The Middle East Continues...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
And, of course, Israel's gotten the Lebanese army to enter and police the south - with Hezbollah's consent.

This is a "victory"? Israel could have gotten that without causing 4 billion dollars worth of damage and killing 1000 plus Lebanese including 400+ children.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Or totally wiped out, making it an existential threat.

A lagging war with terrorism is an exsitential threat for a state / community, since it is a draining and unhopeful task.

NO, since exietntial means existance. The test is painfully obvious and clear: has any state every been destroyed by terrorism? Has any state ever been destroyed by total warfare?

I dare you to name a single state ever brought down by "terrorism"

I disagree.

States don't get wiped out anymore due to wars. It is impossible with the UN in place.

States only get wiped off due to a plitical change such as civil wars which result from a break in national unity and cohesion.

This is something terrorism does very well: break national unity, creates a huge economic challenge.

High intesity warfare is no longer a challenge since most nations are prepared for it very well.

Depends what do you consider worse - more dead people - or a weakened society with loosened social bonds.

Dead people. And anarchy and civil war by definition mean the collapse of social bonds. Terrorism is just political violence to force people into a new policy.

However a prolonged terrorist campaign tears up and weakens the targetted society. If more and more Israelis will become either tired of fighting or overly hawkish - Israel will weaken and eventually lose its power and may even disintegrate.

Something that I can hardly see hapenning due to war with Syria, which will only strengthen the national resolve (even if costing more lives and money). It's a psychological thing.

Every time you have to target potencially civilian areas is morally and ethically tasking. It has nothing to do with the political roots of the problem. Rather with the choise of weapon - a terrorist campaign, whose perpetrators hid amongst innocent civilians.

That is the nature of irregular warfare, and has nothing to do with "terrorism", unless you equate all guerrila forces to terrorist.

Yes, but you aren't pressed as hard to chase the guerilla's so the choises you make are different.

That is the main reason why Israel used to let Hezbullah of the hook for lots of its attacks - the fact that Hezbullah, more often than not - behaves like a guerilla organization. They often wear uniforms and target only military installations.

Obviously when you have civilians targetted, you're much more "pressed" to attack. Which is why much more Hamas leaders have been targetted for assassination, than Hezbullah.

The latest war was a terrorist war, since it included Hezbullah targetting civilian areas with its missiles.

What good is american power with no sense of security?
What good is american power when it can be shattered by 18 guys with razorcutters?

Irrelevant to the question of whether American power was weakened or challenged. It wasn't.

Of course it is relevant.

American power has weakened since all of its exising weapons and military structures have been proven ineffective against a new threat.

What does it help to have a huge cavalery in 1939, when that tactic is irrelevant?

The fact that the huge super-power - the United States of America - had to change its ways due to 18 guys, and some people hidden away in a cave.

Terrorism is a very effective threat and a potent weapon.

It changes a targetted society, much more than any single war. Especially because it is not "contained" or limited.

BUll****. Plain and simple. The changes after 9/11 are cosmetic, and in no way compare to the far greater social changes caused by say WW1 ro WW2, which were orders of magnitute greater, and that is true for all participants of any of those conflicts. I dare you to name ANY significant social change brought by "terrorism." Slower boarding times on planes is not "social change."

Huh?

How about the Patriot Act?

How about deciding to go to war in the middle east?

How about installing hundreds of laws world wide to prevent money laundering for terrirsts?

How about changing national priorities from education/what ever to security?


I don't dare say this is bigger than WW2, but it is very close, and certainly much bigger than anything since the cold war.

Fundamentalist fascist Islamic leaders would only like the "War to end all wars" to begin, because they are convinced they will win. And if not - they still go to heaven.

Win-win situation.

All of which is irrelevant to the fact that they are weak. The only regime brought down by Islamists was the Shah;s regime, which is not even really true, because the Shah was brought down by a widely popular revolution by all classes of society. These "great threats" you talk about can;t even overthrow a two dime shiek.

What does it matter if they can overthrow an arab regime or not? An arab regime is not a function. You're looking at irrelevant variables to measure their strength.

They got bush re-elected due to fear of war.
They got the USA to change its priorities.
They created dozens of groups worldwide.
They bring Iraq to civil war.
They cause xenophobia in the USA and Europe.

This is much larger and more potent than changing a regime in a single state.

Changing the regime in Syria or Saudia would have changed nothing in world politics.

An AQ attack on the US that would not have been promoted by the USSR, would have likely pushed the two "sane" nations together, and the USSR would have been less of a threat.

Please. The west armed and funded the fundamentalist against the Soviets, because as anti-western as the islamist were, they were better than the Soviets, a good way to weaken the real enemy.

Argh.

You're simply not following me on the grand picture, pointing out irrelevancies.

You argued that AQ is only as large a threat because the USSR doesn't exist.

I claimed that had the USSR existed, and AQ had targetted the west - western priorities would have changed to include AQ as the main enemy, and USSR as a lesser enemy.

You're brining up the fact that it didn't happen - but that is obvious since the "IF" clause, in my "if - then" equation didn't take place.

AQ has sparked a self proclaimed Islamic world revolution, much more succesfully than the Marxist movement.

How many states have falled to these revolutions created by AQ? NONE. At least the Marxists had 2 in less time, one of them being a global power.

Again - it is no longer relevant to measure a movement's strength in states or weapons like you do. Those are no longer relevant to the AQ threat. Its like Stalin asking "how many divisions does the pope have?".

How much does the US weapons or the number of western states, help against the Islamists in Iraq? None really.

How much does it help to curb the terrorist threat inside the US? Little - but only thanks to signal intelligence abilities. Not due to 99% of the military budget.

Correction - European governments wanted to help bring a law and order to Iraq, and were spooked out by a bunch of AK-47 baring fanatics and fears of terrorist attacks on their soil.

You over estimate the effect of public will on government decision.

ION democratic governments public will is what matters. The two biggest states that have or will pull out of Iraqs are states in whcih the governments who supported staying in lost. That is a pretty obvious show of direct popular will.

Practically all governments cut down their troops involvement in Iraq, even prior to that.

Even so - your argument only strengthens my point - Instead of at least supporting rebuilding Iraq as a free nation, Al-Qaeda has caused most western countries (and their citizens) to flee.

What does it matter if they have a "state" or "an army" if they achieve their goals in other means?

You're correct - we did damage a water pump to Beirut one time.

Still, generally there were no electric or water outages in Beirut.

I'm not claiming to know everything. But had an effort to intentionally target civilian infrastructure had been taken, I would have probably heard about it

RIGHT....

Again, just read the report.

Could you show me statistics on the number of water and electricity related infrastructure targets hit?

What percentage is that out of all targets hit?

What percentage is that out of possible electricity and water infrastructure?

Apparently you seem to think that operating a military against an enemy is similar to operating a police against felons, where you would wait for a positive incrimination and amounting evidence for each target. Then you have to weigh those evidence against.... blah blah...

Bull****. If you wait for an enemy to use its double use resources then its too damn late.

The Geneva conventions are clear on the subject. By your logic, EVERY house in Lebanon was a fair target because it could theoretically be used by HIzbullah to hide in, and you have to destroy something before the enemy has the possibility of using it.

You want to stop the enemy from moving, interdict their convoys. Or take over the bridge. That is the way to do it, without creating a humanitarian crisis for the entire civilian population.

I'm not at all claiming that every house in Lebanon is a legitimate target.

Every road leading into strategical, Hezbullah controlled areas is, however. It is totally different from a single house or what ever.

No need to interpert my words, since I say what I mean quite clearly.

Every war so far has wittnessed attacks on militarily important infrastrucutre. To claim that to be illegal is nuts.

You're welcome to quote from the convention a passage that says that militarily important infrastructure is not to be targetted.

And make it difficult for civilians to move, desrupt of block the movement of the injured, food supplies, medicine, and other basic needs of the entire civilian population. Which is why indiscriminate attacks against all transportation are NOT valid tactics. The US in its war vs, Saddam did FAR less damage to the transportation grid that Israel did fighting a militia group.

Of course - because it had plenty of valid targets to hit - mainly Saddam's army, which had its military installations and military trucks clearly in view.

The US also hadn't faced the possibility that a civilian trucks and cars can be a possible threat to US population.

Hezbullah on the other hand, used civilian trucks to transport missiles which reached the 3rd larges city in Israel.

Handn't the US and Britain targetted infrastructure in Germany in WWII?

BY your "logic" the US would have been right to destroy every single bridge in all of Iraq and bomb every single road to stop the possibility of it being used. The US did not. Because it was not necessary, it would have been execive, and create grave harm to the populace.

Of course it wasn't necessary, because the Iraqi army was

a) an easy target for US weapons, not being clandestine

b) never threatened any large US cities, like Hezbullah did in Israel.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I disagree. States don't get wiped out anymore due to wars. It is impossible with the UN in place.States only get wiped off due to a plitical change such as civil wars which result from a break in national unity and cohesion.This is something terrorism does very well: break national unity, creates a huge economic challenge. High intesity warfare is no longer a challenge since most nations are prepared for it very well.

Terrorism does not lead to civil wars and break ups. Internal political divisions lead to breakups, terrorism being only a tactic used by seperatists, the others being mass political protests, or outright war. The breakdown comes FIRST, terrorism being only a symptom, not a cause.

However a prolonged terrorist campaign tears up and weakens the targetted society. If more and more Israelis will become either tired of fighting or overly hawkish - Israel will weaken and eventually lose its power and may even disintegrate.

Please. I am amazed at how poorly you judge your own society. Countless societies have withstood far worse struggles. Colombia has been at civil war for 30 years, with some level of insurgency or chaos. You know what? They are still around as a country, as a society, no matter how scarred. Even bigger example: Rwanda. That state remains, the society remains, and it has only been 12 years since one majority tries to wipe out a minority, and 1/8 of the population was slaughtered in 3 months. Last time I checked, Rwanda is still on the maps, a country making its way forward. Are you saying Israeli society can't survive levels of violence, social degredation, and anxiety that pale in comparison to that simple of example, which occured in a society that was far more devided and poor to begin with?

Something that I can hardly see hapenning due to war with Syria, which will only strengthen the national resolve (even if costing more lives and money). It's a psychological thing.

Then Israel as a whole needs a damn good shrink.

Yes, but you aren't pressed as hard to chase the guerilla's so the choises you make are different. That is the main reason why Israel used to let Hezbullah of the hook for lots of its attacks - the fact that Hezbullah, more often than not - behaves like a guerilla organization. They often wear uniforms and target only military installations. Obviously when you have civilians targetted, you're much more "pressed" to attack. Which is why much more Hamas leaders have been targetted for assassination, than Hezbullah.The latest war was a terrorist war, since it included Hezbullah targetting civilian areas with its missiles.

The "casus belli" was the July 12 raid. The rocket attacks on that day were a diversion to the raid, and certainly did not augur some long campaign of rocket launches. That occured AFTER Israel began widespread bombings throughout the entire country. Its disingeneous to claim that the rocket barrage on July 12 was some significantly different "terrorist" act when it happened in conjunction with what by your definition was clearly a purely military strike.

Of course it is relevant. American power has weakened since all of its exising weapons and military structures have been proven ineffective against a new threat. What does it help to have a huge cavalery in 1939, when that tactic is irrelevant?

You are correct that outright military power is ineffective against an idea, which is what Islamic fundamentalism is. To point that out does nothing to show that power is lessened. Power comes from the ability to make others do your bidding. Ideas and arguements create power. So does money, and so does military force. That Islamic fundamentalists can challenge the US does not mean their strike weakened American power in any significant way. The US remains the hengemon in the system, militarilly even more so given the huge increase in American military spending. The weakening of the US is other areas has little to do with AQ, more to do with the changes in the world economic system, a trend that predates AQ.

Huh? How about the Patriot Act? How about deciding to go to war in the middle east? How about installing hundreds of laws world wide to prevent money laundering for terrirsts? How about changing national priorities from education/what ever to security? I don't dare say this is bigger than WW2, but it is very close, and certainly much bigger than anything since the cold war.

Everything you mentioned are POLICY changes. NOt social changes. A social change is a change in were people live, how they live (as in basic occupations, do they work or not), the marriage rate, changes that mean long term changes that have effects a 100 years in the future. Everything you rattled off can change in a few months if need be by new decisions by the government. The Patriot act can be repealled, as all Law you named, and the US can pull out of its middle eastern wars.

One could make the statement that the 30 years old "war on drugs" has had as big if not bigger influence on the uS than this "war on terrorism", and I would not put drugs as an existential threat for one second.

What does it matter if they can overthrow an arab regime or not? An arab regime is not a function. You're looking at irrelevant variables to measure their strength.
They got bush re-elected due to fear of war.
They got the USA to change its priorities.
They created dozens of groups worldwide.
They bring Iraq to civil war.
They cause xenophobia in the USA and Europe.
This is much larger and more potent than changing a regime in a single state. Changing the regime in Syria or Saudia would have changed nothing in world politics.

Except that the aim of the Islamists in the end is to create a new Islamic society. They can only do so in ISLAMIC lands. That means taking over Islamic countries. That means overthrowing the regimes that rule Islamic countries, obviously including Arab regimes. If they can't overthrow Arab regimes, they can;t take over those lands and create their imagined Islamic society. If they can;t take over those countries, they will never succeed. Their failure to remove those Arab regimes is not "irrelevant", it is if anything their greatest failure. Which is why the US invasion of Iraq was such a boon for them, just like the Afghan Civil War was a huge boon. THey are too weak to remove regimes themselves. But then great foreign powers come and wreck everything in sight, they have an opening they are too weak to create themselves, hoping that long term they won't need foreigners to bring down current regimes down, that maybe one day they can do it on their own.

The greast possible victory for AQ would be to have complete control of an Islamic state in order to place their theory of governance into practice. The reason they are trying to bring Iraq to civil war is to create enough chaos to give them a chance. Without the US though, they could have never done so.

Argh.You're simply not following me on the grand picture, pointing out irrelevancies. You argued that AQ is only as large a threat because the USSR doesn't exist. I claimed that had the USSR existed, and AQ had targetted the west - western priorities would have changed to include AQ as the main enemy, and USSR as a lesser enemy. You're brining up the fact that it didn't happen - but that is obvious since the "IF" clause, in my "if - then" equation didn't take place.

There is no reason why they would view AQ and its aims as a greater threat than the USSR and its aims. Don't talk about missing the "bigger picture" when you seem not to know what the picture is at all.

This is a contest of world views, of different ideas on the nature of legitimacy of the state, on what values society should espouse and carry out. The "west", the Soviets, and AQ all espouse different beliefs. The "West" predominates because it has the technical, military, and economic power to spread its values. The uSSR and its allies also had the economic, military, and technical knowhow to spread their values. AQ has none of these abilities. While the values AQ holds are more foreign to the West than Soviet values (since both were cut form the same cloth), the Islamist don;t have power. Thge Soviets did. Islamists have only been successful in areas of chaos, were the old order was brought down and no new order existed. The West allied itself with islamist, and would have done so anyways against the Soviets based on the simple calculus of power.

Again - it is no longer relevant to measure a movement's strength in states or weapons like you do. Those are no longer relevant to the AQ threat. Its like Stalin asking "how many divisions does the pope have?". How much does the US weapons or the number of western states, help against the Islamists in Iraq? None really. How much does it help to curb the terrorist threat inside the US? Little - but only thanks to signal intelligence abilities. Not due to 99% of the military budget.

The failure of US power to stem tine Insurgency in Iraq has nothing to do with "terrorism" per say, but a failure by the administration to gain control early, and an unwillingness or inability to drop unsuccessful programs, and spend the amount necessary to succeed. That an an unwilingness to behave like Saddam or Stalin, both of which would have long any quelled the insurgency by mass bloodshed.

As for the "terror threat in the US", there will always be a threat of terror as long as there are political problems globally. What the US needs to do, like all other western states have done, is stop thinking it is unvulnerable, and take the policing steps necessary to disrupt plots before they come to fruition. And accept there will never be 100% success.

Even so - your argument only strengthens my point - Instead of at least supporting rebuilding Iraq as a free nation, Al-Qaeda has caused most western countries (and their citizens) to flee.

That is ebcause the populace of those nations was never supportive of the costs that "making iraq into a free state" would cost in the first place, and if the people of the US had had any real clue of the cost themselves, Saddam would still be in power.

What does it matter if they have a "state" or "an army" if they achieve their goals in other means?

AQ has no achieved its goals. It will only have done so when it rules Iraq. AQ is nowhere near there.

Could you show me statistics on the number of water and electricity related infrastructure targets hit? What percentage is that out of all targets hit? What percentage is that out of possible electricity and water infrastructure?

I already provided a link to the Amnesty report. Feel free to use it at some point.

Every road leading into strategical, Hezbullah controlled areas is, however. It is totally different from a single house or what ever.

Oh, yeah. That explain the bridges connecting Beiruit to the northern road to Syria....or every bridge in an out of Tyre.

You're welcome to quote from the convention a passage that says that militarily important infrastructure is not to be targetted.

The issue is dual use, where it can be used for military activity, but whose main function 99% of the time is purely civilian, and which is critical to continuing civilian life even during times it is also used for military purposes.

Handn't the US and Britain targetted infrastructure in Germany in WWII?

Yes, and the conventions were drawn after the m,ass devastation of WW2, which provided a stark example of what war left unchecked could do.

Of course it wasn't necessary, because the Iraqi army was

a) an easy target for US weapons, not being clandestine

b) never threatened any large US cities, like Hezbullah did in Israel.

Many US casualties were caused by non-uniformed bands of fighters, unless you have forgotten the initial part of the war itself, who rode around in pick-up trucks and other civilian vehicles. They were then clandistine.

As for Hizbullah rockets being a threat to Israeli cities, correct. So you target the rockets, and the rocket firing areas. What does that have to do with bombing factories in the Beeka Valley, or bridges in Christian neighborhoods of Lebanon? Or the port City of Sidon in northern Lebanon?