Syria Mobilized 300,000 Reservists?

[DarthVeda]

Israelis to their east, Americans to their west...

cue ride of the valkyries in Damascus!

[Al'Kimiya]

Annihilation should teach them not to mess with the lion of Judah

[axi]

All of you are discussing war as if it were some frivolous arcade game. You are wrong. War hurts. War should be avoided at all costs. Stop talking about war. It disgusts me.

[Az]

Originally posted by GePap
Were to start:

First things first: Israel would not Invade Syria, so any major groundwar would most likely be started by the Syrians, and they would have Lebanon on their side.

Yes, the Syrians would lose, but:
1.People overestimate the damage airpower would do to ground forces, just like people did in 1991. Most damage to the Syrians woiuld NOT come from the air, but the ground. Syria and Lebanon based forces can hit some orthern Israeli cities, like Haifa, and certainly most towns up there.

With what? The towns they can hit with artillery are border towns, on the Lebanonese front ( which has little artillery ). The serious artillery the Syrians have got on their side, the artillery of their military, is facing the Golan Heights, which is lots of farmland, and cattleranches. Israel's centers are far from their reach.

They can also hit all of Israel with Ballistic missiles. So even if the military campaing were quick, lets say as quick as the Iraq war, that gives the Syrians at least 1 week to shell israel, and no, Israel could not retaliate to such attacks with WMD's:

The amount of Ballistic missiles they've got is too little to waste them on conventional warheads. In any case, they won't be able to sustain such an attack for 1 week.

thus the cost to israel of any coming war with Syria would, in terms of human lossses, certainly overshadow the last 2 years of violence with the Pals, plus such violence with the pals would continue as the war went on.

I doubt that. The casualties sustained by Israeli forces have almost never been when the IDF was on the move.

2. Israel wouolpd have to at least occupy southern Lebanon again. And perhaps even Damascus for a short time. israel has a poor tract-record when it come to occupying lots of Arabs.

That's a bigger problem.

Everyone quickly went to recite military stats..but the one thing no one has said is: what happens the day after? LoTM seems to think the road to peace with the pals lies through Damascus (or at least thinks some Israelis see this as a serious arguement). Well, sorry, it doesn't. If anything, an israeli victory might bolster the islamist militants and make peace even harder to come. For the point I made that everyone ignored is that NONE of Israels military vicotires have actually imrpoved it's overall strategic position or brought peace.

That's bull****. The strategic depth that Israel has aquired in 67' was priceless in the victory in 73', versus a numerically superior, and relatively well-trained enemy.

Only when an Arab neighbor felt they could move (like Egypt, with some pride restored after 1973) did peace come, and with a lot of US money. Victory over Syria again would not do it, for Israel could do nothing but return to its borders at the end (and if a democratic Syrian gov came into being, give up Golan Heights..) and none of the more fundamental underlying cuases would have shifted.

You're describing a worst-case scenario.