Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On Hizballah's Strategy
As you might imagine, I have spent a lot of time in the bars and cafes of Beirut talking with journalists, analysts and other friends about Hizballah and its strategy. It's a new experience doing the same thing here south of the Blue Line. The other day, though, just before Yom Kippur, I sat down with a Jerusalem-based analyst, and though we had some (polite) disagreements about the motivations of Hizballah and its relationship with Iran, we both agreed on one thing: that Hizballah's strategy toward Israel since the latter's 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon has been incoherent.
For an indigenous insurgent group seeking to expel a foreign power from a territory -- think the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Viet Minh in Indochina -- a strategy of exhaustion makes obvious sense. This strategy is more or less the strategy that Hizballah pursued in the 1990s against an occupying Israeli army in southern Lebanon: keep causing Israeli casualties, remind the people of Israel that such casualties will never stop so long as they occupy southern Lebanon, and wait for Israeli popular opinion to turn against the war.
But to this observer, it appears as if Hizballah has maintained this strategy in recent years. And what was appropriate in the 1990s is no longer appropriate today. Hizballah leaders continue to talk of Israeli society as if it is weak and will break at any moment if the right pressure is applied. But breaking Israeli popular will for continuing the occupation of a foreign country is one thing; breaking Israeli will to continue being Israel is another. I think Hizballah leaders have misread the nature of the Israeli state. Continued militancy on the part of Hizballah toward Israel will, I believe, cause serious ruptures within Lebanese society before they ever break the will of the Israeli people or fracture the state. Again, without making a value judgement on either side, it is increasingly difficult to argue that Hizballah's strategy since 2000 makes any sense at all.
My first thoughts: You have
My first thoughts: You have it the wrong way around. The Hezb tactic is not so much about breaking the will of Israel as to keep up the will to fight them among themse4lves, keeping the level of vigilance that got them through 2006 etc. Their thinking might be more along the lines of "If we continue to oppose them they will either break away or turn into monsters. Like Cast Lead showed, Israels funds of goodwill outside the US are rapidly diminishing. In a 20 year perspective, the US will have faced a realitycheck to its own power, and a Israel left to itself facing UN sanctions etc. would be very hard put indeed. (It dopesnt help that Bibi and Lieberman are actively alienating the whole of European society with their shrill accusations.)
Hezb just has to keep up pressure while maintaining internal cohesion and will, and Israel will quite possibly do their work for them in the long run. By making the conquest of Judea and Samaria a defacto principle of policy, the current Israeli govment are happily alienating themselves from much of civilized society.
Agreed, with both of
Agreed, with both of you.
Besides that, I think being a “resistance movement” is part of Hizb’Allah’s identity. Identities are a very stable thing. I just don't think they could give up this role so easily, especially as the self-ascribed definition also creates cohesion. In other words, this isn't just about Israel, this is about Hizb’Allah as well.
Agreed, with both of
Agreed, with both of you.
Besides that, I think being a “resistance movement” is part of Hizb’Allah’s identity. Identities are a very stable thing. I just don't think they could give up this role so easily, especially as the self-ascribed definition also creates cohesion. In other words, this isn't just about Israel, this is about Hizb’Allah as well.
I've asked you this several
I've asked you this several times and you don't answer, but since you have written a string of posts criticizing Hizballah's strategy, it's a fair question: do you actually talk to people in Hizbollah about their strategy or are you making these judgements without any contact with Hizbollah?
You can't write credibly on Hizbollah's strategy if you haven't actually personally talked to them about it. Or you could but your conclusions would be about as credible as Mathew Levvit's book on Hamas. On the other hand, Augustus Norton's book on Hizbollah is one of the best, because he actually went and talked the people in Hizbollah.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090928/od_nm/us_submarines_women_odd
Ya Abu Exum, ya Abu Exum:
Ya Abu Exum, ya Abu Exum: this is why you shouldn't disregard the palestinian-israeli discussion. Your argument hwre comes off as cut off and incomplete because of that. Your sober (and stupor) conversations in the bars of beirut must have told you something about the intertwined nature of hizballah and the palestinian struggle.
In my opinion, and I'm willing to bet good money on this, Hezballah will significantly change its strategy once the palestinian grievances aren't around any longer (and whether Hezb stance in this regard is genuine or not is anybody's guess).....
Offended, Excellent point.
Offended,
Excellent point. Exum seems to spend his time in Beirut drinking with American journalists instead of actually going out and talking to people on the street. Maybe that's why his analysis on Hizbullah could have come straight from WINEP.
Agreed with previous
Agreed with previous commenters. The "resistance" is evidently directed at Israel's occupation of Palestine. The Party portrays itself as opening a second front to assist the Palestinian brothers.
For one thing, this allows them to maintain the resitance ethos and mystique. But more importantly, is also allows them to keep on board a lot of people who would not be so keen if the movement was solely dedicated to destroy Israel per se. By shouting "let's help our Arab brothers" (no matter how "brotherly" you actually behave towards them), you can reach out to a lot more people than you would by just shouting "keep up the fight until the last Jew is thrown into the sea".
Another illustration of how solving the Palestinian question would have far-reaching consequences in the area, possibly starting the real "domino effect" that neocons hoped the Iraq war would create.
Hizb strategy makes a
Hizb strategy makes a perfect sense if you consider those points -
1, Israel is an excuse, a tool throu which to climb and gain influence and power in Lebanon to the Shite.
2. 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon left Hizballah without its Raison d'être.
3. Hizballah does everything in its power to make sure that the Raison d'être stays alive;
hense the kidnappings, the Katyushas, the rhetoric.
4. Without the fight with Israel, it's just another militia without a legitimate cause to hold weapons.
Ya Abu Exum, ya Abu Exum:
Ya Abu Exum, ya Abu Exum: this is why you shouldn't disregard the palestinian-israeli discussion. Your argument hwre comes off as cut off and incomplete because of that. Your sober (and stupor) conversations in the bars of beirut must have told you something about the intertwined nature of hizballah and the palestinian struggle.
In my opinion, and I'm willing to bet good money on this, Hezballah will significantly change its strategy once the palestinian grievances aren't around any longer (and whether Hezb stance in this regard is genuine or not is anybody's guess).....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-schwartz/netanyahu-israel-will-nev...
AM, Im a little
AM, Im a little confused.
Are you saying that they should change their strategy in fighting or that they should cease to oppose the existence of the state of Israel?
Damn sorry for the double
Damn
sorry for the double post, guys. working through a proxy
Btw, suggestion for a sane
Btw, suggestion for a sane Israel/Palestine debate: Invite 6 writers, turn of comments and lets hear the pro and cons arguments, then open a general discussionthread where the pieces can be discussed, and the crazies hopefully wont have one single target to attack. Mark Lynch leaps to mind as a guest...
Btw, from the training book about PTSD wich Im reaing up on due to work, I came across a "list of modes of incorrect thinking" that manifests in patients. It applies well to the internet as well, I think, and especially the Is/Pal discussion:
1) All or nothing thinking.
2) Overgeneralization
3) Mental filtering. (Means getting hung up one one detail, loss of perspective)
4) Rash conclusion-process
5) Magnification
6) Emotional reasoning (I feel/believe)
7) Should/Could explanations and declarations.
hoho.
Others are touching upon
Others are touching upon something important here. How often are you having discussions with low- and high-level members of Hizballah about their strategy? On the substance of your argument, I wouldn't listen to Hizballah's public rhetoric about Israel and Israeli society and take that as their clear strategy. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The rhetoric is important, but it's not as straight-forward as you're suggesting. Publicly, people and organizations say a number of things, for a number of different reasons.
It's good to see you writing
It's good to see you writing about these issues again though.
I think it would make more
I think it would make more sense if instead of thinking of Hizballah as "an indigenous insurgent group seeking to expel a foreign power from a territory" we understood it as an indigenous insurgent group seeking to preserve its and its community's existence. I have to say I disagree that they did not change their tactics. With the exception of the 2006 kidnapping the Hizb has not performed any military operations against Israel, in fact they have largely been responsible for keeping that border quiet with or without the presence of the UNIFIL troops. The few rockets that have been launched were by Palestinian groups and probably by some angry teenagers.
For Hizballah, the logic is that Israel will always be a threat and constant vigilance is necessary. They believe and maybe rightly so, that if they ever let their guard down that Israel will come trampling across the border, under any pretext. I say this from having a family that has a deep belief in the culture of the resistance. The rhetoric of fighting Israel is just that, the real concern is more of a defensive frame of mind which is a result of fear especially with a weak central government that has traditionally treated southern Lebanon as a dumping ground. I think that this is what the supporters of Hizballah understand and why it has such an interest in keeping an image of orderly and organized operation.
Abu Sharmuta, Exactly,
Abu Sharmuta,
Exactly, that's just the point. So I'm interested in hearing who exactly Mr Exum is talking to when he does his research in Lebanon that leads him to make these statements about Hizbollah's supposedly "incoherent strategy." I don't need names, I'd just like a ballpark figure of how many people from Hizbullah he's actually talked to.
@i - I agree with 1-3, but
@i - I agree with 1-3, but as to #4:
"4. Without the fight with Israel, it's just another militia without a legitimate cause to hold weapons."
Hezbollah isn't legitimate to begin with, regardless of Israel. There have been two UN security council resolutions calling for the disarmament of ALL militias. There are 15,000 UN troops there to enforce a disarmament that even the UN knows isn't going to happen. What in the world is going on?
Definitely not a hint of disgust from Andrew Exum for the terrorist group that has killed more Americans than any other terrorist group excluding Sept. 11, 2001. I still have yet to see anything critical of Hezbollah coming from abu Muqawama. Must be why he spends so much time in Lebanon. And why all of his friends that he references on Hezbollah minimize their threat.
... and supportive of
... and supportive of Hezbollah. Because Exum and his readership post things like this:
"With the exception of the 2006 kidnapping the Hizb has not performed any military operations against Israel, in fact they have largely been responsible for keeping that border quiet with or without the presence of the UNIFIL troops. The few rockets that have been launched were by Palestinian groups and probably by some angry teenagers. ... I say this from having a family that has a deep belief in the culture of the resistance."
"The Hizb" are responsible for keeping the border quiet? What are the UNIFIL troops there for, to assist Hezbollah in keeping the border quiet? So the Hizb's tens of thousands of rockets and missiles are there for a Reagan-esque peace through strength? How is it that "angry teenagers" get rockets and fire them at Israel, and what intelligence are you basing that off of?
And what is the extent of the resistance culture that your family has? Should just the Israeli civilization should be wiped off the map, or do you support the Hizb's "resistance" in Venezuela, Argentina, Canada, the US, Africa, Europe, and elsewhere? It seems that their goals go slightly beyond resistance.
"What are the UNIFIL troops
"What are the UNIFIL troops there for, to assist Hezbollah in keeping the border quiet?"
Yup. Suck it up. I know of UNIFIL vets who fought on the Hezb side in 2006, includng Norwegians, who had married down there during deployment. The UNIFIL tradition is not exactly pro Israel, I have worked with several vets. Based on their comments, they do view Hezb as a legitimate social and military force. Batshit racist ideologicaly, just like the settlers, but not mad terrorists. A the Israelis like to say on the west bank, o ne of the bonuses of winning a war is that you get to decide conditions afterwards.
"the terrorist group that has killed more Americans than any other terrorist group excluding Sept. 11, 2001."
I would guess youre referring to the Beirut barracks? 1) It was a military target. 2) The US navy was shelling Beirut at the time and 3) Hezbollah had not been constituted at the time... And except for that, calling a government coalition partner an insurgency is hardly precise.
Anything else?
Ooops, that was me.
Ooops, that was me.
Should I post a list of
Should I post a list of Hezbollah terrorist attacks? This is a TERRORIST ARMY that is gaining control of Lebanon despite the will of the people. Despite the fact that 15,000 blue hats are there for their disarmament, yet they still gain power. And I should "suck it up?"
They fought a war against their OWN PEOPLE! This isn't just a Lebanese problem, it's a worldwide problem. I keep hearing that Hezbollah will attack the US if Iran's nuclear weapons program runs into trouble.
And what was the US Navy shelling, orphanages, schools and nursing homes? Let's not forget that those who attacked the barracks soon became Hezbollah, does Imad Mugniyah ring a bell? And last I checked, the US and French troops killed were unarmed peacekeepers - which is probably the next step for troops in Afghanistan.
July 19, 1982: The president
July 19, 1982: The president of the American University in Beirut, Davis S. Dodge, is kidnapped. Hezbollah is believed to be behind this and most of the other 30 Westerners kidnapped over the next ten years.
April 18, 1983: Hezbollah attacks the U.S. embassy in Beirut with a car bomb, killing 63 people, 17 of whom were American citizens.
Oct. 23, 1983: The group attacks U.S. Marine barracks with a truck bomb, killing 241 American military personnel stationed in Beirut as part of a peace-keeping force. A separate attack against the French military compound in Beirut kills 58.
Sept. 20, 1984: The group attacks the U.S. embassy annex in Beirut with a car bomb, killing 2 Americans and 22 others.
March 16, 1984: William F. Buckley, a CIA operative working at the U.S. embassy in Beirut, is kidnapped and later murdered.
April 12, 1984: Hezbollah attacks a restaurant near the U.S. Air Force Base in Torrejon, Spain. The bombing kills eighteen U.S. servicemen and injures 83 people.
Dec. 4, 1984: Hezbollah terrorists hijack a Kuwait Airlines plane. Four passengers are murdered, including two Americans.
Feb. 16, 1985: Hezbollah publicizes its manifesto. It notes that the group's struggle will continue until Israel is destroyed and rejects any cease-fire or peace treaty with Israel. The document also attacks the U.S. and France.
June 14, 1985: Hezbollah terrorists hijack TWA flight 847. The hijackers severely beat Passenger Robert Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, before killing him and dumping his body onto the tarmac at the Beirut airport. Other passengers are held as hostages before being released on June 30.
Dec. 31, 1986: Under the alias Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, Hezbollah announces it had kidnapped and murdered three Lebanese Jews. The organization previously had taken responsibility for killing four other Jews since 1984.
Feb. 17, 1988: The group kidnaps Col. William Higgins, a U.S. Marine serving with a United Nations truce monitoring group in Lebanon, and later murders him.
Feb. 16, 1992: Sayyad Hassan Nasrallah takes over Hezbollah after Israel kills the group's leader, Abbas Musawi.
March 17, 1992: With the help of Iranian intelligence, Hezbollah bombs the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 and injuring over 200.
July 18, 1994: Hezbollah bombs the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires–again with Iranian help–killing 86 and injuring over 200.
Nov. 28, 1995: Hezbollah bombards towns in northern Israel with volleys of Katyusha rockets in one of the group's numerous attacks on Israeli civilians.
March 30, 1996: Hezbollah fires 28 Katyusha rockets into northern Israeli towns. A week later, the group fires 16 rockets, injuring 36 Israelis. Israel responds with a major offensive, known as the "Grapes of Wrath" operation, to stop Hezbollah rocket fire.
Aug. 19, 1997: Hezbollah opens fire on northern Israel with dozens of rockets in one of the group's numerous attacks on Israeli civilians.
Dec. 28, 1998: Hezbollah opens fire on northern Israel with dozens of rockets in one of the group's numerous attacks on Israeli civilians.
May 17, 1999: Hezbollah opens fire on northern Israel with dozens of rockets in one of the group's numerous attacks on Israeli civilians.
June 24, 1999: Hezbollah opens fire on northern Israel, killing 2.
Oct. 7, 2000: Hezbollah attacks an Israel military post and raids Israel, kidnapping three Israeli soldiers. The soldiers are later assumed dead. In mid-October, Hezbollah leader Nasrallah announces the group has also kidnapped an Israeli businessman. In 2004, Israel frees over 400 Arab prisoners in exchange for the business man and the bodies of the three soldiers.
April 9, 2002: Hezbollah launches Katyushas into northern Israeli town. This assault comes amidst almost daily Hezbollah attacks against Israeli troops in Shebba farms.
Aug. 10, 2003: Hezbollah shells kills 16-year-old Israeli boy, wound others.
July 12, 2006: Hezbollah attacks Israel with Katyushas, crosses the border and kidnaps two Israeli soldiers. Three Israeli soldiers are killed in the initial attack. Five more soldiers are killed as Israel launches operation to rescue the soldiers and push Hezbollah from its border. During the ensuing war, Hezbollah launches rockets at civilian targets across northern Israel.
Oct. 22, 1989: Members of
Oct. 22, 1989: Members of the dissolved Lebanese parliament ratify the Taif Agreement. Although the agreement calls for the "disbanding of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias," Hezbollah remains active.
Sept. 2, 2004: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 calls for "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias," a reference to Hezbollah.
March 10, 2005: The European Parliament overwhelmingly passes a resolution stating: "Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah. The (EU) Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them." The European Union nonetheless refrains from placing the group on its list of terror organizations.
Aug. 11, 2006: The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopts Resolution 1701, which calls for a cessation of hostilities, the deployment of Lebanese and U.N. forces into southern Lebanon, and the disarmament of armed groups in Lebanon.
And after the Israelis
And after the Israelis withdrew from Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah claimed the Sheba farms (which Israel captured FROM SYRIA in 1967) as part of Lebanon. Therefore, resistance was still necessary.
And if Israel gave in to every demand of Hezbollah, what then? Lasting peace and prosperity? NOPE! Then they turn their sights elsewhere. Africa, Europe, the Americas, etc - which by the way, what are they "resisting" in those locations? They have NO right to dictate foreign policy to sovereign countries.
I think we used to call it
I think we used to call it war. You fail to mention any Israeli actions, such as Sabra Schatilla and retaliation bombing. And targeted assasinations.
Sabra Shatila was done by
Sabra Shatila was done by Christian militias, Fnord. Targeted assassinations are *targeted.* Retaliation bombings are harder to defend, I'll grant.
Visitor, come on. It was
Visitor, come on. It was supported and allowed by the highest echelons. I can sit down and write my gnomes on the subject if you want causal chains for that one. As well as Quana 1, wich Norwegians were the first to.
I think your summary is
I think your summary is right on target. How many Islamic militants of any persuasion are able to bring cold reason and fact-based analysis to bear when looking at the Israel problem? Can reasonable language even be used in these discussions without endangering the speaker? I wonder.
"How many Islamic militants
"How many Islamic militants of any persuasion are able to bring cold reason and fact-based analysis to bear when looking at the Israel problem?"
Well, the ANA, the Iraqi Army, the colected forces of Arabia and other assorted muslim allies leap to mind.
If you want some tangible
If you want some tangible facts from Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims, and people with a conscience of all stripes when it comes to Israel, here's the best website: http://electronicintifada.net/
WAR: a conflict carried on
WAR: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
TERRORISM: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
If you fight a war, you wear a uniform clearly identifying you from non-combatants. You attack opposing MILITARY targets. How is it that you don't get this? Perhaps because your definition of the enemy is Israelis, whether combatant or not.
Hijacking airplanes/kidnappings followed by torture and brutal murder is not war. Launching rockets at civilian populations with the intent of killing/terrorizing civilians is not war. It is terrorism, and the moral equivalency argument will not hold water. If it did, one could throw up a list of Israeli terrorist groups who stockpile weapons, use them on Palestinian noncombatants, while continually reminding us that Arabs will be driven into the sea on the way to world Jewish domination, which is codified in the Torah.
I am unsure if you are
I am unsure if you are taking a lack of decisive offensive strategy to be a lack of overall strategy. That is, since before the Israeli withdrawal (in my reading after the Nassrallah's rise to power), Hizbollah has--I think as Steve Biddle points out quite clearly in his piece "Preliminary 'Lessons' from Lebanon--shifted from a purely terrorist organization built around a strategy based on compellence by punishment and militancy, to a paramilitary organization that can take on a traditional guerrilla form, in addition to its developing capacity for more traditional military operations. I think that the debacle at Bint Jbial was a great example of Hezbollah's use of strategic height as well as its ability to expolit its proficiency in set-piece battles. Hizbollah now has the ability to fluidly adjust to the strategic situation on the ground, they are mobile, they can employ a strategy more in-line with defense-in-depth, and as a result, have no need to present a clearly offensive strategy. This is seemingly due to the fat that they are not an offensive organization in any substantive way. They have no interest, mush less the capacity to invade Israel, as their supply lines would not hold,and there pre-fabricated bunkers only go so far. They need only present a clearly articulated and unified strategy when faced with an imminent offensive threat. Otherwise they can harass Israeli troops on the boarder all they want. Same with their rhetoric. I think it was telling that Nasrallah said after the 2006 campaign that he had no intention of starting it, it was a convenient accident due to amazing negligence on the Israeli side.
I think that when we think of strategy we think of something we can see, like tank levels, troop number etc. But in the case of Hizbollah the environment they exist in is key. They have the strategic and tactical advantage, as the terrain in the South of Lebanon favors the defender, and really stymies mechanization based--blitzkreig--strategies ( to use Mearsheimer). They have the population's support, and they have the ability to blend quite seamlessly into their environment.
Has anyone ever wondered why Israel only went North? Why didn't it drop its vaunted paratroopers in north of Hizbollah positions and drive south?It is very possibly (although other options seem to exist) they couldn't because of the defensive advantage that Hizbollah has. If you have a defensive advantage, and you are outnumbered by several orders of magnitude, why would you give you strategy away before you fight? I think here it is very useful to look back to Thomas Schelling and the amazing utility of rational irrationality.
Do you actually read these comments?
@ Fnord: "Collected forces
@ Fnord: "Collected forces of Arabia"? Would that include the religious police, the Muhtasib? The ones who force school girls to burn alive as their school burns down because they weren't properly dressed as they fled the fire? The ones that go around beating and raping women as they see fit? I'm sure they have plenty of level-headed analysis to offer regarding Israel.
What are Islamic militants so militant about anyhow? Could it be due to the hundred-plus references to violent jihad, which is the most pleasing act in the eyes of this Allah fellow? The fact that Muhammad said that treaties with the infidels were not to be honored (like say, peace with Israel), and that Muslims are to wage jihad upon us infidels in Dar al Harb (conveniently translated into the House of War - or nations not yet 100% Islamic) until we become Dar al Islam (the house of Islam) through the "invitation" of Da'wa (convert to Islam, be subjugated, or be killed), and other sundry niceties in the "religion of peace" gives me reason to believe that there is no point in endless peace negotiations with Israel and Islamic terrorist groups.
If Hizballah had the popular
If Hizballah had the popular support of the Lebanese people, why does Lebanon have mass protests (in which Hizballah brutally murder protesters) against them and why did they lose seats in the elections? Why did they have to attack their own country if that country supported them?
I'm not really sure what you
I'm not really sure what you mean here. From your post, it sounds like you're saying that Hezbollah's strategy has remained the same since 2000, which I don't think is so. With the exception of the July war, the frequency of actual military engagements between Israel and Hezbollah has been much, much lower. Most of Hezbollah's military actions have been focused on the Sheba'a, and as such fell into the "rules of the game," as it were. In 2006, Hezbollah upped the ante, and the conflict escalated, seemingly much more than they expected. Otherwise, though, things have been relatively very quit compared to before 2000.
If you're talking about rhetoric , then as far as saber rattling goes, there's enough of that to go around on both sides of the blue line. And as for arming itself, that seems normal, since Hezbollah acts somewhat like a state military, most of which do their best to increase their arsenals and continuing training. Finally, another result of thinking like a state is that Hezbollah considers its new and improved arsenal to be a deterrent against an Israeli attack on Lebanon. Whether or not it actually deters -- or on the contrary attracts -- Israeli attacks is against the point. A lot of people, including Nasrallah if his recent rhetoric is any sign, believe that Israel is looking for an excuse to attack Lebanon and possibly reoccupy the south, and the only thing that stops it from doing so is the deterrent force of Hezbollah's arsenal. This is probably why Nasrallah has upgraded the tit-for-tat agreement from "an attack on Beirut equals an attack on Tel Aviv" to pairing Haret Hreik with Tel Aviv instead.
Maybe Hezb envisions a "Long
Maybe Hezb envisions a "Long War' like so many think tankers here at home? Maybe Hezb sees Israel as a modern day Kingdom of Jerusalem that will eventually succumb to time and demography.
Here's what I love about the
Here's what I love about the comments here: I've just learned that Exum sides with both Hizballah and WINEP.
Hezbollah's strategy since
Hezbollah's strategy since 2000 only makes sense if you view it from the prism of a forward army of Iran's revoluitonary Guards, which is what it is, in essence. The facade of a national liberation movement has long ago dissipated and the only rational explanation for its continued aggression and belligerence against Israel and its northern front is driven by direct orders from Teheran.
It is a proxy Iranian army, by extension, so its strategy makes perfect sense if viewed in this manner.
PS - Andrew, I hope you are
PS - Andrew, I hope you are enjoying Israel and its wacky citizens. If you are in Herzliyah, visit Hatori Hanzo's, a very fun bar to have a scotch in. Sababa.
Kilo I knew you were
Kilo I knew you were tempting fate, but restrained myself
you should have said Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.
This isn't to say that Exum
This isn't to say that Exum is more WINEP than Hizballah, but keep in mind that he did get his start as an "expert" at WINEP, in 2006 and 2007. Take it for what it's worth.
Made me think of you "... an
Made me think of you
"... an unholy alliance between the defense industry and academic theorists seduced decisionmakers with a false-messiah catechism of bloodless war. In pursuit of billions in profits, defense contractors made promises impossible to fulfill, while think tank scholars sought acclaim by designing warfare models that excited political leaders anxious to get off cheaply, but which left out factors such as the enemy, human psychology, and 5,000 years of precedents."
Abu Muqawama you rabid
Abu Muqawama you rabid Hezballah-loving, neocon-crusader you!
QUITE an achievement.
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew you
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew you fell victim to one the classic blunders The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line and the even less well know never mention the Israeli/Palestinian "problems"
The main problem with the
The main problem with the "isolate the Israelis to turn them into monsters" is that the Israelis can pretty much wipe out all the surrounding Arab states if they ever get into a situation where it's either that or annihilation. How many nuclear warheads and artillery barrages do you think it would take to turn south Lebanon (and Lebanon in general) into a parking lot?
The blowback would be immense, but if Israel is already a total pariah at that point, why hold back?
Exum still hasn't answered
Exum still hasn't answered my quesiton, which leads me to assume that his "research" on Hizbollah pretty much exclusively consists of drinking in Lebanon's bars with Americans. So from an academic standpoint his work on Hizbollah is about as credible as his fellow WINEPer Mathew Levvit's book on Hamas.....
Visitor 3:46 he is drinking
Visitor 3:46
he is drinking in Lebanon's bars and telling us about the conversations on his blog.
from an academic standpoint i say well played sir.
Which is fine, but Mr Exum
Which is fine, but Mr Exum portrays himself as a Hizbollah expert, and implying that he has a special expert background in this field makes declarative statements about how their strategy is "incoherent" and last week stated that Hizbollah is a threat to American interests, so it's certainly fair game to ask how these conclusions are being made. Are they based on conversations with American journalists in bars or are they based on serious field research, which by definition would include interviews with members of Hizbollah?
Add your comment