Skip to comments.Excessive casualties? (Did Israel Go to Far in Lebanon?)
Posted on 08/15/2006 3:33:26 AM PDT by John Carey
Has Israel used unnecessary force to cripple or destroy Hezbollah? About 1,000 Lebanese have been killed. Many have been civilians placed in harm's way by Hezbollah guerrillas. More than 3,000 have been injured, and tens of thousands have been displaced. Hezbollah has fired approximately 3,650 rockets at Israeli civilians, killing 51 and injuring 430. At present, it remains a viable fighting force, and civilian casualties on both sides are not diminishing. Israel's critics insist it is employing more military might than necessary to achieve legitimate war objectives. They point to the obligation under international law of a nation at war to kill, injure or displace the fewest number of civilians consistent with the military goal sought. Killing or otherwise harming civilians for its own sake is morally reprehensible. But as with Israel in Lebanon, nations at war commonly injure civilians either in attacking military targets, seeking to accelerate surrender by destroying enemy morale or aiming to deter future aggression. Whether the civilian casualties inflicted were incommensurate with a legitimate military goal is generally unanswerable.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Israel employed NOT ENOUGH force.
Am I the only one who see one too few os in the above...
Not by a longshot. And in the Arab worlds mentality the Hezbolla are the victors.
The only way it will end is to send the strongest message available. I am willing to bet it will flare up again suddenly and yes Israel may do something drastic and spectacular.
Anyone obsessed with this stupid idea probably looks back on D-Day and thinks it was okay for us to prevail there because we took such heavy casualties--they were able to relax because "we" paid such a heavy toll.
What utter nonsense. These same peopel are the ones who lecture us abotu war not being a game, yet that's precisely how they are treating this one. They're like those parents who don't want to have their kids soccer teams count scores, since they don't want anyone to know what it's like to lose a game. The point of playing a game is that it's a safe way of prepping your kid to face more serious competition, challenges and defeats and victories in real life.
Similarly, these people seem to think that a war is just about fighting for awhile until everyone gets tired, and then the REAL adults (ha!) the UN can come in and work it all out nice and peaceful like. These people are stupid. They know nothing of the history of war, or the UN, or how wars are won.
Alexander is famous because he won, not because he was fair. Those who bitch about proportional response have no grasp on reality. How do you win a war of the kind Israel is fighting? By making everything even-Steven? No--you win by making the enemy not want to fight anymore, not want to send rockets and suicide bombers into your land anymore. You don't do that by playing to tie.
[Did Israel Go to Far in Lebanon?]
I don't know where Far, Lebanon is, so I can't say whether they went too far or not.
Unless, of course, there is some town or region of Lebanon called "Far..."
Israel used THE WRONG FORCE. This campaign shaped up as the Israeli Vietnam. The ignorant (This is why virtually al top Israeli leaders have had combat experience) Olmert Gvmt bought the usual Zoomie line that "We can win this from the air without casualties."
NO war is won except with the deployment of overwhelming ground force and grunts with bayonets at the enemies throats.
When the IDF FINALLY started really deploying they made rapid progress, stopped by Hezbollah's victory at the UN.
I followed the link and the "too far" bit must have been from the poster of the thread. The title on the link I followed just reads "Excessive Casualties."
Israeli political and military leaders are facing mounting criticism over the conduct of the offensive, which was intended to smash the Iranian-backed Shia militia.
Outside one of the town's two mosques a van was found filled with green casings about 6ft long. The serial numbers identified them as AT-5 Spandrel anti-tank missiles. The wire-guided weapon was developed in Russia but Iran began making a copy in 2000.
Beyond no-man's land, in the east of the village, was evidence of Syrian-supplied hardware. In a garden next to a junction used as an outpost by Hizbollah lay eight Kornet anti-tank rockets, described by Brig Mickey Edelstein, the commander of the Nahal troops who took Ghandouriyeh, as "some of the best in the world".
Written underneath a contract number on each casing were the words: "Customer: Ministry of Defence of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia."
Brig Edelstein said: "If they tell you that Syria knew nothing about this, just look. This is the evidence. Proof, not just talk."
The discovery of the origin of the weapons proved to the Israelis that their enemy was not a ragged and lightly armed militia but a semi-professional army equipped by Syria and Iran to take on Israel. The weapons require serious training to operate and could be beyond the capabilities of some supposedly regular armies in the Middle East. The Kornet was unveiled by Russia in 1994. It is laser-guided, has a range of three miles and carries a double warhead capable of penetrating the reactive armour on Israeli Merkava tanks. Russia started supplying them to Syria in 1998.
Israeli forces were taken by surprise by the sophistication of the anti-tank weapons they faced. They are believed to have accounted for many of the 116 deaths the army suffered. Dozens of tanks were hit and an unknown number destroyed.
The missiles were also used against infantry, in one case bringing down a house and killing nine soldiers. They played an important part in Hizbollah's tactics of using a network of concealed positions to set up ambushes for the Israelis as they inched in. Last night, Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah leader, said his men had achieved "a strategic, historic victory" over "a confused, cowardly and defea-ted" enemy. He said the militia would not disarm, as Israel and the UN Security Council were demanding. It would be "immoral, incorrect and inappropriate," he said. "It is the wrong timing on a pyschological and moral level."
Did you read the article?
Israel F***d up in not doing them all with carpet bombing and such , Irans proxy force is Hez , the people of Lebanon invited the hezzy's into their mainstream , they are one and the same as far as MY war planning would go ... I would have put tanks in 100 meters apart and just blasted and bulldozed my way across the country with massive air support... The Muslims are now claiming victory... they are re-arming NOW ... If I was the king of Israel I'd be preparing to destroy Syria and do so as soon as my generals said our forces were ready, the only trigger I'd need would be proof or arms movement to Lebanon...
Why can't we rename the DoD back to the "Department of War" ? it may give them an idea of what their job is ... they shouldn't be toadies for the state department wussies....
"Israel employed NOT ENOUGH force."
Yes. I'm refering to the line of thought the article is also commenting on.
IMO Israel attacked the wrong people. They should have attacked Syria first and then attacked Hizballah.
" Re: "Did Israel Go to Far in Lebanon?"
Am I the only one who see one too few os in the above... "
Middle Eastern and Pakistani young men have been noted buying up "o's" in large quantities at Wal-Marts across the country.. Terrorism is not suspected....
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.