Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Return of the Count

Well, given his absence, we should all have been expecting Iggy to feed us something with a bit of meat to it upon his return, and he has not disappointed. His analysis really speaks for itself, though I find this to be the most defining statement:

In this terrible struggle, Israel cannot win, Hezbollah cannot lose and Lebanon perishes.

Also, I don't want to be accused of slandering him here, but Iggy's analysis (not his proposals, though) remind me of something I read in the National Post by prince of darkness David Frum, that the wider goal of Hezbollah is to draw Israel into a region-wide conflict. Where they differ is that Iggy says it's a conflict Israel cannot possibly win, where as Frum postulated that Israel can win it, and should. Just from a historical analysis I would tend to agree with (god, no...) Frum on this one; Israel has had a lot of luck fighting Muslim countries in the past. I see no reason why they wouldn't win this one as well.


At 8/01/2006 5:47 p.m., Blogger ottlib said...

And yet those very same Muslim countries are still there and they are still a threat to Israel.

As are the terrorist groups that call them home.

Israel will always win the military conflicts because the IDF is a carbon copy of the US military. The country is always backed up to the hilt in any armed conflict by the US; witness the shipment of jet fuel and percision munitions the US sent to Israel just days after the current conflict.

However, when Israel wins the war they inevitably lose the peace because they cannot convert the military victory into a political and diplomatic victory.

That I think is the difference between Mr. Frum and Dr. Ignatieff. Mr. Frum believes that a military victory over Hezbollah will be the end of it. Dr. Ignatieff believes the exact opposite. And history supports Dr. Ignatieff's assessment not Mr. Frum's.

At 8/01/2006 8:21 p.m., Blogger Red Tory said...

Yes, Israel has always had a distinct advantage when fighting conventional armies. There are many reasons for that such as better equipment, better trained soldiers, better command and control, etc. But this conflict is a different kettle of fish much in the same way as the Americans are painfully discovering in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Post a Comment

<< Home