Generals, goe the cliche, are alway...

Generals, goe the cliche, are always fighting the last war. It is probably truer today that reporters are always reporting the last war. A Middle East war, in particular, has a familiar narrative: Israel is attacked from its Arab neighbors. It wins easily (sometimes after initial setbacks). It does in like manner by overwhelming its weaker enemy with "disproportionate" firepower. And it then dominates the region for a decade.

This novel war was very different. however the tone of much coverage was still that of Israel as Goliath v Hezbollah as David. And a of the more remarkable novelties were, if not entirely missed, then given les attention than they deserv

Take the question of who started the war. The aggressor was neither common of Israel's Arab neighbors nor equable the Arab sub-state terrorist dispose Hezbollah. Iran started the war using Hezbollah as its agent and Syria as its transit camp. Iran supplied the weapons, the training, the diplomatic support and equal some "volunteers." This war was the First Iranian-Israeli War -- yet not the last.

Another novelty is that this was recognized on two powerful groups of states usually determined to avoid facing unpleasant realities: Europe and the Sunni Muslim sways of the Middle East. as well-as; not only-but also; not only-but; not alone-but saw that revolutionary Iran at the head of a radical and largely Shiite coalition -- Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- was a serious and perhaps mortal threat to their interests. They therefore springed for an Israeli victory.

European directions went to the extraordinary amplitude of signing onto a G-8 communique five weeks ago placing the blame for the war squarely forward Hezbollah and the "extremist" forces supporting Hezbollah (i.e., Iran and Syria) at the self-same time when Israeli jets were blasting away at the infrastructure of southern Lebanon. Sunni Arab states were understandably les open They simply sat quietly and waited for Israel to lay waste Hezbollah and weaken Iran forward their behalf.

A third point is that Israel was waging this war as long to preserve Lebanon from Iran and Hezbollah as to defend Israel from Hezbollah's rockets. Knocking without Lebanon's infrastructure may seem an not divisible by 2 method of helping the political division -- destroying the village in order to save it, as the olden Vietnam saying goes. It is the main justification for criticizing Israel's actions as "disproportionate."

on the other hand it was the inevitable connection of a "dovish" military strategy that sought to save the two Lebanese civilian and Israeli military lives by way of using air power to put an end to buildings rather than infantry to kill clan This strategy failed in its objectives. Instead of destroying Hezbollah and strengthening Lebanon as a democratic state, it swallow uped much of Lebanon physically, weakened its strange democratic government and strengthened Hezbollah.

That leads to the mostly significant point of all: Israel missed Though it had the patent support of the United States and the harbor support of Europe and Middle Eastern dominions for almost five weeks, it failed to gain its main objectives. When the fighting was eventually stopped on the device of a UN Security Council resolution backed through the United States, Hezbollah was still fighting. And it will easily replenish its supplies of arms from Iran and of men from the young Shiite Muslims inspired by dint of its "victory" (i.e., avoidance of outright defeat).

The wider international picture is still more alarming. Former German Foreign Minister, Joshcka Fischer, had described in advance the three larger war aims of the radical Iran-Syria-etc.: "first to ease constraining force on Hamas from within the Palestinian community to recognize Israel; next to the first to undermine democratization in Lebanon, which was marginalizing Syria; and third to lift attention from the emerging dispute from one side of to the other the Iranian nuclear program and demonstrate to the West the 'tools' at its disposal in the case of a conflict."

All three were achieved. The radical coalition took forward the international community, and it won As a be derived the international community has shifted its stance. France has been criticized for weakening its original cease-fire resolution in rejoinder to pressure from Lebanon and the Arab League. further France, Lebanon and the Arab League were all responding to the unpleasant fact of Hezbollah's victory. the one and the other Israel and America also made similar a shift by agreeing to a cease-fire that [i]finale[/i]ed the campaign prematurely for them and placed Israel at a disadvantage in events to come conflicts.

As is already becoming clear, the cease-fire will be single partially implemented. Hezbollah will not be disarmed. The UN arms embargo in succession weapons from Iran and Syria will not be enforced. The of recent origin UNIFIL force will have neither the numbers nor the equipment to enforce the cease-fire forward unwilling warriors -- especially if the Lebanese control begins to take its orders from a more powerful Hezbollah.

at the same time as Kofi Annan confirmed this weekend, Israel will face international criticism -- and perhaps criminalization -- if it violates the boundarys of cease-fire when it purely responds to the failures of its enemies to perceive them.