it's impossible to fight insurgents without there being civilian casualties. That's especially true with Hezbollah, who hides weapons in mosques and hospitals, and fires from UN positions.

So, what exactly would you propose? Waiting for the Hezbollah pancake breakfast where there happen to be no civilians, and bombing them then?

How many German civilians died in world war 2? Lots. How many german terrorists do we have now? None.

No, this is just another rationalization of not taking military action, and sitting by gleefully while terrorists win.

This is similar to the debate on how the state should kill a man so he doesn't suffer much.

Opposition to immorality only by raising practical objections to it is equivalent to the concession of the basic argument, for then it becomes just a debate over the accounting of the costs involved rather than principles.

How about just calling these guys genocidal thugs and opposing them just on moral grounds?

The inability of a Republican worldview to accomodate the empathy necessary to accurately predict how others will react to the use of force is probably why Republicans so often lose the wars they fight.

If you want to win a war, put a Democrat in charge.

"Serious about winning" ??

Maybe start with defining victory - you think everyone agrees on that?

Bush had good advice on this post-911 from Clark and Powell. He chose not to listen.

so long as we have the arms technology attached to the current procurement system, we will NEVER "figure this out".

American Hawk: No, this is just another rationalization of not taking military action, and sitting by gleefully while terrorists win.

No, it's a statement--with clear historical precedent--that conventional stand-up or set-piece military action does not always produce the desired outcome.

That's why counter-insurgency warfare has a different set of rules and disciplines than stand-up or set-piece warfare.

A small but time-proven example: In a stand-up or set-piece battlespace, you use the maximum available force; in a counter-insurgency battlespace, you use the minimum necessary force. That is at the root of "hearts and minds".

Is that really so fucking hard for all you Rambo wannabees to understand?

How many German civilians died in world war 2? Lots. How many german terrorists do we have now? None.

Wow. Hard to argue with that logic. How many German terrorists did we have before or during World War 2, incidentally? And remind me - was World War 2 a counterinsurgency campaign?

You just flunked your entrance exams to the Army War College. Scram.

No, no, no- you've got it all wrong.

The real problem with the middle east today results from the insuffient application of military force.

If we're really serious about peace, why then we've got to bomb more. You know, "take off the gloves". Invade more countries. Kill more people.

I'm thinkin tactical nukes.

Why tactical, pdq? Strategic would do the job more quickly.

And, incidentally, why nukes? Nerve gas is a lot cheaper, and it doesn't leave all that radioactive residue. Also, they've probably dropped their immunity to smallpox - bioweapons might be quite effective. The best tactic would be to target mosques during prayer.

If either Israel or the U.S. were serious about fighting Hezbollah, they would have approached the Lebanese government and asked, "What tools, weapons, or other support do you need to disarm Hezbollah?" Before Israel started bombing, Lebanese public opinion was running 70- to 80% against Hezbollah, and such a strategy would have made the fight a Lebanese one that had the backing of most of the rest of the Arab world.

Instead, we have the Bush Doctrine. Now the Arab and Islamic worlds are united with Hezbollah, and hatred of the U.S. grows by leaps and bounds. In all, a great way to guarantee an steady supply of future terrorists.

We could solve the energy problem and make the Earth one big night light.

A little humility about what is and is not "obvious" about keeping insurgencies from developing might be seemly, if you're a guy who can't even keep the comment section of his own blog from spinning out of control on a daily basis.

One of the most important problems with using airpower in a war without front lines is the temptation to use it as a substitute for ground operations. Ground operations, though, carry their own costs if what one is trying to do is suppress an insurgency developing amongst a population whose language one's troops do not speak, with whose culture they are unfamiliar, and whose problems they have not been trained to address.

The United States paid those costs many times over in Iraq -- fundamentally, of course, because its leadership had not expected an insurgency at all, and its military had not for the most part prepared to deal with an insurgency anywhere. Its use of air power was at most a minor factor compared to the impression some American ground units, for example the 4th ID, made on the population of the areas to which they were assigned in 2003.

Recognizing these errors and correcting them are two very different things, and correcting them will involve different steps if one is determined to stay in Iraq indefinitely (that is, until we win) than if one decides that the vast resources in lives and money now devoted to Iraq would be better spent somewhere else.

"Getting serious about winning."

This is a phrase used by losers who spend their days bashing Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Halliburton but never offer an alternative beyond adolescent platitudes. Such as "We need to work with the international community" and "We need to understand why the world hates us."

If you look closely, the people who say "we need to get seerious about winning" are not serious about winning. They are the first to panic when things get tough. They are the first to cut and run if something unseemly hits the newspapers.

MidEast security expert Patrick Lang's latest post on his blog:

The IDF pulled its ground forces out of Bint Jbeil Saturday all the way back into Galilee.

They fought there for days to take the town, lost some men and then started house demolitions.

According to my Israeli sources, Hizbullah counter-attacked in strength starting Friday night. The next day Israel withdrew from the town.

It sounds like the politicians couldn't stand the prospect of real war. Or, more fancifully the IAF has laid an elaborate trap for HA. Some of the members of our seminar will prefer that idea.

They are the first to cut and run if something unseemly hits the newspapers.

What happens when something unseemly hits the newspapers every day for 3 years?

The word "loser", in the sense of someone who loses, should be reserved for one George W. Bush, who has lost the war in Iraq.

One of these days we'll figure this out and get serious about winning.

What do you mean we, liberal, sort-of-hawk?

Here's a thought. One thing about counterinsurgency wars is that they tend to be fought on someone else's territory. That is, the insurgents tend to be natives, and the counterinsurgents tend to be foreigners.

Name me a country that has suffered severe negative consequences from responding to an insurgency on foreign ground by simply giving up the fight.

(Okay, Britain and France lost their empires and became second-rate powers. Is Iraq a province of our empire? Is this what we're fighting for?)

There's no insurgent problem in the United States. But if this country chooses to put our soldiers on foreign soil, then it is quite natural we would face enemies wanting to kick our fat asses out of their country.

Go ahead and call it Jihadism, but this is nothing different than what other occupation armies faced all throughout history. Modern technology changed the tools available in allowing them to hit us in the home base of the empire. It is simply the burdon of empire. In the end or Rome and Greece, they were often attacked by their enemies.

Since there is so much money in the Middle East due to oil, the insurgents there are well funded. Our little empire is unsustainable when you think about the cost of military and the huge trade deficit.

Think about life in the US if we recalled home all the soldiers now on foreign soil. Would the world really fall apart? I don't think so. Global trade would no longer be as protected, and the price of oil and crappy Chinese goods would rise, but our overall financial health would be much better. And we wouldn't be rationalizing the slaughter of innocents or the torture of our captives.

We in America just can't sit back and enjoy prosperity can we? We can't help but piss away our future in the service of the global corporate elite.

>"How about just calling these guys genocidal thugs and opposing them just on moral grounds?"

I assume you are referring to the Israelis?

>"We need to understand why the world hates us."

Most of the world now sees Israel and the US as 'rogue nations' and the greatest threats to world peace. As things are shaping up, the next WW will very likely be the US and Israel vs the rest of the planet.

Interesting post, Kevin.

I think that part of problem in the Middle East is that too many of the conflicts the US and Israel have been involved in are not seen to be just wars.

To be a just war: (1) The war must have a just cause; (2) The war’s potential gains must be proportional to the losses; (3) The war must also have a reasonable chance of success; (4) The country must publicly declare war; (5) Only a legitimate authority can declare war; and (6) countries can only go to war as a last resort.

Looking through those tenets - I think that we generally met those requirements for The Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan - and I think those two conflicts were more acceptable to the world, even to the people in the Middle East.

Global trade would no longer be as protected, and the price of oil and crappy Chinese goods would rise

I agree with your overall point, but on this global trade protection issue: this is often raised by proponents of the US's "power projection" abroad, but I have no idea what they're talking about. In what sense does US military force protect global trade? The US's massive imports from the Far East arrive on container ships and by plane. Are we worried about pirates? There are pirates now. Mostly, they're handled by the naval forces of the affected countries (Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore) - not by the US. And in areas controlled by countries with powerful central governments, like China, there tend not to be any pirates.

So what exactly is this big role the US's armed forces supposedly play in safeguarding global trade? Like our aircraft carriers are riding shotgun on all those ships full of Chinese soccer balls, fending off the Al-Qaeda guys who want to torpedo them, or something? Besdies, the global trade in smack and blow seems to go on pretty effectively despite the best efforts of the US military.

you're forgetting that our stated international objectives are usually not at all the real agenda.

the nuking of Japan, the Viet-Nam war, the WMD operation in Iraq...

we went to V-N to stave off the Communist rise of China. we knew we wouldn't 'win' there. we finally left when we reached an accord with China.

How about a world where everyone else defers to the Jihadists?
World trade restrictions.
World travel restrictions.
Extraterritorial rights for American Jihadists.
Asset tax imposed on the U.S. - divvying our stuff up among them.
Being number one is a burden. Being number ten, forget it.

brooksfoe -- See Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail, David Edelstein, International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1, Summer 2004. The focus is occupation rather than counter-insurgency, but it includes an analysis of most (if not all) of the last century. As you suggest, the record is far from positive.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the only goal our enemies have is to get us out of their country.

Bin Laden attacked the U.S. supposedly based on a small contingent of Air Force people in Saudi Arabia to support the Iraq No Fly Zones, and our support of Israel. That was all it took. If it hadn't been that, it would have been something else.

This is what bin Laden and his ilk want. Is this acceptable? Negotiable?

If we pull out of the Middle East, they're not going to quit and go back to their plows. They're coming after us.

This is what bin Laden and his ilk want. Is this acceptable? Negotiable?

If we pull out of the Middle East, they're not going to quit and go back to their plows. They're coming after us.
Posted by: hansen on July 29, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Except we are not the primary focus. We have only become a major target of bin Laden's as of late. Before that he was largely concerned, among other things, with the presence of the Soviets in Afghanistan and overthrowing the governments in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt and Jordan. However, since we are the ones propping up those governments, he realized that he had to target us if is to target them. He has been up-front about his wish to hit the US economy (like the WTO) and to provoke a military response to drag the US into the ME where we can be aurrounded by guerrillas. He believes this will tire us and drain us, leading us to withdrawing our troops and our support for those Arab governments. Once that support dries up, he can then theoretically topple them. While some non-Muslim countries include land he wishes to include in the Caliphate - Spain, India, China, Russia - the US isn't on this list. From interviews I've read with jihadists, the idea of whether or not the US can become a Muslim member of the Caliphate is of little concern. We are not the focus.

The question then becomes whether or not we should allow them to make the Caliphate. Of course we should stand against that. However, even if the Caliphate was created, there is no reason we couldn't live peacefully with it like we living peacefully with China when it was led by a man who wished to spread his revolution worldwide. Europe, India and Israel would probably be his greater concerns if the Caliphate was created because Europe and India have large Muslim populations (which have often been mistreated), he is an anti-Semite and all three would be near the Caliphate.

If Jesus hadn't picked up that sword to kill the Roman thugs nobody would follow his teachings today. Nobody likes a kind, loving neighbor! I mean, those other wimps think we should try turning the other cheek or offering a kind word to turn away wrath. Like THAT's gonna work! Look at Gandhi, for instance.

It is doubtful we'll get serious about winning unless Republicans are driven from office.

Under Republican leadership, the 911 attacks were not prevented, Bin Laden has not been killed or captured, Afghanistan is slipping back, Iraq has been transformed into a training lab for terrorist activities, and Lebanon is being broken and Hizbollah exalted.

Republicans want a terrorist enemy out there to scare American voters with, drive up the price of oil, and provide carte blanche for military spending.

Think about it. If, after 911, an American president had wanted to increase the strength of Islamist terrorist groups, what would they have done differently than Bush?

One of these days we'll figure this out and get serious about winning.

How about starting from a definition about what "winning" a war means? And suppose you decide that winning a war means that the defeated enemy must become stable and peaceful?

That completely removes the focus from killing. Killing becomes only one in a much broader kitbag of tools.

Now why do we focus on bodycounts (I once had a boss who was smart enough to know that "what gets measured gets done" and therefore was very careful about how & what he measured) and killing? Obviously because they're much easier than the alternatives. But unless the US is going to kill the whole population of Iraq or Israel that of Lebanon (presumably the only extreme that would finally satisfy the hawks--that's about how Pol Pot succeeded), you need to try something else.

The hawks complain about the empty rhetoric of phrases like working with the international community, or hearts and minds. They obviously have read nothing about counterinsurgenices. Best practices is inkspot--pacify a region, win hearts & minds of locals, spread it out from there, while maintaining enough security in the pacified region so insurgents can't reinfiltrate. (US doesn't have enuf troops in Iraq to do this--it is very labor intensive.) That may not always work, and it certainly doesn't work quickly, but all the known alternatives have been outright failures.

So bombs away. (Good post on tomdispatch about aerial massacres).

The question then becomes whether or not we should allow them to make the Caliphate. Of course we should stand against that.

Define the term "stand against that." What will that involve?

However, even if the Caliphate was created, there is no reason we couldn't live peacefully with it like we living peacefully with China when it was led by a man who wished to spread his revolution worldwide.

Not the best example. China, by its cultural nature, is not expansionist, which is probably damn lucky for us, although I don't think that story is completely told yet. The Soviet Union was expansionist, and had to be opposed all over the world. A "leave them be" philosophy over the past 50 years would have wound up with half the planet as Soviet client states.

Radical Islamism is definitely expansionist. Try to imagine a nuclear-armed Caliphate. At least the Soviet leadership did not regard suicide for their cause as one of the highest goals achievable.

Actually, I think that shock and awe can "win" when no moral scruples exists. This is the main point of totalitarianism; that humans fold when there are no limits. And well they should.

In all other cases, this kind of war is self-defeating simply because there will be limits to what you conceive of as possible. This is a "weakness" that some of a more totalitarian stripe can take advantage of. Because we are limited, we play into their hands when we try to be as mean as they. We never can, and if we could, then we would no longer be worthy of anything anyway.

In my view, this isn't a weakness of civilization, it's a strength. We don't want to be like them, and we're getting dangerously close....

One of these days we'll figure this out and get serious about winning.

Easy to write.

But we're fighting against a primitive authoritarian culture who only admire our weaponry, and weaponry is all they will acquire from the West.

As time goes on, as prosperity, slowly but certainly, edges up, more and more of them will have the means to become skilled in revolutionary and insurgent activity. It's the well-established revolutionary pattern throughout history, but with 'all of Islam', it's happening throughout all of Islam, and with the added frillip of religious mania.

So, what do we say to them?

>"How about just calling these guys genocidal thugs and opposing them just on moral grounds?"

No. I am referring to those who are complaining that sufficient force is not being used and those who advocate carpet bombing of predominantly civilian areas.

Hezbollah is not a guerilla force. It is an organized army occupying southern Lebanon. By all accounts, it is better trained than the Lebanese Army or most Arab armies, for that matter. It is difficult to see how one defeats an army except by the use of force. Most armies don't just surrender when you say "please."

Imagine, a fly alight on a glass table. Only fly swatter in hand is a hammer. One does not have to be squeemish about a squashed fly to have disaster of shards of glass all over the place.

The U.S. was respected worldwide when some restraint was exercised and "foreign" did not automatically equate with "feared" and "morally inferior" to the domestic audience.
Why does everyone want to reinvent the wheel ? The jihadists are sparked by resentment of foreign interference. This is a fine justification for more of same, right ? ( Satire, dammit )

"If we pull out of the Middle East, they're not going to quit and go back to their plows. They're coming after us."

So let's stay there forever and make it cheap and easy for them. And surely people who see their families killed in front of them will listen to the president's speeches about about peace and democracy, so no blowback there, right?

BTW: plows?

I think the current Lebanese civilian toll clearly fits your description - whatever military value the adjacent targets might have had is dwarfed (even in purely realist terms) by the inevitable backlash it causes.

But if you also specifically question the fight against Hizbollah, remember this: several years of peace on the border with Lebanon did not garner moderation toward Israel (though perhaps it was a help in allowing non-Shia Lebanese to focus their anger against the Syrian occupation.) On the contrary, Iran and Syria blatantly used that peace, in the style of a perfectly classic appeasement scenario, to build up Hizbollah to the formidable military force it now is. That this was allowed to happen was a direct threat to peace, which has now born its first fruit. All the blanket generalizations (or insinuations thereof) flying around about how "violence just leads to more violence (and by extension peacemaking and negotiation are the best and only path to peace)" are utterly vapid. Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

It sure would be nice if there were one rule of action that guaranteed peace and justice in all cases with perfect moral purity. Unfortunately for those on both sides of the line who want foreign policy to follow infantile black-and-white rules, there is no substitute for deciding each case on the merits. There was zero merit (moral, peaceful, diplomatic, humanitarian, or whatever) in allowing Iran a free hand in South Lebanon ever since Israel's withdrawal.

That's the blowback. Hizbollah kidnaps two soldiers and Israel spends millions to wipe out Lebanon's infrastructure, kill bystanders, create more insurgents, and remove what little restraint there was on Iran and the shi'ite Muslims.

Meanwhile, nutcases are emboldened to shoot Jews in Seattle and who-knows-where-next. American Yellowbelly and the rest of you no-mind jerkoffs, what's the up side of this, exactly? It seems you guys really love the "Islamofascists", because they help release all your infantile death fantasies out into the real world —- just like you do for them.

Kissinger

Can't give a source(Hitchens, among others maybe), but it seems to me that a few years ago when rumblings were being made about trying Kissinger for war crimes in front of an international tribinal(ICC?) one of the scenarios being suggested was of a ghoulous Kissinger taking great hands-ons glee in directing air strikes against targets in Cambodia that were known to full of innocent non-combatants along with some VC/ARVN.

Unfortunately, "one of these days," won't be until January, 2009.

American Hawk 1:58 PM:it's impossible to fight insurgents without there being civilian casualties. That's especially true with Hezbollah...

April 2002 - During Operation Defensive Shield, soldiers greatly increase the use of Palestinians as human shields...

The claim that Hezbullah is hiding among civilians is a myth.
Israel claims it's justified in bombing civilians because Hezbollah mingles with them. In fact, the militant group doesn't trust its civilians and stays as far away from them as possible.
By Mitch Prothero
Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around those targets to destroy them, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.
But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians like the plague. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been. ...

The statement that Hezbullah was using the UN post is also patiently false on for one simple reason: where are the bodies of Hezbollah fighters who were allegedly swarming over the UN post?

cld 4:31 PM:But we're fighting against a primitive authoritarian culture who only admire our weaponry, and weaponry is all they will acquire from the West....

Here's another article about Hezbollah setting up in positions it shouldn't,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28refugees.html?_r=2&hp&ex=1154145600&en=aa7501c3f591cb1e&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

When will Al, Hawk, ex-lib, etc just come out and suggest that we use every available American resource to kill everyone on the planet who isn't white, christian, straight, and republican? I mean if we are really going to get serious about winning, I think a genocide aimed at 99% of the worlds population is they way to go. Anything less is whiney liberal BS.

Not the best example. China, by its cultural nature, is not expansionist, which is probably damn lucky for us, although I don't think that story is completely told yet. The Soviet Union was expansionist, and had to be opposed all over the world. A "leave them be" philosophy over the past 50 years would have wound up with half the planet as Soviet client states.

Radical Islamism is definitely expansionist. Try to imagine a nuclear-armed Caliphate. At least the Soviet leadership did not regard suicide for their cause as one of the highest goals achievable.
Posted by: hansen on July 29, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with you that radical political Islam is expansionist and must be held back with the proper tools. However, you are wrong about China being not expansionist in history. They may not have been as expansionist as the British and Spanish Empires, but they were expansionist. Under Mao alone, the People's Liberation Army re-took Xinjiang and Tibet, which were two places they were not wanted and still not wanted by local Uyghurs and Tibetans, while also attempting to re-take Taiwan, where they also were not wanted (even though the GMD was often unpopular). Mao also used his international network of Maoist parties and the Afro-Asianism to push for his vision of rural-peasant revolution against capitalism-imperialism and over the Soviet Comintern model. The CCP supported the Maoist insurgency in Burma that was once the world's longest-running civil war, which helped to set the groundwork for the current Burmese military regime. Pol Pot also had a relationship with China similar to the one between Hezbollah and Iran. China's history is filled with examples of Chinese expansionism, including the Qianlong Emperor's invasion of what is now Xinjiang. To some extent, even Chinese control of all Han-dominated areas is partly the product of military expansionism, which in part is the historical basis for the cultural differences and chauvinism between Northern, often Mandarin-speaking Han and Southern, Cantonese-speaking Han. To paraphrase Benedict Andersen, the modern Chinese nation has stretched the tight skin of the empire over the drum of the nation.

"One of these days we'll figure this out and get serious about winning."

We have figured this out. And we were NEVER serious about winning.

You act like the reasons and goals for this war are really what the administration say they are.

The reason is to create years of turmoil that will keep the oil prices high and the trade in weapons very healthy.

Unfortunately, "one of these days," won't be until January, 2009.
Yes you are right!!

http://www.ggcr.info/sitemap.htm

"The U.S. was respected worldwide when some restraint was exercised and "foreign" did not automatically equate with "feared" and "morally inferior" to the domestic audience.
Why does everyone want to reinvent the wheel ? The jihadists are sparked by resentment of foreign interference. This is a fine justification for more of same, right ? ( Satire, dammit )"

Oh yes, we were respected all of those previous years while Hizbollah amassed 13,000 Katyusha rockets and personel to begin this recent onslaught.

So, are you advocating a return to diplomacy with terrorist organizations affording them yet more time to reinforce their positions and weaponry?

Do you honestly think that 6 years ago all was well because of the "faux" respect the US enjoyed? What was really happenning under our noses was the continue build up of weaponry and planning by Isalmo-facists.

They only engage in diplomacy to buy more time.

Jay:

I have five words for you:

The Israeli occupation of Lebanon.

If, you know, you're interested in what created an implacable resistance group on Israel's northern border.

There's a little thing called "historical context."

I suggest you look into it.

Bob

rmck1,

I have two words for you.

Intellectual dishonesty.

I suggest you look into it.

btw, that "Israeli northern border" is in line with UN accords following the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.

Jay:

Nobody on this site considers me intellectually dishonest -- including my intellectually honest debating opponents.

You've just been accused of that so many times by people here that you think you can just fling it back abitrarily and no one will notice.

"On their nothern border" is obviously an expression meaning a force *to Israel's north* which shares a border with it.

What a flippin' dimbulb you are.

Bob

"On their nothern border" is obviously an expression meaning a force *to Israel's north* which shares a border with it."

That "force" was to be disarmed by the world community following SC 1559, hence, intellectual dishonesty (or stupidity whichever you prefer)

You are the dimmest of all bulbs.

Go away.

The fear-mongering never stops. Now its not only "radical Islam" but "expansionist" China. The conservatives accuse the liberals of not facing reality but they engage in these unhinged, scfi, fantasy land speculations of an Islamic Caliphate and ignore the truth: namely that it is the US that has military bases throughout the world, and it is the US whose goals are clearly expansionist- the creation of a NEW World Order. The conservatives focus their wild speculations on the plans of a fringe group of "radical Islam" while refusing to even acknowledge the far more dangerous and deluded plans of global domination of the PNAC'ers, which is being carried out before their very eyes.

Jay:

"Go away?"

Jay ... I'm the PA regular. You're the troll :)

It's becoming obvious that you wish to avoid a discussion of Israel's 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon at all costs.

You want history to magically *poof* begin at 2000.

Which naturally makes it easier for you to resolve all the whopping cognitive dissonance of supporting a bombing campaign that just massacred 40 children and adolescents today.

Ehud Olmert expressed his "deep sorrow."

How nice for the morality of your cause.

Bob

The Secret of Hezbolla's Success, according to John Robb in his blog, Global Guerrillas;

"We are in a world today where we have a non-state actor using all the tools of weaponry... That’s what this new 21st-century warfare is going to look like. We have now entered an era where non-states or quasi-states do a lot better militarily than states do." Peter Singer (Brookings, author of "Corporate Warriors") in reference to Hezbollah's performance against the Israeli military. From a NYTimes article by Thom Shanker.

Although Peter Singer's statement is likely unsupported, he does stumble onto a conclusion that captures the essence of the moment. Hezbollah's performance in a set-piece battle with the Israeli military (arguably, pound for pound, the best conventional military in the world) is an excellent example of how non-state groups have radically improved their ability to conduct tactical and strategic operations. To wit, the continued success of its efforts has put the Israelis on the horns of a dilemma: either request a ceasefire or push for a full invasion of southern Lebanon (each fraught with disastrous consequences).

Organizational Improvements

The central secret to Hezbollah's success is that it trained its (global) guerrillas to make decisions autonomously (classic 4GW), at the small group level. In every area -- from firing rockets to defending prepared positions to media routing around jamming/disruption -- we have examples of Hezbollah teams deciding, adapting, innovating, and collaborating without reference to any central authority. The result of this decentralization is that Hezbollah's aggregate decision cycles are faster and qualitatively better than those of their Israeli counterparts.

Hybrid Methods/Systems

Ancillary to the improvements in organizational design (unlikely to be replicated at the state level), Hezbollah also demonstrated its ability to supercharge antiquated conventional weaponry/tactics with off-the-shelf technology to create weapons systems and hybrid tactics attuned to defeating Israeli military systems. We can expect to see this behavior accelerate among non-state groups as readily available commercial technology continues its pace of radical improvement.

Extracting an Economic Toll

Hezbollah's success against Israel codifies two strategic methods that we will see global guerrillas emulate. The first is the value of strategic coercion through economic attrition. Ongoing disruption of the Israeli economy through rocket attacks attaches a quantifiable strategic cost to the conflict. This offensive decision decisively broke the barrier between ancillary actions by professional militaries against non-state groups and domestic economic activity (business as usual). With the economic clock ticking (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a day), Israel has been forced into an aggressive air campaign to accelerate progress on the ground against missile launch sites and interdict resupply of new missiles from Syria. This air campaign has backfired due to the asymmetry of targets, in that Israeli air strikes have alienated the Lebanese government and increased the moral cohesion of its foes.

Leveraging force protection and an aversion to casualties

A second strategic method is to trade territory (something a non-state organization is easily able to ante up) for the blood of professional soldiers and delay. The intent is demonstrated by Hezbollah's dispersal of units across a wide geographic area in small autonomous units (defense in depth, rather than concentrating its defenses along the border). This deployment clearly shows Hezbollah's willingness to trade ground for the lives of Israeli soldiers and time. It succeeds by leveraging the aversion to casualties and dedication to force protection found in modern Western militaries (these men are professionally educated and therefore considered too valuable for use as cannon fodder). An aversion to casualties ensures that assaults conventional militaries will bog down if faced with stiff opposition, until intense applications of firepower to clear the path (which is made much less effective due to Hezbollah's high level of dispersion and fortifications). Time is a factor that clearly works particularly in the favor of Hezbollah (due to the potential of a widening conflict) and more generally in favor of any non-state group fighting a state.

Yes, indeed, US Power makes Right.

In early 83, there was a letter to the editor of the LA Times - the writer had helped retrofit the USS New Jersey at the Long Beach Shipyards. He was proud of the fact that the vessel was returning to active duty and was being sent to Lebanon. He said that shells could be fired 25 miles and hit a VW bug. He went to say that when the insurgents caught the terror that the New Jersey could impose, they would stop fighting.
Well, one fine day, while our Marines were at the head of an international peace force in Beirut, Cap Weinberger gave orders to the Navy to assist the Lebanese Army. The NJ, as well as other vessels, lobbed shells into the outskirts of Beirut. Civilians were killed. We had crossed the line and taken sides. The Marine commander was horrified because his men were sitting ducks.
A few days later, the phony water truck slammed into the Marine Barracks and killed 241 of our finest troops. A day later 58 French Paratroopers were also killed in a suicide bombing.
When the TWA flight was hijacked in 85, the perps asked the passengers about New Jersey. Not the state, but the battleship. They killed the one sailor aboard.

Yes, our mighty vessel and Cap Weinberger did use might to make right. As an aside, Cap also called off an retaliatory airstrike against Hezbollah that Ronny had authorized. If our troops had never been sent there, Cap couldn't have played his political games of picking sides. You reap what you sow.

Which naturally makes it easier for you to resolve all the whopping cognitive dissonance of supporting a bombing campaign that just massacred 40 children and adolescents today.

Jay probably enjoys looking at the pictures. No cognitive dissonance, just some sick perverted thrill of looking at the bodies of dead children.

Bob:

As you know, I believe that the loss of any innocent human life is tragic, and we can disagree whether Israel is waging a "just war" or not, but if it is then what else would you do in response to a legitimate military target? Of course, Israel was there for 18 years, but then they left and for 8 years, both the Lebanonese government and the UN has been powerless to stop (or complicit in) arming Hezbollah.

thethirdPaul and MLuther:

I's sure we will agree about "you reap what you sow" -- most recently, Hezbollah should not have sewn conflict by killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers, right?

I's sure we will agree about "you reap what you sow" -- most recently, Hezbollah should not have sewn conflict by killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers, right?

And in return Isreal kills 34 children...right. What will Isreal reap from this?

Further terrorist attacks and kidnappings.

Thomas:

You realize that intent (mens rea) has little to do with a conviction on vehicular homicide, right?

Very few people convicted of that offense were actually trying to, you know, run people over with their cars for the sake of killing them.

Gross negilegence and callous disregard for human life works just as well as homicidal intent.

So the "we only intend to kill terrorists" excuse by the Israelis is beginning to wear a little thin at this point after the massacre of 34 children ...

Many Iraelis would say "at least now they won't grow up to be terrorists" -- and that's how the slide from self-defense into thoughts of genocide begin ...

Speaking of, you know, intent.

Bob

Thomas:

"I's sure we will agree about "you reap what you sow" -- most recently, Hezbollah should not have sewn conflict by killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers, right?"

Let me slightly edit your statement: most recently, Israel should not have sewn (sic) conflict by killing 10 times as many people as Hezbollah, right?

BTW, it's sown not sewn. The latter means stitched.

In any case, each side has blood on its hands, each side has legitimate grievances, each side demonizes the other to reinforce its sense of righteousness, neither side listens to the other, and on and on we go...

begin = begins

Bob:

Typos happens. I understood what you meant. However, I'm not arguing "intent", since it's not "gross negligence" if it was indeed a legitimate military target -- you haven't answered what you else would do, Bob.

Wolfdaughter:

And, it was supposed to be "I'm" instead of "I's" -- but thanks so much for your contribution to the thread.

This is a little off topic, but what is the agenda of the fear mongering shills for neocon propaganda? The most likely answer is that they really desire the creation of a New World Order. What, then is their vision of this new order? Is it one giant world corporation? Since this is impossible, there would not be one giant corpoaration, but a plethora of corporations controlled by the interlocking directorates of a class of hereditary ruling elites of the kind that make up the hereditary banking clans, the Carlyle Group, the Bilderbergers and the boards and CEO's of these giant corporations. This seems to be the primary impetus for the concerted effort to reduce the estate tax. The neocons are pushing for the creation of an hereditary ruling class. Since such a corporatocracy would not be elected, it would necessarily be unaccountable, authoritarian, arbirtary, coercive and undemocratic.

Thomas:

How can a bunch of families *fleeing* from the conflict and staying over in a town that they thought would be safe in any way qualify as a "legitimate military target?"

Even if the Israelis had reason to believe it was one -- they fucked up so badly that it indeed amounts to gross negiligence on the part of the targeters.

Bob

Thomas:

Donald Rumsfeld likes to say that "democracy is messy." Well, the cultivation of a fragile democracy after decades of civil war was precisely what was going in in Lebanon -- and precisely why the Lebanese government couldn't rein in the Shia in the south.

One thing that Westerners love to do is to demonize their opponents to the point of total inhumanity. The tactics used in Fourth Generation assymmetrical warfare make this easy to do -- since it's extremely hard for Westerners to wrap their minds around the idea of suicide bombing or targeting civilians with crude rockets. So these people become implacably evil monsters, barely human beings, instead of 4G warriors fighting with "the army that you have, not the one you want," to once again paraphrase Rumsfeld.

And, naturally, an argument like this instantly appears like an attempt to "justify" terrorism rather than merely understand it. So I'm a terrorist enabler, blah blah blah. Whatever ...

But thinking in this way completely obscures what was happening in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah was loathed in the cosmopolitan north even by Shi'ites. But in the rural, undeveloped south, Hezbollah *was* the government. Not just a terrorist organization, it also provided all the social services -- schools, clinics, courts of law, law enforcement. The political wing of Hezbollah has 18 PMs and 2 cabiment ministers. Like it or not, it represented the legitimate aspirations of the people who elected them.

Now ... I'm not saying it's right to have the political front group for a paramilitary force essentially control the southern part of a country with a clearly hostile intent against the nation on its border. A mature Western democracy certainly wouldn't stand for that.

But Lebanon is not a mature Western democracy. It's (or it was) feeling its way towards a plurlist dialogue amidst previously hostile sects and doing a fairly decent job of it until recently.

Now ... either George Bush is right about democracy being the ultimate answer to terrorism -- or his isn't. If he is (and I believe -- for all the mistakes he's made and all the bad intent he's covering over with this -- he is), then we have to give democracy the space to develop. We have to let a nation become prosperous and educated before they develop the capacity to rein in their militant demagogues.

Because it's either this -- or Middle Eastern Muslims are just little brown tribalists who aren't capable of democracy.

Well ... omlettes and broken eggs and all.

Punishling Lebanon for essentially not being like all the other authoritarian Arab regimes who could crack Hezbollah heads with internal repression -- is to destroy Lebanon for daring to be democratic.

Bob

More speculation. Is the push to privatise Social Security an attempt to coopt the entire citizenry of the US as stakeholders in the New World Order? Would the dominant corporation of the new order be the world military security apparatus that would ruthlessly annilihate not only true threats but any perceived threats to its absolute dominance?

Bob:

One possibility is that Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel from that very location knowing that a return attack by Israel would kill dozens of children. Now, can you answer my question?

As a gentleman of the right, let me say that neither I nor any serious person I know advocates genocide, "casual" or otherwise. And I certainly see no need to fight the war in Afghanistan as the Soviets did; the way we have fought it thus far is just fine with me, and I see no reason to change.

To those who seem to decry any use of force, I would simply ask what alternative do you recommend? I haven't heard a single serious proposal. Negotiations going back to Henry Kissinger have benefited the "peace process" not a whit, because the people with whom the West is negotiating are simply bent on the destruction of the West, and they continue to say so--and to demonstrate their intentions in a most unequivocal way.

The event at Qana is indeed tragic, but if one can be persuaded to cease and desist by the accidental occurrence of civilian casualties, one is certain to lose to those who welcome such casualties.

At the moment of the greatest peril Western civilization has faced, the opposition party in the US seems more concerned with some abstract violation of some unknown person's privacy via the NSA program than with preventing a nuclear Islamofascism. You can prattle on all you want about how, if we surrender the slightest bit of our civil liberties the "terrorists will have won," but in doing so you're being quite silly. The terrorists will have won when they simultaneously detonate atomic bombs (or chemical or biological weapons) in a dozen major US cities. The day when that happens is not that far off, and if you have some way of preventing it without risking civilian casualties I, for one, am most eager to hear it.

Thinker
The Secret of Hezbolla's Success, according to John Robb in his blog, Global Guerrillas;

Interesting article...your link to it is goofed up, though.

The author left off a couple of obvious differences that help Hezbollah. The biggest one is that they do not restrict themselves to the traditional rules of the The Laws of War. They explicitly target civilians and they hide themselves among their own civilians. Not only do they intersperse themselves, but they dress in civilian clothes too. It is a shame that the author left those points out.

Oops, meant to put in the correct link.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

Bob:

You're not answering my questions over here either (if you don't want to continue the discussions, fine by me, just let me know):

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=9241

The fear mongering rubes are at it again.

It has been suggested by a correspondent for Salon that Hezbollah fighting forces do not "hide" in civilian areas. They are worried that if they mix in too much with the civilian population there will be more likelihood of betrayal.

Although such a claim may seem a reach or a rationalization initially, given the poor quality of Israeli intelligence in regard to the types of rockets available, and their underestimation of the strength of Hezbollah's defenses along the border, perhaps it is the case.

Israeli air strikes have been hitting the civil/political wing of Hezbollah, which is an integral part of Lebanese society in the South of the country. The result has been to strengthen Hezbollah, to kill civilians, and to weaken Israel's case for retaliation.

There is a great deal of--how you say--crap posted in this thread about combating an insurgent group such as Hezbollah. The choice, according to wingnuts posting here, is between a country-wide strategic bombing campaign and surrendering.

Israel should be fighting their way into and holding Hezbollah strongholds, using them as bases for continuing operations, particularly those that can use Israeli air mobility to its maximum effect.

These strongholds can be handed over to whatever multinational force eventually arrives. Such a strategy would be costly in terms of IDF casualties, but it would physically deprive Hezbollah of their positions along the border.

Hezbollah has been kind enough to try and stand up to the Israelis militarily by conventional means. Israel's unwillingness to slug it out on the ground is both puzzling and distressing. If Israel had deliberately chosen to defeat itself, it couldn't be doing a better job.

It should be noted that the main benefit of air power in irregular fighting is a means of transport and supply.

Bush Republicans:

They want wars.
But they dont want to fight them.
And they dont want their kids to fight them.
And they don't want to pay for the wars.
And not only that, they want a big tax cut at the same time.

Thomas:

That's what you call a reflexive defense. It's a hypothetical which nobody has alleged. Olmert certainly didn't cite it in his response, and if it were true, there'd be no need to call for an investigation into the incident as he has done.

The atrocity has so shaken up the Lebanese government that they told Condi to fuck off (she was going to visit Lebanon after she leaves Jerusalem) until she came back with the idea of negotiating an immediate cease fire.

As for what Israel should have done? A prisoner swap, some artillery barrages, maybe a Special Forces incursion looking for the captives. IOW, a measured and limited response. Everything else about Israel's military response was gratuitous and destined to be highly counterproductive.

Your Humble & Obediant Servant &c. &c.:

Your thinking is outmoded, a relic of the days when nation-states went to war with armies and victory on the battlefield was unequivocal.

If it were true, we would have won the Vietnam war. If it were true, Israel would still be in southern Lebanon. If it were true, we would have beaten the Soviets with a series of set-piece battles instead of winning the Cold War without firing a shot. If it were true, we would have rounded up all the "dead enders" in Iraq and the country would be united against terrorism and beginning, at long last, to rebuild while jump-starting a truly indigenous government.

What you're doing, as always, is demonizing your opponets to such an absurd degree (it would be quite laughable if the implications weren't so tragic) that you can justify nearly anything in response.

News flash: "Islamofacism" doesn't parse. It's a religious, not a materialist, ideology. You can't delegitimate it on anything other than its own terms -- the way the West beat out Communism because our system and theirs were both products of the Enlightenment.

News flash: There already is an "Islamic bomb." It's in Pakistan. You've heard of it? You know, the country that's such a strong ally of ours in the War on Terrorism that Musharraf won't allow our Special Forces into North Waziristan to hunt for Osama bin Laden. Pakistan's security forces are riddled with Salafist al Qaeda devotees, so you had better pray the next coup attempt against the dapper little general doesn't succeed. Our Friends the Pakistanis ...

News flash: Suicide is haram (forbidden) in Islam. Jihad excuses it only as a tactic with a vastly superior enemy. Otherwise, the idea that a nuclear-armed Muslim nation (say, Iran, for instance) would committ collective suicide by nuking somebody is simply to exhibit a titanic ignorance of Islam and Muslims.

News flash: There is no "global war on terrorism." Terrorism is a tactic of 4th Generation Warfare against a vastly superior opponent, not a stand-alone doctrine or ideology. The devotees of the Caliphate are a tiny handful of takfiri Salafist freakazoids who bear the same resemblance to mainstream Islam that Scientology does to Episcopalianism. No Muslim country that isn't a failed state welcomes bin Ladenism. Conservative Sunni Muslim regimes consider it a profound threat. Other than that, there are perhaps 10,000 of these mongos in the world, running around preaching global jihad like they were misfits from the Weather Underground (which the media similarly blew out of proportion). Two dozen or so of them got incredibly lucky one day back six years ago. That doesn't change the problem from being equatable to narco-terrorism, the Red Brigades or the IRA -- a matter for global law enforcement, not bombing campaigns.

Finally, your cowardice in the face of the kind of threat that is dwarfed statistically by auto accidents and deaths from lung cancer is unmanly. For 40 years, this country faced down a true existential threat -- millions of men under arms and a nuclear arsenal that could waste us many times over. If box cutters and brutality can be thought to underine the greatest nation on earth, then perhaps the real problem is with that sort of fevered imagination.

Bob

The lessons are so simple and obvious. After thousands of years of tit-for-tat, revenge and retribution, why can’t we learn? Why are we so dense, so immovable?

Hitler thought he could demoralize the Brits with his bombs. The allies thought they could demoralize the Germans by obliterating their cities. The Americans thought they could “shock and awe” the Sunnis into submission. In all cases, the bombing only strengthened their resolve.

It’s so obvious even a fence post should be able to understand. How foolish to think we can make people see our side of the argument by killing a number of them. Do we really expect the surviving relatives to rethink their behavior? All they think about is getting revenge.

Don’t bring up Hiroshima or destroyed Germany in rebuttal, all you fence posts. As in WWII, if you start a war, you must go all the way and totally destroy the enemy, to the point that they become totally dependent on the winners for everything. Then you be the good guys—good providers. Feed them, help them rebuild, keep your hands off their women, rewrite their school textbooks, etc., and spend bazillions to to do it. That’s how Uncle Sam actually changed minds after WWII. Anything short of that and the enemy will regroup and come after you again. Are you ready or even able to go this far, wingers?

Deterrence is a word the Israelis throw around a lot. Hezbollah must understand it will be hit hard if it displeases them! What year is this, 70 AD? Yes, the Israelis are slow learners, but we are the same. I think it has something to do with our clinging to that ancient Jewish book as if it had the answers to problems in these times. I think it has something to do with our racist world view. We, the superior ones, God’s chosen nation, could never be demoralized by a violent attack, but those brown people are of inferior moral fiber. They can be intimidated.

Bush, the Israelis, American right wing Christians: all peas in a pod. Round and round the wheel of killing goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.

underine = undermine

How has the radical right and the neocons redefined "terrorism"? Who are the terrorists, according to them? The terrorists, according to them, are anyone who opposes the New World Order. That is why the radical right and the neocons label anyone who opposes permanent war, whether they be the politically oriented domestic opposition or the armed foreign insurgents waging war in Iraq. We are terrorists and enemies to them because we oppose the new order they wish to impose on the world.

In answer to the very first poster, what would I propose? We should not forget that Jews are newcomers to that area and that a large portion of the land that is now Israel was taken from Arabs by force. You may think that is old news, but not to the Arabs who once lived there. To reinforce the Arab point of view that Jews are illegal interlopers, illegal settlement continues in occupied Palestine.

I propose withdrawing to the 1967 borders and doing everything possible to build a viable Palestine. Sure there will still be Arabs who want Israel gone. But only benevolent action wins hearts. That is Israel’s only chance or there will be generations of warfare and though it seems impossible to contemplate now, Israel’s future is not certain in war. There are a hell of a lot more Arabs than Jews.

I have a hypothetical question for my Moral Superiors who seem to infest this place:

It's June 5, 1944, and you're Dwight Eisenhower. Around midnight an angel comes to you in a dream and says, "Ike, if you launch this invasion tomorrow, 20,000 innocent French civilians will die in the aftermath [as in fact happened]." Do you proceed, or do you call it off?

Certainly those of you who now accuse your allies of heartless cruelty over the "slaughter of 40 innocent civilians" have already telegraphed your answer. But just as certainly, the rest of you must know why I believe the West can't win in this struggle, and I believe the reason is people like you. And I await your constructive suggestions as to how to stop the murderous onslaught against the civilization that has nurtured you.

And a particular species of shame is appropriate to the hapless dolt who likened the Israeli campaign to Hitler's saturation bombing in his effort to demoralize the British people. Hitler deliberately sought to kill civilians; the Israelis are making every available effort to avoid doing so, while Hezbollah's very aim is to kill the innocent. Did we end up with morons like this because of the lack of moral compass in our educational institutions? How on earth did we end up with simpletons like this among us?

Your enemy is far stronger than you, and utterly ruthless. If you have children or grandchildren, you should abandon right now any notion that their lives will be happy or productive.

"...The author left off a couple of obvious differences that help Hezbollah. The biggest one is that they do not restrict themselves to the traditional rules of the The Laws of War. They explicitly target civilians and they hide themselves among their own civilians. Not only do they intersperse themselves, but they dress in civilian clothes too. It is a shame that the author left those points out..."

And do we follow the Laws of War by ignoring the Geneva Convention (and U.S. Law), setting up "black site" prisons, using torture, and utilizing indefinite confinement of "illegal-combatants?"

Maybe they decided, since we did not observe the GC, there was no reason for them to as well.

After all, the Geneva Convention is not a suicide pact...

六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩,

The wingnut ability to create strawmen from apples and oranges (mixed metaphor alert!) is truly breathtaking. The conduct of World War II has so little to do with the type of fighting that is now going on that comparisons are or both in-apt and inept.

Oh, and unless one only equates numbers to strength; Israel is far stronger militarily than Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran put together.

What has become of the IDF, once known for its brilliance and unpredictability (and success)?

Qana is a case in point. If reports about Hezbollah hiding rocket launchers in the town are to be believed, Hezbollah was expecting one of two things from Israel: Concern for civilians living there would keep Israel from striking Qana at all (no matter what Israel states, concern for Israeli civilians more than trumps any concern for Lebanese civilians), allowing Hezbollah to continue to use the town as a hiding place, or Israel would hit the town with a high likelihood of killing civilians. As predicted, Israel did the latter.

I find it hard top believe that the IDF of 1956, 1967 or 1973 would have responded as Israel is now doing.

Their lives won't be happy because the neocon rube's relentless fear mongering propaganda of a diversionary threat that is merely a pretext to assert economic dominance will condemn them to a Soylent Green world. The true threat is dwindling enregy supplies and Global warming.

Having read the recent post of someone calling herself bblog, I conclude that this is not a serious place for conversation. A bunch of crazed religious zealots are doing everything they can to acquire atomic bombs to set off in your midst, and you're fretting about air pollution. Jesus fucking Christ...

I conclude that this is not a serious place for conversation.

You're right, it's not. I think you'll find LGF or Free Republic more to your liking.

See ya!

You believe a bunch of crazed religious zealots are doing everything they can to acquire nuclear weapons, yet you are here posting instead of enlisting. You have spoken like a true chickenhawk coward. Meanwhile a bunch of crazed religious zealots in this country already have nuclear weapons and are threatening to use them against Iran. I won't even bother adressing the nonsense about pollution.

婚纱摄影
婚纱影楼
网页制作
网站制作
网站设计
设计
网页设计
网站建设
网站推广
北京网站推广
北京网页设计
北京网站建设
网站推广
双线空间
ＰＨＰ空间
ＡＳＰ空间
网站空间
虚拟主机
域名注册
法语
钟表
塔钟
钟表
家用中央空调
格力中央空调
琥珀
助听器
助听器
助听器
发电机
发电机组
柴油发电机
发电设备
发电机出租
康明斯
法国留学
法语培训
进口轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
轴承
进口轴承
skf轴承
fag轴承
轴承
进口轴承
进口轴承
直线轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
充气床
充气用品
充气游泳池
野营用品
户外用品
充气船
气垫床
充气床
充气用品
充气游泳池
野营用品
户外用品
充气船
气 垫床
钓鱼船
帐篷
户外帐篷
瑞士军刀
运动手表
中央吸尘
家用中央吸尘
商业中央吸尘
吸尘器
中央吸尘系统
工业吸尘
风灶清洗
通风清洗
中央空调管道清洗
机器人
清洗机器人
检测机器人
法语|法语培训|法国留学|留学法国|法语学习
中央吸尘|家用中央吸尘|商业中央吸尘|吸尘器|中央吸尘系统|工业吸尘|风灶清洗|通风清洗|中央空调管道清洗|机器人