Could it be that the reason for Israel's tactic of small-scale "incursions" into Southern Lebanon instead of a comprehensive "invasion", is not the reflection of a reluctance to incur large casualties, or a new appreciation of the competence of Hezbollah's fighters, but is instead a calculated strategy to incite Hezbollah into firing all of the missiles not destroyed by IDF air and artillery attacks?
Such a strategy seems plausible. Akin to (ironically) Muhammed Ali's famous "rope-a-dope" tactic of absorbing attacks until the opponent is sufficiently weakened to the point whereby a 'knockout' blow can be delivered.
It does seem that Israel miscalculated the time and effort necessary to destroy and exhaust Hezbollah's supply of missiles, yet given the unconditional support of the U.S. as well as the historic, though tepid, support of some Arab League leaders, the Israeli's appear to have the time needed to accomplish the task.
If Hezbollah can be induced to exhaust the missile supply not destroyed by IDF attacks, it would require re-supply from Iran via Syria. (Hence, the explanation for Israel's "disproportionate" use of force?)
An exhausted (and presumably significantly diminished 'conventionally') Hezbollah, would afford the Israeli's (with U.S. backing) the opportunity to offer a 'carrot' in place of the 'stick', to Syria (75% Sunni), in order to split it away from, and further isolate Iran. (89% Shia) Thus elevating Syria to the status level it has long sought and shutting off Hezbollah's missile supply line. The 'carrot' would be "negotiations" over the Golan Heights (remember 'negotiating' does not mean repatriation) and perhaps a resumption of the Israeli withdrawals from settlements in the West Bank. (a policy re-stated by Olmert just yesterday)
An interim International Force to occupy Southern Lebanon could then be implemented as "negotiations" take place, further curbing Hezbollah's power to attack Israel. (although recent reports suggest that Hezbollah has the capability to attack Northern Israel from it's positions in Northern Lebanon)
The end result? A diminished Hezbollah, no longer capable of cross-border 'incursions' like 12 July, an 'empowered' Syria no longer in the orbit of Iran, and a "peace" that creates an opportunity to reconstitute Lebanon's government and rebuild it's infrastructure (with U.S. $ of course)
Are the Olmert and Bush administrations intelligent enough to plan and execute such a strategy? It would be hard to believe, but 'never say never', especially in the Middle East. After all, who would have believed a few weeks ago that Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia would not automatically take sides against Israel when the guns began to shout?
But also remember that the ultimate goal of U.S. policy in the Middle East is a permanent deployment of it's military forces in order to ensure stability and control of the OIL markets and the simultaneous elimination of threats to the security of ISRAEL.
And what of the captured Israeli soldiers? Negotiations will take care of them later.
You didn't really think this was all about them did you?
stephenhsmith
25July2006
