Big Guns, No Guts?

Spent all day yesterday looking for news on the Israeli push from the North, the final "tripping of the trap". Didn't happen, no news, all I heard were apologies for having handed Hizbollah a propaganda bonanza by bombing Qana and killing women, as if this wasn't going to happen. The response should have been to hand out a press release written two weeks ago saying Hizbollah does this sort of thing but don't worry we'll kill them all. Instead they expressed regret, said there would be an investigation, and announced suspension of aerial activity for 48 hours. In a war that's nuts. Israel isn't anymore bellicose in their propaganda than they are with their military. If you're going to fight you have to throw a punch. Israel prides itself on being able to take a punch. That is just nuts.

Don't know if I'll blog today or not. Think I'll work on my truck.

I do note two official statements that when compared do at least show the sanity of accurate perception:

After declaring a 48-hour suspension of aerial strikes over Lebanon in wake of the Kana attack, Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Israel would expand and strengthen its ground operations in southern Lebanon.
"Under no circumstance will there be an unconditional and immediate cease-fire. There is no change in our resolve," (Jerusalem Post)

The Beirut government said it would no longer negotiate over a U.S. peace package without an unconditional cease-fire. (Fox)

The perceptual sanity is this: Beirut knows it can't win if the war continues; Israel knows it can not win unless the war does continue. That's sane, but so far there's no evidence that Israel has the guts to fight. To fight means to invade. There seems a gap between perception and act.


REBELLION?

Haven't done any reading today and haven't worked on my truck either, not sure what I've done. I did have on Rush and was able to half-listen as I was doing other things (whatever they were).

I was amazed how everybody seemed to see things in Lebanon just as I did, that Israel had to fight, that they weren't, and that nobody understood why not. Then Netanyahu was on --splendidly articulate as to what needed to be done-- and he would not criticize the government! "In time of war we all pull together", something of that sort.

It occurs to me that there has been one "criticism", the IAF. There was supposed to be a 48 hour cessation of the aerial war. That was ignored. They restricted their bombing but kept bombing. The argument could be that they had never agreed to stop bombing if they saw an "imminent threat". That's a loop hole. --I've forgotten the exact sequence, but I think first there was the 48 hour cessation, which the airforce first heard about on the news, and then there was the "imminent threat" loop hole, and then the statement that it was to continue only until the IAF had completed it's "investigation" into the Qana bombing, and I heard just a moment ago that Olmert has announced there is no cessation of bombing, the air war continues.

This suggest to me rebellion. It suggests to me that Olmert --possibly his entire cabinet-- is just utterly inept, not up to the job, and the military is getting sick of it and is just not taking orders any more. That would be extraordinary, but this is an extraordinarily dangerous time and the decisions made to date have been ineffective to the point of insanity. This might be the time for extrordinary measures on the part of those --probably virtually the entire country-- who understand that they must fight and they must win.

Of course I don't know what's actually going on internally, I just know that wonderment at Israel's inaction has been universal. It could just be that the government --the individuals-- are simply just paralyzed by the enormity of the challenge. They aren't really the government that was elected anyway. Olmert merely took over after Sharon had his stroke (I believe that's right). This would mean that Olmert, given this extremity, is in a sense not "legitimate", and so can be ignored, discreetly, especially, as I've said, since virtually the entirety of the country is ready for a war that he hasn't yet begun. Very possibly for the next few weeks the military may functionally become the government, discreetly.

This is pure speculation but it makes more sese than to think that the entire nation of Israel has lost its will to resist and is satisfied to just hunker down and take it.

Got one other thing out of listening to Rush. This is what I call "strategic thinking" and it was in a short quote given by a caller. Again, since I was only half-listening I didn't catch the source and so can't give the proper ascription, but it had to do with the change in attitude on the part of the general Lebanese population, from positive towards Israel to exceptionally negative and a switch to support for Hizbollah. This is generally known as "the problem of winning over the hearts and minds". The quote was this:

"When you've got them by the balls, the hearts and minds soon follow".

Boots! Boots! Boots!

(6:34 PM)

NOTES:

Apparently Olmert did suffer an eruption of criticism for his 48 hour-cessation-of-bombing commitment. It appears that at about the same time as Netanyahu was chatting with Rush and refusing to criticize the government others, publicly, were doing it for him. It was not only the military ignoring Olmert, it was also public figures attacking him. The force of the attack was proportional to how extraordinary such an attack was in a time of war. Olmert reversed himself. I suspect he's lost all moral authority. I suspect that Israel has embarked on a new kind of governance in which decisions will no longer be made by the Prime Minister, or at least where his decisions will not be considered binding. This is a kind of lawlessness, but at least initially it may more forcefully express the popular will, which is to fight and survive.

The constant statements that Israel has to hurry its offensive because she has just so many days before a ceasefire is imposed? Who's going to impose it? That's old thinking. For Israel this is 9/11. I think she'll fight for as long as she has the cohesion to fight, and I don't think anyway that the US is going to agree to any ceasefire that isn't the destruction of Hizbollah...as long as Israel continues to fight.

I still don't much care for the manner in which they fight. They're still on the border. That's where Hizbollah is dug in and strong. But the IDF is spread out and way to the north at Metula. It could be that the intent is just to open a breach, several, through which troops can later swiftly move to a deeper penetration.

On Qana? It was clearly exploited, it may have been staged. More details will come out. Israel can't be hurt anymore, Hizbollah can be hurt.

In general I think most of the thinking, the public statements, the expectations, all are reflexive. This is a new situation, an attack on a sovereign nation by a terrorist state-within-a-state supported by a third state which is a great threat. This was initially understood --until Israel fared badly. Once Israel does well it will be understood again.

(4:27PM)

This Is Interesting

From Fox News (my emphasis):

Lebanese officials reported a massing of troops and tanks near the Israeli town of Metulla further to the northeast, on the tip of the Galilee Panhandle near the Golan Heights, suggesting another incursion could begin soon.
Like Bint Jbail, the Lebanese town of Khiam just across the border from Metulla is one of the largest towns in the border zone. Khiam has been under intense bombardment in recent days — including a strike that hit a U.N. post nearby and killed four observers on Tuesday.
On Saturday, Israel made its closest strike to Hezbollah ally Syria yet. Warplanes hit the Lebanese side of a Syrian-Lebanese border crossing, forcing the closure of the main transit point for refugees fleeing and humanitarian aid entering Lebanon. Two more missiles hit the area early Sunday.

This looks like strategy to me, this could be the "trap". If Israel has finally decided to get serious a drive into this area would cut off the heavily dug in positions along the east/west northern border and allow Israel to come down behind and in back of Hizbollah. It could complete an encirclement (the west cordoned off by air power, a lot of bridges have been hit). If Hizbollah's main force has been drawn to the recent battles (Bint Jbail and Maroun Ras) then they're surrounded, can not escape or be reinforced, and Israel can destroy them at leisure, cease fire or no cease fire be damned.

This is very good, and very do-able as military strategy. Will they do it? If they do and it works it will be brilliant and decisive. Hizbollah will be slaughtered. I'm optimistic again. If Israel fights, they win.

UPDATE: Getting Giddy

I've been thinking about this for an hour now and it sure looks like strategy to me. It is possible Israel has suckered Hizbollah into a stand-up fight along the east/west border. If this is true the ineptitude all along was a feint and the strategy was brilliant. If this is true the assault should happen in hours.

This is the best I've felt for a week. The important thing is to have them in a bunch. If Hizbollah has been drawn to one spot --by the "heroic resistance" and by "victory"-- then if they can be cut off they're chopped liver. (To enforce the speed of the encirclement Khiam could be by-passed. Most of the armor could have been drawn from the Golan Heights, so the movement of force wouldn't have been evident).

Could be. Could be the attack. In war, attacks do happen. Man, do I hope it's true. This could be seat-of-the-pants daring, it could be just another probe, it could be a plan drawn up six years ago. But if it is something we will know very soon.

(2:35AM)

The Popgun War

I feel oppressed this morning by the difficulties of life. The particular difficulty I face just now is how do I get Israel to fight? The simple fact that that's a nut question doesn't keep me from being oppressed.

What's going on? A new kind of war has formed, Israel will never again have security as long as Hizbollah exists, and they're not doing nuthing!

I think there are insanities involved. I think Olmert is living in terrified Dippyville. "Israel will not allow Hizbullah to be on its borders..." something like that, something about a one kilometer no go zone... They've got rockets that can fire 37 Miles!

This statement is nuts, yet Israelis have rallied around their Prime Minister "in time of war". He ought to be gently led away and at least replaced by a school girl who will fight.

I simply have never before seen a nation let itself be destroyed like this.


And The Gun That Popped

Big deal about the attack by the Pakistani guy in the Jewish Center in Seattle; great agitation on the part of some that it is being reported that "his motivation is not known"; agitation that "explanations" are now being given on the basis of his mental history, his criminal history. The people agitated insist it was terrorism, and charge that the authorities and the MSM are in PC denial.

They're right.

In my own thought I make an automatic though somewhat clumsy distinction between terrorism and a mere terrorist act: Terrorism is an organization, a terroristic act is an individual doing exactly what he would do if he were a part of that organization.

The difference is scale and force. Why belabor the difference. I do note that if it's an organization or if it's an individual they're all Muslims.

I have friends who are nuts. They go to psychotherapy. This guy is a nut. He kills Jews. He's a Muslim.

One point two billion of them Muslims out there, and an awfully lot of them are killing people. The liberal mind-set does deal with it. They say things like: American imperialism, Israeli brutality, hijacked religion, and always, Nice Muslim. And then a Nice Muslim shoots six Jewish women and he has mental problems.

They're right.

(3:40 PM)

Rope-a-Dope?

Been trying to fantasize some way that Israel is not getting its butt kicked.

Perhaps this is a sort of rope-a-dope? Normally the Israelis slaughter the Arabs and the international community steps in to stop the fight before the job is done. Maybe this time Israel is purposely not responding so as to cleverly lead the international community into a pattern of inaction --the idea being that if it's Israel being slaughtered it's okay-- and then, when Israel has got them right where they want them --that is, somehow committed to doing nothing-- then, Wham! Israel will suddenly spring its secrete plan, and Hizbollah will be wiped from the face of the earth. That's one fantasy. It needs work.

Or maybe this is a Tet Offensive, all Hizbollah's finest manhood has surfaced, and one by one, in apparent half-hearted effort, Israel is slowly but surely sending each to Allah. In this scenario, at a certain point Israel will just go home. Hizbollah will throw a big party... and nobody will come! 'cause they're all dead! The Lebanese Army will see this and hitch up their pants and go finish the job...

And I really can't think about this seriously now. Israel is dither defeated. Unless they rise up in rage --unless the Israeli street rises up in rage and ousts their weeny leadership-- they're dead. It's not fun to read.

(6:38 PM)


Cockroach

Went for a walk with a friend, chatted about this and that. I said: "I'm not going to talk about Lebanon, I know you're not interested." He said: "What I want to know about Lebanon can be put in one line in something I'll read in six months." I said: "Early in the week I did have an insight, one that surprised me, and then two days later was surprised to find that everyone else had that same insight." (I said that not to talk about Lebanon but to continue our primary dispute which was, on my side, that men could communicate because they were fundamentally the same, differing only in preconditional concepts; to which he was in opposition, saying all men were different, so much so that it was miraculous that there could even appear to be communication). I repeated: "I had an insight..." He interrupted, now impatient: "I'll tell you your insight, and you can say it proves we're the same but it doesn't: You can't kill a cockroach. At the end of biological time, all creatures dead, the cockroach will still live." "Close enough," I said.

(11:03 PM)

Who's Where?

It's hard to know what's going on when you're not in the know. I had thought Cond's statement, roughly, that she would support no cease fire that was not sustainable because she didn't want to have to be back again in two weeks or six months going through the same thing again, was a green light to Israel to do whatever needed to be done to defeat Hizbollah. I thought it indicated a clear understanding that Israel can have no security without the total destruction of the terror infrastructure in Lebanon. It seemed her encouragement didn't do much good, the Israeli leadership still wasn't doing much.

Now I read in Insight Magazine (and Richard Perle and Newt Gingrich are among those sited) that behind the scenes she was on the phone urging "restraint", and that Olmert actually told her to bug off.

Rice attempted to increase pressure on Israel to stand down and to demonstrate restraint....The rumor is that she was told flatly by the prime minister's office to back off.

Apparently Olmert thought he was quite capable of doing nothing on his own.

But this is disappointing. The new thought that's needed is simple: The West must stand together against Islamic terror. There is no Palestinian problem or Israeli problem or Lebanese problem, it's the West against terror, first and before all else. If Israel is willing to fight they must be encouraged... Perhaps if Israel were located in Belgium that would be easier to see.

The charge is that Condi simply doesn't understand the Mid East? I rather doubt that. But also that she is not actually at the helm of the State Department, that she wears the Captain's hat but is in fact a mere passenger? That's possible. Being inserted into a population of mass agreement and habitual thought with no other thought visible out to the horizon might make one think that there is no larger world. Change in that atmosphere would be like trying to quicken a body that's dead. Perhaps it's easier just to breath the stale air until it no longer smells odd. Perhaps that just happens automatically unless you're Rumsfeld.

Old ways of thinking die hard. Bureaucracies are the ocean liner that turns slowly, but individuals are the cogs and the bolts, and they functionally can be just as insensate. It takes years and effort to develop a coherent world view, and once you have it it's hard to throw it aside and start all over again. Learning something new would be hard, like getting a new job. It's just too difficult, it would be stressful, so the nostrums for policy in a dynamic world become just the repetitions of concepts mastered in youth, which after all have served well enough for livelihood and advancement and comfort. It's good enough for government work. But the concepts touted are really just from notes taken on a now yellowed and crumbled page.

There will be a realignment, the West against terror, and Israel in the West as Luxembourg is in Europe. Shoulder to shoulder. But when is it going to happen?


UPDATE: "CORRECTION"

Apparently there's a kerfuffle here. From something called The Right Angle I learn that Newt denies he's oppose to Condi (and presumably wouldn't support the qoute I included), saying “So far she is saying and doing the right things.” But it is pointed out by Insight's editor that Newt is public in his criticism of the State Department, and goes on to say "...whether Newt supports Condi or doesn't support Condi [isn't the point]. The point of the story is that the State Department has hijacked President Bush's foreign policy. You see it clearly on Iran, North Korea and the Middle East.

My concern was about Condi. Now that seems not supported by Newt. I'm not a news blog and so don't intend to sort this out "he said, she said", but of the two people I sited as supporting the story apparently only Richard Perle would support it entirely, Newt only admiting to criticizing State. Okay, that would fit my own judgment that Condi has been saying the right things, and would be consistent with my initial judgment that she has a proper understanding of the underlying politics. That would be good. My assertion that State is still stuck in an old pattern of thought would hold (all conservatives make that judgment) as would my assertion that it's a hard barge to turn. That she has been co-opted by state would not hold, though the description of how that might happen would. --None of this really matters except that it's an embarrassment to have accepted as true a criticism I would have rejected had not Newt's name been attached. I am embarrassed. But the important hope is that she is politically sound and right now I'm going to go back to that assumption and forget what I read this morning.

Lesson Learned: When you're not in the know don't pretend you are on the basis of having read one article.

Continued...

Israel has suffered an immense defeat. No longer invincible. Hizbollah has demonstrated that they can throw stones, pretty big stones, and get away with it. The mighty, the invincible, the brutal --Israel-- can do nothing against it. That makes the Hizbollian the most manly of men --among a certain group. This group is the "Resistance", normally Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, who throw stones and blow themselves up in Pizza Parlors and then run to the protecting clucking hen of European public opinion crying "brutality" and enjoying the supporting clucks "Bad Israel", "Over reaction", "Disproportionallity". That segment, the nuts and the clucks, will be always with us; but things are a changing.

Rocket attacks are serious. They make life difficult. And this is Hizbollah, the Iranian state-within-the-Lebanese state. And they can't be stopped because they can't be hurt, they have no investment in this nation. And they've proven they can get rockets and that means they can get bigger ones.

This is a problem. It's not something Israel can handle without international support, not without the West taking a stand against Hizbollah. Not equivalency and balance, but against. Can that happen?

It seems there may be a point at which the West ceases its pleasant clucking and gets serious. It is not satisfying to see a Western nation, even if it is Israel, being terrorized with rockets from across its nation's borders. This is not good "international law", especially when those thugs are proxies for Iran and certain elements in Iran are nuts and they do want the bomb and may get it. The thought of the bomb does sober one who is not nuts. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, states close to the bomb, are not nuts, and so in this conflict have withheld their reflexive and opportunistic condemnation of Israel and have criticized the real threat. Is that kind of pragmatic rationality possible for an European? It does seem to me that with deep thought and much effort it might be possible for at least some Europeans to be able to conclude that it's better to protect Israel than Iran.

So I see a possibility that European states may take sensible action. They do have to get over their habitual twitch of condemning Israel. That could happen. The gun isn't yet to their head but it is coming. It may be that soon they'll come to see that "disproportionallity" in the service of freedom is no vice.

So, the fighting is over, at least in as much as Israel can secure what in the Arab world will be seen as a victory. They can struggle yet, they can marginally increase their security. But they have been defeated. Israel the mighty, the independent, the invincible, is dead. They're just a small nation that can be kicked around if the right tactics are used.

Having accepted this defeat I now no longer need pour over the news anxiously scanning for news of mobilization and lightening thrusts and clever strategery that I never would have guessed. It's not going to happen. But there are positives. Reality, a punch in the face, is positive.


NOTE:
Just found this article posted on Yoni's blog. It exactly confirms my assertions about the loss of the image of Israeli military prowess as seen by much of the Arab world. --Yone says: Just give us the leadership and we'll show the power.

The New Dawn: Part, Continued...

Israel is dead. As an independent nation Israel is dead, they can no longer defend themselves. It's a new dawn, rockets have done that. The only protection against those rockets is the elimination of the people who fire those rockets, and Israel can't do that.

Two things:
--They can't do it with air power, because they can't find them. Only 40 sorties last night. That's not because Israel is out of fuel or planes or pilots, it's because they don't have any targets.
--And they can't "punish" the infrastructure because Hizbollah doesn't care, it's not theirs. (The only reason Kosovo "worked" is because we bombed Serbia. The Serbian army in Kosovo wasn't scratched, the only reason Slobo withdrew his troops is because the damage to Serbian infrastructure became intolerable).

So air power is a pop gun, it's meaningless. And Israel can't go in with boots because they're afraid:
--It would result in two many Israeli deaths. They would have to invest the entire country. (The idea that the Latina River any longer has any meaning is reflexive verbiage, a movement merely of the mouth, it no longer makes intellectual sense).
--Even supposing Israel had the courage, they couldn't do it because the West (still reflexive) wouldn't allow it.

So Israel is dead, unless they're saved by France (et al.)

This is obvious. George Bush knows it, Condi knows it. France (et al.) isn't quite there yet. And Hizbollah has won! Anybody who denies that is simply a liar. In the Arab world, if you can throw a stone at an Israeli tank and in return lose only your mother and sister to an artillery shell, you have won and you're a man...Praise be to Allah. The West has lost. Much more than a stone has been thrown and it's gone on and on and on. Israel could kill every last Hizbollian in Lebanon, they would still have lost. There are more Hizbollians out there, and the Arabs know it. There is only one way the West can gain a draw, and that's if it's the West that kills every last Hizbollian. That would be sobering, even to an Arab, because they know that their only actual great strength is Western public opinion. This remains a strong suit. Opinion is reflexive, the twitchings of a decerebrated frog. It won't change.

--It is interesting to note that even 20,000 ICBMs wouldn't protect against these guys; you can't find them, you can't kill them.

Boots. Boots. Boots. Western boots!



UPDATE: 7:30

Victory! Victory! Victory! --for the bad guys. Iran continues to supply Syria; Syria continues to supply Hizbollah. Iran is sending suicide bombers to Lebanon... Why not? It's always good to go to Allah in victory; and Arabs and Jews are having counter demonstrations in Haifa and have come to blows. This is what will happen to the Arab street in victory, even among otherwise loyal Arab/Israeli citizens. They get feisty.

Who wants to pretend Hizbollah hasn't won? How long will it take for the West to recognize there's nothing morally even-steven in all of this? How long will it take the West to recognize that there is no such thing any longer as a "fair" power-broker in this area? How long will it take the West to recognize it must take a side, and fight? ...How long will it take the West to stick a lemon in Kofi Annan's mouth?

A New Dawn Darkening

Once a nation of warriors, Israel has now been defeated by an army of 1000 Mujahadeen. One-thousand Mujahadeen brings to its knees a nation of some seven millions, a nation possessing some of the most advanced weaponry in the world.

Pretty good going, Nasrally, "You da man."

Israel won't ever recover. They're not invincible, they're not even strong. They're sitting ducks, and they quack just like any other duck when they're hit with a rocket. I don't like this, I like Israel. But the world changes. Israel, as a nation, is dead.

Of course, any nation that can't defend itself against missile attack is dead as a nation. This is understood. It's called truism. If you can't defend, you're dead.

I've tried to understand why Israel hasn't instituted a massive call-up of reserves. The stakes are absolutely clear, absolutely simple. There is no longer a buffer zone. Hizbollah has demonstrated that it can acquire rockets, massive numbers of rockets, has demonstrated they're willing to fire them, and has demonstrated that they can get long range rockets. There is no longer a buffer zone. Israel's only protection is to wipe Hizbollah off the face of the map.

And they're not doing it.

They're popping off some bombs, as though this were an entertainment and not a war.

I've been trying to understand, and one positive thought did finally cross my mind: Perhaps they prefer a rain of rockets to world condemnation?

This is possible. To crush Hizbollah they would have to maraud up the entire length of the Bekaa Valley, they would have to cross east to Tyre and Sidon, they would have to fight in the suburbs of Beirut, and when they had eliminated this scourge at the cost of blood they would be condemned as brutal. No thanks for their service to the world, only condemnation.

So let the rockets fall. Rockets that can reach Haifa can soon reach France. So what's France going to do about it? This is one of those concepts that even an European can understand: If terrorists can fire off sophisticated rockets and not be condemned and eliminated, and if these terrorist are backed by Iran, then these terrorists --or Iran or any other terrorists-- can soon pick and chose what ever target they like, and their target of choice will die, just in the same way as Israel is dying now.

This is a new day, and unless an European force is formed that says this is a new kind of war that will not be allowed, it is a dark day.

Blindingly Obvious?

Woke up this morning struck by the blindingly obvious. I'd wondered how in the world the Cedar Revolution had succeeded. After the Harrari murder there were a lot of people demonstrating in the street. So? People were already calling it a "revolution" while there was still nothing but crowds, and I smirked, I said: No despotic nation is going to pull out of a subject nation without a bloody fight... But they did pull out, Syria pulled out. I said: Well, everybody was against them, even the French. And the US is just to the east, and aching for an excuse to attack that the world would accept. If even the French are opposed to Syria, who's going to oppose the US in an attack on Syria in response to a Syrian inspired Lebanese civil war? So Syria pulled out, leaving, I presumed, a heavy intelligence apparatus so they would still have control.

How silly of me. What they left was Hizbullah, which was Syria, which with their vast arms would soon take over the government anyway, either directly by force or more discreetly by intimidation. Syria wasn't losing a subject nation, they were just giving it over to a proxy.

All of these things are matters of degree and emphasis, the basic forces are known, it's only a matter of how they balance out. The great eye-opener for me was discovering the extraordinary amount of arms Hizbollah had quietly amassed. I had assumed they didn't have much more than rifles and just a few rockets.

But this is then the argument: If Syria pulled out because they knew they were surrendering nothing in that their proxy would soon be the government, how is it going to be possible to separate Syria from Hizbollah if they're one and the same? The idea that Syria won't intervene if Israel seems to be succeeding in destroying Hizbollah becomes more dicey --though again it's all a matter of balance and degree.

And the big question is Iran. Iran is the big dog. Hizbollah is their creation --so it's asserted. I've just now said Hizbollah is Syria, which is why Syria found it easy to surrender to the meaningless Cedar Revolution. Is Syria in fact Iran? Do the two merely work in concert, or are they the same? Is Syria pleased to do Iran's bidding, or do they chafe?

...Let me see, what was it that was so blindingly obvious...? I guess only one thing, that Syria pulled out of Lebanon because they weren't actually surrendering anything in that Hizbollah was soon to be the government of Lebanon anyway. For me, this is a new insight. But the next insight lies in the new clarity of the next question: How autonomous is Syria in all of this? How separate are they from the commands of Iran? And, how free are they from the intimidation of Hizbullah? Hizbullah doesn't have tanks, but are they the ones with the personnel, the ruthlessness, the motivation, and perhaps the support of the heart of the palace?

If the interconnections are greater than I'd thought, and the equilibrium less stable, things could really blow-up before they reassemble as rubble.

Will, Strategy, Time

Read most of the basic stuff so far in the news. The Israelis are probing on the ground. That's all I ask. What their plan is I can't know, my only concern was that they have the will to use ground forces and it seems that they do. That they would not, under attack as they are, would have been astonishing. I only had that worry that one bad morning when I feared their government was controlled by peace nuts.

In purely military terms it seems possible that all Hizbollah's fortified positions --the bunkers and the tunnels and maybe preset ambush sites-- are all near the border. It seems possible that Israel intends merely to get behind them, leave them in place, and continue up the Bekaa Valley. Hizbollah would be left free to still fire off their rockets, but Israel would be free to move deeper into the valley and capture their deeper stores, interdict supplies, and destroy their longer range missiles. The defense around those sites would not be great presuming the best fighters are on the front line, anticipating an Israeli frontal assault and geared up to create a body count. If they pull those fighters the bunkers are left undefended, and how much mobility will they have anyway in trying to catch up to the Israelis?

This is the purest speculation. It would only be good military strategy if it's something Hizbollah didn't anticipate. But they're a small force, they would have had to make choices. If they're raining down missiles it would be reasonable for them to assume that Israel would not put up with that and would attack with full force, into what Hizbollah had made a defensive line. But what if Israel says, "So what? You've already insulted us with your first strike, but other than for the terror and the insult, you really can't hurt us much. We're going to ignore your flailing fists, and instead strike for the heart."

Pure speculation, but it's possible. The idea would be that Israel has air cover and mobility (and thus logistics). Hizbollah has neither. They're not even any longer a guerilla force, they've made themselves heavy with all their rockets. They can either abandon their rockets, or abandon the central valley, they can't defend both.

Possibly. If Hizbollah does move they're targets; and if they move their six years of building bunkers is wasted. We'll see. Would Syria intervene? That would make a central valley drive difficult. Doubtful. Israel has the US to the east. If Syria moves the US bombs (I've been hoping for that for three years anyway). I think Syria will sit tight.

Time? Condi has been good the last few days. A cease fire now would be a "false hope" is about how I think she expressed it. So Israel has time. And I think if it begins to look like Israel does have a real chance of totally destroying Hizbollah I don't think the complaints of the West are going to be that forceful. You've got to be a nut to be a citizen of the West and not want to see Hizbollah destroyed. If Israel is making real progress I think she'll have all the time she needs.

Pure speculation.


UPDATE...sort of:

I've been emailing with a friend, mostly on Gaza, who speaks more sweetly of Hammas than do I. I decided to give the Gazillians a break and instead wrote on Lebanon. It's just a note, but it fills out the above post just a bit.

Dear #!$$!!,

I think we've established that you think there are nice people in Gaza.

More interesting just now is Lebanon. It looks possible that Israel, despite its many statements that it intends only a limited incursion, might in fact go up the Bekaa Valley all the way to Baalbec. That would sever Lebanon from Syria. It would also separate Hizbollah from Syria, which would mean no resupply, which would mean they could be destroyed, which would mean the Lebanese people could have a true democracy free of the guns of Hizbollian thugs.

This would be excellent. It's always been understood that Hizbollah is the only political party in Lebanon that packs heat, and that thus they have distorted the government as one that is truly free. Recognizing now how much armament they have --a surprise to everyone-- it becomes clear that it was only a matter of time before they became the government; a Taliban style polity in the land that not that many years ago had been called "the Paris of the East". It looks like it might be Israel that brings Lebanon back to Paris.

Of course this is war, and there can be bad turns in war that no one can predict. The government as it exists could collapse; or Hizbollah might decide that rather than lose everything they might as well turn their guns on Beirut tomorrow; or they might so bloody Israel in the valley that Israel decides it's not worth the cost to continue; or Israel might not have this in mind at all. As splendid as this speculation is --in terms of the good effects it would have-- it is just speculation. What Israel has actually said is only that they plan a limited incursion, depending...

It is interesting though, that Israel, hated throughout most of the world, might nevertheless be given all the time it needs, to do whatever she decides. That's because most of the world that hates Israel sees Hizbollah as worse. That's because Hizbollah is not merely a terrorist organization, it's a terrorist state-within-a-state, and no state can tolerate that as precedent. Even the states that back Hizbollah, Syria and Iran, wouldn't want Hizbollah as strongly in their own land as it is in Lebanon. So while there will be calls for a cease fire, and much criticism leveled at Israel, in fact not much pressure will develop for them to quit. The only ones who really want a ceasefire, and thus a Hizbollah victory, are a few nut regimes, and people and groups who have no responsibility for governance: Kofi Annan, the UN, Academics, Main Stream Media, leftists, Palestinians, and anybody who would prefer slavery for Lebanon rather than victory for Israel.

....Did a run earlier today. I'm still having trouble with the tiny tendon that popped in my right knee five months ago, but I find that if I run slowly I can run far, and it doesn't much bother the knee. When I finish I feel wholesome and strong. It occurs to me that this may be why I keep running; the sensation of health and strength is one of life's pleasures, and I might as well continue the pleasure as long as I can.

(And I kept the last paragraph because I may sometime blog about running).

"Proportionality"

Haven't read much yet today but have listened to news. "Disproportionally" seems to be dropping out of coverage, probably because it's becoming clear that nobody would be particularly upset if a lot of Hizbollian types got killed, so there's a new term to the same intent: "Collective punishment". This, "collective punishment", is bad. Very very bad. Shame. It apparently means that a building bombed is "collective punishment" because...? Actually, I don't understand the term. Apparently it means that if a man pulls a trigger in one spot and you bomb a building somewhere else, that's "collective punishment"...? I still don't understand. Apparently since the building didn't pull the trigger it's innocent and to bomb it thus is "collective punishment".

It is true that there are buildings that don't support Hizbollah, so if every building not caught in the act of pulling a trigger is innocent, then most buildings, presumably, are innocent, and are suffering "collective punishment".

Poor buildings.

But there are people who believe Hizbollah sometimes uses those buildings, sometimes hides in them. There are people who believe Hizbollah sometimes uses bridges and airports, and so they're bombed.

Poor buildings, poor bridges, poor airports. And shame on "collective punishment." But if this is a war, any element that aids the enemy and the loss of which will dispirit him, is a fair target, so how is bombing a building "collective punishment", and not war against Hizbollah?

Of course there are the numbers. Three hundred and some killed in Lebanon, only a few dozens in Israel. Would the "proportionalists" feel better if Israel had lost three hundred and fifty? Actually, considering the immense number of tons of precision ordinance Israel has dumped on Lebanon it seems that the proportion of dead to tons of explosives is pretty wimpy. It almost seems like Israel is targeting buildings.

And I don't believe I've ever before used so many quotes around two terms. That's because they just make no intellectual sense at all. They're not even code words, they're just noises. There's a habitual opposition to Israel. I can't see any other explanation for the prevalence of the two inapplicable terms. They're available, that's the only reason they're used. I don't believe most of the people using the terms are really on the side of Hizbollah, or really that much hate Israel. I expect most of the people using the terms, on a moments thought, would recognize that survival for Hizbollah, something assured if there is a ceasefire just now, is a victory for Hizbollah. I'm sure they don't want that. And yet they criticize and want the fighting to stop. It just has to be reflex, the tongue moving but the mind asleep.

Does this even need to be seriously discussed?

The Way It Should Be

I just discovered the blog Treppenwitz, and a piece, A difficult lesson, posted Sunday, July 16 by David Bogner

This is a splendid, tightly written bit of art. It can't well be synopsized, but this is the story line: A big Marine who's a bully sucker punches a little guy after the little guy has refused to be baited into a fight. Turns out though, the little guy who had so quietly endured so much was a splendid boxer, and proceeded to punch the Marine's face to tatters, all the while repeating, almost as a chant: "Say you were wrong, say you give up." The Marine didn't give up, convinced somebody would stop the fight. No one stopped the fight. Finally he did wail: "I give up", and the fight was over. And this is made analogues to Israel now facing the Arab world in this fight in Lebanon.

This is one time an Arab aggressor must be allowed to be beaten so badly that every civilized nation will stand in horror, wanting desperately to step in and stop the carnage... but knowing that the fight will only truly be over when one side gives up and finally admits defeat.

"The enemy must know they've been defeated", and all their supporters must know that as well.

A splendidly well stated episode. This guy can write, and his views exactly parallel mine.

Read the whole thing.

Proportionality?

"Proportionality means perpetuity". Not my statement but one I heard from a caller to Rush's show. It's excellent. Those who call for "proportionality" at the same time as they call for "an end to the cycle of violence" are intellectually just stupid. Of course that's a stupidity that follows on moral confusion, it's a refusal to recognize "Good" versus "Evil", and it's a refusal to accept that our enemy is evil, a refusal to accept that the conflict will end only when the enemy is destroyed. Or perhaps it's a refusal to accept that we even have an implacable enemy? It doesn't seem to me it would be hard to define people who want to kill you as evil. Maybe you don't want to accept that they want to kill you? That they would want to kill you would be unpleasant. Or maybe you think they can't kill you, they're far away, they're only killing other people, and if you can pretend things should just be "proportional" then you can pretend there's not a war?

But just now this sort of debate in Europe or the US isn't what's important, what's important is the apparent loss of will within Israel. That's the nation now under attack, that's the nation within the sea of hatred, that's the nation that can not doubt it's justification, that's the nation that must not spare its blood. And there are no boots on the ground.

Tough talk from a man sitting in Minnesota. But I want Israel to survive, I want Europe to survive, I want the US to survive, I want Minnesota to survive. This is the 9/11 War, that's when we knew it was war, and Israel right now is the spear point in the most present battle.

This battle can not be won without the absolute conviction of justification, and the courage respondent to that conviction. If Israel has lost that conviction, even while under assault, what hope is there for the rest of us? This is the human spirit, is that spirit under assault in collapse? The spirit of the West in collapse? It matters if Israel fights. Their fight is our substantiation that we can yet struggle...

This is over-writing. It suffers fvapors. But it's just that I really don't want Israel to "let me down". If Israel doesn't fight then this is a very unhappy day indeed. A nation under attack, within the context of a global war, the justification clearly absolute (if there ever is to be justification), and no boots on the ground?

Israel is being given time. The international community of the West sees their justification, they've left the window open, Hizbollah is blamed, and where's Israel? They're dropping bombs. Absolutely anybody who has an airforce against an enemy who has none can drop bombs. As moral force it means nothing.

And of itself, militarily, it means nothing. To destroy ordinance that can be replaced without destroying the force that plies that ordinance is nothing. It's defeat. Without ground troops this is defeat.

Military judgment can vary. To prep the battlefield makes sense. Perhaps the Israelis feel they have time...? But I know a land force isn't destroyed without land troops, and if Hizbollah isn't destroyed they've won. And this would be an Israeli failure of will, a failure of conviction. It would mean Israel is dead.


These are two blog posts that consider some of the military difficulties:

Chester & The Counter Terrorism Blog

A Dead Nation?

A very bad thought happened this morning as I woke. Sometimes these thoughts happen in the very early waking, before my mind has begun to fully function, sometimes they happen very late at night, perhaps because I'm alone and all is quiet and I'm exhausted and bad thoughts creep in, but is Israel a dead nation?

If Israel doesn't take this opportunity to destroy Hizbolla they've lost their will to live and will die. They're a tiny nation within a sea of hatred. Always in their wars thy've at the end been constrained by the western powers. If now their constraint is internal they've lost their will to live and they will die, and not slowly, though from the rot within.

I can't believe that's happened, but if there's not a ground assault within days --the only way to wipe out Hizbollah-- they're dead, and they'll suffer rocket attacks until the day no Jew any longer wants to live in that place. If Israel doesn't consider itself special, and heroic, and destined, then there's no reason to live in that part of the world.

I wouldn't claim any special knowledge of foreign policy in that area, I only see the obvious: if a nation no longer considers itself special its not strong but is dust, and will be blown away by a breeze of a bomb... These thoughts happen, sometimes in the morning, sometimes very late at night.

Good News

Really good news. As of 2:50 CST I can still find no significant pressure being placed on Israel to stop its offensive.

Most offensive term in dipospeak: "Proportionallity".

UPDATE:
As of Monday, July 17, 3:35 PM CST STILL no meaningful international pressure to get Israel to quit fighting back.

From Fox News:

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Monday the U.N. Security Council should delay any action on the escalating conflict between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas until a U.N. mission now in the Mideast trying to defuse the crisis returns to New York later this week. "I think it's very important that with events as unclear and fast-moving as they are that the Security Council not do anything to unsettle the matter further."

Vijay Nambiar, the special political adviser to Secretary-General Kofi Annan, [and head of the U.N. mission now in the Mideast] in Beirut on Monday, said he will present Israel with "concrete ideas" about ending the fighting, but also warned that "much diplomatic work needs to be done." "We have made some promising first efforts on the way forward..."

That's what I like, that much diplomatic work yet needs to be done. Don't hurry

Calibrated Judgment

I've had some discussion on whether or not the criticism some Arab states have made of Hizbollah are actually moral judgements. I in effect said, "No, not really, they're political judgments." I would like to amend that: In this case, political judgment, because of the conflicting ideologies involved, is in fact a moral judgment. What follows is from an email intended as a continuation of that discussion:


...The point I'm making is just an extension of the one I made yesterday, that there is a new political reality and for moral clarity it's necessary to recognize that new reality. To question, for example, if Israel's response to the abduction of its two soldiers was properly "proportionate" is to assume two things: that this is just a conflict between Israel and Hizbollah; and that there's some moral equivalency between the two. In fact what you have is a Western nation with western values being attacked by representatives of a vicious and primitive ideology in what is a global war. I'm using the division in the Arab states --the people closest to this struggle and thus the people who most necessarily must see it clearly-- as an illustration and argument that the West --I mean primarily the liberals-- must learn to see it clearly as well.

This first is from an editorial in the Jerusalem Post:

What is strange about this war, almost five years after 9/11 and after
numerous follow-on attacks, is that - unlike World War II - the West is still
confused about who the enemy is, how to fight it, and even over whether it
is at war at all.

But the more advanced of the Arab states do see that it is a war:

CAIRO, Egypt — Foreign ministers of 18 Arab countries
held an emergency summit in Cairo Saturday over Israel's expanding assault
on Lebanon, but squabbles over the legitimacy of Hezbollah's attacks on Israel
— including the capture of two Israeli soldiers that sparked the 4-day battle
— appeared likely to keep participants from reaching a consensus, delegates
said.

The Saudi foreign minister appeared to be leading a camp of ministers criticizing the guerrilla group's actions, calling them "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts."
"These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them," Saudi al-Faisal told his counterparts.

Supporting his stance were representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, delegates said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.

Another camp led by Syria defended Hezbollah
as carrying out "legitimate acts in line with international resolutions
and the U.N. charter, as acts of resistance," delegates said.

The point is, even though they find themselves in opposition to their own Arab brethren, the more advanced Arab states recognize that that fascistic brand of Islam has to be destroyed. And Bush has that same moral clarity:

President Bush, on a trip to Russia, said it was up to Hezbollah "to lay down its arms and to stop attacking...Bush blamed Hezbollah and Syria for the escalating violence in the Middle East."In my judgment, the best way to stop the violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place," Bush said. "And that's because Hezbollah has been launching rocket attacks out of Lebanon into Israel and because Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers."

And Putin, not a very nice guy, has at least that same political clarity:

Putin said it was unacceptable to try to reach political goals through abductions
and strikes against an independent state. "In this context we consider Israel's
concerns to be justified," he said. At the same time, he said, "the use of
force should be balanced."

On the question of the use of force there's this element:

"The level of damage inflicted by Israel appeared finely calibrated. For example, a missile punched a hole in a major suspension bridge on the Beirut-Damascus road but did not destroy it, unlike less expensive bridges on the road that were brought down. An Israeli strike hit fuel depots at one of Beirut's two power stations — sending massive fireballs and smoke into the sky — but avoided the station itself."

The point here is that Israel does consider Lebanon, minus Hizbollah, as a natural ally, and in fact does not want to destroy that nation. (They do publicly hold the Lebanese government responsible, but that's because Hizbollah, though only twenty percent of the government, is the party with the guns. If Israel publicly allows itself to be swayed by requests from the government, in fact those request are going to be from Hizbollah, because the rest of the government, though they want to see Hizbollah destroyed, is afraid to say that.

So this is some of the complexity that goes into making correct moral judgments as to what's going on. Opposed to that is this stupidity from David Ignatius of the Washington Post, the expression of a typical brainless liberal:

The first [point] is that in countering aggression, international solidarity
and legitimacy matter. In responding to the Lebanon crisis, the United States
should work closely with its allies at the G-8 summit and the United Nations.
Iran and its proxies would like nothing more than to isolate America and
Israel. They would like nothing less than a strong, international coalition
of opposition....The way to blunt Hamas is to build a strong Palestinian
Authority that delivers benefits for the Palestinian people. The way to curb
Hezbollah is to build up the Lebanese government and army. One way to boost
the Lebanese government (and deflate Hezbollah) would be to negotiate the
return of the Israeli-occupied territory known as Shebaa Farms.... A final obvious lesson is that in an open, interconnected world, public opinion matters. This is a tricky battlefield for an unpopular America and Israel, but not an impossible one. To fight the Long War, America and Israel have to get out of the devil suit in global public opinion. For a generation, America maintained a role as honest broker between Israel and the Arabs. The Bush administration should work hard to refurbish that role."

"Public opinion matters" he says. He means the opinion of the people who think like him, people living in a tiny ancient box, who think that the bad guy is Israel, and that an "honest broker" would make them stop. But the people who naturally hate Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, a few others, know that in this case it's not Israel that's on the wrong side of virtue.

More Rubble, Less Trouble

"More rubble, less trouble", that's from Victor Davis Hanson, suggesting how Israel ought to fight the war, from the air with top of the line 21st century technology, rather than inserting ground troops. It makes sense, at least for much of the war. They are going against bandits, though bandits with rifles. It makes sense to stay away from the rifles until the bandits are penned in with no escape and have to die.

Another phrase: "Disproportionate force". A silly phrase. It means "Don't hurt our guys". I have no understanding of the moral calculus behind that statement; once things have come to the point of war, each side wants to hurt the other as much and as fast as possible. That way you have a victor, that way you have peace. To keep force "proportionate" means only to hope that the killing will go on and on and on. That seems to me immoral.

Although I should note that there is such a thing as disproportionate violence, or viscousness. In this particular instance Hamas and Hizbollah are disproportionately violent; they target the innocent, it's their only target. Israel, civilized, targets only the guilty. --The condemnations of Hamas and Hizbollah for their "disproportionate viscousness" is something I've missed.

But this could be a cleansing moment. In the past Israel has only fought the Arab world, that is nation against nations, and among nations it's not entirely unfair to expect that each should give a little. But this time it's different. This time it's clear that their opponent is not a nation but a way of thought --Islamofascism. It's clear because of recent years Islam has produced numerous pods and cells of nut-case killers and these nut killers are much given to placing bombs in public places. The whole world knows this now and while most people don't expect that it will be their pizza parlor that will be blown up next they do know that it could happen. They do know that there are people who might want to kill them while they're sipping their coffee... for whatever good reason or non reason that might be.

And to this awareness is added the boon of Iran and the splendid nut job Ahmadinajad. Iran wants the bomb and intends to get the bomb and Ahmadinejad dearly wants to use the bomb and declares himself at one with Syria in their support of Hizbollah. Is this not rather public? Does this not suggest that nut job plus nut job plus nut job adds up to something more than just "resistance" fighter in Lebanon? It seems to me that there are people who can do the addition and recognize that there seems something "global" in all of this and that whatever particular little grievance Hizbollah might have with Israel over some tiny sliver of land, that might not really be what this is all about.

At any rate, admitting the globalism or not admitting the globalism this is in fact conceptually and morally a quite clear war: Terrorists have to be stopped. In this immediate skirmish it's Hizbollah, Syria, Iran. --It's hard to know how far the war will go, but please God let it at least go through Syria.

I hope there's no cessation of hostilities until that happens. But who knows? Syria is fractious. Perhaps only a few bombing runs --given first that Hizbollah is destroyed utterly-- might be enough to see Damascus collapse to chaos. From chaos might come freedom, given that there is now a neighbor and a model of that possible freedom in Iraq. Maybe. The model might be potent. This would be a test. --And if Hizbollah is destroyed and Damascus in collapse the Lebanese army, though not much of a force, might still be able to occupy the Bekaa Valley and Lebanon could sue for peace with Israel. If Lebanon wants peace with Israel even the UN can't ruin it. They will ruin what they can.

But all this is assuming a shift in world opinion. A recognition at least by the westernized nations that in this conflict there are good guys and bad guys and that the good guys are the ones most like themselves, and the bad guys are the primitive death-cult populations of the fascists who call on Jihad.

This is not a hard recognition for anybody with an ounce of moral sense. It is, unfortunately, a hard recognition for a coward. It's always easier to side with the people who might kill you than to defend the people who are being killed. However, if it turns out that it's the other guys getting killed --and rather easily at that-- well then that might give the coward courage.

Israel is a giant stomping on termites. If this is kept purely a military exercise the stone age can not withstand the jet.

Two weeks.

Here's hoping it happens.

The Upbeat War

Israel may be at war now with the Palistinians and Lebanon. I mean formally. That could lead to war with Syria. That would be good. It would destroy a state that is a haven for terrorists infiltrating into Iraq; and it would destroy the military power that supports Hezbollah. Hezbollah corrupts Lebanon. With Syria destroyed Hezbollah would be eliminated and Lebanon could become a decent state, and Israel would have peace on it's northern border. And Hamas, without Hezbollah, would be isolated and weakened. That would be positive. And destroying Hezbollah would damage Tehran's influence, and Tehran, with it's developing nuclear threat and nut leader is beginning to make a lot of people nervous --the EU, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia-- they're all beginning to think it might be a good idea to let the Jews do some of their fighting for them. As evidence that this is their present feeling there's been a lot less than the normal amount of unfair criticism aimed at Israel for acting like any other normal state would under assault --But this is very early yet. Who knows? --Nothing really can be done with Gaza.

I wrote this as part of an email last night but have decided to make it a post. I've felt for a long long time that peace in the Middle East --at least a relative peace-- could come only through war...but it would have to be a real war, where the parties fought until one was clearly beaten. A clearly beaten foe can accept a peace. Israel can whip the entire Arab world...if they were just given the opportunity to do it, if the UN and the West would just lay off, would stop their nutty support for Islamofacist nuts. It's possible that's happening now. It's possible that a great many who have so long so severely condemed Israel as an oppressor might now recognize Israel as justified, and as an immensely useful cleansing agent within an Arab cesspool. Don't know, but perceptions can change, and the world wide threat posed by Islam is beginning to make an impression. It's still not admited, it's too scary; but this might be a situation where it wouldn't have to be admitted --it would be a "special case"-- but admitting the special case would enable a strike against what in fact is the general fear. Could happen.

There are real good bloggers in that area. It makes for real time coverage and honest personal perception, not some ideologically concieved AP fantasy.

My favorite is Raja at The Lebanese Bloggers.

Pajamas Media has the fullest set of links.

Lebanese Political Journal and The Big Pharaoh have their own take, and Chester has some good speculative analysis as to the possibility of a larger war.

Rate Limits Nuisance

Since email wouldn't send my email, with all the links, I make this a post.

Dear John,

I do feel we had some pretty good conversation.

The day after our last walk I pulled together some stuff on Islam. I didn't send it, there are tons and tons of it available. Now I'll send just a bit.

I'd mentioned comments by Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian and one of my favorite writers; the general violence in the Koran; the teaching of this violence in the Madras's (in at least one Madras in the US); and the general violence of Islam as it's understood by good Muslims. For this last I include a quote ascribed to Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, though I can't vouch he's actually the Imam who stated it.

I don't know if these links will work or not.

My general statement of the difference between Christianity and Islam is this: If you're a Christian and you want to kill somebody just because they're not a Christian then you're a bad Christian; if you're a Muslim, and you want to kill somebody just because they're not a Muslim, then you're a good Muslim.

I can discuss this endlessly but this is enough for now.


Unfortunately, this ideology is grounded in religion and God, replete with eternal damnations and rewards, and thus not easily discredited... Immutable verses from the Koran, as well as countless statements and examples by the prophet Muhammad, are what initiate this animosity:
“When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them — seize them, besiege them, and make ready to ambush them” [9:5]
“When you encounter infidels, strike off their heads” [Koran 47:4].
“I [Muhammad] have been made victorious through terror” [Bukhari B52N220].

LINK


They fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain...
"164 Jihad Verses in the Koran -- Passages in the Quran about Islamic Holy War" compiled by Yoel Natan


“When you meet those who disbelieve, smite at their necks ‘til when you have killed and wounded many of them, then take them as captives.” (47:4)
This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)


“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” - Ayatollah Khomeini : Jihad Watch: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) reviewed at National Review (Comments Section, 1:51 PM)