Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
Yeah, I'm disagreeing with Naveh on his concept for a "forcible disarmament" of Hizbullah. As long the Shi'i of Lebanon feel (1) disenfranchised and aggrieved (2) threatened, rightly or wrongly, by Israel, there will always be a constituency in that population for an armed party of their own capable of fighting both Lebanese and Israeli foes. There will have to be a sea change in the strategic context for this to work long-term - either by removing Hizbullah's foreign backers and arms suppliers, or by altering the political calculus of the broader Lebanese Shi'i community. Anything else is blowing smoke and kicking the can down the road, even if successful in the short term.
Ok, I completely agree with that. It seems Naveh's touted alternative was really just a tactical shift from what was actually done. The questions that raises, about how to combat a group like Hezbollah or its ilk, seem damn near insurmountable to me.

And Wilf - I see 2006 as nearly as big a victory as Hezbollah could possibly score. The invincible Israelis withdrew, Hezbollah stood and fought in the villages in the south, and then helped clean up the country after Israel (again) devastated the infrastructure, gaining popularity and legitimacy through both their military and political wings. They may not have decisively defeated the IDF on the ground, but they fought very well and the strategic and IO gains for Hezbollah were quite large, IMO. I'd be interested to hear why you (or others) think otherwise.

Matt