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 ...
"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!
Was Israel hoping the U.S. would come in and do the job for them?
Just about sums it up for the second term. The problem is, none of the viable candidates for 2008 seem any better.
And I didn't think I'd ever wish for it, but bring back Bibi.
Israel would be more secure "bogged down" in Southern Lebanon (as it was before) where, by its presence and skill it disarms Hezbolla's rockets and prevents those rocket attacks on northern Israel, no matter how "unstable" that indicates Lebanon really is.
Lebanon's instablity is and always will be a fact, thanks to Syria, Iran, Islamic fundamentalists and pro-Palestinian terrorists, no matter where Israeli troops are; and at least when Israel was in Southern Lebanon someone was in control.
Under pressure from our "foggy bottom" Israel traded that security for the U.S. foreign policy agenda of making nice with "stable regimes" in the Middle East", and recently Israel and the world received their reward for Israel kowtowing to U.S. State Department pressure.
Rice and her JFngKerry henchman, Nicholas Burns, needs to go, and now.
That was also reported in an article posted here about a week ago, which said Olmert vetoed the plan and chose to go with the fiasco tactics. I agree with the other posters that Bush probably pulled the plug on our support once he discovered Olmert wasn't following the initial plan. In other words, Bush probably got burned by a bait and switch.
If that's the case, then the blame lays at Olmert's door. And Israel needs a new PM. Pronto.
I won't waste my time attempting rational debate with any person who can write such crap with a straight face.
We would not have stopped Israel because Hezballah was tough. We stopped it because Olmert was floundering. The US was holding off on a cease fire and resisting pressure. It was willing to do that if it saw the Israelis achieving victory. When it saw Olmert screwing around, changing strategy everyday, unwilling to commit troops, it decided it was easier to cut its losses with Israel than to continue fighting the diplomatic pressure. Is this a good thing? no. Is it something the Israelis should have expected? yes.
It is not a matter of excuses. The point is that Olmert should have realized that he had a limited window to act before the Americans and the internationals would stop the fighting. He should have made full use of that window. The Americans are what they are. Every MidEast war was eventually stopped by the Americans and international "community" when Israelis were on offensive and this one shoud have been expected to be the same. In the past the Israelis were smart enough to have their feet on the throat of the enemy when that time arrived. This time the Israelis wondered around aimlessly.
BINGO!! Here's the FR reproductiion of the article from the August 9, 2006 Israel Insider by Jonathan Ariel (original link no longer available):
Analysis: Government and IDF racked by unprecedented leadership crisis
By Jonathan Ariel August 9, 2006
Relations between the country's political and military leadership are at the lowest point in the country's history, on the verge of a crisis. In addition, there is a growing lack of confidence between Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, the first CoS to hail from the air force, and many of his general staff colleagues from the ground forces, who say he and his "blue clique" [blue being the color of the air force uniform-ed] do not fully appreciate the nature of ground warfare.
According to informed sources, there is an almost total breakdown in trust and confidence between the General Staff and the PM's office. They have described the situation as "even worse than the crises that followed Ben Gurion's decision to disband the Palmach, and Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan's cynical decision to place all the blame for the Yom Kippur fiasco on the IDF's shoulders.
Senior IDF officers have been saying that the PM bears sole responsibility for the current unfavorable military situation, with Hezbollah still holding out after almost a month of fighting.
According to these officers, Olmert was presented with an assiduously prepared and detailed operational plan for the defeat and destruction of Hezbollah within 10-14 days, which the IDF has been formulating for the past 2-3 years.
This plan was supposed to have begun with a surprise air onslaught against the Hezbollah high command in Beirut, before they would have had time to relocate to their underground bunkers. This was to have been followed immediately by large scale airborne and seaborne landing operations, in order to get several divisions on the Litani River line, enabling them to outflank Hezbollah's "Maginot line" in southern Lebanon. This would have surprised Hezbollah, which would have had to come out of its fortifications and confront the IDF in the open, in order to avoid being isolated, hunted down and eventually starved into a humiliating submission.
This was exactly what the IDF senior command wanted, as Israeli military doctrine, based on the Wehrmacht's blitzkrieg doctrine, has traditionally been one of rapid mobile warfare, designed to surprise and outflank an enemy.
According to senior military sources, who have been extensively quoted in both the Hebrew media and online publications with close ties to the country's defense establishment, Olmert nixed the second half of the plan, and authorized only air strikes on southern Lebanon, not initially on Beirut.
Although the Premier has yet to admit his decision, let alone provide a satisfactory explanation, it seems that he hoped futilely for a limited war. A prominent wheeler-dealer attorney-negotiator prior to entering politics, he may have thought that he could succeed by the military option of filing a lawsuit as a negotiating ploy, very useful when you represent the rich and powerful, as he always had. Another motive may have been his desire to limit the economic damage by projecting a limited rather than total war to the international financial powers that be.
Whatever his reasons, the bottom line, according to these military sources, is that he castrated the campaign during the crucial first days. The decision to not bomb Beirut immediately enabled Nasrallah to escape, first to his bunker, subsequently to the Iranian embassy in Beirut.
The decision to cancel the landings on the Litani River and authorize a very limited call up of reserves forced the ground forces to fight under very adverse conditions. Instead of outflanking a heavily fortified area with overwhelming forcers, they had to attack from the direction most expected, with insufficient forces. The result, high casualties and modest achievements.
This is the background of yesterday's surprise effective dismissal of OC northern Command Maj. General Udi Adam. According to various media sources, Olmert was incensed at Adam's remarks that he had not been allowed to fight the war that had been planned. Adam allegedly made these remarks in response to criticism against his running of the war, and the results so far achieved.
Olmert's responsibility for inaction goes much further. The US administration had given Israel the green light to attack Syria. A senior military source has confirmed to Israel Insider that Israel did indeed receive a green light from Washington in this regard, but Olmert nixed it.
The scenario was that Syria, no military match for Israel, would face a rapid defeat, forcing it to run to Iran, with which it has a defense pact, to come to aid.
Iran, which would be significantly contained by the defeat of its sole ally in the region, would have found itself maneuvered between a rock and a hard place. If it chose to honor its commitment to Syria, it would face a war with Israel and the US, both with military capabilities far superior to Iran's. If Teheran opted to default on its commitment to Damascus, it would be construed by the entire region, including the restless Iranian population, as a conspicuous show of weakness by the regime. Fascist regimes such as that of the ayatollahs cannot easily afford to show that kind of weakness.
As previously mentioned, Iran's military capabilities are no match for Israel's. Bottom line, all Iran could do is to launch missiles at and hit Israel's cities, and try and carry out terror attacks. If there is one thing history has shown, it is that such methods do not win wars. Israel would undoubtedly suffer both civilian casualties and economic damage, but these would not be that much more than what we are already experiencing. We have already irreversibly lost an entire tourist season. Any Iranian and Syrian missile offensives would be relatively short, as they are further form Israel, and therefore would have to be carried out by longer range missiles. These, by their very nature are much bigger and more complex weapons than Katyushas. They cannot be hidden underground, and require longer launch preparations, increasing their vulnerability to air operations. In addition it is precisely for such kinds of missiles that the Arrow system was developed.
The end result would be some additional economic damage, and probably around 500 civilian casualties. It may sound cold blooded, but Israel can afford such casualties, which would be less than those sustained in previous wars (for the record, in 1948 Israel lost 6,000, 1% of the entire population, and in 1967 and 1973 we lost respectively 1,000 and 3,000 casualties).
The gains, however, would be significant. The Iranian nuclear threat, the most dangerous existential threat Israel has faced since 1948, would be eliminated. It would also change the momentum, which over the past two decades as been with the ayatollahs. This could also have a major impact on the PA, hastening the demise of the Islamist Hamas administration.
Instead, according to military sources, Israel finds itself getting bogged down by a manifestly inferior enemy, due to the limitations placed on the IDF by the political leadership. This has been construed by the enemy as a clear sign that Israel is in the hands of a leadership not up to the task, lacking the required experience, guts and willpower. In the Middle East this is an invitation to court disaster, as witness by Iran's and Syria's increased boldness in significantly upping the ante of their involvement in the war.
Some senior officers have been mentioning the C-word in private conversations. They have been saying that a coup d'etat might be the only way to prevent an outcome in Lebanon that could embolden the Arab world to join forces with Syria and Iran in an all out assault on Israel, given the fact that such a development would be spurred entirely by the Arab and Moslem world's perception of Israel's leadership as weak, craven and vacillating, and therefore ripe for intimidation.
Seeing the once invincible IDF being stalemated by Hezbollah's 3,000 troops is a sure way to radiate an aura of weakness that in the Middle East could precipitate attacks by sharks smelling blood.
Here's the FR link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1681379/posts
It's pretty clear Olmert pulled a bait and switch and really burned Bush in the process.
"Hezbollah may be fearsome, but they are not particularly skilled. No more so than some thug who keeps firing off a sawed-off shotgun from the hip."
It might not be civilized and noble, but it's highly effective for its intended purpose.
Please see the reproduced article I just posted on this thread. It confirms all you said.
The IDF had four whole weeks to erase Hezbollah! BTW, how's the effort in Iraq going?
Which is why I put the blame for this catastrophe on both Israel and the US.
Israel had the opportunity to change the situation, don't forget that the 73 war also started out badly, but the US action in the UN made that impossible.
Israel couldn't beat Hezbolla and the Bush Administration could not beat the UN. Pity them both.
Let's see how events unfold after this UN resolution. Hezbollah is not home free.
Nah, let's all join Sabramerican and a host of others here on FR in singing "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING".
They are such experts. It's a pity no one chose to elect them as PM or President of any country.
Am I missing something here? I thought that Rice said on the first day of the war that we were in favor of a cease fire, but not until one could be arranged that would have some provision for dismantling Hezbollah's rocket range. So why is this a "shift" in policy?
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.