Results 1 to 20 of 147

Thread: The 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War (catch all)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Somehow it is difficult to buy this line that it was because of poor kitting that the IDF did not make their mark.

    In fact, poor kitting, poor equipment, no time to train etc are the favourite excuses that are trotted out whenever any army faces a problem that they can't solve or when they have failed to deliver.

    In fact, if the IDF was not ready to take on the Hizbollah terrorists, then they should not have gone in. Their Generals should have had the moral courage to inform their Political Leaders that unless they are equipped correctly, then they would be able to this much and no more.

    BBC informs that the reservists are not only complaining about kitting, they are complaining about rapid change of order (muddle) and incorrect tactics application.

    Any links to fathom as to what really went wrong?

    Something has seriously gone wrong somewhere since the IDF could thrash every time Arab armies as a whole and this time the rag tag Hizbollah has held them for 30 days. It is most surprising given that the tanks were said to be amongst the world best and the soldiers motivated since it was a fight for the very existence of Israel.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default systematic

    Ray,

    I respectfully disagree with your arguments. First, I didn't think the jest of the article was that Israel's failure was due to logistical shortfalls, but rather that the IDF has serious systematic problems, logistics being the most visible. Second, poor kitting and inadequate training "are" the reasons for many army's failures. Note the U.S. Army's experience during the initial phase of the Korean War. Obviously the tactics were far from ideal, but not so surprising from a defense force that can't get the essentials correct: kitting and training.

    Bill

  3. #3
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Could it simply be that the Israeli army was a) overconfident because they had (some years back) smacked so many Arab armies around and b) rather out of practice when it comes to large-scale operations? They may also be seeing of the problems that can result from an army based on conscription - constant turnover leads to shortfalls in training and can also result in equipment being poorly maintained.

    I also tend to agree that Israel has come to rely too much on airpower. Airpower is a good "sell," since it doesn't put many of your people at risk and does look neat when replayed on television, but it simply isn't the right answer in many situations. It is a great supporting component, but over-reliance on it can lead to problems.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore
    Ray,

    I respectfully disagree with your arguments. First, I didn't think the jest of the article was that Israel's failure was due to logistical shortfalls, but rather that the IDF has serious systematic problems, logistics being the most visible. Second, poor kitting and inadequate training "are" the reasons for many army's failures. Note the U.S. Army's experience during the initial phase of the Korean War. Obviously the tactics were far from ideal, but not so surprising from a defense force that can't get the essentials correct: kitting and training.

    Bill
    Bill,

    I fully agree with what you have stated.

    I only wanted to state that one goes to war after taking all issues into consideration, weighing it against the enemy's capabilities and tactics, and being sure of an even chance of success. If war is thrust on you, then it is a different matter. In this case, the IDF had the initiative and launched the offensive.

    Thereafter, once in the fray, one must take the results of the events for what it is worth and not trot out 'excuses' (for the want of a better word).

    The IDF should have realised that the IDF was not well equipped, trained or whatever, to take on this campaign. Now, to state so as a reason, does not really cut ice. There will be failures in war or in life. One must squarely face up to them and not lament or find issues as "scapegoats".

    In 3O days, 30 Merkavas have been lost as per an Israeli newspaper. That is a lot if one considers the rag tag Hizbs. It is obvious that the Hizb tactics paid rich dividends. It is surprising that the Israelis did not find out about the Hizb tactics, when one is marvelled by the Israeli capability to be able to, with pinpoint accuracy, shoot down terrorist leaders on the move in a car or when strolling in gthe streets as in the Gaza strip! I wonder if any intelligence agency can equal that!

    Therefore, the IDF in Lebanon is quite a disappointment, apart from being a hue surprise for me. It is like a National team losing a football match to local club!

    Hence, it is important to know what are the lessons learnt and rectify the same rather than breast beat, if I may say so.
    Last edited by Ray; 08-21-2006 at 06:15 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Hizbullah / Hezbollah (just the group)
    By SWJED in forum Middle East
    Replies: 176
    Last Post: 12-19-2017, 12:58 PM
  2. Lebanon (all aspects)
    By SWJED in forum Middle East
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 08-28-2017, 10:02 AM
  3. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-11-2013, 01:30 PM
  4. SSI Annual Strategy Conference: The Meaning of War
    By SteveMetz in forum Miscellaneous Goings On
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-12-2010, 01:24 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-19-2006, 11:24 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •