The 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War (catch all)

[William F. Owen]

The problem is that these arguments have been made already. I'm having trouble approaching the issue from a new angle.

Anyway thanks for writing.

Why not find out what happened. Actually do some research. 70-80% of what has been written in English is substantially wrong, or based on bad sources.

Most have simply never talked to those involved. I have, plus I know most of the other English sources that actually based their work on credible pieces of evidence. It is possibly the worse reported war of modern times, in terms of people being able to actually understand what went on.

The US and UK Army's analysis was mostly very wrong and has only recently been corrected, thanks to some guys actually coming here and listening and not printing their version of events.

[JMA]

Why not find out what happened. Actually do some research. 70-80% of what has been written in English is substantially wrong, or based on bad sources.

Most have simply never talked to those involved. I have, plus I know most of the other English sources that actually based their work on credible pieces of evidence. It is possibly the worse reported war of modern times, in terms of people being able to actually understand what went on.

The US and UK Army's analysis was mostly very wrong and has only recently been corrected, thanks to some guys actually coming here and listening and not printing their version of events.

Where can I read a 'correct' analysis?

[40below]

Where can I read a 'correct' analysis?

Yeah, I'd like to read that too.

[William F. Owen]

Where can I read a 'correct' analysis?

Essentially, you cannot. I did an analysis of the all the guided weapons deaths. You can find that on the web. Bascially showed that Hezbollah can't shoot straight.
You can also read my letter to the British Army Review (if you get it), which corrects a 2010 article on the war which was substantially incorrect.

RAND put some stuff out a while ago, that was actually based on interviews with the IDF, but it is limited in terms of what it addresses. Stephen Biddle also interviewed IDF officers, but produced a slightly odd body of work as a result.

The book, "34 Days" gives a good start but was written far too soon after the conflict, and doesn't give an objective view.

[JMA]

Essentially, you cannot. I did an analysis of the all the guided weapons deaths. You can find that on the web. Bascially showed that Hezbollah can't shoot straight.
You can also read my letter to the British Army Review (if you get it), which corrects a 2010 article on the war which was substantially incorrect.

RAND put some stuff out a while ago, that was actually based on interviews with the IDF, but it is limited in terms of what it addresses. Stephen Biddle also interviewed IDF officers, but produced a slightly odd body of work as a result.

The book, "34 Days" gives a good start but was written far too soon after the conflict, and doesn't give an objective view.

So if the world is left with the belief that the Israelis got run out of the Lebanon by Hezbollah and it s not true then its another massive PR failure by the Israelis. Why don't they bother to make sure the "truth" is put out into the public domain? Arrogance? Incompetence? What?

[William F. Owen]

So if the world is left with the belief that the Israelis got run out of the Lebanon by Hezbollah and it s not true then its another massive PR failure by the Israelis. Why don't they bother to make sure the "truth" is put out into the public domain? Arrogance? Incompetence? What?

Israel and Israelis actually care very little about what other people think. It's very obvious to anyone who lives amongst them. The supposed PR is mostly irrelevant. The IDF cares about what Israelis think, and no one else.

The IDF is not in the business for compensating for other peoples poor analysis or satisfying academics and the community of the curious as it is largely irrelevant to what they know or think.
If the Hezbollah has been deterred from action for the last 4 years, then the opinions of everyone else is moot. Deterrence has worked for those 4 years.

The only reason I have a dog in this fight is because of the usually poor attempts to analyse the conflict by the US and UK with a view to learning lessons. My point being, you cannot learn lessons without actually talking to people who were there. Newspapers and the internet are not useful sources, and nor is what people "feel."
....and I do not know more than anyone else about this matter. I just actually bothered to go and learn and find out. Something I would urge other to do, should they have a valid reason to do so.

[KingsofWar]

Good call William. I'll concentrate more on interviews.

Also, to what extent was the Second Lebanon War a proxy war between Iran and the United States?

How did the war effect Hezbollah's relationship with Syria and Iran? Israel's relationship with the United States?

[Rex Brynen]

Israel and Israelis actually care very little about what other people think. It's very obvious to anyone who lives amongst them. The supposed PR is mostly irrelevant. The IDF cares about what Israelis think, and no one else.

I'm not fully convinced of this--it rather depends on the issue and the context.

I concur that the 2006 war left Hizbullah much more deterred than it had ever been. This was not the general view in Israel (or even in much of the Israeli government) at the end of the war, when the view that it had been a "loss" was quite widespread. Since then, as the northern border has stayed quiet, the view that it was a deterrent success after all has certainly grown.

The general regional perception that Israel lost is important. It strengthened Hizbullah significantly, and since 2006 the organization has (in terms of capabilities) become much more of a threat to Israel than ever before. The image of Hizbullah triumphing against Israel (whatever actually happened in unit-on-unit engagements) has spurred recruitment by Hizbullah and Sunni Islamists alike, in the Middle East and further afield. Hizbullah is also actively searching for ways of getting at Israel that don't involve military conflict on the border.

More likely OPSEC. Why correct the world's (and Hizballah's) misperceptions and thereby reveal your TTPs/playbook? Better to have Hizballah "course correct" to a false heading than allow them to improve, plan and resource for another punch-up having thoroughly analysed and digested all of Israel's weaknesses. Maskirovka on a strategic scale.

It's more due to bad analysis of what happened on the ground, as Wilf has noted in previous discussions. I do think that Hizbullah performed well above average for an irregular armed force, and not just because it was lavishly equipped with ATGMs. I also think Hizbullah has a reasonable understanding of what went right and wrong--to date, I've seen no evidence that they've either become overconfident, or that they've lost their flexibility and inventiveness.

Theer are several threads on this on SWJ (perhaps one of the mods wants to make up a Hizbullah catch-all thread sometime?)

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=1034
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=4188
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=1109
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=1012

[William F. Owen]

I'm not fully convinced of this--it rather depends on the issue and the context.

Of course context is critical but, as a people, they are surprisingly impervious to criticism. The Government may have diplomatic issues to contend with, but the people, and the IDF are peculiarly immune to that consideration.

[Jesse9252]

b.) Anyone who has studied the conflict is very aware that there was no real strategic objectives set by Israel, and that presented real operational problems in terms of formulating military action.

Okay, I'm confused here. I recognize that the war was executed without much logical coherence, but I thought (based on English-language research only) that the goals were pretty clearly articulated on the Israeli side. Cordesman lists them as:
1) Destroy the Iranian Western Command before Iran could go nuclear.
2) Restore the credibility of Israeli deterrence after the unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, and countering the image that Israel was weak and forced to leave.
3) Force Lebanon to become and act as an accountable state, and end the status of Hezbollah as a state within a state.
4) Damage or cripple Hezbollah, with the understanding that it could not be destroyed as a military force and would continue to be a major political actor in Lebanon.
5) Bring the two soldiers the Hezbollah had captured back alive without major trades in prisoners held by Israel—not the thousands demanded by Nasrallah and the Hezbollah.

Is this incorrect?

[Tukhachevskii]

So if the world is left with the belief that the Israelis got run out of the Lebanon by Hezbollah and it s not true then its another massive PR failure by the Israelis. Why don't they bother to make sure the "truth" is put out into the public domain? Arrogance? Incompetence? What?

More likely OPSEC. Why correct the world's (and Hizballah's) misperceptions and thereby reveal your TTPs/playbook? Better to have Hizballah "course correct" to a false heading than allow them to improve, plan and resource for another punch-up having thoroughly analysed and digested all of Israel's weaknesses. Maskirovka on a strategic scale. Sweet. (Assuming that's what they're doing of course)