Israel invades Lebanon after new capturing of soldiers

[Saras]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Spain should <...> bomb Charles De Gaulle airport <...>

OMG, I agree with MOBIUS!

[Az]

Yeah, I agree, as well. CDG

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Agathon
Hey NYE.

Why don't you go down to your local Muslim grocer and shoot him in the face? After all he's a member of this violent and extreme religion you are hell bent on exterminating.

You're really having fun with this one, aren't you?

[Spiffor]

Az, could you please tell me if this article mirror a widespread debate in the Israeli public opinion?

Summary: full-fledged ground offensive or not? And reasons for both options.

From the Jpost:

Analysis: Time for a ground offensive?
Anshel Pfeffer, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 12, 2006

In the summer of 1993, a joint force of Battalion 13 on Ahzarit armored fighting vehicles from the Golani Brigade together with Merkava tanks of the Barak Brigade spent three intensive weeks preparing for a widespread operation in southern Lebanon.

The IDF was carrying out Operation Accountability, a widespread offensive of artillery and airborne bombardment of Hizbullah bases. The second stage was going to be a major incursion by ground forces, outside the security zone, into the thin strip of southern Lebanon occupied by Israel between the pullback from most of Lebanon in 1985 and the final departure in 2000. The objective of the mission was to do what airplanes and long-range shelling couldn't do and totally wipe out the main Hizbullah training bases in towns like Jib****.

In the end, to the disappointment of the highly motivated troops, then-prime minister and defense minister Yitzhak Rabin decided not to activate the ground forces and the operation was stood down. The fear of high casualties and the desire not to escalate the Lebanese situation out of control led Rabin to the decision.

That has been Israel's prevailing strategy over the last two decades - to make do with long-range artillery fire and airborne firepower and not commit large ground forces outside Israel's regular defense borders, which included the security zone up to 2000 and the Gaza Strip until last year's disengagement.

There were a number of considerations behind this strategy. The trauma of the "Lebanese mud" gripped Israel's politicians and generals for years after the 1982 Operation Peace in Galilee, which brought home the limits of Israel's power, was the first war to be deeply disputed by Israeli society and caused a deep reluctance to embark on larger military adventures.

The intifadas in 1987 and 2000 tied down most of the regular army and any large-scale operations would have necessitated calling up large reserve forces and caused major damage to economy. There was also a realization that while air bombings might bring bearable international condemnation, it would be nothing in comparison to the diplomatic pressure Israel would have to withstand if it invaded an Arab country again.

Another political consideration that was added over the last few years was the desire to deny Hizbullah of any excuse to act. Israel's withdrawal from the security zone seemed to end the Shi'ite movement's raison d'etre, and Shiekh Hassan Nasrallah has been trying desperately ever since to provoke a conflict that will enable him to avoid internal and international pressure to become just another Lebanese political party.

Last but not least, attacks from the air have been almost risk-free. Since Ron Arad's Phantom jet went down over Lebanon in 1986, Israel has not lost an aircrew member in a bombing mission. Land operations, as we saw tragically Wednesday, are inherent with casualties. For all these reasons, Israel's reactions to Hizbullah provocations have always been relatively limited.

In 2000, then-prime minister and defense minister Ehud Barak refrained from launching a major ground operation when Hizbullah captured three soldiers in an attack similar to that on Wednesday. And in 1991, on a wider scale, Yitzhak Shamir's government also nixed plans to send an airborne division to capture the H2 and H3 areas in western Iraq, relying instead on US and allied air power to eliminate the Scud launchers firing at Israel.

Over the last few years, the IDF's infantry units, with proud histories of cross-border operations up until the Eighties have been forced to concentrate solely on low intensity warfare against Palestinian terrorists. The only major ground offensive of recent years was Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 against terror bases in the Palestinian cities of the West Bank, but even that was merely against enclaves within Israeli-controlled territory, not incursions deep into enemy territory.

Long-term military planning has been in accordance with this policy. There has been less reliance on reserve forces and large ground units, including the planned decommission of brigades, a reduction in the number of tanks and increased spending on the IDF's "strategic arm," long-range bombers and submarines. Most reserve units haven't properly trained for over three years and many were not called up for any kind of duty since the beginning of 2005.

Aside from a few longer-range operations, mainly by special forces, the role of IDF ground forces ever since the pullback to the security zone has essentially been a defensive one. Even over the last three weeks following Cpl. Gilad Shalit's capture by Hamas, most of the units massed around the Gaza Strip have only gone in relatively limited force, a few kilometers inwards, careful to avoid built-up areas, and then left after a few days. The prevailing strategy has remained and the IDF has yet to commit a major ground force to combat.

All that might be changing now. Following Hizbullah's attack, Israel is facing two kidnapping situations and emboldened enemies on two fronts, while the situation in the West Bank, where the Paratroopers Brigade have been busy in a low-profile offensive for the last couple of months might also flare up.

The IDF command is pushing for a major offensive on both fronts that will drastically "change the rules of play" and that will mean a widespread operation, including probably dozens of casualties, incurring the wrath of the international community and calling up thousands of reservists, a step that will have widespread implications on the army's long-term plans and the Israeli economy as a whole.

Not to mention Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's realignment plan. Many in the government and the IDF believe that such a step is now unavoidable, and that Hamas and especially Hizbullah are long overdue a sharp and painful lesson.

Israel has to urgently regain its deterrence that has been severely eroded by the pullbacks from Lebanon and Gaza. Air strikes coupled with rhetoric are no longer enough.

Menahem Begin together with his defense minister Ariel Sharon was the last Israeli leader to send thousands of soldiers over Israel's border 24 years ago. The operation that was consensual on the outset turned into a bitter national dispute over the "war of choice," which landed Israel in the Lebanese quagmire.

So far, the retaliation to the Hizbullah attack has been relatively limited on the ground. Special forces backed by a small number of tanks does not a second war with Lebanon make.

It falls now to Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz to decide whether Israel will retake the upper hand by acting forcefully and smashing Hizbullah with the IDF's full might. They are both fully aware that it's much easier to go into Lebanon than to leave and that they might be playing into Nasrallah's hands. Either way it's an almost impossible choice.

[Jaguar]

Re: ISRAEL HAS FINALLY GONE NUTS!

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I blame a weakling civilian government being led by the military into attacking and destroying the infrastructure of entire countries ultimately because of its own failings...

Olmert (first non military leader for a long time?) has lost control of Israel's armed forces as they rampage through its neighbours. This can only escalate - badly!

Why else do you think the attack on Israeli forces happened in Northern Israel?

Well, because Lebanon can't attack Southern Israel?

[Colon™]

Originally posted by muxec
If local government can not handle local terrorists it is not neighbour's fault.

Gaza launches tens of missiles every month. Imagine what would happen to foreign city striking civilian targets in USA with tens of missiles. I think if Gaza launched tens of missiles on USA it would be non-existent in very short time.

Go read some books about mathematical games theory in general and stable long-term strategy in anti-cooperative games in particular.

The death toll of these missiles has been very low though: they managed to kill only 8 Israelis in 5 years.

[Arrian]

because Hizbullah is such a potent faction in Lebanon, the only way to lessen the threat it represents is by pulling it in the mainstream...

Which sounds good. But I thought that was what the Lebanese have been working on for some time now (I do occasionally read the Lebanon Daily Star), without success. What, exactly, is Israel supposed to do (aside from magically disappear)?

Like I said before, I'm in the "to hell with both of 'em" camp, for a variety of reasons, so don't take the above as some sort of blanket support of Israeli policies.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Spiffor
As to Lebanon, to claim that the Lebanese government is the faulty party would be hilarious, if such stupidity hadn't been criminal.

The only reasons why Hizullah is present in Parliament are:
- because the Hizbullah is extremely popular to the south (after all, they're the ones who filled the power vacuum left once Israel stopped occupying the place)
- because short-sighted politicians (even anti-Syrian ones)wanted to secure some votes for themselves by allying with the Hizbullah. This alliance of convenience crashed 6 monthes after the elections, notably when these politicans called for the disarmament of Hizbullah.
- because Hizbullah is such a potent faction in Lebanon, the only way to lessen the threat it represents is by pulling it in the mainstream.

Those reasons are a far, very far cry from what Israel sees: that the Lebanese government condoned or decided the capture of two Israeli soldiers. That the Lebanese government has made an act of war against Israel.

Exactly. How long as this government been in power, since they kicked out the Syrians? Half a year? And it is expected that they wipe out Hezbollah in that timespan or something? I mean the Lebanese government, at least the Parliament, is anti-Syrian. They'd like nothing better than to be able to disband Hezbollah and be in control of Southern Lebanon. But, because of how Isreal pulled out (without telling the Lebanese security force), Hezbollah poured into the vaccuum and took effective control.

To blame the government of Lebanon for what Hezbollah did is utterly insane and will only serve to make north Lebanese rally around Hezbollah if simply because Isreal is bombing them for something they didn't do (showing them to be the enemy and not Hezbollah).

[Arrian]

Let us assume that's true (it sounds logical enough). Fine. What shall Israel do, then?

-Arrian

[Colon™]

I don't think it's a good idea to assume that just because you do something, anything, the situation would be better than it'd be doing nothing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Go after Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah's leadership there. The Lebanese government may privately thank them for it. But as soon as they bomb the only international airport in the capital... well, all bets are off.

[Arrian]

Ok, fair enough. I agree with that approach.

The Lebanon Daily Star website appears to be down, btw.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Go after Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah's leadership there. The Lebanese government may privately thank them for it. But as soon as they bomb the only international airport in the capital... well, all bets are off.

While I have been in disagreement with you sometimes in the past... you are spot on here!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ming
While I have been in disagreement with you sometimes in the past... you are spot on here!

Let's not bring in our fantasy football disagreements into this .

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Let's not bring in our fantasy football disagreements into this .

So true.... But I was talking about our respective positions on the "Middle East"