Stratfor: Red Alert: The Battle Joined

Stratfor intelligence ^ | 07/21/2006 | analysis@stratfor.com

[STFrancis]

The ground war has begun. Several Israeli brigades now appear to be operating between the Lebanese border and the Litani River. Hezbollah forces are dispersed in multiple bunker complexes and are launching rockets from these and other locations. Hezbollah's strategy appears to be threefold. First, force Israel into costly attacks against prepared fortifications. Second, draw Israeli troops as deeply into Lebanon as possible, forcing them to fight on extended supply lines. Third, move into an Iraqi-style insurgency from which Israel -- out of fear of a resumption of rocket attacks -- cannot withdraw, but which the Israelis also cannot endure because of extended long-term casualties. This appears to have been a carefully planned strategy, built around a threat to Israeli cities that Israel can't afford. The war has begun at Hezbollah's time and choosing. Israel is caught between three strategic imperatives. First, it must end the threat to Israeli cities, which must involve the destruction of Hezbollah's launch capabilities south of the Litani River. Second, it must try to destroy Hezbollah's infrastructure, which means it must move into the Bekaa Valley and as far as the southern suburbs of Beirut. Third, it must do so in such a way that it is not dragged into a long-term, unsustainable occupation against a capable insurgency. Hezbollah has implemented its strategy by turning southern Lebanon into a military stronghold, consisting of well-designed bunkers that serve both as fire bases and launch facilities for rockets. The militants appear to be armed with anti-tank weapons and probably anti-aircraft weapons, some of which appear to be of American origin, raising the question of how they were acquired. Hezbollah wants to draw Israel into protracted fighting in this area in order to inflict maximum casualties and to change the psychological equation for both military and political reasons.

[himno hero]

XACTLY

[fireforeffect]

Yes, but where did we find Sadam? Not in those bunkers.
Current conventional weapons are limited, if your intent is to destroy the deep bunker.

You get the same effect if you seal the bunker up, leaving no access. This requires identifying and controlling all access points and air/exhaust shafts.

As an example, Nazaralah was silent for what(?) 24 hours after the IAF bombed his bunker. They did not kill him but they did force his followers to dig him out. Now consider if the IDF had troops on the ground. How long could he have lasted down a hole?

[itsahoot]

You get the same effect if you seal the bunker up, leaving no access. This requires identifying and controlling all access points and air/exhaust shafts.

Ever see how we handled bunkers on Iwo Jima. Very cost effective.

[fireforeffect]

Read my original post again.

Disable access points, ventilation shafts, and weapons ports with explosive ordinance. Then pump in CO2 or other cheap heavy gas and bypass. CO2 is better than flame in that it does not look sexy on the evening news.

[itsahoot]

CO2 is better than flame in that it does not look sexy on the evening news.

True enough, but I bet CO2 is considered a chemical weapon. and I think they have a gentleman's agreement on the ban of Napalm, unless of course Janet Reno needs some.