“A bad peace is even worse than war.”
(Publius Cornelius Tacitus)

The offensive against Hizballah is continuing with no sign from the Israelis that they plan to let up on the pressure they are applying to the Lebanese government to rein in the terrorists who continue to fire rockets willy nilly into northern Israel. In this, Prime Minister Olmert is apparently dead set; Hizballah will cease to be a threat to the citizens of Israel. He will break a lot of china in Lebanon in order to ensure that goal.

But time is not on his side. Air strikes in southern Beirut are killing dozens of civilians – women and children – while the IAF desperately tries to destroy as many of the 15,000 rockets stockpiled by the terrorists in houses and apartment buildings as they can before the death toll stirs the world community to action. The cowardly tactics of Hizballah, who use civilians as human shields to protect their arsenal of Iranian and Syrian bought missiles is once again being given a free pass by the world’s press. Hence, while Israel may be delivering massive blows to Hizballah, the “guerrillas” (as most are calling them) are winning the propaganda battle.

This is Olmerts big gamble. That he can dramatically weaken Hizballah militarily without strengthening them politically inside Lebanon. That he can do this quickly enough to forestall Syrian and Iranian assistance from amounting to much, thus humiliating them in the Arab world. And that by scrambling the politics of Lebanon, he can alter the security situation in the north by forcing the Lebanese government to finally establish sovereignty over their own border by moving army units to take up positions abandoned by the terrorists.

The problem, of course, is that each one of those elements could get wildly out of control. Hizballah could become the dominant political force in Lebanon. Syria and Iran would thus be strengthened enormously. And Lebanon could dissolve back into a state of civil war if Hizballah refuses to give up their sanctuaries bordering Israel.

Olmert has made it clear that the war will change the situation on his northern border permanently:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the fighting in the north would have “far-reaching implications” on how Israel would relate in the future to the northern border and the entire region.

Olmert, in his first public comments on the situation since Wednesday, opened Sunday’s cabinet meeting saying this is a difficult morning for Israel, and by characterizing the situation as “a wicked war by Hizbullah against the people of Israel.”

“Israel cannot accept this situation,” he said. “We have no interest in harming the Lebanese or Palestinian people. We want to live our lives quietly and as good neighbors. But unfortunately, there are those who interpreted our desire for peace in the wrong manner.”

How might the Israelis accomplish this ambitious goal?

The very first targets for the IAF in Lebanon were major bridges both north and south of Beirut. The destruction of these bridges will prevent the large scale movement of Hizballah fighters into some of the bigger cities including, it is hoped, Beirut itself. It also prevents Syria and Iran from resupplying the terrorists.

Does this presage a massive ground assault by the IDF? Not necessarily. But if Olmert and the cabinet choose that option, they have certainly set the table for it. Lebanon is locked up as tight as a drum. And not only is Hizballah prevented from taking refuge behind civilians in many population centers but their ability to concentrate forces has also been degraded significantly.

Ultimately, Israel would like to kill as many Hizballah fighters as possible. That would seem to be the only way to significantly degrade their capabilities as rockets and missiles can be replaced relatively quickly.

With Hizballah weakened, the Lebanese government, with the help of the international community, could move their forces into the border region with Israel and thus make the lives of Israelis much more secure. In a speech to the nation yesterday, Prime Minister Siniora tearfully asked the international community – specifically the UN - to help them in moving their forces south. Even with the cover of UN peacekeepers, it is unlikely that Hizballah will take such a challenge to their independent status lying down:

According to Nadim Shehadi of the London-based Chatham House think tank, the Lebanese government lead by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora “has not accepted” the abduction of Israeli soldiers as legitimate. On the other hand, Hezbollah and the Amal faction are fully supportive of the move the sparked the conflict with Israel.

[snip]

In December, 2005, the Shi’ite ministers left the cabinet over the role to be played by the International Criminal Court in the case of murdered former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

The conflict between the parties, so far successfully avoided, seems inevitable right now, Shehadi said Saturday. Lebanon would be hard pressed to function normally under such circumstances, according to the analyst.

Would conflict between Hizballah and the Lebanese army mean that the civil war that tore the country apart for 15 years be automatically reignited? No one knows the answer to that question, least of all Olmert whose gamble in this respect is his biggest. Unlike the last civil war go around, Hizballah are presently the only ones with the guns outside of the Army. Clearly, with better trained and armed men, Hizballah could run the table in Lebanon, especially if in the face of sectarian conflict, the army disintegrated as it did 30 years ago.

Such a prospect – a terrorist state with close ties to Iran and Syria on Israel’s borders – would negate any positive outcomes from the war Israel is waging against Hamas in Gaza. In short, it would be an unmitigated disaster for Israel and the west.

Finally, there must be a clock ticking somewhere in Olmert’s head regarding how much time he has to accomplish these ambitious goals. How patient can Washington afford to be? How long before Syria and/or Iran would feel compelled to intervene (if ever)? The Prime Minister has already warned the Israeli people to be prepared for a “difficult time that won’t end quickly.” How long? How quickly? Surely Olmert hears the clock ticking not only on his window of opportunity militarily but also with the Israeli people. Right now, they are united in their support for his actions. But how long before the carping, the criticism, and the backsliding occur? These questions must occupy Olmert’s thoughts as decisions are made about escalating the conflict in order to go after his Hizballah tormentors.

The only sure thing about this war is that it will eventually end. At that point, the Israelis will have to take a hard look at what they’ve gained and lost on the battlefield and at the conference table. Whether the use of force will improve their security situation in the short term is not in doubt. Whether it will have salutary effects in the long term is what Olmert’s gamble is all about.