A Fateful Symmetry?

Paul Krugman suggests that Israel's assault on Hezbollah and the American war in Iraq share the error of having failed to commit enough forces to achieve the result intended--with the consequence that many people have been killed and maimed for, at best, limited gains. (Or, in the case of Iraq, almost certain strategic defeat.)

As usual, Krugman is provocative, but it seems to me that there is an essential difference between the American and Israeli errors. The US never conceived of a viable insurgency, even as it failed to take the steps necessary to prevent one, and also neglected to foresee the civil war that now wracks Iraq. Israel, on the other hand, recognized the threat it faced (a real threat), but appears not to have recognized how deeply dug in Hezbollah forces were. History may judge the Israeli mistake to be as grave as the American, but the situation may yet be retrieved. Given the calls for a cease-fire from Syria--one of Hezbollah's chief sponsors--and from some elements of Hezbollah itself, the movement may have been hurt more badly than appears from the outside. Assuming, as seems likely, that the Israelis have cut off re-supply of missiles, Hezbollah has shot off a large part of its arsenal, and more has been destroyed by the Israelis. Israel also appears to have knocked out a number of launchers for Hezbollah's long-range missiles--items likely to be in short supply. And we do not know how many Hezbollah militants have been killed and wounded.

Remember, too, that the complex system of fortifications that Israel found in southern Lebanon shows that attacking Hezbollah before it could become even more entrenched was probably the right decision, even if more force should have been used. The world will pay no mind to that, of course, as it calls for a cease-fire--nor is the international community likely to have the backbone to demand a stand-still that does not allow the terrorists to rebuild their forces and their stocks of arms and ammunition.