WB: Once More Into the Breach +

August 13, 2006

Billmon:

II. Who’s For Peace

—

The point is, the Israelis are either bluffing, in which case they’ll huff and puff about having reached the Litani, and then withdraw their forces back behind the Blue Line as soon as they’ve been given a reasonable fig leaf, or they’re creating a situation in which they will be relying on Hizbullah’s continued willingness to obey a UN resolution — despite the IDF’s continued presence inside Lebanon — to avoid a very nasty war of attrition.

I. Once More Into the Breach

Posted by b on August 13, 2006 at 04:44 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Liquids On Airplanes
Seems it was indeed a US-UK-ISI false flag operation:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

Posted by: Harley Freeburn | Aug 13 2006 5:46 utc | 1

Ausnahmezustand.
An emergency. An exceptional state of affairs. The usual rules do not apply.
Whomsoever decides what constitutes an emergency, and whomsoever decides what happens during an emergency is the true sovereign, according to Carl Schmitt.
During an exception to the norms, the political genius of dictatorship may shine through. Suspension of whatever legal strictures had been in place is allowed the sovereign leader. Even permanent suspension is permitted.
This is the Fuehrer Principle.
Leo Strauss didn’t think it up. Cheney didn’t think it up. Yoo didn’t, Gonzales didn’t, nor did David Addingtion. They all read it in a book by Professor Schmitt, and liked it so well they gave it an American translation — the Unitary Executive.
And they put it into practice.
For example, back in June, Olmert and Cheney decided the very next provocation from Hezbollah would be the pretext to go apeshit on Lebanon’s ass. Declare an emergency state of affairs, and take violent action without heed of international norms or laws or opinion or outrage.
They declared an exception to civilization, and acted as they pleased.
For example, now that military realities intrude upon their wet dream to the point that they may have to put it back in their trousers, the same crew writes out the rules of disengagement without ever consulting their victims, and pushes their resolution through the UN Security Council.
Sovereignty all the way. Whatever we say goes.
Egads. The very air abounds in dictators.

Posted by: Antifa | Aug 13 2006 6:08 utc | 2

It would basically recreate the IDF’s successful last-minute counterstroke against the Egyptians in the Yom Kippur War — just as the initial air blitz was, in a sense, an attempt to recreate the opening minutes of the Six Day War.
Actually Billmon, the ‘glory’ the Israelis are saying they want to create is Beruit 1982.
The Israelis apparently want to create a pocket around Tyre which traps Hezbollah the same way the PLO were trapped in Beirut.
And we all know what happened to Beirut after that, don’t we?
The big difference, of course, is that digging out and corralling Hezbollah will be a lot more difficult the simply chasing an overmatched and outgunned PLO over open ground.
Chances are, the only people the Israelis will be able to surround will be poor civilian sods who haven’t been able to get out of Tyre. Oh, and the Palestinians in the refugee camps near the city.
And God help all those people if the Israelis really decide to relive past history.
(I posted a lengthy analysis of Debka’s description of the offensive on the open thread. An updated version is here.)

Posted by: Night Owl | Aug 13 2006 7:20 utc | 3

24 IDF sldiers killed saturday in southern Lebanon

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 13 2006 7:42 utc | 4

Harley Freeburn:

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

I don’t know about the “US-UK-ISI false flag operation” but it certainly seems that an attack was not imminent. Could well be that they’ve got the British equivalent of those sorry five in Miami.
I wonder if people believe this stuff?

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Aug 13 2006 8:25 utc | 5

From the reports in arab media I have been reading (using google for the translations) and looking to a map it seems that the IDF is trying to advance toward Tyre from the east along the Litani.
There are reports of failed landing attempts, hit tanks and retreating israeli forces around the Gandhiriyah, Qallawiyah, Al Qantara area. That’s some 10-15 km from the frontier, just five or so km south of the Litani. But I don’t see the IDF reaching near Tyre by Monday morning … at least if they really halt their offensive.
In the southern and western regions the IDF is still being hit along the frontier towns.

Posted by: ThePaper | Aug 13 2006 11:52 utc | 6

And for the final fireworks show, Israeli gunboats offshore are shelling south Beirut.

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 13 2006 12:54 utc | 7

from anna missed #4 link

Israel has nearly tripled the number of forces in Lebanon as part of its expanded ground war, and expects to fight for another week, despite a United Nations cease-fire resolution, IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said Saturday. Halutz said IDF troops would stay in Lebanon until an international force arrives. “We have almost tripled our forces that are operating in Lebanon,” Halutz told reporters.
A top IDF official has said that the army will stop its offensive as soon as it is ordered to do so by the political leadership and later it will begin to retrace its steps to uncover any pockets of resistance that may remain in the area.
UN Middle East envoy Alvaro de Soto told Reuters on Saturday the UN force could begin deploying in seven to 10 days, suggesting there is still some time before the “immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations,” as called for in the resolution.

Posted by: annie | Aug 13 2006 15:34 utc | 8

Doesn’t look like firing will cease anytime soon:

By Adam Entous in Jerusalem
August 14, 2006 01:00am
Article from: Reuters
ISRAEL believes it will be entitled to use force to prevent Hezbollah from rearming and to clear guerrilla positions out of southern Lebanon after a UN truce takes effect.
Israeli officials say such operations are “defensive” in nature and therefore permissible under a UN Security Council resolution that calls for Israel to halt “all offensive military operations”.

Posted by: ran | Aug 13 2006 15:43 utc | 9

The aim was to destroy Lebanon, grab more land, and capture the Litani, for both symbolic and material aims (I tend to accord high importance to geography, it’s questionable…)
At the same time, the war is expanded, more terrorist Arabs are identified, described, and targeted; from a US pov, the failure (or supposed failure) of Iraq is obscured, or thrown into a different light; from an Isr. pov Gaza passes under the radar; and generally speaking, war becomes a way of life, international agreements are thrashed, few object when medecines and food can’t reach civilians, they begin to see it as normal, etc.
The UN is also shown up to be a hypocritical voice for the West. The ‘resolutions’ make no sense at all to a larger public – how can one have a cease-fire and a land invasion at the same time? The ‘resolutions’ are tailored for Isr. to be able to do maximum damage but save its face if needs be.
Right from the start, the ‘authorities’, who have no authority, except when the US decides to use them for their own purposes, have done everything to stall, obfuscate, temporise, etc. The UN will now be seen as a a branch of US-uk-isr all over the world.
Kofi has always held to the line that the makes the best of a bad job, that he does good when he can. True enough. No longer good enough.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 13 2006 17:05 utc | 10

Let’s not forget Pakistan, which Digby just addressed, or India which he didn’t but who just got the gift of congressional approval for Bush’s move to shower them with nuke goodies. I’ve always believed that if all else fails, and all else has failed, the plan is to vaporize with Nukes large portions mostly Shia Muslims. We will take care of Iran and India can proceed to take Pakistan out. A shame about the non Muslim Indians but it isn’t like there is a shortage of them. That will leave a sizable Shia problem in Iraq which doesn’t seem fixable with nukes but that’s a detail that can be left till later.
Everyone, Europe, China and even the Saudis will probably agree with reluctance that it had to be done.
What about Osama and the radical Sunnis? It was only two weeks ago the rather strange assertion that all our moves were designed to block radical Shites was unveiled here and in Israel. This laughable idea, in the face of Shia empowerment by taking out Saddam was quickly dropped but it was put in place for use later.
I’m with Billmon. 75% chance of nuking Iran. The thing is, small so called tactical weapons against their enrichment sites isn’t going to to help our troops in Iraq. The only conslusion one can reach is that we must take out Tehran. Anything less would be a strategic blunder which brings us back to my conclusion that all along the aim was to wipe out the Shias once and for all. Without the total annilation of Irans ability to fight back in Iraq and most important of all, in the Straights, our troubles will be much worse.
It isn’t going to be all fun and games. For months and years oil production will fall. The economic consequenses will be immense. Longer in the future is the battle with China. (In fact all this plays into that battle)
Once the world is tilted on its axis down in this way how can Dems possibly be expected to carry thru on it? It’s an impossibility.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 13 2006 23:29 utc | 11

Let’s not forget Pakistan, which Digby just addressed, or India which he didn’t but who just got the gift of congressional approval for Bush’s move to shower them with nuke goodies. I’ve always believed that if all else fails, and all else has failed, the plan is to vaporize with Nukes large portions mostly Shia Muslims. We will take care of Iran and India can proceed to take Pakistan out. A shame about the non Muslim Indians but it isn’t like there is a shortage of them. That will leave a sizable Shia problem in Iraq which doesn’t seem fixable with nukes but that’s a detail that can be left till later.
Everyone, Europe, China and even the Saudis will probably agree with reluctance that it had to be done.
It was only two weeks ago the seemingly strange assertion that all our moves since 911 were designed to block radical Shites was unveiled here and in Israel. In the face of Shia empowerment by taking out Saddam seemed to make this idea a seemed a joke. If one takes my view that in fact that was plan B+ all along then Iraqs inevitable devolution into bloody anarchy should be seen as designed to just stir the pot so that the political will to just blow them all away in frustration and disgust would make doing it easy.
I’m with Billmon. 75% chance of nuking Iran. The thing is, small so called tactical weapons against their enrichment sites isn’t going to to help our troops in Iraq. The only conslusion one can reach is that we must take out Tehran. Anything less would be a strategic blunder which brings us back to my conclusion that all along the aim was to wipe out the Shias once and for all. Without the total annilation of Irans ability to fight back in Iraq and most important of all, in the Straights, our troubles will be much worse.
It isn’t going to be all fun and games. For months and years oil production will fall. The economic consequenses will be immense. Longer in the future is the battle with China. (In fact all this plays into that battle)
Once the world is tilted on its axis down in this way how can Dems possibly be expected to carry thru on it? It’s an impossibility.
Almost as an aside I must mention that this all should bring the dollar and dollar hegemony back, bigtime. It has never left but there are grumlings and doubters. Who is likely to bet against America once we show our willingness to do whatever it takes to be number one. Money is hardly sentimental.

Posted by: rapier | Aug 13 2006 23:40 utc | 12

Back to Main