The neocons and Hezbollah

In 2003 Daniel Byman published a fascinating article about Hezbollah and Islamic terrorism in Foreign Affairs.

This passage in particular caught my eye:

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that many in the United States have argued that Hezbollah should be the next target in the war on terror. Shortly after September 11, a group of leading scholars, pundits, and former government officials, including William Kristol and Richard Perle, declared in an open letter to President Bush that "any war on terrorism must target Hezbollah" and urged that military action be considered against the movement's state sponsors, Syria and Iran. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has warned of Hezbollah's lethality, noting that "Hezbollah may be the A team of terrorists," while "al Qaeda is actually the B team."

The article also makes a convincing case that neither a full-scale invasion, nor limited strikes against Hezbollah are likely to dislodge the group from Southern Lebanon.

Comments

[Damien]

I think you mean "neither are likely to". :)

[Gaijin Biker]

"Hezbollah may be the A team of terrorists"

That means there's no way we can ever beat them! No matter what we thow at Hezbollah, they'll simply weld together an armored vehicle out of scrap metal and run us out of town. And no matter how many bullets we shoot at Hezbollah members, none of them will ever be hit.

(On the plus side, none of their bullets will hit us, either.)

[greensmile]

Am I to infer that this advice may have been taken to heart by the administration and they follow the advice by sitting by as Israel does its sloppy best to eradicate Hezbollah?

[Dabodius]

"[Byman] makes a convincing case that neither a full-scale invasion, nor limited strikes against Hezbollah are likely to dislodge the group from Southern Lebanon."

Byman made a case that the United States should not undertake a war with Hezbollah: "Occupying Iraq is tough enough; a fight in the Bekaa Valley, a Hezbollah stronghold in Lebanon, would only make things worse (p.1)." I agree with him. OTOH, the U.S. should not forgo an opportunity if one arises to capture or kill military commander Imad Mugniyah or others who have American blood on their hands. Meanwhile few who do not live on FNC are calling for a U.S. military intervention against Hezbollah. This is Israel's fight. American arms shipments and diplomacy are enough.

Hezbollah's guerrilla warfare succeeded in harassing IDF out of Lebanon in 2000, making the occupation too expensive to maintain, so who is talking about another Israeli occupation of S. Lebanon? Nor should we be talking much about Hezbollah as guerrillas now; if they have been waging a guerrilla war against Israel, it is now in such a war's third, conventional phase. They are fighting to defend territory, often from fortified positions, and to retake it. Guerrillas are by no means invincible to begin with, and if Hezbollah stand and fight a full-scale Israeli invasion -- bigger than the company- or battalion-level incursions thus far -- they will lose.

Hezbollah lacks armored fighting vehicles; its fighters walk or ride in thin-skinned civilian vehicles. They have no air support. Aside from light mortars, they have chosen artillery that is good for nothing except terrorizing and murdering non-combatants. They would face a combined arms force of vastly superior firepower, attacking in superior numbers, faster on the ground or airborne.

If they ran north, IDF would catch up with them. Hezbollah have fortified positions and extensive underground installations, in which they can be found and killed; they have dug their own graves.

Provided that IDF moved in, killed off Hezbollah and then moved out, there would be no occupation to resist, unless you call an international force to prevent Hezbollah's return to the south occupiers. And there would be as little point then as now in calling Hezbollah's war an "insurgency": this war is about a raid over an international border and bombardment without any aim except to kill and hurt non-combatants. Hezbollah's fighters will achieve nothing against an invading IDF corps but their own martyrdom.

Some thoughts on Byman:

"Direct attacks on Israel have also become rare since the withdrawal from southern Lebanon. This decrease, however, is not a sign that the movement has accepted Israel's existence (p2)."
A fortiori, starting this war is no such sign.

"In response to years of Israeli air attacks, Hezbollah has dispersed its membership and its weaponry among Lebanese civilians, making it almost impossible to strike at the group without killing many innocents (p3)."
When he's right, he's right.

"...Hezbollah too has good reason to want to avoid such a conflict. Although the movement gained popularity for its successful resistance -- and remains fundamentally a militant movement -- any further confrontation with the United States or Israel that subjected southern Lebanon once again to the ravages of war would be highly unpopular even among Hezbollah's supporters (p4)."
Byman erred in thinking Hezbollah ahared his appraisal.

"If the United States can successfully defuse Hezbollah's militant activity, the organization might well move more squarely into the political arena. Such a shift would set off a virtuous cycle, as Hezbollah's continuing political success would depend on its ability to bring stability and prosperity to its Lebanese constituents instead of on its violent efforts against Israel and the United States (p5, final para.)."
This is as naive in its way as the neocon vision of a cascade of democracy dominoes to follow on invading Iraq. Hezbollah are fanatics and thugs. They must be at least disbanded and disarmed, or they will foment yet another war.

[farang]

Thanks for pointing out the PNAC criminals that committed 911.

As far as Perle calling hizbollah "terrorists" I suppose it takes one to know one.

[Himself]

Herein lies the folly of this view (held by the neocons, the Bush administration, and the Israeli government): Hezbollah is viewed simply as a terrorist organization that needs to be destroyed. The U.S. is viewing this as a proxy war against Iran and Syria, Israel is viewing it as self-defense.

The problem? Yes, Hezbollah has a terrorist component funded by Iran and Syria, but it is primarily mass populist movement. Hezbollah represents the large Shia population of Lebanon in parliament and provides social services across the south of Lebanon. In a very real sense, when we speak of Hezbollah, we speak of the Lebanese Shia.

Maybe this is not lost on Israel, as evidenced by their carpet bombing of south Lebanon. But as long-term strategy, it is bound to fail. They can't kill all of the Shia in Lebanon. Those that survive are becoming more and more radicalized.

But the fact that this seems to be lost on the neocons is not surprising given their complete policy failure in Iraq (did they really want to install and prop up a fundamentalist Shia regime there?). They clearly never had a firm grip on the reality of Middle East politics and history.

[Eric]

I got this direct quote from U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)website:

Hagel Floor Statement on the Current Situation in the Middle East

July 31st, 2006 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) delivered the following statement on the Senate floor today regarding the current situation in the Middle East:

“Mr. President, The Middle East is a region in crisis. After three weeks of escalating and continuing violence, the potential for wider regional conflict becomes more real each day. The hatred in the Middle East is being driven deeper and deeper into the fabric of the region...which will make any lasting and sustained peace effort very difficult to achieve. How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon, is going to enhance America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East? The sickening slaughter on both sides must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease fire. This madness must stop.

The Middle East today is more combustible and complex than it has ever been. Uncertain popular support for regime legitimacy continues to weaken governments of the Middle East. Economic stagnation, persistent unemployment, deepening despair and wider unrest enhance the ability of terrorists to recruit and succeed. An Iran with nuclear weapons raises the specter of broader proliferation and a fundamental strategic realignment in the region, creating more regional instability.

http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cf...nth=7&Year=2006

[John Eaton]

Thanks for posting this. Also take a look at Juan Cole's post on subnationalism versus terrorism: http://www.juancole.com/2006/07/what-is-hizbullah-western-and-israeli.html. Keep up the great work.

[Matt]

This item from the New Yorker a few years ago is also good. The subtitle seems darkly prophetic...
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/021014fa_fact4

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

The problem? Yes, Hezbollah has a terrorist component funded by Iran and Syria, but it is primarily mass populist movement. Hezbollah represents the large Shia population of Lebanon in parliament and provides social services across the south of Lebanon. In a very real sense, when we speak of Hezbollah, we speak of the Lebanese Shia.

Himself, this makes me curious. On another blog I read, one poster was roundly mocked for suggesting that Iran so controlled Hezbollah as to be able to tell them what to do. globalsecurity.org's page on "Hizbollah" mentions that Iran funds them to the tune of about $25-50 million per year, and Syria did fund them as well, and we're aware that the Sa'ad (Thunder) rockets they got were from Iran, as well as much other assistance. Hezbollah, according to globalsecurity.org, does take decisions and sometimes acts independently of Iran, but my impression is that they are as much a creature (and instrument) of Iran as of the organic Shi'a movement. I ask not provocatively, but just because I want to know more: do you have information sources to show that this is wrong, and that they are more completely organic and independent of Iran's influence?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Dabodius, I have no problem with Israel killing Hezbollah leaders. However, I seriously doubt that Israel knows where they are. If Tel Aviv knew, Hezbollah's leaders would already be dead. The incursions on Lebanon are tacit admissions from Israel that the state has been lax in its intelligence on Hezbollah and Lebanon in recent years.

[Himself]

Matt: please read Juan Cole's What is Hizbullah.

There can be no doubt that the military wing of Hezbolla is funded and influenced from outside of Lebanon. But the Hezbolla movement is an identity movement, "a mass expression of subnationalism that has the loyalty of some 1.3 million highly connected and politically mobilized peasants and slum dwellers," to quote Cole.

[cfrost]

The Foreign Affairs article was written in late 2003. BushCo has been busy painting us into a smaller and smaller corner ever since. Any options we might have had then are long gone now.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Thank you Himself (it was actually me that asked you the question--handles appear below the poster's contribution on this blog). I appreciate Juan Cole's work.

[Sigh]

"Byman made a case that the United States should not undertake a war with Hezbollah: "Occupying Iraq is tough enough; a fight in the Bekaa Valley, a Hezbollah stronghold in Lebanon, would only make things worse (p.1)." I agree with him. OTOH, the U.S. should not forgo an opportunity if one arises to capture or kill military commander Imad Mugniyah or others who have American blood on their hands."

Because lord knows, after the US shelled Shia villages, how dare those ragheads strike back by getting some American blood on their hands. Perhaps the US and Hezbollah can do a prisoner exchange - you send them your war criminals, who shelled villages, and they'll send you theirs, who blew up the marine baracks.

Oh, I forgot, the US doesn't have war criminals. When the US kills civilians it's always justified and never a war crime.

It always amuses me, in that sort of "I"d like to throw up" way, how Americans forget these things. The eternal cry of the bully, "how dare you fight back. Stand still and take your beating."

Here's another little factoid everyone has conveniently forgotten - when the Israelis entered Lebanon in 1982 the Shia cheered them and greeted them literally with flowers.

They only got bitter when the Israelis decided they weren't going to leave.

For 18 years.