Discussion on Israeli Strategy

[tomahawk6]

LTC[ret] Ralph Peters weighs in on current Israeli operations. It is his opinon that Israel is afraid to take casualties. However I see the Israeli operation as a page out of US doctrine. Use airpower to prepare the battlefield with limited ground operations to mop up. This has the benefit of keeping ground forces casualties low. This is in fact the way that modern war is waged.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/israels_new_fear_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

 

[Bo]

Interesting article from an alternative news source.

Israel Takes a Stupid Pill
By Larry C. Johnson, Booman Tribune
Posted on July 17, 2006, Printed on July 18, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/39081/

Apparently not content to let the US do a self-immolation act in the Middle East by itself, Israel decided to set itself on fire by invading Lebanon. Burn baby burn? Like George Bush, Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, never served in a combat unit and launched military operations without thinking the matter through. In fact, Olmert reportedly never even served in the military. I raise this because there is one simple question Israel cannot answer about the current operations-what is their strategic military objective. Olmert has somehow persuaded the Israeli military to ignore strategy, think tactically, and in the process become really stupid. The events in the next several weeks will expose as myth the canard that you can secure a nation by killing terrorists. No you can't.

Killing "terrorists" has a place in policy but it is not a strategic military objective. It is a tactical objective and may serve political purposes, but achieves little in terms of securing Israel. Israel is attacking targets in Lebanon like a drunken sailor in a bar fight. Flailing about, causing significant damage, hitting innocent bystanders, and generally making a mess of things. This is not the Israeli military that pulled off the brilliant and daring raid at Entebbe.

What about Hamas and Hezbollah?

They are not terrorists. They carry out terrorist attacks, but they are not terrorists. They are something far more dangerous. They are a fully functioning political, social, religious, and military organizations that use terrorism tactics, but they are far more formidable than terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or the Basque Terrorist Organization. They do have the resources and the personnel to project force, sustain operations, and cannot be easily defeated. Unlike the Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1973, Hamas and Hezbollah will not easily fold and cannot be defeated in a seven day war. If that is the assumption among some Israeli military planners it is a crazy fantasy.

While most folks in the United States buy into the Hollywood storyline of poor little Israel fighting for its survival against big, bad Muslims, the reality unfolding on our TV screens shows something else. Exodus, starring Paul Newman, is ancient history. Hamas and Hezbollah attacked military targets; kidnapping soldiers on military patrols may be an act of war and a provocation, but it is not terrorism. (And yes, Hezbollah and Hamas have carried out terrorist attacks in the past against Israeli civilians. I'm not ignoring those acts, I condemn them, but we need to understand what the dynamics are right now.) Israel is not attacking the individuals who hit their soldiers. Israel is engaged in mass punishment.

How did Israel respond? They bombed civilian targets and civilian infrastructure and have killed many civilians. Let's see if I have this right.

The Arab "terrorists" attack military units, destroy at least one tank, and are therefore terrorists. Israel retaliates by launching aerial, naval, and artillery bombardments of civilian areas and they are engaging in self-defense. If we are unable to recognize the hypocrisy of this construct then we ourselves are so enveloped by propaganda and emotion that, like the Israelis, Hezbollah, and Hamas, we can't think rationally. We can only think in terms of tribalism and revenge.

Iran, meanwhile, is sitting in the catbird's seat. They have a well-trained and highly competent surrogate force in Hezbollah. Hezbollah's successful attack on Friday on an Israeli naval vessel is a reminder that Hezbollah is not a bunch of crazy kids carrying RPGs and wearing flip flops. I would be willing to wager that at least one Iranian military advisor was helping Hezbollah launch the missile that hit the Israeli ship. But Iran is doing more than simply engage in tit-for-tat. They are thinking strategically.

The events unfolding in Iraq and Lebanon are going Tehran's way. The United States is being portrayed in the world media as a government that tolerates and excuses attacks on civilian populations. The perception becomes the reality and the ability of the United States to rally support among the Russians, the Chinese, and even the French becomes more impaired. We need the international community to deal effectively with nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran. Now, we will be bogged down trying to defend Israel from an angry international community.     

In the past, the United States had enough credibility on both sides and kept enough of a distance during these blood feuds so that we could intervene and prevent the fighting from escalating into a gigantic war. It appears that there is no one in the Bush Administration who can step up and intervene to calm the situation. Hell, with John Bolton and Elliot Abrams leading the charge, we are Israel's enablers.

Former Senator Fred Thompson played a U.S. Navy Admiral in The Hunt for Red October. While speaking about escalating tensions as the United States and the Soviet Union chased a renegade submarine, he said: "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

Those words are relevant today. Let's hope and pray they don't come to pass.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/39081/



True? Left-wing propaganda? Discuss...

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Left wing propaganda....and apologist crap.....next question.


Matthew. 

 

[Jed]

I can follow the logic of this article , but; I feel there may be a lot more facts with respect to interaction between the governing powers in Syria and Iran and the Hezbolah that are not widely known and, therefore, key factors are missing in the Estimate of the Situation. I would like to see someone with some insight in this realm comment on this news article.

Jed

 

[a_majoor]

Since Hezbollah and Hamas are social and ideological movements as well as terrorist organizations, I suspect the Israelis are attempting to tear down the entire social construct which allows these movements to survive and prosper. Past historical examples include the Theban destruction of Spartan society by marching through Laconia, Sherman's "March to the Sea" tearing the heart out of Southern society and the annihilation of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. In all cases, there were attempts to ensure the ruling class paid a disproportionate price, but all members of the society were attacked to the extent they supported the Spartan, Southern, Nazi or Imperial regimes.

So long as the "social construct" exists, then there will always be new Imams and new recruits for these movements to re occupy the Gaza strip and Southern Lebanon and carry out renewed attacks against the population of Israel. Israel is in an almost impossible situation. They know that Hezbollah and Hamas need to be so thoroughly smashed and humiliated that few people would ever attempt to reconstitute them again, but lack the resources to do so.

Since Hezbollah is a creature of Iran, the overthrow of the Iranian Theocracy and toppling of the Syrian Ba'athist regime (which provides material support) are needed to break the ideological and logistical underpinnings of Hezbollah. All in all, there are multiple layers to this game, and the only overarching strategy which has any chance at all is the American "purple finger" experiment of creating a consensual, free market democracy in Iraq. While some commentators see an Iranian master plan at work, another view is this is an attempt to derail the "purple finger" process by diverting attention to "wars and rumors of war", as demands for reform grow and increase in Iran. (I suspect there is an element of truth to both ideas, the Iranians need to break the "purple finger" box and at the same time realized this is a way of attacking their enemies by proxy).

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's not left-wing propaganda.  Regardless how the author intended it to be perceived, he has made some useful points.

What is Israel's objective?  I doubt Hamas and Hezbollah and their state backers particularly care about the welfare of the people nominally under their control.  Suppose Israel lashes out in this fashion each time someone uses a non-Israeli population as a human shield.  Who do you suppose is going to break first: the anti-Israeli political factions due to a backlash from the innocent populations, or Israel due to international popular and political opinion, not to mention their own domestic disgust at having to behave in such a fashion?

Israel has peace with Egypt and Jordan.  If Hezbollah is extinguished and Israel guarantees the security of Lebanon (ie. against Syrian invasion) without interfering with Lebanon's domestic politics, Israel might be able to buy security on that frontier. (And Lebanon might become a gem of the ME again.)  That would leave only Syria - which can't easily allow a proxy war to be fought from refuges within its borders - and the Palestinian territories.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

You know something - I actually agree with much of what's written here.

I'm hardly an apologist for Hezbollah or Hamas, but I've been watching what's unfolding in Lebanon with a sense of bewilderment - particularly at the sense of proportionality of it all.

It is certainly one thing to go after Hezbollah hammer and tong.  After all, the launching of rockets into Northern Israel is a serious matter and is something that needed to be addressed.  However, I really began to question Israeli tactics as I watched rounds impacting on the runways of Beirut International and as reports (multiple source) began to circulate of bombings of roads, bridges and other infrastructure along with mounting civilian casualties.  After all, Lebanon is a country that is just rebuilding itself after decades of sectarian violence and that has a significant Christian population.

So, what do we make of all this?  First, recent actions play right into the hands of Iran and the Islamic extremists.  With the dramatic TV images, they can, yet again, portray Israel as the aggressor - and as one that will employ disproportionate amounts of force.  Second, Israel may have a serious problem on its hands if it commits substantial numbers of ground troops to S. Lebanon and may find it difficult to conduct a coherent withdrawal after a protracted COIN campaign.

Finally, one wonders what the UN is doing.  UNIFIL has been deployed to S. Lebanon since 1978 (see here for their mandate:  http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/index.html), with the specific task of assisting the Lebanese government in establishing control over its southern frontier.  Yet the Lebanese have surrendered virtual control over large parts of the region to Hezbollah and have been unwilling to assert themselves, despite "urging" from the UN.  I can't blame the Lebanese:  Hezbollah has been permitted to range free for years and reining them in would take a significant effort.  However, what is this UN force is doing in the country if it cannot provide even a modicum of control and assistance?

To sum myself up:  I think Israel has gone overboard here.  Instead of targeted military action, we appear to be seeing a broad, disproportionate response - a response that could be counterproductive in the short to mid-term.

Simply because one disagrees with Israeli policy doesn't make one a left-wing terrorism supporter.  Some posters here would do well to remember that.

Coffee's over...back to work.

TR

 

[Infanteer]

You know something - I actually agree with much of what's written here.

I'm hardly an apologist for Hezbollah or Hamas, but I've been watching what's unfolding in Lebanon with a sense of bewilderment - particularly at the sense of proportionality of it all....

To sum myself up:  I think Israel has gone overboard here.  Instead of targeted military action, we appear to be seeing a broad, disproportionate response - a response that could be counterproductive in the short to mid-term.

Simply because one disagrees with Israeli policy doesn't make one a left-wing terrorism supporter.  Some posters here would do well to remember that.

+1.

What a mess.  It's hard to lob accusations at Hamas/Hezbollah for its behaviour when Israel is killing more civilians with its military strikes.  You can accuse me of whatever and try to take the moral highground because Israel "doesn't target civilians" (which, incidentally, Hezbollah also claims), but 200 dead civilians are 200 dead civilians.  One would think Israel would have learned something from its first disastrous foray into Lebanon.

The only thing that really helps to explain things is Thomas Friedman's statement that, in the Mid-East, "all things are tribal."

 

[GAP]

One would think Israel would have learned something from its first disastrous foray into Lebanon.
The only thing that really helps to explain things is Thomas Friedman's statement that, in the Mid-East, "all things are tribal."

I agree with most of the last few posts, until I remember what the "Canadian/Lebanese" said about Hezbollah being their protector.

 

[crazyleggs]

Interesting e-mail transcript from Maj Hess-von Kruedener.  He is serving under UNTSO in Lebanon.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/mideast_lebanon_UN_060716/20060718/

 

[Brad Sallows]

>To sum myself up:  I think Israel has gone overboard here.  Instead of targeted military action, we appear to be seeing a broad, disproportionate response - a response that could be counterproductive in the short to mid-term.

Unless the Israelis really are working themselves up to solve the Hezbullah "problem" once and for all and turn out the foreigners fighting Israel from Lebanon's territory.

 

[Koenigsegg]

My only comment is, "the last time Jews took the moral high ground it got them one way tickets via the Deutsche Bahn to Treblinka, Bergen Belsen, Treblinka, etc...."

I would not call that Moral high ground, I would call that trickery, treachery, and tyranny.  Toss in a lot of Fear, and some in-action.

Moral high ground would be more along the lines of the king of Denmark throwing on a Star of David, and instructing others to do the same. (please correct me if I named the wrong the country, big mistake I know, and I apologise if I am wrong)

I feel (of course) that Israel has the right to defend itself, but they are pushing it a bit too far now.  What the Israeli's did in the 1980's to shut down the development of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, including  killing the French technicians was "understandable" and collateral damage was kept at minimum while completing the mission.  Now, the collateral damage is out of hand.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The real losers are the common citizens of both Lebanon and Israel.  Both are being victimized by each side and to an smaller extent their own side as each antagonist tries to hurt the other.  Hezbollah did start this latest round of fighting, and Israel has I agree a right to defend itself.  But I concur with Teddy that Israel is being way overboard in their response.  They seem to be more intent on punishing the people of Lebanon by destroying their infrastructure ie Airport runways etc, than hunting rocket batteries.  They seem almost to be the school yard bully running amok and in frustration punching the lights out of a defenceless smaller kid when they cannot get the one who hit them with the rock in the first place.

 

[klambie]

Interesting takedown from an alternative opinion source.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21565#comments

 

[paracowboy]

Go Israel. They have no choice. They have to destroy the entire infra-structure as that IS Hezbollah and HAMAS. These two terrorist organizations have, over the past couple decades, taken over as the de facto socio-economic infrastructure everywhere you find a Palestinian neighbourhood.

The only way they can survive is by removing the entire cancer. As for collateral damage, they're doing a lot better than any of their enemies. After all, they're not hitting sky scrapers in a third nation across an ocean, or butchering crippled old men in wheel chairs on a cruise ship.

 

[tomahawk6]

This has been a long time coming. Iran and Syria are fully responsible for the war we see raging now and should pay a big price. The article is full of s@#*. Lets look at this situation from a different angle. Israel has never vowed to wipe out the arabs and push them into the sea.The PA,Hamas and Hezbollah have all vowed to destroy Israel. That said if Israel disarmed tomorrow they would be butchered by the islamic fundamentalists. If the arabs disarmed there would be peace. Only the anti-Israel crowd calls for Israel to make concessions to show restraint.

Now those of you who doubt the need for Israel to continue its present course need to remember, that for Israel this is a war of survival. As a result the IDF will take any and all steps to protect the people of Israel. Another thing to remember is that Syria virtually ran Lebanon for twenty years and only last year reduced its presence. It was Syria's policy to support Hezbollah because its far safer to use Lebanon as a safe haven for terrorists avoiding repercussions for the Syrians. Israel must invade southern Lebanon if nothing else to stop the rocket attacks.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I kind of take a differing viewpoint.  Imagine if, ever since the day of your birth, you were surrounded by people whose sworn mission is to destroy you and your family.  Every time you try to relax in your own home, gangs of local thugs throw rocks through your windows, and set fire to your property.  The police coff*UN*coff are unwilling to intervene, as it may upset the entire neighbourhood if they did.  Do you eventually snap, and lash out in all directions?  I think I might.

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT I DON'T THINK ISRAEL HAS SLIGHTLY GONE OFF THE REZ ON THIS ONE

 

[chanman]

+1.

What a mess.  It's hard to lob accusations at Hamas/Hezbollah for its behaviour when Israel is killing more civilians with its military strikes.  You can accuse me of whatever and try to take the moral highground because Israel "doesn't target civilians" (which, incidentally, Hezbollah also claims), but 200 dead civilians are 200 dead civilians.  One would think Israel would have learned something from its first disastrous foray into Lebanon.

The only thing that really helps to explain things is Thomas Friedman's statement that, in the Mid-East, "all things are tribal."

The mention of Israeli warnings to leave certain areas in news stories seem oddly juxtposed with stories listing air strikes on highways and bridges and the pasting of the odd unfortunate motorist.

Whoever's in power in Lebanon after this is going to have one heck of a mess to clean up with respect to infrastructure and economy.  Tourists and businesses aren't too keen on going to places that might get bombarded.

Cribbed from the CIA world factbook

The 1975-91 civil war seriously damaged Lebanon's economic infrastructure, cut national output by half, and all but ended Lebanon's position as a Middle Eastern entrepot and banking hub. In the years since, Lebanon has rebuilt much of its war-torn physical and financial infrastructure by borrowing heavily - mostly from domestic banks. In an attempt to reduce the ballooning national debt, the Rafiq HARIRI government began an austerity program, reining in government expenditures, increasing revenue collection, and privatizing state enterprises. In November 2002, the government met with international donors at the Paris II conference to seek bilateral assistance in restructuring its massive domestic debt at lower interest rates. Substantial receipts from donor nations stabilized government finances in 2003, but did little to reduce the debt, which stands at nearly 170% of GDP.

Oh, and hey Jolly, fancy seeing you here!

 

[Koenigsegg]

As for collateral damage, they're doing a lot better than any of their enemies. After all, they're not hitting sky scrapers in a third nation across an ocean, or butchering crippled old men in wheel chairs on a cruise ship.

I concur.
But doing a lot better then them is not exactly something to be proud of...
Just like having 100 people killed in a terrorist attack is nothing to look down on, or belittle compared to 9/11.

 

[tomahawk6]

IDF ground forces are now in Lebanon.