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.
About those Scuds...
April 13, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 4:51pm | 34 Comments
I don't really have all that much analysis to add to the allegations that Syria has transfered Scud missiles to Hizballah. So let me just contribute two points:
- Acquiring scuds from Syria would give Hizballah some interesting options in the event of another conflict with Israel. In the past, Hassan Nasrallah has articulated a kind of measured response to Israeli attacks: You bomb southern Lebanon, we rocket northern Israel. You bomb the southern suburbs, we rocket Haifa. You bomb Beirut proper, we rocket Tel Aviv. Hizballah's ability to do the latter, of course, depends entirely on whether or not they have the capability to do so and whether or not the IAF is able to knock out Hizballah's long-range rockets early enough in the conflict (as the IAF claims to have done in 2006). So for Hizballah to have a credible deterrent, Israel has to know they have long-range rockets.
- The problem with this, of course, is that the next Israel-Lebanon war starts when either a) Hizballah or Israel does something stupid or b) Hizballah acquires "equilibrium-breaking" weaponry like powerful long-range rockets or anti-aircraft weaponry. Israel might decide, in the event of the latter, that it must act preemptively and that the very fact that Hizballah possesses such weapons is casus belli enough.
So everyone hold your breath. Because this is how wars start.
So I have a question: Are
So I have a question: Are these the same kind of SCUDs Saddam used?
And if so, Abu G, over at www.bloggingthecasbah.com raise a good question: What kind of warheads will Hezbollah use? Saddam famously did not use chemicals on Tel Aviv.
Abu Muqawama, You make one
Abu Muqawama,
You make one serious mistake: preemption and casus belli should not be used in the same sentence. Since preemption is considered illegal by international law, Israel would not have a casus belli (literally meaning a justification for resorting to war) simply because Hezbollah possessed weapons; unfortunately, Hezbollah would have to use them, and only then would Israel be able to react in self-defense (an alternative way would be that Israel gets approval by the UN for launching a preemptive strike, which is as likely as UNIFIL actually enforcing what they are in Lebanon to enforce - i.e. Resolution 1559 and 1701).
Zach, you're making a
Zach,
you're making a mistake too. There are two types of action before a threat materializes in self-defense: pre-emption and prevention. Pre-emption means attacking an imminent threat before it materializes. That is allowed in the international law (see UN SC not denouning of Israel's attack on Egyptian airforces in 1967). Prevention is an attack against a more distant threat, which is of course forbidden under IL.
Not so fast. Even if those
Not so fast. Even if those missiles are already in Lebanon, it takes time to deploy them effectively, and under the eye of Israeli Air Force this will be quite a task. Unlike "katushas" and "Grad" rockets, those missiles are simply too big and cumbersome. In fact, Israel can wait till Hizballa starts to mount them on mobile launchers and then knock them out in pinpoint strikes, which will leave Nasralla with a huge egg on his face and under the local pressure not to escalate.
@ Blue liner 1 - that's an
@ Blue liner 1 - that's an interesting question. I think that all too often we resort to bad movie villain stereotypes when we think about organizations like Hizbollah. Doing so discounts the rational actor side of the equation. Much like Iran and nukes, the actual use by Hizballah of chemical or biological war heads on Scuds they may or may not have would pretty much signal the end of their organisation.
Israel would unleash its full might, and while that might got a bloody nose in the past scuffle, this time around they would not be pulling any punches. More importantly the use of those types of munitions would effectively end much of the sympathy that Hezbollah as been able to garner, in the Arab and non Arab world alike. So while I can see them utilizing the Scud offensively or defensively, depending on how you view them, I doubt if they would actually launch those war heads with gas etc.
David, This is more just my
David,
This is more just my pet peeve, but to be blunt, I think the term "rational actor" gets bandied about - *almost* - to the point of uselessness. (That goes for its deracinated sibling, the boundedly rational actor, as well.)
It's very hard to know what "the other side" does, or does not, think. (And that assumes one assesses that the other side thinks and acts as one, as opposed to, say, multiple decision-making bodies or, say, that there is no division between deciders and doers.) I am influenced primarily here by the work of Robert Jervis (whose new book I really, really need to buy).
How do we *know* that HIzballah *thinks* or *knows* "Israel would unleash its full might, and that this will thus deter them from using Scuds? As do you, *I* tend to think Israel is fairly unambiguous in in its deterrence policy. But there are cases where deterrence has failed when one can probably make the case it should have worked - e.g., the Japanese in WW II, who were *suicidally* outmatched by the foes they attacked, or the Soviets in 1962, who should have *known* missiles in Cuba would not be tolerated. In retrospect, perhaps those cases are understandable (see, e.g., the work of Scott Sagan with respect to Japan in 1941), but perhaps, prospectively, it will be perfectly clear why Hizballah thought it acceptable to launch Scuds into Tel Aviv.
There are also cases where compellence has failed when one imagines it should have succeeded: Why did Saddam not pull out of Kuwait in 1991? or open up Iraq to the UN in 2003? I don't know enough about the uprising that ensued, but didn't Saddam almost lose (at a minimum) his regime in the former case, and (of course) his life in the latter? Milosevic chose to challenge NATO rather than accede to its demands, and while perhaps in retrospect it makes sense why he did so, presumably he would have chosen to die elsewhere than the Hague, so one has to ask why he defied rather than complied.
In sum, there's still a lot we don't know about how one uses arms to influence people, and assuming our beliefs and thoughts are shared by our adversaries, and that our words and actions are correctly understood by them, may be correct in some, but (as of right now) certainly not all cases.
ADTS
Hmm, it makes some rational
Hmm, it makes some rational sense, if you consider the point that Syria/Iran/Hezb is preparing for a nuclear assault on Iran in the autumn. If Israel employs nukes, then Scuds w chemicals would be one of their few mass-killing retaliations.It even makes sense for Hezb to show that it has them in order to ratchet up pressure.
Great conversation, guys
Great conversation, guys (and girls).MISO: "Pre-emption means
MISO: "Pre-emption means attacking an imminent threat before it materializes. That is allowed in the international law... Prevention is an attack against a more distant threat, which is of course forbidden under IL."
Unfortunately, the distinction can be pushed one way or the other by propaganda and forged "intelligence" - In the case of Iraq, you have the cooked up Nigerian yellowcake story, the Curveball story, and the insistence of the Bush & Blair Administrations on treating such glop as "credible intelligence."
Are such tactics ever justified?
For example, in the early days of WWII, all efforts were being made by FDR and Churchill to "force an incident" in the Atlantic that would bring the U.S. into the war against Germany, something the pro-Nazi lobby in the U.S. was fighting hard against. These files were released from the British War Office, 1976:
On August 19 Churchill reported to the War Cabinet in London on other aspects of the Newfoundland [Atlantic Charter] meeting that were not made public. . . . 'He [Roosevelt] obviously was determined that they should come in. If he were to put the issue of peace and war to Congress, they would debate it for months,' the Cabinet minutes added. 'The President had said he would wage war but not declare it and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. . . . Everything was to be done to force an incident.'
Was the Israeli miltary leadership also trying to force an incident in summer 2006? If so, was it a good idea for them to do this, on the final cost-benefit spreadsheet?
Many people would tell you that the U.S. entry into Vietnam was also preceded by such an event - with the difference being that Vietnam was hardly a long-term credible threat to the United States, any more than Iraq or Iran is. Domino theories and Middle East geostrategic oil supplies aside, I guess - but do economic threats justify military intervention in foreign countries? Clearly, the Bush Administration thought that was the case - even though it's illegal under international law.
Miso, You're distinction is
Miso,
You're distinction is a false one, and is meaningless within international law. Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be 'jus cogens', or a peremptory norm which cannot be violated. It bars the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat. At the same time, however, Article 51 clearly permits self defense. While there is a tension between these two principles and a lively debate still rages over the issue of preemption, self-defense is classically treated as being in response to aggression (not military build up) and there is little precedent justifying preemption within international law. In other words, IL is still confined to the classical sense of war, and thus generally bars (with few exceptions) preemption as a legitimate/lawful means of initiating war.
-Z
On the one hand, Scuds are
On the one hand, Scuds are liquid fueled, which makes for a longer prep period before launch. On the other hand, the Iraqi's managed to reduce the pre-launch phase to only 30 minutes during the gulf war. Frightening stuff.
Yes, but a) they had a
Yes, but a) they had a professional rocket corps with Soviet instructors and b) they had a huge territorial advantage which Hizballa lacks. In previous war, all their long-range arsenal went up in smoke in the first 24 hours.
Worth considering: what
Worth considering: what does it say about the nature of Israeli decision-making-- particularly vis-a-vis the Iran nuke issue-- that the Israeli gov't chose not to stop the shipment(s) at this time? It's doubtful that it was due to a lack of knowledge about the transfer; more likely, it was a concerted decision made at the highest levels of the Israeli government. This could be a very telling case study for those seeking to understand future Netanyahu actions (or lack thereof) on critical issues.
So far as I know, the USAF
So far as I know, the USAF never detected or destroyed a mobile Scud launching system in combat ops. Iraqi launches on Israel never triggered the armed IDF response that could have been a deal changer, but on the other hand, they diverted considerable assets, scared Israelis, highlighted the US-zionist alliance, and gave Saddam's arms a propaganda victory.
The tactical difference now is that the Israeli's can mount 24/7 drone surveillance capability against a much smaller area, and launch counterbattery strikes from adjacent territory. Lebanon's broken terrain may impede surveillance, but it also limits large trucks to a known road net, buildings and caves capable of parking a 30 ft 30 ton mobile launcher. The rocket is useless without the launch gear.
Lacking terminal guidance, Scud is a terror weapon, like the V-1 London rockets. Hez rocketeers will consider a reprise of Saddam's strategy, lager and launch from Beirut, forcing another assymetric Israeli response against populated areas. Nothing shores up political support like enemy bombing. Targeting Israel's Dimona plutonium production facilities would be ineffective, but an interesting symbolic first that was talked about during Hamas' rocketing from Gaza.
My guess is that Israel can't afford to cross the nuclear threshold first, not even by conventional attack on Iran resulting in radiological release on Iranian territory. The same issue, not blasting radiological poisons onto Iranian people and territory, constrains US arms: that raises an interesting problem if an Israeli launch is detected in time for the US fleet in the Gulf to knock the missiles down. An Israeli 'demonstration' remains a possibility for Bibi, although it certainly would provide Iran the self-defense rational to withdraw from NPT and continue towards neighborhood nuclear parity with Pakistan, Israel and Arabia.
Doh! London was terrorized
Doh!
London was terrorized by Nazi V-2 ballistic rockets (pioneering mobile launchers) as well as the cheaper V-1 'cruise missile'.
The scuds are less useful
The scuds are less useful than the Katyushas. Did we forget that Israel is equipped with Patriots, along with other anti-ballistic defenses that are capable of knocking down missiles of this sort? Until today, the less advanced projectiles have proven to be much more effective. If this story is true, it is merely Syria adding another card to its deck prior to the river...
There's something going on
There's something going on here that we don't quite see. Scuds are provocative enough to make an Israeli attack on Hezbollah more likely, not dangerous enough to deter one effectively. Armed with chemical or nerve agents they might be, but attacks with weapons of that kind would trigger Israeli retaliation against Syria, not just Hezbollah. I'd need a lot of persuasion to believe the Assad regime would risk something like that.
I suppose it could be that Nasrallah and his crowd are seeking a prestige weapon that would advertise Hezbollah's relevance, not necessarily to advance any particular demand on Israel but to bolster its position in internal Lebanese politics. Or Iranian influence on either Syria or Damascus (or both) could be more pervasive than we think.
Syria is in an awkward position with respect to its major demand of Israel, return of the Golan. No Syrian government could get away with not pressing this demand, but between the ongoing controversy over Israeli settlements and Israel's concern about Iran, the Golan isn't even on people's radar screen. A provocative step like transferring Scuds to Hezbollah could be a means for Syria to draw attention to what it wants (as opposed to what Israel, Iran or the Palestinians want). It wouldn't make sense on those terms if Damascus had any better ideas, but maybe it doesn't.
Second paragraph above was
Second paragraph above was intended to refer to Iranian influence on Hezbollah or Damascus. I regret the error.
how an rumor in a trashy
how an rumor in a trashy kuwaiti newspaper can send an entire army of US foreign policy experts into a verifiable tizzy.
The Arabs and Israelis must just laugh and laugh at us.
http://www.cedarsrevolution.n
http://www.cedarsrevolution.net/jtphp/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&057481A...
SCUDs aren't really a game changer from a weapons-ability point of view. They already had the ability to reach all the targets these SCUDs would allow them to now. Of course saying "SCUD" after what happened in 1991 garners more public concern than "large rockety things."
Miso, Zach: Zach is right to
Miso, Zach:
Zach is right to consider pre-emptive strikes illegal under international law. However, unilateral anticipatory self-defence is allowed under art 51 because if you carefully read art 51 you'll find it also upholds previous international customary law on the issue.
To distinguish between pre-emptive and anticipatory, a legal test called the Caroline test is applied: anticipatory self-defence is considered legal under international law when there is 1) an instant and overwhelming requirement to act, 2) there are no other means to deal with this threat (e.g. all peaceful options must have been exhausted) and 3) the response must be proportionate. If these three criteria are met, it is no longer pre-emptive (where there is no direct cause of action) but anticipatory. See the UN High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change report.
The Bush doctrine, therefore, is still considered illegal. A pre-emptive strike by Israel would thus also be illegal, because there is no instant and overwhelming requirement to act.
IDF core advantage is air
IDF core advantage is air dominance of any potential battle space. If I wanted to hurt IDF I 'd give them a nice fat target that would draw them into an air defense ambush( man pad/ or Roland type.) The SCUD is useful only as a target not a strike weapon in a purely military sense.
Well, it's not a rumor
Well, it's not a rumor anymore since Hizballa seems to confirm it (although they are claiming that the rockets are old and inoperable, so presumably they intend to train their rocket crews with them). From what I can gather. there was a personal decision by Netanyahu not to attack first, but inform the Americans and suggest they try to talk Assad out of this . Netanyahu has assurances from the IAF that they are following the trail of the missiles and can take them out, meanwhile he wants to give Washington a chance to prove that the engagement can actually work or for Obama to embarrass himself in the eyes of Israel supporters in America and Israelis back home as the one who cannot influence Arabs in any way.
You are forgetting that
You are forgetting that Israel is still in a state of war with Syria and Lebanon. The issue of pre-emption does not arise.
Let me echo Abu Muqawama's
Let me echo Abu Muqawama's congratulations on the quality of discussion. Thank you one and all.
I agree with David 1 on the overuse of "rational actor" and its variants. From an objective, third-party perspective (should one exist), it is hard to see how anything the Syrians have done in the past 33 years can be described as "rational": they are not a whit closer to getting back the Golan or ridding themselves of their Palestinian guests, and now confront Israel without Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq to back them up, whether politically or militarily (to Iran, in a moment). Israel has demonstrated it can take out a Syrian military installation without Syria daring to respond and, not incidentally, with little in the way of international outrage.
For all the reasons given above, it is hard to see how Scuds would, in a practical sense, work to the advantage of Hezbollah or the Syrians. What they in fact do, should they ever be launched (particularly with chemical warheads), is give the Israelis enough internal and external justification to completely destroy the Syrian military and leadership (not to mention the entirety of south Lebanon, the Beqaa, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and much infrastructure elsewhere in that country): in the case of Syria, the Israeli government could not have been clearer about its plans next go-round. Should Iran respond on behalf of the Syrians--and the regime may feel it has no choice but to do so--they are inviting a crushing Israeli response for which the Israelis might well believe the West will be enormously grateful.
So, in terms of the news on the Scuds: cui bono?
Iran.
Iran.
I'd just like to reiterate
I'd just like to reiterate that the mobile launcher is the actual 'gun'. Training in rapid transport, siting, targeting, hiding and rearming etc are more difficult than just raising the rail for launch. The missile is just the bullet, albeit a big one, the size of the truck it launches from in the case of a SCUD. Obviously you need everything working, including crew trained for the the nasty liquid fueling step in the SCUDs case, to make the gun smoke. But Hez possession of a relatively advanced launcher system is itself destabilizing, a new capability implied and practiced.
Practice in putting even a blank round on the rail is even more provocative, misdirecting and complicating any Israeli ability to detect introduction of the real deal being introduced. Sort of a shell game, if Syria/Iran/Nasrullah should choose to up the ante. The imprecision of a SCUD's targeting would be so very 'inshallah', appealling to one sides civilians, and terrifying to the other.
Whether SCUD or something similar is driving around Lebanon is on another level immaterial, if enough on both sides talk as if it is so. No one questions whether nuclear Israel has such things, and much heavier weapons, or whether they would use them.
Be Warned. Some Duke
Be Warned. Some Duke Puntalangit claims the Middle East War will ignite in a few days from now and not later than last day of April 2010. Puntalangit claims he is a Filipino Catholic Visionary.
So "Jerusalem" claims that
So "Jerusalem" claims that HA admits it has SCUDS? Do tell. Perhaps "Jerusalem" would like to provide some proof. Oops. Forgot for a second that "Jerusalem" isn't required to provide credible proof of it's allegations. Ever.
Tick tick tick
M14 mouthpiece "Now Lebanon" reveals:
"An-Nahar newspaper reported Wednesday that US officials are not pleased with Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s Monday statement that Israel’s accusations Damascus supplied Hezbollah with Scud missiles are similar to those that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."
..........
"According to the daily, US officials believe that Hariri’s comment implicitly accused Washington of knowing that the reports are unfounded, yet it blamed Syria anyway."
Yeah, I'm sure that Jeffrey Feltman and Danny Shapiro are all umbraged up.
How outrageous to imagine that the GOA would promulgate faulty Israeli "intel" as credible! That Shlomo Brom was such a putz when he exposed the Israeli Saddam bio/chem/missiles garbage used to sell "American idiots" on the booscary Iraqi WMD "threats".
Be careful what you wish for, O' Zionist fools & tools.
If they got the SCUDS and
If they got the SCUDS and Syria has Sadaam's nerve gas then Iran does not the nuke at this time. It is now a stalemate. Israel attacks Iran Hizbullah launches the nerve gas on all Israeli cities except Jerusalem. Stalemate! And Israeli's laser defense will be countered by the Iranian space emp nuke. Again Stalemate. Now once again congressman jewish Schiff will you remove the H1b visa replacement of domestic techies from the labor code or do we lose a couple of jewish cities. I do not understand why you would risk almost nuke war over a couple of US tech jobs. See this is why jews get wiped out every 100 years because they are stupid pushing control over host countries and push gay crap! What a bunch of moron. Just build the @$#% temple on the northern plan and keep to your selves. Nope we have to be stupid. This is why Bin Laden is still around for such extermination tasks. I will just watch.
In fact, shoes whether for
In fact, shoes whether for men or women have a certain symbolic significance. But women are gucci shoes more likely to focus on their own feet and sandals so they have more awareness of decorative elements while men are not. Take buying Asics shoes for example. For women, they like the lovely and fashionable women’s Asics shoes. But men are not the same. The difference is the meaning of the feet for men and gucci outlet online women. A woman’s feet and legs often with nature so men pay attention to that. But a few women concern about men’s feet so men’s shoes are gucci handbags closer to the subconscious. Every man has his life is not conscious of inertia which used to be the key that how he and you get along. Therefore, you can know men from the most causal shoes. Shoes take a certain proportion of elements that express one person’s life, mental outlook and personality.
Houses and cars are quite
Houses and cars are quite expensive and not every person can buy it. Nevertheless, loans are invented to aid people in such hard situations.
Great post. I would like to
Great post. I would like to thank you for this informative read, I truly appreciate sharing this terrific post. Maintain up your work.
Thanks for the
Thanks for the recommendations shared in your blog. 1 extra thing I would like to convey is that weight reduction just isn't about going on a celebrity diet plan and attempting to minimize as a lot weight that it is possible to in a couple of days. Essentially the most effective approach to burn fat is by using it slowly and gradually and correct following some simple recommendations which can enable you to create essentially the most from a attempt to lose weight. You might recognize and be following a couple of of these ideas, nevertheless reinforcing facts never affects.
Add your comment