Posted on 08/21/2006 2:08:19 PM PDT by Argus
In the immediate aftermath of the 1973 October War, there was much joy in the Arab world because the myth of Israeli invincibility had been shattered by the surprise Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal, and the Syrian offensive that swept across the Golan Heights. Even unbiased commentators noted the failure of the Israeli air force to repeat its feats of 1967 while losing fully one-quarter of its combat aircraft to ground fire, just as hundreds of Israeli tanks were damaged or destroyed by brave Egyptian infantrymen with their hand-carried missiles and rockets.
In Israel, there was harsh criticism of political and military chiefs alike, who were blamed for the loss of 3,000 soldiers in a war that ended without a clear victory.
(snip)
It was only later that a sense of proportion was regained, ironically by the Egyptian and Syrian leaders before anyone else. While commentators in Israel and around the world were still mourning or gloating over Israel's lost military supremacy, both Egypt's president Sadat and Syrian president Assad soberly recognized that their countries had come closer to catastrophic defeat than in 1967, and that it was absolutely imperative to avoid another war. That led to Sadat's peace and Assad's 1974 cease-fire on the Golan Heights, never violated since then.
(snip)
That was the real military balance of the 1973 war, which was obscured by the tremendous shock of surprise, emotional overreaction, and the plain difficulty of seeing things as they are through the fog of war.
It is the same now, with the Lebanon war just ended. Future historians will no doubt see things much more clearly, but some gross misperceptions are perfectly obvious even now.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
This is a lie.
Jihad is a holy war and the Islamic Jihad is nothing less than an organization of murder. The person killed in the jihad is a martyr – shahid, who goes directly to heaven to enjoy food, drink, and sex. The killing of a Jew, any Jew – man, woman or child, is regarded as holy war.
The second word is sulh. Sulh is not peace. It is an agreement, which Islam bestows upon the vanquished enemy. The Moslem side decides the terms of the sulh, and it can be reached only after the enemy has capitulated, and raised the white flag The third word is hudnah. Hudnah is concluded only between the Moslems and non-Moslems, when the Moslem side feels itself, at a certain point, too weak to carry on the jihad. The aim of the hudnah – cessation of hostilities for a limited period – is to gain time in order to strengthen the Moslem military capability, and restart the war from a better condition.
Hudnah also aims at tranquilizing the enemy to believe that it has achieved peace, and catch him off guard. The Islamic side can abolish the hudnah at will even before the time of expiry, if it feels strong enough to resume the war.
Yet hudnah is the only possible relation of no-war with the non-Moslems. But for this, the enemy must be very strong. Only its strength justifies the postponement of its destruction through jihad.
http://www.acpr.org.il/NATIV/2002-2/2002-2-sharonxs.htm
Interesting perspective. Perhaps he is right. Time will tell.
Let's see...
1973 Israel counterattacks the large armies of Syria and Egypt, poised to take Cairo and Damaascus.
2006 Israel can't hold the town of Bint Jubail a mere few miles from their border.
Israel lost this time around
oh, Israel could indeed have held that town - their leadership screwed it up.
This war was not about occupying Lebanon, any part of Lebanon.
.
"This war was not about occupying Lebanon, any part of Lebanon."
That's one reason why they lost the war. Now they are crying that the UN should be doing the job they didn't - disarming Hezbollah.
yea! we won.
This was an excellent article by a very experienced military historian/strategist. It gives me hope.
However, it is difficult to judge Dr. Littwack's argument in regards to the current Lebanon war. We simply do not know how badly Hezbollah was degraded and how much it cost Syria and Iran to start this proxy war.
My guess is that the outcome is not as bad as the MSM try to portray it nor as positive as I (and many freepers) would like it to be.
I'll freely confess that I have no idea whether this was in fact a military loss for Israel, but the perception among our enemies that it was is dangerous.
I agree with the implication that the perception of victory will embolden Syra, Iran, Hezbollah, and others.
However, history shows us that Arabs are the masters of self-delusion. Maybe that will change as Western society becomes progressively weaker and we elect European-style leaders who favor appeasement.
It is depressing to recall that 60 million Americans voted for John Kerry. (In my less sane days, I voted for George McGovern and then Jimmy Carter, so there is hope for everyone).
The Kerry vote was depressing to me too, and I don't like the way things are going for the next election either. Mark Steyn made a good point in his latest piece, that we're back in a September 10 mindset, and that the question is not whether we have the power to win this thing, but the will to win it. That remains very much an open question.
For the record, I was also a lefty in my stupid youth, but finally wised up so I do believe there is hope for the currently benighted.
Welcome home
Thanks, great to be here.
If you want to get close to the truth it is best to negate what you read in Time and negate what you see on the boob tube (that is boob as in Idiot Tube).
Pretty much the same crowd that claims the US has lost the war in Iraq is also claiming Israel lost the war with Hezbollha (except for conservatives who want to use the war to get rid of Olmert). U.S. progressives, who use to get their talking points from Frenchy 'intellectuals', are now getting their talking points from Hezbollha. Hezbollha wants a 'Reign of Terror'.
Israel does not want to occupy Southern Lebanon. They have been there and they have done that. They did not like losing 1.4 soldiers per month there. They are just now however coming to grips with the new reality that there really is no choice for them. They either have to occupy Southern Lebanon, completely destroy Southern Lebanon or make Southern Lebanon a No Mans Land.
People want to see progress...the perception is Iraq is slipping away...and coming up on the five year anniversary of 9/11 and we don't have Osama's head on a pike. Meanwhile the bad guys keep trying to attack us. It's inevitable that people are going to lose focus. We need a big score - Zahwiri or Osama for one. An open ended conflict that might go on for decades is not a good strategy for us. Patience may be a virtue but it is not a successful political strategy. We are beyond speeches ... we need results.
Creating an unsuccessful international strategy to bring about a successful domestic political outcome is not being very wise. That is the leftist policy right now. 'Cut and Run' internationally just to win a domestic election. They don't care about international consequences. Bush on the other hand is sticking to his principles. The lefties don't like it, but so what. They currently control nothing politically on the national level.
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.