Hezbollah says it will not disarm, and Lebanon says it’s okay.

The UN says that’s okay.

Israel says it’s keeping troops in Lebanon until the peacekeepers arrive, and that they’ll resume the offensive if Hezbollah refuses to disarm.

Meanwhile, France calls for the end of the blockade since it’s not needed any more.

Raise your hand if you’re surprised by any of this.

More at Captain Ed, Wizbang, Counterterrorism Blog, and Threats Watch.


  1. If this wasn’t the plan all along, the Israelis will lose a heap of standing in my eyes. I don’t really see the point of these charades, but charades they are. I think it’s time for one of those daring raids. How about an armoured column dash into Bekaa valley with some serious tactical air support? I bet that would stir up the hornet’s nest and some people would really get a bee in their bonnets. Heh I love mixing metaphors.

  2. Anyone placing bets how long this ceasefire holds? I got dibs on two weeks. Then I imagine a few rockets will be launched out of S Lebanon, and this whole happy game starts up once again…

  3. Israel screwed up on this one. It’s going to cost them dearly in the future too. There was no army to fight. No uniformed soldiers to attack. Now that their enemies have found their weakness, they will exploit it. World opinion was cleary against Israel, just as it has been against us. These are not good times.

  4. I don’t like the situation either. So I have come up with a new attitude and have molded the facts and fictions into a new storyline. When this started, Israel and the U.S.had a waiting op plan and the script goes like this. Israel Attacked Israel isolates Lebanon Hez fire rockets IDF destroys Hez assets UN calls cease fire Hez breaks cease fire IDF invades, destroys Hez and stays, Lebanon sues for Peace. IDF stays until Iran or Syria attack either Lebanon or Israel US destroys much of Iran and all of Syria, Israel helps. UN calls for peace in the Middle East. Israel withdraws U.S. withdraws Iran, Syria are kept isolated except for Muslim relief. All assets from both countries are frozen, No exports or imports are allowed from both countries. Any theats or uprisings are bombed out of existance (again) in both countries. This continues until democracy and freedom is given to their people. The Saudis, Egypt and Pakistan are warned that they are next unless they rush to democracy and allow freedom to their people. I like that story line better. Too bad it’s just a dream. Oh, and all the while Murphy was on a long vacation. Papa Ray West Texas USA

  5. The F-16’s did pretty good job, but bombing an ‘invisible’ enemy requires a tad more muscle than precision. Actually the real answer to this situation are some ISRAELI ARC-LIGHTS. I figure if the Israeli Airforce could BORROW about 20 BUFFS ‘G’ varients and along with about 30,000 500 lb, High explosive Mark-82’s they could carpet bomb Lebanon from one end to the other in a couple of weeks. 1) WILL IT WORK? Well according to my hero, the late Airforce General Curtis Lemay: ‘If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.’ 2) WHAT ABOUT COLLATERAL DAMAGE? Well again, according to my hero, the late Airforce General Curtis Lemay: ‘There are no innocent civilians!’ I REST MY CASE!

  6. Damn straight! We should have shown them how it’s done by wiping Fallujah off the face of the Earth. I knew going into Iraq we didn’t have the guts to fight a real war. The fact that Israel didn’t caught me by surprise. Innocent civilians, indeed! I’ve got your innocent civilians…

  7. There are no innocent civilians!’ I worry that if we took that position, we’d be taking one step closer to becoming what we are fighting. It’s just one step, but I think it’s safer that we don’t go down that road…

  8. Maybe we should just get them to do a petition to see what the public opinion is, then an Arc-Light type bombing program could be justified…. Anyways, on a serious note: I just hope that the Israelis have some spotters with laser designators and snipers alongside them to monitor the Hizbollah movements. Maybe if the monitoring is succesful it could be a better outcome than it seems – as there is no doubt fighting will probably resume soon, but if Israel know where the targets are, it might be easier. Hezbollah are full of encouragement and hopefully they will let down their secrecy a little and show more of their hidden positions. Remember that majority of the positions are already compromised, so new positions will have to be constructed – leaving them more exposed, as an attack could occur very quickly. I say Israel should wait till the conflict dies down a bit, give Hezbollah a feeling that it is over for a while – and just do some nice precision airstrikes when they least expect it.

  9. So were we terrorists when we bombed Berlin? Were we terrorists when we burned down Tokyo? Were we terrorists at Nagasaki or Hiroshima? Were we terrorists when we bombed Hanoi? Only an idiot fights to lose, and we’ve become a nation of idiots, as has Israel, apparently. Precision bomb them my eye. The Hezbos have 80% approval and support with the Lebanese ‘innocent civilians’. As far as I’m concerned that’s reason enough to level Beruit and any other city they might choose. It would give every country in that part of the world something to think about. A lot more so than the ‘stern talking to’ they gave them this time.

  10. It used to be we gave a damn about our own. Now we care more about the ‘rights’ of our enemies than we do our own soldiers lives.

  11. AMEN Dfens, You said it all. There’s too much pussy politics involved. Two go in. One comes out. SIMPLE: That’s the name of the game. Late breaking news gang: The Frogs have agreed to send in a whole 200 (Two-hundred) troops. What a laugh. What a hoot. Hezbollah laughter in background. Shoot, the scums of Islam knocked off more U.S. Marines than that in 1983. (R.I.P. Brothers) Sounds like ole Kofi and his bud Cheriac gonna worm their way out of this one, hand in hand! The only answer to Islamic cancer is TOTAL extermination!

  12. Yeah, except we should make sure the one that doesn’t come out is begging for us to kill him before we’re done. That’s what would happen if someone threatened my family. That’s how you keep it from ever happening again.

  13. Dfens: No, I don’t think the west were terrorists, as such, when we bombed cities during World War 2, for a few reasons. One, that was a while ago, and things have changed a bit. Two, as pointed out, weapons have become more precise. Not so precise you don’t get collateral damage, but these days if you’re trying to hit a military facility you hit it 80-90% of the time, instead of 0.5% back in the day. There were two justifications for bombing those cities. #1, they were doing it to us. #2, it was the only way we could reasonable strike their military industry and infrastructure. The ‘morale bombing’ was certainly a rationale, but most believe it didn’t work. We didn’t break Germany or Japan’s will to fight us, even when we turned their cities to rubble. So, that’s the main reason I’d object to modern city bombing. I certainly think it would ‘bring the war home’ to these people. But short of actually killing so many of them that they simply can’t fight us any more, I don’t think it will make the problem ‘go away’. Iraq is a relative success, as long as we can keep it going without it becoming a real civil war. Relatively few casualties, for a fairly large effect. I know Iran will be harder, but the Iranian people are actually more on our side, I believe. So I think the Iraq route is more fruitful than the Germany route, personally. I don’t think we should artificially limit ourselves, if we can achieve victory and liberate these oppressed people while guarnteeing our safety by any means. But I’m really not convinced we’re at the ‘kill ’em all’ stage just yet. I’ll provide one caveat though. If Iran gets nuclear weapons and we fully believe they’re going to use them, we should do whatever it takes to neutralize that threat. But I favour action before it gets to that stage. It’d be plain stupid to wait that long to do anything about it.

  14. Israel’s little skirmish is well on the opposite end of the spectrum from a WW2-like slug fest. There are a lot of ways they could have gone in harder and faster without actually turning the country into rubble. And, they should have. The fact they failed to, may in fact necessitate the destruction of Lebanon at some point in the future, if the people there are stupid enough to let Hizb’allah take over. The situation is just not bad enough to justify that kind of a respose. But as one very clever commentator pointed out, the only way in which the Israeli response was ‘disproportionate’ was that they were TOO gentle, and as a result, have achieved little. It’s a tenet of Just War theory that you must use sufficient force to obtain your goals. Otherwise the war is pointless. Israel needs to say ‘We don’t care what anyone thinks of us, we’re going to do what we need to survive. To hell with international opinion, they’re all just a bunch of whiners anyway!’ They really, really need to ignore anyone’s opinion and just do it. The only people who can actually stop them are the US and I don’t think you’re going to.

  15. Late breaking news gang: The Frogs have agreed to send in a whole 200 (Two-hundred) troops. What a laugh. What a hoot. Hezbollah laughter in background.’ Israel should simply wait a bit–but not too long–then say ‘well, I guess you guys weren’t serious about implementing this cease-fire. Too bad you couldn’t keep up your end of the bargain. Oh by the way, all our F-16s were repaired, re-armed and refuelled and have just simultaneously dropped bombs on every target we could find. And that crackling you can hear in the distance ain’t a bad phone line…’ Seriously, anyone who’s dealt with contracts realizes that if one party fails to keep up their end of the contract the other is not bound to it any more. If this is as much of an abject failure as we’ve all expected from the beginning, they should take the opportunity to finish the job.

  16. Ok, Nicholas, as to number 1, the hit our cities first again, both against the US on 9/11 and against the Israelis with the rocket and other terrorist attacks. With regard to number 2 on your list, we did not fire bomb Tokyo, or nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki to strike at their weapons plants. Those were operations were solely about breaking the will of the Japanese to fight, and it worked. The same thing with Hanoi, it worked every time we did it. We just didn’t do it enough. The same thing with Germany bombing London. In fact, in that instance they would have been better off to concentrate on the airfields, but that mistake was probably due to inflated kill claims by their own pilots. Britain’s own bombing of Berlin, at night, was similarly not aimed at defense forces. It was solely an attempt to break the back of Germany, and again it worked. The only thing that’s changed between then and now is then we had the will to win.

  17. I didn’t see it talked about here, but what do you think about using these nuclear bunker buster bombs for destroying Tehran? That right there is one big reason we need a bomber capable of Mach 3. Point the nose down 30 degrees and let that puppy bore its way into the Earth. Then boom, instant destruction with no radioactive fallout. I think the real beauty of those weapons would be the fact that no one would probably ever be able to build there again. It could stand as a monument to the stupidity of their trying to F with us.

  18. Nicholas you said: ‘I know Iran will be harder, but the Iranian people are actually more on our side, I believe.’ I do not agree, and IMHO none of the Middle East countries is on our side. If they are entering into an alliance with the US, this is only because it is better for them to be in it, and they can take a profit from that. You should always look for your back, though: a knife will be always there, prepared for action. I do not see in Iran too many people willing to follow a Western way of life, in fact they have had it and rejected it, eventually choosing the Mullahs instead.

  19. Israel’s reaction this time was too soft, with too many limitations and restarins, making almost the same error as the US in Vietnam. I cannot imagine that it would have been so difficult for the IDF to roll into Lebanon and to wipe off everything up to Litany River in 24 or 48 hours. Instead, they advanced few kilometers, entering in all kind of small and counterproductive clashes. I always liked they policy of hitting back with maximum force, but it seems they started to change.

  20. I don’t see any success scenario in Lebanon. I think if their beef was with Syria, they should have gone at Syria. No one likes Syria. To expand on my bomb idea, maybe what they need is a bomb that’s part missile. You know how they are making these ramjet missiles now? They could make a ramjet bunker buster bomb. It could only be launched from a Mach 3 bomber. Anything slower and the ramjet won’t have enough compression ratio to light up. The bomb would look like the inlet of the SR-17 engine, with the explosives being in the spike diffuser portion. It wouldn’t need to be nearly as long as the SR-71 engine though. With these the bomber wouldn’t have to decend to drop. The bomb could hit the ground going Mach 5. No moving parts and they’d only have to carry a few pounds of fuel. Too bad the aerospace biz is in such a state that stuff like what I’m talking about is pure science fiction instead of really happening.