Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (1418)	9/21/2006 10:34:39 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

The Israelis no doubt thought that the war with Hezbollah will repeat the astounding successes they have had with the Arabs in the 1956 War, the Six-Day War and the Yom Kipur War, in each of which victory was achieved in a week. The recent events in Lebanon between Hizballah and Israel don't count as "war" like the other wars you mention. It wasn't tank againt tank, plane against plane, with the taking of territory as the objective. Yes, Arabs are very good at launching attacks, then running away and hiding among the general population, which you could call "guerilla war" or "4th generation war", although they've been fighting like that since recorded history and probably longer ago. That technique cannot win territory or any other "hard" objective, just destroy, annoy, and perhaps wear down the other side, which doesn't want to kill the general population at random. It's well suited for nomadic tribes fighting each other, or raiding merchant caravans, but it's no way to acquire territory, which is the actual objective of Hizballah. Meanwhile, Hizballah's bombing of Haifa and the surrounding area accomplished nothing, because the Israelis built good bomb shelters long ago, and have good civil defense teams. But if you think pissing off Israel and living to tell the tale is "victory," then they were "victorious." Contrarywise, if you think that destroying many millions of dollars worth of necessary infrastructure in Lebanon is "losing" then Israel "lost." God protect Lebanon from any more of such victories!

To: Richnorth who wrote (1418)	9/21/2006 11:15:43 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Maybe they did think there would be a quick success. Assuming that's true it doesn't change or invalidate my point at all. If you think you think the war is important, and you also think you are going to have quick success, and you don't, than if you call it off its still a horrible example of the strategic indecisiveness that I was talking about. If you only go to war because you think a quick success is not just likely buy guaranteed then your probably a fool. Perhaps Olmert was a fool I don't know. If you merely think it likely, than you still shouldn't go to war unless your willing to make an effort beyond what you invasion in the "quick success" scenario. Despite Israeli forces' best laid plans in the recent war, they were embarrassed and humiliated by Hezbollah! At best that's a vast overstatement. Not quickly crushing your enemy isn't usually considered the same as being embarrassed and humiliated by your enemy. Esp. if you never really get a full scale ground operation going. The war wasn't just short compared to most wars, it was slow in terms of an Israeli action. This slowness to get the war rolling at full strength is one of the reason why I disagree with your assertion that the war was meticulously planned. Its also one of the reasons why the war was so indecisive.