In the cold light of day I think Hezbollah whipped Israel's rear, do you?

Question

I mean they stopped the advance, destroyed 17 of the supposedly best tanks and the whole Israeli mission was stalemated. Credit to a bunch of rough necks hey?

Im not American. US Marines is not my topic.

Answer 1

Yes, they did.Israel said it's 2 main objectives were:1.destroy Hezbollah.2.Get their kidnapped soldiers back.They succeeded in doing neither,there-fore logic tells you that Israel lost.On top of that,Israel lost any reputation it may have had as being a civilised State,they have shown themselves to be murderous thugs,slaughtering Innocent men,women & children.Yes,Hezbollah does the same,but surely Israel should have tried to maintain the high moral ground,there is now no difference between the 'good guys' & the 'bad guys'.

Answer 2

I would agree with you that Hezbollah for the most part kicked Israel’s butt this time. Some people would ridicule me for saying so, but let me start of by saying that I do not support Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, or any of those whack jobs organizations who mutilate their own religion for their dirty cause. I support Israel in defending herself and asserting her right to exist.

Unfortunately, we must not dismiss results that we do not like. Wishful thinking and ignorance does not change what happened. The result was that Israel was defeated in the tactical, operational, and strategic levels by Hezbollah. The United States is having the same difficulty with Al Qaeda. The problem is that state militaries are not trained to fight non-state actors, rather, geared towards fighting other state militaries. For this reason, I would have absolute confidence in Israel to defeat the armies of all the Arab nations around it, but when it comes down to fighting non-state actors such as Hamas or Hezbollah, it doesn’t stand a chance. The works of William S. Lind (who helped develop the Maneuver Warfare for the Marine Corps) and Martin van Creveld (surprisingly, an Israeli historian and military theorist) can help explain this.

On the tactical level, the ground captured and the kill ratio is unacceptable. The Lebanese casualties (715 in Aug 10th) are in the majority civilians and the rest Lebanese soldiers (who are not officially in the fight) and Hezbollah fighters. Israel’s casualties (121 in Aug 10th) are in the majority soldiers and the rest civilians. At best, Israel’s kill ratio is 3:1 (but I believe realistically, it is 2:1), which not very pleasing news, considering the IDF’s high tech weapons, equipment, and superior training. And the Israelis had to fight hard for the ground she took, with Hezbollah fighters resisting in fortifications and behind human shields. But she will have to relinquish that land to the UN peacekeepers.

On the operational level, the Israelis were not able to blockade Lebanon, and thus unable to cut off Hezbollah’s resupply as they were still able to launch multiple rocket attacks despite being pounded by air power. They were still able to fight the Israelis, even as they lost ground slowly. But guerillas don’t care about ground because they do not have the ability to keep it; yet Hezbollah did try to protect ground, which is a feat when acknowledging their military capabilities (compared to Israel). Even with air power and armor support, the Israelis were not able to destroy the enemy, nor prevent their movement, or anything.

Strategically, Israel loses because as Martin van Creveld says, “...the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam ... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.” The destruction to civilian life and property can be broadcasted to the world, making Israel look like the “bully” (which is not true) and lowering their moral high ground. Meanwhile, Hezbollah gets to boast to the Arab world that it was able to hold its own against Israel without a single plane or tank and Sheik Hassan Hasrallah is celebrated as a hero. And above all, Hezbollah is still there. And it is growing stronger (politically and socially), despite its military disadvantages. It is gaining more support from outraged Lebanese who are angry at the destruction and civilian casualties and its “civil action” programs (rebuilding homes, schools, businesses, etc) will most likely curry even more support for the organization.

Answer 3

If Israel was to conduct their campaign with the same lack of respect for the civilian population that Hezbollah shows for their own people, they would have done much better. I know there was tons of civilian casualties by the Israeli's hands, but that was caused by the purposeful use of civilians by Hezbollah as part of their strategy.
Israel can not win any conflict, just staty alive until the next attack.

Answer 4

and what about the tidbit put forth recently - that the israelis were testing out a war strategy for use in iran? US hoped that hezbollah would be deemed wildly unpopular by the citizens of lebanon when israel started bombing them in retaliation. oh, that didn't work, did it. problem is, that was the strategy the US was planning to use in Iran to keep them in check with their nuclear ambitions. obviously, as demonstrated in lebanon, that plan doesn't work so well (i could have told them that and saved several hundred lives, but whatever). now iran knows that the plan that US had in store for them is a flop and we got nothin'.

so, who lost this war? sounds like the US to me.

jacky, you're calling terrorist supporters "dorks"? really? i'd say dangerous, disturbing, of major concern... but dorks? do you think this is a silly game?

Answer 5

I think the Israelis certainly caught a cold.
They are used to fighting boys armed with stones not men armed with RPGs.
Given the amount of heavy armor and air power matched against them , in military terms it was a tactical victory for Hezbollah

Answer 6

So I take it you support Hezbollah. Does that mean you also give them high marks for killing over 200 US Marines in 1982...?

Or am I stretching it a bit....?? I mean if you are that impressed with the successes of a terrorist group, then you should be impressed by all their military successess. And actually they have killed more Americans than Israelis.....

Somehow, I think a lot of US Marines would disagree with you.

Answer 7

I agree. It's about time too! I'm fed up of Israel thinking it can do what it pleases. I was horrified to see them destroy Lebanon and kill innocent victims, there response was totally unjustified. When will they learn? Though I'm totally opposed to any form of terrorism, it is high time Israel realised that they are the major problem in the Middle East but will they realise this? Of course they have a right to exist but so do their neighbours.

Answer 8

nah, israel were a little crazy to rush in and invade the way they did... I personally would have used special forces a lot more to sneak about and take them out using as little force as possible to attract as little attention from the worlds media.. much better than killing all thise women and kids as they get all the crap for doing it.

Answer 9

absolutley it was a shorter version of the vietnamese spanking the yanks good for them the israelies got there just desserts for bombing populated areas.

Answer 10

You betcha! The cluster bombs are still taking a civilian toll, and that's a shame because the US supplied them.