Stratfor on the Israeli Cease Fire

Stratfor holds forth on the partial cease fire announced by Israel:

The Israeli air force has been operating intensely for almost three weeks and clearly can use a 48-hour stand down. This decision, if confirmed opens the door to a cease-fire in place that would leave Hezbollah with a draw -- a victory from Hezbollah's point of view. At this point, Hezbollah has a critical decision to make that will not be known until dawn local time, as that is when Hezbollah has launched its first salvoes at Israel in the past.
Israel's partial cease fire puts Hizb'Allah in an interesting position. If Hizb'Allah continues its rocket attacks despite the partial cease fire, Kofi Annan and others who continue to call for a full cease fire would do so from a position of even less credibility (assuming that's even possible). Then again, if Hizb'Allah ceases the rocket attacks, it seems that it risks appearing weak at a time when it's been gaining credibility via a show of strength.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:47 PM

Comments

1 Just want you to know that I'm only now just getting to see this "MyPetJawa" for the First TIME!!! You are blocked in Saudi Arabia. Never to be seen by any of us there. Can't be done. Unless you're really computer literate - I am not - and have a satellite connection - I do not. You did try to send me a "back door" once, to my e-mail, at the request of another blog. And I do appreciate it. But, that didn't work. Can't wait to return to normalcy - the States - in October - even if only for just a few short weeks. Tomorrow I head back to The Sandbox. Should you ever want to see news on executions - as they occur - only two this year, however, so far - check out Stilettos in the Sand. There's a link at The Religious Policeman. Enjoyed your site - a lot - off and on the past two weeks or so. Thanks! BT

Posted by: Beth T. at July 31, 2006 01:05 AM

2 Hizbollah between a rock and a hard place! How sweet! Warms the heart!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 01:24 AM

3 Israel doesn't get it. Islamofascists will always "win" a measured war simply by surviving. It doesn't matter when the next Hezbollah rocket is launched -- it matters that there is still a Hezbollah with rockets.

Posted by: Jefferson Makabi at July 31, 2006 01:26 AM

4 No, I think Israel has gotten it, begging to differ. I think it's the whiny wimps at UN, France, and Russia who haven't gotten it and want so desparately to protect baby vermin .... :)

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 07:58 AM

5 Hizballah can never be defeated as long as Syria and Iran are not stopped from supporting them. The Hizzies are like the Viet Cong and NVA in Vietnam in that they have an unassaliable source of materiel and safe haven to which they can retreat if they're losing too badly. We couldn't win in Vietnam because we didn't expand the war enough, and Israel is in the same position. For this thing to end, Syria and Iran will have to fall - there is no other option, and given Iran's military modernization, thanks to Russia and China, (Don't forget, they're our allies!), this can't happen without a major war, which is looking less likely all the time.
The problem is thus: Our forces are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq; Afghanistan remains a wild, uncivilized frontier, where warlords and bandits are the only real power, and the Pakistanis, (They're our bestest allies!), are still financing, training, arming, and directing the Taliban, because the Paki's want to get back in control of Afghanistan's poppy harvest, and to have Afghanistan as a buffer against Iran, (Formerly Russia, but that threat has passed, and now they want a gas pipeline from Russia), on their western border. In Iraq, our troops are bogged down fighting an insurgency largely directed by Iran, which anyone with half a brain knows, though nobody in government, (ironically, where most of the half-brained can be found), has the balls to say this out loud for fear of provoking Iran and causing them to dislike us.
So, Iran is directing an open war on two fronts, just like Russia and China did in Vietnam, literally straight from the playbook; only subsitute islam for communism, and the Jews for capitalist, colonial imperialism, and not much else has changed, including our hapless efforts to "win the hearts and minds" of the civilian populace. Now, we lost one war already to these tactics and strategies, and we're pretending to try to win three more - in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan, doing exactly what caused us to lose Vietnam in the first place. Let me make that a little more blunt: We are doing exactly the same thing that didn't work before. We failed spectacularly in Vietnam because we were trying to fight, by the rules of conventional warfare, a classical state vs. state war against an enemy who did not care for the Rules of War, and who made up new rules as they went, with us trying hard not to pretend we were still fighting the Nazi's.
When the lefturds say that Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam, they aren't kidding - the enemy is using the same tactics and strategies, the lefturds are still cheering for them to win, and we're still muddling along trying to do things the old-fashioned way, according to the Rules of War and the Geneva Convention. Oh, and the Constitution, can't forget that, and how even our enemies, especially our enemies, are entitled to its protection. We are using new tactics, but our strategy is exactly the same as in Vietnam, the only war we ever lost. Here are our choices: Keep doing what we're doing - fight an unending war, without the possibility of victory, by the enemy's rules, in which we must be blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, and have one arm and one leg tied behind our backs; or we can concede defeat and withdraw; or we can make new rules which favor us for a change, and kick out all the muslims from our lands, and invade and crush their lands, leaving smoking ruins and millions dead. Muslims are not evolved understand anything but brutal, crushing violence, and anything short of that will not work against them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 08:07 AM

6 IM: "Hizballah can never be defeated as long as Syria and Iran are not stopped from supporting them."

Agree.

It is a huge mistake for the Administration to call this war a "War on Terror." Terror is a tactic. We're not fighting the Basque Separatists, for God's sake.

The war should be called: "War on Radical Islam." Only by naming the enemy can we defeat them. Radical Islam is not popping up out of nowhere. It is fed and watered in Iran, and Syria. And financed and spread worldwide through Saudi Wahhabi propoganda.

Hizb'Allah translates into "Word of Allah" I believe. Why does the MSM inexplicably write it Hizbollah? It is as if they want to avoid the fact that Israel's enemy is fighting for Allah.

Why did the UN not pull its "observers" from the Lebanese border when the fighting started? What purpose do they serve sitting in the line of fire? Where is the MSM's curiousity?

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at July 31, 2006 11:27 AM

7 All good points, Dreamer, and questions I would like to have answers to myself. As to where the curiosity of the media is, it has "Left" the building.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 11:29 AM

8 Dreamer -

I agree that the "War on Terror" term is silly. A war on fear sounds a lot more like a war on a societal ill (poverty, illiteracy, etc.) than it sounds like a real war against a real enemy. A war on fear is won when no one is afraid. Our problem isn't that the people are too afraid.

The name "Hizb'Allah" is generally translated as "Party of Allah", but Arabic wrods, like English words, can have multiple meanings. For all I know, "hizb" may also translate to "word".

Any Arabic speakers out there?

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 31, 2006 01:50 PM

9 All-Seeing Eye: you're right - it's "Party", not "Word." I don't speak Arabic, and I just remembered the translation incorrectly. The important part for me is "Allah" because it underscores the fact that it is a Radical Islamic movement.

Regarding the naming of the enemy - what I see is that if we say it's a "War on Terror" we are basically on the defensive and our emphasis goes into protecting ourselves from terror attacks (protecting airports etc.) Like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, the War on Terror is confusing, ill-defined and unwinnable.

"War on Radical Islam" is proactive (and less confusing).

Because Radical Islam is state-sponsored, it makes sense to spend more of our time and money defeating our declared enemies Iran, Syria and to stop the Wahhabi propaganda coming out of Saudi Arabia.

We know that Radical Islam does not recognize a cease-fire. So, we should not be apologetic about seeking victory, victory over this fascist movement.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at July 31, 2006 03:44 PM






Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0038 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0024 seconds, 17 records returned.
Page size 14 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.