Analysis: The risks associated with Israel's invasion of Lebanon targeting Hezbollah

[moniss]

This is the title to an article by Joseph Haboush writing for Al Arabiya on 10/02/24. It has an interesting couple of quotes that are important to note. The first is from Dave Des Roches who is an associate professor at the Near East South Asia Center for Security Studies. He is quoted here saying “The Israeli military’s brilliant tactical and operational victories almost never translate to strategic wins". This quote is very important to reflect upon because it brings up the point made by many that despite years of successful battles the victories have not brought security or solved problems. Indeed it could well be said that fighting from a stance of intransigence and winning a battle and then returning to the intransigence is self-defeating in the long run if the goal is to solve problems that give rise to conflict and impact security.

The second quote is also important because it gives a clear indication of how the reality may seem to be read "between the lines" when in actuality it is there easily for anybody to pick up. It also goes a long way toward exposing the charade of countries using a supposed concern for the average citizen when in fact the real goals are something else. A National Security Council spokesman is quoted as saying on 09/30 in the evening to Al Arabiya “Of course, we know that mission creep can be a risk, and we will keep discussing that with the Israelis." All well and good on it's face but it comes in the context of US officials insistence that the US involvement is predicated on the return of Israeli citizens and Lebanese citizens to their homes. If that is really what it was about then why do we also have this as Haboush points out "......administration officials now believe there is a chance to further diminish a severely weakened Hezbollah and allow more pro-West groups to re-enter the political scene in Lebanon........."?

So many people would just pass over that last part as though it was just nothing. But it is huge. It clearly says the US wants more pro-West groups to have influence in Lebanon politically. But doesn't it raise a question again about the average Lebanese citizen we claimed to be the focus? Why are they not saying we need pro-Lebanese groups, independent groups, pro-Arab groups? No the officials made clear that the groups they desire to take a larger part in Lebanon are to be pro-West.

Now it may seem to us here half a world away that it is all semantics but I can assure you that the "average citizen" in Lebanon knows very well what the last 75 years of history has taught them about what the West desires and what it will do to increase it's power and influence and it will not be about what the "average" Lebanese citizen thinks or wants. It will be about increasing political influence and increasing strategic control by the West. But then again that's just silly me thinking that it should be up to the actual citizens of the country which groups and their leanings they have in their country. I guess I was just as silly to think the "West" wanted to respect that. So once the scourge of Hezbollah is removed the likely echo behind it will be the heavy boot of Western intelligence operations generating previously unheard of groups and "acceptable" leaders like we did in Afghanistan. That worked so well didn't it? Failing that there is always the heavy boot of Western military might coming down. Just ask the starving people in Yemen how much it helps them to have their main port for food aid bombed by the "West". But when the smoke clears and the bullets and bombs slow down I'm sure the "average" citizens will look upon us with fondness and understanding. If they don't I'm sure we'll have several "pro-West" groups all in place to convince them of the "right way to think".

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/united-states/2024/10/02/analysis-major-risks-associated-with-israeli-invasion-of-lebanon-targeting-hezbollah