Lebanon is Iraq for many

The details of analogies always break down, but that is still how most people choose to think, relying on easy similes of prior experience to understand the present. Just as the United States is seen to have kicked a hornet’s nest in Iraq, so Israel is seen by many to be doing so in Lebanon, with the forces of terror deeply embedded in the population – who prefer more peaceful and safe lives -- and swarming. Just as in Iraq, the world stood by as the hornet’s nest grew, and now recoils from the more extensive and painful measures of defense. Just as with the U.S. in Iraq, the media focus on the pain, especially among the population of Lebanon where the nest is, and Israel is blamed by the faint-hearted, those who think they’re safe in their distance, and those who seek other agendas on the Orkin-man.

This perceptual truth was starkly exhibited in the discussion between ardent Left Democrat Tom Oliphant and the New York Times’ tamer Republican David Brooks on Jim Lehrer’s Newshour last night. An extended excerpt:

TOM OLIPHANT: What I find a little interesting about this crisis at this point is that the polling data is starting to come in, and President Bush does not appear to be holding a very strong hand. You would expect normally to have a very sharp spike in approval for what he is doing, but it's not showing up.
Gallup is showing almost a 10 percentage-point difference, in favor of disapproval, in terms of how he's handling this. Lebanon makes Americans unusually worried because of its history, which is not favorable.
And I think it's very interesting late today to begin to see Democrats taking independent actions in this crisis, compared to what was going on in Congress earlier this week when you get these routine resolutions that pass overwhelmingly. Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, possible presidential candidate, Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, and interestingly enough, even Bill Clinton himself beginning to make noises about things like special envoys. How does it help this process...
JIM LEHRER: Yes, Biden sent a letter late today asking for a special envoy.
TOM OLIPHANT: I don't mean to be cynical about this, but I have a sneaking suspicion that some of those Democrats are aware of the polling data, and that may be why this was a late-breaking development.
DAVID BROOKS: Well, I guess I'd just say quickly that the Biden letter I don't understand, because there is a strategy. They're work on it. Joe can call them up, and they'll explain it to them, I'm sure.
The second thing on the polls is kind of interesting. I think that's partly Bush. You know, he's down, so anything he's associated with is going to be down, partly the images. But partly -- and I think this is a post-Iraq...
JIM LEHRER: Images meaning...
DAVID BROOKS: Like we saw on the top of the program.
JIM LEHRER: Absolutely.
DAVID BROOKS: But partly a post-Iraq effect, that fighting terrorists is futile. They seek into the ground, and you can never fight them, which is a difference behind the way people used to see Israel.
People used to see the Israeli army as something super-effective. They could take care of terrorists, and they could win whatever they set out to do. I think that image in the U.S. and, actually more importantly in the Arab world, has been hurt by Iraq.
Now the fact is, Israel has had a pretty effective war they've just won against Hamas, so they might be able to succeed, but people expect people to fail now.

As in war, to the victor goes the spoils and history writing. What’s added to this today is that instantaneous global media, largely of a like mindset, glories in bringing the horrors of war into our living rooms, and bemoans the toll on our foes. Any salesman will tell you that emotion is the overwhelming force behind making a sale. So it is among people whose decent emotions are stirred, overwhelming drier facts.

A “former advisor and operative in dozens of Democratic campaigns ranging from the city council to the White House,” writes: [HT Pajamas Media]

If Israel succeeds in shattering Hezbollah without much further complication and without getting bogged down, the support the unique nation-state currently enjoys should continue. If events spiral out of control, that historic support may be challenged as never before.

An advertising executive of Jewish background writes at Huffington Post of his fellow Liberal Jews:

The uneasiness mounts, the squirm factor intensifies, whenever Israel military muscle is applied. American Jews - particularly the NYC phylum - don't like to be seen as aggressors….
Some of it is also political; reflexively democratic, Jews are uncomfortable being on the side of Bush, and the implicit linkage of support for Israel and the war in Iraq. A CNN poll which reported that only 31% of Americans found Israel's response to be excessive, also noted that there is a lot of partisanship in the public's mood….
I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Too many Jews are secretly uptight about Israel's brazenness. They shouldn't be. They should be less tolerant of their own aggressive behavior when it means nothing, and have more solidarity with Israel's behavior when it means everything.

You’ve gotta read the Comments at Huffington to see the screeching from the moonbats.

Since the mere fact of bloodline allows JINO’s in Jewish Law, pockets of self-named Jewish allies of extreme Leftist causes around the world stage protests against Israel. Though they exploit their bloodline, while rarely if at all participating in anything else Jewish, they sit in fertile ground, as most Jews are determinedly liberal Democrats and admit more fealty to that than Israel. (See here.)

They are in like company in the wider Democrat Party, ignoring their former stout words – as they do with Iraq – but demuring from follow-through, to demand what it takes to enforce Hezbollah’s disarment in southern Lebanon, even though formerly promised by the UN.

In fairness and completeness, though I’ve defended U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’ “going to war with the military you have,” the Israelis have had the benefit the past several years’ experience of the price from inadequate feet on the ground. History has shown time and again, that’s essential, and air power alone or too small ground forces for the job are not enough. See here, for a discussion of the inadequacy of Israeli air against dug-in Hezbollah.

If Israel sends large ground forces into southern Lebanon, it will be very bloody, deep bunker-to-bunker fighting. Only the few in the U.S. who experienced the Pacific island campaigns of WWII or the tunnels of Vietnam appreciate the necessary carnage. Brought instantaneously to TV, most will cringe, and many seek mental shelter in denial of the necessary measures. At most, Israel has only scant time remaining to do this before the West imposes some sort of cease fire, and may have little stomach itself for this.

Isolationists, Western peaceniks, Leftist apologists for terrorists, paleoconservatives may “win” this one, at the price of the hornest nest growing and its swarms’ attacks getting closer and closer to their -- and our -- homes.

Literally, ultimately, only whatever fortitude President Bush can muster stands between the swarms and the U.S., the West, and Israel. Hornets do not provide safe passage to ostrichs' butts.

SEE Ralph Peters.

ALSO:

What we are seeing today is the direct result of the state sponsorship of a terrorist entity after it has gone unchecked for over two decades. Hezbollah has evolved from a terrorist, paramilitary group into the most effective fighting force in Lebanon, capable of conducting professional operations and using sophisticated weapons. The training camps in the Bekaa Valley are not only churning out fighters for Hezbollah, but train other terrorist organizations, exporting the dangerous tactics being used today in Lebanon, much like the training camps in Afghanistan served as a breeding grounds of today's crop of terrorists.
While Israel can degrade Hezbollah via air strikes, naval bombardments and limited raids, the Iranian proxy force cannot be defeated without putting boots on the ground in southern Lebanon and deep into the Bekaa Valley. Hezbollah fighters must be engaged on the ground to be defeated. Anything short of that - a buffer zone or negotiated settlement, both of which members of the Israel government and military has indicated it would accept - is a victory for Hezbollah and Iran. Hezbollah would have struck at Israeli cities and stood up the invincible Israeli army, while weakening the nascent Lebanese democracy and asserting itself as the true military power in the country. This would far exceed Hezbollah's victory of the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000.
The surprise and uncertainty of Hezbollah's military capabilities may in fact be the reason for pausing a massive invasion of Lebanon. Israel has yet to give up the option of a major ground strike, but there is resistance to moving into Southern Lebanon. The Jerusalem Post reports "IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz is known to be opposed to a ground incursion into Lebanon, which he has said would only be carried out as a last resort." The deputy prime minister and the minister of defense have also signaled a large scale ground incursion is not desired.
This attitude will need to change if Israel wishes to eliminate the threat on the northern border.