Redefining “Victory” in a Way Which is NOT Victory…

The IDF’s New Definition of Victory


Hizbullah’s fighting force in southern Lebanon can be totally eliminated, say generals in the IDF, but that will take a much more intensive invasion by ground troops, capturing all the territory up to the Litani River. There is a consensus, both at the political and the military levels, that Israel shouldn’t be doing that as the cost – in casualties, in economic damage caused by a widespread reservists call-up and in international support – is deemed prohibitive.

But the generals are continuing to promise a victory at the end of this round of fighting; so how do they define victory? A senior IDF source said on Tuesday that the victory wouldn’t be measured only in military terms, but also in diplomatic ones.

“For the past two weeks, the military side was given precedent over diplomacy. Now both sides have equal power,” said the source. So now the IDF’s idea of victory over Hizbullah consists of a multinational force with real powers that will take control of southern Lebanon and ensure that Hizbullah’s rockets don’t return.

The IDF’s realization that Hizbullah can’t be totally overcome in a matter of weeks came quickly when it became evident that the terrorist organization was sticking to its overall strategy of preparing concentrations of forces with large quantities of missiles in many different locations, enabling them to continue bombarding Israel for weeks and months on end…. That’s one of the reasons that Hizbullah has yet to use its longer-range missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv, but prefers keeping them as a veiled threat.

The ‘dream’ solution currently is an upgraded multi-national force – nothing like the bad, old UNIFIL who were more human shields for the Hizbullah than anything else – but a force with powers and security responsibilities similar to those of the NATO battalions that operated in Kosovo and the multi-national force currently fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The IDF’s hope is that the multi-national force will use arms to prevent Hizbullah from resuming its operations in the area south of the Litani. French and Saudi troops firing on Hizbullah members and doing the IDF’s job for them. That’s the current idea of an Israeli victory.

For context, click here, here and here.

Proposed International Force Will Not Disarm Hezbollah


The role of the international force that will be sent to Lebanon following a cease-fire will be to assist the Lebanese army to deploy in the south, ensure that Hezbollah does not rebuild its positions there and ensure that quiet is maintained along the Israeli-Lebanese border, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed Tuesday.

However, government sources said, this force will not be responsible for disarming Hezbollah nor will it be stationed at the border crossings between Lebanon and Syria in order to halt the flow of weapons from Syria to Hezbollah.

Israel has thereby in effect conceded its initial demands that any cease-fire deal include stripping Hezbollah of its rockets and ensuring that it is not rearmed.


There can be but one real definition of victory which works for a substantial period of time: decimation and vanquishment, 10s of thousands of Arabs waving white — the sign of surrender as resulted from the 6 Day War. Anything less is nothing more than the meaningless spin of appeasement. This author fears Israeli defeat, not because the IDF has not the strength to win, but because Israel’s secular leaders refuse to win. And after all, the IDF has become, first of all and primarily, the tool of defenders of the regime, so it will do whatever it takes to keep the regime in power. And so, the Government of Israel begins spinning it’s changeable definition of “victory”, i.e. backing down from it’s priority to disarm Hesbollah. MB


1 thought on “Redefining “Victory” in a Way Which is NOT Victory…

Comments are closed.