Posted on 08/17/2006 5:33:14 AM PDT by Dark Skies
ISRAEL'S rep for toughness in tatters. Hezbollah trium phant. Iran cockier than ever. Syria untouched. Lebanon's government crippled. An orgy of anti-Semitism in the global media. Anti-Americanism exploding among Iraqi Shi'as inspired by Hezbollah.
Thanks, Prime Minister Olmert. Great job, guy.
The debacle in Lebanon wasn't even a war. It was only round one of a war. And Israel's back in its corner, dazed and punch-drunk.
Israel got in a gut jab, but Hezbollah landed three ferocious haymakers:
* Despite the physical damage the Israeli Defense Forces inflicted, Hezbollah's terror-troops were still standing (and firing rockets) when the bell rang.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I don't say everything Peters asserts is Gospel truth, but he was on the border for over a week, his MOS was military intel, and he is an ardent advocate of the GWOT and Israel so it's not like he's a Cong. Murtha. Finally if the Israelis won, why is the blame game for the outcome consuming every breathing politican in Tel Aviv?
"Israel clearly won, militarily. They won the battles for territory, did more damage to the enemy than was done to them, depleted the enemy weapon's stockpiles"
Every one of these same things can be said about our war in Vietnam, the Russians experience in Afghanistan, and Israel's first occupation and struggle with Hezbollah in the 1980's and 1990's. Yet, in the end, the enemy ended up holding the territory.
Wars like this are won at the political level and not on the battlefield. National and political will are the driving force, oftentimes much more so than brute military power.
EQAndyBuzz ("If you liked what Liberal Leadership did for Israel, you'll LOVE what it can do for America!")
Great tag line.
It is a fiction that the Lebanese army is moving into the South to serve as a buffer. Listen to the Lebanese President lauding Hezbollah as "brothers" and the Prime Minister saying that the Lebanese will not disarm Hezbollah. The Army will serve as cover for and reinforcement for Hezbollah - part of it is probably Hezbollah.
Now Syria has announced that it is inspired from what has happened and is forming a Hezbollah like organization to take back the Golan Heights. Iran is more likely than ever to continue with its plans to finish developing nuclear weapons confident in the West's fondness for words over deed. This has not been a good exchange between the West and Islamic fundamentalists.
"Israel clearly won, militarily. They won the battles for territory"
Dominic
I agree partially with you, it was a military victory in sense that they clearly defeated what they could find - yet majority of Hezbos melted into the arms of Lebanese. Also, no territory was permanently gained. It would be different if Israel stayed up to the Litani and refused to budge.
Finally, I tend to the simplistic position that elimination is the preferred course of action when dealing with someone who prefers my decapitation to mutual discussion.
Last but not least, good to see you on the threads
;)
Viet-nam, I disagree. They many battles, and clearly won the attrition war. Killed so many of our boys we couldn't stand to stay in there.
The Russians in afganistan, again, I disagree. The Mujahadeen (sp?) attritted the Russians terribly, and held many areas for long periods of time.
And for the earlier occupations, I'd argue Israel won those militarily, too, quite obviously.
I don't agree at all.
Vietnam, or Afganistan, are *excellent* examples of losing a war of attrition. This war and Iraq are excellent examples of *winning* a war of attrition.
The only way the terrorists can be said to have 'won' is if you think not killing 100% of them is a loss.
But everyone that met the Israelis on the battle field lost.
The ones that hid, so be it. They'll be killed if/when they ever show their faces.
Also, no territory was permanently gained. It would be different if Israel stayed up to the Litani and refused to budge.
I actually think that the territory was regained, at least temporarily. Israel won't back out until there are other troops there. And Israel's big win was making it clear that if Lebannon didn't do something, Israel would flatten their country. So I think something will be done.
The Hezzies will just use a different avenue of attack, of course. But I think this action made Israel safer.
Finally, I tend to the simplistic position that elimination is the preferred course of action when dealing with someone who prefers my decapitation to mutual discussion.
I agree that's a good goal. But it's as impossible as stamping out all drugs or all murders.
You kill the ones you find, when you find them. It isn't a "loss" if there are still more out there.
Last but not least, good to see you on the threads ;)
Well thanks!
Remember, Vietnam and Afghanistan were 10 year wars ... and this was a 30 day war. Casualtry numbers, of course, will not compare, although the kill ratios are somewhat similar.
In Afghnistan, Russia averaged a loss rate or around 4 soldiers a day (Not all that far from our daily loss rate in Iraq, esp given 15 to 20 years of lessons and technological inovation). It's just that over time ... that adds up and causes problems ... even in a controlled totalitiarian system like the old Soviet Union. And, in neither the case of Vietnam nor Afghanistan were the Soviet or American militaries defeated by attrition, both had ample supplies of men and material ... but it was the loss of political and public will on the homefront that lost the war.
In both of those conflicts, as in our fight in Iraq and Israel's recent war, one side fought will severe political limitations and "ROE." In all four the stronger military was held in check by political considerations and all four, to some degree, had to deal with a "hostile" press (problem for the Russians latter in their war).
These type of conflicts are much more about political wills than military might. The casualties you site were only issues (in the grand scheme of things as we and the Russians had very large armies) in their effect on the public support for the war and it's impact on the political and national will.
This is the type of fight we have in Iraq and it is the type of fight the Israeli's have with Hamas and other Palestinian groups as well as with Hezbollah.
Thanks for the reply, Dom. I don't think we really disagree.
And as to "You kill the ones you find, when you find them. It isn't a "loss" if there are still more out there." well said.
Perhaps Israel will also gain if a stronger (read that as assertive) government gets elected after they conduct a post mortem after this round.
No - -Israel was boxing with one hand tied behind his back. They were gently picking their way through Lebanon, trying not to hurt civilians, while the Hezzies were being indiscriminate in where they shot their rockets.
Israel should show it's real power - not listen to world opinion, and bring out the big guns....that would shut the hezzies and muzzies up - - the only thing they understand is getting their butts beat...not in "talking things out"...
Well, let's see. Hezbollah denies that they were disarmed. On the last day before the ceasefire, it fired over 250 rockets into Israel. So, I believe them. Since then, no one has taken any weapons away from Hezbollah. Hezbollah itself says it will not disarm. The Lebonese say that they won't disarm Hezbollah. Neither will any of the other UN forces. Syria and Iran will replenish whatever weapons they need. And no sign (much less return) of the missing soldiers.
Sorry, but you are trying to put lipstick on a pig.
I'll have to go hunt down details, if need be, but I thought the attrition rate for equipment, esp helicopters, was murderous. The actual humans killed might have been low, altho I'm not sure that's accurate. But winning a war of attrition means you damage the other side more than they're willing to absorb. Remember, at that time, the Soviet Union was teetering on the brink.
So the Mujahadeen did win that war by attrition.
Vietnam, even more clearly so. What, 50,000+ dead amerians, they won several battles, etc. Again, they attritted us terribly, did far more damage than we were able to sustain in the long run.
The casualties you site were only issues (in the grand scheme of things as we and the Russians had very large armies) in their effect on the public support for the war and it's impact on the political and national will.
Again, I disagree.
The SU was teetering on the brink as it was. And we were taking far, far too many casualties to sustain.
Well that's the other 'win' for but the US in Iraq and Israel, here.
Training.
A military gets rusty over time. Full of theorists who've never fought a real battle.
In my opinion, we should use our military ever 10 years or so, just so that we can have combat veterans when we need them.
We are now so well prepared for any 'real' war, precisely because of Iraq.
To your point, as empirical evidence, look at what happened in Srebrenica, when the U.N. was in charge. They allowed a huge massacre to take place, and did nothing to stop it.
Israel never lost a battle, and did far more damage to the enemy than was done to them.
Is it over? Doubtful.
But this round was a win for Israel.
You're too 'all or nothing'. You only want to declare a victory if it's ultimate victory. Granted, this did not end the game. It's just halftime. But Israel is up 50 to 10.
Israel won every battle.
Did more damage than they took.
Sent a message to Lebannon that if the Hezzies use Lebanese soil to attack Israel, Lebannon would get flattened.
They won this round, clearly.
Is it over? No. It's probably only halftime. But Israel, and the US, are up 50-10.
This is an optimistic view? The obvious conclusion that Hezbollah has become the de facto government of Lebanon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.