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 ...
Isn't that the truth!!!
Not so sure. A full court propoganda blitz is underway to show show Hezbollah as the reconstruction team in Lebanon.
I'm shocked... Just shocked. After several weeks of intense bombardment, only 600 of these scum were killed? That's it??? I would have expected thousands... Wow
I calculated the casualty rates years ago in a debate on Iraq being like Vietnam (which I disagree with). I was making a point that given the nature of the enemy and other things it was more akin to Afghanistan and Israel's occupation of S. Lebanon. Anyway, that's not the point.
Soviet KIA is a difficult figure to find, although I settled on a figure I found quoted in both Soviet and U.S. Military reports. Another fun part was calculating the number of days starting in Dec. of 1979 and going to 1989. Anyway, it's the number (roughly) that I came up with.
You are correct, though, the the USSR was teetering ... but more teetering in an economic way, not a military way. The Soviet military was massive, and the losses they sustained in Afghanistan were very small compared to the overall size of their forces ... in both men and material. They had more than enough military might to keep fighting in Afghanistan, but their political leadership threw in the towel and got out. The Afghan rebels outlasted the Russians in the all important will to fight.
The same, IMHO, can be said of Vietnam ... yes, we had a large number of casualties, but the American pull out was driven by domestic politics. The homefront turned against the war and the NVA and VietCong simply outlasted us.
The same could be said for Israel's occupation of S. Lebanon. The Israeli public turned against the slow but steady stream of IDF fallen returning from there. The IDF's casualties were never high, but over time the public mood soured and it had a political impact resulting in the unilateral withdraw of Israeli forces in 2000.
And Iraq today is a battle of wills between America and the terrorist forces operating inside Iraq. They can never defeat our military, but they can work on the mood and perception of the American public (and our media is oh so happy to help them in this) and that can have an impact in Washington and on our elected political leadership.
These type of conflicts are very difficult, esp given the PC limitations we seem to operate under.
I don't know who said it, but I've seen it written; "we have the ability to destroy our enemies, but not the will ... our enemy has the will but not the means ... we're in a race to see who gets what first."
I do believe this is the reality we face in the world today. This is a fight of Will.
Beautifully said. It was the timid support that hurt most.
I am reminded of Korea after the Chinese intervention. McArthur was discredited, and even though President Truman was willing to mount a counter-offensive, he was talked out of it by the Marshall-Bradley--Eisenhower Crowd who were focused on Europe. One reason why Truman was so mad at Mac Arthur was, I think, that he knew that McArthur was right, but that Truman was powerless to do anything about it. Even after Ridgeway kicked the stuffings out of the Chinese, the European crowd was commited to a stalemate. Bush is in much the same box.
But I still contend they got out because of their other problems, mainly. And how the losses they were taking were too expensive to replace, considering they were broke and politically on the brink.
The SU was bleeding cash, and Afganistan was part of that.
Same with Vietnam. Surely the 50,000+ didn't destroy our military. But it did seriously deplete it, and if it had continued it would have been a *massive* problem. It was already becomming a massive problem, in fact.
And I would argue that Israel pulled out of the occupied territories only because 'enlightened minds' inside Israel thought it would work, that it would gain peace. Their occupation worked too well. They became complacent.
A war of attrition is won by causing the other side to bleed more than they're able to sustain long-term. Clearly both Afganistan and Vietnam were in that boat.
Iraq and this war were clearly wins.
Altho it is only halftime. But our side is up 50-10. Sure, the other team is declaring a moral victory -- "No one thought we'd score at all, so 10 points is a major victory!!!".
So? I laugh at 'moral victories'.
We have a 'military victory'. If they think they won, too -- great! I couldn't care less. A few more victories like that, and they'll continue to stay in the stone age while we continue to soar to the clouds.
If Bush and Rice sound timid, it is because they are standing on shaky ground. The conservative base is trending toward isolationism (witness Buckley and Wills), and has joined the Foreign policy elite (of which they are members) in abandoning the Iraq project.
The greatest fear now is what is going to happen inside Lebanon.
Hezbolla will become a more powerful political entity and eventually take over Lebanon democratically. Lebanon will then become better armed with no restrictions on weapon importation and Iran will need only to take over Iraq to dominate and threaten the whole middle east.
Folks, Iran is the key and we must face her now before it's too late. Iran must be challenged and destroyed with no (i'll repeat - NO) rebuilding of that country. It has to be flattened and defeated so badly that the radicals might finally get the message that their way is guaranteed death and destruction for them.
The IDF killed over 500 Hezb-Allah terrorists and the HEzzies are claiming victory????
No, the battle is for "hearts and minds". Killing a couple thousand terrorists and destroying munitions does little good, because they can be rapidly replaced (munitions with slightly greater difficulty than terrorists). Taking territory does no good, because Israel doesn't want the territory.
This war can only be won when the vast majority of muslims reject terrorism as a tactic and accept the existence of Israel. This battle did nothing to further either of these goals. The hezboes were still shooting their missiles at the end of the battle. Israel showed itself unwilling to take casualties. The Israelies are indicating that they will exchange prisoners at an unfavorable rate, and relinquish Shaba Farms. The average Muslim is going to view all these things as a vindication of their tactics. Worse, they know that no matter what they do, the world will be on their side and against Israel. Finally, the destruction of Lebanese infrastructure is going to stiffen the Muslim resolve to eliminate Israel.
The result could have been very different. An amoured attack into the Beka valley, and or a Sweep from the Litani back toward Israel would have effectively destroyed the Hezboes and indicated that Iran and Syria are still impotent. It looks like Israel could have achieved both these results, but with significant casualties. The Olmert government didn't have the heart for it.
It's one of the best expositions of the other side of the argument. Olmert should hire you.
Prime Minister Olmert, the Jimmy Carter of Israel. A doofus as Rush calls Carter.
Ah, then you're not talking about this series of battles in Lebannon at all, then. You're not talking about military success at all.
This part of the war was a military effort. The military kills the enemy and breaks the tools they use to fight with.
This war can only be won when the vast majority of muslims reject terrorism as a tactic and accept the existence of Israel.
I will agree with that. But that is not what this battle was about. The war is not over yet, I agree. Israel won this round, big. They are safer now than they were at the start of the war.
Weapons and fighters can be replaced, but it is costly. Takes time. And they lost more than just material.
Lebannon, and every other country for that matter, is now aware that if the Hezzys use your country to attack Israel, then Israel will flatten your country.
That is a major deterrent.
Now the 'hearts and minds' thing is a problem. Militarily, we are winning. But the 'culture warriors' of our country, the ones who should be convincing these folks that targeting innocent civilians is evil, are the ones who have failed.
Hollywood. The music industry. Writers, Newspapers, TV.
They are the ones losing the war.
I honestly believe they think we deserve to lose. I honestly think they are enemy sympathizers.
Of course, I'm talking about military success. I'm not sure Clausewitz ever wrote, "War is diplomacy by other means." but its true all the same. I agree that armies are for killing people and breaking things, but that doesn't mean that they should do it willy nilly. Even the huns and mongols had a strategy behind their destruction. I'm not complaining because Israel killed people and broke things. I'm complaining because they didn't kill enough of the right people and break enough of their things.
I believe I understand you. I'm just trying to point out that this was a win for Israel.
They certainly could have won bigger . . . but I'm not sure they could possibly have won a total victory the way you suggest, short of hitting Syria.
When the 'terrorists' are an agent of another country, you can not eliminate them without going to the source.
Want more good news? After finally calling our enemies by the accurate name of "Islamo-fascists," President Bush backtracked so fast the White House lawn was smoking. Then he declared that Israel had won. That's about as credible as insisting the Titanic docked safe and sound.
That means they did not surrender. That does not however illustrate just how many of their 10,000 missiles were blown up before they could ever be fired. Hey, the Russians are still playing global hegemony. Does that mean we lost the Cold War ?
Can you just imagine how many were wounded or shell shocked ? Probably most of them. At any rate, these 500 martyrs are now in Virgin Paradise. Apparently that is their victory. We are dealing with a Death Cult.
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.