After finding that strategic bombing was insufficient to defeat Hizbollah or pressure Lebanon into doing the job, Israel has found its aerial campaign has increased foreign opposition to the campaign. And the air campaign has failed to stop the missile attacks.
Then Israel sent in 10,000 troops into a shallow penetration. This has failed to stun hizbollah and has just given Hizbollah a front line to defend without worrying too much about their rear. It is a war of attrition, now.
Israel can't readily go back in time and conduct a narrowly focused ground and air campaign against Hizbollah targets. I think this would have let Israel maintain at least tacit Arab support for a lengthy fight that did not kill many Lebanese.
Israel has surely done damage to Hizbollah, but the political cost may be too high to allow Israel to really gut Hizbollah.
So now, after mobilizing at least 30,000 troops, Israel is going to the Litani River with at least triple the strength of the current force of 10,000. Israel is talking about 100 to 200 casualties to do this over two to four weeks:
Under the army's proposal for a wider offensive, troops would push to and in some cases beyond Lebanon's Litani River, about 18 miles from the Israel-Lebanon border. With Cabinet approval, troops could move forward immediately, defense officials said.
More than 10,000 Israeli soldiers have been fighting several hundred Hezbollah guerrillas in a four-mile stretch north of the border, but have faced fierce resistance.
Earlier this week, the Israeli military declared a no-drive zone south of the Litani and threatened to blast any moving vehicles as guerrilla targets. Country roads and highways were deserted throughout the area on Wednesday. In the Lebanese coastal city of Tyre, only pedestrians ventured into the streets.
The Israelis are moving right now. So with finesse out, a heavy hand is being used.
One assumption I've been operating under is that Israel has limited time. But Israel has had more time than I thought we could buy them. In the past, Soviet pressure in defense of their clients could limit Israel's victories because we feared escalation to global nuclear war and we would pressure Israel to stand down. But crises aren't powder kegs for global nuclear war anymore. This fight in southern Lebanon could escalate, sure, to include Syria, Iran, Turkey, and America. This would be ugly, but in the end we could prevail if willing to pay the price. We can't actually be defeated in battle.
So in the aftermath of the failure of the recent diplomatic route, Israel has taken a gut check and decided to win in battle. We shall see if they can maintain this will to win with a greater commitment. We shall see if we can shield Israel and leverage a real force to disband Hizbollah in Lebanon. We shall see if Syria intervenes out of mistake or calculation.
But the cost cited is for just the next month. If Israel does not get a robust international or Lebanese force to keep Hizbollah from regrouping, in a couple years we'll be right back where we started if Israel then withdraws; or Israel will still be losing troops in a low-level insurgency.
Still, one can't rule out that Israel will get the time to really hammer Hizbollah and then pull back to the border, declaring their mission of hammering Hizbollah accomplished; and watch a real force move in to disarm a weakened Hizbollah.
If not, the Israeli retreat from Vienna will make a greater media victory for Hizbollah--no matter how bloodied Hizbollah is at the end of it.
UPDATE: The big offensive is apparently on hold. Time ticks away without a maximum effort.
I've always been a bandaid off fast kind of guy. Too late for that, now, of course, a month into this. But is even more delay in trying to win the best way to go? Israel seems determined to show maximum force to get an acceptable UN ceasefire rather than use maximum force.
ANOTHER UPDATE: I read (no link) that we pressured Israel heavily to hold off for a couple days. I guess my reflection on our worries is on target.
