Negative Liberty

Well, we’re back. And I’m alive, for the two of you reading this. Forgive the obligatory 9/11 items in today’s Linkroll. We talked a lot about having a roundtable about 9/11 but figured it’s going to be covered nine ways from sunday, so screw that. But since we’re not posting anything, let me just say when I walked the WTC PATH last week, I got very, very pissed off. The politics of all of this are pathetic. End rant.

On a lighter note, I always feel better after getting back on schedule after being off for so long. Kind of like how I keep telling myself I’m going to start running again. Yeah… never gonna happen.

Anyway…

Bush spoke last night about freedom and moderation (Whatever the hell that meant.) to mark the 5th of November… er yeah, the 5th 9/11.

Exclusive control of the executive and legislative branches of government is bad, no matter the party.

On a related note: Read this. And this.

Driftglass on five years.

To my huge surprise, apparently Cheney is a hard-liner.

Foreign Affairs kicks ass.

I hear the Bolton speech at Nebraska was border-line ridiculous, and apparently the bloke is sarcastic about genocide. Look for the audio version in the Podcast.

Facebook takes another step in its quest for world domination.

Iraq seems to be in dire trouble.

The IMF has been in the news quite a bit recently, with saying the World economy is overall stable, and that China needs to be doing some thinking.

Wikipedia gives a royal “fuck you” to China – unlike Google and countless others.

Americans blame Bush for 9/11.

Maybe this will be the final word. There was no link between Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden and Saddam.

Worried CIA operatives buy legal insurance. Probably a smart move.

A 2008-coattail effect rundown.

CNN sums up my feelings about the sad thing that is what happened to the unity after 9/11. And all I can say to those politicians is: “Fuck you. Seriously. Fuck you.” Someone recently said to me that all politicians are corrupt in Congress and we should just start from scratch. I’m starting to like that idea.

Fox says America is safer. I guess that’s that.

It’s been a little heavy today.

See you tomorrow…

9/11, anniversary, campaigns, censorship, china, cia, committees, congress, dick cheney, elections, facebook, foreign affairs, fox, freedom, george bush, google, investigation, iraq, john bolton, jon stewart, polls, saddam link, senate, terror, wikipedia

A shaky cease-fire has reigned in South Lebanon for two weeks now, but the real war is being waged on the ground by Hizbullah’s propaganda machine. And this is a war they are winning with ease. In a region all but leveled by more than a month of sustained Israeli air strikes and ground operations, almost all the rebuilding is being done by Hizbullah’s surprisingly resilient local bureaucracy. This ominous fact is a marker of two things: that Israel utterly failed in their stated objective of “crippling” Hizbullah, and that Israel is doing an equally poor job of helping to rebuild the mess they made.

Before you pounce on me for “sympathizing with terrorists,” allow me to elaborate. The spark that lit off this ill-conceived travesty was the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah, who, true to form, intended to ransom them in exchange for the release of Islamic militants in Israeli jails. There is nothing new in this chain of events in itself—it has happened numerous times. The unexpected this time around was the surprisingly violent response. Israel replied to the kidnapping with an overwhelming series of aerial strikes throughout Lebanon aimed at Hizbullah’s supply of mobile rocket launchers.

As a citizen of a country targeted by extreme acts of terror, such a response is understandable. Hell, we did essentially the same thing by bombing Afghanistan (further) back to the Stone Age in 2002. However, it is grossly out of proportion in real terms. That doesn’t matter, however. What matters is that the young and fragile government of Ehud Olmert could not afford to look impotent in the face of growing violence aimed in their direction. Israel has been very patient with Hizbullah, Lebanon, and the Palestinians in recent years. Even the ultra-hawk Ariel Sharon realized the necessity of restraint and concession when dealing with his enemies. In a war to the end, Israel will lose. The days of week-long wars decided by massive armor engagements are long gone—and with them any chance for a quick, decisive victory on Israel’s part. In a war of attrition, the Israelis cannot hold out. Sharon realized this, and avoided open confrontation at all costs. Olmert, desperate to look like he was capable of “doing something” about terrorism, saw the Hizbullah kidnapping as a perfect opportunity to rattle the sabres, call up the reserves, and generally assert that Israel was still in control.

What an idiotic move.

First of all, we have some basic military lessons to learn. First of all, for all its tactical flexibility and general usefulness, air power alone cannot win any conflict. We have seen several examples of this recently, most notably in Afghanistan and Kosovo. Air strikes are a beautifully useful political tool. They make the leader look powerful by striking out at his (or her) enemies with overwhelming firepower, and they have the tremendous PR benefit of having very limited casualties (for the attacker, anyway). Airstrikes can be a very useful military tool… but not when used to the exclusion of other forces. Bombs cannot kill infantry very effectively. They can take out hardened targets and armored vehicles very well. What good does this do Israel? Very little. Yes, you can hit all the mobile rocket launch vehicles, drastically reducing the availability of long-range missiles to Hizbullah. But each soldier can carry shorter-ranged rockets that do nearly as much damage. Bomb all you want, but you won’t kill very many soldiers—the US learned that lesson (ostensibly) in Viet Nam.

Secondly, some Israeli general needs a public flogging. I know the reasoning that went behind sending in tank divisions. Tanks are pretty. They look cool, they make lots of noise, they blow shit up. A division of tanks screams “Look! I’m powerful!” And yet, they’re completely useless for the type of war Israel was looking to fight in Lebanon. No matter the terrain, heavy armor is not very useful for defeating irregular infantry. Guerrillas melt into the terrain, especially in cities and mountains. Tanks are limited to relatively level terrain, their tracks are extremely vulnerable to explosives, and they are very dependent on reliable supply lines.

On a broader level, this war was pretty obviously unwinnable to everyone outside Israel’s decision-making council. You cannot defeat a populist insurgent force through overwhelming firepower. “Peace through superior firepower” does not work in all cases. Especially when you’re fighting in their home territory. We have countless examples of this. Viet Nam, Colombia, Iraq, Roman Germania, Ottoman Arabia, Chechnya, South Ossetia… the list could go on for pages.

The chief reason for this is PR. In this instance, the PR for Israel is atrocious. I’m not just talking about anti-Israel protests in Europe—Europeans tend to be anti-Israel as a rule. I mean on the ground in Lebanon. Do you think the Lebanese are going to appreciate their homes being leveled, forewarning or no? Israel can justify it however they want (”harboring terrorists”), but that doesn’t change the fact that some poor (and I mean “poor” in a literal sense) Lebanese family has had its house flattened by Israeli bombs. If Israel’s trying to make the Lebanese cease harboring Hizbullah, they’re going about it completely wrong. Hell, even if the Israelis had won by some miracle, they would be viewed as occupiers and oppressors. Win or lose, the Israelis have destroyed civilian lives, undermined a fragile (but, until the war, increasingly effective) Lebanese government, add heaped fuel on the anti-Israel fire.

When dealing with terrorists/guerrillas/insurgents/etc., brute force is extremely counter-productive. I know there are those of you out there that will argue that the only lanugage violent people like terrorists will understand is force. And you’re right. The terrorist leaders see force as the chief means of achieving their goals, along with propaganda and finance. However, insurgent groups depend ultimately on the goodwill of the people with which they live. The Taliban would not be making a comeback in Afghanistan if the locals did not identify with them; the Mehdi Army in Iraq would not be such a potent force if the locals did not enthusiastically support them; the French Resistance would not have been such a terror to the Nazis if the population was not behind them. These groups rely on the local population for basic logistical support in the absense of normal military/commercial lines of supply. By throwing an army into the region and leveling virtually everything in sight, you only embitter the population and give them incentive to support the forces you seek to suppress. This is why 100,000+ troops are doing the Americans so little good in Iraq, it’s why carpet bombing did the US no good in Viet Nam, it’s why the Russian Army can’t keep Chechnya in line, and it’s why the European-trained Ottoman army failed to keep the Arabs under control. Overwhelming (and often indiscriminate) firepower breeds fanatics.

Despite long decades of practice in dealing with terrorism, Israel’s current leadership clings to the outmoded American-style methods of approaching the terrorist threat. That is: Kick down the door, guns blazing, and hope that, somewhere in the rubble, your enemies lie defeated. Contrary to some critics, I believe terrorism can and must be defeated; however, I think that armies, bombs, and prison camps are the absolute wrong approach.

Edit: Rumsfeld says war critics haven’t learned history’s lessons. I say he’s studying the wrong wars.

foreign policy, israel, lebanon, middle east, terrorism, war on terror

Contact your congressman now! Seriously.

campaigns, congress, internets, net neutrality