“The Only Exit Strategy”

As Charles Krauthammer argues, Israel must destroy Hezbollah once and for all:

In a stunning development, the 22-member Arab League criticized Hezbollah for provoking the current crisis. It is unprecedented for the Arab League to criticize any Arab party while it is actively engaged in hostilities with Israel. But the Arab states know that Hezbollah, a Shiite militia in the service of Persian Iran, is a threat not just to Lebanon but to them as well. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have openly criticized Hezbollah for starting a war on what is essentially Iran’s timetable (to distract attention from Iran’s pending referral to the Security Council for sanctions over its nuclear program). They are far more worried about Iran and its proxies than about Israel. They are therefore eager to see Hezbollah disarmed and defanged.

Fine. Everyone agrees it must be done. But who to do it? No one. The Lebanese are too weak. The Europeans don’t invade anyone. After its bitter experience of 20 years ago, the U.S. has a Lebanon allergy. And Israel could not act out of the blue because it would immediately have been branded the aggressor and forced to retreat.

Hence the golden, unprecedented opportunity. Hezbollah makes a fatal mistake. It crosses the U.N.-delineated international frontier to attack Israel, kill soldiers and take hostages. This cross-border aggression is so naked that even Russia joins in the G-8 summit communique blaming Hezbollah for the violence and calling for the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty in the south.

But only one country has the capacity to do the job. That is Israel, now recognized by the world as forced into this fight by Hezbollah’s aggression.

The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese.

It starts by preparing the ground with air power, just as the Gulf War began with a 40-day air campaign. But if all that happens is the air campaign, the result will be failure. Hezbollah will remain in place, Israel will remain under the gun, Lebanon will remain divided and unfree. And this war will start again at a time of Hezbollah and Iran’s choosing.

Just as in Kuwait 1991, what must follow the air campaign is a land invasion to clear the ground and expel the occupier. Israel must retake south Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. It would then declare the obvious: that it has no claim to Lebanese territory and is prepared to withdraw and hand south Lebanon over to the Lebanese army (augmented perhaps by an international force), thus finally bringing about what the world has demanded — implementation of Resolution 1559 and restoration of south Lebanon to Lebanese sovereignty.

Only two questions remain: Israel’s will and America’s wisdom. Does Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have the courage to do what is so obviously necessary? And will Secretary of State Rice’s upcoming peace trip to the Middle East force a premature cease-fire that spares her the humiliation of coming home empty-handed but prevents precisely the kind of decisive military outcome that would secure the interests of Israel, Lebanon, the moderate Arabs and the West?

As James posted earlier, there is some talk of the United States putting pressure on Israel to end this conflict by the end of next week although, I agree with James, the report seems a little dubious.

Or perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my part because I think that Krauthammer is correct in his analysis that this is an opportunity for Israel to cripple Hezbollah beyond repair. Allowing Hezbollah to survive this doesn’t make sense; it will never relent in its views that Israel must be destroyed and its accomplice, America, must suffer as well. And if the Bush administration is not willing to support such an effort–or, at the very least, passively allowing it to occur–it will lose any semblance of credibility that it still has when it comes to the war on terror.

FILED UNDER: General, , , , , , , ,
Greg Tinti
About Greg Tinti
Greg started the blog The Political Pit Bull in August 2005. He was OTB's Breaking News Editor from June through August 2006 before deciding to return to his own blog. His blogging career eventually ended altogether. He has a B.A. in Anthropology from The George Washington University,

Comments

  1. Anderson says:

    Kevin Drum was wondering: Israel *occupied* parts of Lebanon until 2000, but couldn’t destroy Hezbollah then.

    Why would it be able to do so now?

  2. Steve Verdon says:

    Hmmmm…good question Anderson, I’d love to see a serious answer to that one.

  3. madmatt says:

    Why exactly do we always side with israel….other than the blatent bribery of aipac I mean….what exactly does the US get out of the relationship for that $2.5 billion a year? No oil, no imports, the hatred of the rest of the middle east is all I ever see from our support. This is a real question?

  4. McGehee says:

    what exactly does the US get out of the relationship for that $2.5 billion a year?

    A democratic friend in the Middle East that also doesn’t screw us for petro-dollars and doesn’t fund terrorism?

    Just a guess.

  5. DC Loser says:

    A democratic friend in the Middle East that also doesnâ??t screw us for petro-dollars and doesnâ??t fund terrorism?

    Turkey fits that bill, but I don’t see us bending over backwards to help them out of their problems.

  6. Herb says:

    This war as well as the GWOT will go on for years to come. The one criterion for the end is to “Civilize” those who think in terms of killing for religious dogma.

    The problem is that most all Muslims are far beyond being “civilized” and will continue their quest for power until they are provided 72 virgins.

    Those who fail to see the value in having Israel as a friend, fail to understand what the war is all about or are “Just Plain Bigots”

  7. Anderson says:

    A democratic friend in the Middle East that also doesnâ??t screw us for petro-dollars and doesnâ??t fund terrorism?

    Yes, as the bombing of Beirut shows, Israel is much more DIY in that regard.

  8. madmatt says:

    I am sure if israel had oil they would screw us and obviously you didn’t hear about israelis spying on the pentagon so give me another $2.4billion a year answer.

  9. McGehee says:

    DC, your definition of the Middle East is non-standard.

    As is Anderson’s definition of terrorism.

    madmatt:

    obviously you didn�t hear about israelis spying on the pentagon so give me another $2.4billion a year answer.

    All countries spy on other countries. We and the Brits spy on each other.

  10. Anderson says:

    As is Andersonâ??s definition of terrorism.

    Killing civilians in order to spread terror for political purposes?