Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Israel will negotiate for the release of two soldiers whose capture by Hezbollah militants on July 12 sparked the Israeli offensive in Lebanon, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said. - AFP, August 13, 2006

Government spokesman Gideon Meir said Israel wanted the soldiers returned "immediately without any precondition — no negotiation." - CNN, July 12, 2006

As we lurch toward a cessation of hostilities, it is worth asking if all the death and destruction was worth it? Israel is pulling out all stops right now before the ceasefire to try to save Ehud Olmert’s job. Hezbollah is gleefully firing its rockets into Israel before the clock runs out. Over a 1000 Lebanese civilians dead, over 100 Israeli soldiers dead, nearly 50 Israeli civilians dead, Lebanon in shambles. Was it worth it?

I have stated my reasons in previous posts for why I think this was a strategic blunder for Israel here, here and here. What do you the reader think?

Since September the 11th, 2001 President Bush has been telling us that they hate us for our freedoms. However, he has never really been able to define who "they" are. He has never been able to go beyond his talking points to understand who it is that attacked us. His failure to know the shape of the enemy has led us into a major foreign policy blunder in Iraq and away from the struggle before us. His foreign policy and his rhetoric have been hijacked by the neo-cons with damaging consequences. Five years after 9/11 we are still under threat from extremists. In fact, the threat has grown significantly during the last five years in large part due to Mr. Bush’s inaction and his charged rhetoric.

President Bush never misses an opportunity to paint any foe as part of the collective "them" in the War on Terror. Saddam Hussein was "them" so he had to be taken down. Now it is Hezbollah and Hamas, it is Iran and Syria. They must be taken down. Today in his radio address Mr. Bush once again saw red and painted with his broad brush:

"The terrorists attempt to bring down airplanes full of innocent men, women, and children," Mr Bush said.

"They kill civilians and American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deliberately hide behind civilians in Lebanon. They are seeking to spread their totalitarian ideology."

While Mr. Bush plays politics to justify his Iraq and Middle East policy the real threat is closer to home and getting stronger.

In the United Kingdom a small but media savvy political party named Hizb ut-Tahrir started to take root in the 1990s. Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation in Arabic) is an Islamist party dedicated to creating an Islamic Caliphate in the Arab and Muslim world. Though it was founded in the 1950s in Jerusalem it really started to mobilize globally in the age of the Internet. Since that time it has started to spread its tentacles across Europe and the Arab and Muslim world. Today Hizb ut-Tahrir has presence in Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Russia, Australia, United Kingdom, the Sudan, Denmark, Germany and other European countries. In some European and Arab countries the group is banned. However, they continue to operate freely in Britain and in many Muslim countries.

Hizb ut-Tahrir claims to be a peaceful nonviolent movement. According to the FAQ on their information website, they plan on achieving an Islamic Caliphate through peaceful means:

Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party whose ideology is Islam. The party works throughout the Islamic world to resume the Islamic way of life by re-establishing the Islamic Khilafah (Caliphate). The party adheres to the Islamic Shari’ah in all aspects of its work, and takes its methodology from that of the Prophet Muhammad that he used to establish the first Islamic State in Madinah. The Prophet Muhammad limited his struggle for the establishment of the Islamic State to the intellectual and political domains. Hence the party considers violence or armed struggle against the regime a violation of the Islamic Shari’ah.

However, this group has a history of spreading hateful propaganda all over Europe:

In March and April 2002, Hizb Ut Tahrir handed out leaflets in a square in Copenhagen, and at a mosque. The leaflet, which also appeared on the Danish groups internet site, makes threats against Jews, using a quote from the Koran urging Muslims to ‘kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have been turned you out.’ The leaflet also said, ‘The Jews are a people of slander…a treacherous people… they fabricate lies and twist words from their right context.’ And the leaflet describes suicide bombings in Israel as "legitimate" acts of "Martyrdom".

The appeal of Hizb ut-Tahrir lies in its carefully planned and calibrated message. In the West, they try to stay just on the margins of the law. They highlight all the issues most Muslims care about: the Palestinian problem, the war in Iraq, the war in Lebanon, U.S. support for Israel, etc. On cursory observation they appear like any other leftist anti war political party with a pro-Muslim message. However, on closer examination a profile of a hate group emerges. To stay within the law in the U.K. the group has cleaned up some of its official statements. However, a look at their past publications sheds some light on their plans. According to Hizb ut-Tahrir’s since sanitized manifesto (cached page from 2004):

As for the political struggle, it is manifested in the struggle against the disbelieving imperialists, to deliver the Ummah from their domination and to liberate her from their influence by uprooting their intellectual, cultural, political, economic and military roots from all of the Muslim countries.

The political struggle also appears in challenging the rulers, revealing their treasons and conspiracies against the Ummah, and by taking them to task and changing them if they denied the rights of the Ummah, or refrained from performing their duties towards her, or ignored any matter of her affairs, or violated the laws of Islam.

…

Based on this, the Party defined its method of work into three stages:

• The First Stage: The stage of culturing to produce people who believe in the idea and the method of the Party, so that they form the Party group.
• The Second Stage: The stage of interaction with the Ummah, to let the Ummah embrace and carry Islam, so that the Ummah takes it up as its issue, and thus works to establish it in the affairs of life.
• The Third Stage: The stage of establishing government, implementing Islam generally and comprehensively, and carrying it as a message to the world.

The above goals should be familiar to most readers. These are the goals advocated by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda: the removal of western influence from Muslim countries and then the overthrow of the governments of the Muslim countries in favor of a Caliphate.

While bin Laden hides in caves Hizb ut-Tahrir takes its message freely to the young people of the Muslim world. It targets colleges and universities in the Muslim world looking for recruits to its idea of jihad and of an enduring Caliphate. For example, in Bangladesh, which is a largely secular Muslim majority country, Hizb ut-Tahrir is starting to make inroads with university students and intellectuals.

The group’s presence as a political party in Bangladesh is small but nonetheless vocal. It markets itself as a discussion group to university students and openly holds weekly meetings at the country’s leading universities. It feeds on political unrest in the country and presents itself as a utopian alternative to all the country’s ills. It capitalizes on Muslim grievances and focuses hate and anger toward the West and the country’s own government. The Iraq War offers easy ammunition:

The illegal occupying forces of America and Britain have again unleashed a devastating series of attacks upon the Muslims of Iraq. Intensifying their attack upon innocent civilians they have systematically targeted mosques, bazaars, hospitals, marches and demonstrations. They use missiles, tanks, helicopters and planes to carry out these attacks. They have turned the cities of Karbalaa, Al-Najaf and Al-Kufah, its south and north, and "Al-Falujah" into battlefields destroying whatever stands in front of them. They hound the Muslims in their houses and mosques. Thousands have been mercilessly killed by the kafir [infidel] occupying forces.

…

However the greatest tragedy today is the role of the rulers of the Muslim countries. While the Muslims of Iraq have demonstrated their bravery due to their iman [faith] in Allah fighting with their bare bodies, our rulers have demonstrated the extent of their cowardice and treachery. These 50 or so rulers stand by while our lands are destroyed and our brothers and sisters are slaughtered. These rulers like obedient servants of America watch the slaughter preventing the sincere and strong Muslim armies to aid the Muslims of Iraq. Rather our armies are used by these traitor rulers to guard their thrones and palaces. These rulers are appointed over the Muslim Ummah to safeguard only the interests of the colonialists and enemies of the Muslims. [Translations by me.]

The tactic is always the same: blame the West and then find a way of tying the country’s government to the West. In many cases, the grievances are legitimate. That is exactly where Hizb ut-Tahrir’s appeal lies. It first voices a legitimate grievance and then pivots the rhetoric into hate.

Hizb ut-Tahrir are masters at capturing the media spotlight and magnifying the smallest hint of a controversy. During the Danish cartoon controversy, it was Hizb ut-Tahrir in Bangladesh and elsewhere that engineered the protest marches for the benefit of Western cameras:

Look closely at the banners in the above photographs. This group never misses an opportunity to market its goals.

In a largely secular country like Bangladesh, Hizb ut-Tahrir will not garner much support and will likely remain in the fringes. However, it need not have a huge following to mobilize hate. Its target audience, university students who are looking to channel their frustration, are the engine that fuel the armies of hate. It is not groups like Hamas or Hezbollah that produced the September 11th terrorists. It was not Saddam Hussein’s Iraq that produced the London bombers of 7/11 or those that are detained in the current terror plot. In all cases it was educated middle class Muslims in their 20s that were the killers. These young men were schooled in an ideology that began with groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir. While the group claims non-violence, its rhetoric green lights violence with a wink and a nod.

No amount of bombing in Iraq and in Lebanon will make us safer while we ignore hate groups such as these. Instead of tackling these groups, the Bush Administration is busily driving new recruits into their fold. While we bomb "them", we let these groups fester in so-called "friendly" countries. The tired "you are either with us or against us" rhetoric of Mr. Bush does not begin to address the terrorist factories in clear view of the world. So, when we say that Mr. Bush’s foreign policy has made us less safe by ignoring the real threat in favor of his neo-con escapade in Iraq, we should point to groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir as clear evidence.

This is not a war we can win with F-16s and Tomahawk missiles. It is not a war for the soul of Islam. It is a war against a small group of extremists with a powerful propaganda machine. Our goal should be to outmaneuver them and isolate them. To do that we need a leader who understands the world beyond the confines of his talking points.

[As a footnote, if you want to get a small taste of how easily Hizb ut-Tahrir is able to appeal to the young people in countries like Bangladesh, read the comments attached to this post about Hizb ut-Tahrir from a Bangladeshi blogger based in London.]

Update: The Guardian is now reporting that 10 of the 19 suspects arrested last week in London may have been targeted by Hibz ut-Tahrir and its off-shoot al-Mujaharoun.

 [Cross posted at Taylor Marsh]

The Bush Administration is maneuvering mightily at the United Nations to give Ehud Olmert an exit without humiliation. Olmert for his part is trying to create facts on the ground (troops in Lebanon) as quickly as possible to give the veneer of victory. However, the damage has already been done. Israel’s aura of invincibility is all but gone.

The current draft of the "ceasefire" resolution at the UN Security Council is probably not worth the paper it is written on. As many have noted, the primary point of contention is that it allows Israel to occupy Southern Lebanon and continue what it deems "defensive" military actions. The key paragraph from the resolution states:

OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

This paragraph has already been rejected by Lebanon and Hezbollah. Any resolution that leaves Israeli forces on Lebanese soil will not be acceptable to Hezbollah. Nonetheless, the United States hopes to hammer the resolution through the Security Council. To do so, all that has to happen is that Russia and China do not invoke their vetoes. Given the violence on the ground, it is likely that no vetoes will be cast and this resolution, if put to a vote, will pass.

The passage of this resolution will not stop the fighting. In fact, it may even escalate it. However, it will give Ehud Olmert some breathing room until a second resolution authorizing a UN force in Lebanon is passed. In Olmert’s fantasy, an UN force will be inserted into Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah - a task that the IDF has proven itself incapable of doing. In reality, no country will contribute troops to a UN force to disarm Hezbollah. Without a political solution, Israel will be left to occupy Southern Lebanon again. Ehud Olmert will learn the lessons of history first hand.

Regardless of the direction of this conflict, the damage to Israel’s deterrence has already been done. In 3 weeks of fighting, Israel has failed to crush Hezbollah. That was not unexpected. However, in 3 weeks of constant bombardment and ground assaults, Israel has failed to stop Hezbollah rockets from hitting deep within Israel. That is a massive strategic failure for Israel. Israel has proven itself incapable of defending against a lightly armed militia with a stockpile of unguided rockets. Against a more well armed foe, the toll on Israel might have been severe.

Time is now Israel’s foe - both in the short term and in the long term. In the short term, the longer this conflict drags on, the weaker Israel looks. In the long term, Israel’s foes will inevitably acquire more and more sophisticated weaponry. Israel’s deterrence capabilities will continue to weaken as it’s enemies gain in sophistication. At some point in the future, Israel will no longer be capable of making peace on its own terms. When that tipping point is reached, the peace proposals that Israel has so far rejected will start to look awfully good, yet may no longer be available.

This gambit of Olmert’s was always unwinnable. The only question really was how much damage would Israel’s deterrence capability suffer. After weeks of fighting, it is safe to say that Israel’s deterrence is severely weakened. Israel and Ehud Olmert again have two choices to salvage this mess. They can climb down or they can escalate. It appears now that they have chosen to escalate. The hope apparently is that by causing massive destruction in Lebanon Israel will have shown its might and deterred its enemies:

A senior General Staff officer told Haaretz that for the first time since the fighting began, Israel plans to attack strategic infrastructure targets and symbols of the Lebanese government.

Other than bombing the Beirut airport to prevent arms transfers to Hezbollah, Israel has hitherto not targeted Lebanon’s infrastructure, insisting that it is only at war with Hezbollah, not with the Lebanese government or people.

However, the officer said, "we are now in a process of renewed escalation. We will continue hitting everything that moves in Hezbollah - but we will also hit strategic civilian infrastructure."

So, escalation it is. As Ehud Olmert escalates and the neo-cons in Washington cheer him on, the people of Lebanon and Israel continue to suffer. However, no amount of escalation will gain back what Israel has already lost - its deterrence.

Tonight on Larry King Live, Ehud Goldwasser’s father and wife appeared to plea for his safe return. Ehud Goldwasser is one of two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah on July 12. It was the precipitating event of this spasm of violence.

Karnit Goldwasser, Ehud’s wife, made an emotional plea to the wives of Hezbollah for information about his health and safety. When Ehud’s father, Shlomo Goldwasser, spoke about his efforts to free his son, his voice trembled with the quiet anguish of a parent:

KARNIT GOLDWASSER, WIFE OF KIDNAPPED ISRAELI SOLDIER: First of all, I want to thank the people who brought us here to speak to you. I ask the wives of Hezbollah to help me to get a sign that Ehud and Dan are still alive and to know if something happened to them, if they are injured or not.

KING: Shlomo, you’ve heard nothing?

SHLOMO GOLDWASSER, FATHER OF KIDNAPPED ISRAELI SOLDIER: Nothing. It’s now the 23rd day since Ehud was kidnapped. We’ve heard nothing.

KING: Shlomo, what are you doing in the United States?

S. GOLDWASSER: You know, there is no school in the world to teach you what to do when your son is kidnapped. And I was thrown into this situation in the fraction of a second on the 12th of July. And judging what to do, what are the tools to bring him back, I found that there is not so many tools in my hand, and the only one that is in my hands, with the help of you, is the media. I am using it and I’m going everywhere, everywhere that I can raise my voice and have some people to hear me. And you’re doing a great job.

It seems to me that there has been too much death already in this war. Too many parents have lost their children. There has been enough death. Enough.

I still believe if both sides of this conflict could start to see each other as human beings, as mothers and fathers, as brothers and sisters, as sons and daughters, this madness that is destroying generations would come to an end. The beginning of the end can start here. It can start with the safe return of Ehud Goldwasser and his two brothers in arms.

I ask all bloggers who read this post, as a gesture of peace and good will, to repost this plea on your blogs. Ask the same of those who read your posts. Let this plea spread across the blogosphere. Perhaps this plea will be posted on the blogs of our Arab and Lebanese friends. Perhaps this plea will make a difference in saving at least one life.

Regardless of which side of the conflict you are on, let us come together on the shared belief in the sanctity of life. Arabs, Israelis, Lebanese, Palestinians, Americans, Jews, and Muslims will still have to live together after the guns fall silent.

This may seem like a naive plea while the bombs and missiles continue to take their deadly toll, but the bombs aren’t working too well - perhaps its time to find some humanity in this madness.

Israel late Saturday night killed more than 60 Lebanese civilians including at least 34 children in an airstrike on a building in the Lebanese village of Qana. I was up last night blogging as part of the Blogathon 2006 charity event when the news flashed on CNN.

The Israeli defense of their actions was articulated last night by a very angry young IDF spokesman on CNN. He insisted that Israel was not to blame for killing civilians because of the following reasons:

• Hezbollah started it.
• Hezbollah fired rockets from around the village of Qana.
• Israel asked civilians to flee Southern Lebanon therefore cannot be held responsible for killing the ones who stayed behind.

In a combative interview with CNN International’s Shihab Rattansi, the IDF spokesman insisted that it was Hezbollah who was to blame and Israel was only defending herself. So, this is Israel’s idea of self-defense. Most sane people call this a war crime.

First, let’s list the facts:

• Israel fired a missile at a civilian building in Qana.
• Over 60 civilians were killed.
• Zero Hezbollah were killed. 

Last night, the CNN anchors kept asking the openly exasperated CNN reporters who had been to the scene if they had seen any rocket parts at the scene. To which one CNN reporter (I believe it was Karl Penhaul) replied, with frustration in his voice, that he had seen lots of dead children, and body parts, but he had yet to see a rocket part. Tonight as I write this, General David Grange is on CNN complaining that Hezbollah waits for Israelis to kill civilians and then videotapes the scene for political purposes. He complained that there was "overreaction" on the part of the international community. His only suggestion for Israel was that perhaps they should change tactics because they were losing the propaganda war.

I have news for General Grange, it was CNN who was on the scene of this one rather quickly. It was CNN reporters who were visibly shaken by this incident. No amount of spin from you or anyone else will wash away this war crime.

Here’s is how The Guardian newspaper saw the war crime:

It was an unremarkable three-storey building on the edge of town. But for two extended families, the Shalhoubs and the Hashems, it was a last refuge. They could not afford the extortionate taxi fares to Tyre and hoped that if they all crouched together on the ground floor they would be safe.

They were wrong. At about one in the morning, when some of the men were making late night tea, an Israeli bomb pulverised the house. Some witnesses describe two explosions a few minutes apart, with survivors desperately moving from one side of the building to the other before being hit by the second blast. By tonight, more than 60 bodies had been pulled from the rubble, said the Lebanese authorities, 34 of them children; there were only eight known survivors.

The bombing, the bloodiest single incident in Israel’s 18-day campaign against Hizbullah, drew instant condemnation from around the world and sparked furious protests outside the UN headquarters in Beirut. The Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, accused Israel of committing "war crimes" and called off a planned meeting with the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. Israel apologised for the loss of life but said it had been responding to rockets fired from the village.

Mohamad Qassim Shalhoub, a slim 38-year-old construction worker, emerged with a broken hand and minor injuries, but he lost his wife, five children and 45 members of his extended family. "Around one o’clock we heard a big explosion," he said. "I don’t remember anything after that, but when I opened my eyes I was lying on the floor and my head had hit the wall. There was silence. I didn’t hear anything for a while, but then heard some screams."

"I said: ‘Allahu Akbar [God is great]. Don’t be scared. I will come.’ There was blood on my face. I wiped it and looked for my son but couldn’t find him. I took three children out - my four-year-old nephew, a girl and her sister. I went outside and screamed for help and three men came and went back inside. There was shelling everywhere. We heard the planes. I was so exhausted I could not go back inside again. "

Ibrahim Shalhoub described how he and his cousin had set out to get help after the bombs hit. "It was dark and there was so much smoke. Nobody could do anything till dawn," he said, his eyes still darting around nervously. "I couldn’t stop crying, we couldn’t help them."

Said Rabab Yousif had her son on her knee when the first bomb fell.

"I couldn’t see anything for 10 minutes and then I saw my son sitting in my lap and covered with rubble," she recalled. "I removed the dirt and the stones I freed him and handed him to the people who were inside rescuing us.

"I then started freeing myself, my hands were free, and then went with two men to rescue my husband. We pulled him from the rubble. I tried to find Zainab, my little daughter, but it was too dark and she was covered deep in rubble I was too scared that they might bomb us again so I just left her and ran outside." She was in hospital with her son and husband, who was paralysed and in a coma. There was no news of her daughter.

In addition to being a war crime, this is also an act of cowardice by Israel. Faced with the launching of a rocket containing up to a 90-pound warhead, Israel’s response was to launch a bunker buster to destroy a nearby building. Given that these rockets, the Katyushas, are small enough to be man portable, what is the military justification of using a bunker buster bomb to destroy a mobile launcher? What was Israel trying to achieve?

It seems to me if Israel wanted to take down a guerrilla force like Hezbollah, they would engage in ground combat with them. But, perhaps it is easier to bomb buildings full of civilians rather than to fight men with guns. That is an act of a coward. At the beginning of this conflict, Israel’s military already stated Israel’s intention to go after civilians and civilian infrastructure:

Israel called Wednesday’s abductions an act of war, and Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of Israel’s Northern Command, said he has "comprehensive plans" to battle Hezbollah throughout Lebanon, not just in its southern stronghold.

"This affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon," Adam said. "Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate — not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts." (Watch as Israeli forces enter Lebanon — 2:29)

Earlier, Israel’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told Israel’s Channel 10, "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years."

"Everything is legitimate" indeed! Seldom have war criminals declared their intentions so plainly ahead of the crime.

Who else is complicit? Why, it is the Bush Administration. Fragments found at the site of the bomb that murdered the women and children had this label on it: "GUIDED BOMB BSU 37/B". That is the label of an American 5000 pound bunker buster, courtesy of the Bush Administration. Just last week the Bush Administration rushed a new shipment to Israel so they could blow up more civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Today, as the entire world demanded an immediate ceasefire, the United States stood alone at the United Nations in rejecting any cessation of hostilities. Just as it did last week, the United States has blocked a ceasefire. In doing so, it is complicit in this Israeli war crime.

The most disingenuous comment on this tragedy so far has come from none other than George W Bush:

President Bush on Sunday renewed his call for a "sustainable peace" in the Middle East while his administration urged Israel to avoid civilian casualties in the wake of a deadly airstrike in Lebanon.

"Our hope for peace for boys and girls everywhere extends across the world, especially in the Middle East," the president said before the start of a T-ball game at the White House.

"Today’s actions in the Middle East remind us that friends and allies must work together for a sustainable peace particularly for the sake of children," Bush told the teams of youngsters and visitors. [Emphasis added by me.]

George W Bush pays lip service to the killing of Lebanese children while supplying the very bombs that killed them. A reporter asked Mr. Bush after his comments if he was putting principle ahead of lives. Mr. Bush walked away without answering - no doubt with thoughts of his "culture of life" agenda dancing through his otherwise empty thoughtscape.

Ehud Olmert began this orgy of killing to rescue 2 Israeli soldiers. What has he achieved so far? He has killed civilians in their homes. He has killed civilians as the fled the carnage. He has killed civilians in ambulances. His warplanes have strafed civilians as they lay dying on the highways of Lebanon. His missiles have found their mark on the helpless forms of sleeping infants.

What has he achieved? He has failed to damage Hezbollah. In fact, Hezbollah is stronger today than they were at the beginning of this conflict. Hezbollah is stronger today because of Ehud Olmert’s actions and George W Bush’s inactions. The only certainty is that the blood of Lebanese children is on Olmert’s hands. This stain will not wash off - no matter how much spin and what justification is spun by Israel or the Bush Administration.

Israel says it needs two more weeks to bring Hezbollah to heel. Instead what Israel will get is two more weeks of killing civilians. Hezbollah will do just fine.

This war is over save the killing.

The small Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil has in recent days been the scene of much violence between Israel and Hezbollah. However, in times of peace, this town is quite picturesque. Bint Jbeil also has a web site. It is a surreal place to visit these days. Its opening page simply has the word "Resisting!" in bright bold letters. The web site has a guest book that is now littered with a war of words instead of what one would normally expect in a small town’s guest book. There is also a list of all the families that until recently had lived in this town of just over 15,000 people.

Here are some pictures from Bint Jbeil from more peaceful times:

Ehud Olmert’s two-week misadventure in Lebanon is coming to a close. The unexpected ambush in the town of Bint Jbeil and the shelling of the UN observation post may have become catalysts for a draw down of the conflict. These two tragic events, in retrospect, will be seen to have saved many Israeli and Lebanese lives.

This war was always a losing proposition for Israel and a strategic blunder. From the start, the most obvious outcome was an exchange of Lebanese prisoners for the captured Israeli soldiers. However, Olmert wanted to prove his bona fides to the Israeli public and took what should have been a relatively minor incident and escalated it into a conflict with no good exit strategy for Israel. Having now reached a decision point where Israel could either escalate or climb down, Olmert has now chosen to back pedal:

With no sign of a cease-fire soon, Israeli warplanes and artillery pummeled targets across Lebanon without letup Thursday, concentrating fire on the rocky border hills where Hezbollah fighters are entrenched. The Israeli government called up thousands of reservists but decided against expanding its onslaught into a full-fledged invasion as some military officers suggested.

Undeterred after 16 days of attacks, Hezbollah militiamen again fired volleys of rockets into northern Israel, igniting a detergent factory and lightly wounding seven people. More than 110 Hezbollah rockets landed across the north on Thursday, following the launch of more than 150 rockets on Wednesday. More than 1,400 rockets have landed in Israel since the conflict began. [Emphasis added by me.]

The shift in Israeli direction is subtle, but nonetheless it is there and it is significant.

Israel’s climb down and the eventual end to this conflict will be seen by Hezbollah and the Arab world as a defeat. The only thing left to do for Israel and the United States is to try to soften the strategic blow to Israel by searching for a best-case withdrawal plan. To that end, the wheels have already been set in motion.

Enter Tony Blair, George W Bush’s hapless poodle. Mr. Blair will make a show of urging for a ceasefire during his meeting with Mr. Bush:

Tony Blair will press George Bush today to support "as a matter of urgency" a ceasefire in Lebanon as part of a UN security council resolution next week, according to Downing Street sources.

At a White House meeting, the prime minister will express his concern that pro-western Arab governments are "getting squeezed" by the crisis and the longer it continues, the more squeezed they will be, giving militants a boost. The private view from No 10 is that the US is "prevaricating" over the resolution and allowing the conflict to run on too long.

But diplomatic sources in Washington suggest the US and Israel believe serious damage has been inflicted on Hizbullah, so the White House is ready to back a ceasefire resolution at the UN next week. Today Mr Bush and Mr Blair will discuss a version of the resolution that has been circulating in Washington and London. [Emphasis added by me.]

The US and Israeli position will be that they can now propose a ceasefire because they have sufficiently degraded Hezbollah’s capabilities. They will proclaim victory and exit stage left. After weeks of defending the ridiculous notion that negotiations must occur before a ceasefire, the Bush Administration is reportedly ready to reverse course on the main sticking point:

The draft peace deal involves two phases. In the first, Israel and Lebanon would agree a ceasefire and a small multinational force would be deployed on the border, allowing Israeli troops to withdraw. Then a much larger force of between 10,000 and 20,000 troops would be assigned to implement UN security council resolution 1559, agreed two years ago, under which militias such as Hizbullah would be disarmed and the authority of the Lebanese government forces extended to the country’s southern border.

As with all foreign policy stands this Administration has bungled, they initially talk tough and then wither when reality encroaches on their fantasy world. So too here, when the reality of a protracted guerrilla war or an escalating regional conflict faced them squarely in the face, they crumbled. But as with all such neo-con fantasies, the cost of bravado is paid in innocent lives lost.

Adding to the chorus of voices demanding an immediate ceasefire, former President Clinton and his first term Secretary of State today firmly endorsed the position held by nearly the entire world. Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, in particular, made the prevailing opinion on a ceasefire quite clear:

In the course of her trip, the secretary repeatedly insisted that any cease-fire be tied to a "permanent" and "sustainable" solution to the root causes of the conflict. Such a solution is achievable, if at all, only after protracted negotiations involving multiple parties. In the meantime, civilians will continue to die, precious infrastructure will continue to be destroyed and the fragile Lebanese democracy will continue to erode.

My own experience in the region underlies my belief that in the short term we should focus our efforts on stopping the killing. Twice during my four years as secretary of state we faced situations similar to the one that confronts us today. Twice, at the request of the Israelis, we helped bring the bloodshed to an end.

If only the current Democratic leadership had the courage to demand action instead of pandering for votes to save their political behinds. When this conflict is over and America’s prestige and influence in the world is further damaged the Democrats will have to share in the blame. In this instance the Democrats allied themselves with the Bush Administration, their neo-con friends and the End Timers for political expediency at the expense of America’s national security interests.

So, look for this war to draw down next week when the United Nations Security Council meets to debate a ceasefire. Look for a call for a ceasefire from the Security Council along with a carefully worded condemnation of Hezbollah and a plan to set up an international force to supplement UNIFIL in Southern Lebanon. Look for Israel to declare victory and begin withdrawing soon thereafter. Also look for the release of the Israeli soldiers followed by a discrete hand over of Lebanese prisoners a few weeks later. One might even find renewed talks on the hand over of the Golan Height and the Chebaa farms to get Syrian buy in.

Expect American pundits to flood the airwaves and declare the ceasefire to be a good outcome for Israel and a severe blow to Hezbollah’s capabilities. Expect the Lebanese to finally be able to bury their dead and begin the long path to recovery from this needless spasm of destruction.

What will be lost is a large chunk of Israel’s deterrence capabilities and some measure of America’s influence in the Middle East. What Hezbollah will have gained is adulation from the Arab masses and a greater stranglehold on Lebanese politics. What Syria will have gained is influence again in Lebanese affairs and momentum toward a resolution of the Golan Heights issues. What Iran will have gained is more regional power and clout.

All in all not a pretty picture for Israel. All of this was completely unnecessary. Ehud Olmert got his war and proved himself utterly incompetent.

Today Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki met with President Bush at the White House. Tomorrow evening he is to address a joint session of Congress. The Democratic leadership in the Senate are up in arms because Maliki has  condemned the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. I have news for the Democrats: Duh!

CNN reports why the Democrats have their knickers all in a bind:

Last week, al-Maliki said that Iraq was urging the international community "to take a quick and firm stance to stop this aggression against Lebanon, to stop the killing of innocent people and to stop the destruction of infrastructure."

"What is happening is an operation of mass destruction and mass punishment and an operation using great force that Israel has — and Lebanon does not," he said.

They want him to take it all back. They want him to eat his words. Harry Reid was positively livid today:

In a letter to al-Maliki, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York called the Iraqi leader’s comments troubling.

"Your failure to condemn Hezbollah’s aggression and recognize Israel’s right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," the letter said.

The senators said some Democrats are considering boycotting al-Maliki’s speech before Congress.

"I want the prime minister to denounce what Hezbollah has done," Reid said at a news briefing. "I will lose a lot of confidence in al-Maliki if he does not denounce what Hezbollah has done."

I have news for Senator Reid. Prime Minister Maliki is not in the minority among world leaders to condemn the Israeli action in Lebanon. It is the United States that is in the minority. To expect an Arab leader to not condemn Israel for attacking Lebanon is a little much, don’t you think? It’s also a little disingenuous. When the Iraqi parliament speaker accused the US forces of "butchery" this week, where the heck was the Democratic leadership? Why aren’t they trying to boycott Mr. Maliki over his government’s position on the "butchery" of American forces? Yet, they are all up in arms when Maliki condemned (quite legitimately I might add) Israeli bombing.

I think its pathetic and its also par for the course. American national interest is being sold down the river for a few extra votes.

The real irony here is that the fact that Maliki won’t condemn Hezbollah should have been obvious to these clowns from the very start. I have written before about how Hezbollah and Maliki’s Islamic Dawa party are quite connected. Hezbollah in fact grew out of the Dawa party. Dawa introduced the world to the modern car bombing by blowing up the American and French embassies in Kuwait. The bombing of the American barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was committed by a precursor group of Hezbollah consisting of the Islamic Jihad offspring of the Dawa party. With such a history is it any surprise that Maliki and Hezbollah would have some affinity for each other?

The Bush Administration and our Democratic opposition in both houses of Congress have conveniently glossed over the history of the party they put in power in Iraq. Now they are reaping its consequences. Freedom is definitely on the march.

The Bush Administration has put in power in Iraq a Shia Islamist alliance with strong ties to Iran. This has helped Iran along in its quest for regional dominance. That dominance is now challenged by Israel’s actions in Lebanon. The Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are beside themselves trying to figure out how to stake out a position that is anti-Israel and yet does not give Iran even more regional power. Throw Syria’s shaky alliance with Iran into the mix and you have the makings of a regional powder keg. This powder keg has fuses in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Any one of these fuses can be lit to create a regional conflagration. The matter is very serious and has far reaching consequences for the region, the world and the United States.

Yet, are the most prominent liberal bloggers discussing it? With a few notable exceptions, the answer is no. It is as if the war in Lebanon was not happening. Some liberal bloggers have now come out to explain their silence. It would have been better if they had remained silent. Because their excuses are juvenile.

The excuse for not covering the Israel-Lebanon war from the liberal bloggers appears to be that it is "complicated", that it is "complex", that it not in the area of their expertise, and that it does not have any domestic impact. Like I said, it would have been better to remain silent.

If bloggers ever decided to not cover any "complex" issues, then they would have to stop blogging about stem cells, NSA wiretapping, the Iraq war, the Iranian nuclear issue, the search for WMD, al Qaeda, global warming, the CIA leak case, etc. (Did I leave anything out?). If bloggers stopped blogging about things that were not in their area of expertise then, well, I am afraid most bloggers should stop blogging. Most of these bloggers are citizen journalists, not "experts" - yet they opine on many things of interest to them. Finally, the suggestion that this war does not have domestic implications is simply laughable. The United States funds Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year. It is the largest recipient of US foreign aid in the world. Our tax dollars and our missiles are being spent on the bombing of Lebanon - that makes it a serious domestic bread and butter issue. Oh, and one look at the gas pump should also give you an indication that this war has domestic ramifications.

The most unconvincing defense I have read so far comes from The Poor Man Institute:

I’ve said nothing about war in Lebanon or Ethiopia because I have nothing to add, and also because - as you may or may not be aware - the United States is actually involved in a hugely bloody war right now, and this is more of a pressing concern to me personally. I don’t know the secret formula for unshitting any of these beds - I promise I wouldn’t be shy if I did - but I currently only have to sleep in one of them; and, as it turns out, that’s the one bed where I actually have some miniscule chance of influencing the situation. So that’s my concern.

He may have nothing to add. I am sure he might reconsider when the conflict widens to warrant his attention.

Just like the Democrats in the Senate today, a lot of our prominent liberal bloggers are acting as if they are running for something.

Sometimes silence is golden.

Israel has embarked on a war that it cannot win. In spite of its overwhelming military firepower Israel is destined to lose this war. In losing this war Israel will have damaged its deterrence capability irrevocably.

Thomas Friedman of The New York Times wrote a column (TimesSelect) last week entitled "Not So Smart" in which he described Hezbollah’s cross-border gambit as, well, not smart:

Profiles of the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah always describe him as the most “brilliant” or “strategic” Arab player. I beg to differ. When the smoke clears, Nasrallah will be remembered as the most foolhardy Arab leader since Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser miscalculated his way into the Six-Day War.

Yes, yes, I know. I am a too-rational Westerner. I don’t understand the Eastern mind and the emotional victory that Nasrallah will reap from all this pain. It isn’t whether you win or lose; it’s whether you kill Jews. Well, maybe — but, ultimately, wars are fought for political ends. An accounting will be rendered, so let’s do some math.

Mr. Friedman, very much like a broken clock, is right on occasion. This is not one of those times. As he has shown with his sliding six-month predictions about the Iraq war, he is often wrong but constantly forgiven. His analysis of Lebanon is similar to his Iraq analysis where he believes fervently in an outcome he would like to see and then attempts through his considerable analytical skills to convince himself and his readers that his chosen outcome is likely to occur. If the outcome fails to materialize he suggests that we wait another 6 months. Although I admire his optimism, he is more often than not wrong.

Israel’s fight against Hezbollah is not a zero sum game. Israel does not have to be defeated for Hezbollah to win. Israel simply has to fail to defeat Hezbollah. After 13 days of fighting it appears that Hezbollah has stood fast and already Israel looks to be losing the initiative:

Figures released by the Israeli army show the pace of Hezbollah rockets raining down on Israel has not slowed — and the guerrillas are nowhere close to being neutralized.

Air power alone is proving insufficient to rout Hezbollah, whose determination and intimate knowledge of the terrain are making them a tougher-than-expected foe.

Mideast observers say Hezbollah only has to remain standing — not beat Israel — to emerge victorious in Arab eyes.

Hezbollah actions such as blowing up an Israeli warship with an Iranian-made radar-guided missile or firing rockets at the once out-of-range city of Haifa have shattered taboos and astounded Israel and the world.

By withstanding an Israeli assault Hezbollah will not only emerge victorious in Arab eyes; Hezbollah will in fact emerge victorious. Mr. Friedman mocks this victory as the figment of "the Eastern mind and the emotional victory." He also compares the Hezbollah leader to Egypt’s Gamal Nasser. Friedman is wrong on both counts. First whereas Nasser was a head of state who had Egypt to lose, Nasrallah’s Hezbollah is at its root a guerrilla movement without territory and state infrastructure to defend and lose. Even though Hezbollah has grown up as a political force in Lebanese politics, on the battlefield it is still a guerrilla army fighting a war of resistance. Nasser did not have that luxury. Second, a guerrilla force fighting a defensive war of resistance does not need to occupy territory. It merely needs to survive and fight a war of attrition against a superior invading or oppressing force. A guerrilla force breaks the will of the invader or the occupier by simply fighting the invader to a stalemate. A stalemate and the march of time are sufficient to ensure victory. Victory comes in the form of an ultimate withdrawal of the invader from the guerrilla force’s native land. History is littered with the wreckage of invading and occupying armies that did not lose militarily but failed to destroy the native guerrilla forces.

Guerrilla Warfare or Mobile Warfare was used to great effect by Mao Tse-Tung in China. Mao’s Red Army used classic guerrilla and mobile warfare tactics to wear down and eventually overwhelm the Kuomintang in 1949. Mao wrote about his mobile warfare methods in the pamphlet "On Guerilla Warfare". In it he wrote:

These guerrilla operations must not be considered as an independent form of warfare. They are but one step in the total war, one aspect of the revolutionary struggle. They are the inevitable result of the clash between oppressor and oppressed when the latter reach the limits of their endurance.

…

Guerrilla warfare has qualities and objectives peculiar to itself. It is a weapon that a nation inferior in arms and military equipment may employ against a more powerful aggressor nation. When the invader pierces deep into the heart of the weaker country and occupies her territory in a cruel and oppressive manner, there is no doubt that conditions of terrain, climate, and society in general offer obstacles to his progress and may be used to advantage by those who oppose him. In guerrilla warfare we turn these advantages to the purpose of resisting and defeating the enemy.

…

In guerrilla warfare, select the tactic of seeming to come from the east and attacking from the west; avoid the solid, attack the hollow; attack; withdraw; deliver a lightning blow, seek a lightning decision. When guerrillas engage a stronger enemy, they withdraw when he advances; harass him when he stops; strike him when he is weary; pursue him when he withdraws. In guerilla strategy, the enemy’s rear, flanks, and other vulnerable spots are his vital points, and there he must be harassed, attacked, dispersed, exhausted and annihilated.

Inferior resistance forces have used Mao’s tactics of retreat, avoid, and attack to great success in the 20th century. Hezbollah knows these tactics well and used them to effectively counter the Israeli army during its previous occupation of Lebanon. This time the Israeli military faces the same tactics but against a better equipped and better trained Hezbollah. Hezbollah this time is more entrenched in Lebanese society and will find many allies amongst the civilian population so essential to carrying out a successful guerrilla campaign.

Throughout the last century and the beginning of this one invading armies have struggled to counter Mao’s guerrilla and mobile warfare. They have so far failed. The Americans are failing in Iraq. The Israelis will likely fail in Lebanon.

The political fallout of an Israeli failure on the battlefield promises to be severe. Israel relies on the deterrence capability of its powerful military. With failure against Hezbollah the Israeli military’s perception of invincibility will be damaged. Israel’s enemies in the Palestinian territories as well as regional players will feel emboldened to challenge Israel on the political arena knowing that Israel’s military might has limited offensive use. Further, as its enemies inevitably gain more sophisticated weapons they will be more inclined to challenge Israel militarily - not with the intent of defeating it, but with the intent of causing sufficient pain to wrestle political concessions. Here Israel’s nuclear deterrence is largely useless since it is only a deterrence against an existential threat.

Sadly, the prospect of this kind of political fallout from a military stalemate (defeat) against Hezbollah will mean that Israel will likely escalate this conflict in order to avoid defeat. The risk of such escalation is a wider regional conflict. The outcome of such a regional conflict is far from certain and its global ramifications are likely to be immense. So, Israel is trapped in a difficult quandary by having escalated a Hezbollah kidnapping into a test of Israeli military might. It cannot afford to lose, but unfortunately it cannot win either.

The only certainty in the days and weeks to come is more civilian deaths in Lebanon and Israel. The rest is fraught with uncertainty and further danger.

[Author’s Note: This article is inspired by my friend from China who I know will be reading this. I have learned much from him in our many conversations.]