Lizardman, you wrote, I don't think Olmert is that bright.

You may have seen enough to form your own opinion. I've not seen enough to form mine.

I just don't know enough about what went on behind the scenes to lay it all on Olmert. I am certain that the defense ministry was more optimistic than they should have been and we all know Codi was pulling the strings from on high.

And here's what YOU miss, Lizardman in your analysis. You wrote,

I think it probable that, with somewhat more effort, Hezbollah could have been driven out of Lebanon and back up into Syria -- which would have been a Godsend to Israel, a far better result than what Olmert at least appears to have achieved.

Could Israel have done this without risk of war with Syria? Does "somewhat more effort" include enough men and armor to sweep the Bekaa valley and then to hold it indefinitely? Does "somewhat more effort" include mobilizing enough troops to guard their northern and southern and eastern flanks to dissuade any adventurism by their neighbors?

You forget that Israel (under Sharon) invaded and conquered Lebanon just a few years ago -- and then found themselves stuck. How long do you think Israel would have had to post troops on the Lebanon-Syrian border in your scenario?

I really, really don't think Olmert had a lot of good choices, given that the Hezbillies were well entrenched. It's really, really, expensive to wage war -- they ran out of smart munitions and they were wearing out planes and pilots. I don't think the IDF did the job they thought they could (on the cheap), but with three divisions and a softened enemy (and some more recent combat experience) they did the job they had to do. And I wouldn't want to be on the opposing side for round 2 with these guys (they DO apply lessons learned) -- and the Lebanese won't want to either.

Greater Magellanic Cloud,

Good exchanges between Big Lizards and Power Line...

What's y'alls take on this - Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria:

SNIP..."The conflict with Hezbollah has led to a strategic rethink in Israel. A key conclusion is that too much attention has been paid to Palestinian militants in Gaza and the West Bank instead of the two biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the region, who pose a far greater danger to Israel’s existence, defence insiders say."

People have short memories. Olmert's greatest shortcoming, and a sign of depravity not ineptitude or "cloddishness," was launching the ground offensive the same day he declared acceptance of a ceasefire in another 48-hours. That goes way beyond incompetence and exposes a callous disregard for Israeli soldiers' lives.

I don't think many Americans - even friends of Israel - understand the depths to which the Israeli political class has sunk, and what a threat that constitutes to Israel's well-being.

One of the myths shattered by this war is that the good guys (Israel) always win and there's always a happy ending.

Norman Rogers:

...and we all know Condi was pulling the strings from on high.

Speak for yourself. I don't believe for one second that Condoleezza Rice was issuing orders to the Israeli prime minister, the defense minister, or the IDF.

That is a military legend for which not the slightest evidence has ever been offered... and it's inherently absurd that, in the middle of a war, Israel would accept orders from an American cabinet secretary not even backed by the president.

For indeed, she would had to have been freelancing: every indication is that President Bush wanted and expected Israel to drive Hezbollah out of Lebanon -- which they could have done, had they sent five or six divisions.

(Sharon took in nine divisions in 1982, I believe, and he quickly seized all of southern Lebanon from Beirut down; it's clear from the result of Olmert's half effort that Hezbollah, with all their missiles, was no stronger a force than the PLO in the 1980s -- probably less).

As to war with Syria, I'm sorry, but I think the idea is silly: Syria is teetering on the brink as it is; they would not give the Israelis any excuse to attack them. Indeed, even right now, after the supposed "historic victory" by Hezbollah, they still insist that they'll prevent the rearming of Hezbollah by Iran.

It's a lie, of course; but the fact that they even pay lip service to UNSCR 1701 tells you that they're not eager to give Israel any casus belli.

Iran is a different question: but it's actually harder for Iran to attack Israel directly than for Israel to attack Iran directly, because the U.S. controls the Iraqi sky.

Dafydd

KarmiCommunist:

What's y'alls take on this - Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria:

It's interesting; but I don't know how much stock to put into a piece that depends entirely upon anonymous "defence sources."

It's probably true that the Israelis are now more concerned about Iran and Syria than they are about the Palestinians... another advantage of unilateral disengagement and the security fence: the diminishing importance of the Palestinians on the world stage.

Dafydd

Lizardman wrote:

Norman Rogers:

...and we all know Condi was pulling the strings from on high.

Speak for yourself. I don't believe for one second that Condoleezza Rice was issuing orders to the Israeli prime minister, the defense minister, or the IDF.

That is a military legend for which not the slightest evidence has ever been offered... and it's inherently absurd that, in the middle of a war, Israel would accept orders from an American cabinet secretary not even backed by the president.

Um Dafydd, didn't you catch the emergency munitions resupply to Israel by the US? Do you imagine that these United States were just hanging around to hold Israel's coat?

I'd wager a large sum (and I'm not a betting man) that Olmert cleared the initiation of hostilities with Rice and that Rice (and clearly Bush) were trying to give the Israelis diplomatic (and logistical and almost certainly intelligence) cover because Rice sees Hezbollah as a proxy for Iran.

But the IAF and IDF didn't get the job done in a timely manner (at least within the timeframes Olmert suggested were achieveable -- no doubt he got them from his defense minister).

You bet there were extensive consultations between Rice and Olmert -- and back channel interference from Livni!

This is why I'm unwilling to sign onto the Olmert is incompetent bandwagon. None of us know the cards he was holding -- we only know what he played.

And on that note, let me rebut DandyMan, who wrote:

Olmert's greatest shortcoming, and a sign of depravity not ineptitude or "cloddishness," was launching the ground offensive the same day he declared acceptance of a ceasefire in another 48-hours. That goes way beyond incompetence and exposes a callous disregard for Israeli soldiers' lives.

Dandy, you ought to give pause before you quit your day job to become a military analyst.

1. There was no guarantee that a ceasefire would be realized. What if the IDF stopped shooting but the Hezbillies did not?

2. There was a date certain established to end hostilities. It was therefore incumbant upon Israel to gain and hold defensible positions to thwart the resupply of Hezbollah. Nothing like encirclement and artillery to make your point. All in, a job well done by Olmert and the IDF.

For sure the Israeli effort was plagued by apparant indecision, poor training, lousy logistics, and questionable tactics in the early going. But the IDF WILL apply lessons learned. And the Hezbillies WILL NOT attempt to reengage -- they're on life support as their Lebanese enemies circle around smelling blood.

Caroline Glick was right in her assertions last time, on the cease fire, and I think she's right again. Not a happy view.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)