It starts with a building scene from Hizbullah. A handful of crossborder raids – kidnappings and sabotage.
Israel responds with a challenge to a Firefight. Hizbullah gleefully accepts.
Israel’s objective, according to the Economist (Aug 19th-25th, Leaders), was “the complete demolition of Hizbullah’s power in Lebanon.” An excellent objective. It is not an objective of killing, it’s a military and political one. And warfare is arm of the political, so it works.
Hizbullah’s objective, so claims Nasrallah, was merely survival. However, we all know that survival is implicit in the objective for both sides of the conflict – as is killing. Nasrallah’s true objective was “to survive and discredit Israel in the international press – to show that Israel is weak and full of hubris.”
I’d love to pick out some of the maneuvers, but I can’t do all the work. I think it’s clear that Hizbullah made contact first and started within certain positions – defensible towns in this case. Israel advanced into those positions and fierce close quarters fighting erupted.
Ultimately, Hizbullah won, but considering that both sides are claiming victory and the actual conditions on the ground, I think Hizbullah only won by 1 point. It’s a 1/0 game. Two major concessions from the victor are in order.
Israel lays it on the line: You disarm and you abide by this massive buffer zone. These concessions are well within Israel’s right to ask for, but they are so severe, they wound the pride of the victor. It’s almost like Israel got what they wanted all along.
Negotiations are happening behind the scenes. Let’s see if the compromise is accepted, or it’s back to war.
-L