Ceasefire A Mess: Rice Doesn't Get It

She dismissed the idea that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has emerged with new standing. "Nasrallah is going to have to face what has become of those populations in the south and the great devastation that Hezbollah brought on," she said.

If Secretary of State Rice actually believes this nonsense, she should be sent back to Stanford so she can give more piano concerts. She sounds infected with the State Department malaria. Many of Hezbollah's supporters live meager existences as it is and are so far down on the expectations meter, they'd rather cling to a seemingly strong dictator like Nasrallah who would gladly sacrifice their lives for another day in the sun.

Ed at Captain's Quarters thinks it's game on if Hezbollah doesn't disarm.

Don't expect this cease-fire to last more than the next 24-48 hours. Annan himself managed to destroy it, and the UN Security Council will be hard pressed to make any more demands on the Israelis -- which leaves them open to do whatever they think best without further interference.

I don't disagree, so much as wonder what the game will be. The brazen way the Lebanese PM and Nasrallah announced their agreement for Hezbollah to conceal its weapons boggles. Someone certainly is feeling their oats. But if Olmert allows Hezbollah to simply re-constitute itself in the South, he may as well hand over power on the spot. He'd be through.

Unfortunately, the civilians have flocked back into Southern Lebanon and that makes things more difficult for the IDF. Olmert would seriously have to cast aside all International pressure to simply resume the war at this point and I don't know enough about the man to predict that outcome.

At the same time, it's increasingly clear that the Bush administration anticipated Hezbollah would not disarm and they want to take advantage of that situation to have them branded as a rogue, if not a terrorist entity at the UN. Honestly, I don't see the value in that. And so many of the countries on the other side are so duplicitous, it's hard for me to imagine they'll even care. All many of them seem to want is for there simply to be no shooting war, however things are constituted on the ground in Lebanon.

From the JP:

The IDF will have to resume operations in Lebanon if the expanded United Nations force being assembled does not fulfill its obligation to dismantle Hizbullah, an official in the Prime Minister's Office warned on Tuesday.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly reached a deal allowing Hizbullah to keep its weapons but refrain from exhibiting them in public. Israeli officials called the arrangement a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which passed over the weekend and was approved on Sunday by the cabinet.

"The resolution is clear that Hizbullah needs to be removed from the border area, embargoed and dismantled," the official said. "If the resolution is not implemented, we will have to take action to prevent the rearming of Hizbullah. I don't think backtracking will serve any useful purpose. There has to be pressure on Hizbullah to disarm or there will have to be another round."

One can hold out hope that Israel did anticipate, if not plan for this contingency and somehow saw it to their advantage for things to settle down for a bit. I'm unsure if we have acted on their recent request for additional ammunitions, it is possible that Bush went around Congress and managed to ship some particular arms Israel wanted given what they were finding on the ground.

What remains to be seen is how much of all this is talk, how long people are going to be willing to talk and, perhaps eventually, who is really prepared to take action. Lebanese PM Sanioro is likely to try and get some army troops south ASAP, if only to act as a psychological and diplomatic deterrent against renewed aggression by Israel. The equation is going to shift daily for the foreseeable future and I'm not prepared to join CQ in saying game on just yet.

Comments

[rwilymz]

Dan, and whomever else is willing to throw in the towel over an instantaneous event in the continuum of history:

Diplomats say many many many things, for the consumption of many many many people, almost all of whom have divergent, if not actively contrary, agendas. When the US, through the mouth of Rice, or Bush, or Bolton, or anyone else, says something as objectively ridiculous as "we believe a halt to the fighting serves the best interest of long-term peace in the region", that diplomat's mouth said those words for the benefit of *some*body.

The question is: who? Are we trying to ameliorate someone? the Syrians perhaps? Iranians maybe?

If so, for what purpose? to lull the Syrians or Iranians into a false sense of "Israel got blind-sided by the ferocity of Hezbollah" by any chance?

Why would anyone want to give the Syrians or Iranians that impression? because the Israelis learned something during their time in Lebanon about the Hezbollah supply chain that needs to be confirmed? and it can't be confirmed with a war on?

PEACE, n.
In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Diplomats lie and cheat and steal; it's part of their job. Their job also includes dispensing just enough discreet truth and accuracy to throw everyone off the trail.

DIPLOMACY, n.
The patriotic art of lying for one's country.
- ibid

It's as grave and misguidedly arrogant a mistake to instantly denounce any statements made today about the cease fire yesterday as it was for the similar conspiracists in 1990 to read the US diplomat's statements to Hussein in late July as a "cover" for Iraqi expansion into Kuwait, or the ditto in '83 to see Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand as anything more than two people shaking hands.

It's a game they play; they play by the same rules today as they used during the pristine and sanitized past when US diplomats stood tall and proud and were never duplicitous or cowardly. Only today, the game of "Diplomacy" is a spectator sport.

Watch and wait, and don't get too wound around the axle over trivial matters. It's an endurance race, not a sprint.

[xxx]

Everyone already knows that Hezbollah gets its money from Iran and Syria. Everyone has known it for twenty years.

If you think that Iran and Syria are going to be drawn into a hot war with Israel currently, you are even more nuts than I thought.

[rwilymz]

"If you think that Iran and Syria are going to be drawn into a hot war with Israel currently, you are even more nuts than I thought."

...says the Syria-Iran Mutual Defense Pact spokesman.

Thank you, Habib. Your sympathies and biases have been noted since you first opened your mouth. You aren't fooling anyone.

[xxx]

I don't need to fool anyone, again REALITY will prove me right.

Iran isn't going to attack anyone and neither is Syria. What would be in it for them? Nothing. No gain.

I don't believe our own military would countennace another pretend war either. The military doesn't really like pretend wars, since the death and destruction isn't pretend.

[rwilymz]

"What would be in it for them?"

Islamic eschatology?

What was in it in '48? '67?

Why do any nations do ANYthing that are predicted/seen in hindsight as doomed?

"oh, gee, Hitler sure was dumb to invade Russia, not simply 'at all', but most particularly in June rather than in April..."

"boy, the stupid, stupid Japanese generals, advocating war against the US..."

People who claim that nations will not do dumb things are going to lose more times than not. History books are chock full of examples.

...but you wouldn't know that, wujja?

"I don't believe our own military would countennace another pretend war either."

The US military countenances what they are told to countenance; we are not a military dictatorship in this nation, despite your tear-stained paranoias.

[xxx]

Obviously, our invasion of Iraq and Israel's invasion of Lebanon were both extremely DUMB things.

But the Arabs are not as DUMB or as CRAZY as you think they are. Iran and Syria know that the U.S. would never stand for an Israeli defeat, period. We would nuke Tehran before we would let Israel lose a real war. I know it. They know it.

Israel, having for the first time NOT achieved the military goals that it's administration stupidly over promised is not going to be up for another all out war. The Israelis want to know why one million of their people had to flee and WTF happened with defeating Hezbollah if it meant going into every last house in Southern Lebanon.

It. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

WE, that is Bushie, might still decide to bomb Iran, in fact, I don't doubt that we just might "uncover" some more fake evidence that makes a bombing necessary. But that is going to be the extend of any military action.

You. Are. A. Nut.

[rwilymz]

"Obviously, our invasion of Iraq and Israel's invasion of Lebanon were both extremely DUMB things."

"Obviously"?

In what way? and on what time scale? Issuing peremptory denunciations is part of your character, if not you "charm", certainly, but it doesn't do much except advertise you as superficial and meldramatic. What is "dumb" in the near-term is often very very smart in the long-term, even if not specifically planned or intended.

Castigating something as "dumb" without context is ... um, dumb.

"the Arabs are not as DUMB or as CRAZY as you think they are"

Ahhhh, so only Israel and the US are "dumb".

But maybe Israel and the US aren't as dumb or crazy as **you** think, eh?

"Iran and Syria know that the U.S. would never stand for an Israeli defeat"

...and Hitler knew that the Russians would never stand for The Glorious Motherland to be invaded; they'd burn it down first. Because they did that before.

Hitler still invaded.

Don't count chickens before they're hatched.

"We would nuke Tehran before we would let Israel lose a real war."

Yet they wouldn't nuke anybody. Right? Izzat your philosophy? Only *we* would do grasping, self-serving, self-righteous things? Their motives are honorable? Ours are suspect?

Izzat it?

"Israel, having for the first time NOT achieved the military goals that it's administration stupidly over promised..."

How do you know what their goals were/are? Are you Knesset?

You are guessing.

"You. Are. A. Nut."

Actually, I prefer dark chocolate and creamy coconut, ooooh. Mounds, I think, for lunch.

[xxx]

Um, hello, Hitler was a nut.

That is why he invaded Russian when any idiot including what remained of his generals that he hadn't murdered most probably told him. That is why he thought gassing jews was a brilliant solution. We should thank god he was a nut because if he had not opened a second front Europe might look a lot different today...

He may have been a charismatic, highly intelligent, highly effective for quite some time type of nut, but he was a nut nonetheless.

I know what their goals were because they stated them publicly, and if you are going to pretend that they stated goals to the Israeli people that they had no intention of achieving then, again, you are a NUT. For what reason would Olmert state all of these glorious military goals and then come home without having achieved them? I mean, okay it's possible that George Bush is his hero, and he thought he could get away with declaring his objective, failing to meet it and then declaring victory but I don't think so. Israel isn't made up of the same kind of dummy/uninterested/non voting sheep that our country appears to primarily consist of. Israeli's don't scare easily, they aren't stupid. They make take away some lessons that I disagree with, like blaming disengagement for all these debacles, which would be the absolute wrong lesson, but they will also learn some other lessons about believing your own propaganda and not going into a war without a solid plan to win it or achievble objectives. A lesson that we, still, have failed to grasp.

[rwilymz]

"Hitler was a nut"

Yet somehow I doubt he woulda gone for, uh, dark chocolate, nowudimean?

"That is why he invaded Russian when any idiot including what remained of his generals that he hadn't murdered most probably told him"

In 1941 his Generals Staff was complete.

But funny you're using hindsight to assert your authoritativeness. In 1941, the concept of "Hitler is obviously a nut because doesn't he know..." was not so cut-n-dried. He came thisclose to succeeding. Given the two months he dicked around in Crete to save Mussolini's ass ... goodbye Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad.

"if he had not opened a second front Europe might look a lot different today"

Uh huh. Europe looks "different today" either way.

"I know what their goals were because they stated them publicly..."

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Yes. Of course. Every nation divulges what their true intentions are. Iran says "we won't nuke anybody" so of course that's gospel truth. But Israel says "we won't nuke anybody" and, well, they're possibly lying, because that's what those dirty Jews do, doncha see.

And when we state our intentions, well, if those are intentions that you don't agree with then it's either a dastardly lie because that's what Republicans do, or it's a cleverly foolish truth only advertising the depth of inanity among "neo-cons". And naturally you decide if it's the dastardly lie or the cleverly foolish truth based upon what sort of self-righteous knee-jerk political mileage you think you can get out of it.

Fomenting democracy in Iraq was a cleverly foolish truth, because you can't impose democracy by force [as you feverishly expurgate the chapters on post-war Japan and Germany from your history book]. So therefore everything the US did/is doing/will do pursuant to same is a gasping failure.

But Iraqi chemical weapons is a dastardly lie, because "everyone knows". As long as "everyone" excludes Hans Blix, who reported to the UNSC that Iraq had 6,500 missing chemical weapons bombs [and shells, presumably], found during the 92-98 inspection regime, and warehoused in Iraq, but weren't where they were left in 2002 when the UN went back ... thanks to US saber-rattling.

It's all very convenient, idnit? the way it works out for you like that...

"For what reason would Olmert state all of these glorious military goals and then come home without having achieved them?"

For what reason would Nasrallah state all of his glorious objectives in raiding Israel and then not acheive them? and claim "victory" anyway?

Pay attention here: It's. What. They. Do.

It's the way nations and other such forces act, and always have, and always will.

Who's believing whose propaganda again?

The only one who's seeming buying into the stated goals here is you.

[xxx]

Raiding Israel? I must have missed that video footage of Hez soldiers moving into Israeli territory. Nasrallah did not attack Israel until Israel invaded Lebanon.

As much as you want to believe that kidnapping two soldiers is just cause for a full scale invasion, it isn't. Never has been, never will be. What is is an arguable pretense for doing something that you have wanted to do for a long time...take out Hezbollah. It was a huge miscalculation on Nasrallah's part becuase he assumed it would trigger a prisoner swap as it had before, he didn't realize that Bush Co had so coopted the Israelis to the point of getting them to wage a proxy war for us that was doomed to fail from the get go. No rockets rained down on Israel until Israel started bombing Lebanon. End of story.

Everybody loses. You may be happy if Israel walks away having decided that only total military anihilation is the right 'defensive' strategy and that what they should have done, is just killed everybody, as one of Dan's posters said, Napalm and carpet bomb all of Southern Lebanon.

It would indeed be tragic if this is the lesson that Israel learned, which it looks like is going to be the case instead of the correct lesson, that the way to get rid of Hezbollah is through political means not military means. So, what will happen now, is that Israel will start assassinating Hamas leaders like crazy, kidnapping more of them, jailing them and further cracking down on the Palestinians, if that is even possible, this, in turn, will start another round of suicide bombings, so the Israeli's can say, see, we told you...soone ror later the dog you are kicking will bite you, it is inevitable, this will give us another intifada, dead Palestinians all over the place and international outrage, the cycle will continue, Israel really has two choices, other than the status quo, commit genocide or give the Palestinians a state. Israel was on her way to a rational solution, but, thanks I suspect to US encouragement and a dumb new government, that opportunity is gone.

But I am sick of saying this, by the time it becomes absolutely clear that the US and Israel were using the wrong tools time and time again we will all be long dead so I won't be around to say I told you so.

[rwilymz]

"I must have missed that video footage of Hez soldiers moving into Israeli territory."

I'm not aware that it was filmed, so there was nothing to miss.

"Raiding Israel?"
"Nasrallah did not attack Israel until Israel invaded Lebanon."
"As much as you want to believe that kidnapping two soldiers is just cause for a full scale invasion, it isn't."

How did the Israeli soldiers get kidnapped unless Hezbollah crossed the border to do it?

That constitutes a raid. That constitutes an attack.

It is a violation of territorial sovereignty and is an act of war. That justifies war in response.

"Never has been, never will be."

Always has been -- since the concept of "territorial sovereignty" was created in the 16th century -- and always will be -- except in the case of anti-semites arguing against Israeli use of it.

"What is is an arguable pretense for doing something that you have wanted to do for a long time...take out Hezbollah."

But why? Just because Hezbollah exists? Or because Hezbollah does such things as periodically raiding Israel and killing people and just generally committing acts of war?

"It was a huge miscalculation on Nasrallah's part becuase he assumed it would trigger a prisoner swap as it had before, he didn't realize that Bush Co had so coopted the Israelis to the point of getting them to wage a proxy war for us..."

Ri-i-i-ight. Israel has only ever done such things at Bush's behest. '73, Bush, why did I not see that before?

"... that was doomed to fail from the get go."

Define "failure". War is seldom zero-sum.

"No rockets rained down on Israel until Israel started bombing Lebanon. End of story."

Incorrect. As I linked you from cnn.com last week -- after which [SURPRISE!!] you suddenly disappeared from that topic -- the HEzbollah raid on Israel coincided with a rocket attack on some small village.

"...as one of Dan's posters said, Napalm and carpet bomb all of Southern Lebanon."

Well, that would work, certainly. Particularly if it kept up for the same 3 years as the ditto of Nazi Germany.

"It would indeed be tragic if this is the lesson that Israel learned..."

Yes. Of course. Because such things never ever work. Do they? Exactly how much History are you willing to excise from collective memory?

"which it looks like is going to be the case instead of the correct lesson, ..."

BLAH, bluhBLAH, bluhBLAH. Don't you ever get tired of dispensing the same sanctimonious shinola? Just who the hell do you think you are to say what is the "correct" anything? You're obviously clueless on military tactics and strategic analysis; you've got no comprehension of 'military as an arm of diplomacy'; you're overloaded with self-important "morals" that have no basis in anything other than your own pretentious opinion.

You've been systematically disproven on virtually everything you've pontificated upon, and you still issue the same indescribably ignorant screed. Are you even capable of learning anything?

"I am sick of saying this..."

Then do your fingers a favor and stop. You're wrong and/or ignorant.