« Now It's Time To Play Beat The Clock | Main | Where's -- And Who's -- Raul-do, Day 12 »
Paul Mirengoff, a true gentleman and a friend, responds to my criticism that he unfairly criticized George Bush for agreeing to the Security Council resolution, rightly noting that I did not explain myself in much detail. Paul politely restates his case and attempts to interpret my thin line of argument. In fairness, I'll provide a better explanation and hope that makes for a better argument.
The overriding question of how to end the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is to understand Israel's goals and realistic expectations of military action in Lebanon. Many argue that Israel should destroy Hezbollah and kill all the terrorists in Lebanon, and that the military effort should not cease short of this goal.. Anything less would be a defeat for Israel and a victory for the terrorists, who will use this to celebrate a triumph over the IDF. That argument serves as a satifactory emotional position, but it ignores reality, and it's this unrealistic expectation that leads people to blame Bush for the American efforts at the UN.
Could Israel actually have destroyed Hezbollah? The answer is almost certainly no. Hezbollah enjoys some limited popular support among the Shi'ite minority in Lebanon, which gives it support and recruits. They are not limited to just the sub-Litani area of Lebanon, however, and they can travel and live anywhere within Lebanon they wish. In fact, all anyone has to recall to recognize the futulity of such a goal is that Israel occupied half of Lebanon for eighteen years, and Hezbollah followed them all the way to the border when Israel finally withdrew. Even with a generational occupation, Israel could not dislodge or destroy Hezbollah.
Hezbollah gets support from other sources, much more critical support which Israel's military offensive only tangentially touched. If one wants to destroy Hezbollah or at least render them toothless, attacking Lebanon is a waste of time. The real target for that mission would be Damascus, not Beirut. Syria runs Hezbollah in partnership with Iran, and Syria provides all their lines of communication for resupply and political support, and after the end of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, provide the only direct land link to Arab aid. Israel did not want to engage Syria, for a variety of reasons, and so the idea that they intended to destroy Hezbollah from the outset seems suspect at best.
In fact, Israel made clear what they wanted from their war from its beginning. It wanted their soldiers returned and the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah and move them out of the sub-Litani region. The Israelis want an end to Hezbollah's capability to shower rockets down on their cities. Those goals fit within Israeli political reality, which will abolutely reject another long occupation of Lebanon, considered by many as their Viet Nam. These limited goals may have made some of their international supporters despair, but the Olmert government does not want to fight the combined armies of Arabia again unless absolutely necessary, and that time has not yet come.
In this context, George Bush delivered the best deal he could to meet those goals. He fought the UN to a stalemate while allowing Israel a free hand to conduct military missions against Hezbollah positions and leadership, creating some diplomatic backlash against the US as a result. When France tried to weasel its way into the good graces of the Arab states supporting Hezbollah, Bush made sure they did so by themselves, and then forced them back. In the end, the resolution calls for the solution that Israel wanted all along, and it commits the UN to provide enough forces to at least have a chance of successful implementation. Bush also made sure that the Israelis did not have to leave Lebanon until that force replaced them despite loud calls for immediate withdrawal, allowing Israel to protect its retreat.
My point, therefore, was that George Bush could hardly be blamed for delivering almost everything Israel wanted out of this war, and doing so with unanimous UN Security Council approval. In fact, the result should be seen as something of a diplomatic accomplishment. Israel set the goals, and we delivered. If the result is unsatisfactory, then I believe it is unfair to blame George Bush for demanding a war that Israel did not want to wage.Sphere It View blog reactions
TrackBack URL for this entry is
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Response To Paul:
» It's never too late for Peace from Globalclashes
The UN passed resolution 1701 last night, which was voted unanimously by its Security Council. Although the war is continuing, the hope is that the violence will shortly stop. I wonder what will be political consequences of this resolution and [Read More]
Tracked on August 12, 2006 11:29 AM
» Acceptance of UN Resolution 1701 from Strategic Outlook Institute - Weblog
If Ehud Olmert convinces the cabinet to accept 1701, does it mean anything? There are many clamoring the blogosphere, calling the Resolution a surrender by Israel. But isn’t the Resolution, if carried out and actually implemented, exactly what... [Read More]
Tracked on August 12, 2006 4:33 PM
» "Peace in our time" - 1938 Redux from Scipio the Metalcon
Ed Morrissey and Dafydd ab Hugh see it as the best solution available, as they say it leaves open the possibility of the Israeli government sending in the IDF to strike back at Hizbollah if attacked again. They believe the impetus is on the Lebanese go... [Read More]
Tracked on August 12, 2006 5:46 PM
» UN Resolution 1701–The Triumph of Hope Over Experience? from Gay Patriot
Given the track record of the United Nations (UN) in the MIddle East, I am not particularly optimistic that the Security Council Resolution 1701, unanimously passed yesterday, will lead to long-term solution to the conflict between the sovereign natio... [Read More]
Tracked on August 12, 2006 6:03 PM
» Litani Or Bust from Hard Starboard
Of course, the Israeli imperative remains the complete annihilation of Hezbollah. Pushing them only back to north of the Litani River buys them little more than the time it would take for the Iranians to ship longer-range missiles into the Bekaa. A t... [Read More]
Tracked on August 13, 2006 1:26 AM
» Paul & Carol & Ed & Alice from Big Lizards
Paul Mierengoff of Power Line and Captain Ed Morrisey of gee, guess where, are in the midst of a very polite and deferential public row over the American-brokered ceasefire agreement in Lebanon; and I'm torn. On the one hand, I've... [Read More]
Tracked on August 14, 2006 6:34 AM
» It’s Up to Kofi to Make 1701 Work from Gay Patriot
It looks like the test of the West’s resolve and Kofi Annan’s commitment to the principles of the United Nations (UN) and the mandates of its resolutions on the disarming of militias in Lebanon has come sooner than I anticipated. Israel la... [Read More]
Tracked on August 19, 2006 3:20 PM
My Other Blog!
Comment Moderation Policy - Please Read!
Skin The Site
Des Moines Register
International Herald Tribune
The Weekly Standard
The New Republic
AP News (Yahoo! Headlines)
Guardian Unlimited (UK)
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
- dave on Another National Health Care System Horror Story
- brooklyn on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- rbj on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- Robin S on Requiem For A Betrayed Hero
- Ken on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- Robin S. on Requiem For A Betrayed Hero
- RBMN on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- NoDonkey on Another National Health Care System Horror Story
- Robin Munn on Fred Thompson Interview Transcript
- filistro on When Exactly Did Art Die?
Proud Ex-Pat Member of the Bear Flag League!