Billmon:
II. Because You Can’t Have Too Many Wars
I. Fog of War
Back to Main
July 27, 2006
WB: Fog of War +
Comments
I was doing some late night blog reading and came across a photo of young Israeli girls writing messages on bombs to send to Lebanon. I did some research to find out where they came from and discovered the source:
http://www.fromisraeltolebanon.info/
WARNING: there are some graphic photos on this site of the result of those bombs.
The juxtaposition at the top of the page between the photos of the girls and the resultant deaths of Lebanese children on the same day makes it difficult for me to keep my eyes dry. These photos reveal the sadness and inhumanity of war that the neocons, chicken hawks and keyboard commandos could never understand.
It is sickening. And more so that Condi, Dubya and Dick won’t do anything to make it stop. And I am furious that while Dubya is sleeping like a baby tonight with visions of sugar plums dancing in his head, I will be lying in my bed, wide-awake, with this horror. This is not some Sid Maier RPG, this is reality and these ass-clowns are so delusional that they have yet to figure it out.
I wonder where these kids fit on Derschowitz’s scale of innocence?
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 27 2006 6:40 utc | 1
NYT OpEd: The Tribes of War
More is at stake now than the fate of Lebanon. If the West does not persuade Israel to stop its attacks, that failure will add to a creeping sense that, in its fight with Islamic fundamentalism, the West has abandoned its claim to moral superiority based on respect for human rights and international law, and is pursuing instead a war based increasingly on tribal solidarity. What a tragedy this would be, especially for those of us who crave a modern, peaceful Middle East. And what a triumph for the varied strains of bin Ladenism — Muslim, Christian and Jewish alike.
Guardian: Bringing Iran and Syria in from the cold
Nadim Shehadi, a Middle East expert at Chatham House, said it was possible Mr Bush would turn to Syria as a way out of the crisis but only because all the other choices facing the US and Israelis were even worse. “It would be capitulation, maybe you could call it capitulation light, but capitulation all the same. It would be the end of the American regional agenda,” he said. And Syria would never entirely pull the plug on Hizbullah. Nor would it break with Iran. “The idea that it would do so is naive. The only reason Syria is not under attack now is because of its alliance with Iran.”
Cutting a deal with Damascus to break the deadlock might be more attractive to Washington than accepting a ceasefire that would be portrayed as a victory for Hizbullah, Mr Shehadi said. And it was better than the other choice, which was “direct confrontation with Iran and Syria that could lead to a world war”. The biggest danger, he said, was that Mr Bush might suffer “an Oedipus moment” and, determined to avoid his father’s supposed mistake in leaving Saddam Hussein in power after the 1991 Gulf war, would attack Iran before the country went nuclear.
Given that background engaging Iran, as urged by Mr Annan, looks like an even harder sell. Iran’s price for collaboration would include compromise over its suspect nuclear programme – a likely deal-breaker for the US. And even then, Iran would not abandon Hizbullah. Former president Muhammad Khatami recently hailed the group as “a shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world”. And he is a moderate.
You can’t make this up.
Rice just blockaded a call to an immediate ceasefire during the talks in Rome, but now Rice tells Iran, Syria not to “torpedo” cease-fire
Black is white, white is black.
If we can ever get those godforsook Civil War enthusiasts in the U.S. armed forces to drop their worship of Robert E. Lee, maybe the U.S. warhawks would see that Lee and israel lose for the same gun-happy reasons.
Ivan Eland:
Conservatives, especially neoconservatives, (and even some pro-Israeli moderates and liberals), admire Israel’s use of muscular tactics to safeguard its security.
Many conservatives also admire Robert E. Lee’s aggressive, offense-oriented tactical victories in the U.S. Civil War. But like Lee, who ultimately lost the war, the Israelis are exhibiting enormous strategic ineptitude.
Lee, using the Napoleonic tactics of the offense, won many brilliant victories by attacking the superior forces of the Union Army. But Lee lost sight of the most basic strategic factor. Although he inflicted many Union losses, such aggressive tactics also caused his own casualty rates to be very high.Lee simply ran out of men before the larger Union Army did.
Posted by: citizen | Jul 27 2006 9:20 utc | 5
Recommended to everybody this video b real linked to in an older thread.
It shows the red cross ambulances the IDF shot up and the IDF comment on it.
Haaretz: IDF top brass wants mass call-up of reservists, but Defense Minister Peretz says opposed
Will the civilians or the uniformed folks win this one?
A few days after the anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel, another one. Today is the 50th anniversary of the UK-French-Israel invasion of Suez.
As Simon Jenkins writes (in reference to Iraq) in The Times piece from 2005 cited above:
I have never encountered modern history so laden with irony. … For Eden read Rumsfeld. For Eisenhower read Annan.
More:
Eisenhower: war is not acceptable just “to protect national or individual investors”. There can be no question of the “legal rights of sovereign nations being ruthlessly flouted”. … As for Eden’s constant references to Hitler and appeasement, Eisenhower clearly felt they insulted his intelligence.
America’s deepest concern was for the UN. “There should be no thought of military action,” Eisenhower warns Eden, “before the influences of the UN are fully explored . . . Initial military success might be easy, but the eventual price might be far too heavy.” Every peaceful means must be exhausted before a resort to war. The British were rushing to action when there was no evidence that Nasser was using violence to infringe the UN Charter. Surely they should concentrate on ‘on-the-spot’ inspection under UN auspices? American public opinion, Eisenhower wrote, considered that “the UN was formed to prevent this very thing”. …
Eisenhower emerges from the Suez letters as a counsellor of maturity and judgment, distressed to see an old friend embarking on disaster. He rebukes Eden as a latter-day imperialist, lacking a strategic vision and unable to keep global threats in proportion. He shows an America aware of the realpolitik of the Middle East while Britain proclaims a duty to set the world to rights.
Hegel bids us learn from the mistakes of history, but offers no guidance as to which bits of history are mistakes. The parallels between Suez and Iraq are astonishingly seductive. …
But one message echoes down the ages. I have no doubt that at Suez Eisenhower’s analysis was right and Eden’s wrong. There are no Eisenhowers today, in the White House or in Downing Street.
Posted by: Dismal Science | Jul 27 2006 12:36 utc | 8
Looks like the Olmert hawks have won gainst the IDF hawks for now. But this ould change fast.
Security cabinet decides against expanding Lebanon operation
“It was decided to continue the offensive with the same strategy, using pinpointed ground incursions and air strikes, not to bring in massive forces,” said a source om Jerusalem. “At the moment the army is not bound by time, it can act as long as needed.”
Olmert convened a late-night meeting Wednesday with the “group of seven” – ministers who form part of the security cabinet – to discuss options and exchange views about the continuation of the operation in view of the rising casualties in battles against Hezbollah and the continued Katyusha rocket attacks against northern Israel.
Senior military personnel requested a widespread call-up of reserve soldiers for a two-month long ground operation to “cleanse” the area south of the Litani River of Hezbollah infrastructure.
A more daring operation was proposed by Mossad chief Meir Dagan.
…
The army’s proposals were met with mixed responses by the ministers. “The military must present accomplishments,” participants said. A senior minister stated that, “The main problem is the lack of defense leadership.”
Officials have expressed concerns that expanding the operation would be misinterpreted by Syria as preparation for an attack against it, even though Israel has repeatedly stated that it has no plans against Damascus.
A number of ministers were expected Thursday to express bitter criticism of the handling of the war in the north, including its aims and the nature of the ground operations – particularly following the heavy casualties Wednesday.
…
Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Israel must decide whether to end the fighting and negotiate the release of the abducted soldiers or fight Hezbollah with all of the army’s might.
Ministers taking part in the Thursday meeting were told that the Syrians are on high alert, and fear an Israeli attack. Participants discussed how to ease Syrian concerns and prevent an unwanted conflagration. Peretz is of the opinion that a wide-scale call up of reservists would exacerbate Syrian concerns that the operation is directed at them.
The only participant who expressed support for an operation against Syrian targets involved in the fighting in Lebanon was Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, who said that before expanding the ground operation, Israel must consider “the day after” and the goals it hopes to achieve.
…
Military sources claimed Wednesday that the IDF’s current tactics are having an insufficient impact on the Katyusha rocket launchers and expose the soldiers to excessive danger. The criticism was mostly aimed at the decision not to employ large ground forces in Lebanon, which would give the IDF a significant advantages over a guerrilla force.
The sources also criticized what they described as insufficient utilization of aircraft in ground support operations, because of concerns that they might kill Lebanese civilians that did not evacuate target areas.
1. I have problems reaching Haaretz through my regular Internet connection. Is anybody else experiencing such?
2. What is the “daring” Mossad plan?
3. Looks like fire is opened from multiple directions at the IDF-chief Dan “bomber” Halutz.
4. What could change so the cabinet would agree to attack Syria?
b, are you using http://www.haaretz.com
or are you using http://www.haaretzdaily.com
The second one has been shut down.
Posted by: Ensley | Jul 27 2006 17:16 utc | 10
When the US dropped the bombs on Hirosima and Nagasaki they were the only country in the world to possess Atomic weapons.
Something to think about.
Posted by: pb | Jul 28 2006 1:14 utc | 11