THIS might have something to do with IDF reluctance.
“We’re pleased to be out of there. It’s dangerous for tanks,” said one soldier who preferred not to be named. “Hizbullah has so many antitank missiles and we were totally unprepared for that.”
The company didn’t see combat; they were ordered to turn back to clear the narrow road for a returning armored battalion that had had many of its tanks damaged by the missiles. One of the stories being told by the tankists was that of an advanced Metis missile that managed to hit a tank from a range of six kilometers. “This is a job for infantry,” the soldier said.
As he spoke, two columns of reserve infantry, wearing flak jackets and camouflage helmets, were marching into Lebanon in combat formation. Over the last few days, the practice of sending infantry only in armored personnel carriers – prevalent in the first weeks of the ground war – has been changed when they turned out to be convenient targets for Hizbullah missile-teams that had melted into the hills.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 11 2006 6:50 utc | 3

The neocons are urging Olmert to go on:
Israel must win

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
…
Should the IDF lose its aura of invincibility in American eyes, Israel’s perceived value as an ally could decline sharply. This reassessment in Washington, when combined with a continuing and even heightened determination by Arab states and jihadists to destroy Israel, would be catastrophic for its security.
For decades, Israel has enjoyed an extremely close relationship with the United States. These ties have grown even stronger during George W. Bush’s presidency. Israeli leaders should not, however, take American support for granted. There is, of course, a tremendous reservoir of good will and genuine affection for Israel among Americans; but sentiment and habit alone are not a sufficient basis for an enduring U.S.-Israel alliance. The hard truth is that Israel must appear to be, and be, a winner in order to remain a valuable strategic partner for the United States.

I’d call this blackmail …

Posted by: b | Aug 11 2006 7:06 utc | 5

What neocons write for Ha’aretz?

Posted by: 2nd anon | Aug 11 2006 7:34 utc | 7

This is almost like old times. All we need is Nikita Kruschev banging on his desk with his shoe.
Been thinking the very same thing. The big difference this time, however, is that Iran is now on the other side.

Posted by: Night Owl | Aug 11 2006 8:01 utc | 9

Re destruction of roads stopping the resupply of missiles —
(a) apparently the roads in the Bekaa Valley get repaired really fast so cars can go along them
(b) makeshift bridges can be put up very fast
(c) the missiles can be smuggled from Syria to Lebanon along a very porous border.
Source – can’t remember now, but I think it was the CNN reporter.

Posted by: Owl | Aug 11 2006 9:39 utc | 11

And how’s that UN resolution on IDF withdrawal from Gaza coming along?
Deja fucking vu all over again.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Aug 11 2006 12:46 utc | 13

Kinda feel sorry for Olmert to the extent that he now faces some really tough choices. From this point forward, if the IDF succeeds in dismantling Hezbollah, the generals and hard-liners get the credit for escalating and winning the war and he probably gets dumped. If they escalate & lose or get quagmired, he takes the fall. If he backs off now, he gets the blame for pretty much anything that happens.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 11 2006 15:20 utc | 15

I didn’t get many coherent comments to my post about the wider scope of things yesterday, so I started doing some research and thinking things out.
Antifa, above, chimes in with his usual sagely analysis.
A few quick points, amendations, no links because I’m in a hurry today. Will write longer if anyone wants.
1) Bush is not crazy. This from WSWS:

“In 2003 the neo-cons got their wish of a war against Iraq, and on the very basis for which they had argued.
In April 2003, in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war, Feith and others called for an immediate war against Iran and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered contingency plans for war against Syria.
Bush vetoed the plans. Iraq was a major undertaking and a new war was not possible. But the elimination of Syria and more importantly Iran remained a necessity if US hegemony in the Middle East was to be fully realized.”

2) Having vetoed the initial plans, and now seeing the Iraq war gone south and time running out for him to leave his doggie mark on history, he regrets his initial decision.
3) This war was originally gamed out four years ago, and plans were finalized between Israel and the US last year. The triggering incident created, and is irrelevant to actual strategy. Only a handful of rockets had been fired at Is from Leb in the past decade, none directly attributed to Hizb, no one killed, so that was not an issue, esp. compared to the Israeli dead this action has caused.
4) Israel was supposed to have disposed of Hizbullah with ease and moved on to Syria. This was Bush’s request. Lebanon was a preemptive strike to purge the area of rockets, which pose the only substantial threat to Israel and its citizens by a preemptive attack on Iran. Olmert chose the more conservative plan (air vs. ground encirclement) which left Hizbullah free to retaliate. Olmert got wet feet about going after Syria. As Krautheimer indicates, Washington is furious about this, and the military miscalculations. (We pay you good money, now stop whining about how many soldiers you will lose and do what we say.) Meanwhile, there was whining in the Israeli press that they were losing a tourist season. Washington does not spend $3B/yr. on promoting tourism.
Clearly Israel was not going after Hizb, except to purge it of missiles, as seen by its actions. The aim was to turn the population against Hizb, when this didn’t work, they destroyed the whole country. Look at actions, not rhetoric. Leb. has never exercised significant independence. It has always been someone else’s territory, and that will continue.
5) Additionally IS/US vastly underestimated their opponents capabilities. Why? What is really going on here? Compare the Hizbullah “volunteers” with the trained Iraqi army, and the Iraqi resistance, suppossedly run by ex-Baathist experts. The Iraqi resistance has not been 1/10th as effective as Hizbullah. What does this mean? Military buffs help me out here. I think the difference has been primarily two-fold: Russian antitank weapons which are far more effective than what the IR uses. Big, big surprise. There are probably other weapons making a difference that I am not aware of. Also, terrain. Lebanon is like the wild west. Lots of big hills overlooking vulnerable valleys through which Israel needs to move its cavalry. Empty towns, in which every detail — cache, tunnel, etc. — is known of by Hizb, giving it a dispositive advantage there.
6) What are the implications of this? Firstly, I believe that Russia is behind this even more strongly than China. The provenance of weaponry proves this. Nixon knew that to dominate the world you had to split these two, but the neo-cons, and even “Soviet-expert” Condi, seem to have forgotten.
7) Secondly, both China and Russia WANTED the US to become enmired in Iraq; perhaps many arabs did too, certainly Iran. That is why the resistance has been so ineffective compared to Hizb. Now, they want the USUKIS agression to stop in its tracks. Israel suffered 49 casualties yesterday! That’s probably equal to the coalitions worst day in Iraq with eight times the force.
8) Both sides are showcasing and testing some of their weapons here. USIS has been using unknown technologies probably using lasar/ radiocative dispersion. These weapons work well but can’t be used large-scale right now because of worldwide objection. Hizb. has been doing eveything it can to bluff and not show its full hand. This is causing western consteration and fear.
9) The fallout from this miscalculation is immense. Israel’s invasion of Lebanon precipitated the bottom falling out in US public support for Iraq — this was the opposite of what was expected. Worldwide hatred for Israel and the US is now at record levels, and with good reason. The aggressiveness and desructiveness of the actions and plans has been exposed. The whole mideast mission is now foundering.
10) The immediate settlement is but a very small part of this picture. Both sides know that they can emend the facts on the ground at a later point in time.
11) The larger picture is very hazy at the moment. This is VERY DANGEROUS for the entire world. We are at an extremelly perilous moment. The US/Western alliance is wounded and could lash out viciously and unexpectedly.
12) The EU has been tacitly supporting the West, but has positioned itself to profit from a defeat too.
13) Russia is rapidly, and at great profit, arming the Mercosur nations with these same weapons. Should the US turn its sights back to its own backyard, the carnage will be magnitudes os scale larger than what we are seeing in the ME.
14) Should wordwide opprobrium continue to grow, we could be at a global watershed moment. Many forms of domination could be challenged at once all around the globe.
15) As best as I can fgure, the bombing of Lebanon’s oil supplies and the ensueing spill, represents the single greatest purposely caused environmental disaster in history. This is a war crime of untold dimensions. It is eco-terrorism. Should awareness of this nature of this crime spread to Republican environmentalists, and the rest of the world, the blowback could be with us for a very long time. Every oil storage facility in the US is now at risk, and is unprotectable.
Well, that’s what I see on the horizon for now. I hpoe you all have seen the neo-con map for the redrawn middle east. Every countries borders are different.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 11 2006 15:46 utc | 17

@jony_b_cool:
Kinda feel sorry for Olmert
Never feel sorry for murderers and war criminals. He should have been a greengrocer.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 11 2006 16:00 utc | 19

My thoughts exactly Malooga.
I’d no more pity this stupid thug Olmert than I’d pity Bush or Cheney or any other war criminal.

Posted by: ran | Aug 11 2006 16:23 utc | 21

Olmert gives IDF green light to expand ground offensive

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz on Friday ordered the Israel Defense Forces to implement an expanded ground operation in Lebanon.
The cabinet approved an operation Wednesday calling for a push to the Litani River, but delayed it until diplomatic efforts were exhausted. Apparently reports throughout Friday on a delay on a deal on a United Nations Security Council resolution on a cease-fire led to the decision.
IDF were engaged in heavy exchanges of fire with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon on Friday. One soldier sustained moderate to light wounds after an anti-tank missile hit an IDF convoy near the village of Rajamin. A number of Hezbollah fighters were killed in the clashes.

Posted by: b | Aug 11 2006 16:30 utc | 23

That was me. Fuck Typepad.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 11 2006 16:37 utc | 25

but your ruling elite is just as moribund as ours.
It is a bit more diverse and complicated here. Not as much money in politics as in the US and thereby more difficult to decipher. But to some degree you are right.

Posted by: b | Aug 11 2006 17:08 utc | 27

Map and collection of articles at the “War in Iraq” web site about Russia selling all sorts of advanced armaments to the Mercosur countries.
Note that Russia will be taking goods as payment from Argentina rather than cash.
Mercosur being armed by Russia, next country: Argentina
Re Lebanon – the big surprise to me is where and when did Hezbollah guys get their superb military training? Did this happen without the US or Israel suspecting anything? The training appears to be excellent.

Posted by: Owl | Aug 11 2006 17:33 utc | 29

@b27 & lonesomeG 28:
Let me tie these two threads together.
b, I’m talking big picture here, not the myriad small difference between our two continents (almost all of which make yours more endearing). Yes, your politicians have less overt ties to money, and your public is better educated and informed.
But, at the very root of the matter lies the complicit conspiracy between US & EU & Japanese elite to order and dominate the world through the Washington Consensus (WC). That is, the small cabal of elite dominated, undemocratic, unaccountable, institutions and laws which control how the entire world works: World Bank, IMF, GATS, etc, etc. I’m sure you are familiar with all of this, and the implications it holds for world agriculture, medicine, computers, everything, really. At that level, there are no philosophical differences between the elite of both continents — there are tactical differences and personal interests — but all agree on the goal.
This is what I mean by caling your elite as moribund as mine. This is where they will trip up. This is where they have the same goals as the US, only without the imperial army. They want to walk behind the hegemon and pick up the technological development contracts, weapon sales, pharmaceutical sales, water privatisation deals, etc. that fall from the imperial plate, as the self-absorbed giant absentmindedly gorges himself on kickbacks and fraud.
Both face worldwide opprobrium in furthering this goal. Bolivians hate the French for owning their water, and the Spanish for owning their gas, as much as they hate the Americans for owning everything else. That’s why Clinton accidentally bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan: it was manufacturing cheap drugs for all of Africa. Can’t have that. And Bayer/Aventus profits. As Tom Friedman, filled with humanitarian concern, so tellingly commented, “You can’t have McDonalds without McDonell Douglas.” A sentiment worth remembering when contemplating the poigniant tragedy that is Ehud Olmert.
The Chinese and Russians and Brazilians don’t want to buy into this system unless forced. The Indian elite has been bought off, but faces the possibility of a rebellion that will make the Russian Revolution seem bloodless. This is what the debate about whether there should be a G7 or G8 is really about.
So all I’m saying, is that if you want to foist your intellectual property and trade rights down the throats of the world’s poor, and endlessly siphon raw resouces and debt payments from them, it helps to have an army to remind the poor to swallow dutifully and say thank you graciously for all that lavishing attention.
Now, on to lonesomeG and Lind. Lind is correct that this is a watershed event in world history, in my humble opinion. But lonesomeG is correct when he/she? states, “It’s hard for me to imagine a collapse of the state system unless there is a global economic collapse.”
The state system will not fall, but has now been reordered so that any group that has enough money, and another state ally to arm it, can make inportunate demands upon a state with relatively few casualties.
Rich states have always tried to balkanize poor states, but now medium income and oppressed areas have open to them the option of balkanizing, or calving off, the states that are not serving their interests.
4th generation warfare has never been stateless in the way that they would like you to believe, a few disgruntled guys picking up some weapons at the bazaar and fighting off powerful states. That is all poppycock spouted by faux-populist CIA funded websites that want to inspire fear among the netroots.
The world is too industrialized and technologized today for groups to exist without state sponsors. They need weapons, trucks, food, support of the local populace — too many things to support a fictitious, rootless, al-Quaeda kind of insurgency.
All so-called 4th generational groups need some state sponsorship, as well as a population willing to host them.
But, now weaponry has become good enough to counter even the best equipped armies. This is a revolutionary shift of technological balance that can only be countered by the replacment of humans with robots in warfare. It is cheap enough, and the technology will soon be widespread enough, that states who are not benefitting from the WC can confront the global hegemons with what is now called 4th generational warfare.
This is what is meant when someone with Lind’s keen insight says,”If it actually happens, the walls of the temple that is the state system will be shaken world-wide.”
The entire state system will not be a risk, but the hierarchical ordering of states which the WC seeks to create will be at direct risk. Clearly, this is as unacceptable for the global elite, as it is revolutionary.
Right now, a lot of very powerful and influential people are watching events very closely and carefully — and gnawing their fingernails to the bone while doing it.
A critical chink in the armor of world exploitation has been found. Will anyone notice, and can it be successfully exploited? If it can the entire state system can fall like the stack of dominos in the movie “V.”
That much is at risk.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 11 2006 19:08 utc | 31

welcome to moon elie

Posted by: annie | Aug 11 2006 19:49 utc | 33

but your ruling elite is just as moribund as ours.
Yes. They will sit back, and sway this way or that, and pander in one way or another, to the US-uk-isr, to their voters, to Russia, to Asia, you name it.
A holding game. The EU did a lot, if not enough, for the old order to continue, and to treat with the ME in a global, pragmatic, commercial way – far more so than the US who seem to believe that their expressions of disgust (sanctions, axis of evil, arc of instability, rogue nations, terrorist groups, and all those suspected of dealing with any of them) would have some positive effect. Like being shunned by the Victorian landlord!
Between the moralistic hegemon, armed to the teeth, on a violent rampage, claiming might is right, and moral truth is is an imperative (!), and the EU, a community of small states who are not well armed and in any case will find it exceedingly difficult to send troops anywhere to do anything, there is, yes, a huge gulf, but not much really to choose between them.
These parties are locked in together because they are the core of the first world and energy dependent. (With Russia, Japan, Australia playing various roles.)
Good cop, bad cop. (as Malooga said.)

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 11 2006 20:39 utc | 35

I’m with Elie: great threads here folks; all of your hard work is appreciated Malooga–I do appreciate your links to Lenin, he’s great. And a shout out to Remembering Giap as well.
Umm, don’t look now, but it looks like the UN has an agreement (this via Reuters)…
Key powers agree on Mideast deal By Evelyn Leopold and Irwin Arieff
15 minutes ago
Key U.N. Security Council members agreed on a resolution to end Israel’s month-old war with Hizbollah and a vote was expected later on Friday.
But Israeli officials said they were still gearing up for an expansion of the army’s ground offensive in Lebanon, although it could be halted at any time if a resolution was passed.
There was no let-up in violence. Israeli attacks killed at least 23 people in Lebanon on Friday, including four killed when a drone fired rockets at a convoy of hundreds of cars fleeing the south. An Israeli soldier was reported killed in fighting and Hizbollah rockets wounded seven people in northern Israel.
An Israeli political source said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was reviewing the draft resolution and Israel’s Channel 10 television said the text had been “positively received.”
“We have to wait,” Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev said. “When the U.N. Security Council does pass a resolution, it will go to the cabinet and the Israeli government will make a formal decision.”
CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES
The revised U.S.-French Security Council draft resolution, obtained by Reuters, authorizes up to 15,000 U.N. troops to monitor a withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from southern Lebanon and help the Lebanese army enforce a truce.
The draft calls for a “full cessation of hostilities” and tells Hizbollah guerrillas to stop all attacks immediately and Israel to end “all offensive operations.”
After fighting stops, Israel is to withdraw all its forces from southern Lebanon at the earliest. Lebanon is to deploy its armed forces throughout southern Lebanon as Israel withdraws.
The timing of Israel’s pullout and the nature of the international force sent into the area had been the main points of contention that held up a deal this week.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to New York in anticipation of a vote on ending the war, in which at least 1,034 people in Lebanon and 123 Israelis have been killed.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy was en route to the United Nations.
Rice phoned Olmert and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to try to get them to accept the text, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said the sponsors of the resolution would push for a vote regardless of their response. But she cautioned that the resolution was only a short-term settlement. “We’re not here trying to solve all the problems of the Middle East overnight,” she said.
A senior Lebanese political source said Lebanese leaders had no further major objections to the proposed deal.
At the insistence of Lebanon, the United States and Britain agreed to drop a reference to Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which permits a robust U.N. peacekeeping operation.
But Britain’s U.N. ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said the text would carry strong rules of engagement anyway for the expanded force that France is expected to lead.
A second resolution on a permanent ceasefire would follow within a month, tackling a range of issues including the release of two Israeli soldiers held by Hizbollah.

Posted by: everyday people | Aug 11 2006 21:16 utc | 37

Malooga and friends —
Well I am pulling up a chair on the edge of the circle for now. Am trying to avoid the “Gee Golly Gee” type comments for now. I need to ramp up some more but will wade in as I learn more. Thanks for the drink! Carry on!

Posted by: Elie | Aug 11 2006 21:58 utc | 39

I won’t make any dumb jokes about promising to pull out. I swear I won’t!

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 11 2006 22:01 utc | 41

No offense taken annie; I just thought this news was germane to the discusssion. I share your reservations.

Posted by: everyday people | Aug 11 2006 22:14 utc | 43

Been readin’, readin’ & readin’. Thanks to all. I’m always running a few days behind due to meat-space requirements, but can’t bear to skip ahead – afraid I might miss that next brain opener.
It is interesting how the mood here has changed from ‘tearing the hair out’ despair, nasty in-fights, and grief at yet another gratuitous tragedy, to a more positive mood. Why? One thing that bothers me greatly is finding myself hearing of battle deaths, and feeling some sense of satisfaction if they are “the other” side. I don’t like that feeling. The first time, a month or two ago, was when I heard that one of the marine corps recruiters from the movie F911 had been blown up on a street in Iraq, and caught myself thinking “serves him right”. That’s never happened to me before.
A proposed deal that lets Israel continue “defensive” activities on Lebanese territory is a farce; on the other hand, if the South is to be occupied by the Lebanese army I’m assuming that pretty much means Hezbollah anyway at this point. I saw a reference a few posts back to the IDF pulling back across the border every night. In that case it cannot take them very long to leave…
I wonder if part of what is becoming evident in this conflict is the effect of a conscript army. DNow cites far wider objections to this conflict within Israel than the MSM would have you believe; and my personal experience is that ordinary Israelis are much less rabid about Zionism than their American counterparts; perhaps because it’s their meat in the grinder. It could be that the leadership holding power by virtue of the American gravy train is as un-representative as the one holding power in America; and enthusiasm for a draft just as high. In which case the average grunt is just trying to stay out of harm’s way till his tour is up. On the other hand, for Hezbollah there is nowhere to fall but upwards. They’ve already seen the bottom.
I agree the big picture has changed, is changing, dramatically with respect to military technology in a way that I can’t help seeing as analogous to the personal computer revolution challenging the dominance of mainframes. Information and miniaturisation widely disseminated may have levelled the playing field for a time. On the other hand, you take out the F-16’s and then you have to worry about cruise missiles or ICBM’s. When every citizen has an AK-47, and every fifth an anti-tank weapon, and everyone has their per-capita share of oil… will it be anarchy? Will it be paradise?

Posted by: PeeDee | Aug 12 2006 10:04 utc | 45