Posted on 08/14/2006 10:58:29 AM PDT by Sabramerican
When Israel began its counterattack on Hezbollah one month ago, the Bush administration backed the Israeli plan to destroy the militia and its arsenal of rockets, resisting efforts by France and other allies to call for a cease-fire.
But as the assault wore on and it became evident that Hezbollah was a far more fearsome and skilled adversary than Israel had first thought — and as Lebanese civilian casualties mounted — American policy moved more urgently toward seeking an immediate political solution.
That shift, recounted by senior administration officials, led to one of the most dramatic bouts of diplomacy that the United Nations Security Council has witnessed in years. Whether it leads to peace in southern Lebanon remains unclear. But what is certain is that negotiators in a half-dozen countries took part in a rare high-wire act.
..............
As evidence of how committed the United States had become to the notion that an Israeli military victory was no longer an option, Ms. Rice and other administration officials posed pointed questions to the Israelis about the likely consequences of an intensified military push. And in a rare pointed remark clearly aimed at Israel, Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said Wednesday, “We do not want escalations.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Retired Gen. Tom McInerny reported on FNC this morning that there was a plan in place to fight Hezbollah. The plan included airstrikes to take out Nasrallah and the leadership and was followed by a massive ground invasion. Syrai was also targeted, too. If McInerny's report is accurate, why did Olmert deviate from the plan already in place?
ISRAEL: "Cover me! I'm going in!!!"
UNCLE SAM: "Ok! Go get em! [firing]
UNCLE SAM: "Well? Get going!?!"
ISRAEL: "I just wanted to take a look. Ok, now I'm really going."
UNCLE SAM: "Ok. I got your back... [firing]"
ISRAEL: "Sure. Give me a minute to catch my breath first."
UNCLE SAM: "Oh, fercryingoutloud. Never mind. [stops firing.]"
I'm the last person to defend Olmert but maybe the President should have given Israel 5% of the time it is taking the US to pacify Afghanistan.
There is no excuse for Olmert or for the Bush Administration.
So I'm going to rely on a report in the NYSlimes?
I just knew that meaningful dialogue would win the day.
Or, more accurately, the Israelis were slow to commit their ground forces.
This article is so inaccurate it's hard to tell what the point is, other than to try and make Bush look bad to Republicans.
But who reads the NYTimes?
BS
America, even France gave Israel weeks to do the job. Saudis gave Israelis two fatwas to do it.
NYTimes reporting "what they say" and not "what they mean".
True, it was calibrated to an expected Israeli victory, and France and The US gave Israel and extra week once. Olmert wanted the UN resolution, he got it. Olmert wanted to bomb Beirut over and over instead of fighting Hezbollah thereby giving al Jazeera, CNN, Fox, all the media video of the Israeli bully, that's what he got.
Olmert feared reoocupation and mobilizing enough troops which explains the early tactical "defeats." Try explaining that to the Arabs. They'll take their victory.
I suspect Israel didn't want to go in any deeper than the Litani River. They then signalled they were ready for a cease fire. this article is NYT BS. Why would we stop Israel just because Hezbollah was tougher than expected?
Well, then we're all shift kickers now.
What if the job, trying to avoid civilian casualties, takes months.
Do you stop fighting terrorists, give them a victory, because Israel is supposed to win all its wars in six days?
If you haven't noticed, the Left's major opposition to Iraq is that it is unending.
Excuse the Bush Administration behavior here and you are undercutting the Administration's Iraq behavior.
On the other hand, it doesn't matter. The Administration as already screwed both Israel and themselves and us.
Was there a plan? Did Olmert deviate from the plan? Did Olmert really want to fight?
Not the normal New York Slime BS article if you ask me.
It smells like pure state department fed propaganda.
Makes me wonder who's in charge.
"It doesn't really matter what you believe, Bush is the president, he went to the UN, undermined Israel and now I'm watching Hezbollah party in the streets."
You're blaming Bush? Israel begged for the UN resolution. We delayed it, with French help, to give time to Israel to get their act together.
They didn't.
The resolution is about as pro-Israeli as one can imagine. It even includes the Olmert-fantasy that the Lebanese army will disarm Hezbollah
"What if the job, trying to avoid civilian casualties, takes months."
It didn't. It took a few days and Olmert should have done it weeks ago instead of handing Hezbollah victory after tactical victory.
"Do you stop fighting terrorists, give them a victory, because Israel is supposed to win all its wars in six days?"
I give them a victory when they win. They won, at least on the front lines. It took Israel 4 weeks to go 12 miles while death was raining on their civilians populations.
"I you haven't noticed, the Left's major opposition to Iraq is that it is unending."
Uh, we're talking about Lebanon. No left-baiting please.
"Excuse the Bush Administration behavior here and you are undercutting the Administration's Iraq behavior."
Ignorance=strength. 1984. You're an America-basher.
Inaccurate? It's bizarre!
Always good to hear the view from the alternate universe bizarro world.
Olmert was still talking about land give-backs in the West Bank while his troops were engaged in battle. While Olmert is probably a decent man, my impression is that he is not a war-fighter. The end of Hezbollah will now have to wait for another provocation, and perhaps a harder man in the prime minister's office.
Hezbollah will not be able to help themselves; another provocation is probably not far away. And Olmert will probably not last long in office.
I think everyone is clear that if a "neutral" force is deployed in south Lebanon, this war is not over. My position is that it won't be over until Hezbollah has been disarmed by force, which will require a drive all the way through the Bekaa.
Its pretty clear to me that Olmert wanted to go no further than the Litani; as soon as he got there he was ready for a cease-fire. While giving him credit for perhaps knowing some ground-reality I do not, the fact remains that leaving Hezbollah armed and still standing and still in Lebanon guarantees that the war is not over, and more Israelis will die.
Totally agree.
"America, even France gave Israel weeks to do the job. Saudis gave Israelis two fatwas to do it.
NYTimes reporting "what they say" and not "what they mean".
True, it was calibrated to an expected Israeli victory, and France and The US gave Israel and extra week once. Olmert wanted the UN resolution, he got it. Olmert wanted to bomb Beirut over and over instead of fighting Hezbollah thereby giving al Jazeera, CNN, Fox, all the media video of the Israeli bully, that's what he got.
Olmert feared reoocupation and mobilizing enough troops which explains the early tactical "defeats." Try explaining that to the Arabs. They'll take their victory."
I agree with your assessment. Olmert needed to send in ground troops using air support as cover to disarm Hezbollah, not the other way around. Of course that's what happens when you have a lawyer (Olmert) fighting a war!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.