Cost and necessity in Lebanon

I make no pretense of being any sort of expert on the madhouse that is the Middle East — indeed, with each passing day's news and blogs I realize more how ignorant I've been — so these comments should be taken well diluted. Why post them at all, then? Just for readers who like to gather as many different views as possible so as to sift them.

Why is Israel cracking down hard on Hezbollah? Ralph Peters thinks "the Israelis began to miscalculate — reacting impulsively and emotionally themselves. Attacking Hezbollah was fully justified and necessary, but Israel's frustration with the Lebanese government's toleration of terrorists boiled over into folly."

No doubt the Hezbollah raid sparked high emotions in Israel, with several of their soldiers killed and two taken hostage, probably dead by now or held under appalling conditions. But it seems highly unlikely that a major operation in Lebanon was undertaken impulsively. My guess is that Israeli intelligence had become aware of some seriously threatening development in Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon: new, high-tech toys for boys supplied by Iran to the Shiite militants (the rocket that struck an Israeli ship lends credence to this idea); maybe even a plan to invade Israel.

Peters is probably right that Hezbollah's raid was not part of a grand strategic plan. More likely, in my view, it was intended by some Hezbollah faction to show off its boldness and capability to other Hezbollah elements. The warlord who pulled it off probably didn't expect Israel's reaction, not knowing that a very worried Israeli IDF high command and prime minister had been looking for a reason to take down the major threat coming from Lebanon's direction that it had become aware of.

Will the situation blow up and bring Iran into the mix? Probably not. It's hard to see how it could advance Iran's interests. Iran's strategy seems to be continuing to develop its nuke capability while fending off any kind of multi-state action against it with diplomatic wiles, keeping Gulliver tied down in endless negotiations about resolutions. For Iran to dive into the fray now would provide an opening for instant retaliation which would surely include crippling its nuke development.

True, the face Iran presents to the world is Ahmadinejad, a free-range lunatic. It's not clear to me, though, how much he can call the tune. If he looks to be about to bring down Goetterdaemmerung on the country, a coalition of mullahs might see to it that he is led away, thanked for his efforts on the nation's behalf, and shot.

Should Israel respond "proportionately"? No, nothing could be more foolish. What would a "proportionate" response mean? A quick over-the-border raid to kill a few Hezbollah militants and take a couple of hostages? Israel's enemies don't value human life the way Israelis do; they couldn't care less if they lost a few men. Hezbollah, or whatever faction started the ball rolling, could still crow about how they'd scored a victory over the Little Satan.

Setting a modern military into motion to perform its function is a terrible business. Once you've done that, you can count on losing some of your own at best, or some unexpected nightmare at worst; for certain, plenty of innocent civilians caught in the line of fire will die. All this will be for nothing if the end is to just return to the status quo, like a shoving match between schoolboys. The aim of a military response must be to change the situation, if possible drastically, in your favor.

If my guess is right and Israel is cleaning up a major new and credible threat that its intelligence operations have detected, then they have to neutralize it. Count the cost. But count the necessity.

Language and thought,
light and rapid as wind,
man has taught himself these, and has learnt
the ways of living in town and city,
shelter from inhospitable frost,
escape from the arrows of rain.

Wise though his plans are,
artful beyond all dreaming,
they carry him both to evil and to good.

Sophocles, Antigone