Watching the IDF (catch all)

[Rank amateur]

Hezbollah can be suppressed and even defeated by methods everyone understands.

I understand methods that could suppress them, but I don't understand the methods that could lead to their defeat. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could explain the methods to me.

[William F. Owen]

I understand methods that could suppress them, but I don't understand the methods that could lead to their defeat. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could explain the methods to me.

If someone can be suppressed (does not act through fear of harm) then he can be defeated because sufficient fear will lead to withdrawal.

So the "methods" used to suppress (which you understand) just have to exploited to their logical conclusion. Obviously they would have to applied within a political context,(as all methods do) and would probably only be successful as a result of other activities - eg: loss of isolation from outside support and funding. Recognition of opportunity remains the key to success.

Sorry to sound vague, but simplistic or erroneous interpretations this type of activity could be misquoted or misused.

[Rex Brynen]

Hezbollah can be suppressed and even defeated by methods everyone understands.

I'm dubious that this can be done, frankly. The IDF certainly didn't manage it in the 1990s--quite the reverse.

[MattC86]

Yeah, I'm disagreeing with Naveh on his concept for a "forcible disarmament" of Hizbullah. As long the Shi'i of Lebanon feel (1) disenfranchised and aggrieved (2) threatened, rightly or wrongly, by Israel, there will always be a constituency in that population for an armed party of their own capable of fighting both Lebanese and Israeli foes. There will have to be a sea change in the strategic context for this to work long-term - either by removing Hizbullah's foreign backers and arms suppliers, or by altering the political calculus of the broader Lebanese Shi'i community. Anything else is blowing smoke and kicking the can down the road, even if successful in the short term.

Ok, I completely agree with that. It seems Naveh's touted alternative was really just a tactical shift from what was actually done. The questions that raises, about how to combat a group like Hezbollah or its ilk, seem damn near insurmountable to me.

And Wilf - I see 2006 as nearly as big a victory as Hezbollah could possibly score. The invincible Israelis withdrew, Hezbollah stood and fought in the villages in the south, and then helped clean up the country after Israel (again) devastated the infrastructure, gaining popularity and legitimacy through both their military and political wings. They may not have decisively defeated the IDF on the ground, but they fought very well and the strategic and IO gains for Hezbollah were quite large, IMO. I'd be interested to hear why you (or others) think otherwise.

Matt

[William F. Owen]

And Wilf - I see 2006 as nearly as big a victory as Hezbollah could possibly score. The invincible Israelis withdrew, Hezbollah stood and fought in the villages in the south, and then helped clean up the country after Israel (again) devastated the infrastructure, gaining popularity and legitimacy through both their military and political wings. They may not have decisively defeated the IDF on the ground, but they fought very well and the strategic and IO gains for Hezbollah were quite large, IMO. I'd be interested to hear why you (or others) think otherwise.

Having talked to several men who actually fought, i would dispute that Hezbollah fought well or successfully. They were never able to hold ground against the units I have talked to. It would be like suggesting the Somalis fought well in Mogadishu or that the Taliban fought well during OP Anaconda.

They lost lots of equipment and about 5-600 dead. On the one occasion I know of where they cornered an entire IDF Platoon (Golani) they killed 6 and wounded everyone except 2, and still the platoon broke contact and recovered to their own forces. I have yet to see anything that would indicate Hezbollah as being widely skilled at the tactical level. - I would judge them to be as tactically proficient as the the Somalis in Mogadishu or that the Taliban fought during OP Anaconda.

[Rank amateur]

If someone can be suppressed (does not act through fear of harm) then he can be defeated because sufficient fear will lead to withdrawal.

Withdrawal isn't defeat.

The Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, has described the "miracle of deliverance" from Dunkirk

They were never able to hold ground against the units I have talked to.

Aren't they holding all the ground that Isreal used to occupy now?

[Ken White]

Withdrawal isn't defeat.

That is true to western eyes -- it is true to middle eastern eyes as well insofar as the conduct of operations and combat are concerned. In western terms, your statement is totally correct. In terms of the ME today when the announced goal is to force westerners and zionists out of the area; then western or Israeli withdrawal in the eyes of the opposition becomes a victory for them and thus a defeat for the west. Even the hint of a withdrawal will be seen as weakness. Given the fact that our perceived weakness is very much why we are there today, withdrawal is bad ju-ju and would bode badly for the future...

They're already winning the info war, they don't need any help...

[Rank amateur]

That is true to western eyes -- it is true to middle eastern eyes as well insofar as the conduct of operations and combat are concerned. In western terms, your statement is totally correct. In terms of the ME today when the announced goal is to force westerners and zionists out of the area; then western or Israeli withdrawal in the eyes of the opposition becomes a victory for them and thus a defeat for the west. Even the hint of a withdrawal will be seen as weakness. Given the fact that our perceived weakness is very much why we are there today, withdrawal is bad ju-ju and would bode badly for the future...

They're already winning the info war, they don't need any help...

A) I wouldn't limit our ability to maneuver based on UBL's opinion.
B) We already withdrew our troops from Saudi Arabia. I don't think that caused any major geopolitical problems.
C) Isn't it better to be perceived as weak and to be strong than to have our forces physically weakened?

[Jedburgh]

They were never able to hold ground against the units I have talked to.

To disparage any irregular force because of their inability to "hold ground" against a professional army is to completely miss the point.

Hezballah was able to inflict casualties on the IDF, take out some armor, and continue to launch rockets into Israel until the very end of the conflict. And since Israel withdrew once again - without achieveing its objectives, in the end, that's all that matters.

Regarding the "defeat" of Hezballah, I think Tequila put it quite clearly:

It is far easier to rebuild military potential than political legitimacy. Hizbullah has the latter in Lebanon. Even if every single Hizbullah commander dropped dead and every supply dump exploded tomorrow, Hizbullah could train new leaders and rearm with Syrian and Iranian aid. The overall strategic picture would not change even given a militarily crippled Hizbullah, because unless its ideology or backers changed, it can always rebuild its military capabilities.

The statement "Nasrallah saying "we won," means about as much as George Bush declaring victory." is really a false analogy: President Bush has been roundly mocked for his statement, both here in the US and abroad, while a significant chunk of the region's populace perceives that Israel was humiliated during their summer excursion.

FYI, there is quite a bit of discussion on this subject in the Hezballah TTP thread and the Hezbollah: A Win For 'The Best Guerrilla Force in the World'? thread.

[MattC86]

To disparage any irregular force because of their inability to "hold ground" against a professional army is to completely miss the point.

Hezballah was able to inflict casualties on the IDF, take out some armor, and continue to launch rockets into Israel until the very end of the conflict. And since Israel withdrew once again - without achieveing its objectives, in the end, that's all that matters.

Regarding the "defeat" of Hezballah, I think Tequila put it quite clearly:

The statement "Nasrallah saying "we won," means about as much as George Bush declaring victory." is really a false analogy: President Bush has been roundly mocked for his statement, both here in the US and abroad, while a significant chunk of the region's populace perceives that Israel was humiliated during their summer excursion.

Thanks, Jedburgh. I agree with that completely. Although a couple sources I read (some in the info you gave me for my RFI) said that, particularly for a irregular force, Hezbollah stood and fought rather effectively in some villages with a Chechen-type decentralized defense effort.

My question, then, from this, is what is the larger strategy against Hezbollah, Hamas, and other nonstate actors who in many cases have more popular legitimacy and power than weakened states in the regions they operate. If kinetic action (even if better planned and executed than the IDF's in 2006) is non-decisive, and may actually further their political popularity and strength (leading to more military potential in terms of manpower and potential outside support), and the indigenous government is too weak to reign them in - i.e., Lebanon - then what is the approach? Attempts to moderate them or co-opt them diplomatically? A combination?

This seems to lie outside our current COIN thinking. Or at least MY current COIN thinking. . .

Oh, and can we please agree on a universal spelling for Hezbollah? Drives me nuts. Just tell me how to spell it and I'll do it. . .
Matt

[William F. Owen]

To disparage any irregular force because of their inability to "hold ground" against a professional army is to completely miss the point.

Hezballah was able to inflict casualties on the IDF, take out some armor, and continue to launch rockets into Israel until the very end of the conflict. And since Israel withdrew once again - without achieveing its objectives, in the end, that's all that matters.
[/URL] thread.

I am not disparaging Hezbollah for an inability to hold ground. I am correcting the perception that they successfully defended any villages - and when they did try, they were unable to do it, according to the men I have talked to. There may have been certain areas where they did conduct a successful defence, but I have yet to see that reported by sources I trust.

I am not in any way trying to suggest that the IDF won. The War was a mind numbing fiasco, because of the stupid EBO plan. - and war was only 30 days long!

..how ever the idea that the IDF somehow lacked tactical or operational skill, and was out fought by Hezbollah is also a gross distortion. I do understand that it aids some folks agendas to suggest that.

[Rank amateur]

I am not disparaging Hezbollah for an inability to hold ground. I am correcting the perception that they successfully defended any villages - and when they did try, they were unable to do it, according to the men I have talked to.

No offense, but I think that the men you've talked to have too short of a time frame. Isreal isn't occupying any villages now.

how ever the idea that the IDF somehow lacked tactical or operational skill

I don't think that is the suggestion.

and was out fought by Hezbollah

That is the suggestion

then he can be defeated because sufficient fear will lead to withdrawal.

To me, it appears as though Hezbollah inflicted sufficient fear to cause withdrawal. Like I said, that isn't necessary defeat, but if the war ends after one side withdraws, it certainly looks like defeat to me. Germany withdrew from France. WWI ended. Germany was defeated.

[William F. Owen]

Lets cut to the chase here. In the collective opinion, of those on this thread, what should the IDF have done?

[William F. Owen]

To me, it appears as though Hezbollah inflicted sufficient fear to cause withdrawal. Like I said, that isn't necessary defeat, but if the war ends after one side withdraws, it certainly looks like defeat to me. Germany withdrew from France. WWI ended. Germany was defeated.

Well if that was the case it could be said that the IDF caused sufficient fear to halt rocket attacks from the Lebanon. The fighting may have stopped but the war is ongoing.

IMO withdrawal does not define any aspect of defeat. The sole criteria I use to define defeat is permanent, collective, physical, and psychological withdrawal from combat. And that stands for COIN as well as larger conflicts.

[Rank amateur]

Lets cut to the chase here. In the collective opinion, of those on this thread, what should the IDF have done?

IMO

1) Realize that Hezbollah can't invade and hold Isreali territory
2) Repel cross border attacks without panic, because Hezbollah can't invade and hold Israeli territory .
3) Retaliate with bombings. (Objective: cause more pain to Hezbollah than Hezbollah inflicted on Israel.)
4) Accept the fact that Hezbollah can't be destroyed.
5) Enjoy the nice weather. Israel is a beautiful country.

[Rank amateur]

IMO withdrawal does not define any aspect of defeat.

I agree, but IMO when the attacker withdraws it does indicate that the defenders have successfully defended their territory.

The sole criteria I use to define defeat is permanent, collective, physical, and psychological withdrawal from combat. And that stands for COIN as well as larger conflicts.

I fully admit that I don't know the official definitions of many terms, and I appreciate being allowed to contribute even though I don't, but I think there's some problems with the word permanent. Germany's withdrawal from France in 1918 wasn't permanent.

[William F. Owen]

IMO

1) Realize that Hezbollah can't invade and hold Isreali territory
2) Repel cross border attacks without panic, because Hezbollah can't invade and hold Israeli territory .
3) Retaliate with bombings. (Objective: cause more pain to Hezbollah than Hezbollah inflicted on Israel.)
4) Accept the fact that Hezbollah can't be destroyed.
5) Enjoy the nice weather. Israel is a beautiful country.

1.) No but they can throw rockets and kidnap your people.
2.) Repel, OK, but how about killing them before they rocket and kidnap your people.
3.) What do you bomb? You can't bomb the Insurgents in Iraq so why would you bomb Hezbollah. Besides, the evidence is that this does not work. Other things work much better.
4.) That's asking a lot of the average Israeli, and their physical destruction is not required. Their consistent suppression is.
5.) Can't enjoy the weather if you spend all day in the shelters while the Arabs shoot Kasam at you. Ask the populations of Haifa, Kyriat Shimona, and Sderot.

[Rex Brynen]

Lets cut to the chase here. In the collective opinion, of those on this thread, what should the IDF have done?

I think we rarely have a collective opinion I'll give it a shot, though.

From the perspective of Israeli national security interests, a very much shorter air campaign, with much less targeting of civilian infrastructure (power station, bridges, gas stations, etc.), and possible a few well-aimed heliborne raids in "rear" areas. Then stop, declare victory, and let it wind down the way it usually winds down.

Hizballah's original snatch-and-grab was something of an uncharacteristic political blunder, which generated little enthusiasm in Lebanon. Indeed, it was striking how much political capital the first few days of the war cost Hizballah, even in the Shi'ite community.

However, as things dragged on and the target set grew, Lebanese opinion shifted almost 180 degrees. The party was thus saved from the folly of its own mistakes by even bigger Israeli blunders (the scope and nature of the IDF response), as well as Hizballah's ability to ride out the punishment.



Complicating things further now--and this properly belongs in a different thread--there are indications that UN cartographic reexamination of the "blue line" (to which Israel withdrew in 2000) has found that Hizballah may have been right, and the Israeli-occupied Shaba Farms area really is Lebanese (and not Syrian) territory. Oops.

Let's say this is true. Under present political circumstances, I don't foresee Israel acknowledging this or offering a Shaba withdrawal for fear that it will look like a Hizballah victory. Yet it also means that Hizballah will remain political resistant to anything the IDF might throw at them.

[William F. Owen]

From the perspective of Israeli national security interests, a very much shorter air campaign, with much less targeting of civilian infrastructure (power station, bridges, gas stations, etc.), and possible a few well-aimed heliborne raids in "rear" areas. Then stop, declare victory, and let it wind down the way it usually winds down.

I have no real quibble with that, except I would exclude all and any targeting of any civilian infrastructure. I'd have also left the International Airport alone.

...but how would have "declaring victory" stopped the clouds of rockets that would have occurred in the face any direct action - or how would you assess the "rocket threshold"

[William F. Owen]

Salem Aleikum, and Shalom Abujnoub.

Before we get into your post (and we will) go to his this link, http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=1441 and give us all some details about who you are and where you are coming from.