Israel's plan to bomb Lebanon was in the works for at least a year...
... and no one told Shrub.
According to the L.A. Times, Israel set war plan more than a year ago.
"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."
More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail.
So if you've been thinking that a milk processing plant, Lebanese army engineeers, and donated ambulances have fuck-all to do with two soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah, you're right. This article doesn't explain those bombings in terms of this year-old plan, either, which is made to sound very specifically targeted at Hezbollah. So far the explanations that make the best sense to me involve Israel wanting to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure or break it psychologically, for various purposes ranging from the misguided to the malevolent.
As usual, for real expert analysis, see Juan Cole. I've also been reading Billmon, whose commentary ranges from carefully reasoned to catty to downright harsh. Don't read him if you have a problem with Israel's government (also Bush, Blair, Olmert, Sharon et al.) being roundly castigated. Otherwise, do check out this post about Israel, Palestine, asymmetrical warfare, PR and public opinion. He illuminates the psychology and the war of public and international perception being fought alongside the military war.
He's also been amusingly taking to pieces one late-to-the-clue-party journalist at WaPo, who now sees we've repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq. Alas, Thomas Ricks painted a far rosier picture of our "success" in Iraq at the time, cheerfully regurgitating miltary spin about how well our counter-insurgency work was going.
A note about experts, and who is one. (Me=not.) I'm not an expert on all this stuff. If a semester-long class didn't make me an expert on, say, Japanese Buddhism (and it didn't), then noodling around on the nets sure doesn't make me an expert on the Middle East. I point this out not to be self-effacing, but because I see the dangers in taking a little bit of reading for expertise. (See all Neocon military ambitions, 1990s-present.) I refer you to people like Juan Cole because he clearly has an extensive background in the subject, and his arguments make logical and psychological sense to me. But I am, in a sense, relying on his good name and integrity not to lead me wildly astray. He could tell me the Badr Brigade was Shi'a or Sunni, friendly with Syria or Saudi Arabia, and I'd go with it. I think a lot of people operate like this, and just (IMHO) choose who to trust poorly. That's how the entire Bush administration, or those who actually get high on their own shit as opposed to the Orwellian spinmeisters, left reality-land behind. And bad info isn't limited to Wikipedia and blogs, conservative thinktanks and cable news. There are plenty of "expert" books out there just brimming with lies, half-truths, and BS.
I guess the take-home message is, choose your experts carefully, and when it comes to the Middle East? Don't confuse me with one. I'm not an expert, and I don't play one on Liberalrage. (This doesn't, however, mean I'm going to fall for party lines or be stumped by rhetorical tricks. I'm not an expert, but I'm not an idiot.) If you have any favorite Middle East experts, online or off, do share them.
caia out.
According to the L.A. Times, Israel set war plan more than a year ago.
"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."
More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail.
So if you've been thinking that a milk processing plant, Lebanese army engineeers, and donated ambulances have fuck-all to do with two soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah, you're right. This article doesn't explain those bombings in terms of this year-old plan, either, which is made to sound very specifically targeted at Hezbollah. So far the explanations that make the best sense to me involve Israel wanting to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure or break it psychologically, for various purposes ranging from the misguided to the malevolent.
As usual, for real expert analysis, see Juan Cole. I've also been reading Billmon, whose commentary ranges from carefully reasoned to catty to downright harsh. Don't read him if you have a problem with Israel's government (also Bush, Blair, Olmert, Sharon et al.) being roundly castigated. Otherwise, do check out this post about Israel, Palestine, asymmetrical warfare, PR and public opinion. He illuminates the psychology and the war of public and international perception being fought alongside the military war.
He's also been amusingly taking to pieces one late-to-the-clue-party journalist at WaPo, who now sees we've repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq. Alas, Thomas Ricks painted a far rosier picture of our "success" in Iraq at the time, cheerfully regurgitating miltary spin about how well our counter-insurgency work was going.
A note about experts, and who is one. (Me=not.) I'm not an expert on all this stuff. If a semester-long class didn't make me an expert on, say, Japanese Buddhism (and it didn't), then noodling around on the nets sure doesn't make me an expert on the Middle East. I point this out not to be self-effacing, but because I see the dangers in taking a little bit of reading for expertise. (See all Neocon military ambitions, 1990s-present.) I refer you to people like Juan Cole because he clearly has an extensive background in the subject, and his arguments make logical and psychological sense to me. But I am, in a sense, relying on his good name and integrity not to lead me wildly astray. He could tell me the Badr Brigade was Shi'a or Sunni, friendly with Syria or Saudi Arabia, and I'd go with it. I think a lot of people operate like this, and just (IMHO) choose who to trust poorly. That's how the entire Bush administration, or those who actually get high on their own shit as opposed to the Orwellian spinmeisters, left reality-land behind. And bad info isn't limited to Wikipedia and blogs, conservative thinktanks and cable news. There are plenty of "expert" books out there just brimming with lies, half-truths, and BS.
I guess the take-home message is, choose your experts carefully, and when it comes to the Middle East? Don't confuse me with one. I'm not an expert, and I don't play one on Liberalrage. (This doesn't, however, mean I'm going to fall for party lines or be stumped by rhetorical tricks. I'm not an expert, but I'm not an idiot.) If you have any favorite Middle East experts, online or off, do share them.
caia out.