Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

August 9, 2006
WB: The Butcher’s Bill

Billmon:

Israel has a total population of just over 6 million — about 2% of the U.S. population. So proportionally, 656 Israeli KIA would equal roughly 33,000 American combat deaths, or about two-thirds of U.S. losses for the entire Vietnam War. And like I said, that would probably just be for starters.

Does the Olmert government have the stomach for that kind of fighting? Is the Israeli public willing to pay so much blood to conquer a piece of ground that almost certainly will have to be given back later? And what if the big push doesn’t stop the rocket attacks but only reduces them temporarily? Would it still be worth such a price?

The Butcher’s Bill

Posted by b on August 9, 2006 at 04:19 UTC | Permalink
Comments

The pundits’ platitudes do nothing to solve this crisis

Western diplomatic and military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan is a catastrophic failure. What is astonishing is that the west’s commentariat should goad its leaders into more of the same. Neo-imperialism, reborn in the uniform of world policeman, is now a raging virus. It is hard to imagine a swifter way of spreading the poison of the Middle East conflict than for western troops to land once again in Lebanon.
Border wars can continue for decades without destabilising their regions. Even as this one engages powerful allies on both sides – from Iran to America – it need not embroil the wider world. Some conflicts are best left to their participants to resolve, however brutally. This is no abrogation of humanitarian responsibility. The Middle East has long claimed the west’s charity. But the unthinkable must sometimes be thought. Somewhere on Earth there is a conflict that might resolve itself sooner if outsiders both say and do nothing about it.

Posted by: b | Aug 9 2006 7:27 utc | 1

Fouad Siniora: End This Tragedy Now – Israel Must Be Made to Respect International LawFor all this carnage and death, and on behalf of all Lebanese, we demand an international inquiry into Israel’s criminal actions in Lebanon and insist that Israel pay compensation for its wanton destruction.
Israel seems to think that its attacks will sow discord among the Lebanese. This will never happen. Israel should know that the Lebanese people will remain steadfast and united in the face of this latest Israeli aggression — its seventh invasion — just as they were during nearly two decades of brutal occupation. The people’s will to resist grows ever stronger with each village demolished and each massacre committed.
On July 25, at the international conference for Lebanon in Rome, I proposed a comprehensive seven-point plan to end the war. It was well received by the conference and got the unanimous and full backing of the Lebanese Council of Ministers, in which Hezbollah is represented, as well as of the speaker of parliament and a majority of parliamentary blocs. Representatives of diverse segments of Lebanese civil society have come out strongly in favor, as has the Islamic-Christian Summit, representing all the religious confessions, ensuring a broad national consensus and preserving our delicate social equilibrium.
…

Posted by: b | Aug 9 2006 8:24 utc | 2

PM wavers over expansion of ground operation U.S., France at odds over changes to UN resolution
Halutz: Campaign needed to ‘end war differently’
U.S.: Lebanese army can’t control south alone; Olmert fears plan would result in hundreds of casualties.

Headline from Haaretz.
Yep, they’re realizing it won’t be like their canned hunts in the territories. Don’t know the exact numbers but I think > 60 dead IDF guys in less than a month. That’s similar to the GI toll the fierce Iraqi insurgency exacts in a month on a force with 15x as many targets running around in a much vaster space.

Posted by: ran | Aug 9 2006 8:51 utc | 3

Billmon,
Your mathematical exercises are very useful for quantifying human loss and misery.
But you are misinterpreting how the goals of this war differ from Israel’s other wars. Past wars sought to capture vast swathes of territory rapidly. This one seeks a scorched earth policy. They are not interested in capturing Beirut. They are interested in assuring that south Lebanon seeks to exist. Blotto. Gone from the face of the earth — perhaps forever. Bin Jabeil was a city of 30,000 inhabitants! Gone, as dust in the wind. Gone from the earth, and gone from the headlines.
And if they can draw Syria and Iran into the fray, then they really will have succeeded in helping the Bush regime’s aims. Good puppy!

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 14:47 utc | 4

south Lebanon seeks should read “ceases.” Time to homophone home.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 14:50 utc | 5

@Malooga
Yes, I am shocked (and shouldn’t be) that this seems the plan: Moving around in the area up to the Litani and mopping up as much as possible on the one hand, and on the other systematically wiping out the South. Whereby the “ground operations” grab the headlines, satisfy the Likudniks stateside and at the same time provide a cover that distracts from the scorching of the earth.
Slow everything down diplomatically, and see how it all plays out.
This escalation aims to neutralize the basic guerrilla strengths. The guerilla is “invincible” as long as the regular army has certain civilizational limits. But if it doesn’t…
The IRA could not have succeeded as it has, if the UK had started to ethnically cleanse Northern Ireland of catholics by burning their neighborhoods and villages. Ditto for the post-war anti-colonial guerillas, say, in Algeria: they too banked on the fact that at some point the colonialists would say “this is more destruction than it’s worth” and negotiate their way out. But what if the French had said, we will expel most Arabs from certain provinces and establish a scorched earth “cordon sanitaire” around them? It all depends how beastly you are willing to get.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 9 2006 15:34 utc | 6

@Malooga
Yes, I am shocked (and shouldn’t be) that this seems the plan: Moving around in the area up to the Litani and mopping up as much as possible on the one hand, and on the other systematically wiping out the South. Whereby the “ground operations” grab the headlines, satisfy the Likudniks stateside and at the same time provide a cover that distracts from the scorching of the earth.
Slow everything down diplomatically, and see how it all plays out.
This escalation aims to neutralize the basic guerrilla strengths. The guerilla is “invincible” as long as the regular army has certain civilizational limits. But if it doesn’t…
The IRA could not have succeeded as it has, if the UK had started to ethnically cleanse Northern Ireland of catholics by burning their neighborhoods and villages. Ditto for the post-war anti-colonial guerillas, say, in Algeria: they too banked on the fact that at some point the colonialists would say “this is more destruction than it’s worth” and negotiate their way out. But what if the French had said, we will expel most Arabs from certain provinces and establish a scorched earth “cordon sanitaire” around them? It all depends how beastly you are willing to get.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 9 2006 15:37 utc | 7

@Malooga
Yes, I am shocked (and shouldn’t be) that this seems the plan: Moving around in the area up to the Litani and mopping up as much as possible on the one hand, and on the other systematically wiping out the South. Whereby the “ground operations” grab the headlines, satisfy the Likudniks stateside and at the same time provide a cover that distracts from the scorching of the earth.
Slow everything down diplomatically, and see how it all plays out.
This escalation aims to neutralize the basic guerrilla strengths. The guerilla is “invincible” as long as the regular army has certain civilizational limits. But if it doesn’t…
The IRA could not have succeeded as it has, if the UK had started to ethnically cleanse Northern Ireland of catholics by burning their neighborhoods and villages. Ditto for the post-war anti-colonial guerillas, say, in Algeria: they too banked on the fact that at some point the colonialists would say “this is more destruction than it’s worth” and negotiate their way out. But what if the French had said, we will expel most Arabs from certain provinces and establish a scorched earth “cordon sanitaire” around them? It all depends how beastly you are willing to get.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 9 2006 15:39 utc | 8

@Malooga
Yes, I am shocked (and shouldn’t be) that this seems the plan: Moving around in the area up to the Litani and mopping up as much as possible on the one hand, and on the other systematically wiping out the South. Whereby the “ground operations” grab the headlines, satisfy the Likudniks stateside and at the same time provide a cover that distracts from the scorching of the earth.
Slow everything down diplomatically, and see how it all plays out.
This escalation aims to neutralize the basic guerrilla strengths. The guerilla is “invincible” as long as the regular army has certain civilizational limits. But if it doesn’t…
The IRA could not have succeeded as it has, if the UK had started to ethnically cleanse Northern Ireland of catholics by burning their neighborhoods and villages. Ditto for the post-war anti-colonial guerillas, say, in Algeria: they too banked on the fact that at some point the colonialists would say “this is more destruction than it’s worth” and negotiate their way out. But what if the French had said, we will expel most Arabs from certain provinces and establish a scorched earth “cordon sanitaire” around them? It all depends how beastly you are willing to get.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 9 2006 15:43 utc | 9

@Malooga
Yes, I am shocked (and shouldn’t be) that this seems the plan: Moving around in the area up to the Litani and mopping up as much as possible on the one hand, and on the other systematically wiping out the South. Whereby the “ground operations” grab the headlines, satisfy the Likudniks stateside and at the same time provide a cover that distracts from the scorching of the earth.
Slow everything down diplomatically, and see how it all plays out.
This escalation aims to neutralize the basic guerrilla strengths. The guerilla is “invincible” as long as the regular army has certain civilizational limits. But if it doesn’t…
The IRA could not have succeeded as it has, if the UK had started to ethnically cleanse Northern Ireland of catholics by burning their neighborhoods and villages. Ditto for the post-WW2 anti-colonial guerillas, say, in Algeria: they too banked on the fact that at some point the colonialists would say “this is more destruction than it’s worth” and negotiate their way out. But what if the French had said, we will expel most Arabs from certain provinces and establish a scorched earth “cordon sanitaire” around them? It all depends how beastly you are willing to get.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 9 2006 15:45 utc | 10

damn what have I done…

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 9 2006 15:47 utc | 11

As I stated in an earlier post, the Israeli actions purposefully delimit the Lebanese response. A peaceful response is no longer possible, as there is no civil society left.
And yet, the Israelis are really trying to limit civilian casualties, except for isolated teaching examples meant for the Lebanese to take heed of. This allows the West’s propaganda machines to keep spinning the lies about the “Israeli response” to Hizbullah violence.
This is what I call “The New Warfare.” It differs from Nazi tactics, not in how it dispossesses its victims of their entire existence, but in how after its victims have been dispossessed, instead of killing them outright and generating a mass of negative publicity and public outrage, instead it dislocates them, putting the burden on host populations, until they become universal pariahs, like the Palestinians, who no country wants to help. Then they are welcome to waste away on their own.
Bush tested this method out on the poor blacks of New Orleans.
The press falls for it everytime. Same with the “anti-war” left. At worst it is considered incompetance, not war crimes.
But I find little difference morally between these two types of war.
Global Guerillas blog, and others of that ilk, are apologists for empire. They seek to understand resistance tactics in order to subvert them. But who is explicating the tactics of Empire, in order to subvert them?

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 16:09 utc | 12

If Bey’s analysis of the zionist strategy is correct, the apartheid state of Israel may exist as a blot on the asshole of humanity a little longer but it’s eventual obliteration is still inevitable. All that the Israeli crimes against the human race will create is far worse retribution for the parasites living in the country than would happen if they negotiated a settlement now.
The bloke pumping gas in the station up the road from where I live would ruefully concur. You see there was a time when he had a ‘successful’ enterprise in South Africa.
Successful in his eyes but then he had the advantage of stolen land and huge subsidies from corrupt foreigners financing his county’s occupation by the parasitic oppressor population. Sound familiar?
People in the US mistakenly imagine that the struggle for South African indigenes was quite fast. That there was maybe 10-15 years of wrestling between the governments and corporations who had a vested interest in maintaining white rule, against the people of the world who fought to force them out of power.
In fact the fight lasted nearly 50 years. By the early 60’s people in many parts of the world had put personal boycotts against South African goods and services in place, by the 70’s boycotts had extended to anyone from the oppressor class in South Africa, no matter what their professed point of view on the apartheid issue was.
The South Africans had adopted a scorched earth policy of moving the ‘Bantu’ settlements from where they had been living for centuries either out into remote areas far from ‘civilisation’ or into crowded townships more like prison camps where they could be monitored, preferably by ‘trustees’ (see Palestinian Authority).
There was considerable contact between social strategists from both South Africa and Israel right up until the fall of apartheid so it is easy to see where israel got some of it’s ‘ideas’.
This is the type of process that Bey suggests the French should have used in Algeria. Well the population of France would not stand for it and neither would any other Empire’s population when things get that inhumane. But like Israel, South Africa didn’t have that population ‘back home’ that needed placating. They were ‘independent’ so they imagined they would be impervious to public opinion.
In many ways the white South Africans’ hand was far stronger than the Israelis’ position currently is.
They had a virtual monopoly on all the gold and diamonds available in the west. They had access to the uranium and other rare metal deposits in Namibia (known as South West Africa at the time), and it was much easier to keep world opinion in the dark since communications were far more primitive.
I won’t dribble on about the techniques used by concerned people in other parts of the world to overcome those obstacles but they were many and varied. Although it seemed at times that all was lost. When Nelson Mandela and almost the entire ANC leadership were rounded up and imprisoned for life or much later when the young leaders such as Steven Biko were brutally murdered by nothings at the bottom of the oppression heap, really the outcome was never in doubt.
The battle hasn’t finished in South Africa yet but at least the inhabitants have become sufficiently empowered to be able to determine their outcome without having to rely on outsiders.
The US only became aware of this issue when the war was in one of it’s closing stages, that is separating the corporate power from the brute power of the white oppressors on the ground. That came toward the end and I would suggest that the same may be true for Israel.
That weaning the Israeli population off the amerikan taxpayers’ tit may come a little later than most people imagine.
Nevertheless the initial moves in that direction are occurring in that the financial cost of oppression is skyrocketing while the returns for the ‘investors’ are diminishing. (see Joe Lieberman)
Eventually the corrupt amerikan ‘leadership’ will look for a more efficient way of laundering their take from the military industrial complex.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 9 2006 21:04 utc | 13

Damn. 15 IDF soldiers killed today. This isn’t your father’s ragtag militia anymore, it seems.

Posted by: ran | Aug 9 2006 21:39 utc | 14

meh..whats a couple of bucks?…. mind you this is from merely one star pac , in a universe of lobby stars and black holes. May the farce be with you!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 9 2006 21:49 utc | 15

Yes, debs. Good analysis. But let’s remember that South Africa’s successful revolution only occurred with the capitulation and implicit consent of the corporate class. This catapulted South Africa into a position similar to that of the American South, post reconstruction. There is actually a wider gap between rich and poor now then there was thirty years ago. So it was a successful revolution on one level, but the price paid was allying with the neo-liberals to achieve it. The second revolution remains to be fought.
The Sinking Ship of U.S. Imperial Designs The progressive Lebanese professor Gilbert Achcar provides a mordant view of where this all is going. Well worth reading and pondering.
Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) nations should consider arms for Hezbollah: Malaysian minister

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 22:11 utc | 16

First of all, let me say I have nothing against Jews or the Israeli people.
However, the world must accept that Israel can do wrong, too. Just like Serbia, Saddam’s Iraq, Apartheid South Africa, or Nazi Germany. However, just like it is a big sin to criticise Britain and America for past and present deeds, the same holds for Israel.
Mike Wallace today interviewed the West’s current hate figure, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Instead of finding a firebrand, he found someone who was a lot more rational, educated and courteous than he was lead to expect. Ahmadinejad is not the Saddam Hussein-meets-Ayatollah Khomeini the West like us to believe. He is his own man.
Ahmadinejad does not like the US regime much or the Israelis. Just like the West can call for regime change, Ahmadinejad answers one call for regime change with another. What does the US and Israel expect from their 2002 Zionist Axis of Evil derived speeches?
Iran has replaced Iraq which replaced Afghanistan which replaced Serbia which replaced Iraq which replaced Iran which replaced Cuba, Vietnam, Russia and North Korea which replaced Germany as the US’s enemy. Why does the US have to keep finding and making enemies? Fiery anti-Israel and US rhetoric comes out of every single Middle East state for years. Iran is no exception. Also, all of Iran’s Presidents held similar views to Ahmadinejad (yes, Khatami too). Khatami initially had time for improved US relations but he soured when Bush made the Axis of Evil speach. Ahmadinejad is continuing the latter policies of the Khatami government: that is, more anti-US stance and the nuclear issue. You see, no matter who was Iranian president, it would not make a difference: Iran could have a true hardliner as President and the US would not mind if Iran was not its current concern. Iran could change Presidents and the US could go overdrive on blackening him at all costs. That’s what we see now. Pity, as the US and Iran could have been allies in 2001 or 2002.

Posted by: Mickey | Aug 9 2006 23:08 utc | 17

Mickey,
This is very true. If Ahmadinejad was the “hardliner” he is regarded in the West as, he would not be writing letters calling for dialogue with Bush. The West claim to promote free speach but yet do not appreciate other countries of the world holding different views. Iranian opinions do not matter and Iran is talked down to by the West. Iran has tried its role of being the West’s regional policeman but did it benefit the Iranian people? No. Iran is not any better off now than under the Shah, it’s true. But two things:
1. Sanctions have crippled Iran’s people and not regime.
2. Successive Iranian leaders pre and post 1978 have always siphoned away billions of state funds including Rafsanjani, Khatami, Khamenei and other high level figures. Plus, most of these disobey all the laws they like.
Iran’s people see in Ayatollah Khomeini a man who may have held strict religious views but also who lived a frugal life, unlike most of his government who lived like the Shahs.
Iranians see in Ahmadinejad a man who wants to wind back the revolution to its roots. To the West, that means hostage takings, strict laws, one party rule with strict laws eased for supporters, war and terrorism. However, there were other aspects of Iran’s early revolution: that was, democracy, justice, equal distribution of wealth and socialism. Oh my god, Ahmadinejad’s a communist! The US and Iran’s Mullahs both fear Ahmadinejad because Ahmadinejad is neither a hardliner nor a reformer. He is neither a Mullah supporter or a US stooge. He is educated and has worked himself up to a priviliged position as lecturer and now president yet understands the importance of the poorer people’s views in Iran.
In Iran, he was the outsider – a non-cleric who was nobody’s puppet. I would not be a bit surprised if the US tried to do a deal with Khamenei and Rafsanjani against Ahmadinejad. That would lead to a civil war in Iran.
The fact that Ahmadinejad does not fit easily into traditional Iranian categories as reformer, hardliner, conservative or radical and that he shows elements of all these confuses. Ahmadinejad is an enigma that the Bush regime have to create their own image of. Perhaps Ahamdinejad is best described as an Iranian nationalist tired of seeing his nation treated as a second class citizen. If America treated Iran as an equal, I predict that the US would find Ahmadinejad a very rational man. The US’s and Israel’s aggressive threats and actions cannot help anyone: that’s why we have all this anymosity to this day in the Middle East.

Posted by: Dan the man | Aug 9 2006 23:28 utc | 18

When we tend to think of the Middle East, we think of Islamic extremists. However, we have also Jewish extremists. The fact that extremists shape the Israel and Iran governments means both countries have more in common than they think!
What if Khomeini followed a soft line in the early 1980s? He’d have ended up like the Shah. Khomeini arrived as leader of Iran in 1979 from France with a view of creating with Bani Sadr a Republic similar to France. Yes! But, when he arrived back in Iran, he saw that Islamists much more fanatic than himself were in power and supporting Khomeini as leader. Khomeini could easily have ended up like the Shah if he followed his original plans. Though most Iranians wanted a liberal Republic, the gunwielding uneducated revolutionary minority (who mainly came from East Iran with views and customs similar to the Taliban of neighbouring Afghanistan) seized power and used Khomeini as a figurehead.
Ahmadinejad knows, too, if he does not speak out against Israel or the US, the gunwielding minority especially of the restive Arabistan (Khuzestan) and Baluchistan areas could cause a LOT of trouble. He would, too, end up like the Shah or worse. Presidents like Rafsanjani, Khatami and Ahmadinejad try to deliver reforms of different kinds to the people but by doing so by not insulting the radicals who really run Iran from the sidelines.
In Israel, we see the same. Again, there is a minority fanatic Jewish community who use guns. We had a President in 1995 (Rabin) who went too far in peacemaking. When he had calmed Arab revolt, he instead got shot by a Zionist fanatic. From then on, Israel’s leaders (like Iran’s) thread carefully and do not dare displease the fanatic minority.
I lived in Zimbabwe and Northern Ireland for most of my life and have seen the same here: how a small band of fanatics can:
A. Hijack a popular people’s revolution.
B. Control and hijack the new government.
C. Control by fear.
D. Turn into the people’s enemy.

Posted by: Jim Beardsley | Aug 9 2006 23:40 utc | 19

3 excellent posts. Good thinking.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 10 2006 2:42 utc | 20

Chomsky alert –link
I assume everyone heard that Israel is in full-throttle ahead up to the Litani mode now. The old facts on the ground game, they’ve played for so long, to make any UN resolutions supported by France & the Arab world irrelevant presumably. Word I heard is that Hezb- is going to do the same thing the Sunnis did in Iraq. Let the divisions flood in, then encircle them & begin guerilla war. We’ll see if this turns out to be true.

Posted by: jj | Aug 10 2006 2:50 utc | 21

Video: Diana Haddad – Ana El Insan
Ana El Insan = I am human

Posted by: n/a | Aug 10 2006 3:36 utc | 22

Back to Main