It's starting to look like the Israeli campaign in Lebanon is going to last awhile.  I thought the Israelis would be in Lebanon for no more than a couple months, and that's not yet out of the question.  But this editorial in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (link courtesy of TNR) seems like a good overview of the Israeli perspective.  For the Israelis fighting Hezbollah to a draw is a defeat.  It not only sets the stage for a return to the status quo, it also gives Hezbollah a victory over the Israeli military.  The logic of the editorial dictates an expansion of the war—not to other countries, but north towards Tyre and other areas from which rockets can be launched against Israel.  That will probably take a while, and will probably entail fierce fighting.

I say "probably" because it's impossible to judge the situation on the ground in Lebanon from Baghdad.  It wouldn't surprise me much if Hezbollah collapsed tomorrow.  They're fighting fiercely but are also enduring a fierce aerial bombardment and the ground attacks of a much more powerful enemy.  If they're fighting to the death and refusing to retreat then fierce resistance may very quickly become no resistance.  And the Israelis don't need to annihilate Hezbollah utterly to succeed; they just need to wound it so gravely that an international force or the Lebanese Army can come in and mop up.

I could be all wrong about this; a quick glance at US newspapers makes it sound like the Israelis have scaled back their goals and will only be trying to establish a small buffer zone in southern Lebanon.  That could be, but at this point I think the Israelis are much more likely to push forward with even more ferocity (but not necessarily with more troops).  Obviously "we've taken casualties, let's make sure they were worth it" is a terrible strategy, but in this specific situation there's a certain logic to it.  It probably wouldn't be a case of reinforcing defeat.  If Israel is facing a more committed, better-armed enemy than it expected, then IDF casualties will decline as it adapts to that enemy.  I don't care how smart, capable and devoted Hezbollah's fighters are; in a battle to seize and control territory they will eventually lose to a well-trained army that has heavy tanks and controls the skies.  Typical counter-insurgency worries about the militants' ability to hide among civilians probably don't apply, since civilians are fleeing north and I doubt the Israelis will hesitate to expel the remainder of the population if it looks like this might devolving into an Iraq-style slog.  That would be harsh, but as I sit in Baghdad I wonder if leaving civilians in the combat zone wouldn't be an even less humane decision.

I don't know what to make of proposals that a non-UN force head to southern Lebanon to keep the peace.  Certainly the UN failed to keep the situation under control (both sides need to want it under control for a UN presence to really work), so getting fresh forces on the ground is probably a good idea.  But the number, nationality and international legitimacy of a peace-keeping force is a lot less important than that force's rules of engagement.  Troops whose mission is to watch the world go by won't do the job of staying between the Israelis and Hezbollah, and won't help the Lebanese government get control of the south.  But it's a bit hard to imagine NATO, the UN or anyone else sending in "peacekeepers" whose mandate includes fighting a counter-insurgency against Hezbollah.  That's why I wonder if the Israelis plan to fight on until they feel Hezbollah has been utterly routed.  Keeping a new militant group from cropping up may be easier for peacekeepers than policing an old one.

Of course, the Israelis forced the PLO out of Lebanon a generation ago, and are now fighting its successor.  The status quo for Israel and its neighbors is not peace.  Peacekeepers, cease-fires and military campaigns come and go, but the violence doesn't abate over time.

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion