Reply to: Hezbolla

[oraclesmith]

The arab nations wont go for a total invasion, they know they wouldnt get away with it. What they may go for is restoration of the 1967 borders. I.E return of the Golan heights, Gaza Strip and West Bank to Arab rule.

I think there are quite a few Israeli's who wouldn't mind ridding themselves of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Not the Golan Heights though.

[DaveB]

The arab nations wont go for a total invasion, they know they wouldnt get away with it. What they may go for is restoration of the 1967 borders. I.E return of the Golan heights, Gaza Strip and West Bank to Arab rule.

[oraclesmith]

No, the big thing here is that Hezbollah have shown that the IDF can be beaten in a straight fight. The mythology of the all conquering Israeli military has taken a serious knock and Iran and Syria will both be watching with interest. Another Arab / Israeli war just got a step closer, and it wont be Israel doing the invading.

But it's always easier to defend home territory than to attack an entrenched and fanatical enemy. Israel were bound to have a hard time winkling out Hezbollah from Lebanese towns and cities using conventional means. If the Arabs get together and try to attack Israel as they tried to do in 1973, then they'll have an equally hard time of it. Ultimately they would be trying to overrun and eliminate an entire population, almost all of which have some form of military training and access to modern weapons. And I have no doubt that the Israeli's will defend their homeland with equal determination.

[DaveB]

Exactly. The question is, can the Hezbollah success story be scaled up enough to do it. Its one thing fielding a thousand top soldiers, could they get a hundred thousand ? Plus my original question, is there something new in the mix ?

The next logical step for Syria and Iran, assuming they have made the decision to commit to a war with Israel, is to extend the kind of guerilla insurgancy operations that worked for Hezbollah in Lebanon into the Israeli / Syrian border areas along the Golan Heights. If they are prepared to deal with the Israeli airforce and counter Israeli air superiority to minimise the kind off infrastructure damage seen in Lebabnon it could be a very successfull tactic.

[AlfredJPruffock]

No, the big thing here is that Hezbollah have shown that the IDF can be beaten in a straight fight. The mythology of the all conquering Israeli military has taken a serious knock and Iran and Syria will both be watching with interest. Another Arab / Israeli war just got a step closer, and it wont be Israel doing the invading.

One school of thought reckoned that the Lebanon conflict was an attempt by Israel to neutralise a potential retalitory barrage from Lebanon in the event of a future US strike on Iran,if that is the case then obviously the US millitary planners will have to re think their strategy.

[AtW]

No, the big thing here is that Hezbollah have shown that the IDF can be beaten in a straight fight.

That's right, this is what I was saying albeint in a different way. And its good thing too - unlike Palestinians Hezbollah was not blowing up suicide bombers in cafes - actually more Israeli soldiers than civilians died in fights. If anything Israel should have been happen that at least fighting is much more straight than otherwise.

[EternalOptimist]

No, the big thing here is that Hezbollah have shown that the IDF can be beaten in a straight fight. The mythology of the all conquering Israeli military has taken a serious knock and Iran and Syria will both be watching with interest. Another Arab / Israeli war just got a step closer, and it wont be Israel doing the invading.

Exactly. The question is, can the Hezbollah success story be scaled up enough to do it. Its one thing fielding a thousand top soldiers, could they get a hundred thousand ? Plus my original question, is there something new in the mix ?

[DaveB]

This is a big thing because Israel's army was meant to be the best there, and it really raises big question whether invading Iran is actually doable without tens of thousands of soldiers losing their lifes in battles.

No, the big thing here is that Hezbollah have shown that the IDF can be beaten in a straight fight. The mythology of the all conquering Israeli military has taken a serious knock and Iran and Syria will both be watching with interest. Another Arab / Israeli war just got a step closer, and it wont be Israel doing the invading.

[Fleetwood]

Or "Personnel", as it used to be called....

[AlfredJPruffock]

invading Iran is actually doable without tens of thousands of soldiers losing their lifes in battles.

A mere detail.

Soldiers by definition are expendable resources.

Perfect.

I always knew I should have had a a career in HR.

[AtW]

What I want to know is what has changed recently in the way that the militia in Lebanon operated. AtW puts it down to better equipment and defending in cities but thats not enough.

1) Israel grew complacent - they were used to rolling Palestinians with tanks that could not be hit with old RPG-7s, plus terrain was in Israel's favour there

2) Hezbollah got new equipment - not just new RPG-29s, but also guided anti-tank missiles that were shown on video to hit Israeli tanks hard - terrain makes it easy

3) Hezbollah got trained by pros, and probably had key teams manned by Iranian and Sirian officers.

But they key is that Israeli's expectations were hit and morale sunk - they were just used to hardware superiority so much that taking fairly small infantry and tank losses really killed the morale. The other side has just got a lot better, while Israel remained as good, if not worse, than before.

This is a big thing because Israel's army was meant to be the best there, and it really raises big question whether invading Iran is actually doable without tens of thousands of soldiers losing their lifes in battles.

[oraclesmith]

I dont agree. The huge media exposure can have an influence on this type of conflict, but it wouldnt matter a bit in a major war. The debate has shifted away from the real issue and has settled on the civilian cost, as usual. What I want to know is what has changed recently in the way that the militia in Lebanon operated. AtW puts it down to better equipment and defending in cities but thats not enough.

Yes but the media interest and the scrutiny of powerful third parties such as the US, Russia, the UN etc have moderated the rules of engagement. You're right in an all out war, these factors would be minimized and there would be little attention paid to international condemnation. The more major the war, the less outside interest there is and the less influential it is. eg. with WW2 most countries were drawn into it by about 1943.

Israel are in a difficult position; they need to identify and eliminate some militia within a country they do not actually want to be at war with and without that country's government allowing them to occupy it. Accurately identifying individual enemies has become the major problem, the need for which stems from the rules of engagement.

[EternalOptimist]

I'm not moralising far from it.

One thing I have learned is that there are no bad guys or good guys just "guys whose guns are loaded or guys who are dead" (The Good, the bad and the Ugly).

But if you look for example at assassination. The Israeli's are perfectly capable of assassinating Palistinians in other countries without killing any bystanders, but when they do it in Gaza it usually involves an F16 fighter destroying the entire appartment block.

Its quite normal to target civilians after all that's exactly what the British did in the 2nd world war. Its just these days the it isn't politically correct.

Political correctness will be the first thing to go if we ever get into a serious war.
Hands up if you think there will never be a major conventional war that involves this country. I am talking similar to WWII

[BlasterBates]

I'm not moralising far from it.

One thing I have learned is that there are no bad guys or good guys just "guys whose guns are loaded or guys who are dead" (The Good, the bad and the Ugly).

But if you look for example at assassination. The Israeli's are perfectly capable of assassinating Palistinians in other countries without killing any bystanders, but when they do it in Gaza it usually involves an F16 fighter destroying the entire appartment block.

Its quite normal to target civilians after all that's exactly what the British did in the 2nd world war. Its just these days the it isn't politically correct.

[milanbenes]

can one of you esteemed please explain why the following became Lebanese targets:

the airport

Oil/Petrol terminals and storage

Power stations and electricity stations

Water treatment plants

Infrastructure / motorways


can one of you esteemed please explain what has been
achieved through this universally acclaimed disproportionate use
of force ?

Milan.