Frightening: was it really "just" a militia?

Yahoshua · 08-19-06, 10:18 PM

Yes...this is a disastrous defeat for Israel.

What should've happened was a SWARM of infantry and armor to attack Hizbullah. To hammer them into the ground until they have nothing left to fight with. Damn the opinion of the U.N. and France and all the rest. Their opinions are about as strong as their will to retain their own society: Worthless.

Olmert is lefty, and he either needs to be taken out of office, or buried in a discreet place. Israel will be back in Lebanon. It may be a few months, a couple years or 10 years from now, but she will be going back. And it may be much more painful the next time.

Rant over.

Skybird · 08-20-06, 06:17 AM

I think, and some commentators said somehting like that, too, that he hoped to parade into office like Thatcher once did, by winning a war.

This would explain the bad preparation, due to lack of time: the kidnappings were taken as a trigger, to use the opportunity demanded a quick reaction. Actually, I think the war was long wanted before and had nothing to do with the kidnapped soldiers.

A guerilla army cannot be defeated by huge ground battles, it tends to come back and to be more mobile, and mind you: IDF complains about being caught by surprise by Hezbollah's "strike first"-tactics. Hezbollah clearly had the initiative on the ground. It is beyond me why this was not corrected during the first week of the war. I supported the war, not because the kidnappings, but because the real reason of it: weakening Hezbollah's military potentials. but the longer it went on, the more my suppoort turned into disgust about the IDF's incometence. Especially the IDF I would have expected to know it better. But then again, i did not learn until some days ago that there have been massive cuts in defense budget, fundings for reserve units, reservist training and their equipment. Obviously no one had expected that Israel again would need to fight wars in the style of those that now lie in the past. The IDf had turned into a heavily armed police force, it seems.

Back then I said how it should have been done, in my eyes: the same ammount of aerial attacks, but for better targetting and taregt identification, more eyes on the ground would have been needed. Massive mobilising of ALL available reservists, finishing the process in the middle of the 1st week (you cannot do it in advance, before the war is launched, since this would have sent a warning message to Hezbollah). Flooding southern Lebanon with troops (eyes), rushing north in a small corridor to the Litani, and seal it off, isolate the South effectively and preventing escape and resupply, then dealing with the south en detail. While strategic bombing in the north continues, troops search every squaremeter, and when making contact, retreat far enough not to launch a battle, fix the enemy and call in artillery and air and shatter the enermy by overkill dosis of weaponry. Only in this way all the small hideouts and hidden facilties and storage places could be found and destroyed while minimizing own losses.

Lebanon war is a prime example of how one needs to fight in order to guarantee failure. Olmert must go, and the complete leadership of the armed forces as well. they screwed up, with very severe and lasting longterm consequences for Israel.

We have become too kind for war.

Future prospects: Hezbollah fighters will stay and live where they are. There will be no disarmament. they have more support now than before. New and more sophisticated weapons of longer range will be smuggled in. The UN force will be unable to prevent this (look at that landscape and you know why). Sooner or later Hezbollah will start launching missiles at Israel again - over the heads of the UN troops in their puffer zone. UN positions will again be abused for hiding. If the UN troops are stupid enough to use military force to counter Hezbollah'S strategic interests, they will be bombed out of the country like in 1983 the americans and French. This troop has no use, and no realistic mission, and Annan already has ruled out that it will use military force. I wonder why it is being send. It is irresponsible to do so, imo, and proves bad leadership and no sense of responsebility for the wellbeing and elemental security neefds of those men and women being sent. If you risk their lifes, give them a mission that is nworth it, and not this foolish nonsens mandate. Else all sacrifices of theirs will be in vain - unacceptable. New schools and hpsitals will be build on top of ammo bunkers. The next attack against Israel already is prepared.

For the perspective of an American war against Iran, the attempt to get rid of a risky second front at Israels flank has failed. The Iran war will see adjustements in it's planning.

American'S strategic trust into it's ally in that region without doubt must be shaken. It remains to be seen how this affects Washingtons future approaches to ME politics. It will not give it up, but it will not trust into Israel'S strength so much anymore.

Annan is a great hoper. I hate people hoping all day long, loosing all sense of realism in that process. Hopes are for dreamers.

Takeda Shingen · 08-20-06, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Yes...this is a disastrous defeat for Israel.

What should've happened was a SWARM of infantry and armor to attack Hizbullah. To hammer them into the ground until they have nothing left to fight with. Damn the opinion of the U.N. and France and all the rest. Their opinions are about as strong as their will to retain their own society: Worthless.

Olmert is lefty, and he either needs to be taken out of office, or buried in a discreet place. Israel will be back in Lebanon. It may be a few months, a couple years or 10 years from now, but she will be going back. And it may be much more painful the next time.

Rant over.

Correct. For Israel to claim victory, it had to destroy Hizbullah. It did not, and could not given the excecution of the offensive. What has happened is that the IDF has lost some of it's luster in the eyes of the Islamists. They will return, enboldened and in greater numbers.

Yahoshua · 08-20-06, 03:18 PM

"Dig your foxholes.......it'll be our graves." -unknown

XabbaRus · 08-20-06, 03:26 PM

Lack of time to prepare as far as aI ma aware from varous sources Israel had planned this attack for about a year now and were waiting for a trigger to go in.

Thing is Hizzbullah have won the PR battle, who has moved in to start rebuilding houses, schools and hospitals? The Lebanes govt? The UN? no Hizbullah, so people are now singing their praises so hizbullah get stronger along with their Iranian and Syrian backers.

I think France has been dispicable in only promising 200 troops. The UK can't afford to provide any and wouldn't be welcome anyway. The euro forces do have the ability to get into Lebanon quickly, it's not like it's that far away. I also think it is daft that Malaysia and Indonesia have even been considered since they don't recognise Israel as a state. This is an opportunity for Germany, France and other euro govts whose troops aren't stuck in other places to take some leadership and sort out the situation.

What a FUBAR.

Skybird · 08-20-06, 04:39 PM

I cannot be angry at any nation not embarking on this UN mission. Also, I think a majority of Europeans is against this madness, too, and at least in democracies governments shouldn't work against the will of their people - although that has become a bad habit. Several polls in Germany showed that between 60 and 80 percent of Germans are against any form of participation at all, even when it is about navy units only. Only less than 10% believe that that mission eventually could produce something good. I cannot imagine that it is much different in other Westeuropean countries. I cannot criticise the French: they once were there, and got burned badly and had major casualties, all for nothing. They probably remember quite well what kind of madhous the ME and especially Lebanon is. Since madman Annan already has ruled that these troops should only act as moving targets that are forbidden to use military force, all this is irresponsible madness. The best scenario is that the war will continue overhead of the the UN soldiers. The worst scenario is that Hezbollah will eat them up.

scandium · 08-20-06, 05:30 PM

France is getting nailed to the wall over this in the international media, and even in their own domestic media. Some American papers are especially vitriolic in their criticism, this fanning the flames over French 'obstructionism' during the attempt to get a 2nd resolution on Iraq, and on this I am with the critics.

France brokered this peace, offered to lead it, said it would take 15,000 men, and now they offer up 200. Pathetic.

Skybird · 08-20-06, 05:38 PM

they shouldn't have made promises, and shouldn't have supported the brokering of that resolution. In so far I agree. It is a result of their traditional anti-anglosaxon and anti-Israel, pro-Lebanese attitude.

08-19-06, 10:18 PM	#1
Yahoshua The Old Man Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,493 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Yes...this is a disastrous defeat for Israel. What should've happened was a SWARM of infantry and armor to attack Hizbullah. To hammer them into the ground until they have nothing left to fight with. Damn the opinion of the U.N. and France and all the rest. Their opinions are about as strong as their will to retain their own society: Worthless. Olmert is lefty, and he either needs to be taken out of office, or buried in a discreet place. Israel will be back in Lebanon. It may be a few months, a couple years or 10 years from now, but she will be going back. And it may be much more painful the next time. Rant over. __________________ Science is the organized unpredictability that strives not to set limits to mans' capabilities, but is the engine by which the limits of mans' understanding is defined-Yahoshua

08-20-06, 06:17 AM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,708 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I think, and some commentators said somehting like that, too, that he hoped to parade into office like Thatcher once did, by winning a war. This would explain the bad preparation, due to lack of time: the kidnappings were taken as a trigger, to use the opportunity demanded a quick reaction. Actually, I think the war was long wanted before and had nothing to do with the kidnapped soldiers. A guerilla army cannot be defeated by huge ground battles, it tends to come back and to be more mobile, and mind you: IDF complains about being caught by surprise by Hezbollah's "strike first"-tactics. Hezbollah clearly had the initiative on the ground. It is beyond me why this was not corrected during the first week of the war. I supported the war, not because the kidnappings, but because the real reason of it: weakening Hezbollah's military potentials. but the longer it went on, the more my suppoort turned into disgust about the IDF's incometence. Especially the IDF I would have expected to know it better. But then again, i did not learn until some days ago that there have been massive cuts in defense budget, fundings for reserve units, reservist training and their equipment. Obviously no one had expected that Israel again would need to fight wars in the style of those that now lie in the past. The IDf had turned into a heavily armed police force, it seems. Back then I said how it should have been done, in my eyes: the same ammount of aerial attacks, but for better targetting and taregt identification, more eyes on the ground would have been needed. Massive mobilising of ALL available reservists, finishing the process in the middle of the 1st week (you cannot do it in advance, before the war is launched, since this would have sent a warning message to Hezbollah). Flooding southern Lebanon with troops (eyes), rushing north in a small corridor to the Litani, and seal it off, isolate the South effectively and preventing escape and resupply, then dealing with the south en detail. While strategic bombing in the north continues, troops search every squaremeter, and when making contact, retreat far enough not to launch a battle, fix the enemy and call in artillery and air and shatter the enermy by overkill dosis of weaponry. Only in this way all the small hideouts and hidden facilties and storage places could be found and destroyed while minimizing own losses. Lebanon war is a prime example of how one needs to fight in order to guarantee failure. Olmert must go, and the complete leadership of the armed forces as well. they screwed up, with very severe and lasting longterm consequences for Israel. We have become too kind for war. Future prospects: Hezbollah fighters will stay and live where they are. There will be no disarmament. they have more support now than before. New and more sophisticated weapons of longer range will be smuggled in. The UN force will be unable to prevent this (look at that landscape and you know why). Sooner or later Hezbollah will start launching missiles at Israel again - over the heads of the UN troops in their puffer zone. UN positions will again be abused for hiding. If the UN troops are stupid enough to use military force to counter Hezbollah'S strategic interests, they will be bombed out of the country like in 1983 the americans and French. This troop has no use, and no realistic mission, and Annan already has ruled out that it will use military force. I wonder why it is being send. It is irresponsible to do so, imo, and proves bad leadership and no sense of responsebility for the wellbeing and elemental security neefds of those men and women being sent. If you risk their lifes, give them a mission that is nworth it, and not this foolish nonsens mandate. Else all sacrifices of theirs will be in vain - unacceptable. New schools and hpsitals will be build on top of ammo bunkers. The next attack against Israel already is prepared. For the perspective of an American war against Iran, the attempt to get rid of a risky second front at Israels flank has failed. The Iran war will see adjustements in it's planning. American'S strategic trust into it's ally in that region without doubt must be shaken. It remains to be seen how this affects Washingtons future approaches to ME politics. It will not give it up, but it will not trust into Israel'S strength so much anymore. Annan is a great hoper. I hate people hoping all day long, loosing all sense of realism in that process. Hopes are for dreamers. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 08-20-06 at 06:27 AM.

08-20-06, 03:18 PM	#4
Yahoshua The Old Man Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,493 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	"Dig your foxholes.......it'll be our graves." -unknown __________________ Science is the organized unpredictability that strives not to set limits to mans' capabilities, but is the engine by which the limits of mans' understanding is defined-Yahoshua

08-20-06, 03:26 PM	#5
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Lack of time to prepare as far as aI ma aware from varous sources Israel had planned this attack for about a year now and were waiting for a trigger to go in. Thing is Hizzbullah have won the PR battle, who has moved in to start rebuilding houses, schools and hospitals? The Lebanes govt? The UN? no Hizbullah, so people are now singing their praises so hizbullah get stronger along with their Iranian and Syrian backers. I think France has been dispicable in only promising 200 troops. The UK can't afford to provide any and wouldn't be welcome anyway. The euro forces do have the ability to get into Lebanon quickly, it's not like it's that far away. I also think it is daft that Malaysia and Indonesia have even been considered since they don't recognise Israel as a state. This is an opportunity for Germany, France and other euro govts whose troops aren't stuck in other places to take some leadership and sort out the situation. What a FUBAR. __________________

08-20-06, 04:39 PM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,708 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I cannot be angry at any nation not embarking on this UN mission. Also, I think a majority of Europeans is against this madness, too, and at least in democracies governments shouldn't work against the will of their people - although that has become a bad habit. Several polls in Germany showed that between 60 and 80 percent of Germans are against any form of participation at all, even when it is about navy units only. Only less than 10% believe that that mission eventually could produce something good. I cannot imagine that it is much different in other Westeuropean countries. I cannot criticise the French: they once were there, and got burned badly and had major casualties, all for nothing. They probably remember quite well what kind of madhous the ME and especially Lebanon is. Since madman Annan already has ruled that these troops should only act as moving targets that are forbidden to use military force, all this is irresponsible madness. The best scenario is that the war will continue overhead of the the UN soldiers. The worst scenario is that Hezbollah will eat them up. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-20-06, 05:30 PM	#7
scandium Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,098 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	France is getting nailed to the wall over this in the international media, and even in their own domestic media. Some American papers are especially vitriolic in their criticism, this fanning the flames over French 'obstructionism' during the attempt to get a 2nd resolution on Iraq, and on this I am with the critics. France brokered this peace, offered to lead it, said it would take 15,000 men, and now they offer up 200. Pathetic. __________________ What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy? -- George Orwell

08-20-06, 05:38 PM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,708 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	they shouldn't have made promises, and shouldn't have supported the brokering of that resolution. In so far I agree. It is a result of their traditional anti-anglosaxon and anti-Israel, pro-Lebanese attitude. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.