Is Doug Feith consulting for Israel these days?

With the shooting apparently over in Lebanon, it looks safe to say that the Israeli government's decision to turn Hezbollah's latest border provocation stunt into a small to medium sized war was, in Talleyrand's words, "worse than a crime -- a mistake!"

With the exception of the 1973 war, Israel has typically chosen the time and place when endemic threats and skirmishes turn into full-scale war, rather than let its opponents choose the beginning of the war at their own convenience. Up until now, Israel has generally chosen intelligently when to start its wars, so intelligently in fact that in the wake of its many triumphs, many American pundits have come to believe that Israel has never been the one to first escalate to full-scale war, but was instead always the victim of Pearl Harbor-style sneak attacks -- a popular romantic delusion among Americans. When you win, you don't get asked hard questions because, as Gen. Patton said, "Americans love a winner."

This time, however, Israel has mostly succeeded in pounding heck out of a hornet's nest, an outcome that should have been predictable from the similar problems the American military, despite enjoying similar air supremacy, has had in putting down a more poorly organized guerilla insurgency in Iraq, but which the Israelis were too arrogant to learn from.

I've sometimes joked that we would be better off simply outsourcing our foreign policy to Israel rather than to hand it over to pseudo-Sabra wannabe neocons who lack the seriousness and competence of the actual Israelis. Yet, the conduct of this latest war suggests that the Israelis are succumbing to the same lack of realism as the neocons. Israel's key strategic psychological assumption -- that bombing non-Hezbollah targets in Lebanon would make the non-Hezbollah Lebanese unite against Hezbollah, rather than unite behind Hezbollah against Israel -- was particularly far-fetched, more worthy of Doug let's-bomb-Paraguay-to-catch-the-terrorists-off-guard Feith.

A more sensible Israeli long-term strategy for dealing with Hezbollah would have been carrot and stick-based. Israel could have used its vastly wealthy friends in New York and Moscow to build up the strength and amiability of the government of Lebanon and its army by quietly cutting in on profitable business deals the various ruling clans of Lebanon, including non-homicidal Shi'ite power brokers, all on the requirement of continuing good behavior.

The annual Iranian subsidy to Hezbollah is typically estimated at around $100 million per year, which is a pittance compared to what Israel's friends just on the Forbes 400 alone could muster. The net worth of the Forbes 400 is about one trillion, and somewhere around one-fifth to one-quarter of that is in the hands of Jewish billionaires. So, one-tenth of one percent of their net worth annually would be equal to twice the Iranian subsidy to Hezbollah.

Israel has typically preferred instead for America to bribe its neighbors, such as Egypt and Jordan, for it, while dunning Diaspora Jews for the direct benefit of Israel. Yet, as libertarian theory suggests, I suspect motivated private money would do a more effective job than the largesse of the American taxpayer.

But all this is just academic theorizing today because Israel has blown its chance for a decade or so to build up constructive relationships with the more responsible Lebanese elements.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer