These articles in the Los Angeles Times and Time magazine present a horrifying picture of the carnage and chaos in southern Lebanon: coffins stacked high and spray-painted with their victims’ names, family members searching the rubble for the remains of loved ones, Red Cross ambulances allegedly targeted by Israeli missiles, hundreds of thousands fleeing their homes.

The Israeli government, in turn, points out that it has taken steps to avoid civilian casualties — including leafleting Lebanese villages with warnings of impending strikes — in sharp distinction to Hezbollah’s targeting of civilians. It argues that Hezbollah is a “monster that must be dealt with,” whatever the unintended cost in civilian deaths.

Hezbollah’s July 12 attacks on the Israeli military — which included the abductions of two Israeli soldiers — might have been just a minor thread in the unending tapestry of violence between Israel and Hezbollah. After all, Hezbollah had conducted similar cross-border raids in recent years; it had abducted Israeli soldiers before, and in 2004 successfully swapped prisoners with Israel. (The soldiers abducted on July 12 were supposed to be bargaining chips to win the freedom of three Lebanese prisoners.)

As is often the case, says The Economist, the precipitating event was nothing but a “pinprick,” and yet the war that came seemed almost destiny: “The conditions for it have been building, in slow motion, for years.” For years, indeed — it is no small irony that the Islamic political/paramilitary/terrorist/philanthropist group at the heart of this latest conflict, Hezbollah, was formed in 1982 to fight against the Israel Defense Forces’ occupation of southern Lebanon. Now the IDF has returned, sweeping into the country to attempt once again to neutralize its enemy across the border.

Much ink has been spilled over the question of who is justified in attacking whom. I want to focus instead on another, more pragmatic question: What will be the end result of all this violence? It goes without saying that Hezbollah stands no chance of beating the much-stronger Israeli military. Its goal of destroying Israel is wishful thinking — a useful recruiting strategy, perhaps, but nothing with any hope of success.

On the other hand, it’s not so clear that the IDF can succeed in destroying, or even permanently weakening, Hezbollah with its latest campaign. “They can’t fight Hezbollah because Hezbollah is not an army,” said one Lebanese doctor quoted in the Times article. “They kill the people because they think it’s the only way to stop Hezbollah.” The IDF can bomb all the Hezbollah forces it can find, but in a nationalism-charged, guerrilla-style struggle like this, new recruits will always be there — galvanized, in fact, by the latest round of violence — and the sad truth is Hezbollah’s unrepentant resistance has probably raised its profile among international financiers willing to fund its terrorism.

If the IDF embarks on a full-scale ground invasion and occupies southern Lebanon once more, will the violence end, then? The history of the IDF’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and even Lebanon itself (which spanned almost two decades, until the 2000 withdrawal) seems to suggest otherwise. In fact, Israel’s prolonged presence in southern Lebanon allowed Hezbollah to take on the mantle of liberators. In spite of its penchant for terrorism, Hezbollah gained a huge following for its perceived success in forcing the Israeli army out of the country. This latest Israeli campaign, too, will probably cripple Lebanon’s hopefully reformist, but weak, national government. No matter that Israel needs a Lebanese government strong enough to rein in Hezbollah and enforce peace on the Lebanese-Israeli border.

The IDF can continue its bombardment for weeks, but it’s likely that Hezbollah will survive anything short of total war. Asymmetric wars like this one can be won, but they appear to require extraordinary measures, on the level of brutality of the British in the Boer War, who used a combination of overwhelming numbers, scorched-earth tactics, and concentration camps to quash the guerrilla resistance. In modern times, this kind of warfare is anathema. And so we are likely to see the conflict drag on until both sides tire, or the international community musters the backbone to step in and enforce a cease-fire. In the meantime, civilians on both sides will suffer in blood, fear, and mutual hatred.

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen