| Author | Message | ||
     joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 890 Registered: 1-2006 |
From Confederateyankee, and Gen. Douglas MacArthur: Israel must break Hezbollah. As an "pajama general" half a world away, with no military experience, I must turn to the history books for a solution to Israel's "Hezbollah problem," and a decisive battle in the "Forgotten War" of Korea offers a possible winning strategy. On June 25, 1950, 135,000 North Korean troops swarmed into South Korea. Within three days they had captured South Koreas capital of Seoul. The U.S. Eighth Army came to South Korea's aid, but even then, they were driven into a small pocket called the Pusan Perimeter before the combined forces were able to establish and hold a defensive line. It was a desperate land stand against the North, and the Korean Peninsula seemed that it might fall completely into communist hands. That changed on September 15, 1950, when General Douglas MacArthur executed a brilliant "left hook," landing 70,000 men at Inchon, well behind the front, cutting North Korean supply lines. Seoul was liberated ten days later. Half of the 70,000 North Korean troops on the Pusan Perimeter were killed or captured, and the remaining 30,000 were forced to retreat out of South Korea. Israel may have the capability to consider a similar battle plan in a future war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. While Israel lacks the amphibious forces and manpower of MacArthur, it does have enough helicopter transport capability to perform deep insertions of elite infantry and light artillery units well into Lebanon. By airmobile insertion of these forces along transportation routes from Syria to the west and placing a blocking force to the north and west of Beirut, Israel could cut off Hezbollah from it's Syrian and Iranian suppliers far more effectively than air strikes alone did in the last campaign. It would also open up a multi-front war, keeping Hezbollah off-balance and unable to concentrate firepower in any one direction. While these airmobile forces are inserted, Israeli strike aircraft could take out cell phone towers, central telephone exchanges, and other command-and-control targets, rendering Hezbollah largely blind and isolated except for short-range communications. At the same time, Israeli reservists and heavy armored units would bypass and cut off Hezbollah strongholds in the south, which could then be targeted and destroyed one-by-one. This is the campaign Israel should have waged, and perhaps one they may yet fight. It is important to recognize that such a campaign might trigger a conflict with not only with Hezbollah, but the Lebanese Army as well. The conflict would not doubt result in hundreds of Lebanese civilian deaths, perhaps as many or more than this last month-long campaign. The responsibility of these deaths will not only belong to Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah, but with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Seniora and the elected Lebanese government as well. A government that sides with terrorists, becomes terrorists, and Israel should now regard Lebanon as a state-sponsor of terrorism. Fuad Seniora has signed a deal with the devil, and however and whenever the next war between Israel and Hezbollah is waged, he will bear the blame for the deaths of hundreds or thousands of Lebanese, as assuredly as if he had pulled the trigger himself. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4703 Registered: 12-2001  |
That is a good description of how the IDF should have responded to Hezbollah. I would avoid invoking the example of MacArthur in Korea who overextended his forces and suffered a catastrophic rollback at the hands of the Chinese. When I cite great military men, I usually leave MacArthur off the list. He certainly had a great impact on his century, but not in the purely military arena. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 891 Registered: 1-2006 |
Inchon was the point. North to China was ruinous. I met a Korean gent about three years ago at at a 32nd street restaurant. He sported a button with "The Chosin Few" on it. He was there, did that. I get the picture. jd | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12411 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually that is what Israel started to do in the last days of the war. They punched through to the Litani River and then would have attempted to drive Hezbollah back towards the Israeli border. This would have been, by all accounts, a long and bloody campaign. Think Iwo Jima, not the Six Day War. | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 513 Registered: 8-2004 |
What, Hezbollah has tens of thousands in entrenched positions with interlocking fields of fire and heavy artillery support? They stood up better than any Arab infantry in decades but let's not get carried away. They are still a long way off from the Japanese Imperial Army. And before someone remarks that the Japanese didn't face Merkavas and F-16s, let's remember the IDF hardly launched a full-out assault. They did this on a limited, precision basis with a minimized ground component. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4704 Registered: 12-2001 |
In proportion to their numbers, Hezbollah would have exacted a fairly high price if Israel had launched a combined arms assault such as they did in the Six Day War. Hezbollah had/has very good AT weapons that are effective against Israeli tanks and troop carriers. The thing that made the Japanese Imperial Army so tough was that they fought to the death - not that they were particularly good. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1921 Registered: 10-2004  |
the Japanese didn't face Merkavas and F-16s. somebody had to say it | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 515 Registered: 8-2004 |
That's what is so great about the anti-war Left on MOL. Even when you anticipate an argument and offer a refutation, someone still makes the argument without addressing the counter-argument. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1922 Registered: 10-2004 |
lighten up Mr. Agress. It was joke. | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 516 Registered: 8-2004 |
And THEN they think all of this is FUNNY. The NERVE of these people! | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 517 Registered: 8-2004 |
Oh. . . . Is there anyway I can delete that last bit? | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 518 Registered: 8-2004 |
Seriously, my apologies. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12414 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually the Japanese faced Shermans with flame throwers, Corsairs, Dauntless dive bombers and 16 inch shells from battleships offshore. Once the Marines were off the beach the Japanese didn't have any artillery either. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1923 Registered: 10-2004 |
I assumed and took it as a joke, no apology necessary. The issue is serious but this is MOL and not the Senate. I think humor is a good way to remind us that we can still share a laugh, even when we disagree. | ||
| Blue Heeler Citizen Username: Blueheeler Post Number: 77 Registered: 10-2005  |
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/751798.html Very sad, completely insane, but not at all surprising. See you at the next battle, same time, next year... At least Israel will go down fighting... | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3757 Registered: 5-2004  |
"I think it's a little bit of a misreading about how you disarm a militia. You have to have a plan, first of all, for the disarmament of the militia, and then the hope is that some people lay down their arms voluntarily." [emphasis mine] Holy useless crap. What's the point of having minimally armed "soldiers" watching Hezbollah rearm with nothing they can do about it? So basically this cease fire is an agreement to stop shooting at each other, and nothing else. Good thing we weren't going to go for a cease fire unless it could lead to a lasting peace. I'm sure this will do the trick. F-ing morons. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4707 Registered: 12-2001 |
Bobk, It is worth noting that the Japanese on say, Iwo Jima, never stood a chance, but the USMC still lost thousands killed. If the IDF had launched an all-out combined arms assault on Hezbollahland, Hezbollah would not have stood a chance. However, I assume that hundreds of Israeli soldiers would have died. Had, they done this however, the current ceasefire would be more than just "time out while we rearm". | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12423 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tjohn, I think the IDF estimate, which may well have been low. since they lost over 120 dead in the limited war they fought, was 100 to 200 dead. Still, as horrible as it sounds they with the result of the cease fire not being what they wanted, I think they should have gone for it, whicxh is easy for me to say sitting here in NYC. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15580 Registered: 10-2001  |
What happened to all of those French troops who were supposed to go into Lebanon to uphold the cease-fire? Perhaps I'm missing something but it sure seems like the absence of troops is going to lead to Hezbollah re-arming themselves which will leave Israel little choice but to try and stop the flow of arms themselves- which is what happened yesterday. Instead of Kooky Kofi yelling at Israel for a cease-fire violation, perhaps he ought to get his own organization to live up to their promise of acting as a buffer in the region. And perhaps the French ought to have spelled out their conditions for entering Lebanon before they put on a big show as the chief peacemaker in the region. Non? | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 526 Registered: 8-2004 |
Certainement.
Some yelling at Hezbollah and Lebanon for advertising their violations would be nice too. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15617 Registered: 10-2001 |
Don't hold your breath. | ||
| Nancy - LibraryLady Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 3816 Registered: 5-2001  |
And now,of course, Amnesty Inernational condemns Israel, http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE020182006, yet only mentions Hizzbollah rocketing of Israeli cities and citizens in a minimal way. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3787 Registered: 5-2004 |
Oh, but they've said they will deal with Hezbollah's rocket attacks separately. No reason to have dealt with them when they happened. Better to wait for Israel's response so they can temper the condemnation of Hezbollah. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1975 Registered: 5-2001 |
They've already condemned both parties for attacks on civilians. The damage inflicted on civilian infrastructure was quite a bit more in Lebanon than it was in Israel, thus the greater focus on Israel's actions in this report. From a July press release: “Israel must put an immediate end to attacks against civilians and against civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, which constitute collective punishment." “Hizbullah must stop launching attacks against Israeli civilians and it must treat humanely the two Israeli soldiers it captured on 12 July and grant them immediate access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.” | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5764 Registered: 10-1999  |
In its July 26 report, Amnesty also criticized Hezbollah's use of the civilian population as "human shields":
| ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3792 Registered: 5-2004 |
I stand corrected. Thank you. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1504 Registered: 4-2006 |
For our field generals and prognosticators here on MOL the Amin Taheri article in today's WSJ on why Hezbollah lost the war in Lebanon would be informative and educational reading. Taheri notes that the views of those who count in Lebanon and the arab world are somewhat different than in the western media, and say, the NYT. Taheri is Iranian. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10598 Registered: 4-1997  |
| ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1512 Registered: 4-2006 |
Dave- Has any American newspaper retracted the Taheri article that the "National Post of Canada" did? I think it was syndicated. If the information was incorrect they must do so. Please supply. One the second point, I believe we see corrections everyday for errors in american newspapers, included the NYT. How does your point, if true, effect the validity of the specific column I referenced, exactly? I don't see that it does. How do you personally feel that article was deficient Dave? I don't always agree with Taheri but do admit he has background, expertise, and contacts in the arab world. I would be glad to e-mail Tehari your post and get a reply, but how does your post deminish the validity of his comments in his article on Lebanon that I referenced? If you believe he is against the current Iranian administration, how does that have any bearing on his comments about Lebanon? Do you disagree that the Lebanese basically don't support Hezbollah Dave, and why? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10601 Registered: 4-1997 |
I smell desperation. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12495 Registered: 5-2001 |
Here is a link to the Taheri piece (thanks to www.Realclearpolitics.com): http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008847 I think the author is correct that prior to the war most Lebanese were more interested in their daily lives than Jihad. However, after the total destruction of the infrastructure of their country, I think more people support Hezbollah than did before the war. I don't agree with his conclusions. From this article from the Jerusalem Post (Http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525936817&pagename=JPost/JPArticl e/ShowFull) it is pretty obvious that one of the IDF goals was to destroy the economy of Lebanon to turn the population against Hezbollah. Early indications are that this isn't happening. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 738 Registered: 2-2003 |
I think its well-established that Hezbollah is now far stronger politically and wields far more influence in Lebanon and the Middle East than before Israel began its bombing campaign. This result was obvious from the first bombs that hit the Beirut airport, which by the way is named Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport after the hero of the Lebanese moderates. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1513 Registered: 4-2006 |
Dave- Actually I smell a smearjob. Am e-mailing Taheri. Bob K and Paul Surovell- Bob K; " I think more people support Hezbollah than did before the war" Paul Surovell " ... it is well established that Hezbollah is now far stronger... " How come Condi Rice isn't calling you two? (Saudis are gladly going to pay for the re-building). So guys, you both speak arabic? Have studied in the Middle East? Have studied the Middle East academically? Have met the movers and shakers in Lebanon? Know Iran intimately? Ah, well the list would continue but.. never mind the real experts. There are times that MOL posts remind me of that old comment about opinions being like posteriors. Everyone has one. Not ruling myself out at times on that one either. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1976 Registered: 10-2004 |
common sense says that if attacked you support the people who are fighting back. If Israel had kept its retaliation to the areas where Hezbollah was shooting and not destroyed all the infrastructure and inflicted suffering on so many Lebanese not involved in the Hezbollah terrorist attacks then I might agree with your position but that is not what they did. They blew up too much, caused too much misery and showed the Lebanese that they are powerless to stop them. I dont think there are many Lebanese who are thinking that Israel is a great country, rather I think most of them are thinking they would like to see Israel gone. That thought becomes victory for Hezbollah. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 741 Registered: 2-2003 |
Facts, Virtually all reports coming out of Lebanon and the Middle East say that Hezbollah has become stronger politically and more influential in Lebanon and throughout the region as a result of the war. One example, which I posted on this thread on July 28th, is a report by Neil MacFarquhar of the NY Times. Here's an excerpt:
| ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10611 Registered: 4-1997 |
Fiction, Any word from pr flack Taheri on the story he wrote for Canada's National Post? My guess is no. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6df3e493-f350-4b53-bc16-53 262b49a4f7 Don't expect anything. He even hangs up on people when they request facts or provide eyewitness refutations to his made up stories.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/cohleresses | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 115 Registered: 4-2006 |
UN and Hezbollah vs. Israel DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon. UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old. Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got. This war was fought on cable television and the Internet, and a lot of official information was available in real time. But the specific military intelligence UNIFIL posted could not be had from any non-U.N. source. The Israeli press--always eager to push the envelope--did not publish the details of troop movements and logistics. Neither the European press nor the rest of the world media, though hardly bastions of concern for the safety of Israeli troops, provided the IDF intelligence details that UNIFIL did. A search of Israeli government websites failed to turn up the details published to the world each day by the U.N. Inquiries made of various Israeli military and government representatives and analysts yielded near unanimous agreement that at least some of UNIFIL's postings, in the words of one retired senior military analyst, "could have exposed Israeli soldiers to grave danger." These analysts, including a current high ranking military official, noted that the same intelligence would not have been provided by the U.N. about Israel's enemies. Sure enough, a review of every single UNIFIL web posting during the war shows that, while UNIFIL was daily revealing the towns where Israeli soldiers were located, the positions from which they were firing, and when and how they had entered Lebanese territory, it never described Hezbollah movements or locations with any specificity whatsoever. Compare the vague "various locations" language with this UNIFIL posting from July 25: Yesterday and during last night, the IDF moved significant reinforcements, including a number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, bulldozers and infantry, to the area of Marun Al Ras inside Lebanese territory. The IDF advanced from that area north toward Bint Jubayl, and south towards Yarun. Or with the posting on July 24, in which UNIFIL revealed that the IDF stationed between Marun Al Ras and Bint Jubayl were "significantly reinforced during the night and this morning with a number of tanks and armored personnel carriers." This partiality is inconsistent not only with UNIFIL's mission but also with its own stated policies. In a telling incident just a few years back, UNIFIL vigorously insisted on its "neutral ity"--at Israel's expense. On October 7, 2000, three IDF soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah just yards from a UNIFIL shelter and dragged across the border into Lebanon, where they disappeared. The U.N. was thought to have videotaped the incident or its immediate aftermath. Rather than help Israel rescue its kidnapped soldiers by providing this evidence, however, the U.N. obstructed the Israeli investigation. For months the Israeli government pleaded with the U.N. to turn over any videotape that might shed light on the location and condition of its missing men. And for nine months the U.N. stonewalled, insisting first that no such tape existed, then that just one tape existed, and eventually conceding that there were two more tapes. During those nine months, clips from the videotapes were shown on Syrian and Lebanese television. Explaining their eventual about-face, U.N. officials said the decision had been made by the on-site commanders that it was not their responsibility to provide the material to Israel; indeed, that to do so would violate the peacekeeping mandate, which required "full impartiality and objectivity." The U.N. report on the incident was adamant that its force had "to ensure that military and other sensitive information remains in their domain and is not passed to parties to a conflict." Stymied in its efforts to recover the men while they were still alive, Israel ultimately agreed to an exchange in January 2004: It released 429 Arab prisoners and detainees, among them convicted terrorists, and the bodies of 60 Lebanese decedents and members of Hezbollah, in exchange for the bodies of the three soldiers. Blame for the deaths of those three Israelis can be laid, at least in part, at the feet of the U.N., which went to the wall defending its inviolable pledge never to share military intelligence about one party with another. UNIFIL has just done what it then vowed it could never do. Once again, it has acted to shield one side in the conflict and to harm the other. Why is this permitted? For that matter, how did the U.N. obtain such detailed and timely military intelligence in the first place, before broadcasting it for Israel's enemies to see? Lori Lowenthal Marcus is president of the Zionist Organization of America, Greater Philadelphia District. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 742 Registered: 2-2003 |
Ender, Two points: (1) UN Resolution 1701 provides a model through which Israeli border agreements can be bolstered by international forces, through the United Nations. There is now a possibility that this model will be used to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well. (2) Regarding the article by Lori Marcus, can you provide some citations of when and where Israel lodged its complaints and the responses by UNIFIL? Thank you. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 959 Registered: 1-2006 |
For Israel, lodging complaints with the U.N. is like trying to stop the tide with a formal complaint to the moon. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10626 Registered: 4-1997 |
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/?page=full |
