Pat Lang looks at the situation in Lebanon
Belmont Club games the IDF plan
For what little it is worth, I fear Lang is closer to the truth.
The reported IDF forces seem too small for some grand enveloping thrust up to the Bekka valley on the east of Lebanon, not to mention the threat of Syrian reaction if Israeli armour comes up to the valley (and I don't think Israel, or the IDF, is ready to provoke a war with Syria), and the artillery they've deployed is too light to comprehensively scour south Lebanon - divisional artillery vs several thousand square kilometers of prepared rocky ground seems like a bad deal, even with air power and modern targeting. Don't see Israelis paras dropping in north if the river either.
The IDF is also moving to slowly to trap Hezbollah, their fighters could have walked to the Litani river or Bekka valley and back in the time it has taken the IDF to reduce two fortified villages. Any Hezbollah in the south are there because they want to bloody the IDF. Which is a win for Hezbollah, the longer it takes and the more casualties the IDF takes, the bigger the win. Then the Hezbollah can just disengage and melt away. Israel can not occupy the south and I don't see anyone who will do it for them.
I cannot believe Condi suggested Turkey and Egypt, and would be very surprised if Israel agreed to an Egyptian division on their northern border, linked to Syria!
I still do not understand why Isreal accepted the Hezbollah provocation, the incident was designed to stir things up, why accept the invitation to fight now on their terms?
Next big question is whether some other nation decides to act, of if this just becomes an ugly bloody inconclusive mess. Again.
- Log in to post comments
Just one question: if Israel was not going for land offensive, why would it call up reservists?
I think they've lost control and are stuck in a trap.
There were some quotes from Hezbollah sources that they had not expected the IDF to respond on the scale they did - this could be false flags, hoping to draw the IDF in further, but I think it is real, this was a dry run for them, they thought they had longer to pull the IDF into the south Lebanon trap.
The IDF may have been right to spring the trap know, but they're still in a trap.
They went in too slow with too small a force - from the reports they have a reinforced brigade; Hezbollah supposedly has about same numbers, 6000 light infantry.
The Hez are dug in and have familiar and prepared terrain. The IDF has air supremacy, heavy weapons and mobility. The IDF can concentrate at will, Hezbollah can barely reinforce and probably not resupply.
And the IDF right now is losing - I don't mean the Hezbollah will defeat them, but they have already held out longer than expected given the odds and the IDF has taken hard casualties - look at wounded, not killed - they've probably lost 20% of their combat battalions and will have to rotate in fresh troops. The Hezbollah fighters who hold the ground will die, but the IDF will be hurt worse, in morale and reputation.
Politically, sending 3 mechanized divisons north risk provoking a bigger war, but not reinforcing risks actual failure and retreat. Israel is in a very bad bind. So they call up the reserves but do not make a decision to deploy them. Maybe they have fiendishly clever plan, but I think what you see is what you get, they're in trouble and they are flailing about unsure what to do.
Worse possible outcome: Hezbollah survives, Lebanon is damaged, Israel ends inconclusive combat with psychological loss.
Worst outcome: one or more major nation states enter the war. IDF would win any pitched battle, but the cost to Israel might be prohibitive and they might lose 60 years of gains. Oh, and the fallout would kinda suck for the rest of us. Political and economic fallout, I'm not expecting radiological fallout at this stage.
Well, they say that when a conventional army fights the guerillas, they should have 10:1 numerical superiority... so Israel fails dramatically with respect to that. The problem is, I suppose, that Israelis have a "small, rich nation complex". First of all, they don't want to take casualties. That's why they prefer to bomb Lebanon from air instead of sending ground troops.
This Lebanon thing could be meant by Israel also as a deterrent to other countries. So even if they do not hurt Hezbollah much, but only Lebanon, they still win something.
Hm, well if Israel were occupying Lebanon then Hezbollah would be in the role of guerillas, but as is, they're classic irregular light infantry holding territory on a well defined line, bloodying the heavy attacker and then falling back on the next line of in-depth defence.
Whoever put together Hezbollah training and tactics is smart, experienced, well read and seems to have mostly avoided nepotism and erroneos application of ideology to warfare.
Hezbollah can afford to take 80% casualties, if they retain a small organizational structure and leadership cadre they'd be back in 2-4 years, and you bet they'll get resupplied. They're cheap and they have support.
Israel has always been casualty averse, but they did it by fighting smart. What they're doing now is either so smart that nobody can figure it out, or they've become institutionally dumb.
You may find this comment interesting:
http://www.exile.ru/2006-July-28/a_hezbollah_upon_all_of_thee.html