Olmert Pressured to Quit over Botched War

[hgc]

From NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/world/middleeast/30cnd-mideast.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin).

The report of an official inquiry isn't kind to Olmert's performance during last summer's war in Lebanon against Hezbollah.

The interim findings of the report say that Mr. Olmert "made up his mind hastily" to launch the air, sea and land campaign last July against Hezbollah guerrillas, and accuse him of "a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence," according to Reuters.


It was apparent last summer that the Israeli government was not fighting that war with anything near the degree of success that is necessary to maintain the swagger of invincibilty that is so important to Israel's precarious situation.

The links to the U.S. and the Bush administration are telling. Since the U.S. is Israel's traditional big brother in strategy, note that the people in charge on this end are demonstrably not well qualified to guide Israel's hand in matters of war and peace. Bush urged the war on, impeded in any attempts to bring it to an early conclusion, and quashed peace overtures to Syria. It looks like the Bush reverse-Midas touch, which long ago spread to Blair, also hit Olmert.

Interesting the parallels to the U.S. situation...

Mr. Olmert has been weakened, in part, because he is facing numerous corruption investigations, ...

[corplinx]

Bush urged the war on, impeded in any attempts to bring it to an early conclusion, and quashed peace overtures to Syria.

Could you refresh this for me? I certainly remember the lack of US involvement. I am not sure I recollect Bush urging them to go to war with Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.

[a_unique_person]

According to Haaretz, it's really a case of the tail wagging the dog. Olmert was always just Israels' Quayle to Sharon. He just did what he was advised to by the military.

It also appears to ignore the lessons learned from the previous Lebanon venture, just what was the intent of invading anyway? Plenty of civilian infrastructure was destroyed, they were going to have to pull out anyway, what would have made the operation a success?

[hgc]

Could you refresh this for me? I certainly remember the lack of US involvement. I am not sure I recollect Bush urging them to go to war with Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.


Sure can. From USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-23-rice-mission_x.htm), July 23.

Standing beside Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as they prepared to meet in his office, Rice reiterated the United States position that a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon must come with conditions that make an enduring peace. She said she has "no desire" to be back in weeks or months after terrorists find another way to disrupt any potential cease fire.


This is pretty clear. Rice is instructing Olmert not to stop the offensive until goals are acheived. Whatever goals those were.

[UnrepentantSinner]

What makes this situation all the more tragic is that while the U.S. seemed to forget lessons learned 30 years ago in VietNam with our forray into Iraq, Israel seemed to have forgotten lessons learned 3 years ago... from our forray into Iraq.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/814342.html



Something very bad is happening in the army. No Winograd Committee will take care of it. Like a person under pressure, the Israel Defense Forces is acting more and more in a way that appears to be a breach of its duty. A traumatized defense minister joins the somewhat frightening picture, in which the organization meant to protect us is unloading the responsibility it carries. The recurring symptoms have recently added up to a sydrome: The army's tail is wagging the dog, and its head is bowed.

The most dangerous phenomenon is the serial leaks from the General Staff regarding an anticipated war in the North. Twice in the past month, anonymous officials from IDF headquarters infiltrated the media headlines with such scare tactics. They told reporters, who did not quote any source, that according to the General Staff assessment, Syria and Hezbollah will begin a war this year.

During normal times, under convincing civilian leadership, such predictions would come under the IDF's reports to the government about enemy preparedness. Now they have become anonymous leaks, address unknown. The "Will there be a war?" question in the headlines sounds now like the immortal line from a skit by the Hagashah Hahiver comedy troupe.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif
When the defense minister was asked to comment on this spin from his generals, some of whom are being investigated by the Winograd Committee examining last summer's war in Lebanon, he was quick to announce he had no knowledge of the predictions. This is strange. If there is going to be a war, this time the person who accumulated only scant information about the preparedness of Hezbollah should be more knowledgeable. But Amir Peretz has no idea about any upcoming war or about General Staff provocation.

[hgc]

Sure can. From USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-23-rice-mission_x.htm), July 23.

This is pretty clear. Rice is instructing Olmert not to stop the offensive until goals are acheived. Whatever goals those were.


On 2nd thought this is not conclusive about what the U.S. stance was prior to the invasion. I deduce that from the nature of the relationship between the Israel and the U.S. and from the general enthusiasm by BushCo for the possibility of allies joining us in our crusade.

[corplinx]

On 2nd thought this is not conclusive about what the U.S. stance was prior to the invasion.

The stance you cited is a very common one we take with Israel.

[Mycroft]

He just did what he was advised to by the military.

Evidence?