A Different View of the Israel - Hezbollah Conflict

[nuckles]

Modern man has moved through three different ages in the last 10,000 years. The Agricultural Age was from around 8,000 BC until the 1700s. The Industrial Age was from the 1700s to the last two decades of the 20th century, when the Information Age began. The great Alvin Toffler referred to these ages as the First Wave, Second Wave and Third Wave. Each wave or age had different economic characteristics. The dominant economic structure in Second Wave societies was a centralized hierarchy. The dominant structure in Third Wave societies are flat networks.
In speeches I give and in the book I am writing, I call the period from 1985-2005 “The Threshold Decades”, because it is the time that is between what was and what is and will be. In 1985, the values and institutions of the developed nations were still Second Wave or Industrial Age; by 2005 they had become Third Wave or Information Age. During this twenty year period we fully moved into the Information Age. Just think of all the things that came along or occurred during this time: cell phones, Cable TV, numerous communications satellites, the Internet, PC market saturation, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the beginning of the Global Economy and high speed broadband to name just a few significant things. Large organizations were down-sized and lost layers of management. Entrepreneurial companies sprang to life and flourished, organizations became flat and dispersed all over the world. The network model largely replaced the centralized hierarchy.

In looking at the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah I see it, in part, through this filter. The reporting in the main stream media has had several angles. One of the most prominent is the “Israel is fighting a tougher opponent that in the past” or “Israel is meeting stronger resistance than expected” or “Israel is taking much longer to win this time”. This is largely due to the conditioning we have had about the superiority of the Israeli military. Why? Because of the overwhelming victories and the lightening speed in which they achieved them in 1967 and again in 1973. The Six Day War; what a historical oddity!
The difference can, in part, be explained by looking at the conflict through the Wave or Age theory of history. The Israeli military, just like the US military, is a centralized, hierarchical organization formed during the Industrial Age as were all the supremely successful organizations of that age. The Threshold Decades time of 1985-2005 was when that type of organization came up against the newness of the Information Age. When were the great and fast military triumphs of Israel? 1967 and 1973, an Industrial Age time when the Israeli military hierarchy clobbered the Egyptian and Syrian military hierarchies. Hezbollah however, is a flat organization with little or no hierarchy, that is easily dispersed and very mobile. It is a virtual organization. Sound familiar; like you are reading about a new company in one of the new Information Age business magazines? Yes, exactly. As entrepreneurs can operate from anywhere if they have the latest, most powerful technological tools and connectivity, so can a terrorist organization such as Hezbollah operate with the latest technological weaponry of killing and murder.

Hezbollah is an Information Age military organization in its structure, the Israel military is an Industrial Age structured organization. The old model meets the new model. The old rules of engagement meet the new rules of engagement. This is why it is taking Israel longer to ‘win’ this time, though if one values human life, wars are never really won, just ended.

[kong_jr.]

OR could it be the fact that Hebollah is fighting behind civilians making every move the Israelies make take longer to reduce casualties or look terrible in the eyes of the world?

Take your pick. I suppose the likeness of this flat virtual organization you speak of might be a bunch of hoods running around in street clothes not being able to tell a hood from an innocent person ... the difference being these hezbollah hoods have missles. In addition, this form of organization in war would seem to lend itself to more anarchy than a structured organization. No chain of command, no central orders, more chance of different sects breaking off and doing whatever the hell it wants.

I suppose, if you were to look at it the way you do, it's an "Information Age" organization ... but you should be asking yourself if this makes it better or worse?

War relies on the fact that everybody knows what everybody else is doing at any given time. I don't know if it makes it any easier, the one advantage it does have is it would be a lot harder, if not impossible, to destroy themovement (if one were inclinded to do so).

[The Pauser]

Hezbollah attacked Israel first. Israel is simply fighting back and they are going to crush the Hezbollah. Simple as that. The Americans should stay out of it and if there is any intervention whatsoever it should be a United Nations intervention.

[Lucky boy]

They didnt have an overwhelming win in 1973, they obviously didn't lose, but they didnt win either

[kong_jr.]

Sorry Pauser ... that wasn't really part of the topic at hand. I guess it's an opinion though.

This Nuckles guy ... sounds like he knows a little about what he's talking about, writing a book, gives speaches ... however, Nuckles, I have a question. Why is it when people see a similarity between, say war and business, they tend to automatically assume they are linked or would follow in the same way? Not saying the similarity of information age business isn't there ... just asking why people see thesimilarity and try to attribute other similarities based on it?

[The Pauser]

Originally Posted by kong_jr.

Sorry Pauser ... that wasn't really part of the topic at hand. I guess it's an opinion though.

This Nuckles guy ... sounds like he knows a little about what he's talking about, writing a book, gives speaches ... however, Nuckles, I have a question. Why is it when people see a similarity between, say war and business, they tend to automatically assume they are linked or would follow in the same way? Not saying the similarity of information age business isn't there ... just asking why people see thesimilarity and try to attribute other similarities based on it?

Oh oops...oh well. I didn't really read much of either of your posts. Too long for me this late at night, lol....i'll shut up now

[Daradon]

You have some good points nuckles but I think it's really just the difference of a establish or federal army, fighting a guerella type force. Large armies can never really win that battle, like the U.S. in Vietnam or Russia in Afghanistan, both 'industrial age' wars by your definition.

Add to the fact that war in that region only fuels the anti-Israel/anti-west feelings. Kong brings up a good point too. The enemy is hiding amongst civilians. These are tactics that guerella fighters and forces use. Their nearly impossible to wipe out, especially if you are trying to limit civilian casualties. (I don't know how hard Israel is trying, but that's another thread)

You've got a point in new technloogies helping them out and increasing their successfulness but really when it comes down to it. Their fighting a guerella war and those tactics are very old and very successful verses a larger enemy. I mean, a guerella force could never take over or occupy something, that's not what you use it for, and that's when you need a real army. But it can defend something very well, and it's nearly impossible to root out. It also is great for hit and run strikes to damage or confuse an enemy.

Hezbollah could never conquer Israel in a military sense. But it can damage, confuse, anger and weaken it. And then defend itself and continue it's existance.

P.S. Besides luckyboy, wow do you have to be a Canuck fan to get in on this post? Thought I'd venture in here for Flames fans, hahaha.

[Lucky boy]

Originally Posted by Daradon

P.S. Besides luckyboy, wow do you have to be a Canuck fan to get in on this post? Thought I'd venture in here for Flames fans, hahaha.

I don't get it...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Daradon beat me to it, but I want to expand the comments a bit.

I believe that information is indeed the linch pin to success in our society now. The Golden Rule used to be, "he who had the gold makes the rules", but I think that has changed as we have moved into the 90's and the new millennium, and the new Golden Rule is "he who has the information, the ability to manipulate, disseminate and control that information, makes the rules". Management of the information flow allows control over the masses. We are experiencing this in spades right now.

Getting the belief about information out of the way I also wanted to touch on the style of warfare. As Daradon pointed out, guerilla tactics are the standard operating procedure for over-matched forces. We saw the Americans get beat by these tactics in Viet Nam, we saw the Americans teach the mujahideen how to use them to defeat the Soviets, and now we are watching those same tactics used in urban warfare to defeat the Americans (again) and give the Israelis all they can handle. This style of warfare tilts the playing field to the home team and makes the war unwinable by any invading force IMO. The locals have the advantage of being able to bleed the invading forces dry. This is actually old school fighting and has little to do with information. It's warfare of convienence, striking the targets that happen by your location before moving on yourself. It's highly uncoordinated, for the most part, and relies on the enemy being the aggressor and entering into your field of operation. Information plays a very small role in this warfare IMO.

I think there should be two separate threads in your theory and book. I think you should run with the information age thread, as it is very true for industrialized societies. But I think you should also consider a thread in you book about this being the age of "extremism". It appears that governments all over the world are becoming more and more extreme in their views and more inclined to play the game their way or no way. Alliances will continue to develop and face those with the same extreme ideology against the other. Engagements will be extreme as well. Terrorist activities on both sides will continue to evolve and become more of a standard and norm. Views will continue to evolve to extreme levels (we see it here, and this is where information access and shaping of the message becomes a critical component). I see use in a new age alright, but I think its the Age of Extremeism.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by The Pauser

Hezbollah attacked Israel first. Israel is simply fighting back and they are going to crush the Hezbollah. Simple as that.

It certainly ain't that simple.

[octothorp]

Just a bit of context on the point already made by Lanny and Daradon. I think the current approach to extremist Islamic struggle really begins with the military decline of the Ottoman Empire around 1600. Prior to that, there had always been elite muslim battlefield armies that could hold their own against western Christian powers and frequently defeat them (of course, the Ottoman Empire was not strictly Muslim and was extremely tolerant of Jewish and Christian minorities, but it was the main representation of muslim interests.) By some accounts, the Ottomans began to be outpaced on the battlefield by the Europeans because of a fundamentalist conservatism that was limiting the inventiveness that had earlier characterized the empire.

But one Islamic organization within the Muslim world that had significant success throughout the 1600s and beyond were the Barbary Pirates. They operated out of various ports along Morocco, and set up a network of supply communities on islands through the mediterranean. The settlements were frequently moved from one island to another, and for two centuries, they were able to sack european ports and destroy western merchant shipping, eventually collecting tributes from just about every western nation including the fledgling US. Their enemies (the Knights of Rhodes and Malta, who had destroyed the Ottoman's formal navy) were better armed, more numerous, and better organized, but were largely unsuccessful in destroying them. The Barbary Pirates relied partially on greed for their recruits, but also partially on muslim identity, branding their struggle as an ideological one. Young men came from all over the muslim world to join the pirates for one of those two motives. Their organization was extremely loose; at any time there would be a number of pirate leaders, but if one was captured or killed, his entire organization shifted to another leader. Nobody knew too much, so capturing and torturing for information was pretty pointless.

It's similar to the structure of current extremist Islam. You can put a terrorist leader on the run, but the organization functions pretty well without him. Very decentralized, easy to reorganize. Flexible enough to withstand assaults, and also able to launch suprisingly effective counter-attacks once withdrawing. Captures and interrogations might lead to a small short term victory. Their strength is in the fact that they are not information-based... counter-information, really. They have a simple ideology and objective, a constantly evolving list of possible methods, and no single central command. The modern change is that broadcast methods mean that the nodes have no little to communicate with one another through risky private forums, and the leader can issue what few commands he needs through broadcast media, as well as using the same media as his primary informant.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Just a bit of context on the point already made by Lanny and Daradon. I think the current approach to extremist Islamic struggle really begins with the military decline of the Ottoman Empire around 1600. Prior to that, there had always been elite muslim battlefield armies that could hold their own against western Christian powers and frequently defeat them (of course, the Ottoman Empire was not strictly Muslim and was extremely tolerant of Jewish and Christian minorities, but it was the main representation of muslim interests.) By some accounts, the Ottomans began to be outpaced on the battlefield by the Europeans because of a fundamentalist conservatism that was limiting the inventiveness that had earlier characterized the empire.

Interesting.

It's funny though. The tactics used by many people in Europe to keep the Turks and Ottomans from being able to penetrate further into Europe in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centruries were guerilla warfare and terrorism... the same tactics we say should not be allowed by others today. If not for those tactics, we would probably all be praying to Allah right now.

Vlad the Impaler was probably the most famous guerilla leader and terrorist, but there were others like him. They would raid Turkish settlements, assassinate leaders, kill and torture sympathizers.

So now with 600 years of hindsight, is it safe to say that the ends justified the means? That any tactics can be justified if they are ends to a mean?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Vlad the Impaler was probably the most famous guerilla leader and terrorist, but there were others like him. They would raid Turkish settlements, assassinate leaders, kill and torture sympathizers.

So now with 600 years of hindsight, is it safe to say that the ends justified the means? That any tactics can be justified if they are ends to a mean?

A different prespective to say the least.

Really, do we think that Islamic extremism will ever be defeated? I read an article yesterday from a former terrorist with the PLO, who said that children were being taught the Jihad while they are still in school.

Makes you wonder where the world will be going, considering how we value our moral sense on the battlefied above that of the terrorists.

Some people have even suggested that we will never defeat this enemy unless we're willing to fight the same way they are. You are 100% correct in saying that if the Western world would not have adopted the same terrorizing tactics during WW1 and WW2, we probably wouldn't be in this position right now.

[troutman]

Really, do we think that Islamic extremism will ever be defeated?

I'm not sure there is anything the west can do, so long as there is Radical fundamentalism, Islamism.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/print/fait...106_print.html


MARTIN AMIS: Well, Islam is the great religion that has been the donor of countless benefits to mankind, that led the world in civilization throughout the Middle Ages, gave us algebra and all kinds of intellectual breakthroughs of all kinds, plus an example of tolerance that nowhere else in the world could offer at that time. A level of tolerance and respect for justice. That is Islam.

Islamism started after the First World War when the last empire was lost, the Ottoman sided with Germany in First World War. And then, you know, if you can stand way back from it all. You can imagine Islam very much reduced. It's coming towards modernity. And instead of advancing down that road, it turned round and the great leap backwards began. That's Islamism. But when Islamism got going instead of saying, "Okay, to come into modernity, we need to put slightly less emphasis on Islam." And the great leap backwards said, "No, we would need total emphasis on Islam."


BILL MOYERS: I told you when I reached out to you and asked you to join me that I kept on my bulletin board at my office an essay you wrote one week after 9/11. You wrote, "Weirdly, the world suddenly feels bipolar. All over again, the West confronts a way of thinking that is essentially and unappeasably opposed to its existence." So they're never going to rest until we are eliminated?

MARTIN AMIS: That's the program. They say it's a cosmic war and an eternal war. They're going to war forever against us. Norman Mailer again has another phrase, "A tolerable level of terrorism." And that's sort of jumped out at me rather. And I can quite imagine in 15 years' time, Western politicians in some countries praising themselves for reducing terrorism to a tolerable level. But eradicating I don't think is a possibility.


BILL MOYERS: Is there any possibility that fundamentalist Islam is full of contradictions, too, in this world, and that it could be its own enemy in time?

MARTIN AMIS: I think it will atomize. And also there will be sectarian strife within it. Also, I think that it is so fantastically poisonous that in its most millennial form, Islamism, not Islam, Islamism is so poisonous that it will burn itself out. Imagining the kind of full victory of Islamism with blood flowing bridle deep in the city squares. You have to look to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Kampuchea to see anything quite so ferocious and death-fueled and, as you know, Nazism lasted for 12 years and Pol Pot lasted for 3 1/2. It tends to burn itself out.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Azure

Makes you wonder where the world will be going, considering how we value our moral sense on the battlefied above that of the terrorists.

I think that is a key point. Our culture and associated set or morals is different than the morals of our "foe". There is certainly some overlap, but I'm sure there are many things we do that we believe are within our rights and don't give a second thought to which different cultures will find heinous. And that goes the other way as well, things which we revile are insignificant to them in their culture.

And when one culture can rally around teh belief that they are being persecuted, it makes it much easier accept actions that would not have been allowed in other times. Jihadists are willing to commit suicide bombings, Western interests are willing to suspend due process and other civil liberties. I know there is a difference of scale there, but there is also a difference in the scale of feeling persecuted, and associated loss of hope.