[Skybird]

First the Guerilla-argument that speaks against the "Russian rush". Second, what Western army has the "Roman spirit" to accept self-sacrifice, and high losses like the Russians, to overcome an enemy? I think the tactics being used were wrong from the beginning, deriving from very bad intel (not informed on how strong an army Hezbollah could field, and what kind of sophisticated weapons they have), being too hesitent to mobilize full reserves, waiting too long to go in on the ground, in strength, and then switching the thing on and off and on and off. Israel designs it's MBT's to be troop carriers at the same time, so that infantry can travel the battlefield in what probably is the best-protected troop carrier in the world - they like personnell losses even less than American and european armies (especially this may be the core problem and weakness there is no remedy to, even more so against an enemy who believes in finding death on the battlefield is a divine mercy and honour). I would have used ground forces exclusively to find out about enemy fighters, than fix them in place, but not fighting them on the ground - instead, let artillery and air force bury them with overkill capacity. For tanks - I wouldn't have seen so much use. Maybe in a role of a most immediate mini-artillery, but as leader of attacks - a no go for me.