‘Incursion’, not ‘invasion’

The Israeli army briefly entered Lebanon today, but it appears to be a raid targeting specific rocket positions rather than a general invasion.

Bill Roggio writes “Israel is currently signaling it is interested in establishing a buffer zone on the Israeli border“.

And, contrary to Murdoc’s expectations, Israel floats idea to end Lebanon fighting. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the fighting

would end when Israel’s two captured soldiers are freed, rocket attacks on Israel have stopped and the Lebanese army is deployed along the border…Israel had previously demanded the full dismantling of Hezbollah as a condition for ending hostilities.

There’s no way that Hezbollah is anywhere near “dismantled” after only a week of fighting and very limited ground action. It’s also hard to believe that Israel would be willing to accept the negative backlash this fighting is going to bring without scoring any major strategic gains.

Folks, they wouldn’t be bombing the Beirut airport if they just wanted their two soldiers back.

Meanwhile, President Bush is cussing up a storm.

Finally, CDR Salamander discusses the missile hit on the Israeli Saar- 5. Be sure to read the comments, including this:

This event is a stark reminder that the LCS cabal needs to face reality more than they are right now.

Comments

  1. What they need to do it to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit.’ The best foriegn policy statement/speach phrase ever uttered by Bush in public.

  2. Murc Dont be fooled that feint reminds me of the one we pulled on Falluja. The media got pissed screaming we were using them but it worked the Jihadi’s ran to thier positions set IED’s and opened the stores all under the eyes of UAV’s taking notes for the Air Assualt that followed. The Israeli’s just deployed the reserves to the West Bank sending the regulars north for well we can guess. Ohh they also reinstated the draft. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3277533,00.html

  3. Hmm, I know where they could get a ship that wouldn’t need to have it’s defensive systems turned on to repel a missile attack.

  4. In this area, if you are speaking technically, it’s importnat to remember the difference between invasion, incursion, and infiltration. There’s the famous story of the PR man who said that US actions in Cambodia were an incursion, not an invasion, and got laughed at by the media. Quite rightly too, since the point at issue wasn’t the technical one but whether the US had commenced operations. But if you want to make prescriptions, you need accurate diagnoses. People today are saying wrongly that the US is being invaded by illegal immigrants, when it is actually being infiltrated. That makes a difference to what to do about it. And the wikipedia article on Florida says, wrongly, that Andrew Jackson conducted a series of failed invasions; he actually conducted a successful series of incursions (you are supposed to withdraw after them, to improve your relative attrition rate). In fact, Jackson was so successful that he was in place at New Orleans in 1814. But people shouldn’t read his campaign as a defence against Britain – it was a culmination of aggression against Spain. Oh, to see the difference between invasion and infiltration, consider the Lincoln quote that Jerry Pournelle often makes, that no foreign troopers would ever water their horses on the Mississippi without US consent. Yet it was Lincoln himself who invited British forces into New England as a gesture of good faith after the Trent Incident (they were in transit to Canada to reinforce the garrison while the St. Lawrence was frozen over). If there hadn’t been good will on the British side as well, that would have become a successful infiltration – getting into position bypassing resistance. So, it’s only a quibble if you aren’t asking the technical question. Technically, which also means in practice, it matters a very great deal.