A story in the
Washington Post (via Raw Story) essentially suggesting that Bush's (and Rice's) view of the Lebanon conflict is "more war will lead to peace" raises some interesting questions. On the surface, there is some logic on their side, if (and it's a big if) the underlying assumptions are correct. The reasoning is that, now that Hezbollah seems to have started this current altercation, for whatever reasons, Israel has free rein to go beat the crap out of Lebanon and Hezbollah, and if that takes Hezbollah down, some much the better. But, life is more complicated then that...
The assumptions are that, on account of the perception that Hezbollah started this, they get what they deserve. But who are "they". Hezbollah (and Hamas in Palestine) are clients of other major power brokers, namely Syria and Iran. Of course, Israel is our client, so is this just the start of a proxy war? Does Bush really intend to draw in the other players in the area to actually promote a region-wide war, as the PNAC hopes for? Strategically, Israel getting a chance to emasculate Hezbollah is getting cheers from the US Congress, but tactically, is that possible? Even if it is, how many civilian casualties, how much destruction of Beirut can be sustained before there is blowback and the means no longer justify the ends. I was in Beirut in 1970 and it was a beautiful place, Hamra street was a vibrant place, and it was possible to get a taxi and cross the Bekka Valley and visit Damascus for a day without fear. No longer.
Although I believe that anyone who supported the Iraq war was a fool, including the Democrats who did, it is possible to make the case that then, the assumption that it would be a ninety-day invasion wasn't unusual, IF the underlying assumptions were mostly correct. And, many people believed that, once Baghdad were taken, we would administer it more or less competently But, the laws of unintended consequences took effect. Read Cobra II by Bernard Trainor for a view of how things started to unravel.
The assumption in the Lebanese conflict, depending on who you believe, is that Israel will get to, and eradicate, Hezbollah before too much of Lebanon is damaged, too many casualties occur, and too much time passes. Many people have offered the opinion, however, that terrorism is a tactic, not a target, and cannot be fought successfully by the military. There is every chance that the rocketing will stop, but Hezbollah will actually come out looking better in the hearts and minds of the Lebanese and the Arab middle east in general, compared to Israel, and by extension, the US.
It's hard to say what Israel could do differently after being attacked, other than in hindsight point out how we got to this point. Israel's hard line with the Palestinians, Palestinian corruption and Arafat, lack of follow through for UN resolution 1559, the US lack of support and actual disdain for the UN are all factors.
It seems clear that a) Israel has been making war plans for just this sort of event for over a year, and b) it seems to be the position of the US government that allowing this war to fester and expand is somehow in the national interest, or at least the interest of the chickenhawks at PNAC.
If Israel decides that it must invade southern Lebanon, we will see Baghdad-like urban warfare, all over again. And that means that unintended consequences, and the ruin of Lebanon, are just around the corner.