IDF has built its rapidly-eroding reputation largely on tactics, has it not? I'm not aware of any time in which Israel's strategic military thinking has been noteworthy.

That said, the current level of near-paralytic befuddlement and concern about so-called civilian casualties and world opinion is not unexpected in a media-driven environment.

In fact, it's by-and-large what the lefties in the media have intented all the way along, at least in the case of the Anglosphere and Israel.

Russia does not have that problem in its south. France does not have that problem with it often-brutal African interventions. Heck, the UN doesn't even have to worry when troops under its auspices pillage and rape their way thrugh civilian populations allegedly under their protection.

Heard many criticisms in the US media of Hizb'Allah's intentional targetting of civilians? ...

I still don't see it adding up. What elements of Israeli society are imposing there dramaturgical concerns on the Olmert administration? Who's holding their feet to the fire? Or is it simply that their parents raised them wrong? At any rate, Donald, you certainly appear to be right. So much so that I'd be scared to death to suggest any alternative reading. Except that:

Shouldn't the consequences of this befuddlement be obvious, even to an Olmert? One would expect this sort of blindness from a totalitarian regime that had convinced itself of the reality of its own preferences... but aren't democracies supposed to have same ability to consider multiple P.O.V.s? Is there a way to triangulate the apparent incompetence, so that we know what they're striving toward (however ineffectually). Or are we just to assume that they have the political/cultural version of palsy?

I guess we'll soon know.

Gosh, I guess I'll have to do more editing before hitting the "post" button. Should be "these dramaturgical concerns" and "aren't democracies supposed to have some ability.."

Maybe I just can't believe they're this dumb.

"IDF has built its rapidly-eroding reputation largely on tactics, has it not? I'm not aware of any time in which Israel's strategic military thinking has been noteworthy."

Israel has fought 3 major wars against every nation they share a border with at the same time. On its face it would seem strategic dominance at work.

Yom Kippur knocked Egypt so hard they were forced into the United States pocket to prevent total defeat- a Cold War victory as well as the relegation of Israels greatest enemy to the sideline permanantly (just as the 6 Days War arguably put Jordan on the sidelines).

Yom Kippur is a good example of why the above statement is wrong. Israel won a tactical victory over the Syrians on the Golan Heights but it was never combined with the kind of deep strategic thrust into the enemy heartland that defeated Egypt so completely. Syria remains an active enemy, Egypt not so much.

Yeah, now there's a master plan - send in the troops without first deciding their mission.

You're sounding like a Democrat with a couple of beers in him.

I think it's quite arguable that both '67 and '73 were largely reactive rather than strategic.

The best example of possible strategic thinking I've seen from Israel recently was getting the settlements out of Gaza and much of the West Bank -- which could be understood as removing your own soft targets to create a free field of fire. Under Sharon it might well have been. It could now have become something much weaker.

It also seemed at first that dealing with the Hezzies could be strategic -- securing an exposed and vulnerable flank -- before doing something about the Hez-masters in Damascus and Teheran. As it has unfolded I'm not so sure at all.

"Flexing military muscle as a prelude to diplomatic negotiations is indeed a strategy, and a historically successful one. "

Perhaps but flexing it ineffectually is certainly not helpful diplomatically or otherwise. Force should be applied with a specific task in mind. The 'shock and awe' idea has been a loser even before it got that name, it doesnt break the enemy's will.

This begs the question exactly why Israel assumed it could destroy enough Hezbollah rockets to intimidate them, much less prevent their resupply with air power. You going to blast every donkey and pickup truck in Lebanon with a hellfire? The premise is almost laughable to begin with- to put so much blind faith in its success such that there is no real Plan B was flat out wreckless. If anything Olmert has acted like a Democrat with a couple of beers in him, assuming a few precision munitions would settle the issue and then running to the UN when all else fails.

Hezbollah couldnt have scripted what has happened to date any better themselves.

"I think it's quite arguable that both '67 and '73 were largely reactive rather than strategic. "

We may be using different definitions of 'strategic'. Israel's preemptive attack in the 6 days war was a strategic decision in the classical sense. Knocking out Egypt and Syrias airforces on the ground was a strategic decision, as was striking across the Suez in Yom Kippur. These acts had aims well beyond victory on a given battlefield, they were designed to change the balance of power in the region, at which they succeeded. That is what is sorely lacking in Israels current struggle.

Israel's government is drifting, while Holsinger is correct, the public is fed up and wants Hezbollah's rockets to stop raining down on them.

Eventually it will come down to escalation; Hezbollah raining down rockets with VX on Tel Aviv and the Israeli Army essentially cutting off South Lebanon and going Roman on the remaining people there.

Olmert and Company are wedded to some sort of "deal" where they won't have to fight, kill, and die against an enemy intent on wiping them out. They still can't perceive the situation though the average Israeli does quite clearly IMHO.

Olmert and Company are wedded to some sort of "deal" where they won't have to fight, kill, and die against an enemy intent on wiping them out. They still can't perceive the situation though the average Israeli does quite clearly IMHO.

OK, for you they're as dumb as they seem. But how does one triangulate that? There was a kind of "lust for peace" that animates many Israelis, or at least used to. I suppose Olmert and Perez could be part of that, but if they ware why'd they reacted to the kidnap with such out-of-the-box aggression? This just doesn't add up. Maybe I'm not making proper allowances for human folly?

On the other hand, if negotiations fail, they have absolute carte blanche for the first time in decades.

I think I'm sitting with Glen #5 on this one.

Here is what I think is happening tactically.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/08/picking-up-speed.html

The tactics being used by Israel are designed to defeat an enemy prepared for a lightening war. That enemy was expecting to attack a long tail by guerilla means.

i.e. go after the soft skinned supply columns of a rapid advance.

I explain above how that is being defeated.

Picking Up Speed

Demosophist,

"As Israel’s war with Hezbollah finishes a fourth difficult week, domestic criticism of its prosecution is growing. Yet there is a paradoxical effect as well: the harder the war has been, the more the public wants it to proceed.

The criticism is not that the war is going on, but that it is going poorly. The public wants the army to hit Hezbollah harder, so it will not threaten Israel again.

And while Israelis are upset with how Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has run the war, they seem to agree with what he told aides this week — that given the weaponry and competence of Hezbollah and the damage already done to Israel, "I thank God the confrontation came now, because with every year their arsenal would have grown."

Abroad, Israel is criticized for having overreacted and for causing disproportionate damage to Lebanon and its civilian population and even for indiscriminate bombing. But within Israel, the sense is nearly universal that unlike its invasion of Lebanon in 1982, this war is a matter of survival, not choice, and its legitimacy is unquestioned.

Even the bulk of the Israeli left feels that way. There is no real peace camp in Israel right now, says Yariv Oppenheimer, the secretary general of Peace Now, which has pressed hard for a deal with the Palestinians and on June 22, before this Lebanon war, called for a halt to air raids over the Gaza Strip. "We’re a left-wing Zionist movement, and we believe that Israel has the legitimate right to defend itself," Mr. Oppenheimer said. "We’re not pacifists. Unlike in Gaza or the West Bank, Israel isn’t occupying Lebanese territory or trying to control the lives of Lebanese. The only occupier there is Hezbollah, and Israel is trying to defend itself."

In the daily newspaper Haaretz, a cartoon satirized the group, showing a Peace Now advocate, balding with a ponytail, in a coffee shop saying, "It won’t end until we wipe Beirut off the map." ...

If the Hizbollah planned continuous flank attacks on the Israeli armored columns then the tactics being used are quite correct.

The Hizbollah strategy was to avoid the point of the spear and attack the shaft guerilla style.

The Israeli response of course had been unexpected.

They are using a weapon with a shorter shaft until they have hacked their way through the underbrush.

Not as pretty as the usual lightening advance. Necessisary due to the enemy plans.

At the start of this war I worried about the flanks of any Israeli attack. Given that worry, the Israeli actions seem to be a good mach for Hizbollah tactics.

"If the Hizbollah planned continuous flank attacks on the Israeli armored columns then the tactics being used are quite correct."

No its not. How does it make sense to avoid casualties on the 'soft' supply lines by charging straight into the teeth of the enemy's fortifications and strength, instead of using manuever and firepower like every modern military doctrine in the world today calls for? They are taking casaulties to avoid casualties? And at what point is an area deemed 'secure' when it is Hezbollah country and easily manuevered through by the enemy? Simply blasting away the same spot isnt going to prevent reinfiltration any more than rolling over positions and cutting the enemy off from their line of retreat and supply.

But they arent gaining the advantage that breaking into the enemys rear and surrounding him would provide. Whats more, none of this explains why places like Bent Jbail were taken and then abandoned. If what you are saying were true, if anything the Israelis should be building armed depots in trouble spots which is the traditional method of protecting supply lines.

That argument is senseless. How is it smarter to have your expensive main battle tanks blown up in a set peice battle against a dug in enemy than to bypass strong points and allow your softer (but still armed) rear and supply elements take on small arms wielding guerillas on the move? Recall the Thunder Runs and their success in the Gulf War? Attacks on supply lines can be a good thing if it draws out the enemy into the open where air can get them and infantry can meet them toe to toe. The current engagement is senseless, it plays to Hezbollahs strengths and provides no chance for a decisive blow. For a fan of Liddle Hart I dont see how this cant be obvious. Tanks arent seige towers on wheels, they are meant to be fast moving cavalry. If you are waiting on some illusive moment when Hezbollahs power to strike a guerilla blow behind the lines is broken, you'll be waiting forever.

In this case I agree with Donald Sensing (and Yoni the Blogger (link)): Israel has no plan and its conduct of the war is bad. Weak leadership was the problem, and now weak leadership and wasted time are big problems.

I think Donald Sensing is exactly right: the leadership has been guided by three principles: 1. Avoidance of diplomatic sanctions, 2. avoidance of military casualties and 3. avoidance of domestic political blame.

I would have preferred Israel's war effort to be guided by different principles, starting with 1. mobility and high tempo of operations. (Yes I would even sacrifice some strategic coherence for the sake of speed and manoeuvre. I think it's that important not to get bogged down - like we have seen. Once you get bogged down you may see a degradation of your pure strategic aims anyway.) But I don't see this or any other coherent military philosophy underpinning what the Israelis are doing now. 1. selection and maintenance of the aim - do we see this? I don't.

This is a big misfortune for Israel and for others who are targets of jihad, including us. The harm to Israel's reputation with its ally is real and has wisely been pointed out by Charles Krauthammer. The harm to the Israeli Defence Force's reputation with against its enemies is also real, and adds to the prestige of jihad forces, adding to their ability to recruit support and allies. These losses are already counted even if the rest of the war goes well, and there is no indication that the rest of the war will go well.

The Marine Corp Small Wars Manual is the definitive work on counterinsurgency warfare. You will note it bears no relation to what the Israelis are currently up to.

"mobile columns must be projected inland from the point of departure, for the purpose of pursuing, rounding-up, capturing, or dispersing any existing irregular forces; of covering productive areas; or of establishing chains of protected advanced bases in the interior."

"d. when fortified posts with permanent garrisons are established, flying columns should operate therefrom. This is the most arduous of all operations; the idea being to combat native guerilla at his own game on his own ground...
Therefore there should be nothing in its composition or armament that would tend to reduce its mobility or independence of action beyond that absolutely necessary for combat and subsistence."

This book is 65 years old, but even then the importance of manuever was considered paramount.

What #17 from Mark Buehner said. If you like Basil Liddell Hart rather than Russia's reflections on the lessons of the Great Patriotic War (which I like), or if you like the British (and Australian) principles owing a lot to J.F.C. Fuller, or if you prefer American war-fighting doctrine, or whatever reasonable starting point you like to use for your thinking, it doesn't make any difference at this point because this is just basic.

Speed, speed, speed! If there are exceptions to Sun Tzu's rule that nobody gains from protracted war, Israel was not in a position to be one of these exceptions.

Also, I think we should discuss in a respectful way Hezbollah's achievement. Is it ramming home its advantages, in the media, in diplomacy, in what J.F.C. Fuller would have called the "internal fronts" of its enemies? It is. (OK, it's media campaign is crude, but still vigorous and effective.) Is it making light of its weaknesses, for example in mobility? It is. OK, with plenty of help from Israel's weak leadership, but after all it was Hezbollah that seized the initiative and got Israel's leaders reacting like headless chickens, so this still counts.

I take no satisfaction in what I see happening. None at all.

I want Israel to win. I want us to win. I want jihad and the evil ideology that underpins it to join Communism and National Socialism in the ash heap of history. But that's not what's happening here.

M.Simon,

The Israeli economy is being smashed by the mass evacuations and sheltering in northern Israel made necessary by Hezbollah's bombardment.

This economic damage makes it necessary to eliminate Hezbollah ASAP. Olmert's ditheirng has tanked Israel's economy as much as a truly mass mobilization of the Israeli army.

This is why Israel's wars must be short, sharp and decisive.

Eliminating Hezbollah does not require a mass mobilization. A callup of @ 100,000 reservists would be adequate.

Israel's political system is so screwed up that it tends to put people like Olmert in charge, and keep them there. Firm decisive leadership is anathema for the Israeli political system. When Israel ceases to exist, that will likely be the cause.

Here's an ironic factoid: much of Israel's mentality is clearly based on the fear of repeating the last occupation of Lebanon. But the 1982 invasion resulted in a total of 675 casualties. And that went all the way to Beirut.
The current invasion has alread tallied 334, and they arent even to the Litani yet.

The entire Israeli 18 year occupation of Southern Lebanon resulted in 1200 IDF casualties. At the current rate of casualties, that total will be surpassed in less than 3 months.

That being said, good generals read readiness reports, not casualty reports. That advice might be useful to Olmert and his people.

I am starting to think that, in spite of the fact that people are dieing, NOBODY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HEZBOLLAH is really serious about what they are doing!
Israel has been advancing and not advancing at the same time; the US supports Israel and Dr. Rice said that the returning to the situation on July 12 is not an option but pressures Israel not to advance; France, Lebanon and the UN are themselves which means they say one thing and mean another!!
Does anybody besides Iran and Hezbollah speak and mean what they say? It certainly appears not to be the case which does not augur well for the future!
Has anybody consider the consequences Israel’s government lack of moral clarity and fortitude will have on the Israeli themselves especially after uniting themselves, including previously-declared war opponents, behind what turns out to be a nearly traitorous government?
It is sickening!

Look, go easy on the Jews, OK. They haven't been a country but a handful of years and they still suck at it, but they are learning.

Their biggest problem is that they believe in the racial superiority, God-sent-us-to-Earth-to-civilize-you-heathen-savages Tikkun Olam, heal-the-world schtick.

For a thousand years they have clutched their superior humanity to their breasts and pointed out to the rest of us how evil, corrupt and anti-Semitic we are.

Now they find themselves faced for the first time with the same problems that all for-real countries face: what do you do when you want the land for your race and they want the land for their race.

What do you do? You kill them. Period. And that is why the Jews are choking. The Arabs aren't. The Jews are. They just don't want to get their hands dirty like the rest of us heathen savages on the Earth.

Jews used to have it. They really did. They exterminated every man, woman, child, every horse, cow, goat, sheep, bug and everything else that walked or crawled upon th earth when God told them to invade and take their neighbors' country. Read your Bible.

But somehow they lost their b@lls, got sanctimonious and decided to be the world's permanent victims and martyrs.

Bottom line: you can't own a chunk of the Middle East with that attitude. Read Rabbi Kahane. He knew. Read Kach. God said it is the Jew's land, so kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. I fear they lack the guts.

This situation keeps getting weirder and weirder. Lets do a quick recap of the last few days: Olmert calls the cabinet together to vote on an advance in force to the Litani... which they had already approved days before, immediately afterwards he calls a halt to the advance in order to see if the UN could hammer out a solution, today he revokes the pause... hourse before the UN is set to vote on the solution he asked them for. Aside from giving Hezbollah yet more time to organize resistance, what has he accomplished in this?

One more small example of the utter confusion Israeli strategy is suffering from: today they bomb a major bridge between Syria and Lebanon. Simple question, if this bridge needed to be bombed now, why didnt it need to be bombed a month ago? People wonder how Hezbollah keeps their rocket attack tempo up? Easy explanation, because the Israelis plan to cut Syrian supply lines was lunatic. It essentially demanded that Hezbollah use the routes Israel assumed they would use, and no others. So they bombed those, cracked their knuckles, and ignored the fact that a pickup truck full of rockets only has to detour a few miles to cross into Lebanon by alternate routes. Aside from it being impossible to stop all the donkey trails via airpower, they didnt even bother to cut off all the main arteries! This is maddening.

Mark.

Yes. It is maddening. I saw a commenter on cable last night who told us breathlessly that the UN might be comging to an agreement on language tonight!

What's next? Strongs words and invective?

Israel is not fighting a war, they are trying to manuver politically using their army. Lebabnon is a tar pit and they are aware of that. Nobody wants it; they just want the terror to stop.

We keep judging the Israelis like there is some big master military plan (see M Simon), but I'm not buying it. It may end up being a big regional conflict, but I don't think it was planned out as such.