All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.)

I realize that I know this guy's stuff and you probably have never heard of him before, so take it from me that I never seen him utter a critical word about the Israeli government before.

If the IDF launches major ground operations, then his speculation is wrong. We'll have to see.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Hezbollah controls portions of Beirut too, don't they? What's the rationale for leaving them a safe harbor? Or for leaving intact the roads, bridges, and airports used to transport heavy weapons to them?

Attacks on power plants and the like may well be done simply to make the other attacks easier and safer for Israeli soldiers, and to disrupt Hezbollah's ability to counterattack. I would probably agree with you on the issue of destroying infrastructure simply to destroy infrastructure (the "set Lebanon back 20 years" notion), but I think I'm less prepared to ignore tactical considerations.

Military commanders frequently will want to do things for tactical reasons that may not make strategic sense. To take a completely unrelated example, the British military thinks that our commanders in Iraq have done a whole variety of things for force-protection reasons that have had the effect of frustrating our counter-insurgency efforts. If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then politics must dictate military strategy.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I realize that I know this guy's stuff and you probably have never heard of him before, so take it from me that I never seen him utter a critical word about the Israeli government before.

That's not the point. The point is that, from the snippet you've quoted, it appears that he's taken a position on the current situation and that he is drawing implications to support that position, rather than drawing implications that are supported by the facts and statements on which he relies.

If the IDF launches major ground operations, then his speculation is wrong. We'll have to see.

Define "major". In my view, if you move tanks across the border right away, chances are you didn't assume you could accomplish your goals with airstrikes.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Military commanders frequently will want to do things for tactical reasons that may not make strategic sense. To take a completely unrelated example, the British military thinks that our commanders in Iraq have done a whole variety of things for force-protection reasons that have had the effect of frustrating our counter-insurgency efforts. If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then politics must dictate military strategy.

True enough. But from your earlier statements I had concluded that you believed that Israel did not have any military, tactical reason for what it was doing -- that Israel was simply engaged in wanton destruction.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I love that book. I think that it is HST's best book by far (sebby disagrees).

I like that book a lot, but it ain't his best. His best is F&L. I was a fool to suggest otherwise. But his very best pieces were "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved" and the obit for Nixon in "Better Than Sex" (an otherwise lackluster book).

You can't evaluate Hunter on the strength of a single book because he was a journalist/poet. He was wildly erratic inquality, hitting the ball into orbit one moment, shitting the bed the next. I always liked his shit because that's pretty much been the story of my life. It's either sailing over the fence into the cheap seats or I'm going down whiffing, ala Dave Parker falling down on home plate after wildly flailing to pull a high outside fastball over the right field wall. If not for the Seinfeld rule that "everything always returns to stasis if you have half a brain and can handle a problem here and there" I'd be a penniless mushmouthed drunk, screaming "I been tied to the whippin post" into dumpsters.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
True enough. But from your earlier statements I had concluded that you believed that Israel did not have any military, tactical reason for what it was doing -- that Israel was simply engaged in wanton destruction.

Its just the Rapture, my dear boy. We'll all be nude in heaven soon.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Its just the Rapture, my dear boy. We'll all be nude in heaven soon.

My vision of heaven does not include any nude lawyers.*





*Subject to a small handful of FB-related exceptions.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

*Subject to a small handful of FB-related exceptions.

:blush:

[PJ PJ PJ!!!]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
My vision of heaven does not include any nude lawyers.*





*Subject to a small handful of FB-related exceptions.

mine includes but is strictly limited to purse junkie. nude except for a vermillion togo birkin bag slung over her shoulder.

eta: also, clean shaven but wearing an auburn merkin.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
True enough. But from your earlier statements I had concluded that you believed that Israel did not have any military, tactical reason for what it was doing -- that Israel was simply engaged in wanton destruction.

No. But it's not going to be black or white. For example, in the Walzer thing I quoted, he suggested that destroying power plants is not without some military impact, but that it goes too far -- much as destroying the water system would.

That said, they do seem to be engaged in some conduct that seems tailored less to combat Hezbollah and more to punish Lebanon. E.g., destroying the airport's fuel facilities, and preventing relief convoys from reaching the country. Though it's hard to tell from the press reports.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Apparently I killed the board. Sorry.

[creamy_ass_face]

Hi!

You might recognize me.

I am the Mind of a Liberal.

I have a worldview shaped not by knowledge but rather by self-serving emotions and self-righteousness.

I am solipsistic. I cannot comprehend the mindset of those who came before me. I do not see history as sequence of events. I cannot understand that those who lived in the past made what I consider mistakes because they did not think the way my contemporaries do.

I am a sophist. I speak about things with conviction when I do not understand the basic facts. I believe that I am always right even when it is clear to all that I am not.

I create fantasies. I often ignore or do not know the facts of history. However this does not stop me from distorting them to support my childlike idealism.

I create victims. I cannot comprehend certain people being evil. I immediately take the side of the people I consider to be the victim, regardless of how despicable this group is. I am obsessed with suffering. I judge people not on what they have achieved, but on how much they have endured.

I preach moral idiocy. I cannot see the big picture. I cannot perceive the greatness humanity can and has achieved, but a dwell upon all of its wrongdoings.

I am myopic.

I am irrational.

I am a fool on a lonely hill of debunked ideology.

I am the sad, sad, twisted mind of a liberal, and I reside inside the head of many here, including Tyrone, SexualHarassmentPanda, Adder and Wonk.

Pity me, but never let your down your guard. Marx' legacy is waiting.

[cheval de frise]

Originally posted by creamy_ass_face
{{{My moniker suits me}}}

Wow. And you accuse ME of popping in after years away to "hover rightly above the dregs," while reaching down to re-stir the shit?*

Either I inspired you or your sense of irony is dead. Both possibilities deserve pity.

CDF

* On the FB

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apparently I killed the board. Sorry.

Where did this come from? Am I just missing some sarcasm here? I always get the feeling that there is inside baseball going on and I am stuck in the parking lot without a ticket.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Where did this come from? Am I just missing some sarcasm here? I always get the feeling that there is inside baseball going on and I am stuck in the parking lot without a ticket.

Translation: Ty posted something about the mideast, and no one posted anything here for more than 24 hours after that post. "Therefore," says Ty, "my brilliant bit of insight was so powerful that the tubes and wires of the Internets were singed, causing the LawTalkers Politics Board to crash for a day. Until I came back to say something else."