If Israel really does accept and implement a ceasefire on Monday, it will have accepted the worst of all possible worlds. If it agrees to an end to the fighting which does not disarm Hezbollah, or even push it behind the Litani River, and does not get a third party force capable of fighting Hezbollah into Southern Lebanon, it would be fair to say Israel has achieved none of its war aims whatsoever. In short, Hezbollah will have won and we will soon be seeing celebrations in the streets across the Islamic world to that effect.
The primary Israeli method of attack, a series of destructive operational level1 air strikes against Lebanon’s infrastructure, only made sense if it was intended to isolate the enemy and dislocate its logistics as an adjunct to a massive and robust attack on the ground with a significant portion of its formidable army, with the intention at crushing Hezbollah as military force.
Otherwise, what was the point of the non-tactical strikes? As Hezbollah already had large numbers of artillery rockets deployed as organic supply with its front line units (demonstrably so), the air interdiction only made sense if Israel was planning an extended campaign for as long as it took to destroy Hezbollah, which means preventing Hezbollah’s resupply. Why else blow power-stations, fuel depots, bridges, roads and runways deep into the country rather than just strike tactical targets where Hezbollah is deployed? Bringing the Lebanese transportation system to a standstill was surely done to stop movement of supply so that as Hezbollah formations expended their munitions (a process that would increase as more units were engaged directly by the Israeli army), they would quickly become much less effective due to logistic dislocation. This is ‘Air Interdiction 101’, the sort of thing military planners have understood since ‘Operation Strangle’ in Italy in 1944.
But what Israel has done so far is a robust air offensive in support of little more than a series of limited objective raids with only a small fraction of the army. This has not only failed (unsurprisingly) to destroy Hezbollah, it has failed to even displace them far enough back onto Lebanon to prevent them firing rockets into Haifa on an almost daily basis throughout this campaign.
And now, having killed a great many people but still leaving a large number of Hezbollah fighters very much alive and still in possession of both their Katyushas and the positions from which to fire them, the Israeli government plans to stop? Having weathered what Israel threw at them (but not what the Israelis inexplicably failed to throw at them), Hezbollah can, quite justifiably, claim victory and greatly enhance their stature simply by virtue of Israel failed to gain any of its publicly stated war aim.
Can anyone tell me what the hell the Israeli government is thinking?
1 = I would argue that the attacks against Lebanon’s infrastructure were ‘operational’ (i.e. above tactical but below strategic). A ‘strategic’ attack would need to be against the supply terminals, which is to say targets in Syria or Iran. I realise this is an arcane issue of military semantics
Good observation. Olmert, the first Israeli Prime Minister since Golda without any appreciable military experience, is the difference. He second guessed his military and that is the difference.
Yes, but his cabinet voted nearly unanimously (one ‘nay’ only) for the plan. Some of them have military experience.
It’s completely mystifying. I don’t understand this at all. Israel should have stalled for more time after the ground invasion – since the ground invasion would have taken care of their problem, given time. Now they’ve displaced 700,000 people for nothing, and will end up paying reparations for this non-achievement as well, no doubt. Stupid, stupid.
Indeed Joshua. I really do think I must be missing something here. Surely Israel, a consumate and experienced military player, does not do things which have huge political consequences without a clear objective. I mean the stated war aims of the government sounded clear enough, but seem to bear little resemblence to what the army did on the ground. If the war ends now, it would almost be as if the IAF and IDF were fighting different wars.
Surely the non-tactical air attacks had an objective. But if it was not cutting off Hezbollah logistics as part of a campaign to destroy them on the ground, what the hell is gained by trashing Beiruit airport and blowing up power-stations? It just does not make any sense.
I think its not likely that the resolution in its present form will stop the Israeli action.
They have troops at the Litani, Hizbollah have a couple of thousand south of the Litani river. Presumably these guys are going to try to make their way north. At this point they will be attacked by the Israeli’s – a “non offensive” operation since its merely protecting land they already hold. Ergo the degradation of Hizzbollah will continue – untill a meaningful peace is enacted.
Giles, yes perhaps you are correct. In a way, if the Israelis cynically ‘accept’ the ceasefire but just keep on piling a serious number of troops in regardless to make a proper fist of smashing Hezbollah, then maybe it is not all as baffling as it seems on the surface.
Perry,
masterful analysis. Yup, it was clear and obvious from the get-go that all Hez had to do to plausibly claim victory was to remain as a credible force.
BTW, keep up with your “arcane military semantics” it makes such a refreshing change from the MSM. This week ITV news made at least two howlers. The first was an interview with a Lebanese man in “intensive care” (looked like a standard hospital bed to me) who it was claimed was “burned all over his body”. Well, he wasn’t. He had numerous small shrapnel wounds which is not the same thing. The second ITV howler almost made me drop my cutlery. They claimed High Wycombe (scene of counter-terrorism raids) was in Berkshire! If a London-based news organisation can’t be trusted to put a town 30 miles away in the right county then what can they be trusted with?
And the least said about Al-BBC the better.
I know a fair bit about military aviation and I am shocked by the MSM cocking up factual details about aircraft types and similar information. What’s worrying is this is a specific hobby of mine. There’s an awful lot of stuff I don’t know about. I must hear a shed-load of stuff that I can’t put right and which is lies/misinformation/speculation/guesswork or just plain sloppy journalism.
So, as I said, keep up with the military terminology cos I’m sure as hell not gonna accept anybody’s analysis of anything if they can’t even get the brute facts right…
“what the hell is gained by trashing Beiruit airport and blowing up power-stations? It just does not make any sense. “
The Israelis may have take the view that a degraded country is more likely to fall into a civil war.
Israel realises it, as an outside force, can’t destroy Hizzbollah but if it can degrade it to a point where it is no longer the strongest force in Lebanon then maybe the druze, maronites, amal or whoever might feel confident enough to take on and destroy Hizbollah in a civil war.
I’m not convinced that part a) of the plan is working -at the moment the heat of the collateral attacks seem to have drawn the Lebanese together. But perhaps in a few months time when the bombing has stopped, the heat of war subsided and neither side has acheived anything other than a UN resolution then maybe the rest of Lebanese might start to turn on Hizobolah for starting such a pointless war. Hizbollah, by contrast will be militarily weak yet, believing that it won the war and defended the country will feel the rest of the country owes it something. This is fertile ground for the sort of disputes that spark civil wars.
As long as Syria remains as a backer for an intact Hezbollah, any civil war will simply be won by the bad guys. Only after Hezbollah is smashed, which is clearly the predominant military group inside Lebanon, could people opposed to both the Islamists and the Syrian Baathists (i.e. the Druze, Christians and moderate Sunni Muslims) have any hope of actually prevailing in such a civil war. Until that happens, all bombing power-stations and bridges well away from the FEBA does is what that always does… unite people in their hatred of the people doing the bombing… so by that politico-military calculus I would say Israel’s actions still make little sense if they stop before Hezbollah is smashed.
Your analysis seems fair to me, Perry, except I find argument-from-incredulity to be unsatisfying.
That they surely must have had clear objectives and executed cleanly in pursuit of them? Well, maybe the first half, but soon after the decisions are made and the orders sent out, you’re in the world of committeethink – which is never good.
I don’t dispute your analysis of the end-state. Likewise the rationale you present for the initial actions also makes sense.
I’m just surprised no-one seems to want to suggest incompetence, misunderstanding, and perhaps wilful pursuit of alternative agendas other than the “clear” direction sent down from above, might not also have played a part in the past few weeks?
I think that is implicit in my whole article 🙂
Ah, subtlety – how I wish I could get to grips with it! As a geek life would be so much simpler – to mine eyes, at least – if we didn’t have to dance around criticism, and could just say what we meant. 😎
So, in response to the question you beg: The Israeli Government aren’t thinking anything, they’re thinking many things, and I personally suspect high amongst their thoughts is “oops, something fucked up, how do we stop this becoming our own personal Vietnam/Iraq/Whatever…?”
Surely Israel, a consumate and experienced military player, does not do things which have huge political consequences without a clear objective.
I don’t think Sharon would have done. My analysis when all this started out was that it was a bad (in both senses) move dictated by internal Israeli politics rather than the strategic situation. I don’t think I have cause to alter that assessment.
Worth noting that Hizbollah’s activities were very limited provocations until Israel went for large scale strikes. Only at that point did it demonstrate it could fire a lot of rockets. So it really does look like a winner as far as increased credibility goes. It will be saying, “Look how Hizbollah fought back against Israeli aggression when the Lebanese Army was paralysed!” That it provoked the Israeli attacks is irrelevant to that narrative.
Yes, it is incompetence–Olmert’s. The IDF had a great plan which Olmert jettisoned on the first day. If this article from Israel Insider is to be believed:
Excerpt:
Well, if we want to view the Israeli actions with cynicism, perhaps the Israeli government wants Hezbollah to win a civil war in Lebanon. Then the Hezzies are in the same boat as Hamas. They become state actors by getting a state. Israel might have noticed that American pressure on them with regards to the Palestinians was reduced when the “government” of the Palestinians was the group carrying out the attacks.
If Israel’s allies complain that attacking Lebanon for Hezbollah’s actions is a step too far, then maybe turning Hezbollah into Lebanon will make operational attacks more tolerable. After all, if Hezzbollah ran Lebanon, they would not gain any notable access to weapons or support. The existing government does little to interdict the flow of rockets to the Hezzies through Syria from Iran.
I agree, doesnt makes any sense the Israel strategy.
Maybe that can be explained by who are their politicians:
Olmert said this not long ago:
“We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies.”
Peretz was in PeaceNow protests 2 years ago.
——————————————————————
So doesnt surprised me they only reacted and behaved like someone without a clue.
Nice quote lucklucky — makes my point exactly. Olmert was the problem with this engagement. Yes the cabinet et al approved of it — they needed to show unity even if those with military experience thought it needed to be more aggressive and decisive.
What’s the mystery? The Israeli government has obviously been studying at the school of Clinton/W strategic analysis.
Meanwhile on the home front a threatening letter
But everything is irrelevent if the IDF wipes out a very large chunk of Hezbollah, which once they started trashing Lebanon’s infrastructure seemed to be their objectove.
The idea that Israel does not have the means or technical skill to crush Hezbollah if it is determined to do so is not supportable within the context crushing it long enough to then gain a far better diplomatic settlement (i.e. change Lebanon’s internal political realities more to their liking).
Which is what makes any half measures by Israel so hard to understand.
This is an unmitigated disaster for both Israel and Civilisation. Now any gang of Islamist scum can commit whaterver atrocities they feel like, safe in the knowledge that the UN and the ‘Western’ press will run to their aid if things start getting sticky. And that even the so-called enemies of Islam will allow them to get away with it rather than have the fabrications and lies of the BBC and the rest of the press impinge on their poll ratings. So Blair kisses the arse of Narsrallah in the same week that his coreligionists attempt yet another terrorist outrage.
Jesus Christ!
(for the small amount of time remaining when we are allowed to say that).
I’d say, better we adopt the Ahmenidjad approach, now, before it’s too late.
At the Belmont Club, there was a suggestion that it was getting too hard to pin down the human infrastructure of Hez, as they could simply melt away into the civilian populace.
A truce and cease-fire would give the Hez fighters time to reconstruct their positions… and thus fixing them again in clearly defined locations… ripe for another round of strikes.
Perhaps this was what the Israelis have in mind. One can hope.
This recent article in strategypage.com may throw a little light upon the current situation. It talks about the possibility of another civil war in Lebanon in which Hizzbollah are the ultimate losers.
Excerpt:
“Syrians have noted an enormous exodus of Lebanese Shia into Syria. Some 10-15 percent of Lebanon’s Shia appear to have fled the areas of southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, for refuge in Syria. They are not just getting away from Israeli bombs, but the rising possibility of another round of civil war with Lebanese Sunnis, Druze and Christians. Hizbollah is a terrorist organization, and for nearly two decades, other Lebanese have been on the receiving end of that terror. There are payback issues in play. Before Hizbollah attacked Israel, these issues were being worked out, but the deal involved Hizbollah disarming and giving up control of southern Lebanon. The Hizbollah militants didn’t go for this, partly because they feared retaliation from Lebanese families they had terrorized (via murder, kidnappings or worse) over the last two decades. Better that all of Lebanon should suffer, than a few hundred Hizbollah thugs should pay for their crimes. The Lebanese know this, the Israelis know this, the international media ignores it. But it’s these grudges that will destroy Hizbollah in the end. The Shia fleeing to Syria fear their fellow Lebanese more than they fear the Israelis.”
(www.strategypage.com)
That would appear to be correct. News is now that the Lebanese government is on the verge of collapse because Hez refuses to disarm. Israel called their bluff.
The Oslo newspaper seems changed.
Very good piece:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749564.html
I think that we are seeing the results of a long planned military action combined with inept, extemporized political moves. The Israeli military planned to go for the kill from the word go but the politicians can’t make up their minds.
Olmert shouldn’t have pulled the trigger if he wasn’t prepared to follow through with it. I imagine that he was to easily swayed by Hezbollah’s masterful propaganda offensive.
During the first week of the fighting the IDF was working on the assumption that the government is going to order the ground assult any minute.
that order never came untill last friday (or maybe wendsday)
It didn’t come because of the internal israeli politics of the situation
the olmert government is a “dovish” government
For the doves in israel civilians deaths are an acceptable price of doing business in the middle east while the death of soldiers is high tragedy to be avoided at any cost including more civilian deaths
The doves also believe that military force is worse than useless and that only negotiations can lead to security
a ground assult while possibly reducing the threat to the civilian population would mean a lot of dead soldiers and if successful would also prove a main political assumption to be wrong
a dovish government couldn’t possibly believe it would work
so they could only order a limited attack once a political settlment was coming in order to cover their asses
Sorry but there is no ‘hidden strategy’ here, just disastrous incompetence. The latest invasion is just an ass-covering exercise by the Israeli government. This is a disaster for Israel. They have lost badly. Here are 10 reasons why this outcome is a disaster for Israel, America and the West:
1 Iran and Syria will order Hizbollah to stop firing missiles – and may even return the soldiers – and then go about taking over Lebanon over the next 2 years. By acting like a responsible ceasefire partner, Hiz will gain more respect internationally and more credibility, thus more leverage to plot.
2 The increased prestige Hiz have gained will increase their recruitment levels, and many Lebanese will now identify them as the true political force of Lebanon. Syria has regained a foothold in Lebanon.
3 Iran and Syria will re-arm Hizbollah with weapons permitting deeper strikes into Israeli territory from north of the Litani. Iran will be emboldened in other areas as well, notably Somalia (where they are arming the Islamic militia), Iraq (Al-Sadr militia) and south America (co-operation with Venezuela). Proxies work.
4 Hiz’s control in Lebanon will permit more recruitment, weapons storage and sanctuary for jihadists conducting terror in Iraq.
5 The UNIFIL force will be a total shambles, protecting neither the Israelis or the Lebanese. If they do nothing, they will be allowed to stand around. If they act against Hizbollah, expect a major terror attack on one of their barracks such as the Hiz attack on the US Marines in Beirut in the early 1980s. Either way expect no Hizbollah disarmament, just the reverse.
6 Israel’s vaunted deterrence has been smashed. Iran, Syria and other enemies of the state of Israel will take note.
7 The next round of missiles/ rockets will be far more powerful and probably tipped with WMD.
8 The Americans have been embarrassed by Olmert at the UN. They will be furious at his poor leadership. An outcome where Hizbollah comes out stronger than before the war is a defeat for America and a win for Iran. Not good news. The Pentagon will be apoplectic.
9 The UN is now legitimizing terrorist groups as being on a level with nation states. This is an organization that is out of control, yet the administration seems to want to engage further with it.
10 The mainstream media’s vulnerability as a propaganda tool will increase. Caught out badly with the Reuters and AP fiascos, they have not been punished. They will realize that photo manipulation sells, and that siding with ‘resistance groups’ is a far better business strategy than siding with nation states.
We need to take into account the unpredictables. Hizbollah could do something stupid and create a pretext for Israel continuing the war – by say hitting Tel Aviv or executing the kidnapped soldiers. Olmert, under huge pressure domestically and seeing his future at risk, may have a change of heart tomorrow. Perhaps success on the ground may mean that Olmert is persuaded to continue the ground offensive. Iran may enter the fray. However as it stands things look dire for Israel.
I don’t blame the Americans here. They gave Olmert & Co a lot of time to get this job done and their incompetence has led to the worst defeat for Israel since its formal existence came into being. The sad fact is that a major offensive now would take Hizbollah out of the equation.
It may be that he is a strategic genius, but I very much doubt it. Olmert is an absolute disgrace and will be remembered as the man who exposed Israel to terrible danger.
“Israel’s vaunted deterrence has been smashed. Iran, Syria and other enemies of the state of Israel will take note.” Has it? That’s the key question.
What is going on is indeed puzzling. Here is my guess:
Olmert and Peretz, both inexperienced and incompetent, supported by Halutz – an Air Force General, new in his post and inexperienced in ground operations – started the war without a rational, thought out plan. It was a guts driven move.
Their idea was to strike very hard anything pertaining to Hizb, from the air only until Hizb cried uncle.
This failed, in great part because the IAF was severely limited by the politically correct limitation “no civilians casualties, at any price”.
Then Hizb rockets started raining upon Israel, and Olmert acted surprised – maybe he was, he’s such a fool. And the IAF failed to stop those rockets, and now it was Halutz’s turn to join the surprised fools. Any kid could have told you that Hizbollah will fire rockets and the IAF alone cannot stop them.
What do we do now ? How to proceed was the question (about 10 days ago). The obvious answer was: a ground ofensive. Obvious, but wrong. It makes no sense to scarifice IDF soldiers in close quarters combat with Hizb, and sustain heavy losses for no purpose at all. It makes no sense to go after each and every Hizb nut, hiding in bunkers and in civilian cellars. It makes no sense to sacrifice IDF soldiers, when in the end Hizb fighters return to their bunkers and cellars after IDF leaves, and we are back at square 1.
In a characteristic move, Olmert ordered the ground attack anyway, despite it’s drawbacks. He hesistated and temporized a good deal, but when a columnist called for his immediate resignation, he suddenly ordered the ground attack. And then, 24 hours later, accepted a very lame cease fire.
But, despite Olmert, despite all this fumbling and cluelessness, not everything is lost. We return to the main point: deterrence. Hizbollah thought they had gained deterrence over Israel, and Israel will never attack them, and Lebanon (or Syria, or Iran) , because of those ominous 12000 rockets Hizbollah had pointed at Israel. Israel proved it will not be deterred, those rockets weren’t such a big deal after all, 30 odd casualties after a month of rocket attacks isn’t fatal. But Israel is able, and willing to inflict on them much more damage. Hizb, and Syria, and Iran know that Israel has done far less in Lebanon bombing that it could, but has done a lot of harm anyway, and has not been deterred.
When Hizb started it all they did not expect Israel’s reaction, they surely are not happy about the whole affair. The destruction in Hizb and Shiite areas in south Lebanon and Beirut is considerable. I think they will think carefully before they start anything new. At least Nasrallah will be very careful (as long as he survives) – this war has created a new deterrence, that might last some time.
The UN isn’t terribly relevant, and the US decided, wisely, to keep their distance from it and not get too involved.
A demilitarized zone up to the Litani might materialize, not thanks to the UN or UNIFIL, but because the IDF (hopefully) will keep shooting until it does. But that is not a sure thing.
If this hapazard, and badly led, and strangely executed war leads to several years of quiet – this is as much as you can ask from any war. And this might just happen.
The gut reaction of Olmert and Peretz might prove to have been right – when contratsed to the inaction of Barak and Sharon on the Lebanon front.
An attempted optimistic interpretation :
The real strategic target for the West is Iran. If Teheran were cleaned up tomorrow, problems like Syria, Hezbollah, and the rest of the nuts would start withering away pretty quickly.
America’s chosen strategy for dealing with Iran seems to be to take every possible diplomatic step to tell them to lay off the nuclear stuff. Presumably, this is to remove any possible excuse for France, Russia and the rest of the bastards club to object to moving to use of force. Presumably also, the US must feel some need for some serious troop commitments from someone other than the UK/Oz – they have got to be feeling stretched.
This strategy appears to be approaching a key date with August 22nd, or whenever it is that Teheran is supposed to respond to the current ultimatum.
This whole flare-up in southern Lebanon was a feint by Teheran to wiggle out of the diplomatic timetable, on the tried and tested principle that shooting Israelis is always good for distracting the average arab savage in the street and dimwitted western jounalist.
Bush’s key choices were to roll with it and use it as a trigger for moving to a new phase of force, or to damp it out as quickly as possible so that he can get back on track with his main strategy. The former would almost certainly have left him isolated again, so he has taken the hit (via his allies in Israel), and gone with the second.
Accordingly, we want the West to start paying attention to nuclear Teheran as soon as possible, because that is the main event, and it is coming to a boil soon.
I don’t claim any great expertise in this area: I’m just trying to understand things. Is there any merit in this interpretation ?
I don’t agree. The UN resolution makes it quite clear who’s the on-paper winner (Israel, because Hezbollah is basically told to down guns and give up its dream). That paper means nothing in itself, but it gives Israel-and-allies lots of diplomatic leverage to bring to bear. Most of the local countries pretend their anti-zionism is built on UN rulings. For that reason, they’re vulnerable to the same authority being used to push back against them.
“For that reason, they’re vulnerable to the same authority being used to push back against them.”
No, they are not. Some “bleeding heart ignoramuses” migh care about the UN but the Arabs don’t give a damn about it , unless it serves their interests, which, most of the time it does.
What matters is not the UN paper, but what happens in South Lebanon – i.e. will Hizb give up and leave. Doesn’t look so right now. Most Lebanese would be happy for Hizballah to drop dead, they don’t need the UN to prod them, but they are powerless, as is the UN.
Julian… and of course Hezbollah has no history of ignoring a UN resolution to disarm, right?
In general you are right – and Nasrallah has already proclaimed his victory.
In the long run, however, I hope that Lebanese will refrain from attacking Israel in the near future, given the price they will pay for the latest offensive.
I know what I will say will be an inconvenient truth, but, here goes . . .
The supposed “kidnapped” Israeli soldiers were not kidnapped–no soldier is “kidnapped” on the battlefield. To say so is to spout bullshit to enrage the masses. Those soldiers were captured invading another country.
That is the simple, initial truth of all of this.
And they got caught, and Israel went into its usual mode of operation (seems a few Brits learned that fatal lesson almost 60 years ago), and so, yet another mess in the M/E.
Gee, like this is something new?
Only this time, the IDF is not the invincible force it thought itself to be.
Terrorists come in many sizes and forms. So do countries pretending to be liberating democracies which are, in fact, every bit as fascist as those they accuse of the same.
It is high time Americans honor their orignal founding principles and avoid entangling alliances. Let the war-like idiots of whatever stripe do evolution’s number and eliminate nature’s waste products, whomever they may be.
But as to this one–Israel got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Their soldiers in Lebanon deserved to be captured–and they were–and now we are supposed to roll over and act dumb-stupid as if what really happened really didn’t happen.
Yawn. Same old, same old.
Israel needs a new schtick.
You really do not know what you are talking about and clearly know little out the details of the region’s military history. There was nothing ‘usual’ about how Israel conducted their inept campaign.
And at this point you stop being worth replying to if you think that. Clearly you have no idea what the word ‘fascist’ actually means.
Has there been a more clear and simple lesson in how NOT to fight a war.
Powell insisted, when Chief in the US, that the 1st Gulf war would be fought with overwhelming force. When Rumsfeld went in he used 1/3 troops, with obvious results.
It wsa like Vietnam all over again, lots of bombing, little resutl.
Had Sharon been in charge, I have no doubt Israel would have gone in with 30,000 troops on the first day, a full invasion.
Hezzbolla would have been routed, the South taken quickly, Beirut threatened, a deal struck. Israel did not loose this war through Hezzbolla incompetence, it lost it becase Sharon was not in charge.
Is this PM the Carter of Israel?