Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy -- hardly anti-Israel -- writes:
- One reason I wonder about the judgment of Israeli leaders in the case is I get the strong sense that the military grossly exaggerated how effective air power would be against Hezbollah. Well before the current battle erupted, I had read the the IDF was begging the government to allow it to "wipe out" Hezbollah fortifications and missle launchers near the border. The implication was that the IDF believed, or at least claimed, this could be done rather quickly and painlessly. In the event, it looks like wiping out Hezbollah's military threat, if it's politically feasible given international pressures, will cost dozens of Israeli civilian and military casualties, and extensive damage to Israeli cities and its economy.
|
I don't get his conclusions. He says that he "read the the IDF was begging the government to allow it to "wipe out" Hezbollah fortifications and missle launchers near the border." From this, he draws "the implication ... that the IDF believed, or at least claimed, this could be done rather quickly and painlessly." He also apparently draws the implication that this could be done solely with airpower.
What is the basis for drawing those implications? The IDF "begging" to wipe out positions implies neither reliance on airpower nor a quick and painless attack. And it seems unlikely that the IDF would have to "beg" to wipe out Hezbollah missiles if the Israeli leadership really beleived that could be done so easily. Why wouldn't the government readily agree to so damaging a sworn and dangerous enemy if the leadership thought it could be done so easily?
And there is ample evidence to refute his "implications." According to the NYTimes, among other sources, Israel has been planning this attack for about a year. The plan obviously included extensive use of ground troops, including armor and special forces -- note how quickly those were deployed. The plan may also have included calling up reserves, which I believe Israel has done. None of that is characteristic of a military or civilian leadership that believes it can accomplish its goals through simple, quick, and painless air strikes.
I get the "strong sense" that the implications this author draws are based more on his own preconceptions than anything else.
(Note that I did not go all Spanky on your ass and raise the question of just where he "read" the stuff on which he relies.)
