Lebanon on the brink

[Prime Junta]

@V7: I agree. A pretty good rule of thumb is "never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence."

 

[Prime Junta]

Now, I mean it more as a general comment than a direct reply to you PJ but religion (or interpretation of a religion) IS a part of group identity. And, while religion might not always be a preeminent factor, it is always there as a part of the equation.

Certainly it is, but in that role it's just a symbol like any other -- Montague, Capulet, American, German, white, black, Blood, Crip, Hell's Angel, Bandido. Removing religion from the equation won't change the picture much; you just end up substituting one set of symbols for another.

 

[magerette]

Prime Junta wrote:

And fourth, do you see the problems I have with the idea of exporting democracy in general? This is the social substrate you're dealing with. Slapping Western-style democratic institutions on top of it won't help, and if you simultaneously dismantle the existing institutions -- even if they're rather nasty ones -- you'll get chaos and civil war. If the Middle East is to evolve an open society or open societies, it'll have to do it in its own way, on its own schedule, and according to its own logic; the institutions it will evolve will look rather different from the ones we're used to too.

I couldn't agree with you more on this (and, indeed, the rest of your post) and the sooner this type of foreign policy from the US ends the better, IMO. I don't think the on-ground sentiment in this country has ever favored the "nation-building" model in Iraq. Latest poll(not that polls are God or anything but...) shows 82% of the country feels we have gone off on the wrong track, and a large part of it is this war, (and of course the economy it's sabotaging.)

I also think we need to quit propping up leaders and choosing the controlling elements of countries to support according to how they appear to agree with us. It would be fine if our leaders knew what they were doing and could pick a fair and logical choice that not only reflected our interests but the best interests of the people in that country, but that is far from the case atm.

Another update: pardon my French, but I really wish Bush would STFU. He's not helping.

You, me and about 70% of our population.

Edit: I *cannot* understand how the president of a major if declining power can be so completely clueless about a region he's directly involved in that he and his advisers would draw such a totally moronic conclusion from these events...

Have you listened to McCain? Our foreign policy expert? Shi'a--Sunni--WHATever--they're all BMwBs and the whole philosophy can be summed up in the old bumper sticker from the first Gulf War: "Kick their ass and take their gas." I obviously didn't always feel this way, but I don't see how anyone--even that other pig-dog ice-in-his-veins repub type -- can defend it at this point.

Perhaps someone should point them at this thread; the information here is clearly way better than what the White House staff can provide him. GAH!

And thanks for that--your professor mode is very helpful, as well as everyone else's perspectives that I would otherwise never hear. The only drawback to that idea is that those people's minds are completely closed and dominated by their investment in this failure--no amount of fact will shake them loose from their position--but I'm hoping that November will at least shake them loose from the White House.

The problem is, as I was listening to Bill Moyers and Olberman discuss last night, that everything over here is lost in a non-informational wasteland of sensationalist journalism and apathy, and that truth only appears and is digestible when it can be reduced to simple short bursts of information, like the bumper sticker I quoted(which is indeed a sad truth for many). People want things to be easy to understand and deal with--they seem to respond to symbols and not to thoughtful or thought provoking positions. There's some hope that this is changing, though, and that's what we have to look to to get to a better realization of our world and the manifold crap that absolutely has to be better dealt with.

 

[zahratustra]

Certainly it is, but in that role it's just a symbol like any other -- Montague, Capulet, American, German, white, black, Blood, Crip, Hell's Angel, Bandido. Removing religion from the equation won't change the picture much; you just end up substituting one set of symbols for another.

Not in my opinion PJ. I would say that some symbols (and I count religion among those) are of more importance than others and removing (or substituting) them changes result of an equation.

 

[Prime Junta]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point, then.

 

[dteowner]

Have you listened to McCain? Our foreign policy expert? Shi'a--Sunni--WHATever--they're all BMwBs and the whole philosophy can be summed up in the old bumper sticker from the first Gulf War: "Kick their ass and take their gas." I obviously didn't always feel this way, but I don't see how anyone--even that other pig-dog ice-in-his-veins repub type -- can defend it at this point.

Mooommmm! Somebody's poking me again!

Just keep in mind that the fact that the social structure is incredibly complex doesn't automatically preclude, "Kick their ass and take their gas."--it's the fact that we do all the refining, so all we can really do is take their oil. Of course, there's absolutely no reason to let reality get in the way of a good rhyme, so we'll excuse the minor inaccuracy.

Now, pedantry aside, half the problem we had in Iraq (and every other conflict in the last 20-some years) was trying to run a gentleman's war. It sounds well and good and keeps the UN happy, but in the long run 5 days of scorched earth is far more effective (even from a civilian casualty standpoint) than 5 years of smart bombs. It doesn't make for good TV, cuz it's really, really ugly, so it's not a popular answer. The world prefers 100 deaths every week for a year over 2000 deaths in one week. That's fine. Stupid...but fine. So, until such time as someone invents a bomb that can ring your doorbell and quiz you about your political affiliations before deciding whether to detonate, it's really not practical to single out the "bad apples", particularly when even the locals couldn't consistently tell you which folks really are the bad apples.

So where does that leave us? Clearly, the complexity of the social structure means that the cleanup phase of a conflict is going to take a huge amount of thought and planning and won't lend itself to our traditional cookie-cutter installations. Unfortunately, the US (and moreso for the Republicans and far beyond even that for Dubya) is far more adept at destruction than cleanup. We prefer to blow shit up and then hand out a lot of cash so someone else can deal with the aftermath. That's fine, as long as the social structure is simple enough that you know where to send the check. Our utter ignorance of, and general distain for, sectarian politics makes it impossible to really comprehend the short and long term implications of which hand we put that check into. And even worse, given the highly fluid interactions between the various factions, today's "good guy" often ends up being tomorrow's "axis of evil" (look no further than Saddam).

Now, I can already hear the hammered keyboards, "Then don't get involved in the first place!" We all know that's not an option for the US. People enjoy invoking our name to resolve every two-bit squabble, and isolation only works until the world knocks down the gate (See 9-11). The majority of the world is content to let the patient get gangrene and go septic. Us imperialist pig-dogs prefer to amputate, but we tend to forget the tourniquet and antibiotic. While the slow death is less dramatic, the patient still dies, folks.

 

[zahratustra]

You forgot carpet bombing, napalm, fuel-air explosive and agent orange from Vietnam era dte? There was no trick in the book (short of nuclear option) US hadn't tried to win that conflict. As for Iraq: false realities and planning faliures and not gentlemanly scrupules lead you to where you are now.
US administration fucked up because they were too stupid and not because they were too nice!

 

[dteowner]

I don't know that Vietnam is a valid data point given the political turmoil of the time. That was really the beginning of the whole gentleman's war ethic to my mind. The napalm and agent orange efforts were more about removing hiding places than good honest killin'.

I would disagree with some of your analysis, though. While there were certainly dismal planning failures for the cleanup phase (it's bad enough that even Dubya admits it), I would say we were far too gentle with the combat, which complicated the cleanup. Problems like al-Sadr could have been resolved in about 10 minutes. Instead, he's still screwing things up 5 years later because we weren't ready to withstand the international outcry that would have come from putting a 10-block-wide crater around his office. I doubt we would be dealing with as many weapons caches and snipers in the mosques if a couple of them had been flattened (now, I think you'd have to be very careful before you resorted to that so that the locals understood what was going to happen and why and give them a chance to deal with the problem themselves before calling in the ordinance). Because of the way we've gone about the combat, there are no consequences for aiding the terrorists. You've got to make our war their war or else you're doomed to failure (and I think we've proven that quite well in Iraq). This would apply to any activity in Lebanon as well (although I hope we stay far away from that quagmire).

 

[zahratustra]

Don't know exactly which phase you have in mind when you say "we were far too gentle with the combat, which complicated the cleanup" dte. But problem is that BECAUSE of wishfull thinking and planning faliure US did have enough troops to defeat Iraqi army (which nobody ever doubted they would) but not enough to pacify the country (make them FEEL defeated) afterwards. In short, there was never any clean-up worth speaking of!

 

[dteowner]

US did have enough troops to defeat Iraqi army (which nobody ever doubted they would) but not enough to pacify the country (make them FEEL defeated) afterwards.

We're actually closer to agreement than you might think. It takes 6 soldiers to clear a building and then 6 more to clear it the following week. It takes one pilot to flatten it once and for all. We've got enough planes and ordinance to seperate every brick in the nation, but that would entail a lot of civilian casualties. We chose to replace indiscriminant destruction with manpower. Unfortunately, we couldn't/didn't apply sufficient manpower to pull off that trade.

 

[Prime Junta]

Now, pedantry aside, half the problem we had in Iraq (and every other conflict in the last 20-some years) was trying to run a gentleman's war.

I know you like to think so, but that just ain't true. You've tried everything, from rounding up people at random and torturing them (Abu Ghraib and Haditha ring any bells?) to leveling an entire city (Falluja ring any bells?) You simply don't have, and never had, enough boots on the ground nor enough local knowledge to be able to effectively impose your will on the country. General Shinseki's estimate of 500,000 GI's was low: IMO it would take between a million and a million and a half.

(Snip rest of rambling attempt at self-justification.)

Seriously, dte -- you can do better than this. You've just recounted an explanation that salves your conscience and makes you feel better, but it doesn't have a great deal to do with the facts.

 

[Prime Junta]

We're actually closer to agreement than you might think. It takes 6 soldiers to clear a building and then 6 more to clear it the following week. It takes one pilot to flatten it once and for all. We've got enough planes and ordinance to seperate every brick in the nation, but that would entail a lot of civilian casualties. We chose to replace indiscriminant destruction with manpower. Unfortunately, we couldn't/didn't apply sufficient manpower to pull off that trade.

You're also way overestimating the effect of bombing from the air. The IAF carpet-bombed Southern Lebanon in 2006 -- there was hardly a building standing there. Here's the Hezbollah stronghold in South Beirut, before and after the IAF bombing campaign:

The Russians did an even more thorough job of Groznyi, in their campaign against the Chechens. Guess what? The only effect was knocking over lots of buildings belonging to people who didn't have much to lose, killing some grandmothers too slow to get out of the way, and flooding the local resistance recruitment offices.

Once more: *YOU CANNOT BEAT AN INSURGENCY FROM THE AIR*. Not without going nuclear and killing literally everybody. That's a simple, basic military fact.

And I honestly can't believe that normal, intelligent people still can't get this simple, basic military fact through their heads, despite that fact that every military with air supremacy ever has tried, and failed, in it.

 

[Prime Junta]

Problems like al-Sadr could have been resolved in about 10 minutes. Instead, he's still screwing things up 5 years later because we weren't ready to withstand the international outcry that would have come from putting a 10-block-wide crater around his office. I doubt we would be dealing with as many weapons caches and snipers in the mosques if a couple of them had been flattened (now, I think you'd have to be very careful before you resorted to that so that the locals understood what was going to happen and why and give them a chance to deal with the problem themselves before calling in the ordinance). Because of the way we've gone about the combat, there are no consequences for aiding the terrorists. You've got to make our war their war or else you're doomed to failure (and I think we've proven that quite well in Iraq). This would apply to any activity in Lebanon as well (although I hope we stay far away from that quagmire).

Gee, dte -- I wonder why they didn't think of that?

You're starting to seriously annoy me again. I get annoyed by something called "invincible ignorance," you see. That means persisting in an incorrect belief despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Again, what you're repeating is a comforting lie -- "we're too damn nice to win." That ain't true -- you're too damn stupid to win. Specifically, you're too damn good at telling yourselves comforting lies, from "we'll be welcomed with flowers" now turned to "we're too damn nice to them." If you want to win, the first thing you have to do is recognize the realities. Although of course if you had, you wouldn't *be* in the mess you're in, would you now?

Do you really think that even if you had succeeded in assassinating al-Sadr (which is a big "if" -- resistance leaders are notoriously hard to track down; just ask the Mossad), another would not have stepped into his shoes? Or that resistance movements like his can be successfully intimidated by bombing buildings?

Wakey-wakey, dte. Look at everything you've *actually* tried, and everything, say, Israel has tried, in Southern Lebanon during their occupation, in the Palestinian territories, and in their numerous invasions of Lebanon.

 

[dteowner]

It seemed to convince Germany pretty well back in the day. Nearly convinced England shortly before that. Nobody's saying the white flags go up as soon as the smoke clears, but I think it's safe to say that it's far easier (and less manpower-intensive) to finish off an enemy that has no infrastructure. Hit-n-run isn't nearly as effective in a crater, wouldn't you say? Similarly, a few object examples would certainly make it easier to exploit the numerous sectarian rifts and get the enemy fighting itself (which isn't too awful distant from the situation in Lebanon right now).

 

[dteowner]

While I won't deny a fair bit of stupidity in the US leadership (we've established that long ago), there's a very key modification to what you're saying that's needed: "We WERE too nice to them". Once you're into the cleanup phase (we've been there for a few years now), the ballgame changes entirely.

Even looking at your satelite photos, we're not asking the right question. How is it that there's no change to the city below that east-west highway? Are they actually stupid enough to believe there aren't any "bad guys" south of the road? Bull. There was a political decision made that the "bad guy" density south of the road wasn't sufficient to offset the international outcry against civilian casualties. If you're looking at a true military solution, flattening a square mile in the middle of a city is a waste of time at best, and counterproductive (as you point out) at worst.

 

[dteowner]

Gee, dte -- I wonder why they didn't think of that?

I'm sure they did. Many times. Bottom line is that it wasn't politically viable under international scrutiny. Even if we decided to say "screw the UN" again, you've got to politically isolate your example before you pull the trigger. Make a martyr for an isolated sect--deal with it; make a martyr for a whole country--you're in deep doo. We didn't make much of an attempt to isolate al-Sadr's group (or, at least, it didn't get any media coverage that I ever saw), so it wouldn't have been productive to remove him from the mix.

 

[POLYGON]

In that case it means they shouldn't be able to give any death penalties am I right? Anyway, in Europe most people think death penalties is barbaric. I am not one of those, if someone raped a child, or killed someone in cold blood, I think death penalty is the only solution. As long as there is no doubt of guilt.



The problem I have is just that a book tells people who should die, it is very dangerous. We have also concluded that christianity has sometimes preached in bilbe according to PJ's post, and there are several other religions with also preach bad things I hope it didn't sound like I was just against islam POLYGON , I am against all religion.

No, you didn't sound against just islam

 

[POLYGON]

It seemed to convince Germany pretty well back in the day. Nearly convinced England shortly before that. Nobody's saying the white flags go up as soon as the smoke clears, but I think it's safe to say that it's far easier (and less manpower-intensive) to finish off an enemy that has no infrastructure. Hit-n-run isn't nearly as effective in a crater, wouldn't you say? Similarly, a few object examples would certainly make it easier to exploit the numerous sectarian rifts and get the enemy fighting itself (which isn't too awful distant from the situation in Lebanon right now).

I think what PJ meant is that it doesn't have a great effect when not fighting a whole country and its official army like the examples you gave.
When fighting groups or gangs specialized with hit and run wars it doesn't have a decisive effect.

 

[dteowner]

Agreed, POLYGON, but's that why I pointed out that hit-n-run isn't nearly as effective if there's nowhere to hide.

Consider a puddle of water. If you step in the puddle, the water moves away, but it returns as soon as you lift your foot and nothing changes. Now, stomp in that same puddle a few times. It's a lot more messy, but after a few splashes, the puddle doesn't hold as much water and often fragments into many smaller puddles which are easily navigated. As an alternative, you can knock down the edges (infrastructure) that retain the puddle first. That makes it easier when you do your splashing, since it's less likely the water you've splashed will be funneled back into the puddle.

 

[Prime Junta]

It seemed to convince Germany pretty well back in the day. Nearly convinced England shortly before that.

That's because World War II wasn't an insurgency! It was a matter of nation-states fielding mechanized armies against each other. You can fight an army like that from the air reasonably effectively -- blow up all the ball-bearing factories and there won't be any more tanks; blow-up all the fuel refineries and the tanks won't move; blow up the railway lines and the troops won't get to the front.

What *didn't* work even in WW2 was "terror bombing" -- Dresden and the Blitz only strengthened the resolve of the combatants.

Nobody's saying the white flags go up as soon as the smoke clears, but I think it's safe to say that it's far easier (and less manpower-intensive) to finish off an enemy that has no infrastructure.

DTE, either read up on a bit of military history about counterinsurgencies, or STFU. Because you are talking utter hooey, and *anyone* who knows anything about military history can tell you so. Including folks like Shinseki, Powell, or Petraeus (who has been making a pretty decent job of fighting a counterinsurgency campaign with entirely the wrong resources).

Hit-n-run isn't nearly as effective in a crater, wouldn't you say?

Effective for what?

Similarly, a few object examples would certainly make it easier to exploit the numerous sectarian rifts and get the enemy fighting itself (which isn't too awful distant from the situation in Lebanon right now).

No, it won't.

Indiscriminate aerial bombing will not "cause rifts." On the contrary, it'll cause the enemy to rally around the flag. When the IAF bombed Lebanon indiscriminately in 2006, the Hezbollah came out *stronger*, not weaker -- folks like POLYGON, who are not Shi'ites and therefore not a part of their natural constituency, got so mad they became sympathizers. Hell, *I* became a sympathizer even though I'm about as far from their theocratic ideology as you can be -- I'd be stoned for atheism on day 1 in their ideal society.

If you want to create and exploit rifts, you need to be patient, clever, and utterly ruthless. The Brits were the past masters at it. The Syrians have been doing a passable job of it in Lebanon since 2005. The tools to do it include things like disinformation campaigns, rumors, assassinations, "hit and run" terror attacks where the perpetrator is at least somewhat unclear, handing guns and money to one or several factions at different times and under different conditions, and so on.