Mere Rhetoric: Hezbollah Gloats - We Spent A Month Hiding Behind the UN's Skirts, So We Won!

Yes, we know it's annoying. But who cares - it's classic lady doth protest too much blithering. If Nasrallah's best argument is that the consequences of Lebanon II have hurt Olmert's political career - well, not to be overly pedantic, but Hezbollah's no longer in the Lebanese government either. And if Hezbollah's best propaganda against Israel is that they fired rockets into Tel Aviv, then they really ought to stop demonizing Israel by running footage of all the Lebanese civilians that Israel apparently wounded. If you think that Israelis are pissed off about Olmert, check out how the Lebanese blogosphere is reacting to Winograd:

If the Israeli prime minister is being held accountable for failing to deliver on his promises, Hizbullah took an entire nation to war without consulting its government or people, and delivered them death and destruction. Yet you don't hear of a probe or investigation into how a militia got away with destroying the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands, and how it continues to hold a country hostage. Why stop at Hizbullah? Soon, many "citizens" of this Arab world will be claiming victory over an enemy they never fought, in a battle they never won and in which they made no real sacrifices... So hurray, we have won. Israel is defeated. Strangely, their defeat will move them forward. As for our "divine victory", well, it will keep us where we are, which is at the bottom of the lowest circles of hell.

Lebanon II was bungled not because the IDF lost but because the IDF did not win fast enough. Fast enough by whose standards? Fast enough by the standards of the international community, which demands that Israel win wars instantly. Wars fought against enemies that hide in civilian areas don't work that way - unless you're willing to inflict massive casualties on the civilians being used as human shields, which the IDF is not:

Hezbollah used civilian areas as launching sites. Really

Had the IDF been allowed to go after Hezbollah's infrastructure for another month - or if they had been allowed to leverage the IAF's air superiority and to hell with Hezbollah's use of civilian areas as military staging grounds - does anyone have the slightest doubt what the result would have been? Yes, Lebanon II was a colossal bungle. Olmert, to say nothing of Peretz, should pay a personal and political price. But for Hezbollah to claim victory because they spent a month hiding figuratively behind the skirts of UN officials and literally behind the skirts of Lebanese women - well, it just seems a like they're trying just a bit too hard:

The claim of a military victory - being unthinkingly parroted now by ignorant journalists as well as respected academics - is Hezbollah's primary rhetorical tactic for silencing critics. If survival is victory, then Hezbollah won. But if victory means not having your side on the wrong side of a 10-1 casualty ratio and not having your 5-year-in-development stock of weapons depleted, then no, Hezbollah did not achieve a victory. Which is not to say that the Israeli government wasn't negligent to the point of political suicide for not coming at Hezbollah harder and winning sooner. It's just that claiming Hezbollah objectively won on the battlefield is (a) wrong and (b) Hezbollah propaganda.

A 10 to 1 kill ratio - to say nothing of the 1000 to 1 infrastructure ratio - does not a glorious victory make.

References:
* Nasrallah: Israel needs Olmert to quit [JPost]
* Divine victory in hell [From Beirut to the Beltway]
* Why Would Anyone Smart Say Hezbollah Achieved a Military Victory? [MR]

Previously:
* Associated Press: "We are all Hezbollah" is Not Anti-Israel
* UN Peacekeepers Begged Hezbollah to Stop Using Them As Human Shields. UN, LA Times Blame Israel Anyway.
* As Opposed to Israel, Hezbollah Actually Did Commit War Crimes

Cross-posted to:
* The Astute Bloggers
* Israpundit