The Changing Rules of War

For millennia, the strength and weapons of the opponent in war usually made the difference. But, two times in the past 50 years, the most powerful military nation in the world has been fought to a standstill by rag-tag insurgents using easy to obtain reliable weapons, in particular, the Kalashnikov automatic rifle and the rocket propelled grenade. Now battle field rockets, a weak, unreliable weapon that has been in use for two thousand years, have been more successful than every before.
Now, the notorious army of the Israelis is suffering a similar fate for the second time, in the same country with the same foe. They hope that by destroying infrastructure, the means to fight back and killing and razing all buildings in a buffer zone along the border, they will prevent Hizbullah from firing it's rockets at them. They forget that they did the same thing in 1986, and by 2000, nothing was changed, Hizbullah was stronger than ever. Within five years, Hizbullah armed itself in unprecedented ways.
Modern countries are not willing to pay the price of war. Fanatics are. That is the reason that they will always win. Vietnam fell. Iraq will fall into civil war and fragmentation. Hizbullah will become the most powerful political force in Lebanon. They will rearm someday and send even more effective rockets into Israel. Fanatics are willing to sacrifice generations of their own people to the cause. Modern democracies shudder under a few casualties and the scream of incoming rockets.
The only way to defeat the fanatics is to deprive them of their basis of support. We must win the hearts and minds of the people of Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, all over the Middle East and south Asia if we hope to prevail. Bombing a country to the stone age won't help, it just delays the battle to the next generation and radicalizes the population to accept decimation to win. We in the west can not win that kind of battle. We are unwilling to accept the casualties of hand-to-hand combat every foot of the way and grinding oppressive occupation with a constant and increasingly effective insurgency.
WaPo

The strategy of Israel's (and America's) enemies today is to lure the military superpower into a protracted conflict. To accept the bait, as the Israelis did in assaulting Lebanon and as America did in Iraq, is to risk stepping into a trap. As Lawrence Wright says in his new book, "The Looming Tower," the master of this approach is Osama bin Laden: "His strategy was to continually attack until the U.S. forces invaded; then the mujahadeen would swarm upon them and bleed them until the entire American empire fell from its wounds."


The Israeli and American resolve in this grim summer of war should be: No more falling into traps. In the age of missiles, there's limited value in a "security fence" or "security buffer." The evidence grows that you can't achieve real security without negotiating with your adversaries, and you can't succeed in such negotiations without offering reasonable concessions.


For the Arabs, the opportunity of 2006 lies in the surprising success of Hezbollah and its leader, Hasan Nasrallah. Their resistance on the battlefield makes them more dangerous adversaries -- but also more plausible negotiating partners. Little in Nasrallah's past suggests that he will use his new stature and confidence to encourage indirect negotiations with Israel, but, as 1973 reminds us, the aftermath of war
can produce big surprises. U.S. officials recognize that Nasrallah is likely to emerge as the strongest political force in Beirut, and they hope he will make strategic choices that will build a stronger and more stable Lebanon.


This war is opening a door: Will the combatants have the good sense to walk through it? Will America have the guile to help them?

Hizbullah is Winning

Hizbullah is winning, not militarily, but politically. It is seen worldwide as a hero among those sympathetic to the Palestinian's plight and seeing Israel as a bully killing innocent women and children. What has been thought of as the single most effective military force in the world has been effectively repelled by a militia of a few thousand. No, not repelled militarily, but by seeking to limit casualties, they are making little progress at stopping the missiles, in fact the missiles are coming more frequently than ever. Iran and Syria's stature as the leader of the resistance to Israel rises with Hizbullah. Hamas's fortunes have been similar and it's stature has reached heroic proportions.
Apparently, Dubya has been one of the admirers of the Israeli military. That's why he was such a pushover for the neo-cons. So when Israel claims it's right to defend itself, Dubya is the head-cheerleader. The point Israelis and their supporters keep missing is that the agenda of "defending itself" is not about strategy, it's about re-elections. The voters in Israel scream en mass, "It has to stop, do something!" And Israel does. Empowered by a population fearful of annihilation, the hawks have been in power for many years. Anyone in Israel who dares to say they might be losing the war on terror, is committing political suicide.
But the reality is that terrorism is not about winning militarily, it's about winning the hearts and minds of the populous. Israel may well win this battle, but they are condemning themselves to perpetual warfare, by creating a new generation of terrorists every time a Palestinian or in this case, Lebanese Shia neighborhood is bombed and innocent families die.
The lesson of Vietnam was not just about waging a war that was not popular, not just about wage a war directed by politicians seeking to minimize political damage, it's about fighting a mechanized war against a people who are armed and living with and fighting for their families. You can't win a guerrilla war without the support of the population living where the guerrilla fighters live and eat. Unless you intend to commit genocide.
Hamas and Hizbullah should not be confused with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is an organization with worldwide ambitions, and only the benefit of themselves at risk. The rank and file of Hamas and Hizbullah defend their homes and families, regardless of who funds their weapons.
Newsweek

[...]The bottom line: Hizbullah is winning. That’s the hideous truth about the direction this war is taking, not in spite of the way the Israelis have waged their counterattack, but precisely because of it.


We’re talking about a militia—a small guerrilla army of a few thousand fighters, in fact—that plays all the dirty games that guerrillas always play. It blends in with the local population. It draws fire against innocents. But it’s also fighting like hell against an Israeli military machine that is supposed to be world class. And despite the onslaught of the much-vaunted Tsahal, Hizbullah continues to pepper Israel itself with hundreds of rockets a day.


Neither U.S. nor Israeli policymakers have taken this dynamic into account. If they had, they’d understand that with each passing day, no matter how many casualties it takes, Hizbullah’s political power grows.


As in Iraq three years ago, the administration has been blinded to the political realities by shock-and-awe military firepower. Clinging to its faith in precision-guided munitions and cluster bombs, it has decided to let Lebanon bleed, as if that’s the way to build the future for peace and democracy.

Details on Depleted Uranium

The details about Depleted Uranium are emerging from the deep hole the US Department of Defense has put them. Rumor has it that the BBC will break the story over the next few days. If that happens, US mainstream media will likely pick up the story.
What I want to know is why its taken so long. Who put the blackout on US Media? I've found internet links to documents produced by the government as early as 1990 on DU and its potential consequences. There are extensive resources on-line on DU. There are also government commissioned studies that minimize it's risks. The Federation of American Scientists has a good set of links.
Remember all the discussion about Anthrax powder? The <a title="Responding to Detection of Aerosolized Bacillus anthracis by Autonomous Detection Systems in the Workplace" href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr53e430-2a1.htm">CDC describes how small particles of Anthrax the size of 5-10 micrometers can easily become airborne again when disturbed:

Although resuspension of certain settled particles requires substantial amounts of energy, lower energy activities (e.g., paper handling, foot traffic, mail handling, and patting of chairs) can reaerosolize settled B. anthracis spores (9,10). The clinical and epidemiologic presentations of anthrax after an intentional release vary by the population targeted, the characteristics of the spores, the mode and source of exposure, and other characteristics.

The size of the particles of DU are nanometers and therefore even easier to disturb and stay airborne for longer periods. The problem with even Rands conclusions are based on the assumption of episodic exposures where the body can purge itself of the particles as it do with natural occuring uranium. I can imagine battlefields that are occupied indefinitely producing continuous exposure that builds up in the body. I recall discussions of dust always in the air in Iraq. I can imagine a gradually increasing continuous exposure to DU in certain locations. With troops rotating in and out of hot areas, they receive continuous exposure while there. The numbers exposed would be very high.
DU along with the exposure of many troops to the traces of chemical weapons in southern Iraq early in the invasion when a munitions dump was burned probably accounts for much of the 56% disability rate in Gulf War II Veterans.
Explaining How

“The numbers are overwhelming, but the potential horrors only get worse,” Robert C. Koehler of the Chicago-based Tribune Media Services wrote in an article about DU weapons entitled “Silent Genocide.”

“DU dust does more than wreak havoc on the immune systems of those who breathe it or touch it; the substance also alters one’s genetic code,” Koehler wrote. “The Pentagon’s response to such charges is denial, denial, denial. And the American media is its moral co-conspirator.”

The U.S. government has known for at least 20 years that DU weapons produce clouds of poison gas on impact. These clouds of aerosolized DU are laden with billions of toxic sub-micron sized particles. A 1984 Department of Energy conference on nuclear airborne waste reported that tests of DU anti-tank missiles showed that at least 31 percent of the mass of a DU penetrator is converted to nano-particles on impact. In larger bombs the percentage of aerosolized DU increases to nearly 100 percent, Fulk told AFP.

DU is harmful in three ways, according to Fulk: “Chemical toxicity, radiological toxicity and particle toxicity.”
[...]
“Exposure pathways for depleted uranium can be through the skin, by inhalation, and ingestion,” Moret wrote. “Nano-particles have high mobility and can easily enter the body. Inhalation of nano-particles of depleted uranium is the most hazardous exposure, because the particles pass through the lung-blood barrier directly into the blood.

“When inhaled through the nose, nano-particles can cross the olfactory bulb directly into the brain through the blood brain barrier, where they migrate all through the brain,” she wrote. “Many Gulf era soldiers exposed to depleted uranium have been diagnosed with brain tumors, brain damage and impaired thought processes. Uranium can interfere with the mitochondria, which provide energy for the nerve processes, and transmittal of the nerve signal across synapses in the brain.

“Damage to the mitochondria, which provide all energy to the cells and nerves, can cause chronic fatigue syndrome, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and Hodgkin’s disease.”