Patterico's Pontifications

8/15/2006

Dafydd ab Hugh: The Cease-Fire Is the Right Move

Filed under: War — Patterico @ 6:54 am



Upset about the Israel-Hezbollah cease fire? Think it’s a big victory for Hezbollah? Dafydd ab Hugh has a thoughtful essay arguing otherwise. He says Israel is minimizing its losses and folding a bad hand, biding its time until conditions are more favorable.

7 Responses to “Dafydd ab Hugh: The Cease-Fire Is the Right Move”

  1. Only and idiot would say they won after getting half of their country destroyed, their a** kicked, ran over twenty miles, and across the river that was the stated objective of Israel. The big losers are Syria and Iran. Just like Russia, their best weapons are only useful for firing in the air during 4th of July celebrations. Who is still holding who’s territory?

    Only the brain dead in the free world can’t figure out that Israel whipped them good even with one hand tied behind their back by the PC world.

    Scrapiron (9f37aa)

  2. By that logic, we “won” against the North Vietnamese.

    If you end up pulling back before your stated objective is met (or an alternative objective of equal or greater value is met), then you’ve failed.

    Israel failed in its objective to disarm Hez. That they went into Lebanon for 20 miles doesn’t mean a thing if they rather quickly leave.

    Is Hez weaker than before? Yeah, primarily because it has fewer missiles after Israel blocked most of them with her cities.

    What were the objectives of the parties to the conflict–not the overall grand strategic aims, like “destruction of Israel”–but the aims of this particular conflict? Israel stated its aims. Hezbollah? Primarily the release of prisoners from what I gather.

    Both sides failed. But given that the Israeli military’s stature has been sufficiently tarnished by the mere fact that Hez survived the conflict, Israel’s failure is more damaging.

    Army Lawyer (498217)

  3. I was very impressed with this argument: “Holding the city would have required a permanent garrison of likely tens of thousands of Marines… and we could not spare such a huge chunk of our fighting force. We still needed them for fighting elsewhere. Since America has no specialized “occupation corps,” as the British used to have during the days of the Empire — and indeed, a non-imperial “empire” such as the United States could not have such a combined civilian and military force — our only choice would be to use men trained for combat as cops, judges, and mediators; hence the large numbers needed and the strong possibility of violence spiraling out of our control.”

    That makes sense to me. Israel made a mistake by not going straight for the Bekka valley and maybe into Syria but they didn’t have the stomach. We should probably be setting nightly ambushes along the Iraq-Iran border and hammering the arms smugglers feeding al Sadr. I hope we are doing some of it. I wish we were doing more.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  4. Patterico:

    Thanks for the link; I’ve felt like the invisible man recently, trying to get an analysis in edgewise between Paul Mirengoff and Ed Morrissey (or maybe like the Beaver, caught in between an argument between Wally Cleaver and Eddie Haskell, jumping up and down trying to get someone’s attention).

    For those wondering why we don’t just shut down arms smuggling in Iraq or why Israel doesn’t just rush in and destroy Hezbollah — get used to it. For the forseeable future, all wars against elusive terrorist organizations will be fought like grand-master-level chess games: an endless series of seemingly irrational and indiscriminate moves, followed by a stalemate.

    We hope that with each stalemate, the bad guys will get weaker; but sometimes they’ll get stronger. In the end, we’ll bleed ’em to death; but it will take decades.

    Dafydd

    Dafydd (6e94cd)

  5. Patterico, I’ve got a question I’d like to email you about. Would you mind sending me your email address?

    mh (5b638c)

  6. If his enemies are openly breaching the agreement, will Olmert do anything about it, or just look at his feet and clear his throat?

    ras (f9de13)

  7. Patterico characterized Mr ab Hugh’s piece:

    He says Israel is minimizing its losses and folding a bad hand, biding its time until conditions are more favorable.

    More favorable in what way? Is there going to be a time in the reasonably foreseeable future in which the weasely European democracies and our own liberal friends won’t see Israel defending itself as a bad thing?

    Dana (a90377)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0684 secs.