(no subject)
There is heated debate over whether the Lebanese government was or is capable of suppressing Hezbollah. I see this point as essentially irrelevant; Beirut hasn't even tried. There are a lot of reasons for this: Hezbollah has a number of Lebanese parliament seats, runs a great deal of social services (often paid for by Iranian monies), Syrian pressure, Iranian pressure, and the Lebanese population wanting to see Israel under the butcher's knife as much as any of the arab nations. Because of the autonomy and collusion granted by the Lebanese government, Hezbollah's actions may correctly be viewed to reflect upon Beirut.
If the Lebanese government is genuinely incapable of stopping Hezbollah's rocket attacks, then I would argue that Israel's military action is even more legitimate. Israel has a right to defend her borders, and if a neighboring government cannot prevent its own citizens from shelling across internation borders, then bombing military targets or even an invasion is a reasonable response. If a minority party in the Canadian government shelled New York with missiles, who among us would be calling for a measured response? This is a proportionate use of force. There would be no invasion if there had not been kidnappings and rocket attacks targetting Israel.
Striking back at Iran for something the Lebanesre goverment should have prevented would be unjust, and not viewed kindly by the international audience (not that Israel has, should, or ever will care what some white hats in Europe think). Funding from Iran does not mean that they engineered the attacks, regardless of whether Tehran approves of them or not. Bombing Iran could very likely lead to a massive pan-arab military response. Worse than that, it would be against America's interests --something Israel would almost never do.
Israel knows that it is unlikely to get the kidnapped soldiers back, under any circumstances. It is certainly not willing to do a prisoner exchange, given the current political environment. The bombing (and I suspect immanent invasion) will achieve an amazing checklist of goals, mostly political. Here's what I've got:
1. Ehud Olmert (and his party) want to show that they are tough and willing to make war if needed. This is an amazing boost to his domestic politics, and it assuages a serious national itch regarding the quotidian rocket attacks.
2. The same goes for impressing other nations in the region. Israel is still perfectly willing to go to war, even with a nominally moderate party in power. This can always use reaffirming.
3. By destroying infrastructure in this way, Lebanon could very well be thrown into a civil war. Lebanon definitely won't be the "Paris of the middle east" for some time to come, and its tourism economy is lying face down, bleeding, in a crater where a schwarma stand used to be. A civil war in an impoverished Lebanon is in Israel's strategic interests because it will mean Lebanon would be unlikely to get involved in any pan-arab war in the near future --like one that might occur if Israel or America bombs Iranian power plants.
4. Hezbollah is an enemy of Israel, and hurting it is always in Israels' interests. These attacks probably will reduce support for Hezbollah in the future. In other Arab countries, they are blaming Israel for the attacks; in Lebanon, at least according to some sources, they are blaming Hezbollah for antagonizing the rogue cowboy to the south.
5. If Israel actually takes any territory, it will be strategically useful in future wars, and perhaps also in deterring them.
6. Because America is in the middle east in force, Israel has a geopolitical carte blanche to get any dirty business out of the way. If Israel did not go to war while we are there, it would be a wasted opportunity. I am speaking purely on a strategic level, not moral, although it so happens that this is thus far a moral war.
It would be a mistake to assume that the Israelis are acting off the cuff. Their response is calculated and deliberate. There isn't any serious chance of this conflict spilling over internationally sui generis, although it might be the spark that lights the American-Iranian powderkeg. You can bet your battalion that Israel wouldn't mind that, either.
In any event, it should be interesting.
If the Lebanese government is genuinely incapable of stopping Hezbollah's rocket attacks, then I would argue that Israel's military action is even more legitimate. Israel has a right to defend her borders, and if a neighboring government cannot prevent its own citizens from shelling across internation borders, then bombing military targets or even an invasion is a reasonable response. If a minority party in the Canadian government shelled New York with missiles, who among us would be calling for a measured response? This is a proportionate use of force. There would be no invasion if there had not been kidnappings and rocket attacks targetting Israel.
Striking back at Iran for something the Lebanesre goverment should have prevented would be unjust, and not viewed kindly by the international audience (not that Israel has, should, or ever will care what some white hats in Europe think). Funding from Iran does not mean that they engineered the attacks, regardless of whether Tehran approves of them or not. Bombing Iran could very likely lead to a massive pan-arab military response. Worse than that, it would be against America's interests --something Israel would almost never do.
Israel knows that it is unlikely to get the kidnapped soldiers back, under any circumstances. It is certainly not willing to do a prisoner exchange, given the current political environment. The bombing (and I suspect immanent invasion) will achieve an amazing checklist of goals, mostly political. Here's what I've got:
1. Ehud Olmert (and his party) want to show that they are tough and willing to make war if needed. This is an amazing boost to his domestic politics, and it assuages a serious national itch regarding the quotidian rocket attacks.
2. The same goes for impressing other nations in the region. Israel is still perfectly willing to go to war, even with a nominally moderate party in power. This can always use reaffirming.
3. By destroying infrastructure in this way, Lebanon could very well be thrown into a civil war. Lebanon definitely won't be the "Paris of the middle east" for some time to come, and its tourism economy is lying face down, bleeding, in a crater where a schwarma stand used to be. A civil war in an impoverished Lebanon is in Israel's strategic interests because it will mean Lebanon would be unlikely to get involved in any pan-arab war in the near future --like one that might occur if Israel or America bombs Iranian power plants.
4. Hezbollah is an enemy of Israel, and hurting it is always in Israels' interests. These attacks probably will reduce support for Hezbollah in the future. In other Arab countries, they are blaming Israel for the attacks; in Lebanon, at least according to some sources, they are blaming Hezbollah for antagonizing the rogue cowboy to the south.
5. If Israel actually takes any territory, it will be strategically useful in future wars, and perhaps also in deterring them.
6. Because America is in the middle east in force, Israel has a geopolitical carte blanche to get any dirty business out of the way. If Israel did not go to war while we are there, it would be a wasted opportunity. I am speaking purely on a strategic level, not moral, although it so happens that this is thus far a moral war.
It would be a mistake to assume that the Israelis are acting off the cuff. Their response is calculated and deliberate. There isn't any serious chance of this conflict spilling over internationally sui generis, although it might be the spark that lights the American-Iranian powderkeg. You can bet your battalion that Israel wouldn't mind that, either.
In any event, it should be interesting.