Help me understand the geography of the current conflict...

[Earth_First]

From what I understand, Hezbollah controls the southern border region of Lebanon. However, Israeli forces are making air strikes and naval blockades as far North as Tripoli. If it is truly the Hezbollah border conflict that Israel has with the current situation, I don't understand why they feel the need to attack the entire country, rather a region...?

[AnOhioan]

1. Your question is one many of us here on DU share

[ThomWV]

2. Because They Can

[mitchtv]

3. It's Clinton's fault

or rather, his penis is at fault

[Drum]

4. a small reference map:

[rug]

9. They're both such tiny countries.

[hlthe2b]

5. Disproportionate force.... classical bully technique...

Seems eerily familiar, somehow.... :eyes:

[spindrifter]

6. There is a total strategy

that is targeting not just infrastructure, but leadership--which was believed to be hiding in Beirut. The following link is very interesting. We would never see anything like that printed in our own papers. This type of info. would be considered damaging to our military strategy. You be the judge.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739094.html

[Igel]

7. If you're going to try to exhaust your foe so that you

can fight him, you cut his supply lines and weaken his allies. The USSR was so effective against Hitler, and didn't suffer worse losses, because of Lend-Lease. We bombed things like German train tracks and ball-bearing factories so that the Nazis couldn't produce munitions, and couldn't move munitions and troops. Don't think in terms of emotion; think in terms of tactics and strategy, and what's needed to win.

A naval blockade, taking out the international roads and the airports, would accomplish this. Iran's provided many of Hezbollah's arms; Syria's provided some, and a route for importing some; Hezbollah's running through missiles at a phenomenal rate--they're not killing more civilians because they can't aim the suckers, *not* because they don't want random Israelis, Jews mostly, dead. If it can't restock, it can't launch more. If it has no way to import more, it can't restock. Note thatif a naval blockade is impossible or too difficult, you have to make the ports unusable.

As for attacking the army bases near the ports, I can't say. It might be vindictiveness, but that's a waste of bombs, and military folk wouldn't want to waste munitions. It might be saying "with us or against us" to the Lebanese army, or warning them to stay out; it might be that the Israelis missed, or that there's more to the story.

[happyslug]

8. In any military Air Operation you first isolate the battlefield

This is what Israel having been doing, bombing all ways in and out of the country. The US has some States (and I do NOT mean Alaska or Texas) that are larger than Lebanon. That being the case Israel is isolating both Lebanon as a whole AND Hezbollah. Thus the attacks on the Airport, the ports and highways. Such attacks restrict the maneuverability of Hezbollah, especially its heavy weapons like its rockets and Tanks.

At the same time Israel is setting up this two line isolation blockade (One line for Lebanon as a whole the other line for Hezbollah) Israel is also destroying ANYTHING that will help Hezbollah fight or maneuver, for example Electric Generation Plants and gasoline depots (try to live without Electricity for a few days AND keep up complex electric depend equipment).

Israel third set of targets is to make life uncomfortable for Hezbollah and the people supporting them by destroying water and sewerage system (and any electrical generation left after destroying any electricity being used by the armed branches of Hezbollah). The US Air Force did the same in Iraq.

Now some bridges and infrastructure you do NOT bomb, either because you want to use them in a subsequent ground attack, or you want them to act as a diverse from the main attack (For example keep two sets of Bridges on two different roads into Lebanon thus forcing Hezbollah to plan to defend against BOTH Roads, the US did this in Iraq by refusing to destroy all of the bridges across the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, this forced Saddam to plan to defend against attacks across any of the Bridges left standing.

Thus Israel is following US Air Force Doctrine on the use of Air Power on how to use Air Power, isolate the Enemy. destroy his ability to fight and then destroy electric, water and sewage system so to make the enemy lift miserable as possible.

[starroute]

10. Does that mean Israel is planning to invade Lebanon?

If they just wanted the hostages back, they'd be shooting up Hezbollah locations -- which they are doing -- but leaving the rest of the country alone.

If they were planning to create a 25-mile buffer zone in southern Lebanon, as some people have suggested, they'd be focusing on that area.

If they were seriously worried about Hezbollah smuggling the two hostages out of the country, they might conceivably be targetting airports and roads -- though that would be starting to look like a major overreaction.

But as you so ably describe, Israel is acting exactly as the US did in Iraq -- as though it plans nothing less than an ground invasion and conquest of all of Lebanon.

Well, I suspose they could do that if they wanted -- especially now that the Syrian presence has been squeezed out. But if that's their plan, why isn't anybody talking about it? Why are all the commentators still acting as though Israel's plan is to punish Lebanon until it expels Hezbollah and then go home satisfied?

There is something here that isn't being discussed, and it leaves me seriously perplexed.

[happyslug]

11. First all you need to get those hostages out are two mules

And Air power is ineffective against mules (Look at afghanistan with the Russians and then the US). Lebanon is mountainous which restrict wheeled or track transport, but not mule or foot traffic. Thus this Isolation of the Battlefield makes no sense if Israel is trying to gets its hostages back (The better way would just to kidnap Hezbollah's leadership or they kin and demand an exchange OR work out an exchange with the prisoners Israel already holds).

No, something else is up, the two prisoners are just an excuse. The problem is we are NOT getting the full picture of the attacks, just snippets. Israel may be getting ready to invade, using its ground forces to eliminate what its Air force failed to get and then withdrawing (I do NOT see Israel staying in Lebanon for any length of time, the last time Israel was in Lebanon is still fresh in the mind of Israelis).

The other alternative is that this is just a massive bombing campaign and Israel has NO intention of Invading. Basically bomb th infrastructure and force the government of Lebanon and Hezbollah to rebuild that infrastructure (Keeping both tied up for at least si months and thus incapable of doing anything while Israel do what it wants in the Gaza Strip).

Israel's greatest fear is for the countries around it to attack Israel WHILE the Gaza strip and the West bank are in open revolt AND THEN THE ARABS WITHIN ISRAEL ITSELF JOINS THE REVOLT. Israel can NOT survive such a massive attack and they know it. Thus Israel has adopted a policy of trying to keep its potential enemies incapable of attacking it. Thus the recent attacks on Gaza and the West Bank, and this attack on Lebanon. Furthermore this reminds Syria, Jordan and even Egypt who has the best Air force in the Region and thus NOT to join in on this conflict.

Thus I believe an Israeli invasion of Lebanon is coming. Once you bomb someone you do not leave them retain the skills (i.e. the personnel) to rebuild, furthermore once in the country you can make sure the damage is of a more permanent nature than what the bombs did. For example destroy the piers UNDER a bridge instead of the deck of the bridge, the deck is easy to replace, the piers are not. Decks can be literary build on site quickly by pouring a new concrete deck. When it come to piers you first have to take out the old piers by blasting and then build up that base so that the deck can lie on it (For example after the 1989 earthquake in California, most of the problems outside the San Fransisco/Oakland area were highway decks that had to be repaired and replaced and this was done within 8 months of the earthquake, this was done quickly do to no piers having to be replaced). The same with most other buildings, as long as the footer or base is intact it is easy to rebuild, but if the footer or base is destroyed your cost of reconstruction goes up immensely).

Thus I can see Israel going into Lebanon and destroying the infrastructure and then withdrawing, I can also see this staying an Air Attack only (with some ground incursions to see how the attack is going) if all Israel wants is a free hand in Gaza and the West Bank and Israel believes it can get it by just bombing Hezbollah (i.e. Israel is thinking of the here and now NOT what Hezbollah can do in six months.

Given the Situation in Gaza and the West Bank my first guess is is this will remain an Air Attack only offensive (to minimized Israeli losses). That is provided Israel sees this as only giving it a free hand for the next 3-6 months. On the other hand I would NOT be surprised if it is followed up by a ground attack to permanently (i.e. destroyed for a couple of years) the infrastructure of Lebanon and Hezbollah.

[Marie26]

12. This isn't about the hostages

Not even Israel is claiming that anymore. This is about eradicating Hizbollah.

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. That's how I see it

and Hamas simultaneously. I find it curious that the (U.S.) news reports all seem to start with a timeline of the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. As if this timeline was the match that set this fire.

And, yet, there is not a peep about the democractically elected Palestinian parliamentarians who were captured and jailed by Israel. Not to mention the $50million(?) in taxes they withheld from the Palestinians when they didn't like the way elections turned out.

So, a right to protect themselves? Who'd disagree with that? :shrug: But the right to keep poking a stick at a snake? That's another story altogether!

[Marie26]

14. News coverage

Yeah, it's odd. The US media still seems stuck on the captured soldiers, but when they have Israeli guests, the Israelis are only talking about disarming/ending Hizbollah. And there's barely a mention of the Palestian politicians who were captured. It seems like the US media is trying to spin this in a way that's more acceptable to the public. But Israel doesn't really care what's acceptable to the global public. They're acting to protect their security, by any means necessary. IMO, I'd bet Israel will keep going until they've occupied southern Lebanon again. It's the only way this massive country-wide bombing campaign makes sense (logistically, morally it will never make sense).

Who's poking a stick at who here? Hizbollah & Hamas have been launching missiles at Israel ever since Israel withdrew from those areas. Hizbollah, especially, has grown steadily more powerful & well-armed - until they've essentially become another army crouched at Israel's border. And of course, Hamas & Hizbollah gained so much support because of the brutal Israeli occupations of these areas in the past. Both sides think they're just acting to protect their people from aggression, as each acts very aggressively. The more I read about this, the more I realize that the match that set this fire was already lit years ago.

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. It's become a "chicken or the egg?" debate

over all these years. Frankly, I'm sick of the whole thing and generally stay out of the I/P stuff. One is forced to pick a side then accused of being pro-terrorist/anti-Semetic or Christian fundie/Zionist.

Trying to learn the whole history of the conflict is an overwhelming exercise. There's always a bias, it seems, for one side or the other not to mention the centuries to be covered.

[Marie26]

16. Yeah, it is

It's such an immensely complicated conflict, stretching back thousands of years in some ways. And you're right that it's almost impossible to find information that isn't heavily biased toward one side or the other. I refuse to set foot in the I/P forum! Maybe there's no way to truly understand it w/o a PhD in Middle East affairs or something. Which came first, the terrorism or the occupations? The Palestinians or the Israelis? "The Chicken or the Egg" is a good metaphor; if people were actually fighting & dying over the answer. At first, I was appalled at Israel's response (still am), but that settled into a kind of resigned acceptance. This has been happening for hundred of years, both sides poking at snakes, & it probably won't end anytime soon.