Blue Crab Boulevard

Desperation?

David Ignatius in the Washington Post appears to be trying to act as an intermediary for Hezbollah.

To stop the war in Lebanon, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will need to start with some basics: The best strategy for containing a militia such as Hezbollah is to build a strong Lebanese state; any lasting solution for this conflict will be political, not just military; continued Israeli bombardment of Lebanon to destroy terrorists might backfire by creating another failed state from which terrorists can operate more freely.

The outlines of a settlement that recognizes these basics were floated Monday in Beirut. The Lebanese urged Rice to consider a compromise package — of the sort that Beirutis describe in a French phrase meaning "neither victor nor vanquished." That kind of negotiated truce would not please those on either side who would like to see their adversaries eradicated. But it might be the best chance of achieving Rice's goal of replacing the dangerous prewar status quo in Lebanon with something more secure and stable for everyone.

….

Lebanese sources outlined for me the compromise package they say was discussed Monday when Rice met with Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, and Nabih Berri, the parliament speaker and leader of the Shiite militia known as Amal. The cornerstone of this package, according to my sources, is that Hezbollah would agree to withdraw its armed fighters from south Lebanon and accept an international force there that would accompany the Lebanese army. Israel, for its part, would agree to halt its attacks and lift its air and sea blockade. The United States would call for negotiations over the return of a disputed territory known as Shebaa Farms, claimed by Lebanon even though the United Nations ruled in 2000 that it was Syrian.

Within 24 hours after a cease-fire, there would be an exchange of prisoners as part of this package: Hezbollah would give up the two Israeli soldiers it captured in the July 12 border raid that started the crisis; Israel would release Lebanese prisoners it holds. The package also includes some minor provisions, including an Israeli agreement to provide maps of land mines placed just north of the Lebanon-Israel border.

What's in it for Israel to accept such a deal, which would allow Hezbollah to survive? The answer is that an attempt to go all the way and destroy the Shiite militia would require a full-scale invasion of Lebanon, and might well misfire in the same way as Israel's 1982 invasion. Better to go for a solid half a loaf — pushing armed Hezbollah fighters north of the Litani River and bringing in an international force to help the Lebanese army police a buffer zone — than to risk further setbacks.

Lets all put the best face on this. Ignatius means well here. He wants to stop the bloodshed. A good and a noble cause. I think his desire to do so may be overriding his reporter's instincts. Something about this effort to contact a WaPo opinion writer directly, stinks out loud of desperation. I think Hezbollah is in serious trouble and knows it. They are actively trying to get the Western press to support a deal - any deal - that allows them to survive. Because Israel is hurting them a lot worse than they thought possible. I think I see what is blinding Ignatius on this issue in his final paragraph:

Wars end when both sides decide they can gain more from a negotiated settlement than from continued fighting. Nearly two weeks into the Lebanon war, Israel and Hezbollah both seem split between those who think they can gain from more combat and those ready to cut a deal. As of late Tuesday, Rice was continuing to resist mounting international demands for a cease-fire, presumably to allow Israel more time to hammer Hezbollah. But that strategy is becoming dangerous for all sides. Rice should turn now to negotiating a formula that can halt the bombs and rockets — and enhance the authority of the Lebanese state. Bargaining with the devil (or at least the devil's intermediary) is part of the job description for an American secretary of state. (Emphasis added)

No, Mr. Ignatius. Wars end when someone wins. And I sincerely am beginning to think Israel is winning or Hezbollah would not be trying this back channel approach. It already looks likely that Hamas has folded because of a robust Israeli response. It may be instructive to see what happens to Hezbollah because of their failed strategy and gross miscalculations. Maybe it's time to stop dealing with devils.

War | Gaius Tuesday, 25 July , 2006

By crosspatch, Tuesday, 25 July , 2006 @ 11:13 pm

Thought I would share this among friends. Someone posted the link to this video on Rantburg. A pair of young men decided to go to the train depot in Haifa that was hit with a missile and killed 8 people and film any damage and interview folks that work there. While they were filming the same depot was hit again with a missle. Amazing.

Link
By da 12th Anon, Wednesday, 26 July , 2006 @ 7:33 am

This will end when Israel decides it has done all the damage to Hezebolla that it can do without taking greater military and political risks. When they have more to lose then gain, they will stop. Hezebollah is aware of this basic fact of life, and is trying to increase the non-military pressure on Israel, thereby adding weight to the lose side of the balance.
The Shittes think that on August 22, 2006 their 12th Imam will climb up out of the holy well , wave his hand and the whole world will surrender to them. So all bets are off after the 22nd of August. When nothing happens, the shittes will have to re-boot their entire belief struture.
Meanwhile, when will the morons of the west learn that negoiating with the Islamic zelots is a waste of time. When Churchill said “JawJaw is always better then war war” he was speaking of human interaction. Jaw Jaw doesn’t matter when one side of the jawing isn’t human by the other sides criteria. Might as well jaw jaw with a monkey, dog or camel.
By Qzsue, Wednesday, 26 July , 2006 @ 8:17 am

This is another example of how the MSM believes itself to be the true leaders of the country. Such hubris, instructing one of the most intelligent women who happens to be the Secretary of State, on how to derive peace from this stewpot of conflict, deserves as much ridicule as we can muster. Who exactly were his sources? Do they exist? It Post lowers itself another notch.
By Jim,MtnViewCA,USA, Wednesday, 26 July , 2006 @ 10:07 am

Not just Ignatius, much of the MSM (and Dems) are trumpeting the whole “you must talk to your enemies” meme. How can problems be solved if we don’t fawn all over Syria? How indeed
Keep wringing your hands MSM. Go IDF, best wishes!
By pittspbm, Wednesday, 26 July , 2006 @ 10:34 am

Like you, I focused on this last paragraph and felt Ignatious had it exactly 180 degrees wrong.

Looking at history, those wars that “ended” with “negotiated settlement” generally have really never ended, and contain the seeds for the next phoenix-like reincarnation of hostilities.

Only the total military defeat coupled with either unconditional surrender or de-facto annihilation of the losing side are necessary prerequisites for lasting peace.

Example of good “ending” wars:
WWII - Chuchhill’s “unconditional surrender”
US Civil War - Lee’s unconditional surrender at Appomattox

Examples of bad endings:
Korea - cease-fire 1952/53 - still a war zone with a hot DMZ
Gulf War I - ceasefire - no-fly zones for 12 years and then reignited
Gulf War II - Sadaams troops melted away and were never crushed
Vietnam - US negotiated itself out but N.Vietnam just continued on & on
Kosovo - peacekeepers still necessary
WWI - Armistice, with opressive reparations, set the stage for WWII

A third possible ending is simple exhaustion - as in the 30 Years War.

We should all hope that Israel never reaches this point, after surviving almost 60 years of repeated wars, attacks and terrorism.
By Jeff G, Wednesday, 26 July , 2006 @ 2:52 pm

This guy has his head up his ass. But seriously, where does he get off trying to tell the American Secretary of State how to do her business?
By Gaius, Wednesday, 26 July , 2006 @ 2:58 pm

He’s a supergenius reporter. Just ask him. Powerline has a little more background on his ties to Hezbollah.
By stan peterson, Thursday, 27 July , 2006 @ 11:51 am

Hiz’b Allah is a terrorist organization with some semi-military militias that even may be well trained.

But they have no real weapons other than very inaccurate terror weapons. that cannot be used on military targets. And some small arms.

They are fighting in the best terrain they can city scapes, which negates some but not all the benenfitds of a heavy armored force with absolute control of the air.

They have to trade bodies in an outsized ratio, perhaps taking caualties at 100-1, but they do NOT HAVE an enormous force for such an attrition war. They do have an enormous body of potential recruits, but that is an untrained or unequipped mass. In any case it is of no concern in this conflict, but might serve as a source to rebuild in a few years.

They have no economic basis, do not command an economy of any sort, and can be cut off at the knees if resources from abroad is witheld for any reason. That could be a decison on either Syria or Iran’s part to protect themselves, weariness funding any more such folly or Israeli interdiction efforts and blockades.

Hiz’b Allah, is going to have to go to ground in a short time.

I just hope that Syria gets punished by the IDF. It is absolutely necessary to assert & confim teh thesis that Proxy wars are neither CHEAP nor SAFE.