Some thoughts about the apparently-impending movement of Israeli ground forces into southern Lebanon:
The fight about to begin (if it does begin) will be nasty. In the countryside it will resemble Pacific island fighting in the Second World War more than the hard, deep strikes of large formations in the Gulf War or Iraq War. Doubtless, the IDF has studied carefully the tactics used by the US Army and Marines in destroying al Qaeda in Fallujah, Iraq in late 2004. And just as surely, Hezbollah has studied that action, too. The ground campaign’s decisive weapons will be rifles, grenades and pistols and judicious artillery. Any soldier from the wars of the last century would feel right at home.
Read the rest at donaldsensing.com.
Not to sound cold blooded, but I think this conflict is giving us some insight into what a war with Iran would be like, and that is all to the good.
There are few things I'd like to see more than for America to settle accounts with the mullahs--but if Hizballah has taken the measures in evidence, then we can only assume Iran is even more prepared for us.
One of the things that disturbed me was the report of the bunker buster that manifestly failed to get Nasrallah.
I think a confrontation with Iran is inevitable, but I hope this current crisis is reminding people that a few missile lobs and bombing runs won't do the trick.
If this forces a rethink that makes us better prepared for that future confrontaion, then we've made a big gain here.
On the other hand , if it strengthens the "we can't stop 'em, let's just like back and enjoy a nuclear Iran" advocates, this has been a strategic defeat for the West even if Israel gains a tactical win.
Of course, just over three years ago people were telling us that the land invasion of Iraq was going to be, well, a complete nightmare. Which it wasn't, by the standards they were describing (hundreds of thousands dead, 50,000 dead Americans as mainstream predictions).
As far as that "Japan in the Pacific" idea, it's hogwash. On even small islands, the Japanese had thousands of troops with lots of training (some with a lot of combat experience, too), with heavy weapons and a lot of ammo, often in places that required open amphibious landings.
Hezbollah has a moderate number of disorganized troops, no armor backup, some light artillery at best, no air cover, and are fighting one of the best-equipped and trained militaries in the world.
What's really going to happen? South Lebanon will roll up like a cheap toupee, most of the "devoted" terrorists will make hasty "strategic withdrawals" north on foot, the 1% or so of die-hard morons will get killed in fruitless attacks, and Israel will eventually get tired and leave.
Maybe the delay is also to give civilians time to clear out. If most go, the fighting will be much simpler.
"What's really going to happen? South Lebanon will roll up like a cheap toupee, most of the "devoted" terrorists will make hasty "strategic withdrawals" north on foot, the 1% or so of die-hard morons will get killed in fruitless attacks, and Israel will eventually get tired and leave."
We will see.
I'm not so sanguine. I think that this is going to be a bloody mess.
Cirby, you may be right. I was referring to the nature of the fighting, though, not really its duration.
Don't write off hezbollah's fighters; the accounts I have read say they are very well trained and organized and have no shortage of arms. Yes, they have no air force, a severe disadvantage indeed, but they have taken countermeasures to reduce their vulnerability from the air. See here, for example.
Honestly, there's nothing they can accomplish but bleeding some Israeli infantry. Why not?
Ordinarily a defender with inferior forces can concentrate against a wide-spread attacking force in order to obtain local superiority. Hizbollah can't do that... as soon as they concentrate, Israeli forces back off long enough for artillery shells or airstrikes to wipe out the cluster.
The best they can do is hide among civilians long enough for Israeli forces to pass... but Israel has an excellent incentive to go literally house-to-house and root out Hizbollah. That would round up the majority of their heavy weapons, rockets, communications infrastructure, and what have you. Might not finish them as an organization, but it'll take a big bite out of them. (And, if the Lebanese government really wants them gone, it removes most of their ability to fight them off as well.)
cirby,
And of course in 2003 many hawks weren't concerned with any possible insurgency in Iraq.
Cirby: Hizballah has had six years to fortify the border with Israel. We know now for certain that they are equipped with advanced military equipment. We can only assume that they've constructed a network of tunnels, minefields, bunkers, improved fighting positions, and sniper holes throughout the hills of Southern Lebanon. I certainly would have.
They have about 6000 regular fighters, who are trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and whose officers are as good as any in the developing world. They can probably draw on as many 30,000 volunteer militia to lend themselves mass if they need it, and it's possible that in extremity the Lebanese military would break apart and contribute some additional 30,000 fighters.
Israeli probing actions ahead of what has been from the beginning a highly telescoped ground action have had decidedly disheartening results which bear exactly what you would expect if the situation was as I described above. So far, in my opinion, Hizballah is manifestly winning this war.
Now, it is certainly within Israel's capacity to win this war. In normal circumstances, in a normal war, time would be on Israel's side. Israel could just grind Hizballah out of existence. But this isn't a normal circumstance. As I predicted earlier, the EU has effectively come out fully behind Hizballah - in fact a could deal more solidly behind Hizballah than even the Arab League. It's not at all clear to me what going to happen politically once the casualty numbers start reaching the levels necessary for Israel to decisively win this war - and make no mistake about the Israeli victory must be decisive in order to be effective. Unless the Israeli victory is decisive, Hizballah will be able to claim a political victory which at best will render the conflict a draw. Moreover, I'm not at all clear that say 80 days from now with 200 or 300 Israeli soldiers dead, that support for the war in Israel isn't going to start to wane. I seriously doubt the Israeli public are willing to get stuck in Lebanon again.
Either way, this is going to be a bloody mess.
And, we are not that far from having a war involving everything between the Nile and the Indus.
Castillon:
...and yet, even with the moderate-sized insurgency in Iraq, our casualty counts overall are a small fraction of what a lot of people were claiming as "best case scenarios." We were supposed to lose about ten times as many people just getting to Baghdad as we've lost in the last three years.
No. 1... God Forbid any Iwo Jima, or Saipan type of battles.
No. 2.... They are not likely. At least NOT YET.
No. 3.... The best advice, "Wait and See", may be correct.
No. 4.... The probable result over the next 24 months will be the elimination of Iran's most radical Mullahs (sooner rather than later). Fighting Hizbollah is only a skirmish in the real war to come.
No. 5 .... I expect to see al-Sadr and his Iranian puppet clerics in Iraq exterminated by the end of 2006. That is another skirmish to come.
No. 6.... Lower down the pecking order are Syria, Pakistan's Islamists and Somalia, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
No. 7.... This IS DEFINITELY a generational world-war for survival. Lebanon is an early battle field.
How skilled are Hezbollah? A year or two back, they planted several mines on the border. The Israelis sent an armoured bulldozer forward to clear them. Hezbollah then fired an anti-tank missile through the viewport of the bulldozer - a very small space indeed, at range against a moving target (granted, not moving quickly).
From the sounds of things, the IDF is fighting perhaps the most capable Arab force they've ever faced.
Against lesser or similar forces, Hezbollah can fight well in prepared positions, on their own terms. That is about the best that anyone can say for virtually any Arab force. The Israelis encountered a similar defensive skill in some Syrian units in '67 and (to some extent) in '82, amongst others.
Even in slogging matches - up the Golan Heights, taking the Old City, Mitla Pass - the IDF still inflicted many more casualties on the Arabs than they took. But Hezbollah should not be underestimated. They will lose, but may make it pretty damned hard for the IDF.
By the by, Gen. Dan Halutz reckons 100 Hezbollah dead thus far.
The Iraq insurgency has proven that the most powerful military force in the world can control the territory, but not the space around them.
I hope Israel adopts Fallujah type tactics of controlling access to a city/town and then engaging in search and destroy missions until all the Hezbollah are killed.
The space around these cities (open terrain), even if hilly, should be easy to control from the air and with artillery.
Instead of occupying a city they have cleared out, Israel should restrict access and move on to the next town/city whilst utilising the same tactics.
Occupation has turned into a burden in this age of insurgency. Israel probably won't do this, but I do believe that with the right tactics an insurgent war can be won decisively by a military power providing they don't want to occupy it afterwards.
Well, I'll join the other arm-chair generals on this thread. I'm sure my opinion is as good as anyone's -- we'll see who has the most foresight after the dust settles (but will the general's on this thread who were foreblind admit their errors? ;-)
1. Hezbollah is the only Islamic militant and/or military group to ever force Israel to withdraw from territory.
2. They forced the Israelis out of southern Lebanon by inflicting heavy casualties on the IDF using guerrilla tactics and the suicide bombers.
3. Up to that point, Sunni clerical and public opinion had disapproved of Shi'ite "martyrdom missions", but after Hezbollah's success in leveraging Israel out of southern Lebanon, Sunni militants, such as Al Qaeda, adopted suicide tactics. Thus the current mess in Iraq.
4. Israel may be able to drive Hezbollah's leadership out of southern Lebanon, but Hassan Nesbrallah (or his surviving successor) can continue to inflict pain on the IDF remotely. Expect to see the leadership surface in Syria, or more likely Iran, for high-profile photo ops.
So, in conclusion, what's different between now and the late 90s? If anything, non-Shi'ite Lebanese will be friendlier towards Hezbollah, because the Israelis haven't been particularly selective about religious/cultural identities of the civilian population being hurt by their air raids.
And the Lebanese government will probably disintegrate under the continued Israeli bombardment, and we'll get a situation similar to Iraq, where various militias struggle to become top dog in the power vacuum.
I think Israel made a serious strategic mistake by attacking Lebanon. Of course, Israel didn't have the balls to go toe-to-toe with Syria or remotely bomb Iran. Hezbollah would probably wither on the vine if Syria and Iran didn't actively support them.
Maybe they've got something up their sleeve. But right now it seems like it will be more of the status-quo when the dust settles. I'll happily eat my words if they successfully take out Hezbollah -- by that I mean the TOTAL destruction of Hezbollah. But I don't think I'll have to...
--Beo
celebrim:
We can only assume that they've constructed a network of tunnels, minefields, bunkers, improved fighting positions, and sniper holes throughout the hills of Southern Lebanon. I certainly would have.
Yeah, they said that about Iraq, too. Huge assumption, and not borne out by any sort of actual observation.
You're thinking like a real military planner, not like someone who prefers terror-style attacks.
Colt:
How skilled are Hezbollah? A year or two back, they planted several mines on the border. The Israelis sent an armoured bulldozer forward to clear them. Hezbollah then fired an anti-tank missile through the viewport of the bulldozer - a very small space indeed, at range against a moving target (granted, not moving quickly).
So, one lucky shot against one bulldozer, and they're suddenly some sort of elite force? If these guys were anywhere near that good, then why do they keep making really, really stupid tactical mistakes? Having one or two dozen guys who are good enough to toss out one ambush means just that.
"6000 regular fighters?" Yeah, right. Try a thousand, maybe, with another couple of thousand guys who bought the t-shirt, and a whole crapload of guys who are busy coming down with the flu right now...
This is exactly the sort of "militia" that collapses in short order when things go pear-shaped. In six months, there will be enough of them to kill people from ambush and set some roadside bombs, but they're not really going to do much of anything against a frontal asault of any sort.
I think as long as you are looking at this as some kind of normal war, then there has to be a winner and a loser. In fact, the modern media obsesses with who is winning or losing.
But I don't think the Israelis OR Hezbollah is thinking this way. Maybe a couple of decades ago, I might have thought differently.
Israel is sick of the current situation. Hezbollah is being manuevered internally into stepping up the pressure. Hence the abductions. The Isrealis, being these idiots' next-door-neighbor, are getting the combat boots on and kicking over all of the anthills they can find. The goal isn't to kill the ants -- it's just to change things around a bit. Maybe the ant hills get moved farther away. Maybe the neighbor finally calls Orkin. Whatever. This isn't a battle like D-Day or anything remotely like it. In the end, it doesn't matter where the Israelis are OR Hezbollah. As long as things shift around a bit, there is room for improvement. We all know that Hez will survive and claim victory and the Israelis know that too. We all know that Israel is probably going to create a buffer zone by force. Maybe even build another wall. I would if I were them.
What the Israelis are demonstrating is that they are a major player in the region -- not that they are dominant. As long as the other side knows the Israelis will act proactively from time-to-time, it makes it harder for them to have any long-term strategy to eliminate all the Jews.
That's my two cents.
No. That was an example. And if you ask Israeli troops, they will probably have others.
For instance? The kidnap operation was a strategic error, but a tactical success - as has been much of Hezbollah's conduct thus far.
Is that based on anything - anything at all - from analyses and sources besides yourself?
Great commentary. Except why is everyone here accepting the 100 dead Hezbullah theory? Drank the MSM's Koolaid? My take is that you can easily consider that 50% of "civilian deaths" were actual Hezzies and there would be around a 5 to 1 ratio of dead fighters to civilians. Thus about 750 dead Hezbullah would be reasonable.
Think 6 dead Hezzies per tunnel and 6 dead Hezzies per building...and the Israelis have been blowing up a lot of targets.
And in Iraq: I assume the casualties of actual fighters would be staggering. For 2500 killed Americans what would the ration be in dead insurgents? I assume more than 10 to 1.
Don't forget the rockets and missiles. Israel will and must trade soldiers for civilians, as Hezbollah increases the conflict. They've already done so. I fully expect VX or similar type munitions to fall on Haifa and of course Tel Aviv.
Civilians are in the fight too, and once Israel experiences mass civilian casulties, expect the EU to splinter. "Battle of Britian" type stuff will peel off UK public support for Hez, likely the same for the low countries with public memories of German bombardments.
I think it's ludicrous to compare the meat grinders of the Pacific to Hezbollah; certainly with Iranian assistance they are quite capable, but likely lack the discipline to fight and die at the 85% mark as the Imperial Japanese forces did.
Also, the Israelis after they lose large numbers of civlians as Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad have promised, will likely lose all concern for civilian casulties of opposing forces and use napalm and other measures for which Hezbollah has limited defense/countermeasures at best.
Hez is hitting Haifa repeatedly, and the Israelis seem intent on killing Hezbollah, by forcing it into open combat. Iran keeps promising to widen the War and if they don't they look like idiots. I would not be surprised to see them sponsor an attack on the US (reading Daily Kos as a marker for the US at large).
If the Israelis decide after (say a hypothetical VX gas attack that kills 5-7000 in Haifa or Tel Aviv) to simply level anything that might conceal a Hez fighter, what forces will oppose them?
EU has no power projection anyway, and the US is solidly behind them. Dems have to contend with their anti-Semitic Kostards in the run-up for the election; which is why Clinton is campaigning for Lieberman. Push Lieberman out and the Dems look like the nutjobs at Kos. Magic Kingdom, Jordan, and Egypt said include me out. Bashir gets into the fray he loses his military which keeps him in power.
Funny thing is, I don't exactly expect that. The minute the Hezzy use VX, the Israelis and the U.S. will assume that Nasrallah did that with Iranian approval. The IAF's Unit 69 and the 509th Bomb Wing (formerly Paul Tibbets' 509th Composite Group of Hiroshima fame)will be winging their way to Iranian airspace to leval Bashar and Natanz as well as other strategic targets.
The last thing Dinner Jacket wants is for his investment in nukes to dry up prematurely. Right now, he's a big talker; I don't think he's ready to let the dice fly quite yet. None of Saddam's WMD that are stored in the Bekaa will make their way to Tel Aviv quite yet.
Finally, the IDF doesn't really find any good tank country until they get to the Bekaa. You really can't take the logistical heart out of the Hez unless you do the Grand Tour of Eastern Lebanon and do the Bekaa Valley Road Trip. South of the Litani it's all hill country; but it could be done, as long as the mechanized infantry are left behind to keep the Hez occupied and the armored columns push on past the Litani to the Bekaa. The Bekaa is where all the nasty stuff is said to be buried from years gone by.
#13,
It wasn't heavy casualties. It was a slow steady drain.
I do agree with you - the logic of the situation implies war with Syria and Iran.
Sec9 -- given Ahmadinejad's provocative statements, I'd say the likelihood is extremely high that he already has nukes, and a reliable ICBM system that can reach at least Southern Europe. That he's merely waiting (Iranians were observing Lil Kim's ICBM tests) for a system that can deliver his weapons to the Continental US. Perhaps he might even take the North Korean's technical assurances.
He's run his mouth off enough; and taken on the mantle of Hezbollah's protector among the Shia AND the Sunnis (Ahmadinejad has pretensions to the Caliphate himself) that he looks like an idiot if he doesn't do something as Israelis slaughter Hezbollah and pound Lebanon from the air at will.
My working assumption is that Ahmadinejad feels a statement that he can nuke say, Los Angeles or a demonstration of same will force the US to withdraw from Iraq, and force the US to call Israel to surrender. It's an insane argument particularly if you believe in Geraghty's Tipping Point argument, but then Iran is totally ignorant of America and tends to think Carter and Sheehan represent America (or perhaps Sean Penn).
The fact that the Arab League has not fallen in behind Hizbollah is a sure sign that Hizbollah/Iran have over played their hand.
#17 Jim Peterson
100 dead Hezbollah is the figure put forward by the Chief of Staff of the Israeli army.
In response to #20 from M. Simon. You're right. It was a steady drain. I should have said "unacceptable" instead of "heavy". As for the logic of the situation pointing to war with Syria and Iran, well, I'll believe it when I see it.
I agree with #15. Israel is just making sure everyone in the region knows it's still a player. This all a bunch of sound and fury...
And I see that none of the Rah Rah Squad has addressed my question of how this is strategically different from Israel's previous moves into Lebanon.
"And I see that none of the Rah Rah Squad has addressed my question of how this is strategically different from Israel's previous moves into Lebanon".
Beowulf.... What do you mean by Rah Rah squad? If you mean wanting all Militant Islamists destroyed, then count me in on that!
Difference ----- Depends on whether you consider a Non-Occupation this time as "strategic". It seems Israel will get in and then leave after destroying all, or a major part of Hizbollah. That is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.
I've used the term rah rah squad recently, so I think I should explain myself, although I can't and wouldn't presume to speak for beo.
Count me in on killing all the fundamentalist violent Islamic terrorists! I think the two extremes we hear are when it comes to tactics. On one side there are those who are "talk only" and think somehow if we just understand enough, we can somehow reach common ground with crazed killers. This has as much chance of working as Oprah calling me up to help manage her money. On the other side are those who think tanks should roll and we (or the Israelis) should address these imbedded groups with severe, overwhelming, draconian measures.
Using violent overwhelming force doesn't have a good track record for changing people's minds. I think if you are prepared to be extremely brutal (like say, the Mongols) and keep control for a couple of decades, you can indeed change things. But by that time you could have solved your problems in other ways. If the Isrealis stay flexible, they can kick the maxinum number of anthills over in this latest excursion. Using the main army as a honey trap for Hezbollah seems like a nice tactic. Limited incursions to encourage civilian migration and test response times of the enemy seems very apt as well. In the end, I still think you have to have a buffer DMZ set up, but killing all the terrorists? Not going to happen. But you can play with them -- a lot. After a while, they just look like the bumbling uneducated criminal killers they are. When the average Joe things about joining up with Hezbollah? It might make sense when they were a shadow government, but if they can't keep control over their towns or programs, and they can't keep the Israelis at bay, what good are they for anything? And if the US can push for disarming the political parties in Lebanon, the game completely changes. I guess I don't think there are any simple answers, just lots of hard work.
Rah-rah squad? We have a rah-rah squad? I must've missed a memo. Do we get cool outfits?
As far as the question 'how is this invasion different from all previous invasions,' I suspect that's what Dr. Rice is heading there to see to (with Mr. Bolton getting her back back at Turtle Bay).
Once Israel has chewed up Hezballah sufficiently to degrade the group's military capability down to a manageable level, somebody's going to have to take over in southern Lebanon. Israel's been-there, done-that, got-the-t-shirt, didn't-fit. Syria would doubtless like to, but that aint happening. Ideally Lebanon would take over, but even the most charitable estimates indicate a significant portion of their military is either sympathetic to or afraid of Hezballah. And even if they were united in purpose, it's doubtful they're strong enough to take on a resurgent HA. That leaves an international force, while making sure it isn't just Son of UNFIL. I think that's the aim of having Condi on-scene -- to do the hyperpower's arm-twisting and marker-calling in person when the time comes while Bolton does some weasel-herding over at the UN. Of course, it could just be wishful thinking, too.
On a semi-related note, an interesting comment on the significance of the US Embassy in Beirut remaining open. Take it with the requisite grain of blogging salt, but it's something to consider if it's correct.
"That leaves an international force, while making sure it isn't just Son of UNFIL. I think that's the aim of having Condi on-scene -- to do the hyperpower's arm-twisting and marker-calling in person when the time comes while Bolton does some weasel-herding over at the UN. Of course, it could just be wishful thinking, too."
I doubt that Israel would accept a UN lead force in Southern Lebanon, given its experience with the ineptness, corruptibility, and apathy of the current UN force. The current thinking is that they would except a NATO led force, but I'm not at all convinced that a NATO led force is going to be any better. The US would stay out of such a force for a number of reasons, and past experiences with NATO forces is that without the US presence they are pretty much committed to not doing anything no matter what is going on. Worse yet, given the anti-semitism in the EU (they more strongly condemned Israel than even the Arab League this time around), I can see a NATO force in Lebanon as doing nothing more than making Israeli/European relationships even worse.
About that UNFIL problem - everyone agrees that those guys sit on the Lebanese border watching Hezbollah dig in fortifications, and do nothing but serve as human shields against Israeli action.
So why doesn't Israel invite them onto their side of the border? Then they can be human shields against Hezbollah aggression.