New York Times braces for revenge

"Bracing for Revenge," a current editorial in the New York Times, seems to think that the Mughniyeh assassination was obviously Israel's doing and possibly a bad idea because of the massive retaliation that might ensue. The AMIA bombing, the author reminds us, followed the assassination of Sheik Abbas Musawi. Did you know that Mughniyeh was captured on tape celebrating? That nicely contextualizes leftist denial that Hezbollah is a terrorist group, doesn't it?

The telephone monitors of the United States National Security Agency turned up “not a smoking gun, but a blazing cannon,” in the words of a Mossad official. A senior Hezbollah operative, Talal Hamiyah, was taped rejoicing with Mr. Mugniyah over “our project in Argentina” and mocking Israeli security services for not preventing it.

We learn that Ehud Barak ruled out an operation against Mughniyeh in 2000, "surely" with "the aftermath of the Musawi assassination in mind." Now, the author wonders whether "Mr. Barak has unlearned his lesson or not." Why is "don't mess with Hezbollah" a bad "lesson" to "unlearn"?:

As Hezbollah draws no fine distinctions between the United States and Israel, both nations, along with Jews around the world, might well have to pay the price for the loss of the man whose mystical aura was as important as his operational prowess . . . an inkling of how the group might respond can be found in the July 2007 statements of Michael McConnell, America’s director of national intelligence, expressing grave apprehension about Hezbollah sleeper cells in the United States that could go into action should the Americans cross the organization’s "red line."

This line has now been crossed. Only the severest of countermeasures by the intelligence services of Israel and the United States will prevent last week’s assassination, justified as it was, from costing a vastly disproportionate price in blood.

That's an interesting appearance of the "disproportionate" meme: don't provoke Hezbollah into doing something "disproportionate." The editorial raises interesting issues, but not quite the ones it thinks it does. I wonder if the author, Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, realizes that he has made a case against assassinating Bin Laden? Obviously terrorist groups are capable of horrendous operations for reasons other than revenge. The consequences of not crossing "red lines" could be to allow a terror organization to build its capabilities and then take the initiative when it feels ready. That all presumes, of course, that the West is ready to do what is necessary to root out terror, however unpalatable the necessary actions might be. Bergman unwittingly suggests that our other option is to buy some peace and quiet until the unthinkable happens anyway.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Tags: Mughniyeh, terror, Hezbollah