Decision ‘08

The Lesson Of The Six-Day War? Strike Syria, Before It’s Too Late

That’s the message of Michael Oren, author of the excellent history Six Days Of War: June 1967 And The Making Of The Modern Middle East, who says the current strategy of Israel is the recipe for a regional war, and that, ironically, the way to avoid that outcome is to strike Syria, quickly:

The answer lies in delivering an unequivocal blow to Syrian ground forces deployed near the Lebanese border. By eliminating 500 Syrian tanks–tanks that Syrian President Bashar Al Assad needs to preserve his regime–Israel could signal its refusal to return to the status quo in Lebanon. Supporting Hezbollah carries a prohibitive price, the action would say. Of course, Syria could respond with missile attacks against Israeli cities, but given the dilapidated state of Syria’s army, the chances are greater that Assad will simply internalize the message. Presented with a choice between saving Hezbollah and staying alive, Syria’s dictator will probably choose the latter. And the message of Israel’s determination will also be received in Tehran.

Any course of military action carries risks, especially in the unpredictable Middle East. But if the past is any guide, and if the Six Day War presents a paradigm of an unwanted war that might have been averted with an early, well-placed strike at Syria, then Israel’s current strategy in Lebanon deserves to be rethought. If Syria escapes unscathed and Iran undeterred, Israel will remain insecure.

Meanwhile, Israeli ground troops briefly entered Lebanese territory to battle Hezbollah forward positions, but apparently returned to Israel fairly quickly…

13 Responses to “The Lesson Of The Six-Day War? Strike Syria, Before It’s Too Late”

1 Anonymous Liberal Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 8:48 am
That strikes me as an extraordinarily reckless idea. An unprovoked attack on Syria would force Syria to respond, and it might even provoke other Arab countries to join the conflict. This thing could quickly escalate way out of control. Plus, even if Israel was able to significantly weaken Syria’s military capacity without provoking major retaliation (a prospect I find highly doubtful) it’s not clear how turning Syria into another failed state helps Israel or anyone else.
2 Classical Values Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Raging RINOs, long may they range!

After more than three years of blogging, I’m finally hosting a carnival — a new first for me. And I don’t get new firsts that often, so this ought to be considered cause for celebration. Over the years, I’ve written…
3 mtl Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 9:06 am
I sadly concur with AL that syria, for now, should not be the focus. Were they to get involved in Lebanon on a larger scale, a strong ‘rebuke’ of a military nature would be justifed.

I still think that Israel does not wish to actually put troops into Lebanon, but will perform a lot of fakes-that will keep tensions high. I saw an interview with Natan Sharansky, and he characterized Olmert as a center-left guy.

Only a right leaning candidate would embark upon a full fledged invasion. The threat of invasion/occupation is what is driving the Europeans and Arabs into accelerating their responses. The Israelis will keep the appearrnace of the threat, while continuing to bomb any targets of opportunity. The Israeli goal?

Get forces in Southern Lebanon, but non-Israeli forces. The previous UN resolution calling for the disbanding of Hezbollah in Lebanon is unenforceable while no foreign troops have a reason for being stationed there. The Israeli strategy is to give them a reason.
4 mtl Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 9:27 am
“This thing could quickly escalate way out of control.”

That is the general fear, but it is formed thru a prism that is 20 years old.

Have any tried explaining the mechanics of how it actually does ‘get out of control’?

The only two countries that have any true commitment to Lebanon AND Hezbollah are Syria and Iran. Both could effectively lose their air force in 3 days or less. Neither is in the position to exacerbate the conflict to a point where it could get out of control or risk suffering air campaigns that would greatly embarass/cripple them. When the host country, Lebanon, would rather see Hezbollah gone forever as opposed to supporting them-very different from 82-it is a losing proposition for Syria and Iran.

The lack of a unified Arab front has made this all possible, limiting the potential for escalation.
5 mtl Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Just heard koffi say that they need to get all parties involved in a discussion.

Somehow I don’t think that Hezbollah would be invited, and it would be too obvious if Syria and Iran were to try and openly speak as if they are involved.

The gist of the conversation that will be had at the UN?
Govt of Lebanon: we don’t want Israelis of Hezbollah using our country for their war.

Israel: we don’t want Hezbollah in southern lebanon, we don’t want to be forced to invade, but we will.

UN: didn’t we have some Resolution around here? Does the govt of Lebanon mind if we enforce it?

Lebanon: Go ahead, we’ll take anybodies help but jews.

Crisis resolved. (The rate determining step will be who sends forces, and when they get around to organizing it-2 months.)

-my advice to the US-no ships in close range. Way to big a target, and clearly the tech out there is a lot better than it was.
6 mtl Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 10:36 am
I just realized that the scorn at Bush foreign policy that is being heaped on him, is going to make the inevitable outcome that much more attributable to him.

The left has been diminshing the achievments in Lebanon, despite the fact that the Syrians were forced to openly leave Lebanon. (some were even critical that little had been accomlsihed becuase Syria kept a shadowy control thru Hezbollah) Now phase two of Lebanese liberation is in the works.

The outcome of the current conflict is that Hezbollah will be driven out of Southern Lebanon, probably by a coaliton.

In the grand scheme of lending stability to the region, removing foreign influences in Lebanon is a good place to continue the Bush doctrine. It will continue to isolate Syria and Iran. The next steps will be turning Syria against Iran, but that is for another day…
7 mtl Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/israels_new_fear_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

Ralph Peters for ground invasion-love the guy, but couldn’t disgree more. He sees it as a show of weakness, but I see it as giving the Israeli’s more to bargain with, especially without the cost.
8 dmac Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Big difference here in the relative dates - back then, the Israelis had men like Ariel Sharon, Shimon Peres and Moshe Dayan to lead their defense forces.
9 harrison Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
The thing is, the Lebanese aren’t doing anything substantial or consequential enough to force/persuade/coerce Nasrallah to back down, because he believes that the Lebanese people are right behind him against Israel, therefore he will not simply relinquish this galvanising tool even if the other factions call for Hizbollah to disarm.

These other factions opposed to Nasrallah and his ilk are afraid of the public support Hizbollah possesses, or perhaps some of these politicians are collaborators who have made a pact with the Syrians in order to perpetuate a servile puppet regime in Lebanon just so to remain in power under the guise of a “democracy”. Who knows what personal ambition can convince a man to do?

Honestly, I don’t see any internal forces within Lebanon arising to deal with Hizbollah’s rampaging Katyusha-ing of Israel, neither will anyone have the political clout to demand Nasrallah to withdraw and return the hostages safely to Israel. What is required now is to prevent Syria and Iran from exploiting Lebanon as a proxy.

Israel definitely does not intend to occupy Lebanon, but what the IDF should do is push Hizbollah all the way back to behind Syria’s border with Lebanon. This can only be done via ground operations, destroying Hizbollah infrastructure and personnel. If the Lebanese really want to help, they should stand out of the way and not commit themselves to acting as human shields for these terrorists.

That said, the Lebanese have every right to be angered by the Israeli air strikes. First of all, targeting Lebanese infrastructure is going to set the country back by a couple of years in terms of civil institutions, necessities like power and water supply; secondly, there is still no marked deterioration or crippling of Hizbollah’s propensity for launching Katyushas into Israel, which if not obvious enough, should mean that the IDF is striking very few worthwhile targets. It’s time to change tack.

A UN peacekeeping force sounds to me much like boys with sticks; just look at Darfur and you can see why there’s not much faith at all. If we can trust anybody to create a security force to protect Lebanon’s borders, we should turn to Iraq, Egypt, Jordan to provide troops while the UN can send personnel over to oversee the nurturing or Lebanon’s government. Of course, the IDF may partake in the military aspect, but only restricted to an auxillary role (the Lebanese aren’t too keen on occupation, and they don’t like the Israelis that much), perhaps providing air support.

With that secured in place, the next time Hizbollah threatens to launch Katyushas over into Lebanon from inside Syria, it would be wise to think twice: if there was a target Israel would hold responsible and attack in retaliation, who would it be? Damascus.

The denying of proxies to Syria (and Iran) will allow Israel to punish them repeatedly and commensurately at such immediate and close proximity. Without Lebanon as a buffer zone from which to order attacks from, Bashar al-Assad will be forced to confront Israel and its provisional allies helping out in Lebanon at its doorstep, or risk the type of bombardment of Syrian infrastructure on a daily basis like what Lebanese are experiencing now.
10 mtl Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
I’m not to quick to blame Lebanon. The Syrians killed Hariri, the most powerful man in Lebanon and well regarded throughout the ME.

There is no leader of his stutre that syands a chance of emerging while the Syrian arm of Hezbollah is swinging a sword.

Just saw the Lebanese pm pull a 180-from openly discussing Hezbollah to damning the Israelis in a day. I do wonder what messages he has received regarding his family and friends.
11 The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » Richard Cohen Offers some Bad Advice Says:
July 18th, 2006 at 9:28 am
[…] HT/ Decision08 […]
12 Stop The ACLU Says:
July 18th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Cohen: Israel Is A Mistake

Wow! What a busy day! I am swamped with things I have to get done, but had a short break and thought I should get something up. So, it seems the most outrageous statement of the day will work. That is what a lot of people are talking about, so I&#8…
13 harrison Says:
July 18th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
I almost choked on my morning coffee while reading it. Utterly unacceptable!