Israeli Leaders Fault Bush on War

[Jabhad]

Israeli Leaders Fault Bush on War*

By Robert Parry

Consortium News

 

 

Sunday 13 August 2006

 

 

Amid the political and diplomatic fallout from Israel's faltering

invasion of Lebanon, some Israeli officials are privately blaming

President George W. Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the

ill-conceived military adventure against the Hezbollah militia in south

Lebanon.

 

 

Bush conveyed his strong personal support for the military offensive

during a White House meeting with Olmert on May 23, according to sources

familiar with the thinking of senior Israeli leaders.

 

 

Olmert, who like Bush lacks direct wartime experience, agreed that a

dose of military force against Hezbollah might damage the guerrilla

group's influence in Lebanon and intimidate its allies, Iran and Syria,

countries that Bush has identified as the chief obstacles to U.S.

interests in the Middle East.

 

 

As part of Bush's determination to create a "new Middle East" - one

that is more amenable to U.S. policies and desires - Bush even urged

Israel to attack Syria, but the Olmert government refused to go that

far, according to Israeli sources.

 

 

One source said some Israeli officials thought Bush's attack-Syria

idea was "nuts" since much of the world would have seen the bombing

campaign as overt aggression.

 

 

In an article on July 30, the Jerusalem Post referred to Bush's

interest in a wider war involving Syria. Israeli "defense officials told

the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that

America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria," the

newspaper reported.

 

 

While balking at an expanded war into Syria, Olmert did agree on the

need to show military muscle in Lebanon as a prelude to facing down Iran

over its nuclear program, which Olmert has called an "existential"

threat to Israel.

 

 

With U.S. forces bogged down in Iraq, Bush and his neoconservative

advisers saw the inclusion of Israeli forces as crucial for advancing a

strategy that would punish Syria for supporting Iraqi insurgents,

advance the confrontation with Iran and isolate Hezbollah in Lebanon and

Hamas in Gaza.

 

 

But the month-long war has failed to achieve its goals of destroying

Hezbollah forces in south Lebanon or intimidating Iran and Syria.

 

 

Instead, Hezbollah guerrillas fought Israeli troops to a virtual

standstill in villages near the border and much of the world saw

Israel's bombing raids across Lebanon - which killed hundreds of

civilians - as "disproportionate."

 

 

Now, as the conflict winds down, some Israeli officials are ruing

the Olmert-Bush pact on May 23 and fault Bush for pushing Olmert into

the conflict.

 

 

*Building Pressure*

 

 

Soon after the May 23 meeting in Washington, Israel began to ratchet

up pressure on the Hamas-led government in the Palestinian territories

and on Hezbollah and other Islamic militants in Lebanon. As part of this

process, Israel staged low-key attacks in both Lebanon and Gaza. [For

details, see Consortiumnews.com A 'Pretext' War in Lebanon.]

 

 

The tit-for-tat violence led to the Hamas seizure of an Israeli

soldier on June 24 and then to Israeli retaliatory strikes in Gaza.

That, in turn, set the stage for Hezbollah's attack on an Israeli

outpost and the capture of two more Israeli soldiers on July 12.

 

 

Hezbollah's July 12 raid became the trigger that Bush and Olmert had

been waiting for. With the earlier attacks unknown or forgotten, Israel

and the U.S. skillfully rallied international condemnation of Hezbollah

for what was called an unprovoked attack and a "kidnapping" of Israeli

soldiers.

 

 

Behind the international criticism of Hezbollah, Bush and Olmert

justified an intense air campaign against Lebanese targets, killing

civilians and destroying much of Lebanon's commercial infrastructure.

Israeli troops also crossed into southern Lebanon with the intent of

delivering a devastating military blow against Hezbollah, which

retaliated by firing Katyusha rockets into Israel..

 

 

However, the Israeli operation was eerily reminiscent of the

disastrous U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Like the U.S. assault,

Israel relied heavily on "shock and awe" air power and committed an

inadequate number of soldiers to the battle.

 

 

Israeli newspapers have been filled with complaints from soldiers

who say some reservists weren't issued body armor while other soldiers

found their equipment either inferior or inappropriate to the

battlefield conditions.

 

 

Israeli troops also encountered fierce resistance from Hezbollah

guerrillas, who took a page from the Iraqi insurgents by using explosive

booby traps and ambushes to inflict heavier than expected casualties on

the Israelis.

 

 

Channel 2 in Israel disclosed that several top military commanders

wrote a letter to Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, the chief of staff, criticizing

the war planning as chaotic and out of line with the combat training of

the soldiers and officers. [Washington Post, Aug. 12, 2006]

 

 

One Israeli plan to use llamas to deliver supplies in the rugged

terrain of south Lebanon turned into an embarrassment when the animals

simply sat down.

 

 

Reporter Nahum Barnea, who traveled with an Israeli unit in south

Lebanon, compared the battle to "the famous Tom and Jerry cartoons" with

the powerful Israeli military playing the role of the cat Tom and the

resourceful Hezbollah guerrillas playing the mouse Jerry. "In every

conflict between them, Jerry wins," Barnea wrote.

 

 

*Olmert Criticized*

 

 

Back in Israel, some leading newspapers have begun calling for

Olmert's resignation.

 

 

"If Olmert runs away now from the war he initiated, he will not be

able to remain prime minister for even one more day," the newspaper

Haaretz wrote in a front-page analysis. "You cannot lead an entire

nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain

in power.

 

 

"You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis

in shelters for a month and then say, 'Oops, I made a mistake.'" [see

Washington Post, Aug. 12, 2006]

 

 

For his part, Bush spent July and early August fending off

international demands for an immediate cease-fire. Bush wanted to give

Olmert as much time as possible to bomb targets across Lebanon and

dislodge Hezbollah forces in the south.

 

 

But instead of turning the Lebanese population against Hezbollah -

as Washington and Tel Aviv had hoped - the devastation rallied public

support behind Hezbollah.

 

 

As the month-long conflict took on the look of a public-relations

disaster for Israel, the Bush administration dropped its resistance to

international cease-fire demands and joined with France in crafting a

United Nations plan for stopping the fighting.

 

 

Quoting "a senior administration official" with Bush at his ranch in

Crawford, Texas, the New York Times reported that "it increasingly

seemed that Israel would not be able to achieve a military victory, a

reality that led the Americans to get behind a cease-fire." [NYT, Aug.

12, 2006]

 

 

But the repercussions from Israel's failed Lebanon offensive are

likely to continue. Olmert must now confront the political damage at

home and the chief U.S. adversaries in the Middle East may be emboldened

by the outcome, more than chastened.

 

 

As in the Iraq War, Bush has revealed again how reliance on tough

talk and military might can sometimes undercut - not build up - U.S.

influence in the strategically important Middle East.