy had come to a close. I hope not. I also hope that decisions have not been made in Israel due to any lack of support on our part, although I feel sure our diplomatic cover would still be there, had we not realized that Olmert has no intention of deploying the infantry. I still struggle to understand why the PM and the DM blocked Wednesday's decision to send thousands of ground troops to reach the Litani River. How can you ever hope to win, or for that matter even make a dent without engaging the infantry.

Despite having overwhelming fire power, the inability of an ineffective, uninspired leadership to deploy its armed forces to the best advantage has opened the door to a new round of terror that will destroy all chances of a successful unilateral settlement of the Palestinian question from a position of strength and will eventually require a new land campaign by the Israeli army to deal once again with the insatiable Arab appetite for war.

Is this too harsh a judgment leveled against the Prime Minister and his Defense Minister? Let me have your comments.

UPDATE II AUG 12TH: I did not get a chance to post today, but my friends over @ Vital Perspective have been mulling the resolution over, and have some interesting points regarding the resolution mentioned in my update at the top of the page

It emphasizes the need for the "unconditional release" of the two IDF soldiers kidnapped on July 12, but does not make a direct demand for their freedom. Additionally, it calls on Israel and Lebanon to agree to a long-term solution under which Hezbullah would be disarmed. The text does not define when Hezbollah would be disarmed and by whom. [emphasis mine]

Further, it calls for a phased withdrawal by Israeli troops as the Lebanese army deploys 15,000 troops in the south, controlled by Hezbollah. At the same time, UNIFIL would be reinforced by French and other troops, perhaps as many as 15,000. The draft does not specify which chapter of the UN Charter UNIFIL would be authorized under. Instead, it says their mandate would include several elements: monitoring the cessation of hostilities, accompanying Lebanese troops as they deploy and as Israel withdraws, and ensuring humanitarian access. As in earlier drafts, the resolution includes an arms embargo on weapons flowing to Lebanon except for those ordered by the Beirut army and UN forces.

The question is, does any of this matter? The Security Council will likely unanimously approve the resolution [Friday]. Israel will likely accept it on Sunday. Lebanon has expressed satisfaction, but none of this matters if Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the terrorist Hezbollah organization, does not accept it. If the rocket attacks continue, if Israeli civilians are forced to live their lives in bomb shelters, if the IDF is attacked from their positions within Israel, then Israel can and will exercise its legitimate right to self-defense, and this resolution will have achieved little if anything at all. So by all means, Israel must accept this resolution. As Secretary Rice has said in the past, following this resolution, "We will see who is for peace and who is not".

A few recent related posts on ATB:

Welcome To The Middle East, Israel
What If....
Iran's Promise: Evolution From Life To Death
We Are All Jews Now Part II
'The Moral Equivalence Brigade' Reign Supreme
'Grapes Of Wrath' Revisited
Orwellian Moral Universe on Shabbat Hazon
'Can We Get Over It Already' We Are All Jews Now
'Hezbollah Runs Lebanon' And 'Hamas Ready To Cut A Deal'
"One Foot In Terror One Foot In Politics"
Commander-In-Chief From Hell
Just Cause
UN's Global Mission: Reviving, Fueling And Spreading Rabid Anti-Semitism
The Devil's Arithmetic Part II
The Devil's Arithmetic Part I
The Muslim Brotherhood And Hezbollah Detonate The Political Bomb
The Washington Post Inaugurates The New Moderate
Unmasking The Hamas Code Of Honor
'Israel Cannot Succeed By Empowering Terrorists'
'Pallywood Does Not Recognize Israel
'The Palestinian-Spin-Of-The-Century' The World's Most Audacious Marketing Coup'
Total War

Comments

[weekenderman]

The networks are reporting this morning that Hezbollah rockets or missiles have been fired into southern Labanon, possibly by Palestinian militants in the country trying to get Israel to blink. So far the IDF has not become involved in any way.

I'll give the "cease-fire" another day or less After that, I recommend that Israel finishes the job they started. The terrorists have already had too much time to regroup, reload and retrain.

[DiscerningTexan]

There is nothing that has happened recently that has more reminded me of Chamberlain's "Peace in Our Time" speech. The Bush-Chirac-Olmert "coalition of the Appeasers" has merely delayed the day we will actually have to take on Iran and Syria directly--and consequently have given each more time to get stronger and inflict even more death, destruction, murder, and hegemony in the name of thier "God".

I cannot remember when I have been so disappointed in an American President which I have up to now supported as strongly.

What is the hell is President Bush doing. We have half a million troops surrounding Iran and Syria, another incredibly competent force of Israeli and British troops nearby, our fleet is deployed, our Strategic Missile Defenses are being deployed--and all we can do is put our heads in the sand like so many ostriches, pretending that Iran and Syria will not have to be dealt with. As every minute goes by, Iran gets closer to the bomb and nuclear blackmail--or worse--nuclear war.

ps - the WMD's have been unearthed for months now. As has the documentation of Saddam's ironclad ties to Al Qaaeda. Of COURSE the media is AWOL on this one--it would be tantamount to admitting their own complicity in perpetuating the lie. Of course--with the help of Reuters and others--"admitting" their own hands--caught red handed in the "manipulating the news" cookie jar--is not exactly going to be earth shattering anymore.

I just hope Hezbollah is stupid enough to continue to attack Isreal or Israelis.... that is about the only thing that can end this myopic and hypocritical display of cowardice and appeasement.

[Kenny Pierce]

Ghost

[grinning] Yeah, you could say that.

That last question of yours is indeed the million-dollar question.

See, it seems to me that given the possibility that Syria has chemical weapons, we're the logical people to take out Syria, not Israel, because Syria has to be pretty sure that if they drop chemical weapons on Israel in response to us, (a) they won't kill any Americans and (b) there's a VERY good chance that we'll drop something far nastier on them. And the gangsters that run Syria are NOT would-be martyrs and therefore still respond to deterrence.

But with Hezbollah, the obvious thing to do was for us to provide diplomatic cover and rebuilding-aid-to-Lebanon-dollars while the IDF went in and cleaned out Hezbollah.

Only Olmert -- the guy with no military experience and, as it turns out, no balls -- couldn't pull the trigger. But, to paraphrase...oh, shoot, can't remember whom but it was a great line: if he wasn't gonna pull the trigger he shouldn't've pulled the gun.

And now the question to who's going to disarm Hezbollah is: probably nobody. If anybody does it'll most likely be Israel, but they've pissed away their best chance, and if they do it now there will be far more losses (especially Lebanese civilian losses) than if they had just taken care of business to begin with.

[Ghost Dansing]

"Bulletin for Olmert: you most certainly do not have what it takes. If you have a single patriotic cell in your body you will get the hell out of the way so that somebody competent can take over and start trying to do damage control on the wreckage of your not-nearly-brief-enough tenure."

So...I take it you think Olmert kinda screwed up Kenny? I'm still trying to figure out where this is heading. Who exactly is going to disarm Hizballah?

[Kenny Pierce]

Well, I have to declare the cease-fire an official disaster because of something I hadn't thought about until I heard it on the news driving in this morning.

Hezbollah's best weapon is the corpses of civilians. It is something of a cliche to say that a cease-fire in the Middle East is just a rearmament period for terrorists; but as soon as you remember that the terrorists' most important weapon is civilians, you realize that the one thing Israel had largely accomplished, was to get the civilians cleared out of Hezbollah territory.

But this morning they are flooding back in.

All Nasrallah has to do is wait three or four days for his human shields to be back in place, and then go back to war; and if Israel responds then you have a whole new wave of refugees and of child corpses for Reuters and al-Jazeera to parade around.

Which means that in accepting the cease-fire Olmert has put the finishing touches on the single most catastrophic display of incompetence ever carried out by any Israeli prime minister.

I'll probably be more cheerful this afternoon but right now I'm just shaking my head. What an unbelievable screw-up.

In fairness to Olmert, the reestablishment-of-human-shields argument didn't occur to me until this morning and therefore I suppose one shouldn't say it was obvious. On the other hand, I have enough humility not to think I'm qualified to be Israeli prime minister, whereas Olmert seems to believe he has the necessary wisdom and foresight. A man who can foresee only that which is obvious, has no business running a country.

Bulletin for Olmert: you most certainly do not have what it takes. If you have a single patriotic cell in your body you will get the hell out of the way so that somebody competent can take over and start trying to do damage control on the wreckage of your not-nearly-brief-enough tenure.

[Alexandra]

Ghost,

For you to say that Gaubatz is a researcher is quite frankly nothing short of RUDE and IGNORANT. Gaubatz is an ex-intelligence officer, and former special investigator for The Pentagon. And yes, it is a disgrace that a decorated ex-intelligence officer had to resort to acrobatics for three years to get the Pentagon and the media to listen, you do not need to rub that in for the purpose of supporting your usual Bush obsessions.

To say that your Royal Highness "tries to stay away from research sites such as these" is beyond the supercilious pale, and to dismiss an ex-intelligence officer with his credentials as not having "the goods" as you put it, simply shows your inability to read. You are again ranting and have not informed yourself on the subject at hand, concentrating on your favorite subject, I should say obsession, of Bush bashing, and extracting from any given information only to that end. I don't have time for your BS it's becoming repetitive beyond anyone's endurance.

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh yes, Alexandra...I see now! I typically stay away from researchers like Dave Gaubatz until they have the goods...but since you insist.

davegaubatz.com:

"There is/was WMD in Iraq at the start of the war in 2003. Our President told the truth. He was not honest when he said he was going to search for the WMD & have it removed from Iraq. I & other U.S. Federal Agents identified 4 locations in 2003. We risked our lives to locate the sites. Iraqis risked their lives to
show us the sites. The chemical and biological weapons remain at the sites (although it has been confirmed to be at the sites)."

"Two of the sites are in Nasiriyah, one about 20 miles from the city, and one site in Basrah. Don't worry...the sites are being monitored by satellite now and the WMD will soon be removed, although you most likely want hear about it. Why? Because since the Administration waited almost 3 years to follow up on the intelligence I provided in 2003, some of the WMD is most likely in the hands of terrorists."

"Why are the Iranians, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda so boastful they can defeat America & Israel? They have access to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Our Administration knows this."

And it's even worse:

We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited.

The administration has always pinched pennies when it comes to actually defending America against terrorist attacks.

Now we learn that terrorism experts have known about the threat of liquid explosives for years, but that this Republican administration did nothing about that threat until now, and tried to divert funds from programs that might have helped protect us. “As the British terror plot was unfolding,” reports The Associated Press, “the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology.”

[Alexandra]

Ghost,

There is certainly plenty of infotainment...let me put it another way...if you have a story, it is certainly a BIG story. Feel free to take it to the New York Times and become a rich famous person.

They wouldn't dare not publish it if you have the cold facts because there is so much competition that would publish it...take it to FOX.

My call is you don't have the story...but that's just my opinion...go ask the pros.

You are babbling now, and don't know what you are talking about. You either did not read this whole story when it came out or you think you know everything, but I have no idea why you are now rambling without any information to support your accusations. It simply discredits you and no one else.

Antimedia has written about this extensively, I have two posts up about it, and since then the Senators have confirmed the buried WMDs, having obtained satellite photos. It has been finally reported albeit only by a few, and 3 years later, but kept under raps by most of the liberal media for the size of the story it actually is.

I don't have Antimedia's or my own links at hand. Quite frankly am appalled at your sheer chutzpah of calling someone a liar when you don't have a clue what you are talking about, and am not going to spend time looking for them either. I happen to have received another e-mail from Dave Gaubatz yesterday and have his latest update at hand which gives enough information. You will no doubt somehow find something to shoot down sitting in your fluffy warm slippers behind a computer keyboard. There are builders in this world and then there are people who simply knock things down. Aggravating but true.

Your unwarranted supercilious comments only make you look rather silly, and uninformed. Your liberal bias is showing and affects your judgment, which is YOUR problem. Calling Antimedia a liar on ATB becomes MINE.

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh silly me...I can see where the MSM was just HIDING the information in the ISG's report right in front of our eyes.

And of course the final report from a 1500+ staff effort specifically ordained by this Republican administration to find WMD, after the initial task force didn't, isn't correct.

There is certainly plenty of infotainment...let me put it another way...if you have a story, it is certainly a BIG story. Feel free to take it to the New York Times and become a rich famous person.

They wouldn't dare not publish it if you have the cold facts because there is so much competition that would publish it...take it to FOX.

My call is you don't have the story...but that's just my opinion...go ask the pros.

I forgot already what your story was...that there are WMD or that there are not WMD in Iraq...or was that "Teddy murdered Mary Jo"?

[antimedia]

Ghost asks, "But what you say isn't fact, and convolutes what the point I was making about the role of profit. What you are saying is your spin. Where did YOU find out what the ISG did and didn't do?"

Where do you think I found it? In the Iraq Survey Group's Final Report. Silly me.

Your claim that the media will follow any "true" story because it means money for them is constantly and consistently disproven by the media themselves. There are many stories they don't cover, simply because they choose not to.

For example, the story of staged photographs, faked photographs, disinterred bodies displayed for willing cameramen hasn't been covered in the media except for th emost cursory comment. All the elements for a blockbuster story are there, yet the media won't cover it? No money in it? Don't make me laugh. They cover Michael Jackson's belly button.

As for convincing you, it will never happen. Nor is it my aim. I'm writing for people with open minds, many of whom read blogs and comments in blogs but never write anything. I'm not stupid enough to think YOUR mind could be changed.

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh, by the way...my personal conspiricy theory is that Dubya and Dick knew there were no WMD in Iraq to be found and secured...otherwise they wouldn't have driven a lower estimate for the number of troops and resources needed. Only 11% huh?...go figure.

But I can't prove that either.

Here is all kinds of documentation for those who are still waiting to discredit Dubya's competence:

http://www.answers.com/topic/iraq-and-weapons-of-mass-destruction

[Ghost Dansing]

"Ghost, let's apply your theory briefly, shall we? The reason the media did not report that only 10% of the WMD sites were investigated is because they couldn't make any money doing that. No one in America would have wanted to hear that story, right? If the media had trumpeted the headlines that the ISG didn't really investigate much of anything - that the hunt for WMD was a sham - that story would not have sold newspapers, would not have gotten airtime - no one would have been interested."

But what you say isn't fact, and convolutes what the point I was making about the role of profit. What you are saying is your spin. Where did YOU find out what the ISG did and didn't do? You can bet your bottom dollar that if FOX could say what you said and get away with it without losing credibility, they would have been all over it. And they are part of the MSM also.

You see, credibilty IS money...and if you stretch your spin too far in the MSM, you shoot yourself in the foot...because there is a line of competitors that will help you take aim. FOX hovers in that area a lot anyway, but even they have lines they won't cross.

You think there were not many many many who would have liked to have debunked what ISG reported? And you can bet there would have been plenty venues in the MSM that would have done it if they could make the story stick without losing credibility.

As a matter of fact, if you can make your rhetoric stick, you could march right into the offices of the New York Times today, and be credited for "the big story"...

My point was, across all of your allegations (antimedia, Gaubatz, and whoever it was with the "Ted Kennedy murdered Mary Jo" schtic) you're trying to convince ME...and I'm not convinced...but that doesn't even matter.

You don't have what it takes to get your angles printed in the MSM...and if your stories were viable, they would ALL be printed in the MSM.

So continue your whisper campaigns, or whatever...but you're really only convincing those who "want to believe"...not convincing anybody who doesn't.

I have absolutely no heartburn with anybody proving that Dubya was ineffective in rooting-out the WMD he went into Iraq to fetch...go for it...same with "Teddy murdered Mary Jo"...whatever...I understand there is no statute of limitations on murder, so if you got all this "cause", Teddy is practically in the callaboose.

Have a nice life.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Kenny, you make that argument very well.

Most people on the Left really don't understand much about the way business works. I guess there aren't that many successful "anti-business" business people out there, so that is hardly surprising.

It does however undermine the broad support they may have, I mean they'd hate to think of themselves as an ideology unrepresented in, say, the medical profession. More and more people today understand business, and profit, and many are self-employed. So any ideology that is, at its roots, hostile to the interests of the majority of income-earners is never going to seriously take root. That is the frustrating thing for people like Al Gore, er, I mean Ghost.

I think it clouds their judgement just a bit. Of course maybe that leads them to detest the profit-motive as somehow on a par with paedophilea. Reading Rousseau this weekend has really opened my eyes to how some of the Left is thinking. You are of course bang-on about their suspicion of any kind of "profit", because I think they have great difficulty seeing beyond the zero-sum game.

And the Left cannot stand to be just an occasional protest vote. Complete reconstruction of society is the logical endgame strategy of Left-think. Ironically, the Left actually needs the relative social stability of the profit system to thrive, and so it must really be a frustrating thing to be a Leftie.

[Kenny Pierce]

Ghost,

Hm, I think I understand you a little bit better today.

1. You -- like most on the Left -- talk as though it is somehow immoral to be motivated by making money. I don't know about you but that's precisely the reason I go to work every day. The idea that the "profit motive" is immoral is one of the stupidest, most economically naive convictions of the traditional Left. It is not, interestingly, one of the convictions of the classical liberalism that you often try to insist still has some sort of relationship to the extreme illiberalism (in the classical sense) of the modern-day Democratic Party. I vastly prefer people who are driven by the profit motive, to people who are (like the politicians in whom the Left prefers to trust rather than in "evil" businessmen) driven by the power motive. A business driven by the profit motive generally wants to find the most effective way to offer products that people want, in the most efficient way possible; and thus what Wal-Mart has done for America's poor is to what Teddy Kennedy has done for America's poor as modern antibiotics are to medieval leeches. But a politican or narcissistic busybody driven by the power motive, is a person who wants to find a way to compel, by the threat of violence, the behavior he desires from those whom he lacks the eloquence to persuade and to whom he has nothing of value to offer in exchange for their willing compliance.

2. The entire problem with the Pinch Times is precisely that they are not primarily motivated by the profit motive. Have you not ever bothered to look at their stock performance over the years since rabidly Leftist Pinch took over and installed his spectacularly incompetent management team? If the Times were generally motivated primarily by profit, Pinch and company would have gotten the boot long ago and the Times's coverage would have been radically overhauled. To say that an organization that continues to put up with a management team of such notoriously poor financial performance, is driven primarily by the profit motive, is to show oneself woefully naive indeed in the way people who are motivated by profit actually behave.

[antimedia]

Ghost, let's apply your theory briefly, shall we? The reason the media did not report that only 10% of the WMD sites were investigated is because they couldn't make any money doing that. No one in America would have wanted to hear that story, right? If the media had trumpeted the headlines that the ISG didn't really investigate much of anything - that the hunt for WMD was a sham - that story would not have sold newspapers, would not have gotten airtime - no one would have been interested.

In some alternative universe I guess that makes sense to someone who can't think clearly.

[weekenderman]

Way to avoid the facts and change the subject, Hole-y Ghost.

[antimedia]

Ghost, let's apply your theory briefly, shall we? The reason the media did not report that only 10% of the WMD sites were investigated is because they couldn't make any money doing that. No one in America would have wanted to hear that story, right? If the media had trumpeted the headlines that the ISG didn't really investigate much of anything - that the hunt for WMD was a sham - that story would not have sold newspapers, would not have gotten airtime - no one would have been interested.

In some alternative universe I guess that makes sense to someone who can't think clearly.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

What if Hizb'allah does agree to "disarm in the South"? If they have rockets with a range of 200+ km , what does it matter? And if Hizb'allah began to fire rockets into Israel again, perhaps in extraterritorial "retaliation" for some new "outrage" against Arab male vanity in Gaza, what then?

Does Israel have the right to sweep the French-Arab UN force aside on its way to Northern Lebanon? If not, will Israel have to respond with yet more unpopular bombing?

I can tell you this - if the Big War comes, civilians on both sides are going to be the primary targets. No more hiding behind banners and newsmen. Civilians must never be insulated from the consequences of the wars they support.

Survival has an imperative all its own. Alexandra, I am suspicious of Hizb'allah being able to contain themselves for very long, especially since they see themselves as winning, and Israel on the ropes. The temptation to "finish the job" will be overwhelming, no? They claim more than the Shebaa Farms. They want some villages in Northern Israel too don't they?

[Michael van der Galien]

There is nothing even remotely positive about this resolution. The French government never disappoints, does it? Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy explained that France will do everything necessary to disarm Hizbullah. Well, by diplomatic tools only that is.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy made clear in an interview with Le Monde newspaper that the mission of the larger UNIFIL would not include disarming Hizbollah by force.

"We never thought a purely military solution could resolve the problem of Hizbollah," he said. "We are agreed on the goal, the disarmament, but for us the means are purely political."

This resolution means that our enemies will be strengthened, that they will become more popular, that they will receive more money, that they will recruit more terrorists, etc.

[Patrick]

Kenny,

That is my fear also. Unless Hez rejects (as on Alexandra's new post) this completely and blocks Lebanon from accepting the terms, I think they have lost too much in the short term to play the long term game.

Here is to hoping that they gained enough "evidence" to pull something with Syria and Iran.

[Ghost Dansing]

As far as my comments about "...you don't have squat...", please understand that I'm not the one(s) guys like weekenderman and antimedia have to convince.

My certainty that neither of you "have squat" other than assertions is based on knowing the truth behind a certain mythology about the Liberal MSM.

First Point...the MSM is Liberal, not because the New York Times has a particular partisan bent (which is a mythology unto itself), but because in America, the MSM isn't only the NYT...but the New York Post, Fox News...in short a very wide spectrum of editorial punditry...they stand side by side, and are all in competition.

Second Point...different parts MSM may reflect editorial partisanship, perhaps stemming from the political bent of the ownership (Rupert Murdock) or the Board of Directors...but they are all CORPORATE...and being CORPORATE means they are about making money.

There are reasons why stories like Kurt Weldon's "Able Thing" just kinda "broke squelch" then died...and why the Dave Gaubatz's WMD story gets reported in MSM as an effort, but the story doesn't get traction...and why Teddy Kennedy was a murderer at Chapaquiddick remains a rumor whispered by weekenderman in the back corners of the blogosphere, reinforcing only the "true believers" who have spent their lifetime smearing Teddy Kennedy.

The reason is that the facts presented are not sufficiently compelling to make it into the MSM as a serious news story...regardless of the editorial bent of the particular corporation.

The fact that the American MSM is Liberal, ensures that a good story would get circulation...across venues...because Gaubatz, and antimedia and weekenderman would always be able to find somebody to publish it, if a compelling case could be made...if they indeed had "the scoop".

You can bet your bottom dollar that if Gaubatz could indeed "prove" the kind of WMD he is suggesting is in Iraq, and prove that an extensive cover-up took place, the NYT would be more than willing to publish it...and make it an exclusive...IT WOULD BE A BIG STORY...AND IF THEY DIDN'T PUBLISH IT, OTHER VENUES WOULD...

It would make money for them...and if Gaubatz and antimedia and weekenderman were trully the ones that broke the earth-shaking news...the irrefutable evidence proving that Teddy Kennedy murdered Mary Jo Kopechne, there really WAS new WMD in Iraq, etc... they would be rich men...and the papers, and the networks would all be making money off the big story, and they would all be spinning their editorials the way they want them spun.

Take the WMD in Iraq story...first, all the MSM venues would publish it because it's a big story and would make a profit. Second, Fox News would broadcast it to "vindicate" Dubya's war. Third, NYT would print it showing how despite the fact Dubya actually went to war to rid Iraq of WMD, he was totally ineffective...and even if the New York Times didn't want to cover it, they would be compelled to because it is a Liberal culture, and if they didn't cover it, somebody else will...so they will ALL cover it.

So, maybe weekenderman, Gaubatz and antimedia are on to something...maybe they are going to be very rich men very soon...but just because they can run around the blogosphere convincing a lot of people that something is true, if they can't produce the evidence to break the "STORY OF THE CENTURY!"...if they can't get the sidewalk vendors barking their headlines...

They don't have squat.

[weekenderman]

Ghost dared me last week to back up my assertion that Teddy "Bare" Kennedy had committed murder earlier in his career, but when I backed up what I said Ghost never responded. Seeing his response to antimedia's excellent point-by-point rebuttal above, I can fully understand what the problem is.

To quote from Ghost himself, "He ain't got nothin'!"

Methinks he is more of a Hole-y Ghost.

[dick]

CNN tonight mentioned in passing that - despite the Lebanese govs unanimous vote for the UN terms - the Hezbollah members of the Leb parliament stated that Hez will not disarm in the South, no matter what. Supposedl, this was greeted by shock and dismay in the Leb parliament. No confirmation of this on other newschannels, and I've seen no mention of this on the blogosphere.

Still, if correct - and what else could we realistically expect from Hez- it does present an interesting scenario for the upcoming weeks. It suggests that the incoming Lebanese army plus the international troops will face their own kind of resistance.

I'd feel much more sanguine about this if the French were not such a major factor in the "peacekeepers".

It's not over yet.

[Kenny Pierce]

That's a fair point.

The problem is that I don't think they have a lot of time left for a long-term goal...they may not have much of a term. Depends on how close Iran is to the bomb.

[Patrick]

My point with this Kenny is that my assumptions for what the long term goals of Israel and what it is willing to trade-off short term are no doubt completely different than what they are using.

10 years from now, we will get to see what helped make decisions (if there was "help") these last few weeks. I truly hope they are playing for their ultimate goal with shrewd maneuverings. What feints and bluffs we must be missing. Then again, none of the elegant tricks work with a novice. I am still concerned with their choices.

[Kenny Pierce]

Thanks, patrick, that was fascinating.

[Patrick]

Lavi Combat Airplane (An Israeli Gamble with History)

First off, Lavi means Young Lion in Hebrew. The impetus for the development of the Lavi can be found in the Six Day War (1967). France embargoed all military equipment to Israel including the 50 Dassault Mirage F-5Js Israel had bought and fully paid for prior to the conflict. This embargo led to the Israeli policy of developing and producing their own weapon systems (Merkava, Lavi, etc).

It is one thing to develop, and another thing to produce a complex weapon system. The successful development of the Lavi is due in large part to the US (know how and $1.37 billion dollars). With production costs down around 15-17 million a plane, the Lavi was a remarkably capable and economical program (total program costs would be $6.4 billion of which the US would fund $2.6 billion).

The decision is whether to produce (successfully flight tested) the Lavi or to reinvest their production dollars elsewhere and buy stripped down F-16s from the US. Realize that if they cancel the Lavi now, they will probably never again develop an aircraft. There were possibilities that if the program took too long, the US might not live up to its remaining $1.23 billion commitment.

Back to the purpose of this: Meta-Analysis. Generally when a leader isn’t comfortable making a decision, he commissions a study where teams of analysts tear apart the problem, crunch numbers and present a single recommended course of action to the leader. The leader can accept, reject, or demand more analysis (so he doesn’t have to actually make a decision-bureaucracies are expert at this: study it until it is no longer my problem). The Lavi was such an emotional program for Israel that although parties did take stands for or against, many crossed political lines and voted their personal preference.

Since the analysts had no single “master”, they developed an interactive decision support tool. It actually provided maps of options instead of answers or recommendations. After the presentation of their “findings”, the analysts gave each member their own program which allowed the decision maker to interactively explore their options.

Some of the far-ranging variable that they could adjust would be giving the Gaza Strip to the PLO. What is interesting is that they could adjust whether is followed democracy and became a partner with Israel, or if it fell to religious fundamentalist and anti-peace factions (deemed most likely). You could also adjust the level of support you received from the US, antipathy of your neighbors, probability of that antipathy moving to all out war, embargoes prevent spare parts and additional munitions getting through, etc.

The decision makers could also weight the importance of these events in the near term, far term, tactical, or strategic significance, It let the individuals make the decision criteria most like their own and “play” with the numbers. In most analysis performed today, you conduct sensitivity analysis and report when preferred options change (e.g. When natural gas reaches $X.XX a cubic meter, we no longer continue peaceful negotiations, but remove regime YY with military force since we expect an additional 200,000 deaths over the winter as our citizens can no longer afford to heat their homes). The mapping of the multiple conditions would be the 50,000 page document that no one would ever read. They represented the sensitivity analysis through the Graphic User Interface: match all the conditions you think are import and here is the result. Brilliant in that the decision maker actually gets the results, not some fifth level staffer pouring over 50,000 pages at two a.m. and tabbing the chart he thinks his boss is interested in.

This tool was one of the first interactive decision tools that allowed different decision makers to explore their options. This tool came with the supporting information (evaluations of different claims with probabilities, ranges, contingencies, criteria, maps of uncertainties, explanations of the sensitivities to uncertainty and the value judgments that went along with it) and those who constructed it on call to answer questions.

In the end, the decision to cancel the Lavi aircraft was made by a majority of one. The technology was eventually sold to China (known as their F-10).

[Alexandra]

I did not get a chance to post today, but my friends over @ Vital Perspective have been mulling the resolution over, and have some interesting points

It emphasizes the need for the "unconditional release" of the two IDF soldiers kidnapped on July 12, but does not make a direct demand for their freedom. Additionally, it calls on Israel and Lebanon to agree to a long-term solution under which Hezbullah would be disarmed. The text does not define when Hezbollah would be disarmed and by whom.[emphasis mine]

Further, it calls for a phased withdrawal by Israeli troops as the Lebanese army deploys 15,000 troops in the south, controlled by Hezbollah. At the same time, UNIFIL would be reinforced by French and other troops, perhaps as many as 15,000. The draft does not specify which chapter of the UN Charter UNIFIL would be authorized under. Instead, it says their mandate would include several elements: monitoring the cessation of hostilities, accompanying Lebanese troops as they deploy and as Israel withdraws, and ensuring humanitarian access. As in earlier drafts, the resolution includes an arms embargo on weapons flowing to Lebanon except for those ordered by the Beirut army and UN forces.

The question is, does any of this matter? The Security Council will likely unanimously approve the resolution [Friday]. Israel will likely accept it on Sunday. Lebanon has expressed satisfaction, but none of this matters if Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the terrorist Hezbollah organization, does not accept it. If the rocket attacks continue, if Israeli civilians are forced to live their lives in bomb shelters, if the IDF is attacked from their positions within Israel, then Israel can and will exercise its legitimate right to self-defense, and this resolution will have achieved little if anything at all. So by all means, Israel must accept this resolution. As Secretary Rice has said in the past, following this resolution, "We will see who is for peace and who is not.

[Kenny Pierce]

[grinning] Glad you guys enjoyed it. I think I'll have to tell the one about Granddad teaching my uncle Tex to squirrel-hunt next...

[Patrick]

Awesome story Kenny. Reminds me of the ones in the series "A Year Down Yonder" by Richard Peck (one of the series we read to our kids.

My wife's Grandfather got into trouble in a similar manner. Except they staged a murder at the bus station. Needless to say, the sheriff knew just who to get. He spent a night in the jail for being an accessory to murder (he was the guy shot with a starter pistol and dumped into the trunk) in front of three little old ladies.

Found my notes on the Lavi and the decision support (gave a brief in 2001). I will try to be succinct. Surprising that back then, much of the context and background is still valid. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[liquid]

Ha Ha Kenny....I loved that story about your grandfather. It reminded me of one where my grandfather and his friends took apart and rebuilt a wagon on top of the roof of a neighbor they weren't too fond of and laughed till they cried as the old man came out that next morning scratching his head wondering how it got there!

Thanks for sharing...you are such a good writer!

[Kenny Pierce]

[chuckling at the Ghost]

Monica, I can't imagine why Bush and Condi aren't working harder at taking that regime out. Unless they are and they're not telling anybody; but if so, they can't have been doing it for long or we'd've read about it in the al Qaeda Intelligence Agency New York Times.

[Ghost Dansing]

Kenny...I can't reach the bourbon. Antimedia and Crusader are driving me to drink!

[Kenny Pierce]

Hmm, if there is too much anger, then perhaps this will help. Just some silliness from the Pierce family archives to help restore good moods all around.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Ghost (or Al Gore, whomever you really are)

You are at it again. You peddle in lies, lies, and damned lies.

You still haven't answered this question of mine, (which since you raised it, is fair game!):

Since Iraq is not a hole in the ground, and the US Army not a shovel, what exactly would you recommend is the course of action you refer to as "stopping digging"? Be specific now.

If you won't answer this as far as I'm concerned, you can sod off for good. Unlike that admirable fellow Kenny Pierce, I lack the depth of character to summon respect or admiration for you, much less a "liking" of any sort.

[Patrick Chester]

antimedia: I would conclude from his lack of even more cut'n'paste quotes and issuing a terse denial that he is hoping you'll go away so he can cut'n'paste on a later thread. ;-)

[Patrick]

Antimedia & Kenny...excellent responses.

Kenny, Let me pare down what I have and I will post a bit on the Lavi Decision and methodology later on today.

[antimedia]

That's all you've got? "You don't have squat"? Your answer is about as thorough as the ISG's "search" for WMD.

[Ghost Dansing]

The proof of the pudding, as they say, is "in the eating"...ensure you have a big spoonful of pudding each day antimedia.

By the way:

"Finally, on the issue of WMD in Iraq. No bigger lie has been told than this. As I showed in my series on Dave Gaubatz (which Alexandra highlighted here), the ISG only inspected some 10% of the identified sites and completely ignored evidence brought to them from federal agents in southern Iraq. The ISG failed miserably to fulfill their mandate and closed the books on an investigation that never passed the first phase. We now have documentary evidence that WMD were shipped to Syria, something the CIA reported before the war, that was corroborated by multiple Iraqi witnesses and admitted by the ISG."

You don't have squat.

[antimedia]

Good Lord, Ghost, there's so much wrong with your post that one hardly knows where to begin.

1) When we entered Iraq, we didn't have 350,000 troops to commit to the battle. The reason the troop strength in Iraq has never gone higher than 160,000 is because that's all we can afford to have in Iraq. For every soldier in theatre (and that includes support personnel) you need to more; one in training and one "resting". So, if you put 350,000 in Iraq, you need 700,000 more in training and serving in non-hostile environments. Total troop strength for all services ia approximately 1.2 million. We would have to abandon every single base we have to staff up for Iraq.

2) The idea that Tommy Franks' battle plan could be so brilliant that many military experts have said it will be studied in war colleges for years to come, yet it was really stupid to do it that way is so laughable it doesn't merit comment.

3) The same experts that felt we needed 350,000 troops in Iraq also said we would lose 10,000 fighting in the streets of Baghdad. If they were wrong about both, how much credibility should we assign their backseat driving now?

4) In the same comment you claim Rumsfeld's "military theosophy is antiquated Cold War stuff rooted in force-on-force engagements by equivalent adversaries...he's a dinosaur" and then complain that "Franks, Rumsfelds willing tool wanted to prove his bosses theory about new smaller, high-tech warfare." Which is it? Is Rumsfeld "a dinosaur" or a purveyor of the "theory about new smaller, high-tech warfare"?

5) The military is notoriously resistant to change. That's why we're still fighting with weapons designed for the Cold War and major formation on formation combat. The generals who criticize Rumsfeld all preferred Cold War tactics; use overwhelming force superiority, grind and crush the enemy underfoot, advance slowly, taking and retaining territory as you go. That should tip you off to the validity of their opinions about Rumsfeld's "new smaller, high-tech warfare".

6) Then there's this disgusting canard. "Rumsfeld and others thought we would be greeted with roses and flowers." The obvious implication is that this did not happen. That is a bald-faced lie. In fact, we were greated with roses and flowers. Ask anyone who participated in the invasion. Here's just one example. There are many more.

7) You say "Franks was so confident he asked for a plan to withdraw all but 40,000 troops in six months." For six months after Baghdad fell, there was relative stability. Our troops were experiencing just over one death per day, 25% of those from accidents.

8) You claim "For instance, the Pentagon thought its bloodiest battles would be with Saddam’s Republican Guard. Instead, it melted away. But a Marine intelligence officer warned that the Fedayeen’s “hit and run attacks” would persist." Yet you will certainly criticize the administration for claiming there were WMD in Iraq when there "weren't any"! So, on the one hand you want to complain that the Pentagon did a lousy job of planning (based on the intelligence they had), but on the other hand you want to complain that they planned based upon faulty intelligence and were therefore wrong. Which is it? You don't get to have your cake and eat it to, my friend. Either they planned the best they could given the intelligence or they were wrong for plannning based upon faulty intelligence (which they couldn't have known was faulty at the time and which, as it turns out, was not nearly as faulty as everyone wants to claim it was.)

The Marine intelligence officer was working off of fresh intelligence gained during the battles, and the decision not to follow his advice was not his to make.

9) You ask "What if power over an intact Iraqi army and government was quicky was transferred to a friendly and well bribed groups of generals with a stake in the new government’s success, after Saddam’s removal?" We tried that, remember? We sent a Baathist general into Fallujah to take control of the city. The result? The bloodiest battle of the entire OIF as we worked to undo the damage done by the ONE general. We have BTDT. It did not work.

10) This comment "Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything, Saddam was coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working. He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of mass destruction, it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket rounds. He didn't have the delivery systems. We controlled the skies and seaports. We bombed him at will. All of this happened under U.N. authority. I mean, we had him by the throat. But the president was being convinced by the neocons that down the road we would regret not taking him out." tells you all you need to know about General Wallace. He disagreed with the plan all along. It shouldn't be surprising that he's critical of it now, but one must take his criticism with a grain of salt, bearing in mind that he has an axe to grind and might, therefore, not be completely objective about the war.

11) You make this laughable claim - "As bad as it was to attack Iraq without international support and an appropriate justification," The only international support we didn't have was France, Germany and Russia. Three words - Oil For Food. All three governments had compelling reasons for not going along with the plan. "Without international support" is a slap in the face to the more than fifty nations, including Britain, Australia, South Korea, Poland, Italy and Japan (and tens of other nations), all of whom supported the effort with boots on the ground.

Without "appropriate justification"? No war has ever had more appropriate justification. Iraq has repeatedly violated the terms of their surrender agreement from the Gulf War. There were 17 UN resolutions condemning Iraq, demanding that they comply with international terms and disarm, including a unanimous resolution passed shortly before the war. This one statement alone destroys any credibility you might want to have as an honest critic of the war.

12) You close with this outrageous statement. "What if we had followed the guidelines set by the Geneva Conventions instead of engaging in outrageous acts of abuse and torture that alienated the Iraqi people and generated support for the insurgents?" What if pigs could fly? We could no more control the actions of a bunch of immature, childish, out-of-control guards "led" by a General so weak that she cannot bring herself to accept blame for the failure of her own command, than we could control the "insurgency" which was planned long before we got there. And of course, since your ilk insists there were no terrorists in Iraq before we got there, we couldn't possibly have known in advance about Zarqawi and his cohorts.

You, like many "critics" of the administration, construct an impossible and completely false set of criteria for the administration to meet and then complain loudly that they have failed to comply with them. No one could have possibly fulfilled all those criteria.

Finally, on the issue of WMD in Iraq. No bigger lie has been told than this. As I showed in my series on Dave Gaubatz (which Alexandra highlighted here), the ISG only inspected some 10% of the identified sites and completely ignored evidence brought to them from federal agents in southern Iraq. The ISG failed miserably to fulfill their mandate and closed the books on an investigation that never passed the first phase. We now have documentary evidence that WMD were shipped to Syria, something the CIA reported before the war, that was corroborated by multiple Iraqi witnesses and admitted by the ISG.

The claim that Iraq did not have post-1991 weapons in Iraq is false on its face. Yet the critics claim there were NO WMD in Iraq when we invaded, a claim so ludicrous no sane person would make it. Saddam's own son-in-law revealed the existence of bio and chem stockpiles in 1995 as was murdered for his revelation by the Saddam Fedayeen.

If you want to argue honestly about what could have been done better in Iraq, there is plenty of room for honest debate. Your claims, on the other hand, are provably false and not worth of discussion. The only reason I even bothered to respond is that others are reading, and those others need to understand what abject dishonest brokers people on your side of the argument have become. If you had any integrity at all, you would do your homework and come back here with something worthwhile to discuss.

[Ghost Dansing]

But Kenny, the whole Iraq thing executed incompetently because of the interference of Rumsfeld...an ideologue with disasterous notions of modern warfare...in fact his military theosophy is antiquated Cold War stuff rooted in force-on-force engagements by equivalent adversaries...he's a dinosaur.

Check out “Cobra II:The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq” Michael R. Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor, USMC (ret.)

The authors report that several high ranking Generals were nearly fired by Tommy Franks because they wanted to slow the advance to Baghdad and destroy the Fedayeen militias who were harrassing their flanks. Franks, Rumsfelds willing tool wanted to prove his bosses theory about new smaller, high-tech warfare.

They thought that if they took out Baghdad, the war was over. In reality they were merely entering a new phase of the war. That alone shows a shallowness of insight that is breathtaking to the professional military planner.

From hundreds of interviews and classified documents, the book lists critical warnings that were ignored.

For instance, the Pentagon thought its bloodiest battles would be with Saddam’s Republican Guard. Instead, it melted away. But a Marine intelligence officer warned that the Fedayeen’s “hit and run attacks” would persist.

Tommy Franks, the CENTCOM commander, considered they were a speed bump on the way to Baghdad,” says retired Marine Gen. Bernard Trainor, who co-authored the book.

And when the Army’s field commander, Gen. William Wallace, told reporters he wanted to stay and fight the Fedayeen and that the enemy was “a bit different because of the paramilitary forces than the one we war-gamed against,” Washington exploded at his remarks and his caution, and Wallace was almost fired.

Later, when Baghdad fell, the authors say Franks was so confident he asked for a plan to withdraw all but 40,000 troops in six months.

There are projects that are well conceived that fail because of poor execution. There are projects that are poorly conceived but salvaged through good execution. The Iraq war stands as a project that was both poorly conceived and poorly executed.

Gen. Anthony Zinni Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000

The first phase of the war in Iraq, the conventional phase, the major combat phase, was brilliantly done. Tommy Franks' approach to methodically move up and attack quickly probably saved a great humanitarian disaster. But the military was unprepared for the aftermath. Rumsfeld and others thought we would be greeted with roses and flowers.

When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.

When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.

Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything, Saddam was coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working. He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of mass destruction, it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket rounds. He didn't have the delivery systems. We controlled the skies and seaports. We bombed him at will. All of this happened under U.N. authority. I mean, we had him by the throat. But the president was being convinced by the neocons that down the road we would regret not taking him out.

"The first phase of the war in Iraq, the conventional phase, the major combat phase, was brilliantly done. Tommy Franks' approach to methodically move up and attack quickly probably saved a great humanitarian disaster."

Frankly, I think Zinni was simply being gracious...and his comments were soon after Baghdad was taken the first time (we're taking Baghdad again I hear). His comments about the "first phase" in a General-to-General context is like saying "wow...you really got that doggie paddle down...I can't wait to see you when you can do a butterfly stroke..."

As bad as it was to attack Iraq without international support and an appropriate justification, the project could still have been a success if it has been executed correctly. Instead, historians will ponder the “what ifs’ of the Iraq war for decades.

1) What if we attacked with sufficient troops as called for under the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force and taken the time to engage and destroy the irregular Baathist militia rather than bypassing them while we raced to Baghdad?

2) What if power over an intact Iraqi army and government was quicky was transferred to a friendly and well bribed groups of generals with a stake in the new government’s success, after Saddam’s removal?

3) What if sufficient numbers of US troops had been provided to maintain security and order so a successful reconstruction could occur allowing the Iraqis to see visible improvements in their lives?

4) What if we had followed the guidelines set by the Geneva Conventions instead of engaging in outrageous acts of abuse and torture that alienated the Iraqi people and generated support for the insurgents?

Olmert's mistakes will become very manifest in the next few months...years...we'll have plenty of time to discuss them.

This Republican administration's fiasco in Iraq, however...now there is some trophy-quality incompetence that you can hang on the wall of your study, and be proud of for years!

[mac Brachman]

To all: I should warn you if you view the clip it is very disturbing, with images of a dead child, facial features partially digitized, who is being cynically manipulated by Green Helmet. Please do not view this video if you are easily upset. It shows the depths to which Hezbollah and its supporters will plunge to manipulate world opinion. Shalom, Mac Brachman

[mac Brachman]

To Michael Andreyakovich: Please don't say that, even in jest! (The suicide bit, I mean). And I do hope you weren't serious.

To All: Please check out davids medienkritik (www.medienkritik.typepad.com). It has a link to a video shot by NDR (a German TV network; I don't know if it's a state media outlet or private; I'll have to check it); anyway, it shows our old "friend" known by the moniker of "Green Helmet," the alleged Lebanese "rescue worker" who deliberately stages events to demonstrate that Israel is "beastly" and is deliberately attacking Lebanese civilians. The 1'47" video has German voiceover with English subtitles and shows Green Helmet loading the same dead Lebanese boy into a medicar twice, even directing his removal from a litter and his placement on another, and then GH approaching the cameras and giving instructions to the film crew.

Those familiar with davids medienkritik know it is a blogsite that relentlessly criticizes the mainstream German media (Der Spiegel, Die Stern, most newspapers and TV) for their relentlessly anti-U.S. and anti-Israel bias; the blog wants to show that not all German media are monolithic in this regard.
Shalom, Mac Brachman

[Kenny Pierce]

Patrick,

That's a truly great post. And I'll bite: I'm not familiar with the software tool you're talking about, but it sounds interesting. More detail, if you wouldn't mind.

Couldn't agree with you more about the importance of infantry and about the difference in message that you send when you go in for real as opposed to when you shoot from the air. One says, "I'm serious;" the other says, "I'm scared."

If Olmert doesn't salvage this with a major -- and effective -- land invasion in the very very near future, then he will have demonstrated a principle that closely parallels the old adage about staying quiet rather than proving you're a fool:

"It is better to refrain from any military action and all and have your enemies suspect you are too weak to defend yourself, than to do something half-assed and timorous and prove it beyond any doubt."

[Kenny Pierce]

Having read the U.N. resolution, I have a couple of things to say.

1. Who in God's name ever doubted John Bolton's abilities, and why have they not apologized? I would never have believed you could have gotten that kind of resolution out of the U.N.

2. This is a resolution that it's hard to see Nasrallah accepting. Having said that, I think he ought to accept it and count on UNIFIL to be useless. But I don't think he'll accept it.

3. If he doesn't accept it, the big invasion had better be on the instant he says no. Olmert needs to set a date after which any firing of rockets will be considered to have invalidated the deal, and he needs to set that date unrealistically soon.

4. I think it's possible that this U.N. resolution is a message from the U.S. to Olmert that he needs to fish or cut bait.

5. The Shebaa farms thing is stupid and clearly made up by a previous generation of Lebanese looking for an excuse to keep fighting, but hey -- it rightfully belongs to Syria if not to Israel; and considering how Syria has treated both Israel and Lebanon there would be lots of poetic justice to Israel's buying peace with Lebanon at the price of some of Syria's land. But if you're Israel you don't give it up until Hezbollah's disarmed. I think you say very clearly, "On the day that we believe that Hezbollah is disarmed and the Lebanese government is a truly democratic government that is truly in control of Lebanon, we will welcome you into the Shebaa Farms and we'll even pay for the party."

All in all, I'm much more hopeful than I was this morning because the U.N. resolution is much less of a disaster than I expected it to be.

Michael Andreyakovich, tell me you don't live in Israel like some of my friends and some of my Texas friends' family members. Oh, and I keep forgetting to ask -- Вы говорите по-русский?

Ghost,

...compared to Rumsfeld this war has been prosecuted with military genius.

[sigh] The comparison is silly. What Rumsfeld & Co. have messed up, is the occupation, a stage to which Olmert hasn't come close to progressing so far. The war itself was a complete tactical triumph -- as you can tell both from the admiring awe with which the British commanders talked of the lightning march to Bagdad, and also by the immense discrepancy between the number of American soldiers dead in the past three years and the number of American soldiers your "experts" predicted would die in the first three weeks. I understand that you have a compulsion to say that anything done by Bush or his team must be an utter disaster by definition; but purely for the sake of your reputation you should make an effort to focus on the things they've actually done badly rather than complaining about the things they've done well. Rumsfeld took Saddam's whole regime out in less time (if memory serves) than it's taken Olmert to control...um...well, what, maybe a strip of land a couple of miles wide along the border? The comparison is overwhelmingly in Rummy's favor in every respect except one: Olmert is not on your personal list of Evil Republicans Who Must Be Blamed For Everything And Insulted At Every Opportunity Even If You Don't Really Have Any Decent Excuse For Dragging Them Into The Discussion Because They're So Far Off Topic.

My dear Ghost, I think you know that I genuinely like you, and so that I am speaking from affection here: you make yourself look far too often like somebody who has some sort of neurotic compulsion to bitch about Bush, Cheney, etc. -- it's like you just can't help yourself. You're like a guy who just went through a really angry divorce and now can't seem to talk about anything but what a bitch his ex-wife is, even when one is merely trying to talk to him about the Patriots' problems at wide receiver. Rein it in a little, eh? -- for the sake of your own likeability, if nothing else.

[John Werntz]

Aged Cynic Speaks

My comment on this topic, including an assessment of the dreary prospect that the robust credible force that the UNSC plans to insert might possibly be led by France, was made on August 10 [postdated to the 12th] and posted to Old War Dogs .  It all fits.  "Cynic" is derived from the Greek for "Dog."

I would greatly appreciate any feedback from Alexandra's fan club.  Including Alexandra herself.  She, being eminently sensible, is surely a founding member.

[antimedia]

Rest assured - if it comes down to it, there are hundreds of thousands of vets who will pick up a rifle again. America is not lost. Not so long as there is breath left in us vets.

[Michael Andreyakovich]

Bottom line: Israel is f__ked.

And I'm pondering whether I should commit suicide or wait for Condoleezza Rice to get me killed.

One way or the other, I have no faith in Israel's continued existence over the next six months, or in the continued existence of America over the next eighteen...we say we're at war with these lunatics, so why the hell don't we actually GO TO WAR? What happened to our balls?

Oh, that's right, the Left gelded us back in Vietnam.

I guess there's nothing we can do about it now - for all the people exhorting us to "grow a pair", it's an anatomical impossibility. When it's gone, it's gone - be it your testes or your willingness to fight.

[antimedia]

Ghost, I look forward to reading, forty or so years from now, the analysis of all the "experts" who have claimed that the administration bungled this, that and the other thing. Not only is hind sight 20/20 (when there's no agenda), but it has the luxury of having seen all the pieces fall into place. It's easy to criticize when you have no dog in the hunt. I'd love to see some of the so-called "experts" use their so-called "strategies" instead of Rumsfelds - oh wait - we've already seen that - 40 years of being slaughtered by Islamo-nazis followed up by timid responses, begging for negotiation and "diplomacy". Feh. I'll take a good old-fashioned, "Duck, because we're comin' and we ain't leaving til you say uncle" anyday.

The biggest mistake this administration has made is listening to all the "experts" and trying to play all nice and civilized. There's only one way to play with Islamonazis - you kill one, we kill a hundred - how many you got? Wanna play?

[Patrick]

As Wayne and Garth would say... Game On! Looks like there will be more action before "peace"

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/11/060811192755.xtor2y6o.html

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-08-11T170005Z_01_L07726695_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060811/D8JE8LB80.html