Israel Could Have Trounced Hezbollah, but Its Prime Minister Wouldn't Allow It

Israel’s weak-minded and liberal prime minister, Ehud Olmert, stood in the way of his army’s winning a decisive victory over the Hezbollah terrorist group. Let this be a lesson for us here in America.
Instead of perceiving this as a major turning point Battle in the war against Islamic terrorism, timid Olmert treated this as a skirmish. Sure, he talked big, but we now see that he did so hoping his rhetoric would unnerve the Hezbollah enemy. From the get-go, he never inhered the resolve to do what had to be done. Hezbollah was not frightened of his words and did not blink. Olmert blinked.
Olmert still does not see Islamic terrorism as part of a greater Jihad to conquer the West. He thinks this whole scenario is just about Moslem desires for just a little bit more land. As he said and continues to say: "I was elected to orchestrate the process of giving up the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) ‘for peace.’" Yes, no one is more blind than he who refuses to see what he doesn’t want to see if it is contrary to his foolish hopes.
For liberals like Olmert, peace comes not through strength but compromise and concession. "Victory" has been replaced by "peace process." Western liberal leaders crave negotiated settlements for to them it means that the enemy now accepts us. They want their enemies’ approval. How insecure!
But why should someone crave the approval of those who represent a barbaric and devilish system? That, my friends, is the disease of moral relativism, which afflicts the liberal West.
Olmert had an opportunity to protect his country and be part of saving the world from a strain of Nazism infecting much of Islam and endangering our world. He could have been a Churchill, instead he remains an Olmert.
Olmert is the affirmation of the truth of "The Peter Principle." Many men are equipped to go only so far as leaders. When they venture beyond their abilities and are elevated to positions requiring greatness, they fail and are a disaster for those relying on their leadership. Olmert is a pol. Someone good for the horse-trading that constitutes local governance. He should have remained a mayor or an unimportant member of Knesset (parliament). He is not Prime Minister material — especially in a jihadist era that requires great leaders.
Like many kings in the First and Second Commonwealth of ancient Israel, Olmert has chosen the acceptance of foreign leaders over what is necessary to ensure victory for his own people. How seductive it must be to feel that one can become a card-carrying member of the international fraternity of leaders. The European Union, the U.N, the left wing NGOs, the "beautiful people" in the halls of power and celebrity. Olmert could not abide their continued condemnation, their displeasure. Olmert is Israel’s Jacque Chirac.
Some say that Israel needed just ten more days — 30 days was not enough, Israel needed 40. In other words, the ceasefire was 10 days too soon. Not so. Had Israel wanted, it could have destroyed Hezbollah during the first ten days. The Israeli people were willing, more united about this issue than any other in the last 33 years. It was Olmert and his socialist Defense Minister Amir Peretz — only recently a radical leftist labor Union leader — who didn’t want it. It was obvious from the very beginning. We waited, the world waited — but the resolve never came. The politicians overruled the army — and the people.
What blocked Israel from achieving its military goal is the new "higher morality" the Israelis have placed upon their soldiers: spare "the innocents" even if it means getting yourself killed to save them. Many Israeli soldiers were killed that did not have to be. Instead of bombing terrorist houses from above, soldiers went house-to-house — and were ambushed. At least a couple of dozen died to spare the "innocents" who, if given the chance, would slit their throat in a heartbeat. The unnecessary deaths of these soldiers were demoralizing and further weakened the tepid resolve of the Israeli prime minister.
Some servicemen were reluctant to bomb specific strategic targets out of fear of court-martial if their pinpoint shooting ended up killing "the innocents." So some targets remained untouched. Olmert was afraid to unleash a comprehensive ground war for, in his mind, the deaths of "innocents" constituted a greater failure than allowing Hezbollah to remain intact. One gets the sense that the Israelis wage these wars not to win but to show how moral they are in war.
But there is no one to blame for this conclusion than the silly and insecure Israeli political establishment that instituted these rules of war conduct to begin with. They boast how "proud" they are of their "higher morality in war." Well, I’m not! To save one’s countrymen, a soldier must risk his life. He should not be forced to die to save the enemy. Would you want your son to die for such a "cause"? Why do the Israelis feel that their soldiers are somehow guilty, expendable, in relation to the enemy’s "innocents"? Why do they continue to feel a need to prove how moral they are?
We in America should take heed. Liberals are not to be relied on for our national defense. They have too many hang-ups. They lack a moral clarity and the guts necessary to defeat the enemy. They don’t believe in victory. It goes against their grain, their belief system. They believe in "peace processes," i.e., appeasement, torturous, bit-by-bit concessions: attrition. They crave international approval more than that of their countrymen. They’ll never deliver the necessary military knock-out-punch.
But most dangerously, they have fashioned a set of war rules that makes it impossible to defeat the enemy. Worse, our enemy knows it and exploits it. And we seem able neither to stomach nor stand up to the enemy’s well rehearsed, professional whining. They will terrorize us, blow us up and defeat us with their most effective weapon yet: their propaganda of guilt and tears.