by hilzoy
I haven't commented on the Lebanese ceasefire before, since it seemed to me way too early to know what to make of it, beyond the obvious fact that even a lull in the war is a wonderful thing for the civilians who were trapped in the middle of it. However, our President has no such hesitations:
" Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis. And the reason why is, is that first, there is a new -- there's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon, and that's going to be a Lebanese force with a robust international force to help them seize control of the country, that part of the country."
When I read that yesterday, I thought: Hezbollah lost? Really? You could have fooled me. I can see the case for saying that it was a draw, or that it's too early to tell, but a defeat for Hezbollah? And what's with this certainty about what's going to happen next? As of this morning, the truce looks pretty shaky, and the international force doesn't seem to be coming together. If it all works out, I suspect it will be due to Israel's eagerness to get out of southern Lebanon and European countries' willingness to send their troops into harm's way to avert a catastrophe. But whatever happens, Bush's happy talk is more than usually out of touch with reality.
Billmon comments:
"The bottom line, which an odd member of the punditburo might even get one of these days, is that this is an administration that no longer makes any sense at all -- not even on the most formal, semiotic level. Shrub's speechwriters have literally been reduced to babbling, a relentlessly on-message babbling that shows just how ill suited the tools of domestic politics are for conducting a half-way serious foreign policy, much less an extremely serious war.The sonic results are equally strange: Bush keeps belting the stuff out with his usual gospel fervor, even though it has degenerated into near gibberish. At times it starts to sound almost like accidental poetry, like listening to an old recording of Allen Ginsberg reciting Howl -- "I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, etc." Except Ginsberg had a better sense of meter and wasn't a war criminal."
I think this is right (and I love the idea of Bush as Allen Ginsberg), but I'm not sure it applies to this particular case. Bush's claim that Hezbollah lost wasn't part of his prepared remarks. It was something he said in answer to a reporter's question, and it seemed to be off the cuff. Moreover, he didn't have to say it at all. For that reason, I suspect that he might actually think it's true. And that's really scary.
Think about it. The President and his administration allowed a country to be bombed to smithereens because it was unthinkable to accept a mere ceasefire that did not address the root causes of the problem. As a result of our willingness to let Lebanon be flattened, we now have a ceasefire that does not address the root causes of the problem. Hezbollah will not be disarmed by the Lebanese, nor will the international force take action to disarm them, since other countries are understandably reluctant to fight Israel's wars. This is a deal we could have gotten very early on; had we done so, hundreds of lives would have been saved. Because the US and Israel blocked an early ceasefire, Hezbollah's standing has been greatly increased, Israel's deterrent has been compromised, and our interests have been severely damaged. Moreover, as I said earlier, the ceasefire could easily fall apart at any moment. It's hard to see how anyone could think what the President apparently thinks.
But having a President who is completely out of touch with reality seems to be the new normal. From another story in today's NYT:
"President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday. (...)More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended."
It's worth stopping to think about what you'd have to not know in order to be puzzled by Shi'ites demonstrating against the US. You would, for starters, have to not know how pictures of the ruins of Lebanon look to people in the Middle East, and you'd have to not know that Iraqi Shi'ites would identify with Lebanese Shi'ites. You'd probably also have to not know that there were some very good reasons why Iraqis might be frustrated with the US even before they saw those pictures -- reasons like our staggering failure to provide even minimal levels of security for ordinary Iraqis, or to do anything like a decent job on reconstruction. Not to mention Abu Ghraib. You'd also have to be ignorant of basic facts about human psychology, like the fact that we tend to resent people who invade our countries.
Most important of all, you'd have to be unaware that Iraq is melting down right before our eyes:
"July appears to have been the deadliest month of the war for Iraqi civilians, according to figures from the Health Ministry and the Baghdad morgue, reinforcing criticism that the Baghdad security plan started in June by the new government has failed.An average of more than 110 Iraqis were killed each day in July, according to the figures. The total number of civilian deaths that month, 3,438, is a 9 percent increase over the tally in June and nearly double the toll in January.
The rising numbers suggested that sectarian violence is spiraling out of control, and seemed to bolster an assertion many senior Iraqi officials and American military analysts have made in recent months: that the country is already embroiled in a civil war, not just slipping toward one, and that the American-led forces are caught between Sunni Arab guerrillas and Shiite militias."
So here's a question for those on the right: do you think that Bush actually believes what he says, or that he's lying? (Lying, for these purposes, does not include the kind of spinning that involves saying only true things, but focussing on those truths that support your position. It means lying.) If, like me, you're inclined to suspect that he really believes what he says, does it worry you to have a President who is so badly out of touch with reality?
And what could we all do to make sure that the next President we elect feels a responsibility to have at least a passing acquaintance with reality?
I think both sides lost a great deal, but given that combatus interruptus occurred, we might not find out who actually won for a few years, if ever.
Which part of the rest of the world do you think was most alarmed? I've got absolutely no problem with people being alarmed, in general.
But that aversion to alarming the rest of the world just might explain John Kerry for President. John Kerry: less alarming than Bush. Somehow that doesn't inspire, though.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 17, 2006 at 07:17 AM
The Dutch were quite alarmed Slarti
(from the first stage of our holiday, Brussels, were there is a computer but an old one. As from tomorrow I'll be in France for two weeks though, so I'll be out of touch)
Posted by: dutchmarbel | August 17, 2006 at 07:27 AM
OT, some bloggers are undoubtedly going to be making light of this:
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 17, 2006 at 09:19 AM
Offhand, I'd guess just about everyone except Islamicists, who were likely delighted.
Well then, if you perceive the world in this way, you can surely empathize with the support of some Lebanese for Hezbollah.
Posted by: Jon (S) | August 17, 2006 at 09:43 AM
Then there's the defensive network of tunnels, underground bases, fortified houses and emplacements, etc., which proved to be far larger, vaster, and far better fortified than Israel anticipated
This particular Israeli intelligence failure surprised me. It also leads me to wonder how good Israeli intelligence actually is, and to be more skeptical of the intelligence behind bombing targeting in Lebanon above the Litani than I was already.
Gary, and all, I'd welcome pointers to information about the extent to which sharia law and other aspects of mullah rule are practiced in areas of Lebanon where Hezbollah support is concentrated. I've read conflicting assertions about that, but not nearly enough reporting and description to assess the claims.
Posted by: Nell | August 17, 2006 at 10:56 AM
"It also leads me to wonder how good Israeli intelligence actually is, and to be more skeptical of the intelligence behind bombing targeting in Lebanon above the Litani than I was already."
If their intelligence was less perfect than you assumed, that makes it far less likely that they were targeting civilians than you initially assumed.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 17, 2006 at 11:28 AM
Sebastian, why is that? Wouldn't it make it more likely that they would try to pressure the civilian population if they knew Hezbollah were there but couldn't figure out exactly where?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 17, 2006 at 01:54 PM
"Wouldn't it make it more likely that they would try to pressure the civilian population if they knew Hezbollah were there but couldn't figure out exactly where?"
Maybe if they had flattened the whole city. But they didn't did they? They hit a very small number of targets in Beruit. They hit a very small number of targets elsewhere. An enormous number of their hits were in a 3 x 3 or 3 x 4 block area.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 17, 2006 at 03:07 PM
One thing I found annoying, even offensive, about the Goldberg article is the trivializing attitude he takes towards Khiam, where Israel and its SLA allies ran a torture center. An "alleged" torture center. Goldberg can't be bothered to care whether it's true. One would think that someone writing an article about Hezbollah and its motivations would find such a question interesting, but he limits his interest to pointing out the cheesiness of the museum Hezbollah had erected on the site.
I read part of Robin Wright's book "Sacred Rage" which came out in the 80's I think, and has a portion devoted to the rise of fundamentalist Muslim groups in Lebanon. (She is clearer on why the Shiites who initially welcomed the Israelis in 1982 had turned violently against them within a few years. Goldberg doesn't seem interested in that part of the story.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 17, 2006 at 03:49 PM
We know the Israelis were trying to pressure the Lebanese as a whole because they said so. They also hit targets all over Lebanon. They also hit rescue groups working on homes already bombed--I just deleted several lines of sarcasm and will quit before I am tempted to put that back in.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 17, 2006 at 03:59 PM
So, is this a war crime?
Because stuff like this happens a lot.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2006 at 04:48 PM
Might be. It depends on the circumstances. But there aren't US officials proclaiming the need to send Afghan civilians a message. There's no incentive to do this kind of thing deliberately in Afghanistan as far as I know.
There have been air strikes in the Iraq War that I think were quite possibly war crimes, or anyway inexcusable. We apparently used cluster munitions in Iraq and killed many civilians because of it (I say cluster munitions, remembering a certain problem that came up with definitions when I said cluster bombs once.) And sometimes you read accounts where the US claims to have killed Iraqi insurgents and the Iraqis on the scene claim it was mostly civilians. There aren't many of these stories, and my suspicion is that the US government is happy that it is hard for reporters to wander around Iraq to investigate such claims. I recall a NYT story from the fall of 2004 about unnamed Pentagon officials who spoke of how civilian casualties in the bombing of Fallujah might result in them turning against the Fallujah insurgents--exactly the way some Israelis have talked about Lebanese civilians in this most recent war.
So yeah, civilians can be killed accidentally in war, and then again there are also cases where there are good reasons for suspecting that the collateral damage isn't entirely accidental.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 17, 2006 at 05:00 PM
Cnarles:
The President and his administration allowed a country to be bombed to smithereens because it was unthinkable to accept a mere ceasefire that did not address the root causes of the problem.
That's a low statement, Hil. It wasn't as if the whole the country were just one big bulls eye.
Well, if not the "whole" country, most of it was under the bulls eye.
Sebastian:
They hit a very small number of targets in Beruit. They hit a very small number of targets elsewhere. An enormous number of their hits were in a 3 x 3 or 3 x 4 block area.
Frankly, it a little obscene to refer to bombing of 3 x 4 block areas of apartment buildings in the cities which were outside rocket range as allegedly part of a military campaign against Hezbollah. In this day and age, that is terror bombing.
_______
These comments by our conservatives reflect a basic misunderstanding about the scope and nature of the Israeli bombing campaign. There seems to be a desire to trivialize its horrendous scope, or otherwise justify it without taking account of its actual scope. Here is one map of the bombing through the first 10 days (from the Lebanese Maronite Christian news service run by Gen. Auon) -- I would love to see the Israeli version also, but don't know of one.
It was anything but the pinpoint bombing like that in Iraq in 2003, and cannot be described as simply bombing Hezbollah military targets. It was a generalized bombing campaign against civilian infrastructure throughout Lebanon. It inevitably would involve large number of civilian casualties that cannot possibly be described as a byproduct of trying to hit Hezbollah military targets.
Some examples: bombing airports, bridges, highways, power plants, oil storage facilities, Lebanese army facilities, many areas in the far north in Christian or Sunni areas, whole blocks of apartment buildings in urban areas far outside rocket range.
Then there was the bombing of civilians fleeing on the roads -- just errors or something else?
I don't think Israelis tried to target civilians deliberately, but the pattern of bombing shows that they were not that concerned about killing them in order to attack civilian infrastructure. The justification for the bombing as targeting Hezbollah military that was improperly mixed in with the citizenry is largely bunk. Maybe it happened in some instances, but it cannot describe most of the bombing.
Analysis of the bombing needs to be fact based -- not the imaginary version of what happened.
Posted by: dmbeaster | August 17, 2006 at 05:56 PM
"Well, if not the 'whole' country, most of it was under the bulls eye."
I, for one, have no idea what that means, though it sound teddibly ominous.
"Frankly, it a little obscene to refer to bombing of 3 x 4 block areas of apartment buildings in the cities which were outside rocket range as allegedly part of a military campaign against Hezbollah. In this day and age, that is terror bombing."
You say it, yet that doesn't make it true. When Clinton blew up the Iraqi intelligence HQ with cruise missiles, in the middle of downtown Baghdad, was that "terror bombing"? There were, after all, no missiles there.
The rule that, in war, only missiles may be struck, is purely made up by you, and quite entirely cuckoo.
"It was a generalized bombing campaign against civilian infrastructure throughout Lebanon."
Either you are misinformed, or you are intentionally being untruthfl. I'll assume it's the latter.
"Some examples: bombing airports, bridges, highways, power plants, oil storage facilities, [...] army facilities,"
Here's a hint: those are all classic military targets, which is why the U.S. has attacked them in every 20th century war it's been in.
"Then there was the bombing of civilians fleeing on the roads -- just errors or something else?"
Lebanon has, as I keep pointing out, 3,874,050 people. You are welcome to give cites for how many civilians you believe were bombed fleeing on the roads.
Unless it was thousands of them, or even hundreds, obviously there was no campaign to hit civilians traveling on roads, so obviously any who were hit were hit by mistake (most likely because they were believed to be Hezbollah targets); obviously, one can't check IDs from the air.
"Analysis of the bombing needs to be fact based -- not the imaginary version of what happened."
Just so. And by unbiased people, not people who make up their own facts, and make claims based on mindreading.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2006 at 06:24 PM
"I'll assume it's the latter."
Whoops. Apologies. I meant "the former." Sorry about that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2006 at 06:25 PM
I hesitate to wade in here, but my problem with Seb's statement
If their intelligence was less perfect than you assumed, that makes it far less likely that they were targeting civilians than you initially assumed.
is that it suggests that the Israeli campaign is just a 'whoops, I thought I saw a Hezbollah site'. As for whether bombing classical infrastructure sites, as was done in wars between states, was appropriate in this case, I leave to other to argue.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 17, 2006 at 07:00 PM
"I hesitate to wade in here, but my problem with Seb's statement
If their intelligence was less perfect than you assumed, that makes it far less likely that they were targeting civilians than you initially assumed.
is that it suggests that the Israeli campaign is just a 'whoops, I thought I saw a Hezbollah site'."
No, it could be that they had intelligence that it was a Hezbollah site, but it either wasn't, or it was but it can't be proven to be so after Hezbollah has had time to clean things up.
In your opinion, what percentage accuracy is normal for actionable military intelligence in a war? Do you expect 100%? 90%? 80%? some other percentage?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 17, 2006 at 07:18 PM
"...is that it suggests that the Israeli campaign is just a 'whoops, I thought I saw a Hezbollah site'.'
[scratches head] I don't know how you get that. It suggests that there were inevitable errors.
Then, as I've said about a bazillion times now, any questionable strike/attack should be investigated by competent neutral authorities, and if anyone is guilty of anything ranging from criminal negligence to worse, they should be prosecuted, and if guilty, punished.
But how you leap from any given incident, or handful of incidents, to the entire campaign, I can only imagine.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2006 at 07:20 PM
Gary wrote--
"Some examples: bombing airports, bridges, highways, power plants, oil storage facilities, [...] army facilities,"
Here's a hint: those are all classic military targets, which is why the U.S. has attacked them in every 20th century war it's been in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think I'd use U.S. bombing practices in its 20th century wars as any kind of moral standard. The targeting of Iraqi infrastructure in the Gulf War, for instance, was deliberate and meant to hurt the civilian population, as described in a Barton Gellman article in the Washington Post on June 23, 1991. (Which you can look up--I've cited it so often I just spout it from memory.)
And look at earlier wars and there's less and less pretense we were trying to avoid killing civilians.
I'm not so sure the bombing of Iraq by the US in 2003 was quite so pinpoint either, though much of it was. Human Rights Watch, I believe, had some criticism of the use of cluster munitions as the cause of many civilian deaths.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 17, 2006 at 07:22 PM
What's always interested me about the Barton Gellman article and the one I saw in the NYT about the bombing of Fallujah and now with the latest Israel/Lebanon war is the plausible deniability aspect and how the cat is let out of the bag when some official (often a military guy presumably less skilled in diplomatic doubletalk) says "Yeah, we're trying to pressure the civilian population" or talks about the beneficial aspects of collateral damage. It's what you'd expect. Western culture has gradually moved to a position where it's not supposed to be acceptable to deliberately kill civilians. Only those evil terrorist types do that. Yet there's also this feeling on the part of some that (in the logic of strategic bombing) you might be helped in achieving your goals if you go ahead and kill some civilians. So what to do? I know--assert with great conviction that you don't target civilians and then target things that will probably hurt the civilian population and increase their death rate (sometimes directly, by blowing them up). And deny that you have any evil intent--all those targets are,of course, militarily justifiable. So long as nobody blurts out the underlying motive, you are guaranteed that a great many people on your side will believe in one's pristine motives--better yet, even if someone does blurt out the truth they'll still believe it.
There's also the other option of supporting some proxy force that doesn't have any inhibitions about killing civilians, something the US has also done. Israel too, on a smaller scale. But that's not relevant here.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 17, 2006 at 07:38 PM
Seb, Gary
I think it is problematic when the argument is made 'well, if you think that Israeli intelligence was bad, you can't argue they were targeting civilians'. Seb made no mention of percentages in that comment, and now clarifies it by saying that this should appply to a small number of strikes. Yet you have statements made on the record and then withdrawn about the punishment aspect of this campaign. I suggest that it is the lack of intelligence that encourages this attitude, so the first statement was what I was addressing.
Gary, I also think it is problematic when you take a comment directed at a specific comment made by a specific commentator as a reason to point out your stances. I am not going to try the faux naivete (this is not to say that it is faux on your part, perhaps you are confused as to whose comment I was addressing) but I view your stance and Seb's as contradictory, with Seb suggesting that poor intelligence as a mitigating factor and you suggesting that intelligence that targets a 3x4 city block as good enough for targeting purposes. Of course, this is not to hold you responsible for what Seb writes nor vice versa, but if they are contradictory, then conflating the two positions creates a lot of avoidable confusion.
I do agree with Donald's points, and I think it is good that our threshold for balking at military action is a lot lower than it was previously. I've always thought that our (in the sense of mankind's) aim should be to reduce military action to the level of policing, with the concomitant hesitancy to endanger innocent civilians that police are expected to have. That it is not going to happen overnight is understood, but that should be a goal in the distant future.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 17, 2006 at 08:12 PM
Anecdote:
Of course, there are also plenty of quotes in the article from southern Lebanese praising Hezbollah.Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2006 at 08:28 PM
"perhaps you are confused as to whose comment I was addressing) but I view your stance and Seb's as contradictory, with Seb suggesting that poor intelligence as a mitigating factor and you suggesting that intelligence that targets a 3x4 city block as good enough for targeting purposes."
I don't think they are generally contradictory because poor intelligence can be a mitigating factor in general AND that 3x4 block area indisputably was one of Hezbollah's main headquarters in particular.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 18, 2006 at 09:42 PM