Israel is losing?

[whosinpower]

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/israel_losing_3808.jsp

snip -

Second, there is increasing concern over Hizbollah supply-lines, especially of longer-range missiles from Syria. If there is another major loss of life in northern Israel, or if Tel Aviv is hit, then air strikes against Syria become highly likely.

The fact that such escalations are even being considered gives some idea of the predicament that Israel is now in, a predicament that has long-term consequences. As one of the best-informed military journalists, the Israel-based Barbara Opall-Rome, writes:

"Now, as the region's mightiest and most innovative combat forces struggles against a Hizbollah militia estimated at no more than 3,000, the notion of military might as a deterrent may be crumbling, according to officials and analysts here and abroad. Where, they ask, are the fruits of more than a decade spent redesigning and honing forces for low-intensity conflict? What of the networked, rapid-response, precision-strike systems so proudly displayed at international trade shows by Israel's military-industrial complex?" (see "Warfare Weakens Israeli Deterrence" Defense News, 31 July 2006 ).


Fascinating read. Got the link from Juan Cole's blog.

[fooj]

1. Check this out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x228292


Olmert must go

By Ari Shavit

Ehud Olmert may decide to accept the French proposal for a cease-fire and unconditional surrender to Hezbollah. That is his privilege. Olmert is a prime minister whom journalists invented, journalists protected, and whose rule journalists preserved. Now the journalists are saying run away. That's legitimate. Unwise, but legitimate.

However, one thing should be clear: If Olmert runs away now from the war he initiated, he will not be able to remain prime minister for even one more day. Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power. You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war very close, and then say - oops, I made a mistake. That was not the intention. Pass me a cigar, please.
<snip>

This from an ISRAELI newspaper.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

11. "Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war

promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power."


Apparently, a certain flightsuited Chimp didn't get the memo.

[fooj]

13. Apparently not. Wait. Maybe he did. Hence, CODE RED.

I wouldn't be surprised if Parliament isn't ready to throw a vote of no confidence Blair's way. Just sayin'.

[paparush]

2. Its going to happen. Syria and Iran will be targeted.

I'm digging fallout shelter. No, really. Russia and China will not continue to sit on the sidelines when we bomb Syria/Iran. Its going to escalate like crazy.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. delete

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Syria: Yeah they will.

Russia and China have nothing to gain by defending Syria. Iran is in play because of its energy supplies. Syria has nothing to offer in exchange for protection. Syria is on its own.

[atreides1]

15. You never know

Stranger things have happened!

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Even Iran.

Russia can produce enough of its own oil to not risk war over Iran. And China, they've got better options than military action. They fucking own us. Call in the debts, and we're toast. Without a shot fired.

The only way either would take direct action is if we, first, used nukes. Then all bets are off.

[cali]

26. Yeah, but calling in those loans

is mutually assured economic destruction.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Indeed - I don't buy the debt card.

China at best could slowly ease out of total investment in our bonds. Anything else would simply wreck their own economy right along with ours.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

33. you can't call a loan like that

it is not like these things are written IOU's on bevnaps...

sP

[Warren Stupidity]

40. China could stop buying new bonds or sell current holdings

however in doing so it would destroy the value of its own reserves held in these same bonds. There is no way China can unload what it holds without destroying the value of its holdings. What China can do, and most likely is doing, is to divest their bonds so that they are not quite so married to the fed, but even that they have to do very slowly and very carefully.

[Strelnikov_]

35. Russia/China Will Be The Winner Of Any Attack On Iran

Russia, because they will become the world's new 'Saudi Arabia' with any damage to Saudi facilities.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html

2004 Production/Exports in Mbbl/dy

Saudi Arabia.... 10.37 / 8.73
Russia............ 9.27 / 6.67

United States... 8.69 / -12.04

China, because they will have the upper hand in negotiations for future energy/technology transfer contracts in the Gulf region, contingent on any resources remaining.


No, it's beginning to look like the Russian Century.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. I actually agree with both of the above posts. nt.

[Bretttido]

24. Iran has a mutual protection pact with syria.

So attacking Syria, is tantamount to attacking Iran.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Yes but the issue is Russia and China

I think technically they also have an alliance with Iran. You could be right.

[Kutjara]

3. Those who don't learn from history, etc...

We didn't learn from Vietnam or the Russian experience in Afghanistan, and now we're paying the price. Modern, high tech armies will never defeat highly mobile, flexible and motivated guerrillas and insurgents, particularly when they have the support of the local populace. The insurgents don't have to 'win,' merely to survive long enough for Western public opinion to force withdrawl of the occupying forces. The goal of such insurgencies or guerrilla forces is to make the war too expensive for their opponents to pursue.

All the current round of warfare in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, the threat of our high-tech military is no threat at all.

[hobbit709]

8. Read the history

of the Revolutionary War here. England was being bled arund the world, not just here so they decided to cut their losses and get out.

[Kutjara]

9. Very true. Another excellent example.

We can probably go back to Alexander the Great or the Trojan War for the earliest precedents for the doctrine. Human stupidity is timeless.

[Tom Joad]

4. Lebanese, Internationals will start nonviolent resistance this week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1883374
Please check out that thread and recommend for the peacemakers.

[SoCalDem]

5. Governments are experts at over-reaching

Diplomacy and rational discussions are not "necessary" when the leaders are "sure" of military supremacy and they are willing to risk the lives of people they don't know.

I don't know what will ever change that fact, but I certainly wish that cooler heads would prevail..

The world needs more Gorbachevs and fewer Bushes...

I have NO doubt that Bush is behind the scenes , prodding and cajoling.. He must have war, even if its only a proxy war..

the sad truth is that he's just as bad at proxy war...

[larrysh]

6. Heard on the radio today that Israel's initial attack plan.......

was turned down flat by Olmert for fear of "excessive casualties". The initial plan was to land a division at the mouth of the Latani (?) River
and as it raced towards the Syrian border, Israeli fighter jets would simultaneously destroy the bridges, thus cutting off Hezbollah fighters
from retreating northward. As these attacks were going on, Israeli ground forces would push up from the south and catch Hezbollah in a pincher movement, trapping the majority of the force. The plan was nixed for fear of the casualties it was bound to incur. Unfortunately,
it now appears the losses to the Israel's will be comparable, without having accomplished much of anything militarily except alot of blown up houses and buildings. One of the problems of democracym I suppose, when
a civilian President is also CIC.

[Strelnikov_]

21. That Plan Would Have Made A Lot More Sense

I have been wondering all along why they did not do that, after making every effort to resolve the issue through the UN, and a period of warning to civilians to evacuate the area.

With a quick cut across Lebanon with ground forces, in lieu of playing whack-a-mole from Beirut south, it could have prevented a lot of the civilian casualties.

Sounds like they went with a Pentagon style war plan. Bomb the hell out of the other side to prevent casualties, without regard for the political fallout and civilians.


I guess the IDF of Operation Thunderbolt is truly gone.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. How exactly would you separate civilian from hezbollah?

The answer is that you wouldn't. Great plan if you are fighting a conventional force. Nonsense if you aren't. Unless of course you intend to simply slaughter everyone south of the latani river.

[Strelnikov_]

31. Hezbollah Would Be The People Attacking Your Positions/Shooting At You?

Cut the north off from the south, thus preventing reinforcement/resupply.

Then work slowly through the area with ground troops, taking all care to avoid civilian casualties.


Seems to me the current air power centric whack-a-mole approach is doing a good job already of "simply slaughter(ing) everyone south of the Latani River."

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Hezbollah appears to not be stupid.

Israel occupied Lebanon to the Litani river until 2000 and had exactly zero luck eliminating Hezbollah from the region. Unless Hezbollah would have all their soldiers put on uniforms and parade around for the benefit of the IDF, your plan makes no sense.

[Strelnikov_]

39. Then We Are In Disagreement

Clear the area of weapons, turn it over to a multi-national peacekeeping force.

What makes no sense is the strategy they pursued.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. The last part we agree on.

"What makes no sense is the strategy they pursued." I just don't agree that there was some other plan that would have worked better.

[Selatius]

10. If the objective is to stop Hezbollah, they've not succeeded yet

There are still Katyushas hitting towns on the northern frontier after four weeks of fighting. The problem when confronting a guerrilla force is that the guerrillas know the terrain far better than the IDF will ever know. This is not flat, open desert land but hilly countryside instead. Israel will need four divisions if it ever hopes to dislodge Hezbollah from its positions.

[HuffleClaw]

14. i read an op-ed piece at the beginning of the conflict that said

hizb'allah was salivating at the prospect that israel would be so foolish to invade lebanon for they were more than prepared to fight a ground campaign. thus far hisb'allah has been winning the war too, but the israeli population probably don't realize that yet because of the military censorship of their media. western media has been doing its best to prop up israel as the good guys but the public has tired of the pretence.

[Strelnikov_]

17. As I Have Been Saying, This Is A Prequel To The Iran Debacle

Since WWII the doctrine that air power seems to recycle following each failure.

High tech is simply a continuation of this theme.

Lets remember. The area being contested in Lebanon is about 15 mi. x 20 mi.

What are we going to do if Iran is not cowed after we start running out of smart bombs after two months? Throw our 3 divisions of combat troops in Iraq against the mass of Iran?


Madness.

[oasis]

18. Olmert accidentally did for Nasrullah what Rove did for Bush.

Two dipshits pumping up maniacs.:dunce::puffpiece::dunce::puffpiece:

[Nordic65]

20. No way!!!!

They may take a serious big hit politically (bad enough), but military there is no question. A total victory is certain.

What isn't certain is the political toll a shady reasoning for starting the war in the first place is going to take after the dust settles, both internally and among traditional allies.

What's holding them back now is simple body count. This is a small nation of some 5 million people and everybody is personally affected (know someone one the front etc.). But, if there where to be a real showdown of military might, you must be smoking some serious shit to think that anything but absolute total victory would be the outcome...

[opihimoimoi]

22. Total? I don't think so....Lebanon will be Israels "Irag"....Peace is the

final answer...not War...

Them Israelis don't play fair....all they gatta do is give back the Land to them Palestinians who got robbed in 48...

No one asked them to give up the Land, it was taken away from them without permission.

[Nordic65]

27. Not so easy, I'm afraid...

While I agree with you about the robbery of 48, there's too much hate one either side to solve this one rationally.

The middle east needs state-men of historically proportions to make a lasting peace and they don't have them (no thanks to generations of western shit-heads - from 1919 to the present...).

This is a play for shameless opportunists. Not unlike the frigging eternal cockfight in Washington

[hogwyld]

23. Lay off of the crack...

Israel's getting it's ass handed to it by a bunch of guerillas. Hopefully, the myth of isreali military superiority will be over, and the rest of the arab world can force a solution to the Palestinian issue.

[Nordic65]

30. Hello - anybody home?

There's no myth of Israeli military superiority. It's a fucking fact. IDF could take absolute control of southern Lebanon in a couple of hours.

What's not so clear is the political and human price they have to pay. That's all it's about. How much is Israel willing to pay?

[hogwyld]

32. R U watching the news?

Less than 3000 militia are holding off 100,000 israeli soldiers, their tanks have been neutralized with the anti-tank missles. If Iran gives the freedom fighters some equivalent of the Stinger missle, their air superiority is gone as well. This isn't the clash of tanks in the Sinai, but real warfare of attrition. Hezbolla is winning this one.

[Nordic65]

38. Right, and the question is still...

How much is Israel willing to pay?

If it's important enough for them, they will move, and win. They will suffer big causalities, but the IDF will crush anything in front of them. Sadly, that will also include untold innocent civilians.

Regardless, in the end there will be no winners, only losers.

[malaise]

42. The biggest loser will be Olmert -

he will be kicked out of office before the dust settles.

[mitchtv]

34. superior to a bunch of unarmed civilians, maybe

but they are "bogged down"by irregulars and the world is turning against them. Like us, they don't give a shit, however. So they think they will destroy Syria now(in exchange for more weapons from US)Good morning VietNam

[whosinpower]

44. The question is not who is more superior militarily

The real question - or perhaps the real answer is that superiority by military means does not equate into safety. THAT is the crux of it all. And to take that one step further - it puts into question the very idea of American superiority. If your military cannot ensure your safety - then why spend untold billions on it??????
That is what you have to wake up to. Israel is perhaps waking up to this reality.

[mitchum]

36. The IDF is not so formidable when they're not shooting chidren...

or bulldozing homes...dspite all my tax $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Bucky]

43. I'll tell you when Israel is losing militarily. The sign'll be an offer to

...start talking peace terms. Bush is letting them go on this long because they're winning, militarily speaking. It is all, of course, a PR disaster and ultimately a diplomatic loss of monumental proportions--an irony since Israel isn't doing anything that Hamas hasn't been doing all along. Unfortunately, what Hamas has been doing all along is kill civilians.

[whosinpower]

45. Well - they apparently have agreed to the ceasefire

by the UN. Take that for what it is worth.