Irvine511 said:
good golly, no one, not least of all "people" (nice lack of specificity) are saying that Israel (psst, it's spelled "Israeli") is indiscriminately bombing Lebanon. they ARE saying that much of the bombing is, firstly, out of proportion to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, and secondly, is disproportionately targeting civilian infastructure and creating a thoroughly unnecessary humanitarian crisis for the Lebanese people.
i think that Israel should not be targeting civilian infastructure (roads, bridges, the aiport, electrical plants) and a rescue mission to save the 2 Israeli soldiers would have been far preferable than the stated goal of trying to dismantle Hezbollah. even Israeli, meeting unanticipated resistance in southern Lebanon, now sees that they have bitten off more than they were initially prepared to chew. it seems as if the current Israeli administration has taken notes from Bush and hastily launched an overly ambitious military operation with no exit strategy. what's going to happen next? another invasion of Lebanon for another 18 years? another Lebanese quagmire? what's going to happen when rockets land in Tel Aviv?
this is precisely what Hezbollah wants -- a bogged down Israeli army, combined with a thoroughly bogged down American army.
and who benefits?
Iran.
Well, if you would take some time to read the thread, you would find several comments that claim that Israel is indeed bombing Lebanon indiscriminately.
The bombing and incursions are not simply about the kidnapping of two Israely soldiers, but multiple Hezbollah incursions into Israel over the past year and the rocketing of Israely towns over the past year as well.
Israel is not targeting to the civilian population. Unfortunately because Hezbollah uses and imbeds itself within the civilian population, it makes it very difficult to limit damage to innocent civilians. In my opinion, Israel has been to restrained and slow in its targeting which could prolong the immediate conflict, and lead to more civilian casualties than there might have to be.
So you think Hezbollah should be allowed free use and access of roads, bridges, airports, and electical plants through out Lebanon? Do you think the United States military was right when it targeted the same infastructure in Iraq(2003), Afghanistan(2001), Serbia(1999), Bosnia(1995), Iraq(1991), Panama(1989), France(1944)?
Dismantling Hezbollah's immediate ability to rocket northern Israeli towns requires that Israel remove Hezbollah from along its border and destroy infrustructure vital to the resupply of Hezbollah's war effort against Israel.
Israel is currently only using at most 10% of its ground and air forces in this conflict. It is a limited and restrained operation and Israel has always expected Hezbollah to fight as intensely as they have been. They have had 6 years, without interference from Israel, to prepare for this fight. The IDF is ready to bring in more of its forces, if they are needed. There was nothing hasty about the operations as small incursions by Israel had been in the planning stages for several years now. Israel is not concerned about an exit strategy, they are concerned about doing what is necessary to prevent their towns from being rocketed. If that means they have to take more territory and hold onto, that is what they will do. If it means removing all Lebanese citizens whether they are in Hezbollah or not, from an area within 20 miles of the Israeli border, that is what they will do.
Not everyone describes the Israeli experience in Lebanon from 1982 to 2000 to be a quagmire. It did protect Israeli territory and certainly prevented the rocketing of Israeli towns that we are seeing at the moment. Critics of the pullout commented that it would only strengthen Hezbollah for the next fight, and now these critics have been proven correct. The occupation of Lebanon did cost Israel 675 troops over 18 years, but that is far from anything that can legitimately be called a "quagmire". That works out to average of 37 troops per year and is a tiny fraction of what Israel has lossed in its other wars as well as being comparable to losses from fighting in the West Bank and Gaza. No one wants to see an increase in IDF casualties at all, but if moving into parts of Lebanon is necessary for the security and safety of Israeli citizens, then the IDF is prepared to do that.
Irans position is not improved when it has 150,000 US troops in the country on its Western border and another 20,000 in the country on its eastern border. Iran has never in its history been surounded by that level of combat power. Saddam had a strong military and cut the Iranian military to pieces in 1988 destroying 50% of its forces within a few months, but I'd be more afraid of 21 US armored and mechanized brigades backed up by the worlds largest Air Force than I would Saddam's military.
Hezbollah has tactically made a huge error and now military forces and equipment that has taken Hezbollah and its allies years to build up and cost hundreds of millions of dollars is being rapidly destroyed or used up.
If you think that benefits Iran, ok. I'm sure the leaders in Iran would prefer to see Israel being bombed without any sort of response against Hezbollah.
Iran continues to have a standard of living comparable to the Palestinian Occupied territories, while their military forces in terms of equipment and real power projection capability continue to remain limited, requiring the country to operate and hide behind non-state actors.