IDF implementing lessons of Lebanon war

[NewsGuy]

From news article:

The Israel Defense Forces' debriefings on the second Lebanon War will be completed by the end of 2006, IDF sources said yesterday. However, a number of the IDF committees investigating the war intend to finish their work even sooner, because of the urgency of implementing their findings.

The sources said that in some areas, conclusions have already been reached. These include the need to increase training for reservists, a process that will begin within a year.

The procurement of equipment considered critical has also begun, in an effort to replenish the army's emergency stores. In addition, the IDF has begun procuring needed intelligence, such as updated aerial photographs of Lebanon, as well as different kinds of ammunition than those used during the war.

The internal IDF committees will investigate nine areas, including how the General Staff uses its available forces; intelligence assessments prior to and during the fighting; coordination between the Northern Command, the air force and the navy; the preparedness of both the reserves and the standing army for war; public relations; and the role of the air force in a ground war.

The probe will also include an in-depth examination of several key operations during the war.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/759726.html

Personally, I don't think that this is enough. What is needed is a complete overhaul of the IDF, from the top brass downward.

Every level of the army must be urgently retrained and be held accountable for specific goals.

What happened in the Lebanon war was inexcusable.

[minusthejihad]

From news article:

The Israel Defense Forces' debriefings on the second Lebanon War will be completed by the end of 2006, IDF sources said yesterday. However, a number of the IDF committees investigating the war intend to finish their work even sooner, because of the urgency of implementing their findings.

The sources said that in some areas, conclusions have already been reached. These include the need to increase training for reservists, a process that will begin within a year.

The procurement of equipment considered critical has also begun, in an effort to replenish the army's emergency stores. In addition, the IDF has begun procuring needed intelligence, such as updated aerial photographs of Lebanon, as well as different kinds of ammunition than those used during the war.

The internal IDF committees will investigate nine areas, including how the General Staff uses its available forces; intelligence assessments prior to and during the fighting; coordination between the Northern Command, the air force and the navy; the preparedness of both the reserves and the standing army for war; public relations; and the role of the air force in a ground war.

The probe will also include an in-depth examination of several key operations during the war.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/759726.html

Personally, I don't think that this is enough. What is needed is a complete overhaul of the IDF, from the top brass downward.

Every level of the army must be urgently retrained and be held accountable for specific goals.

What happened in the Lebanon war was inexcusable.

What's inexcusable is that Israel sent soldiers into villages to root out terrorists when they should flatten viligaes and let the Red Crescent pry them out.

[NewsGuy]

What's inexcusable is that Israel sent soldiers into villages to root out terrorists when they should flatten viligaes and let the Red Crescent pry them out.

Right. That's a big part of it.

[KettleWhistle]

Personally, I don't think that this is enough.

Personally, I don't think this is anything, but another lame Haaretz article. Having some committee meet up is not implementing anything. Neither is restocking shells their hallmark strategy of bombing empty fields. As for training the reservists, from what I've read, the reservists did far better than the regular troops.

[Eil]

so the IDF didn't accomplish its objectives? What a pity!
when will you start believing that Force is not the best/only way to accomplish your objectives?

[KettleWhistle]

When will you start believing that force is not the best way to accomplish your objectives?

[minusthejihad]

so the IDF didn't accomplish its objectives? What a pity!
when will you start believing that Force is not the best/only way to accomplish your objectives?

You are right. Timid force did nothing, it was status quo. What Israel needed to use was Brutal Force. So brutal, you wouldn't be able to access the internet right now.

[Muslima]

Military experts around the world including Nato ones were saying right from the start that Hezbollah wouldn't be defeated like this.

Guerilla warfare isn't the same as a conventional war, thus "brute force" and "flattening villages" as some here advocate wouldn't solve the problem. Especially when they are legions ready to take their place. If anything, the end result made recruiting for Hezbollah easier.

One little point which is often overlooked, is that Bush wasn't taking Olmert's phone calls at the beginning of this conflict.

I've read reports that what Bush wanted was for Israel to deal with Hezbollah to strike a blow at Iran and kind of pushed her into it. What Bush should have done was to pressure Sinora to get Hezbollah to release the men. He could also have used this opportunity to make Sinora disarm Hezbollah. Some may say the USA has no right in telling Lebanon what to do, but that excuse can't be used here, because the Sinora's fledgling demoracy was one of the few successes that Bush has had in the Mid East. All his other projects from the War on Terror, to Iraq, and bringing democracy backfired or are not successful the way he hoped they would be.

Bush should have used his influence (not inconsiderable) with Sinora to deal with Hezbollah. Instead he put Olmert in a postion where he had no option but to go to war. If Olmert hadn't then it would have been a loss of face for Israel. So really Olmert had no choice. It would have been far better if he did have that choice. Critics of Olmert should bear this in mind when they call him a "leftist" or bash the IDF for losing the war.

In the long run what the USA wants may not necessarily be good for Israel. (to do the dirty work of the USA) .


If Israel had let Sinora deal with Hezbollah, then it may have been a short term face loss, but better in the long run. Hezbollah wouldn't have gained popularity, and whatever good will there was after the Gaza disengagement wouldn't have vanished with the destruction of Lebanon, and the deaths of cililivans.

Just because Hezbollah hide amongst civilaians doesn't mean they can be a legitimate target. That is immoral. If you do that, then it's no better than Hezbollah launching rockets on civilians.

[Womble]

so the IDF didn't accomplish its objectives? What a pity!

But that's because the moron in charge was too ambitious in formulating these objectives.

Had Israel declared from the beginning that the goal of the war was to force the long-overdue deployment of the Lebanese army along the southern border, the Israel haters would have been bemoaning their defeat now.

On second thought, that lot never does admit their defeats.

[Womble]

If Israel had let Sinora deal with Hezbollah, then it may have been a short term face loss, but better in the long run.

Siniora wouldn't have dealt with the Hizbullah though, he wouldn't even start. What motivation would he have for it if it wasn't for the perspective of being punished by Israel?

Hezbollah wouldn't have gained popularity, and whatever good will there was after the Gaza disengagement wouldn't have vanished with the destruction of Lebanon, and the deaths of cililivans.

The Gaza disengagement didn't produce much good will out there in the first place, and it is a big question whether or not the Hizbullah have gained or lost popularity within Lebanon. I hear it's not as much a gain in popularity as a polarization of opinions over there- those who liked the Hizbullah, now like them more, those who hated them, hate them more.

Just because Hezbollah hide amongst civilaians doesn't mean they can be a legitimate target. That is immoral. If you do that, then it's no better than Hezbollah launching rockets on civilians.

Nonsense.

[Muslima]

Siniora wouldn't have dealt with the Hizbullah though, he wouldn't even start. What motivation would he have for it if it wasn't for the perspective of being punished by Israel?

True he wouldn't on his own. Thats why i said THE US SHOULD HAVE PUSHED HIM TO.

So you can ask:

Why didn't the US push him to? He couldn't have refused, because he is there with US support. Otherwise not.

The Gaza disengagement didn't produce much good will out there in the first place, and it is a big question whether or not the Hizbullah have gained or lost popularity within Lebanon. I hear it's not as much a gain in popularity as a polarization of opinions over there- those who liked the Hizbullah, now like them more, those who hated them, hate them more

You talking about Gaza? I meant the Arab worldin general. There was a shift of opinion.

It's not a question of Hezbollah being popular in Lebanon or if opinion is polarised there. That would only be of relevance if Hezbollah ended and began and was supported in Lebanon. It is not. Hezbollah is supported by Iran, and this boosed support amongst it Shia supporters, everywhere, notjust in Iran or Lebanon or Syria.

[farmall]

"That is immoral. If you do that, then it's no better than Hezbollah launching rockets on civilians."

Bombing German, Japanese, and North Korean cities caused no quibble. Civilians support fighters, why precisely should they not be targets when their support makes them unarmed combatants? This was not against moral fashion then, why weaken ourselves now?

The change in moral fashion over time proves we can choose what serves us from the menu of behaviors that saved civilization. There is no obligation to believe current childish nonsense.

As for fighting Hez, by smashing cities, the example of Hama proves that real ruthlessness works against Jihadists and it is what they really understand. Why be squeamish about slaying worthless, evil people? The infants would only grow up to be suicide bombers, and the brood sows only give birth to more enemies. This is a CULTURAL war, so innocence is not possible.

If you aren't hitting the enemy hard enough for them to stop fighting, hit harder: The casualties in current wars are tiny because we fight in such a restrained manner. Problem being, we don't hurt the enemy.

[Mil]

True he wouldn't on his own. Thats why i said THE US SHOULD HAVE PUSHED HIM TO.

So you can ask:

Why didn't the US push him to? He couldn't have refused, because he is there with US support. Otherwise not.


Who said US did not support Seniora to get rid of Hizbullah? On the contrary.




You talking about Gaza? I meant the Arab worldin general. There was a shift of opinion.

It's not a question of Hezbollah being popular in Lebanon or if opinion is polarised there. That would only be of relevance if Hezbollah ended and began and was supported in Lebanon. It is not. Hezbollah

As a military organization Hizbullah has expanded itself. One more provocation and Israel will declare an official war and level Lebanon. Israeli actions created a political atmosphere where the problem of Hizbullah finally became a primary issue in Lebanon and was seriously engaged. In fact Israel was pounding Lebanon long enough until Seniora actually announced deployment of Lebanese Army and then a few days more.

For some reason these kind of methods have always worked in the Middle East - give a Arabs a kick in the but*** to actually proceed on political solutions.

[Muslima]

"That is immoral. If you do that, then it's no better than Hezbollah launching rockets on civilians."

Bombing German, Japanese, and North Korean cities caused no quibble. Civilians support fighters, why precisely should they not be targets when their support makes them unarmed combatants? This was not against moral fashion then, why weaken ourselves now?

The change in moral fashion over time proves we can choose what serves us from the menu of behaviors that saved civilization. There is no obligation to believe current childish nonsense.

As for fighting Hez, by smashing cities, the example of Hama proves that real ruthlessness works against Jihadists and it is what they really understand. Why be squeamish about slaying worthless, evil people? The infants would only grow up to be suicide bombers, and the brood sows only give birth to more enemies. This is a CULTURAL war, so innocence is not possible.

If you aren't hitting the enemy hard enough for them to stop fighting, hit harder: The casualties in current wars are tiny because we fight in such a restrained manner. Problem being, we don't hurt the enemy.

I really have nothing to say to a genocidal maniac like you. I had enough of your ugly character in the other thread. Go back to the KKK or Nazi secret headquarters where you plot the next genocide.

Don't respond to my posts, i find you a most unpleasant character. Do you hear?

[Muslima]

[b]

Who said US did not support Seniora to get rid of Hizbullah? On the contrary.

.

I know that, but it's not what i meant.

When Hezbollah had attacked and before Israel had responded by bombing Lebanon, Olmerts phone calls were not being taken by Bush. It is believed that Bush wanted to put him in a positon where he had no choice but to attack. What else could Olmert do?

The point is this.

I feel Bush should have used this opportunity as a golden chance. He should told Olmert
"let me have a chance before you do anything"
He then should have told Sinora:
1. To find and arrest the men responsible for the murder and kidnappings, within so many days or he will stop supporting him and give Israel the green light to find the men themselves.
2. Release the kidnapped IDF personell.
3. Give so many months, to disarm Hezbollah. There should only be one army in a country and that is the state army.

Sinora would either say no to the above, in which case war would have been justified.

Or, he would say, he will comply but needs help as he wouldn't be able to disarm Hezbollah alone. If Sinora had invited troops in like Kuwait did or Saudia Arabia during the Gulf war, then it would have been better for everyone.

Does anyone agree with this scenario? With hindsight now, Olmert might be wishing this is what he should have done.