Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hezbollah will derive more legitimacy and support from the conflict than they previously had. This doesn't help them if they're all dead, but our experience in Iraq has shown that laser-guided munitions don't work so well against an enemy that hides in a civilian population. To win, Hezbollah needs to retain the capacity to keep lobbing rockets at northern Israel. Is the bombing stopping that? Not yet.
|
I don't know why you think Hezbollah will gain greater legitimacy. First, Arab states that at least tacitly supported it have now done the opposite. Second, if they suffer heavy casualties, then their claims of being the army that would defeat Zionism will be shown to be hollow. (This leaves aside the benefits of dead Hezbollah soldiers.)
As for Israel's ability to damage Hezbollah.... I'm not sure that Iraq provides a meaningful guide. I suspect Israel's planning was a bit more thorough and more realistic. Don't you? Or do you think that Israel anticipated being greeted with flowers and sweets?
Certainly the bombing is not stopping the rocket attacks yet. That's why they are still bombing, and why they will likely have to cross the border in greater force.
But here's my real question: What would you have done? Does Israel simply let Hezbollah bomb and attack and kidnap, and do nothing? Or does it make more concessions -- prisoner releases, land given up, etc. -- in the hopes that this time, this prisoner or that acre of land will magically convince Hezbollah that Israel is a decent enough place to have a right to exist?
I don't know why you think a central government -- any central government -- would be happy to tolerate a state within a state, with its own military. In a range of very practical ways, Hezbollah was acting as the government through much of the country. I can't imagine why the central government would want to let this continue if it had a choice, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that the rest of the country was keen on this arrangement. [/QUOTE]
