Hizbullah / Hezbollah (just the group)

[Global Scout]

I added the bold because I think the statement needs to be evaluated. Defeat is an interesting word, true defeat for Israel means no more Israel, but Global Scout states defeat in the campaign, a much more microcosmic defeat. One that could sow the seeds of true defeat if Israel isn't careful.

Again I will argue those who are blinded by the conventional doctrines of war, where victory/defeat is focused almost totally on red and blue forces, instead of the larger strategic picture. One does not need to destroy a nation's armed forces then occupy to defeat it. If an irregular force can coerce/manipulate another nation to behave a way to its liking, then the irregular force wins.

One could argue that irregular forces defeated Spain because the Madrid bombings resulted in a change of government and Spain withdrawing from Iraq. The same is happening Poland now, due to irregular attacks against Polish forces and their Ambassador in Iraq, and soon they will depart.

S. Vietnam could be argued for days, but I think most of us will agree that the focus of the Viet Cong and NVA was not defeating our military, but rather conveying to the U.S. population that they couldn't be defeated, among other things.

Lenin overthrew the Russian government with irregulars? How? He moblized the population, just as Mao did some 20 plus years later.

It is great that our western militaries can't be defeated by irregulars, but the fact remains is despite our might, the irregulars can still manipulate the superpowers.

Here are some questions in regard to Israel's escapade into Lebanon:

1. Do the people in Lebanon support the Hezbollah more or less after the conflict? The fact is it was the Hezbollah who are seen as the heros of the conflict, and even those who didn't support the Hezbollah previously tended to favor them after Israel started destroying Beirut's infrastruture.

2. Who became more isolated in the international community, Hezbollah or Israel? While most the international community will never support Hezbollah, they effectively provoked Israel to take actions that further isolated them internationally, which limits their ability to undertake similiar actions in the future.

Irregular warfare is not about defeating your adversary's military force, that is checkers. It is an attempt to asymmetrically corner him and force him to change his behavior, this is called chess.

Winning and losing can be defined many ways. Ultimately there are forces that would like to see Israel go away, that would be probably be a total victory for them, and I agree I don't think that is feasible in one fatal swoop, but over time Israel can be degraded by these activities, and so can we, Europe and other nations. The answer is not to simply send our military forces in to crush them unless we're willing to break international law and wage total war on a population.

The answer remains elusive, if it was simple we would have implemented it already.

[TROUFION]

One could argue that irregular forces defeated Spain because the Madrid bombings resulted in a change of government and Spain withdrawing from Iraq. The same is happening Poland now, due to irregular attacks against Polish forces and their Ambassador in Iraq, and soon they will depart.

You can give the irregular force a battlefield victory here if they achieved a strategic aim BUT this is not a true defeat, LOOSING AN ELECTION is not the same as forced regime change, loss of statehood and subjugation. Loosing an election is democracy in action. It is what is done in Nation States. Stable nations hold elections and change politics all the time. The simplest example would be the US loosing a war and having the Constitution and the Government of the US thrown out, replaced with a system and personel of the Victors choosing or of a complete collpase of government.

Now I have never said an irregular force cannot issue a true defeat to a western power just that they would be hard pressed to do it alone. Hence the tie to Hezbollah, they can try to defeat Israel but without outside support they would be unable to do it alone.

As for Byzantium I was speaking more to the final battle of 1452. The completeness of it. Emperor dead capital city taken. Byzantium in any form ceases to exist.

Good debate & good points thanks.

[Ron Humphrey]

Again I will argue those who are blinded by the conventional doctrines of war, where victory/defeat is focused almost totally on red and blue forces, instead of the larger strategic picture. One does not need to destroy a nation's armed forces then occupy to defeat it. If an irregular force can coerce/manipulate another nation to behave a way to its liking, then the irregular force wins.


The answer remains elusive, if it was simple we would have implemented it already.

It seems to be the hardest lesson for western societies to learn that our perception of win/lose/ or draw really doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things to those countries where we become involved. It is in large part their perceptions and subsequent actions/reactions which truly determine the end outcome.

It is notable that many of the successes throughout history can probably be traced to changes in the metrics which those forces looked to for what success looked like. This is a lesson which we can scarcely afford to miss.

The largest part of understanding the enemy is understanding ourselves and how they (the enemy) / the populace of our prospective countries / and ourselves as fighting forces differ in our approaches / perceptions / and overall intents.

It would seem to me that if I am a commander of irregular forces and that which I sought to achieve gets accomplished I would consider that a successful battle. Winning the war or bringing about the kind of overall change you seek that would involve much more than simply who manages to get in a good punch.

The funny thing about Hezbollah is how little they had to accomplish in order to gain such notoriety among military analysts. You would think the actions of the irregulars who accomplished much larger things such as the ousting of soviet forces would be better brain building material. Especially if you consider that pretty much any time this happened there was major help behind the scenes. Taken in context with current operational environments who is behind the scenes in each area and what are they helping with.

Not in any way trying to say that 2006 wasn't an eye opener but rather that it really shouldn't have been such a surprise considering what we did and do know about third party venders.