I know that in every war, the soldiers like to kvetch and complain. But it strikes me the complaining is notably loud, notably early among Israel’s attack force going into Lebanon.
HaAretz’s Roni Singer-Heruti writes in Thursday’s paper:
- “I feel like we’ve been thrown into the field and told to get along,” Ram Dagan, who serves with a combat unit called up to the Lebanese border 10 days ago, said on his first leave. “I’m not talking about showers, not even about the food that’s lacking, but about basic equipment to protect us. The helmets we’ve been issued are old-fashioned and hardly can be closed, and the body armor is 30 years old. It doesn’t close on the sides or on the neck. We don’t have a place to take shelter from rocket attack, and we are under fire all the time. We’ve been told that when we come under fire we should go into the APCs. But there are too many soldiers and not enough APCs. And anyway, they’re not missile-proof,” he said…
There’s more.
This is yet more evidence to me that the current assault against Lebanon was not long pre-planned but is being conducted by the strategically illiterate Olmert and Peretz almost completely on-the-fly and day-to-day.
I’ve been trying to define what the IDF/IOF’s actual war aims are as they conduct their horrendously lethal business in Lebanon. I think that, inasmuch as Olmert and Peretz are not merely acting out of childish pique and machismo (though let’s not misunderestimate that portion of their motivation) they probably are determined to try to “re-establish the credibility of the Israeli deterrent”. But they’ve already notably failed in doing so. The battering they gave Lebanon on July 12 did not cause Hizbullah to hold its fire on Juoly 13; and so on and on and on, every day since then.
Hizbullah, of course, is equally determined to to makes its point about not being deterred by Israel’s much greater display and use of lethal might.
Personally, I think Hizbullah has amply made its point by now and could simply retire from the battlefield with good grace, having proven that it is not beaten and not cowed, and therefore that the fates of Israel and its Arab neighbors are indeed tied together in interdependence rather than the region being in a situation where Israel can exercize its colonial domination as it desires over all its neighbors, quite unchecked from any quarter.
Israel, I believe, has failed to make its point. But that uncomfortable fact likely won’t stop Olmert and Peretz from proceeding and proceeding, digging themselves deeper into the mud of the Lebanese quagmire and the opprobrium of the civilized world with each week that passes.
There is a model for this, of course: the Bush administration “staying the course” on a road headed for a quite evident brick wall in Iraq.
Meanwhile, Hizbullah continues to say that it supports Fouad Siniora’s very sensible seven-point peace plan. Siniora spelled out the plan— once again– for a Washington readership in today’s WaPo.
Here’s what he wrote:
- The plan, which also received the full support of the 56 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, included an immediate, unconditional and comprehensive cease-fire and called for:
* The release of Lebanese and Israeli prisoners and detainees through the International Committee of the Red Cross.
* The withdrawal of the Israeli army behind the “blue line.”
* A commitment from the U.N. Security Council to place the Shebaa Farms and Kfar Shouba Hills areas under U.N. jurisdiction until border delineation and Lebanese sovereignty over them are fully settled. Further, Israel must surrender all maps of remaining land mines in southern Lebanon to the United Nations.
* Extension of the Lebanese government’s authority over its territory through its legitimate armed forces, with no weapons or authority other than that of the Lebanese state, as stipulated in the Taif accord. We have indicated that the Lebanese armed forces are ready and able to deploy in southern Lebanon, alongside the U.N. forces there, the moment Israel pulls back to the international border.
* The supplementing of the U.N. international force operating in southern Lebanon and its enhancement in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, as needed, to undertake urgent humanitarian and relief work and guarantee stability and security in the south so that those who fled their homes can return.
* Action by the United Nations on the necessary measures to once again put into effect the 1949 armistice agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel and to ensure adherence to its provisions, as well as to explore possible amendments to or development of those provisions as necessary.
* The commitment of the international community to support Lebanon on all levels, including relief, reconstruction and development needs.
As part of this comprehensive plan, and empowered by strong domestic political support and the unanimous backing of the cabinet, the Lebanese government decided to deploy the Lebanese armed forces in southern Lebanon as the sole domestic military force in the area, alongside U.N. forces there, the moment Israel pulls back to the international border.
Israel responded by slaughtering more civilians in the biblical town of Qana. Such horrible scenes have been repeated daily for nearly four weeks and continue even as I write these words.
The resolution to this war must respect international law and U.N. resolutions, not just those selected by Israel, a state that deserves its reputation as a pariah because of its consistent disdain for and rejection of international law and the wishes of the international community for over half a century…
What on earth is there to object to in any of the seven points, or in the call for an “immediate, unconditional and comprehensive cease-fire”? I believe the Siniora plan and the Siniora government should receive strong and immediate backing from all who want the suffering– on both sides of the international border– to end.
(And then all those suffering Israeli soldiers can finally return to the comforts of their homes…. While the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese whose neighborhoods and infrastructure have been obliterated by the IDF/IOF soldiers’ work get to return to– what? Well, at least to an opportunity to rebuild their homes and their lives.)
We have indicated that the Lebanese armed forces are ready and able to deploy in southern Lebanon, alongside the U.N. forces there…
Fouad Siniora’s insistence notwithstanding, it is hard to whip up much confidence in the capability of the Lebanese armed forces or the UNIFIL force. What exactly have they done in the 6 years following the departure of the Israelis to cope with the growing Hezbollah threat to merit such confidence? They certainly did not lack motivation. Hezbollah’s military preparations over this period clearly posed more of a threat to Lebanon’s security and sovereignty than to Israel.
I find that Siniora’s plan is remarkable. It is very moderate; it doesn’t even ask for war compensations.
Yesterday Chirac eventually criticized the US position, who is blocking any amendment to the actual resolution project and refusing to introduce Lebanon’s legitimate requests. He had strong words, stating that US position was imoral and that France was going to propose amendments to the actual project alone if the US continued her obstruction (for what it is worth.. since the US has this veto right).
Ken Silverstein’s Israel’s March of Folly article should be required reading.
http://www.harpers.org/sb-israels-march-of-folly-1154984970.html
Oh my God, why won’t they at least spare us the whining of the conquering warriors who demand comfort and safety for their mission of slaughter and destruction!
Shirin, if you liked Silverstein’s piece, you’ll just LOVE Richard Holbrooke:
“For starters, [Bush] should redeploy some U.S. troops into the safer northern areas of Iraq to serve as a buffer between the increasingly agitated Turks and the restive, independence-minded Kurds. . . . At the same time, we should send more troops to Afghanistan.”
“Containing the violence must be Washington’s first priority. Finding a stable and secure solution that protects Israel must follow. Then must come the unwinding of America’s disastrous entanglement in Iraq in a manner that is not a complete humiliation and does not lead to even greater turmoil.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080901514.html
So acccording to this supposed critic of the current administration, our national priorities should be:
1. Get our troops to a “safer” area of Iraq, among those “restive, independence-minded Kurds.” (how quaint)
2. Kill more people in Afghanistan. (sure, why not)
3. Protect Israel (always on any list of priorities)
4. Avoid “complete humiliation.” (this is a tough one)
Israeli reserve batallions, and to a lesser extent, non-elite combat formations, are quite often deficient in protective technology. It would be interesting to know if the APCs the soldier is complaining about are the new toys developed during the LAST Lebanon intervention. However, most printed sources indicate that Israeli forces have gotten a lot better in terms of force protection, and the old M-60s (tank, not MG) on CNN and FOX have been few and far between, and those few obviously upgraded, while the state-of-the art Ahzarit APCs and Merkava tanks predominate. However, thanks to Putin’s marketing strategies, even state-of-the-art isn’t always enough.
It seems that the Israelis are in fact leading with the IAF and elite combat formations, not “infantry of the line.”