I don't know what's happening. This is the first time that the War on Terror, and indeed, all geostrategic actions since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has diverged from what I would have done. After all the effort that the Israelis have made, and wearing the cost of 3000 rocket attacks, they're letting Hizbullah survive. This will allow Hizbullah to continue to terrorize politicians opposed to them. They've still got the UNIFIL joke force instead of sending in NATO troops to do combat with Hizbullah. The only thing I can suggest is that they're still "playing". Because there is now an interesting question - "what will happen?". Crushing Hizbullah has a predictable outcome, but what happens if you just weaken it? Will the Lebanese government attempt to disband the Hizbullah now?

And we are also gaining time - time for the Anglophone troops to be freed up from the Iraqi theatre. Iraq is the last theatre that requires large numbers of troops. With all further enemies we can reuse the old military. Like I originally said, the Lebanon front was premature. I was hoping to liberate Iran and Syria first, using the pretext that they support terrorism (ie Hizbullah). This action restores that excuse. So all is not lost geostrategically. Another factor is that we can deal with Hizbullah using Anglophone troops, as our economies and military are far superior to Israel's, and we can do what is necessary to clean up Lebanon, in a way that the poor Jews can't. E.g. we can get rid of the Lebanese president who was appointed by Syria.

We should also bear in mind the goal of getting Israel into NATO. This is desperately required so that the Israelis do not need to live in fear. Protecting and strengthening the free world is the geostrategic objective. Ultimately we want every country in the world to join NATO.

UPDATE: Here is someone else's theory as to why we had a premature ceasefire.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?