.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}


news & opinion with no titillating non-news from the major non-news channels.


I am: progressive, not a wild-eyed Progressive; liberal, but shun liberals and Liberals; conservative, but some Conservatives worry me; absolutely NOT a libertarian. I am: an idealist, but no utopian; a pragmatist, but no Machiavellian. I am a realist who dreams.


I welcome all opinions.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Israel vs Hezbollah:
   'Fight on All Fronts'

From a December 2003 Washington Institute Policy Focus, 'Fight on All Fronts': Hizballah, the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq,

The events of September 11, 2001, played a major role in galvanizing Hizballah to intensify its strategy and violent activities. The group’s spiritual leader, Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, acknowledged that “the stage after September 11 is similar to a major earthquake” and that “Islam is living a crisis that it never witnessed in all of its history.” Indeed, the al-Qaeda attacks on the United States, the subsequent U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan, and the ensuing “war on terror” all threatened to rob Hizballah of the strategic gains it had made following the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The Bush administration’s post–September 11 policies also raised the possibility that both Hizballah and its state sponsors might eventually be targeted in a continuing campaign against the “axis of evil.” In response, the organization decided to escalate both its attacks on Israel and its support of the Palestinian intifada, primarily as a means of obstructing U.S. action in the region and concentrating international attention on the Palestinian arena.

Our 'disproportionate' response to 9/11, just as Israel's 'disproportionate' response to the twin attacks in the past month, seriously threatened the enemy. As a result, they stepped up their attacks to obstruct our further actions in the region.

Think about that for a moment. We endanger our enemy's position, they respond, and we are supposed to abandon that merely because the enemy reacted violently to their potential demise? No. Their reaction validates our offensive. They would not be committing resources and assets if our strategy wasn't effective.

We should be pressing the advantage. That is basic strategy and tactics. We do have an objective, do we not?

Have we not learned anything in 10,000 years of warfare and political violence?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home