Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Israel Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Analysis: Nobody's victory, but in the end Israel could not defeat Hizbollah
joes    8/12/2006 11:02:57 PM
link ------------------------------------------ A month of fighting, more than 1,000 dead, upwards of 800,000 Lebanese displaced and $2bn worth of damage - for what? Who wins in this bloody debacle, assuming it is coming to an end? Given the continued fighting, that is still a big assumption. Not Israel, certainly. Even while the authors of this military adventure continue to try to carve out some notion of victory to sell the Israeli public, increasingly fewer people are buying it. The likes of deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres have tried to promote the notion that Israel has got everything it wants out of the war - and from Friday's disgracefully late UN resolution calling for an immediate cessation of violence (on which Israel is still being permitted by the US to drag its feet) - but the reality is that the prosecutors of this war have lost more than they have won. Whatever Israel does now, it is seriously diminished. In military terms it has been confronted successfully for a second time by the guerillas of Hizbollah. Again and again, its heavily-armoured Merkava tanks have been rocketed to a standstill. All its technology and its large army have been shown lacking the deftness and determination of a vastly smaller force lacking armoured vehicles, bombers and aircraft. Most seriously, its vulnerability to missile attack has been amply demonstrated to any enemy, despite its possession of US anti-missile batteries. Israel has lost one of its most powerful weapons - the psychological sense of its military invulnerability. ...... So who has won? Not Israel. Certainly not Lebanon or its fragile democracy, the development of both of which will have been pushed back half a decade and more. But what about Hizbollah? What can be said is that, on its own terms, it has not lost. Not yet. It has resisted Israel and thus far at least has survived, which was all it had to achieve. If it continues to survive until an international force is deployed - which seems likely - then the issue of its disarmament will have disappeared again into some vague future. In psychological terms, it can claim that its few fighters have inflicted disproportionate damage on the Israelis for a second time, and put the issue of the Shebaa farms on the negotiating table.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
Admiral Kirk    RE:Analysis: Nobody's victory, but in the end Israel could not defeat Hizbollah    8/13/2006 6:57:14 PM
Can everyone here understand this is Iran's war? Backed closely by Syria. The president of Iran is insane. He definately fits the defination of warmonger too. It's time for the world to deal with both of these countries. Instead of everyone ganging up on Israel, we should be ganging up on Iran and Syria. It's also time to put Iran and Syria on notice. Stop aiding terrorists or face consequences. The consequences do include military options. This UN nonsense is a rouge. China, Russia, and who knows else will not abide by sanctions. They have too much economic ties for sanctions to happen. Thus, it now becomes the east vs the west. Where does this all end? Man destroys man. Admiral Kirk
 
Quote    Reply

sofa    RE:Analysis: Nobody's victory, but in the end Israel could not defeat Hizbollah    8/13/2006 9:35:03 PM
Israel failed to acheive it's objective. Hizbollah acheived it's objective. Now it looks like Hizbollah gets to keep it's weapons and be protected by the French, making it much more complicated for Israel to attack through southern Lebanon in the future. US comes out loosing momentum in war on terror: "...Terrorists and those who support them." Sadr in Iraq and Hizbollah in Lebanon. How is it in US interests to leave these groups alive? US and Israel seem unwilling to fight and win this war. Hudna is not victory for US or Israel. Until we are willing to grind out terrorist populations, we are destined to lose. Politically incorrect, but historically effective. The 2nd GWB term has lost it's momentum in this 'war on terror'. Now it looks like "Hudna George".
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver    RE:Analysis: Nobody's victory, but in the end Israel could not defeat Hizbollah    8/14/2006 11:17:57 AM
As usual, the UN has stepped in to stop terrorism. Of course, as usual, they have decided Israel is the terrorist. Perhaps at least for a while, Hezbollah will have to spend much of its money helping people rebuilding their homes that were destroyed because of Hezbollah's actions... That may be Israels only victory.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    Defeat for the Hizbullies?    8/14/2006 11:41:04 AM
link - geopolitical analysis. This parallels SP's assessment this morning as well: Tehran Takes Gloomy View of the Lebanon War and Truce August 14, 2006, 3:35 PM (GMT+02:00) While the damage caused Israel?s military reputation tops Western assessments of the Lebanon war, DEBKAfile?s Iranian sources report an entirely different perception taking hold in ruling circles in Tehran. After UN Security Council resolution 1701 calling for a truce was carried Friday, Aug. 11, the heads of the regime received two separate evaluations of the situation in Lebanon ? one from Iran?s foreign ministry and one from its supreme national security council. Both were bleak: their compilers were concerned that Iran had been manipulatively robbed of its primary deterrent asset ahead of a probable nuclear confrontation with the United States and Israel. While the foreign ministry report highlighted the negative aspects of the UN resolution, the council?s document complained that Hizballah squandered thousands of rockets ? either by firing them into Israel or having them destroyed by the Israeli air force. The writer of this report is furious over the waste of Iran?s most important military investment in Lebanon merely for the sake of a conflict with Israeli over two kidnapped soldiers. It took Iran two decades to build up Hizballah?s rocket inventory. DEBKAfile?s sources estimate that Hizballah?s adventure wiped out most of the vast sum of $4-6 bn the Iranian treasury sunk into building its military strength. The organization was meant to be strong and effective enough to provide Iran with a formidable deterrent to Israel embarking on a military operation to destroy the Islamic regime?s nuclear infrastructure. To this end, Tehran bought the Israeli military doctrine of preferring to fight its wars on enemy soil. In the mid-1980s, Iran decided to act on this doctrine by coupling its nuclear development program with Israel?s encirclement and the weakening its deterrence strength. The Jewish state was identified at the time as the only country likely to take vigorous action to spike Iran?s nuclear aspirations. The ayatollahs accordingly promoted Hizballah?s rise as a socio-political force in Lebanon, at the same time building up its military might and capabilities for inflicting damage of strategic dimensions to Israel?s infrastructure. That effort was accelerated after Israeli forces withdrew from the Lebanese security zone in May 2000. A bunker network and chain of fortified positions were constructed, containing war rooms equipped with the finest western hi-tech gadgetry, including night vision gear, computers and electronics, as well as protective devices against bacteriological and chemical warfare. This fortified network was designed for assault and defense alike. Short- medium- and long-range rockets gave the hard edge to Hizballah?s ablity to conduct a destructive war against Israel and its civilians ? when the time was right for Tehran. Therefore, Iran?s rulers are hopping mad and deeply anxious over news of the huge damage sustained by Hizballah?s rocket inventory, which was proudly touted before the war as numbering 13,000 pieces. Hizballah fighters, they are informed, managed to fire only a small number of Khaibar-1 rockets, most of which hit Haifa and Afula, while nearly 100 were destroyed or disabled by Israeli air strikes. The long-range Zelzal-1 and Zelzal-2, designed for hitting Tel Aviv and the nuclear reactor at Dimona have been degraded even more. Iran sent over to Lebanon 50 of those missiles. The keys to the Zelzal stores stayed in the hands of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers who were in command of Hizballah. Nasrallah and his officers had no access to these stores. But Tehran has learned that Israel was able to destroy most of the 22 Zelzal launchers provided. That is not the end of the catalogue of misfortunes for the Islamic rulers of Iran. 1. The UN Security Council embodied in resolution 1701 a chapter requiring Hizballah to disarm ? in the face of a stern warning issued by supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in person in the early days of the war. Revolutionary Guards commanders went so far as to boast: ?No one alive is capable of disarming Hizballah.? The disarming of Hizballah would therefore be a bad knock to the supreme ruler?s authority and prestige as well as a disastrous blow for the deterrent force so painstakingly and expensively fashioned as a second front line to protect the Islamic republic from a safe distance. 2. Hizballah?s ejection from South Lebanon, if accomplished in the aftermath of th [rest of article truncated, hopefully they will fix] swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy