Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "In this case the political leadership did display a lot of hesitation and zigzagging, so they have opened themselves up to criticism. Worse, they over-promised even though the military men knew that Hizbullah was dug in, well trained, and would be tough. They should have been working desperately to lower expectations; that they didn't, was a rookie mistake."
So do you admit now that I understood the military situation in South Lebanon while you, and the political leadership of Israel did not? Let me remind you of the exchange back when the war was still young:
Nadine Carroll, July 27, 2006
Yes, I don't suppose the Israelis are advertising their true intentions. Nor is Hizbullah - Nasrallah is talking about a guerilla war defense, but you don't dig into bunkers and contest them one by one in a guerilla war.
If Hizbullah begins calling for a cease-fire, then they are losing.
Message 22663165
Bilow, in response
It's pretty clear that the Israelis have got themselves into more than they bargained for. This is the problem with states that rely on war for survival, they tend to overestimate their power. ... Maybe you're unaware that the Vietcong regularly dug bunkers in their guerilla war against the US and ARVN back in the 1960s. I guess that's ancient history to you, or maybe you don't know much about war. War would be a lot easier if you could arrange for the enemy to play by your preconceived notions.
Message 22664229
Nadine Carroll, in response
Carl, digging bunkers to hide in and digging bunkers as a defense line in a conventional military defense are not the same thing. I thought guerillas didn't try to hold ground against superior force, but melted away and regrouped? Come on, tell us, you know everything.
Message 22664475
Bilow, in response
No, guerillas dig defensive lines all the time. What makes guerillas different from regular troops is that they don't HAVE to hold territory in order to win. Guerillas melt into the countryside when faced with superior forces.
If the Israeli politicians allow the IDF to make a full scale invasion (which you will know in advance because of the extensive calling up of reserves), then the IDF will be a superior force. And then, of course, Hezbollah will melt back into the civilian population and snipe on the Israelis like they did the last time.
As to whether or not the politicians are going to go for the full scale invasion, I really don't know. I think the whole thing is a lose-lose-lose proposition for Israel. They can refuse to fight, and get plastered with rockets, thereby showing weakness and making their country unpleasant to live in. They can make a full scale invasion of Lebanon and mostly solve the rocket problem, but at a price of militarizing their economy, getting their troops constantly sniped at and making their country unpleasant for men of military age to live in. Or they can take the path they are on now, which is to half heartedly fight in Southern Lebanon, thereby avoiding the militarization of their society, but also failing to stop the rockets. Whatever choice they choose, Israel is a sucky place to live. But I think the choice that they're making is worse than either of the other two, so I think that eventually we will see a full scale invasion of Lebanon (and see Hezbollah melt into the civilian population).
But don't expect Hezbollah to melt away when they can kill a half dozen Israelis at a time. On a dinky little country like Israel, 9 killed in one day is not completely insignificant.
Message 22665076
Nadine Carrol, in response,
The IDF is already a superior force. They've called up something like 40,000 reserves, to free up the regular army. Hezb has what, 6000 fighters? I think the IDF's plan is to tempt Hezb into what they are doing, giving battle, and attrit them down to the level where the rest of the Lebanese can turn on them. Michael Totten & others who live in Lebanon are beginning to say that the Lebanese may be united against Israel while Israeli bombs are falling, but a week after the Israelis stop shooting, round 2 begins - and it's Hezb against the rest of Lebanon.
Message 22665081
Bilow, in response,
From the reports I've read, the troops are not yet called up. Instead, the politicians have given the military the ability to call them up, but they still haven't given the green light for an invasion. Furthermore, the reports I've read from the front lines suggest that the Israelis are going in undermanned.
There are something like 1.5 million Shiites in Lebanon. I've seen the estimates that the size of Hezbollah is 3 to 5000, and I think that the people who are making those estimates are smoking something. I would think that the true size of Hezbollah is around 10x that. In military affairs, it is traditional, when two sides are more or less equally matched in terms of training and equipment, to expect the attackers to exceed the defenders by a 3 to 1 margin. Now I really don't know how well Hezbollah is set up. Certainly they don't have good air support. But I also understand that they have dug deep, and that makes attack by air very difficult. Plus there is apparently a certain amount of fear that Hezbollah is well armed with antiaircraft missiles and that is keeping Israeli helicopters at a distance. But it seems clear that Hezbollah is fairly well armed in terms of long range rockets. And they must have a pretty good number of anti tank mines and rockets.
I suppose you think that it's also part of the IDF plan to have a major and two 1st lieutenants wiped out in close combat. No, I think that you're making an exercise in wishful thinking. Like I told you a week ago, the sequence of conflicts indicate that Israel's military advantages over her neighbors is steadily slipping. The combination of that and being heavily outnumbered is not a pretty one. Israel can't survive by imitating Sparta and militarizing themselves because that decreases the attraction of immigrating there. There really is no way out. In that sort of situation, it is only human nature to slip into wishful thinking. Back in 2003 I told you that Bush's invasion of Iraq would be one of the worst things that ever happened to Israel. Now the threat of American reprisal has evaporated along with the myth of American military invincibility. Will Israel eventually have to take on Syria and Iran herself? Don't look to the US to dig you out. Or will she submit to being steadily pounded by missiles forever?
Message 22665099
Nadine Carroll, in reply
Carl, back in 2003 you told me that that Bust wouldn't invade Iraq at all, as I recall very well. Excuse me if I don't join in admiration for your retrospective wisdom.
Message 22666484
So there you have it. I explained the military facts on the ground in Lebanon back in late July and all you could do was come up with the snotty comment that I was wrong when I thought that Bush was too smart to get sucked into the Iraq quagmire.
The reason you failed to see the truth back in July was because you look at the world with a peculiar sort of rose colored glasses. Any evenhanded observer would have known that Hezbollah would be a tough enemy and it didn't take a military genius to notice that Israel wasn't calling up enough soldiers to make a real invasion, or to notice that Israel was taking heavy casualties in just the first few kilometers.
-- Carl |
