The question of "who won"

The mainstream press seemed to be a little taken aback by Bush's characterization of southern Lebanon being a front in the GWoT and his declaration of victory for the IDF.

Since the war is more likely in a time-out rather than over, declaring victory is a tad premature. But the labeling of this being a front in the GWoT was right on the mark because it fits all the criteria. Hizballah is a terrorist army operating within a soveriegn state, does not follow the Geneva Conventions, and does not wear uniforms while advocating the murder of civilians, and their cause was supported by al Qaeda without the claim being disavowed. Case closed.

As to the winner, Bush sounds more correct than not. Kschizb'allah (trying hard to spell it the way the Israelis pronounce it) has now forced itself to disarm or face international condemnation. Their collection of Syrian and Iranian rockets is now considerably less than it was a month ago, and the entire world is now absolutely positive of their supply chain management. And finally, Israel still occupies southern Lebanon and has opened a buffer between the terrorists and the major cities.

However, if you say it's the public perception that decides such things then Hizballah won this round. The local population now reveres Nasrallah more than ever. But keep in mind Saddam got 100 percent of the vote in his last election, so everything isn't always what it seems with these type things, especially true after all the staged photos that were exposed by bloggers.

The funniest reaction might be from the American left, or at least the few hundred who took an internet poll on Daily Kos, who seem to believe that neither side won, mainly because they can't figure out which horse to back. John Kerry would be so proud.

MORE 8/15/06

Most people seem to disagree with the above, mainly since the soldiers were not returned and Hizballah still exists. But serisouly, did anyone think the IDF was going to completely eradicate them? This was but one battle in a long war. From a PR perspective Israel almost ALWAYS loses anyway.

Notice also that as soon as the settlement was announced HAMAS (or affiliates) quickly got themselves back in the news by kidnapping the Fox reporter. They also have a kidnapped soldier who has not been returned. These problems are not easily solvable.

According to the Jerusalem Post the Israeli public was willing to grin and bear it, meaning continue slogging on to some end, but that would have literally required removing the government in Beirut or worse.

It's interesting that only a few days before this came to an end there were reported to be unusual troop movements along the Syrian border. Since many war decisions are based on perceived deterrents, wonder if such a thing was in play here?

MORE 08/15/06

They say you can tell a lot about a man by the way he handles defeat--and victory. Whether you believe Hizballah scored a victory or was defeated in this latest war, the manner in which they're handling things should tell everyone a lot. We've seen some childish gloating, now this:

Hezbollah indicated it would be willing to pull back its fighters and weapons in exchange for a promise from the Lebanese army not to probe too carefully for underground bunkers and weapons caches, the officials said.

Heck, we wouldn't want the Lebanese army to probe their own bunkers or weapons caches, would we?

I'm still having problems believing anybody is taking any of this seriously. The whole world knows that Hizaballah is the Army of Iran via Syria, and was allowed by the UN to dig all those tunnels and bunkers when they were supposed to be disarming and disbursing after Israel left. Nothing--absolutely nothing--has occurred to make anyone think the situation might be different this time around.