Do the anecdotes coming out of Gaza suggesting that many of the beleaguered denizens of that wretched place are angry with Hamas for inviting this latest bit of destruction down upon their heads strengthen or weaken my arguments against the invasion? I'd say strengthen since if true anecdotes lend credence to belief that Hamas indeed left itself politically vulnerable with its brinkmanship and my strategy would have allowed Israel to both maximize exploitation of that vulnerability and minimize international interference, a key factor in any Israeli military calculation [viz: EU now suggesting maybe it's time to negotiate with Hamas]. Of course one can argue the other way, that without boots on the ground etc etc - but there does seem to be some indication that the Chief of Staff of the IDF shared my concerns re the invasion.

So, a victory for me, yes? Don't care who suffers just so long as I'm right...

Update: Predictably, Hamas lobbing missiles into Israel again - just enough to irritate [and rally dispirited population] but not enough to provoke, or so they hope I imagine, which seems to be the case. Again, I think this bolsters my argument that invasion raises the stakes and eventually will create more problems than it solves if you don't pursue to a logical conclusion implied by the raised stakes.

I must say, that for all the praise heaped on Obama's speech giving talents, I find his style quite ponderous, annoying even - I certainly don't see what all the fuss is about: he comes across as both pedagogical and messianic - or, possibly closer to the point, as a person who sees or fancies himself as one ordained by a higher power to teach true lessons and lead lost souls out of the wilderness. When I listen to him, whether at the lectern or just giving an interview, I find myself thinking that there's probably any number of charismatic college professors/baptist preachers in the country with the same shtick and capable of more convincing performances. There's something about all this high praise that has nothing to do with his putative talent and more probably to do with what people want to believe they're hearing. That the man has political talent goes without saying - but that can amount to a very superficial thing after all - and any person who argues that Obama's depth has been adequately demonstrated is simply not being honest with themselves.

Still, the man did say he would not be pressured into buying a girls dog and that gets him a lot of credit with me. I'll give him his chance...

"... everyone has demons, everyone vulnerable to delusions and darker matters that lie in wait behind the stars... how Obama will be set upon by his is a question that will not go unanswered, that's the nature of the job... where we will stand as a nation consequent to such is a state that may resist divination... or may become all too familiar... but if you press me to hazard a guess I'll say my main concerns... once you get past the economy, which pretty much overshadows everything right now... my main concerns breakdown thusly: he can't escape or worse resist the siren calls of the wrought left wing... regardless of him so far seeming to position himself as a pragmatic centrist the left still views him as the saviour of everything they hold dear... how he deals with the pressure that will come from them and possibly himself regarding this salvation will be key... not to mention that it's not at all clear yet that the man isn't a sheep temporarily gone wolfish as part of a political calculation...; that his election, because of the race component, but more importantly I think because Bush has been so thoroughly and irrationally demonized, is being invested, larded with a dangerous amount of naive idealism that is by its very nature doomed to be disappointed... how certain constituencies respond to that disappointment, at home and abroad, could complicate things to the point where his administration becomes confused...; and then I worry that his 'academicness' will prove debilitating... professorial types like him tend to put too much emphasis on what they're good at, subtle argumentation, and therefore, out of a sense of inferiority or fear of losing what passes as control for them, tend to demean or shy away from its antithesis - cold, hard action... a leader of an empire stands his people in good stead if he's adept at both, is comfortable with both... right now we have absolutely no idea how Obama will measure up when it comes to the burden of having to act with harsh and sometimes cruel precision... we have no idea because he's never been in a position of true leadership, a want that has and should still cause any reasonable person to view with skepticism his high minded rhetoric... rhetoric that too often seems inclined to fancy that words and deeds are the same thing and that an ideal, once expressed, is magically transformed into an actuality..."

Nineteenth-century Prussian philosopher Carl von Clausewitz argued that “the first, the supreme, the most far reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish the kind of war on which they are embarking, neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature. This is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive.”

Which brings us nicely to Israel invading Gaza: what were they thinking? It's not clear, but with world opinion now squarely against them, the US having merely 'abstained' and not vetoed UN resolution calling for ceasefire, the words of ol' Carl von ring very sharply here: an invasion that does not 'destroy' Hamas will have limited near term benefits for Israel but in the long term will serve Hamas' interests much more than Israel's, regardless of the amount of 'damage' done. When you decided to escalate and invade you better have had a complete understanding of the "kind of war on which you were embarking" otherwise this will eventually amount to wasted effort - worse than wasted because Hamas, which feeds off martyrdom and victimhood, will gain strength from it. Sure, smuggling tunnels will be shut down and then no doubt some kind of ceasefire will be negotiated - but the fundamental logic will remain in place: Israel has no choice now but to destroy Hamas and re-occupy Gaza - well, they have another choice, they can claim to have efficiently degraded Hamas' abilities etc etc - [I say efficiently so I can quote McMaster] who recently wrote re Vietnam/Iraq: "For efficiency in all forms of warfare, including counterinsurgency, means barely winning. And in war, barely winning can be an ugly proposition."

Which is not to say I believe Israel is going to pursue the logic of a war to the finish with Hamas and re-occupy Gaza but rather to suggest that once they decided to escalate and invade an expectation of such should have been understood - which is why I was against it - which is not to say that I don't think they should pursue such but rather to say I doubted that was their intention.

Now, it's possible they gamed the whole thing out and came to the conclusion that 'limited' victories are all they can reasonably hope for at this point - ok, that may be true: but doesn't that support my argument that air strikes were 'enough' to achieve these limited goals, goals that could only be compromised by an invasion that didn't go all the way? You see, the invasion was a counter-intuitive thing, because you would think that it would increase pressure on Hamas but in actuality it increased pressure on Israel to achieve results in keeping with the actions - but if Hamas survives, if its governing philosophy continues undeterred, if its ties to Iran and Hezbollah are strengthened by their suffering at the hands of the reviled Jews, if a world view that tends to see Israeli aggression as unwarranted is lent credence, well then how can the invasion be seen as anything other than a misstep if it does not now pursue results in keeping with its significance?

Update: reasonably reliable source declares Israel's intentions were only ever 'limited': resurrect deterrence legitimacy post Lebanon and work for a truce that will last a couple of years - source seems confident that the invasion's main focus was to lock down Hamas fighters while Israeli engineers laid waste to smuggling tunnels - now that that work is almost done claims Israel will soon either agree to a proposed ceasefire or just withdraw unilaterally [there's disagreement within cabinet on how to proceed here]. If true, I think that means I was right: my plan would have allowed for all that with added advantages of: one, creating the opportunity to degrade Hamas' political credibility; and two, forestalling and then mitigating inevitable international criticism. Plus, my approach would have made a unilateral cessation of hostilities much more palatable - momentum and the upper hand would have stayed with Israel - if they have to sign onto an Egyptian sponsored truce or unilaterally withdraw under the angry glare of world opinion then I'm not sure same will apply, Hamas can turn such to their advantage, regardless of any metric that may call them the 'losers' - can see the spirit of victory kind of slipping to Hamas.

Now, I suppose there could be some military reason that made my plan impractical [in fact there likely are good reasons why my approach was logistically weak] - still, I think for the most part I got this one right... for the most part... possibly...

Ok - Prince Harry used some racially 'insensitive' language - overlords of correctness all in a snit about it, British PM felt compelled to publicly denounce etc etc - but this is what people don't get and why the world seems sometimes to be a ridiculous mash of meaningless sentiments - soldiers are different, they need to be different because what they do is not normal - they establish this difference in many ways, one being a form of bonding the crudities of which are designed to separate them from the niceties of 'normal' society which are of very little use on the battle field - racial epithets among many other 'put downs' are part of the process - hell, all male bonding is somewhat of this nature, but for obvious reasons soldiers take it to another level.

Now, I guess I understand why public officials need to make a show of outrage - but a show is all it can or should be: if you believe the military is a necessary attribute of any free society then you have to accept the realities of a military ethos - a particularly male ethos for that matter too - despite best efforts of enlightened types who would like to correct this coarseness...

"... but what exactly is the American ideal?... what is or, as the current crop of earnest young cynics might say, was the idea of America?... people want to believe it was one thing or another but that want suggests a preference and my guess is... based on my great witnessing of this most corrupted flesh... my guess is that that preference will be predisposed to miss the point..."

"... ya know, it somewhat embarrasses me to say it, but I'm almost finding myself actually liking the idea of Obama as President... I mean, possibly there's some guilt there... I did want to have those bumper stickers printed up reading 'Destroy America - Vote Obama'... so maybe just a bit of guilt there... I mean, to be fair, he did gird himself up with uber-liberal preening in order to secure nomination as prettiest belle at the ball and it was such that drove me to contemplating sarcastic bumper stickers... but the way he has turned his back with such cool disdain on that lot... seems to have anyway... and that they still coo his praises... seem to anyway... well, hard not to like that I guess... although one suspects some nasty turns lying in wait on this road, turns which I think are like to at least somewhat vindicate my concerns... now that the gooey, wide-eyed left wing sympathies that won him the nomination are set asunder by economic woes and the putting in place of a centrist cabinet, well, it's not really possible to know what to expect of the man - nor, I tend to imagine, does he quite know what to expect of himself... the psychology that brought him to this pinnacle is still largely unknown, its true measure not taken..."

so Israel rejects my good counsel and invades - bad move - unless you pursue invasion to its bitter end you've given upper hand to Hamas since all they have to do is survive to 'win' - and true to form civilian casualties mount, a UN school gets bombed, children die - and now Israel reported receptive to ceasefire talks - and so Hamas wins. By invading you're saying you believe there's a military solution to the Hamas problem, but that's only true if you take it all the way - anything short of that is a failure.

Possibly it works out - possibly Israel is gambling that raising the stakes forces Egypt to play a part, to take actions to rein in Hamas because they fear Iran using Hamas to leverage its power and influence in the region - conservatives in Egypt's autocracy very much fear Iran stoking radical Islamist unrest along the Nile [which is why they are almost alone among Muslim countries in chiding Hamas for breaking the truce - although Egypt is trying to play it both ways: fearful of alienating Hamas and its supporters and yet mindful of the complications arrising thereof] - maybe that's what they're thinking - but to me invasion puts too many cards on the table, you can't back away from it - my plan played close to the vest and focused on the to me much more reasonable goal of degrading Hamas' political power by rather viciously teasing its culture - ie Hamas somewhat stuck with the bravado of being the only Islamist force actually taking it to the hated Jews and being perpetually martyred for the cause - that bravado leaves them exposed to manipulation as they overreach, which is what they did by abrogating the truce - an invasion that doesn't end in obvious victory merely breathes life into that culture - which is why I said don't invade unless you're willing to pursue to the bitter end.

But, like I said, maybe their real goal was to put pressure on Egypt... Update: apparently Israel has now clarified its position re the French/Egyptian ceasefire proposal to represent a more hard line view of such - which I take it to mean they understand fully the logic governing the commitment to invade - does that mean you expect them then to take it to the bitter end? - well... they may still be expecting an Hamas capitulation short of that - I'm not particularly sanguine re such, but after the Lebanon fiasco one tends to want to believe they know what the hell they're doing... still, my approach was better... updated Update: a few missiles launched from Leb - would the Hezzies really try to escalate this thing? - dubious... that would be definite brinkmanship to tempt Israel now, not to mention a defacto admission that Iran is calling the shots - UN suspends relief efforts in Gaza after driver killed by IDF tank fire - you see, there's a cold and cruel logic to this invasion thing... I see very limited end game scenarios that play to Israel's long term advantage and all, I think, excepting the outright destruction of Hamas, could have been achieved without an invasion that by it's very nature then unnecessarily added risks...