Information
ARCHIVES
Wednesday, July 12, 2024
By Steven L. Taylor

Writes James Joyner concerning the Israeli invasion of Lebanon:

As in Gaza, Israel is giving the terrorists exactly what they want: War.

It seems pretty clear that the Hamas faction that kidnapped Gilad Shalit was looking to provoke Israel into action, and certainly the Hizbollah guerrillas who took two Israeli soldiers knew what the response was going to be.

While there may well be a great deal of visceral satisfaction on the part of the Israelis as a result of these military actions, it is wholly unclear what the overall strategic goals are.

One could argue it is to demonstrate that provocative actions by terrorist groups will result in a swift and massive military response in the hopes of dissuading future actions. However, we’ve seen that movie before, and it has not had the desired dissuasive effects.

As such, the exact goals here are unclear–especially since the sad truth is that the kidnap victims are unlikely to be recovered alive.

Instead, the Israeli government has allowed two terrorist groups to create a great death of death and chaos with no discernible endgame in sight.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (8)|
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.

8 Responses to “Israel Invades Lebanon: Now What?”

  • el
  • pt
    1. Outside The Beltway | OTB Says:

      Israel Invades Lebanon

      Israel has invaded Lebanon in retalliation for Hezbollah’s kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers.

      Hizbollah guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers and killed up to seven Israelis in violence on either side of the Lebanese border on Wednesday, fur…

    2. One Hand Clapping » Blog Archive » Not quite to the stone age Says:

      [...] are, in both cases, the result of the democratic process. And he cites a good point by Steven Taylor. While there may well be a great deal of visceral satisfaction on the part of the Israelis as [...]

    3. c.v. Says:

      What is the one similarity of all conflict in the world, “Radical” Islam. You will never be able to bring these animals to the table for a civilized talk on the issues facing these oppresses and uneducated people. The fact is as long as the Muslim community is cheering in the streets for those who kill innocent women and children blood will flow in the Middle East and cities around the world until the end of time. Oh, and be prepared for $5.00 a gallon gas.

    4. Matthew Shugart (Guestblogger) Says:

      This puts the lie to something I had just read in a CSM from late last week. Quoting a social scientist at Hebrew University, the story said that Israel responded differently in what it still considered “its” territory (Gaza and “Judea and Samaria”) versus sovereign states.

      Apparently not.

      Something else I have read in recent days (I forget the source, but one of the Israeli blogs that I read) said that the IDF has an implicit pact with the families who provide its soldiers: Return any captured soldier at whatever cost. The underlying reason being, according to that story, that the IDF is under immense internal strain with a rising number of refusals to serve in the territories (usually dealt with through the administrative trick of dismissal for “mental health” reasons).

      And then add in the further domestic angle that you have an “accidental” PM who needs to prove he is as tough as his predecessor and a Defense Minister who never served in the armed forces, and you have a recipe for taking action without much regard for larger strategic objectives.

    5. Joel Rosenberg Says:

      One could argue it is to demonstrate that provocative actions by terrorist groups will result in a swift and massive military response in the hopes of dissuading future actions. However, we’ve seen that movie before, and it has not had the desired dissuasive effects.Well, it hasn’t had enough of the desired effects, sure.

      All in all, I think it’s in Israeli’s interest to persuade the people who can control the terrorists that it’s in their interest to do so, and the only way to do that is to inflict a lot more damage than is acceptable to the recipients.

      Realistically, if the Lebanese government is going try to stop Hizbullah, they’re going to have to have a war with Hizbullah; the only possible motivation that can be provided for that is the sense that they’d rather be at war with Hizbullah than with the IDF.

      The real question in my mind is to what extent Syria is in the bullseye; they can obviously do a lot to muzzle the Hamas dogs, and quite probably quite a bit on the Hizbollah ones. The most likely way to make the urgency of that clear is to explain it to Baby Assad’s successor.

    6. Alan Kellogg Says:

      I can tell you what the goal is, to kick ass and take names.

      In more detail? Leave Israel’s enemies with the undeniable impression that resisting Israel in any way is utterly useless. And kill anyone who can’t take a hint. This last coming under the umbrella of, “Too stupid to live.”

    7. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      Alan,

      The thing is: it isn’t as if the Israelis haven’t demonstrated their military prowess over and over and over again. It hasn’t achieved the goal you state, nor will it this time.

    8. PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » A Question Says:

      [...] that there will be more persons willing to fight with Hezbollah within Lebanon, not less. As I wrote on July 12th: As such, the exact goals here are unclear–especially since the sad truth is that t [...]


    blog advertising is good for you

    Visitors Since 2/15/03


    Blogroll
    Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics
    ---


    Advertisement

    Advertisement


    Powered by WordPress