Thursday, August 24, 2006

The success of the international resistance

From, of all places, Insight Magazine:

“Mr. Rumsfeld is said to have assessed that Sunni and Shiite militias would use the Hezbollah model in the insurgency war in Iraq. The defense secretary has been concerned that Iranian-backed Shiite militias would soon deploy anti-tank missiles that Hezbollah used against the Israeli army in Lebanon.

‘If they can knock out the [Israeli main battle tank] Merkava, then they can certainly do the same with the Bradley, Stryker and even Abrams,’ an official said. ‘This will be a priority for Rumsfeld and the army.’”

The Tamil Tigers perfected suicide bombing.  The IRA taught the Iraqi resistance about IEDs.  Hezbollah expertise at using anti-tank weapons both against tanks and against personnel is making its way around the world.  Hezbollah has learned a lot about aiming its missiles, and the next time won’t be so inaccurate, and will pass its knowledge to its friends.  The resistance is learning and so can we:

  1. Egocentric Western military strategists, talking about concepts like ‘asymmetric warfare’, are out to lunch.  Hezbollah won on the battlefield that Israel picked.  Hezbollah won as an army fighting an army, fair and square.  Contrary to the opinion of all the analysts, that Hezbollah won because Western popular opinion tied Israel’s hands, nothing could be further from the truth.  The Americans gave Israel enough time to destroy an entire country.  Western popular opinion was either non-existent, or irrelevant.  Israel’s hands weren’t tied in the least, and, after what it did to Lebanon, it is obscene to suggest otherwise.  Hezbollah didn’t use civilians as shields as the Lebanese civilian population is too riddled with informants.  The fact that it didn’t fire its missiles from civilian areas –  a racist idea promoted by the racist Zionists – is proven from the universal support it now has from all Lebanese civilians.  In fact, the ‘asymmetric warfare’ concept of fighting by using terror against civilians for political purposes – classic ‘terrorism’, as defined by the experts - was Israeli strategy, not Hezbollah’s.  Israelis are the real terrorists.  All the excuses made for the abject failure of the IDF are simply lies, and anyone who believes them will continue to make the same mistakes that Israel made.
  2. The use of cheap and easily available military technology against richer but stupider opponents is going to continue to become more prevalent and more sophisticated.  We are seeing the rise of a virtual world-wide resistance, where various groups, often separated by religion or ideology (the Marxists must be sad, as the international resistance is defined in terms that don’t fit their pattern in any way), are sharing techniques.  The relatively cheap matériel is easily available on the world arms market (the Marxists might have an argument about how the sanctity of the market, which includes the market for arms, has provided enough rope for the imperialists to hang themselves).  It is going to become more and more difficult for imperialist countries to sustain the casualty rates that will be required for their politicians and generals to win their battles.
  3. All the American and Israeli plans failed because of one fact:  Hezbollah fought the Israelis and won.  Had Hezbollah been defeated, the settlers’ pools would now be full of stolen Lebanese water.  Western popular opinion had nothing to do with it.  In fact, the phony resistance of the ‘left’, exemplified by characters such as Chomsky, does far more harm than good, and simply provides cover for the imperialists to try their worst.  The resistance is completely on its own, and has to win its own battles.  Fortunately, it is proving that it is fully capable of doing so.

Traditional states like Venezuela or Syria, states which are in the cross-hairs of the evildoers, would be well advised to learn from resistance groups like Hezbollah, and prepare to defend themselves accordingly.  The wars of the future will be won in the long run, after the initial apparent success of the imperial powers.

0 comments: