# Contact info submission url: exile-blog.blogspot.com site_owner: address1: address2: city: state: country: postal_code: phone_number: display_email: site_name: site_description: The Exile

E-Mail Me

My Twitter

Top Blogs

LeftWing2

Campaign 4 Public Ownership

FASO

FASSIT

Mothers For Justice

Ian Josephs

UKSecretCourt's Videos

Unity-Injustice




Chris Paul

David Lindsay

Heresy Corner

Machetera

Martin Meenagh

Neil Clark

Organised Rage

Renegade Eye

Serb Blog

Splintered Sunrise

Star of Vergina

Unrepentant Communist

Agitprop

British Politics

Censorship 01

Collaborators

Gimlet

Imperialism

Memories

Mexico

New Britain 01

New Britain 02

Sleaze

Social Work Industry

Wankblogs

Working Class

Atom Feed

XML Feed





16 August 2006
Barking dogs & Israel's attack on Lebanon
Seymour Hersh's recent article in the New Yorker is mainly about America's role in egging on the Israelis to attack Lebanon. However, it does point to one glaring flaw in the whole wheeze that nobody has yet picked up on:
The initial plan, as outlined by the Israelis, called for a major bombing campaign in response to the next Hezbollah provocation, according to the Middle East expert with knowledge of U.S. and Israeli thinking. Israel believed that, by targeting Lebanon’s infrastructure, including highways, fuel depots, and even the civilian runways at the main Beirut airport, it could persuade Lebanon’s large Christian and Sunni populations to turn against Hezbollah, according to the former senior intelligence official. The airport, highways, and bridges, among other things, have been hit in the bombing campaign.
The flaw can be called the barking dog fallacy. Basically, a plan calls for someone to do something, then the dog barks, and then something else happens. However, if the mut stays silent or does something other than bark, then the plan falls to pieces. In the case of Israel the barking dog was the Christian and Sunni communities who were supposed to rise up against Hezbollah. Not only did they decline to do as instructed by the Israeli script, they actually started supporting Hezbollah.

Hence the Israelis started flailing about sending troops into Lebanon, then bringing them out again, then sending them back. They probably behaved like that because they had no idea what to do if Plan A went off the rails.
1 Comments:

They're so used to manipulating people and using 'divide and conquer', and they're so used to seeing themselves as omnipotent, they've started to become deluded about their ability to jerk people around whatever the circumstances. This is a qualitatively new game here, however -- and they don't get it. And knowing somewhat how they think, I'd say they still don't get it; and we've read already now that they're reaching the consensus they just weren't brutal enuff.
Ha.

I don't know what Hizbullah's gameplan was last time (duh), given any number of contingencies; but now we also all know that the original zionist plan was to invade Lebanon massively above the Litani from the sea, and crush Hizbullah from the south and the north. So when the zionists attak again... where will they come from -- and what will be Hizbullah's response?

I imagine there's a lot of reserves being whipped into shape right now in Lebanon. Too bad the Internet is still not quite our little panopticon... But for sure -- the imperialists have not learned a damned thing. They will attak again. And it won't be like last time. And I sure hope the lebanese resistance is stocking up on SAMs. Lots of `em.

17 August 2006 at 16:21  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home