http://www.defensetech.org/

Hezbollah, Deadly Hybrid
We've hinted at this a couple of times since the fight between Israel and Hezbollah began. But the terror group, "with the sophistication of a national army... and the lethal invisibility of a guerrilla army" is a new breed of military animal. "A hybrid," Thom Shanker writes. "Old labels, and old planning, do not apply."

Hezbollah still possesses the most dangerous aspects of a shadowy terror network. It abides by no laws of war as it attacks civilians indiscriminately. Attacks on its positions carry a high risk of killing innocents. At the same time, it has attained military capabilities and other significant attributes of a nation-state. It holds territory and seats in the Lebanese government. It fields high-tech weapons and possesses the firepower to threaten the entire population of a regional superpower, or at least those in the northern half of Israel....

"We are in a world today where we have a non-state actor using all the tools of weaponry," from drone aircraft to rockets to computer hacking, said P.W. Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in the impact of new technologies on national security.

But John Robb, who's been examining this kind of "open source warfare" for years, says that "the central secret to Hezbollah's success" isn't in its weaponry. It's in the terrorists' ability to have its "guerrillas to make decisions autonomously... at the small group level."

In every area -- from firing rockets to defending prepared positions... -- we have examples of Hezbollah teams deciding, adapting, innovating, and collaborating without reference to any central authority. The result of this decentralization is that Hezbollah's aggregate decision cycles are faster and qualitatively better than those of their Israeli counterparts... the continued success of its efforts has put the Israelis on the horns of a dilemma: either request a ceasefire or push for a full invasion of southern Lebanon (each fraught with disastrous consequences).

And not just for Israel. "Other terrorists are learning from Hezbollah’s successes," Shanker notes. Iraqi insurgents are showing a similar blend of operational flexibility and modern technology. To beat these groups, the U.S. is going to have to learn that it "takes a network to fight a network."

American intelligence agencies and the military proved it can fight this kind of war, as it did in Afghanistan to rout Al Qaeda, when intelligence officers and small groups of Army Special Forces worked with local fighters to call in devastating air strikes and drive the Taliban from power.

Within the Bush administration and across the military, a clearer view is emerging out of the chaos in southern Lebanon. It is that nation-states know they cannot directly take on superpowers — either regional or global — without getting their clocks cleaned, and so they use proxies they train and support to take the fight to those superpowers. The fight against groups like Hezbollah requires a strategy for dealing with their sponsors. These networks, Hezbollah included, don’t float around in the ether like free electrons bumping into each other. They alight. They attach themselves to territory. In Afghanistan it was with the full support of the Taliban. In Pakistan, it’s an ungoverned space. In Lebanon, it’s a state within a state. Cut off state support, or eliminate the ability of the networks to survive in ungoverned areas, and they collapse on themselves.

No solution has been written. But it would include military force along with diplomacy, economic assistance, intelligence and information campaigns.

"Most critically, we have to get better at — it’s such a clich頦#151; winning hearts and minds," said a military officer working on counterinsurgency issues. "That is influencing neutral populations toward supporting us and not supporting our terrorist and insurgent enemies."

And so the zillion-dollar question becomes: Do big air campaigns and large-scale invasions really influence those opinions in a positive way? Or do they just play into the terrorists' hands?

UPDATE 07/31/06 4:07 PM: Anthony Cordesman's answer: The U.S. -- and Israel's -- current course is "stupid, incompetent, and obsolete." Youch.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002588.html

Hezbollah's Biggest Missile Yet
Watching the news over the last few years, we've grown accustomed to seeing terrorists as a low-tech threat -- guys who hijack airplanes with pocket knives and make bombs out of leftover parts. And that threat has been plenty scary, on its own.

But in recent days, we're starting to see what happens when Islamic extremists get their hands on the relatively sophisticated arsenal of a country like Iran. Talk about terror.

On Sunday, Hezbollah again struck Haifa -- a city untouched by the militia until a few days ago -- using its biggest and most powerful missile yet. It's one of 800 rockets Hezbollah has launched against Israel in the last five days.

The weapon "hit a busy railway maintenance building, destroying the roof, killing eight, wounding more than 20 and leaving congealing pools of blood on the platform," the Times reports. "Israel said [the missile] was a Syrian-produced model of a Iranian Fajr-3 model, [which Tehran claims can avoid radars and carry multiple warheads -- ed.]. [It] has a range of more than 30 miles and carries a warhead with about 100 pounds of high explosives, which includes antipersonnel shrapnel, a significant change from the smaller Katyushas that Hezbollah has mostly been using."

And there may be worse to come, Ha'Aretz warns.

The fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah, which is backed by Syria and Iran, has still not reached its zenith. The Israel Defense Forces' operational plans against the Shi'ite organizations have not yet been carried out. The next two days are the most critical and a lot depends on whether Tehran decides to take a chance and authorize Hezbollah to launch long-range missiles with more powerful warheads. This is a capability Hezbollah still retains, despite the heavy blows it has suffered in the IDF air strikes.

http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_crame...ar_into_is.html

Monday, July 17, 2006
How Far into Israel Can Hezbollah Reach?
I did a graphic in Google Earth exploring Hezbollah's bombing reach, extraploating from the bombing of Afula last night.

Bill Roggio at the Counterterrorism Blog has a good discussion of the implications: IDF enters Lebanon, a new buffer zone?

Idan at Pixane.net was curious about how the graphic was created, and I wrote a long comment describing the process and what I had in mind. I like the comment enough that I'll add it here:

Glad you like the map. Here’s how I did it. I’m in the vanilla free version of GE on a Mac.

First I did a map, making radii around Afula. I did this by using the GE measuring tool and using an ugly overlay of a circle I’d made in Photoshop. I made 3 radii at 100 km increments. (This was flat on in GE without any tilt.) There are a number of different missile systems to be considered, and so the depiction of radii had to somehow take into account that estimates of what missiles were in use could change hourly. Also, certain assumptions needed to be made. So I made some based on information gleaned from that initial graphic.

I saved several images from GE with identical positioning: with and without the ugly overlay. Then I brought it into Photoshop and made a prettier overlay that looked like a seeping red stain centered in Southern Lebanon. (Not right at the border but in a bit.) Also, because I was having to make a lot of fuzzy assumptions, I feathered the edges of my red stain circle overlay (radius 150 km). I’m not sure how to handle the transparency issues for taking images from Photoshop into GE, so I used the barebones GE view of the place I was planning to put the overlay as a background in Photoshop.

Then I took it all into GE and dropped my 150 km radius in as an overlay and tipped it at the angle I wanted to view it at. That was nice, but there weren’t enough cities marked and there wasn’t enough fine gradation that would allow for considering different scenarios involving missile ranges. I added locations in GE using a map I used as an overlay and then discarded. And I made a fuzzy concentric circle overlay in Photoshop to replace the red stain.

One mistake I made while I was playing with the many drafts is that the Helvetica bold county tags slid around while I was working and I wasn’t paying enough attention to them in the final draft. So my first release had some countries mislabeled. Once someone pointed that out, it took me about 2 minutes to fix.

But the basic idea behind the technique was to use Photoshop as a workaround for things I could envision in GE but didn’t know a fast way to do.

There were a lot of intermediate drafts, including one involving population densities, for example. Total work time: 4 - 5 hours. Also, I solicited comments from people more knowledgable than I am about weapons systems.

The reactions it has provoked are interesting. About 13,000 people have viewed it on my Flickr account since I posted it yesterday. Other than the comments making (or attempting to make) corrections, most of the comments related to it have addressed what is perceived as the map’s political point of view. Regular readers of my blog will not have seen day-by-day pro-Israel rhetoric out of me. What the map represents for me is a sudden change in the military situation in a very volatile region.

A few months ago, during the Iranian military maneuvers, Iran’s military was giving the world to understand that they could take out Israel any time they wanted, partly through proxies like Hezbollah. And that this would be part of a program dealing retribution to the US if the US attempted to stop their nuclear program. So here we are a few months later, and little pieces of this military program are being demonstrated. For the moment, this is about a war taking place in Israel and Lebanon. But I think the implications are much larger. Six years into the 21st century, we are getting a glimpse of things to come.

Posted by Kathryn on Monday, July 17, 2006 at 12:28 PM in GoogleEarth, Hezbollah, Israel, Terrorist Attacks | Permalink

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002591.html

Hezbollah's Surprise Weapons
Wonder why the Israelis thought their ship had been hit by a drone last week -- when it turned out to be a radar-guided missile instead? Or why the crew of the Hanit corvette didn't use their countermeasures to protect themselves? Simple: the Sabras knew that Hezbollah had been playing with drones; they had no idea that the terrorist group had such a sophisticated missile in their arsenal. It's one of a number of ways that the "power and sophistication" of Hezbollah's arms "has caught the United States and Israel off guard," the Times reports. "Officials in both countries are just now learning the extent to which the militant group has succeeded in getting weapons from Iran and Syria."

The missile that hit the Hanit was a C-802, an Iranian-made variant of a stealthy, turbojet-powered, Chinese weapon. It's "considered along with the US 'Harpoon' as among the best anti-ship missiles" in the world, GlobalSecurity.org says.

"Iran began buying dozens of those sophisticated antiship missiles from the Chinese during the 1990’s," the Times notes. "Until Friday, however, Western intelligence services did not know that Iran had managed to ship C-802 missiles to Hezbollah."

Now that the Israelis know, it's influencing their choice of targets to hit. The C-802 was most likely "fired it from a truck-mounted launcher cued by a coastal radar installation," Situational Awareness says. So "Israel has stepped up its attacks against coastal radar sites, as any sort of surface-search set would be able to provide data for the initial launch."

After launch, the missile takes care of itself with its own inertial guidance system and onboard radar seeker. Since the launchers are mobile, the trucks carrying them could scoot after firing. And we all know how notoriously difficult it can be to locate mobile units, even when you have lots of reconnaissance assets.

The terrorists' more traditional weapons, like Katyusha rockets and Fajr-3 missiles, have contained surprises, too. "In the past, we’d see three, four, maybe eight launches at any given time if Hezbollah was feeling feisty," one unnammed official told the paper. "Now we see them arriving in large clusters, and with a range and even certain accuracy we have not seen in the past."

70 Katyushas were fired at Israel "within the space of an hour" on Wednesday afternoon, Ha'Aretz writes. Israel is responding by sending small group of ground troops into Lebanon, and by striking targets in Beruit -- including ones in the Christian part of town.

The Times says that "while Iranian missile supplies to Hezbollah, either by sea or overland via Syria, were well known, officials said the current conflict also indicated that some of the rockets in Hezbollah’s arsenal — including a 220-millimeter rocket used in a deadly attack on a railway site in Haifa on Sunday — were built in Syria."

Officials have since confirmed that the warhead on the Syrian rocket was filled with ball bearings — a method of destruction used frequently in suicide bombings but not in warhead technology.

"We’ve never seen anything like this," said one Western intelligence official, speaking about the warhead.

Conflicts Forum's Mark Perry, on the other hand, isn't as alarmed as most about Hezbollah's weaponry. {Joe Katzman says that's because the guy is a terrorist shill.} Perry declares that the militia only has a handful of sophisticated and long-range missiles. Check out his All Things Considered interview here.

UPDATE 1:43 PM: "Israeli military officials have warned that the next Palestinian uprising could be 'a ballistic intifada,'" the Washington Post reports.

(Big ups: Umansky)

UPDATE 7:13 PM: The Jerusalem Post is reporting that "IAF fighter jets dropped over 20 tons in bombs late Wednesday night on a Hizbullah bunker, possibly the hiding place of the group's leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, in the Bourj al-Barajneh refugee camp in southeast Beirut. It was still unclear who was in the bunker at the time and what their fate was, but IDF sources said the bunker was totally destroyed and that all that was left was a crater."

July 19, 2006 11:06 AM | Ammo and Munitions, Missiles, Terror Tech

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001737.html

Open Source" Insurgents Rise
A few days ago, a Marine Corps major, David High, argued that the fight in Iraq isn't really an insurgency at all.


There is not a web of like-minded (much less amenable) patriots gaining succor and inspiration from the populace. There are a thousand disparate cabals and petit punks and opportunists, each with competing motivations and interests... The permutations are endless and motivations intertwined.

All of which, from what I've understand, is interesting and true; I've heard reports of more than 75 distinct groups fighting the U.S. over there. But it's also kind of irrelevant. Because these insurgents may not need a cohesive ideology to thrive. Technology, in many ways, has taken its place.

It used to be that a small group of ideological-driven guerilla leaders would spread information, tactics, training, and cash to their followers. No more. Internet-enabled insurgents with only the loosest of real-world connections can now share all of that freely online. These guys don't have to like each other. They don't have to agree with one another. They don't even have to interact, really. All they have to do is post material to the Net. John Robb -- who's doing some of the smartest thinking and writing around on the subject -- calls it "Open Source warfare."

Without using the term themselves, the Washington Post has just finished a must-read three-part series on these Open Source guerillas. Here's a snippet from today's final installment:

An entire online network of Zarqawi supporters serves as backup for his insurgent group in Iraq, providing easily accessible advice on the best routes into the country, trading information down to the names of mosques in Syria that can host a would-be fighter, and eagerly awaiting the latest posting from the man designated as Zarqawi's only official spokesman.

"The technology of the Internet facilitated everything," declared a posting this spring by the Global Islamic Media Front, which often distributes Zarqawi messages on the Internet...

This and other Arabic-language forums hosted discussions on the latest news from Iraq, provided a place for swapping tips on tradecraft, circulated religious justifications for jihad, and acted as intermediary between would-be fighters and their would-be recruiters...

Many postings to the boards were not official statements from al Qaeda but unsolicited advice, such as the recent notice called "the road to Mesopotamia" posted on an underground Syrian extremist site, in which one veteran offered a detailed scouting report, down to advice on bribing Syrian police and traveling to the border areas by claiming to be on a fishing trip.

The bulletin boards also make information quickly available from Iraq, where fighters are gaining combat experience against the U.S. military. In one case cited by John Arquilla, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in California, would-be insurgents in the Sahara Desert were able to ask for -- and receive -- information from the ground in Iraq about how best to build bombs.

In this way, the new Iraqi "non-insurgency" may be tougher to beat, ultimately, than the more ideological guerillas of the past. With such a diverse band sharing information so quickly, there's no one "leader" or group of leaders to eliminate. In fact, taking out the most visible leaders might only make the Open Source network more efficient, by eliminating unnecessary nodes.

Some might read Major High's comments, and take comfort. Me, I'm nervous as hell.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/global...ecrets_of_.html

THE SECRETS OF HEZBOLLAH'S SUCCESS
"We are in a world today where we have a non-state actor using all the tools of weaponry... That’s what this new 21st-century warfare is going to look like. We have now entered an era where non-states or quasi-states do a lot better militarily than states do." Peter Singer (Brookings, author of "Corporate Warriors") in reference to Hezbollah's performance against the Israeli military. From a NYTimes article by Thom Shanker.
Although Peter Singer's statement is likely unsupported, he does stumble onto a conclusion that captures the essence of the moment. Hezbollah's performance in a set-piece battle with the Israeli military (arguably once, a top notch conventional military) is an excellent example of how non-state groups have radically improved their ability to conduct tactical and strategic operations. To wit, the continued success of its efforts has put the Israelis on the horns of a dilemma: either request a ceasefire that locks in military defeat - or - push for a full invasion of southern Lebanon (each are fraught with disastrous consequences).

Organizational Improvements

The central secret to Hezbollah's success is that it trained its (global) guerrillas to make decisions autonomously (classic 4GW), at the small group level. In every area -- from firing rockets to defending prepared positions to media routing around jamming/disruption -- we have examples of Hezbollah teams deciding, adapting, innovating, and collaborating without reference to any central authority. The result of this decentralization is that Hezbollah's aggregate decision cycles are faster and qualitatively better than those of their Israeli counterparts.

Hybrid Methods/Systems

Ancillary to the improvements in organizational design (unlikely to be replicated at the state level), Hezbollah also demonstrated its ability to supercharge antiquated conventional weaponry/tactics with off-the-shelf technology to create weapons systems and hybrid tactics attuned to defeating Israeli military systems. We can expect to see this behavior accelerate among non-state groups as readily available commercial technology continues its pace of radical improvement.

Extracting an Economic Toll

Hezbollah's success against Israel codifies two strategic methods that we will see global guerrillas emulate. The first is the value of strategic coercion through economic attrition. Ongoing disruption of the Israeli economy through rocket attacks attaches a quantifiable strategic cost to the conflict. This offensive decisively couples what was previously separate: ground/air offensives by the Israeli military against non-state groups in the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon -- and -- domestic economic/social activity in Israel (business as usual). If Hezbollah remains intact, nothing will be the same. With the economic clock ticking (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a day), Israel has been forced into an aggressive air campaign to accelerate progress on the ground against missile launch sites and interdict resupply of new missiles from Syria. This air campaign has backfired due to the asymmetry of targets, in that Israeli air strikes have alienated the Lebanese government and increased the moral cohesion of its foes.

Leveraging force protection and an aversion to casualties

A second strategic method is to trade territory (something a non-state organization is easily able to ante up) for the blood of professional soldiers and delay. The intent is demonstrated by Hezbollah's dispersal of units across a wide geographic area in small autonomous units (defense in depth, rather than concentrating its defenses along the border). This deployment clearly shows Hezbollah's willingness to trade ground for the lives of Israeli soldiers and time. It succeeds by leveraging the aversion to casualties and dedication to force protection found in modern Western militaries (these men are professionally educated and therefore considered too valuable for use as cannon fodder). An aversion to casualties ensures that assaults by conventional militaries will bog down if faced with stiff opposition, until intense applications of firepower to clear the path (which is made much less effective due to Hezbollah's high level of dispersion and fortifications). Time is a factor that clearly works particularly in the favor of Hezbollah (due to the potential of a widening conflict) and more generally in favor of any non-state group fighting a state.

Posted by John Robb on Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 10:33 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5547981

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference THE SECRETS OF HEZBOLLAH'S SUCCESS:

» Now time is working against Israel, not for. from I, Hans.
Global Guerrillas: THE SECRETS OF HEZBOLLAH'S SUCCESS: Hezbollah's performance in a set-piece battle with the Israeli military (arguably, pound for pound, the best conventional military in the world) is an excellent example of how non-state groups ... [Read More]

Tracked on Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 11:49 AM

» 4GW in Lebanon from Trends I'm Watching
Trend: Traditional military power is not dominating battles and wars against small groups of well-trained and well-armed guerrillas in the Middle East. Fourth generation warfare (4GW) is a concept defined in 1989 by a team of American analysts, includi... [Read More]

Tracked on Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 10:15 PM

» Something to think about from Empire Builder
[Read More]

Tracked on Monday, July 31, 2006 at 02:38 AM

» http://www.abstractdynamics.org/linkage/archives/008151.html from linkage
Global Guerrillas: THE SECRETS OF HEZBOLLAH'S SUCCESS... [Read More]

Tracked on Monday, July 31, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Comments
The other secret success, according to Mitch Prothero, is their secracy;

" "You can be a member of Hezbollah your entire life and never see a military wing fighter with a weapon," a Lebanese military intelligence official, now retired, once told me. "They do not come out with their masks off and never operate around people if they can avoid it. They're completely afraid of collaborators. They know this is what breaks the Palestinians -- no discipline and too much showing off." "

Posted by: Z | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 11:28 AM

From my perspective Hezbollah has one major advantage over the IDF: their mandate of operation. By definition the mandate of the Israeli Defense Forces is the defence of Israel. Thus anything the IDF does is geared towards reducing Israeli casualties and suffering. Hezbollah, while it presents itself to an extent as the defender of Lebanon, has a totally different mandate. In fact, where Hezbollah has failed up to now, and suffered in the Lebanese public opinion, is with that pretence. In reality Hezbollah has done nothing to defend Lebanon or the Lebanese. Quit the contrary, it started this conflict with total disregard for the welfare of the people of Lebanon, and is continuously using them as human shields.

What Hezbollah has been most successful at is playing a double game of being both a part of the Lebanese government and yet a separate entity from the Lebanese state. This forces Israel to fight a Lebanese military force, while being forced not to fight the Lebanese state itself.

Moreover, as has been discussed here in the past, any harm done to the Lebanese state can actually work in favor of Hezbollah. The incident at Qana is probably the best thing that has happened for the Hezbollah in the conflict up to now. Where as the Israeli civilian casualties at the worst thing that has happened for the IDF. Bottom line, its always easier to have a nihilistic mandate that a constructive one.

Posted by: Dan Shappir | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 12:11 PM

"This forces Israel to fight a Lebanese military force, while being forced not to fight the Lebanese state itself."

While I agree with some of what you say, I think its hard to argue Israel isn't also fighting the Lebanese state. You are, of course, correct that Hizbullah isn't burdened with encumberance of a state, while Israel is.

True also that mass civilian casualties work against Israel. But so long as casualties are a few at time, they tend to escape thw world's notice.

The same can be said for terrorism. It is viewed as dispicable by the rest of the world and tends to earn sympathy (rightfully so) for the victim. It also increases the public's support for the government and calls for revenge.

I disagree completely-as do most Lebanese- that Hizb does not protect Lebanon. While they did "start it" by attacking on Israeli teritory, this is hardly the first time Israel has struck Lebanon. The prime novelty is that this is the first time Lebanon has had any capability to strike back...a situation that neither Israel nor the U.S. can countenance.

The other novelty is that this is the first time Israel actually has a credible pretext. The pretext for 1982 was that the Abu Nidal group, which had no presence in Lebanon, attempted to assasinate an Israeli Ambasador (to England IIRC.) And the '78 pretext was two Israeli soldiers killed when they ran over a land mine IN LEBANON!

The third novelty is that, unlike other times, the IDF is reluctant to barrel through Lebanon. They may still do it, but they seem far less eager than in the past. Wether anyone wishes to admit it or not, that is deterence.

P.S., while you may sense that many people on this board are less than sympathetic to the Israeli POV, rest assured the opposite sentiment exists on any U.S. news channel, even after Qana II

Posted by: Z | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 12:36 PM

"Hezbollah's performance in a set-piece battle with the Israeli military (arguably, pound for pound, the best conventional military in the world) ..."

I heard this notion regarding the Israeli military during the 70's, post Vietnam era many times. While it may have been true then, I can't believe that anyone thinks that it still applies. The U.S. military has made incredible strides in tactical development and training over the past two decades which I would say are second to none.

On your other points regarding Hezbollah, I agree that they represent almost the perfect 4GW group for the situation that exists today in the ME. Being able to take advantage of the cover of a civilian populace (see this)
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,...5007220,00.html
with impugnity provides an incredible leverage for non-state groups. They have taken the time to understand the limitations of civilized warfare standards observed by state militaries and have successfully turned the odds in their own favor. Maybe Israel should declare Hama rules.
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/63P58.htm

Posted by: sammy small | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 01:48 PM

"The U.S. military has made incredible strides in tactical development and training over the past two decades which I would say are second to none."

For the conventional warfare part, yes.It is also obvious that at the same time they tried pretty damn hard to forget any lesson learned from counterinsurgency in Vietnam.
Which at the end of the day makes them a bunch of fools.

"Maybe Israel should declare Hama rules."

Then Olmert and his supporters would be the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein.And would deserve the same fate.


Posted by: Marcello | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 02:13 PM

Hama Rules! I remember reading that op-ed shortly after 9/11... Is it really apt? And, what are the implications of such a devastating mode of action? Last night I chatted with some friends regarding the conflict, and as war buffs they lit up with the mention of the alternatives.

My belief that Israel can become South Africa, the Third Reich, or retrench and reconsider its plight. Hama rules imply a sort of ethnic cleansing within the state of Israel as the threat increasingly will come from within demographically speaking. A recent article described the alternatives: Israel as an island, or as an actor within the broader middle-east. Sadly for all, the state has chosen to ensure that a smooth surface free from contaminants exists along their border. These contaminants are pissed.

Pragmatically, trying to live an austere germ free life has its consequences. I prefer the role of states, interacting with alternative social structures. Pretending that these have never existed and that there are not models for engagement is silly. As if W does not pander to religious groups, unions, and have to deal with issues like organized crime. Often these actors play roles within different structures (crimal politicians). Israel can act until it sickens itself with brutality or recognize that these groups are very simply all that remains within a region devoid of effective representative states.

While the US continues to destroy states, will they also continue to argue that they have no one with which to speak? This all strikes me as delusional child's-play. Children with munitions of course... It reminds me of the final chapter of "Non-Zero" were the choice is to become either an actor within the larger world or retrench into feuding isolationism. Israel, the US, and the various religious extremist groups all seem to be playing their roles.

Posted by: Nicholas Paredes | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 02:44 PM

Israel cannot have it both ways.
They can behave as a local thugocracy and proceed to bomb,nuke and torture anyone at their heart's content.But then no more propping up with billions of civilian and military aid, no more international sympathy (or what's left of it).If
ruthlesness succeeds, well.If they still go under,well, no tears shed.
OR they can play the civilized party, keep the billions and put up with the "expletive deleted" which comes with 4GW.

Posted by: Marcello | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 02:51 PM

Nonstate actors will always have an advantage in that they are lower on the entropy gradient than states. That is, a state is a more complex and highly-organized entity, and it must protect its complexity (economy, legal system, etc.) against those who intend to damage it by force.

A nonstate actor has no such constraints. To the extent that it provides any services to civilians, whatsoever, it will look "benevolent," even "heroic." Refuse collection once a month by a terrorist affiliate group is more "impressive" than refuse collection once a week by a government agency.

That being said, the primary problem in the Middle East is cultural:

Every culture in the region, almost without exception, operates on the premise of positive feedback cycles with regard to the use of force. An eye is repaid with two eyes, a tooth with two teeth, an insult to a family with an "honor" killing, two kidnapped soldiers with an invasion, and an invasion with hundreds of rocket raining down upon civilians.

We often think of the phrase "an eye for an eye" as a rationalization for barbarity, but the fact is that the Jewish prophets who advocated that position were attempting to DE-escalate from the prevailing culture of "two eyes for an eye." Jesus attempted to take it one step further by advocating an overtly *negative* (limiting) feedback cycle, with his exhortation to "turn the other cheek." I am hardly literate in Islam but it seems evident that the Prophet himself attempted to do likewise, for example (if memory serves me correctly) by advocating moderation in the conduct of warfare. So we see a constant thread throughout the history of the major Western monotheisms in the region, to do anything possible to counteract the positive feedback of force.

Yet to this day, the cultures of the region still suffer from "two eyes for an eye" and the escalating positive feedback cycle of force. And now they have nuclear weapons, with more on the way.

I'm going to say something that will probably be highly unpopular but on reflection you will see it is also correct (and I should preface this by saying that I find the "end-timers" who eagerly wish for Armageddon to be downright detestible):

These people will probably have to nuke each other into trinitite before they can finally break out of the thousands-of-years-old cycle of the positive feedback of force.

This is no different than a substance abuser "hitting bottom" or a habitual petty thief finally getting caught and sentenced to prison. When a pattern of dysfunction is so deeply engrained, it takes severe circumstances to change the behavior. And, those who attempt to intervene to prevent the worst of consequences are merely "enablers" whose interventions in fact allow the dysfunction to continue and deepen.

The rest of the world needs to put Israel, Lebanon, et. al. on notice: We will no longer intervene as moderators, we will no longer try to mitigate the consequences of your actions, we will not even stop your attempts to obtain atomic bombs. The positive feedback of force must stop, and this is up to you and you alone.

Posted by: g510 | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 09:34 PM

g510, that certainly was blunt. We all hope that it doesn't come to that but I guess some of us differ in how far we should go to prevent the mid-east from "hitting bottom." I think you under-estimate how far down the bottom really is. Josh Marshall has been for the past few weeks saying about the Middle East: "It can always get worse."

You posit that a nuclear exchange (or worse - a one way strike) might be the rock bottom that ends the positive feedback of force. I think the desire for revenge would supercede any thoughtful reflection on "how it got to this". The region seems to have painfully long memories (one of the reasons Bush's "crusade" comment left such a mark.) I can only imagine the passion that would ensue if a Muslim city or holy site was nuked.

For our own selfish reasons I don't think we could throw our hands into the air and walk away anyway. With all this talk about Jihad we have forgotten McWorld, the world is becoming smaller and flatter. We in the west have many interconnections with the region aside from the obvious oil.

Posted by: Gerard | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 10:49 PM

"Nonstate actors will always have an advantage in that they are lower on the entropy gradient than states."

To quote myself from a post several months ago, the biggest, baddest transnational organization of them all is the Roman Catholic Church.

The level of relative organization depends upon the state and also the nonstate. Microsoft Corporation probably has a higher entropy gradient than, say, Chad, but I would not characterize it as a state.

Much of what is discussed on this blog is how networks and other ultra modern developments are simultaneously making non-state actors more effective and state actors less effective. If correct, that would mean that, with time, states will become less organized and non-states more so.

John Robb, if I understand him correctly, thinks that these resulting global guerrillas are criminals.

I question this. While, many obviously are criminal, permantly criminal organizations do not enjoy long shelf lifes. Also, many of these organizations at least profess various religious or other higher beliefs. Finally, if you look at - say the Chinese Revolution from between the Tai Ping Rebellion and the Communist takeover - you will find a similar melage of both criminal and ideological illicit organizations - some of which are now part of Global Guerrillas today.

Your argument that culturally the Mideast has positive feedback loops regarding force would be comforting to those who believe that its inhabitants belong to some other species. I, for one, believe they are Homo Sapiens and generally tend to react to things much as we do. I would suspect Mideastern feedback loops of force resemble those found in - say - Latin America. And, indeed, Latin American and MidEastern global guerrilla activity actually do resemble each other.

Posted by: Duncan Kinder | Monday, July 31, 2006 at 12:46 AM

Re. Gerard:

Underestimating the bottom: Seems to me that trinitite (glowing green slag) is about as far to the bottom as one can get.

If the desire for revenge persists after *that*, then clearly it (a nuclear exchange) wasn't enough to break the bad habits of the past, and more/worse is inevitable. But as I said, it can't get much worse than having your country turned into glowing green slag.

Now here's another terribly crass bit of truth: If for the sake of re-venge and re-re-venge and re-re-re-venge, they exterminate themselves down to the last man, then in the long term, archaeologists will view them as a failed subset of the human species, much as we view those peoples who burned through all of their natural resources until they rendered themselves extinct. Darwin does not choose favorites; the chips fall where they fall.

As for our selfish reasons as Westerners, the first thing we need to do is make a WW2-level effort toward full energy independence, using climate-clean sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar, wherever possible. Second, a full lockdown on immigration and travel from the entire region (for the obvious reason of preventing someone using themselves as a suicide-carrier of bio weapons via commercial air travel). In fact the former step by itself might be sufficient to put the regional powers-that-be on notice that we are moving toward letting them stew in their own juices until they figure out what's up.

As for individuals already in-country, as long as they abide by the law, no problem. If they violate the law (i.e. commit terrorist acts), they can be prosecuted same as anyone else (and without need for excessive and frankly unconstitutional measures).

Re. Duncan:

Re. the Catholic Church. If ever there were a single entity anywhere in the world, that was more responsible for our mad dash for the edge of the cliff of population overshoot and collapse, I have yet to find it.

Microsoft vs. Chad: Technical correction: should be "MS is higher on the entropy gradient..." think of it as an inclined plane, with anarchy at the bottom and increasing degrees of civilization as one moves up the slope, where civilization is defined as the condition of society where knowledge increases over time and violence decreases over time.

"...with time, states will become less organized and non-states more so." Good insight, makes sense, and also seems inevitable. Probably what will occur is a kind of leveling-downward toward a mean average. How to quantify that remains to be seen but would be an interesting exercise.

Criminals: These are usually qualified by the question of means: using criminal means toward whatever ends. What does one do with criminal acts that are side-effects of other means toward other ends? And where is the line crossed? For example, the institutional cover-up of a large number of child molesters over a period of decades, and institutional protection of them from prosecution by the proper authorities, with the result of literally thousands of raped children, would qualify any organization as a criminal enterprise. How is it that an exception is made for the Vatican...?

Re. the Middle East and "...another species." No, the racial arguement fails totally, as follows: Israelis of European ancestry who move into the region, seem to fall into the same pattern as Israelis whose ancestry is within the region. (Thus we could predict that persons who move from Western countries to Muslim countries in the Middle East would show the same dynamics.) And those (of any religion) whose ancestries are within the region, when they move to the West, are at least reasonably likely to give up the bad old ways. The bad ways correlate with the location rather than the genes. (There is a PhD thesis waiting to be done on this topic if anyone has the guts to try it!)

The root cause of the Middle East problem, all of the warped cultural variables and positive feedback cycles of force escalation, and the rest of it, is this:

Once it was a lush, fertile region, with ample supplies of food and water, and a moderate climate. Somehow (probably via mismanagement of agriculture and water works), humans managed to screw it up and turn it into a baked, barren desert. Yet the population levels only reluctantly adapted to the reduced resource base, and even today remain pressed up against the resource limits with practically zero wiggle-room.

In that type of environment, humans revert to a vicious type of collective survivalism that is based on genes and tribe (see also the Biblical obsession with begetting and begatting).

This is not a different species. It is what happens to our species when we overshoot the natural resource limits and crash the ecosystems on which we depend for our sustenance.

And we had better learn the lesson fast.

Posted by: g510 | Monday, July 31, 2006 at 05:49 AM

lets get on-topic, please.

the reason of hezbollah's "success" against the IOF is a simple one and it has to do less with hezbollah than with the jews. if we take a step back from all the "global guerillas" and "4th GW" preaching, the human reality on the ground is what ultimately counts. it is as simple as it is intellectually unspectacular.

after 60 years as king of the hill, the IOF is accustomed to the easy kill, to always win any skirmish they engage with the racially inferior palestinians. shooting at 8-year-old boys or at 13-year-old schoolgirls from 100 meters away, demolish houses and stealing the property of a defenseless population without fearing consequences is what the IOF has become accustomed to.

the IOF operates on the assumption that all arabs are dogs or less, that they don't know how to defend themselves, that they are stupid and that it is ok and honorable to kill them wherever they are found, never mind that the impassivity of their arab neighbors has less to do with them not knowing how foght than with the total corruption of their political establishment by and for the western powers.

yeah, its exactly that. after 60 years of easy victories, the IOF have become accustomed to be manly and play it macho when fighting women and children and torturing the men cuffed to bars in their ample gulag.

so, now these manly cowards who know nothing but victory after victory go into southern lebanon and the first thing that happens is that they get they sorry racist arses kicked badly by the racially (and morally) "inferior" hezbollah (after all, the hezbollah has been labeled "terrorist" by the westerners). the golani unit sent in to boss them over was ripped apart, and, here is a small secret, the hezbollah got lucky and dan halutz was severely injured while pulling his "generalisimo" show at the front.

as a consequence we've been treated to a lidice memorial show in Qana yesterday. the IOF acted out like spiteful drag queens, angry for the beating they got in a fight on equitative terms, and angry for what happened to their "expletive deleted" in chief. who would-a-thunk that gods chosen ones could be so badly wupped by these "beasts on two legs" worth less than cocroaches in their racist eyes ?

given their less than spectacular equipment, the hezbollah would probably have been smoked out by any other army, but not by the cowards of the IOF, who suffer many of the same ailments as the societies of nazi germany and of todays jewish society at large (lets not forget the americans, who fit in pretty well here): moral inferiority in means and in motivations for their engagement vis-a-vis their enemy because of deeply rooted racism and intense hate and disdain for all "lesser" (other) peoples.

to engage in gratuitious slaughter of defenseless civilians in order to "make up" for lost battles in the military realm just does not "make right" but puts to show a gross lack of moral and discipline of the perpetrating army. to murder the weak because of spite betrays some very deep-seated weaknesses in those who commit such atrocities.

that is what hezbollah has shown the world, and it is what will ultimately undo israel as a viable state. one could (rightly) argue that the hezbollah is also targeting civilians with their puny rockets, but it is IMO improper to assign to them the deep rot displayed by the israelis.

sun tzu said some simple as valid words about these things about 5000 years ago. the jews should have read those words with utmost care.

Posted by: noname | Monday, July 31, 2006 at 11:17 AM

>Once it was a lush, fertile region, with ample supplies of food and water, and a moderate climate. Somehow (probably via mismanagement of agriculture and water works), humans managed to screw it up and turn it into a baked, barren desert.
Irrigating farmland tends to concentrate salts into the soil: water comes in, bringing salts, the plants take up the water, leaving the salt behind.

Over time, the crops that you used to plant perish from the salt, so you have to use hardier plants, which tend to have lower yields, until even those plants stop growing. Which is why some parts of the Iraq landscape SHINE in the sun: they have so much salt that nothing grows there anymore.

California has a similar situation in some places. Irrigation has raised selenium levels to toxic levels, so high that many animals perish before they are born. As thousands of years of selenium run-off gets concentrated in farmlands due to irrigation. The Colorado River is so depleted from farming irrigation that it is more of a marsh where it crosses the border into Mexico than an actual river. Yet the idea of stopping farming on these lands is anathema. Some folks claim that Doha round of WTO talks broke down because the US wouldn't give an inch on farm subsidies.

There are a number of books that describe this situation, including "Cadillac Desert" and "Collapse."

Collapse covers several civilizations that vanished because they were unwilling or unable to face the issues confronting them. For many peoples, that change would change them so much that they'd rather perish than change, and so they did perish.

Another book, The Ingenuity Gap, describes the gap between what is needed to survive and what people are capable of "inventing" to solve their problems. Some of the civilizations mentioned in Collapse weren't able to invent their way out of the corner they ended up in.

Bringing this thought back to the main thread of this post, many tribal subcultures, like the conservatives and neoconservatives, are obsessed with repeating failed actions, while blaming the failures on their political opponents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstosslegende
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=83795
http://www.harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html
And the "stab in the back" urban legend will get repeated until people believe it to be true, like the woman who dried her poodle in the microwave, or returning vietnam vets getting spat on.

Learning from past mistakes, and then "not doing *that* again" is the scientific approach to the world. The neocons have shown that they chose to invent their own "reality" which is distinct and separate from the world we live in, as well as virulent opposition to truth, science and rational thought. Most people would recognize that as a form of insanity.

Posted by: Tangurena | Monday, July 31, 2006 at 11:53 AM

Here's an interesting topic of discussion. What if Hezbollah's missile capacity remains intact after the ceasefire (it is getting more likely by the day). Will it become a strategic deterrent to Israeli action in Gaza/West Bank?

Here's one potential formula: if an airstrike is made against a Gaza target, Hezbollah sends in 100 missiles over two days at a cost of $50 million to the Israeli economy (or you can suggest your own formula).

Posted by: John Robb | Monday, July 31, 2006 at 01:44 PM

"What if Hezbollah's missile capacity remains intact after the ceasefire (it is getting more likely by the day). Will it become a strategic deterrent to Israeli action in Gaza/West Bank?"

The answer is no. If you believe that Israel will shake in its boots and allow Hamas or Hizballah to perform another round of attacks as just occurred without any response, then you don't understand Israel. At all.


Posted by: Movie Guy | Monday, July 31, 2006 at 02:46 PM

I’m not a global guerrilla’s philosopher but in my opinion there are only two operational strategies to defeat Hezbo/Iraqi/Taliban/Hamas and this site’s labeled fourth generation warfare/4GW. The first is nuclear attack, providing a significant deterrent to future negative behavior from other radical Islamic terrorists and the second is overwhelming invasion/ground/air forces killing everything that moves (WWII and Fallujah order of battle examples). But because of world politics, media coverage (dead children), and public outrage/sympathy, neither strategy is currently feasible until a nation/state's survival is threatened to extinction where the former will become a reality (WWII bombings/invasion/conquer resulted from Allied nation/state survival from the Axis of the Nazis/Japanese aggression/world domination). Example: If a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb detonates in DC or NY, you'll see a nation/state (USA in this case) survival retaliation against those responsible (If, whoever is left in charge is able to determine who was responsible). The concern for "innocent" civilians who live in these terrorist inhabited/sponsored countries (Lebanese, Palestine, Syria, Pakistan or Iran) will be part of the problem because they support, sympathize and hide the terrorists so they will not be spared/immune from attack. These enemies do not wear uniforms or practice war in accordance with the Geneva conventions of warfare. Israel will not stop bombing/attacking Southern Lebanon until the launching of rockets/missiles into Israel ceases (Reinforced by Hezbo’s leader’s approval/orders) and a buffer zone is established to ensure the larger cities are safe from multiple rocket/missile attacks. Wasting time and soldiers lives with what is being practiced in Iraq and Lebanon today (IEDs and rocket/missile attacks are indiscriminate and are not of any military significance other than propaganda/fear)…provides the enemy with a political/media propaganda advantage. Bringing in a UN multinational force will not end the fighting from Hezbollah. I enjoy your site and readers responses. End of story.

Posted by: DEATH FROM ABOVE | Monday, July 31, 2006 at 03:01 PM

JR

I think it's a bit premature to be talking about a ceasefire at this stage - the UN meeting that was supposed to start the ball rolling has been postponed indefinitely, the IDF are still making ground incursions into Lebanon ( there was some nifty live footage of a tank being disabled that has been repeated all day on the UK news channels ) and Olmert is still insisting that there is no ceasefire.

The US, and Blair, are still giving sufficient diplomatic cover for this to continue for a few more days at least - and this "extension" allows the basic rule of the ME to remain in play: "it can always get worse".

The IAF is still bombing Lebanon - although at a much reduced intensity today. Hizbullah seem to have switched the Katyushas off for today, but there has been some mortar fire into Kiryat Shmona; I would not expect this to last, and if the Israelis go back into full offensive mode tomorrow, I think we can expect the rockets to ratchet up again.

There was a sustained bout of celebratory gunfire in Beirut this afternoon as the news that Hizbullah may have hit another Israeli ship was relayed.

Now a lot of civilians in the deep south are going to get take the opportunity to flee, and this will give the IDF the green light to ramp up the firepower again. We'll see if the Franco-Iranian meeting in Beirut delivers in the next 24 hours - my guess is that it won't, as the Israelis are still desperate to create facts on the ground so that they have something to show for all this effort.

Posted by: dan | Monday, July 31, 2006 at 03:10 PM

"Sadly for all, the state has chosen to ensure that a smooth surface free from contaminants exists along their border. These contaminants are pissed."

Somebody put it as 'Israel wants security, but is not willing to allow any of their neighbors to have security'.

Posted by: Barry | Monday, July 31, 2006 at 03:43 PM

"What if Hezbollah's missile capacity remains intact after the ceasefire (it is getting more likely by the day). Will it become a strategic deterrent to Israeli action in Gaza/West Bank?"

That is the crux of the matter. The Israelis (and the U.S.) are looking for the holy grail of security; The ability to strike at will without the slightest fear of retaliation. The idea of some kind of balance, which sounds reasonable at first glance, is unnacceptable when they feel they can achieve a total imbalance in their favor. If Israel is successful, and the U.S. manages to 'neutralize' Iran, then indeed that will be the case.

Then, in the ensuing instability, israel can resort to "massive Retaliation." Whatever the moral implications of such a policy, it is only practical if the other guy can't retaliate back.

"second is overwhelming invasion/ground/air forces killing everything that moves (WWII and Fallujah order of battle examples). But because of world politics, media coverage (dead children), and public outrage/sympathy, neither strategy is currently feasible"

I'm afraid you underestimate how much misery the world can watch on TV. With America's total political cover Israel could-and likely will-try to implement a sort of ethnic cleansing in Lebanon. After a few months of complaining, the world will forget.

How successful such a policy will be is less certain. Russia has been quite unrestrained in Chechnya, and previously in Afghanistan, and the results have been mixed, at best. And that is likley the scenario here; Beirut as Grozny.

Posted by: Z | Monday, July 31, 2006

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzY0Y...zYzZmM5NTRkNjQ=

Lifting the Umbrella of Missile Terrorism
Focus must be on Syria.

By Mario Loyola

As the Security Council meets to explore ways of solving the Lebanon crisis, it ought to focus on the only place where it can really be solved: Syria. As long as Syria continues to supply Iran’s and its own weapons to Hezbollah, Hezbollah will be able to fire missiles at will — and there isn’t anything that Israel, the Lebanese army, or the highly improbable multinational force can do about it.
The umbrella of missile terrorism which has been unfurled over the northern third of Israel is an existential threat to the viability of the Israeli state. Israel is fighting in Lebanon, ferociously and in some ways pointlessly, for one simple and tragic reason: It desperately needs to convince the inhabitants of its northern cities to stay home. Those Israelis are willing to live in bomb shelters for now only because they still hope that the Israeli army will be able to roll back the missile-terror umbrella. But Israel is powerless to accomplish that. Only the United Nations can protect Israel now.

The West needs to recognize that Iran’s grand strategy is to depopulate Israel through missile terror. And Hezbollah, which is dedicated to the “liberation” of Palestine (by which it means expulsion of the Jews) will go on fighting — or threatening to fight — as long as it has missiles to fire. Israel’s enemies see a historic victory within reach. It may well be.

Israel cannot lift the terror umbrella by fighting in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s positions are too well-dispersed, and its increasingly long-range missiles can be fired from central Lebanon — and even north of Beirut. The buffer zone Israel is trying to create in south Lebanon — now whittled down to a few miles even on the drawing board — will only inconvenience the Hezbollah missile teams. Any stabilization force is likely to have to watch impotently as missiles get fired into Israel over their heads, and they will have as much luck rooting the missile teams out as Israel is having now, which is to say, very little. With all the firepower Israel has unleashed against Hezbollah, the shower of missiles reaching its towns and cities has hardly abated. Israel’s offensive is palpably failing.

The West must focus on the pivotal role of Syria. It is the exposed bottleneck in the Hezbollah supply chain. Its airports serve as conduits for a steady stream of missiles from Iran. And its factories are churning out many of the missiles now raining down on Israel. And attempts to control the Lebanon-Syria border won’t work. The border is too long, and too porous.

The only thing that has any hope of bringing light to the end of the tunnel is a robust Security Council resolution under Chapter VII that requires Iran to stop supplying weapons to Syria, and requires Syria to stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah. The Council should demand of Syria a transparent accounting of the weapons shipments it has received from Iran, as well as a comprehensive declaration of Syria’s missile production infrastructure, with full details of its inventories and disposition of missiles. Syria must then be required to admit U.N. inspectors at all of its military and civilian airports, as well as its missile production facilities. And finally, the resolution should authorize the use of all necessary means, including the use of force, to enforce its terms.

In the meantime, the world must recognize something about the innocent civilians in Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon whose homes and lives have been devastated by this war. Over a third of Lebanon’s population voted for Hezbollah in the last elections. They did not cast their votes for peace. What they voted for was war, and war is what they got.

In light of that, one is justified in asking what their calls for an immediate ceasefire really mean. Do they mean that they have changed their minds, and now would rather have peace? Or do they simply mean that they want Israel to stop fighting, and accept life under an umbrella of missile terrorism?

Though important, the question is academic. Hezbollah has vowed to fight on. And it will, as long as Syria is able to keep a veil over the flood of weapons that is flowing, from it, and through it, into the tortured land of Lebanon.

— Mario Loyola is a former assistant for communications and policy planning at the Department of Defense. He last wrote for NRO on the social contract of terrorism.

Anybody think all this is just a pretext to get Israel to bomb Iran?

Bush wants to but doesn't have the manpower - - they are all in Iraqniam.

Doubtful, eh? Methinks we just don't have enough pull with Hezbollah to've gotten then to initiate this. I mean there seems little argument 'twas the actions of Hezbollah that started this flareup, eh?

There's a definite possibility we'll impose a military enforced moratorium on flights between Iran and Syria though. Methinks our Air Force and naval air arms ain't overextended 'tall. An air and sea blockade of Iran might not be out of the realm of possibility either.

Short memory.
This is quite the exact description given about the Viet-Cong 40 years ago.

The pentagon and the media should stop dreaming. You never get the kind of enemy you've been wishing for.

Sometimes you get better than what you dreamed for, eh?

I remember in Gulf War 1 all the posturing by Saddam about the forthcoming "Mother of all Battles".

Well, I guess for him, it was a mother. He went from having the 4th largest Army in the world to having the 2nd largest Army in Iraq, eh?