• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Discussion on Israeli Strategy

With a lack of reliable facts to go on, I throw out these speculative questions to those of you who are reading books when I am drinking beer:

a) What do you think the chances are that Syria and Israel start a conventional war over this?

b) If such a war happens, what are the chances the U.S. will stay out of it, seeing as they are next door, and a lot of the Iraqi insurgents are entering from Syria? Especially if Israel starts to lose badly?

c) If Syria does nothing to Israel and hangs Hezbollah out to dry, what damage will be done to Syria's pride and reputation? Hezbollah's effectiveness?

d) On what pretext less than open war with Israel could you see the U.S. invading Syria? Perhaps open support of Hezbollah? Would there be a strategic reason for the U.S. to invade Syria?

Yes, it sounds like John Le Carre meets Tom Clancy meets tinfoil hat meets paranoia meets not enough coffee ... but it could explain why Israel is being so aggressive.
I HAVE no facts to back this up - and never cry conspiracy when simple human ignorance will do.

But I do have to wonder if this Lebanese thing will spill over  a few borders before it is done.

I'm trying to look a few steps ahead which is like predicting the weather and baseball scores ... sounds simple enough, but you usually wind up guessing wrong and looking foolish. Bless the Internet.

I'm not even going to mention Iran ... yet.
 
Let's put it this way; with the Americans and other Coalition Forces in Iraq, it would not be long before they are drawn into this conflict, even if they declared Neutrality.  With the current attitudes of the Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, and other radicals in the region, the Americans and all who are with them are looked upon as being Israeli sympathizers and the enemy.  It would not be long before Coalition Forces in Iraq would be attacked.  This would escalate the conflict to a much higher level and bring in all the Western Nations, not so much to defend the Israelis, but to put down the Radical Islamic Terror Organizations that are the cause of the conflict.  Will it mean the destruction of several nations in the process?  Most likely.  When the dust settles, we will have seen another "Crusade", not necessarily against the Muslim peoples of the Middle East, but as a Police Action to put an end to Terror.
 
probum non poenitet said:
a) What do you think the chances are that Syria and Israel start a conventional war over this?

b) If such a war happens, what are the chances the U.S. will stay out of it, seeing as they are next door, and a lot of the Iraqi insurgents are entering from Syria? Especially if Israel starts to lose badly?

I have felt from the beginning that this IS going to lead to another war with Israel & Syria. Hezbollah made a serious miscalculation, and its only a matter of time before Syria does the same. Israel is NOT going to back down.

I don't think the US is going to involve itself with sending in US troops to directly fight, but that we are going to see a poopload of C-17 and maritime traffic funnel as much hardware and fresh ammo to the IDF as they can spare.
 
How about Moqtada al Sadr as pretext?

According to the guys over at Iraq the Model some fairly interesting "end of days" signs have been seen sprouting in Sadr City.  They apparently went up when the two Israeli soldiers on the Lebanon border were kidnapped.   The same day that Iran was to get its knuckles rapped by the Security Council.  12th Imam, Second Coming stuff.  http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/  Take that for what its worth.  Probably all CIA propaganda but the pictures of the banners look interesting.

Same site has speculation that the Iranian mullahs may be feeling a bit more heat at home than we might think likely and that this, together with the UN stuff, and a desire on the part of some there to set the stage for the "Final Battle" has perhaps caused them to jump the gun a bit.

Anyway, back to pretext:

Iranians promote a general rising of Sadr's Militia, Hamas and Hizbollah in an attempt to keep the pot boiling. Two out of three are the Israelis problem but Sadr is the Iraqi/American problem.

If Sadr rises in support of Hezbollah and suicide attacks continue in Iraq then what might the odds be that the Iraqi government points the finger at the Syrian supply route but with the additional support of the Sunni arabs in the Western Provinces?  They seem to be willing to accomodate a government now, especially when the alternative is Sadr and the 12th Imam.

Next step, Iraq and the Western tribes request/demand more American support on the borders ("You have left us defenceless.  You have a responsibility to protect.... You aren't needed in our towns... You are doing more harm than good there...... Go make yourself useful etc.")

Americans and Iraqis have already resorted to the old border legal defence of "Hot Trod" to continue pursuits over the border.  All it would take is for the next incursion/fire-fight to provoke a pursuit and for the pursuing force to maintain contact all the way to Damascus or Aleppo or the Coast etc.  Reinforce as required.

But this is all idle speculation of course....never happen.  We have a much too well ordered world for that.

Although,  seeing as how we can't be seen to be wanting to start another war with Islam it would be another matter entirely if Islam invited us to a party.

It's kind of funny.  When this whole mess broke out into the open in 2001 the discussion was about clash of civilizations, the West versus Islam.  Then the discussion became not about all Islam but Arabs not Persians, etc.  Then not all Arabs but only Sunnis not the Shia.  Then not all Sunni but only Wahhabi.  Then not all Wahhabi but only the most puritanical sect of Wahhabist.  Then not even them but just Al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, on a parallel path, prior to 2001 all Islam was conflated in the minds of most Westerners and the image of Islam was the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.  That suited the Iranians just fine.  Even if it meant that they were brigaded with the infidel Sunni - although it seems that the Sunnis generally are more negative to the Shia than the reverse (my impression only).  When the Towers fell they were probably as happy as the next fanatic.  But the process of stripping out the trouble-makers from the general population has led to Tehran being separated from the general herd and thus made it a less obvious central rallying point for disaffected Islam.  Now instead of looking at the prospect of Islam, and ultimately the world, gravitating to them and their line of communication with God they are finding themselves more isolated and reduced to the true believers like Hamas, Hizbollah and Sadr outside their country.

Their association with Al Qaeda doesn't seem to have gone well, perhaps due to the belief of folks like Zarqawi the Shia are no better than Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other pagans.

Their association with other Shia doesn't always seem to be as solid as it might be.  The Israeli/Lebanese Border zone is also home to the Druze. They are Shia but, as I understand it, Ismaili Shia and thus just as bad as Christians, Sunnis and Jews.  So much so that Druze volunteered for service in the Israeli Army as far back as 1948 and took the fight to the Arabs.

On their borders they have America and NATO to the East and America to the West and the perennially unstable Turkish, Caucasus area to the North.  To the South they have some very hostilely inclined Sunni Arab monarchies.  

Internally they have troubles with the kids, with minorities like the Azeris and Kurds and people like Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson in Qom asking for an American invasion and for Iran to renounce nuclear weapons.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/18/ixnews.html

And to cap it all off they were just witness to a resounding failure on a North Korean missile they were kicking the tires on.

It sure doesn't seem like they are sitting on a particularly strong hand.  Is it time for them to push all their chips into the pile and dare the rest of the world to call them on it?  One shot at letting the 12th Imam know that now would be a good time.
 
Kirkhill, Could you briefly enlighten me on the 12th Imam, Second Coming Comment? With my limited knowledge in these matters, I miss the main jist of your comments, without understanding this particular matter.

Jed
 
I am pretty unclear on the details of this as well beyond the fact that apparently Ahmedinajad either believes or professes a belief (not necessarily the same thing) in the reappearance of an Imam that disappeared sometime about the time the Brits were ruled by Danes (900-1000 time frame?).

Apparently when this chap shows up there will be one final battle and good will prevail and we will all live/die happily/unhappily ever after.  It'll be interesting to see who makes it here first: the Jewish Messiah (they didn't like the last one), Jesus on his second trip (the Second Coming) or this 12th Imam.  They all presage the end of days and ultimate victory.  I wonder what happens if they all turn out to be the same woman?

Here's a recent Telegraph article on the 12th Imam and our friend Ahmedinajad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html
 
Thanks Kirhill. Scary stuff wrt your posted article.
 
Sorry, but I guess I don't understand the whole "proportionate response" thing....  You mean to say that if another country fired 6 missiles into Canada, then we should only fire 6 missiles back at the offending country? 6 missiles of similar size, weight, power, etc.? Is that really what our citizens would expect? Or would they expect the Government of the day to use sufficient force to remove the threat - period?

Should one country apologize becasue they are better at waging a war than the other country?

I guess - regardless of the whole history of this mess - one would expect their country to wage war in a disproportionate fashion..

If someone enters my home at night and threatens my family, and he's carrying a knife - too bad - I owe it to my family to pull the 12-gauge out of the closet, and remove the threat.

During the Gulf War (pick one) the coalition didn't limit themselves to armament, technology, and numbers proportionate to that of the enemy...

???
 
Stratfor article about Hizbollah's Iran connection.

Red Alert: Hezbollah's Iranian Connection

Prior to the rise of the Shia in Iraq, Hezbollah -- as a radical Shiite Islamist organization -- was Iran's main asset in the Arab world. In fact, it likely will continue to be used by Tehran as a key tool for furthering Iranian geopolitical interests in the region, until such time as Shiite power has been consolidated in Baghdad and Iran's interests there secured.

In its earliest days, Hezbollah was a classic militant organization -- the creation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the elite unit of the Iranian military. It was founded as a way to export the ideals of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini's Islamic revolution to the Shiite community of Lebanon, and served as a model for follow-on organizations (some even using the same name) in other Arab states. It did not take long, however, for Hezbollah to emerge in Lebanon as a guerrilla movement, whose fighters were trained in conventional military tactics.

In the mid-1980s, Iran's premier intelligence agency, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), assumed the task of managing Tehran's militant assets -- not just in the Middle East but in other parts of the world as well. This allowed the Iranians, through a special unit within MOIS, to strike at Israeli interests in places as diverse as Latin America and Southeast Asia.

The relationship between MOIS and Hezbollah remains a subject worthy of study in light of the current situation in Lebanon. Of course, Iran has been Hezbollah's chief source of funding and weapons over the years, and the Iranians continue to supply extensive training in weapons, tactics, communications, surveillance and other methods to the militant wing of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The relationship is sufficiently close that the Hezbollah branch in Iran proper recently declared it would unleash militant attacks against Israelis and Americans around the world if given the order by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. (Tehran insists that Hezbollah is not an arm of official policy.)

We have previously discussed the possibility that Hezbollah might be moved to seize hostages or engage in other militant acts, given the pressure the Israelis now are bringing to bear. There is some question, of course, as to whether Iran might be involved in future militant operations -- and if so, what assets it might use and the modalities that would apply.

An Organizational Model

There is a division of labor of sorts in the way that Iran manages its foreign assets: The IRGC (which is led by a professional military officer with strong ideological credentials as an Islamist) oversees the Lebanese Hezbollah, while MOIS (which almost always is headed by a cleric) manages militant operatives and groups in other parts of the Muslim world -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, India. Moreover, MOIS also maintains contacts among the Shiite immigrant populations in non-Muslim countries, including those in the West.

It also is important to note that radical Shiite Islamist ideology is only one factor that shapes Tehran's decisions. Ethnicity and nationalism also play an important role in Iran's dealings with Shiite allies of Arab, South Asian and other descent. The Persians claim a rich cultural heritage, which they view as superior to that of the Arabs. This attitude impacts the level of trust and cooperation between the Iranians and other Shiite groups -- including Hezbollah -- when it comes to sensitive international operations. It is little wonder, then, that the Lebanese organization's sphere of operations does not extend much beyond the Levant.




It follows that Hezbollah is a useful tool for Iran in its dealings with Israel, but in few other areas. However, Iranian intelligence has cultivated numerous groups that can serve its interests in other parts of the world, and it maintains contact with these groups through MOIS operatives placed in diplomatic posts.

A History of Cooperation

Though it has been many years since Hezbollah carried out significant attacks beyond the Middle East, the participation of MOIS agents in some of those attacks is worthy of note. Investigations into the 1988 hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 422 out of Bangkok and two bombings in Buenos Aires -- in 1992 and 1994 -- both revealed involvement by MOIS, coordinating with local Hezbollah operatives. However, to provide plausible deniability, the hijacking and bomb teams were deployed from outside the targeted country; the assets in place were used to conduct preoperational surveillance on potential targets.

Up close, what this would mean is that the MOIS officer at the Iranian embassy in the target country or city would maintain close contact with the Hezbollah cells in his area or responsibility. Given the rules of intelligence work, an "official asset" like a diplomat is usually under suspicion and surveillance as an intelligence officer (or IO); therefore, less-prominent Hezbollah members can be used to case potential targets. In a situation where a MOIS agent is believed to be under such tight surveillance that he cannot function effectively, the Iranians might call on the services of a clandestine MOIS agent instead. In the case of the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, the MOIS officer was the Iranian cultural attache, who oversaw the operation from the safety of his embassy office. The Argentines eventually declared seven embassy employees as "persona non grata" due to suspected connections to the bombing.

Upon receiving a "go" order for an operation -- such as assassinations of Iranian dissidents or the kidnappings of Western diplomatic and intelligence personnel (for instance, CIA station chief William F. Buckley in 1984 and U.S. Marine Lt. Col. William R. Higgins in 1988) -- activity levels at the embassy spike. The role of MOIS frequently would be to provide the cash or supply weapons or materials needed for an attack carried out by its "militant assets." In some countries, such as Britain (where Hezbollah bombed a Jewish charity in 1994), it can be difficult to obtain items like blasting caps and explosives; these can be supplied with the protection of a diplomatic pouch.

Many MOIS intelligence operatives have been educated in the United States or in Britain, wear nice suits, are multilingual and move easily in Western social circles -- unlike the IRGC operatives in Lebanon, who, socially speaking, are rougher around the edges. The combination of their brains and Hezbollah's willingness to pursue martyrdom can produce highly formidable capabilities.

With Hezbollah under attack in Lebanon and Iran unable to send significant reinforcements, there is some possibility that Hezbollah might resort to staging an attack abroad as a way of countering the Israeli assault. If so, it is highly likely that operatives already are on the move; the organization has been known to use "off the shelf" operational plans in the past, and its targeting information and surveillance would need to be updated -- regardless of whether an order to strike is actually issued. It is reasonable to believe that Hezbollah would find it advantageous to coordinate with MOIS again, as in past operations. Whether the Iranians would see events through the same lens, however, is much less clear. Tehran might cooperate in an attack only if it is willing to seriously escalate the current conflict in the Middle East -- which, given its many interests in the region, does not appear so far to be the case.

Hezbollah-MOIS.jpg


 
muskrat89 said:
If someone enters my home at night and threatens my family, and he's carrying a knife - too bad - I owe it to my family to pull the 12-gauge out of the closet, and remove the threat.
+1.  Too bad he brought a knife to a gun fight.  (If you find yourself in a fair fight, something has gown awfully wrong)  Also, should we have just gone to Afghanistan and flew some of THEIR citizens into some of THEIR buildings and called it even?  Blown up some Al Qaeda subways?  Some Taliban Night clubs?
 
I wasn't aware that Hizballah had all their men and equipment nicely lined up in along the border. You really think the Lebanese government would, not to mention even COULD, go after Hizballah?

Militarily, there is nothing called disproportionate response. It is war for God sake! Civilians casualities are expected in any war , though both parties should minimize the impact on civilians life.

Politically, Israel is committing suicide. Hezbollah was sooner or later going to be dismantled (There were already many calls in the Lebanese parliaments to dismantle Hezbollah and merge it with the Lebanese Army). If Israel escalate its attacks on the long run they'll empower Hezbollah. So from Hezbollah's point of view there is nothing to lose. To the Israelis, this is not so good, first the world view , second the after effects of their war on the region.

Some interesting point of view article on Hezbollah dismantle:

http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/contributors/07-2006/Article-20060711-5d861806-c0a8-10ed-01ce-4de863956488/story.html
 
Keep in mind the divisions between Hammas - Sunni ->Syria ,and Hezbollah - Shia -> Iran.
While the the interim goals are similar Neither wants the other to prevail.  Hezbollah is a product of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (and somewhat intermingled in Lebanon).



 
 
muskrat89 said:
Sorry, but I guess I don't understand the whole "proportionate response" thing....  You mean to say that if another country fired 6 missiles into Canada, then we should only fire 6 missiles back at the offending country? 6 missiles of similar size, weight, power, etc.? Is that really what our citizens would expect? Or would they expect the Government of the day to use sufficient force to remove the threat - period?

Should one country apologize becasue they are better at waging a war than the other country?

I guess - regardless of the whole history of this mess - one would expect their country to wage war in a disproportionate fashion..

If someone enters my home at night and threatens my family, and he's carrying a knife - too bad - I owe it to my family to pull the 12-gauge out of the closet, and remove the threat.

During the Gulf War (pick one) the coalition didn't limit themselves to armament, technology, and numbers proportionate to that of the enemy...

???

I agree.

If we only fought wars proportionately, they would be huge grinders of attrition, because no one could ever win!

You want to win 30-0, not 17-15.

I also dispute the idea that the lebanese people are innocent victims in all of this. They voted Hezbollah into office, they stood by while militants and political activists operated openly in their hometowns, and I really doubt that too many tears are shed in Lebanon when another suicide bomber attacks buses, bars and other large concentrations of civilians within Israel, with no attempt at military objectives.

The Israelis should use grotesquely disproportionate force - as many guns as possible, to end the war more quickly and to demonstrate the consequences of attacking them. A solution and deterrence, all in one deadly combination.
 
I still don't know what an escalation in the crisis would do to stabilize the middle east.  Israel can bomb the hell out of Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and Iran if necessary.  But, that won't change a thing.  They could march into Lebanon, Syria and Iran with the Americans and still what would be the gain?  The Iraq situation does not seem to be going sparkling well; why would an invasion of any of these other countries go well?  What would be the economic implications of furthering the battle to these other countries?  What of the U.S. debt/GDP etc. ratio?  How many billions would be needed?  When we talk of disproportionate response militarily, fine, I can see both sides.  But, what of disproportionate response economically to terror attacks etc.  These people believe that they have nothing to lose, what do Israel and allies have to lose?  The whole middle east fiasco is just too complex for this feeble mind.  
 
I also dispute the idea that the lebanese people are innocent victims in all of this. They voted Hezbollah into office, they stood by while militants and political activists operated openly in their hometowns, and I really doubt that too many tears are shed in Lebanon when another suicide bomber attacks buses, bars and other large concentrations of civilians within Israel, with no attempt at military objectives.

I guess in the same sense Hamas, Hezbollah and for that matter of fact any `Terrorist` group could argue Israeli civilians are also not so innocent, especially knowing they too have military draft, they elected their governments and support it.
 
acclenticularis said:
I still don't know what an escalation in the crisis would do to stabilize the middle east.  Israel can bomb the hell out of Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and Iran if necessary.  But, that won't change a thing.  They could march into Lebanon, Syria and Iran with the Americans and still what would be the gain?  The Iraq situation does not seem to be going sparkling well; why would an invasion of any of these other countries go well?  What would be the economic implications of furthering the battle to these other countries?  What of the U.S. debt/GDP etc. ratio?  How many billions would be needed?  When we talk of disproportionate response militarily, fine, I can see both sides.  But, what of disproportionate response economically to terror attacks etc.  These people believe that they have nothing to lose, what do Israel and allies have to lose?  The whole middle east fiasco is just too complex for this feeble mind.  

In the 1930's, people believed that you could settle disputes with discussion in the League of Nations, until Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany decided not to listen anymore. Ultimatly this crisis is a test of willpower, Iran rattles the cages through the use of its proxies and sees what the results are. If they are favorable or at least result in no opposing action being taken, they will continue with the techniques that work. So long as the "West" has the will to face them down, they will not succeed.

The "West" is currently divided, and potential allies stand on the sidelines (like Russia and China), so Iran has every incentive to continue. If Isreal is forced to back down , then all we will see is a pause for Hezbollah to reconstitute, and they will start the show again. On the other hand, if the blinders are shaken off, then the escalation will continue until the root of the problem is removed. (Remember the "Root Causetm" of terrorism is the desire to rule through intimidation and fear).
 
acclenticularis - you seem to be working from the supposition that all problems have solutions and if only you look hard enough you can find an answer.  Some problems defy solution.  That doesn't mean that in the real world you don't do what you can with what's available.

All engineering is based on an irrational number.  PI, as in PI ARE SQUARE NOT ROUND, has no solution. Despite that handicap engines work, buildings stand and aircraft fly.
 
>Do you firmly believe that Israel will be able to "pull the root"

Somewhat, because I believe that Israel has never really tried.  All that's happened the past 20+ years amounts only to pruning the shrubs.  I have a small bamboo patch in my back yard; bamboo is a hardy plant, and every year I cut it back a little to keep it from taking over too much real estate.  But there's no doubt in my mind that if I upgrade from shears to shovel, I'll have a three-foot deep hole, a pile of dirt to match, and a stack of cut bamboo and bamboo roots.

>We should have learned that after the first invasion of Lebanon which led to the creation of Hezbollah in the first place (and, subsequently, Hamas, which it trains and supports).

I don't mean to pick on your comment specifically, but I read and hear this one a lot.  "Poke them with a stick and they'll only become angrier."  By itself it's true, but everyone overlooks the options beyond poking, such as a metaphorical 10,000 pound hydraulic press.  Amidst all the talk of the dangers of arousing the ire of the fierce warrior sons of the desert, few think to mention  our recent past and the dangers of arousing the ire of the methodical citizen-soldier staff officers of the formation HQs.  We wrote many of the crib notes for total war in the modern era, and I don't believe people today are significantly more enlightened than the "greatest generation" was.  What happens when western nations become angrier?  There was a mighty sharp flip in public opinion regarding acceptable means of war between 1938 and 1942.  The real worry isn't what "they" can or will do; the real worry is what "we" can and will do if pushed hard enough.
 
You're right, I do think problems have solutions.  And I am familiar with irrational PI.  I am not proposing that one needs to just 'look hard enough' to find a solution, because there must be a solution that all can bear for everything.  However, a solution has to be made and the 'solutions' that are being used just aren't particularly appealing, at least to me.  I only propose that there could be a better way.  Just because no better way has been made public or possibly discovered, does not mean that there is no better solution.  So, are you saying that the middle east problems defy solution?  I remain optimistic.

a-majoor - I just disagree that an escalation will remove the problem.  I agree that ignoring the problem will not cause it to go away.  I understand the 30's League of Nations failure too.  With respect to the middle east problem, I just don't agree with what has been done and proposed to date.  In terms of facing 'them down', I agree that it has to be done, I just don't know how.  
 
Kirkhill said:
acclenticularis - you seem to be working from the supposition that all problems have solutions and if only you look hard enough you can find an answer.  Some problems defy solution.  That doesn't mean that in the real world you don't do what you can with what's available.

All engineering is based on an irrational number.  PI, as in PI ARE SQUARE NOT ROUND, has no solution. Despite that handicap engines work, buildings stand and aircraft fly.
Balderdash!  Cake are square, pi are round, every good chainsaw cabinet maker knows that.
 
Back
Top