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:
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:
(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)
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)
posted by mouse at 8:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home