War Games

At the Belmont Club. Wretchard speculates on what might be in the minds of the Israeli's as they continue to carry the fight to Hezbollah - and to some extent, Lebanon. It's an interesting read and I'll link it at bottom. I'd like to speculate a bit myself.

Whether it was planned or not, and some elements of this had to be, Israel gained the element of surprise through the level of their attack. When I say elements had to of been planned, I mean only in the sense that somewhere along the line Israel and the US had to have agreed that if future events allowed for a massive assault to seriously disrupt, if not destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon, the US would have her back. I don't believe Israel would have launched on the scale they have without knowing the support would be there.

The bluff being called now, assuming it is a bluff, is Iran's. This has all been characterized as a distraction from Iran's nuclear issues. That would be true if this remained a low level incursion, or policing action with an obviously limited scope. Now, Iran is sitting there watching Hezbollah being decimated. And so far, all they have been able to respond with is rhetoric.

If they do much more, at least openly, they invite, not only Israel, but also the United States to dismantle their nuclear program installation by installation. At this point, it is Iran and Syria at risk of coming away from this thing weakened in the world's eye - most importantly, the eyes of the Middle East. The US is ignoring them, not even allowing them at the negotiation table. And all this is happening at a time when Iran was trying to step up as the leading voice of radical Islam.

If Iran acts, we will be at war. If they do not, we will be looking at getting a handle on the nuclear ambitions of an Iran weakened in the eyes of many. They must be having fits at what's going on.

As for Lebanon, as it stood, much of the country was beholden to Hezbollah and, by extension, Iran and still Syria. Assuming the conflict doesn't enlarge to include them, the diplomatic strategy will be to rebuild Lebanon, but this time with money from more moderate Arab states and also the West. And I would anticipate measures designed precisely to keep Iran's capitol from flowing into Lebanon.

With Hezbollah weakened and the economy of Lebanon, particularly in the south, more dependent on others, Iran and Syria's influence can be minimized, if not eliminated. Also, Israel has by and large not harmed the tourist areas of Lebanon where it can be avoided. That preserves the parts of Lebanon already most open to the West and moderate states, those less aligned with Hezbollah.

Israel is still sending mixed message. They say no wider incursion, but call up 30,000 reserves for replacements. They just sent a back channel message to Iran claiming they do not intend to attack Syria. No doubt Iran and Syria are pondering what to make of that. They are off-balance and the goal is to keep them that way, no matter what.

As for Wretchard's piece, you should check it out.

Links to follow the war news:  Pajamas Media, or read a few regional blogs. I like to check the JP headlines, as well.

Comments

[Phoenix]

What is it about the neo-cons that is so appealing? Their ability to foresee future events. The necessity to have a presence in Iraq was part of that futuristic thinking. It's all unfolding just as planned/foreseen. Anyone who thinks the Israelis don't use psychology in their warfare isn't thinking - just like anyone who thinks Bush and his cohorts haven't had this down all along isn't thinking.

Your point, Dan, about what the rest of them are thinking as Israel takes center stage is right-on. All the bad boys have that "Hey! What about me?" thing going on.....real bad.

[Karen]

Another good perspective of things. Thanks !

[rwilymz]

"It's all unfolding just as planned/foreseen."

...and the prosecution of WWII in the Pacific Theater went "down" as planned/foreseen in the 20s by military-diplomatic prognosticators as well. "Plan Orange". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Orange

The way it works is this: people who study history and know diplomacy and know military tactics and strategy get together in a big room with comfy couches and bottomless coffee pots, stay there for several years, and they predict. They predict. And they predict some more.

Then they write it down. And publish their predictions in journals that are geared towards prognostications.

There are left-wing "think tanks" and right-wing "think tanks" and center-wing "think tanks" and libertarian "think-tanks" and socialist "think tanks" et cetera et cetera et cetera.

It just so happens that the right wing predictors saw the rise of islamofascism [or islmaic militarism, or pan-islamism, or call it what you will], and concocted a plan to respond to it.

...just like the military and diplomatic strategists of the 20s saw the rise of Japanese militarism, predicted that Japan would attempt to abscond with the Pacific as the Japanese Pond, and concocted a plan to respond to *that*.

It is no more a sign of conspiracy that MacArthur island-hopped his way to Saipan than it is that the US now has forces in Iraq. Frankly, if you didn't see the rise of Iraqi paranoias and that the rest of the world would be eventually forced to respond to it after the Versailles-like Gulf War cease fire, ... you just weren't thinking.

I myself predicted a follow-on Iraq war in 1992. ...though I thought it would have been twenty years later, and not ten. Because I didn't think that anyone would have had the balls to shortcircuit a historical pattern and take the heat for it, instead of -- yet again -- following the path of least reluctance until the masses of lethargic western mopes were forced to wake up to the dangers of fascistic megalomania.

Unfortunately, the guy with balls is also an anti-charismatic who cannot articulate what is going on, so he stumbles around like a dazed rabbit. And that leaves unknowledgable twerps to spin conspiracy theories because they never bothered to do more in history class than memorize "in fourteen hundred ninety-two..."

[Phoenix]

Rwilymz,

Are you a terminal grouch or what? I can't get your tone here, but I think I agree with you. Except for one thing: The use of the word 'conspiracy' is wrong. What rules futuristic thinking is common sense and a keen knowledge of history and human nature. It's not exactly a 'conspiracy' to react to the real world in terms of what has to be done. Planning for events is not always conspiratorial; although, there is no doubt in my mind that the U.S., Britain, and Israel conspire.

Yes. For sure the guy with balls has that problem. It's a damn shame, too. I sure wish he was as bold in presence as he is in conviction.

[splashtc]

Wasn't everyone in agreement that iran should not have nukes. Short of bombing them directly this is second best.

[rwilymz]

"Are you a terminal grouch or what?"

You been talking to my wife?

"What rules futuristic thinking is common sense and a keen knowledge of history and human nature"

No question. Which is why people who criticize prognosticators who've gotten it right, declaring that "well, they just planned all this, so they musta had a hand in it" makes the critics cospiracists.