A report out from the US Army War College has made some startling observations of the capabilities of Hezbollah militarily in reviewing what happened in the 2006 war with Israel. Here are some of this report's observations from the article at The Daily Star:
If, G_d forbid, another war develops between Israel and Hezbollah, it's my opinion that Israel will need to take a much different approach to that war. Israel, in my view, will need to throw out any, and I mean ANY, rules of engagement that seeks to minimize civilian casualties in Lebanon. And this all means an absolute devotion to air strikes by the IAF - if Hezbollah continues to hunker down with their missile launchers in civilian neighborhoods of southside Beirut, then the IAF MUST take them out. I'm not an advocate of killing innocent civilians but the Lebanese people and government have legitimized Hezbollah in that country and now must be willing to pay the price for laying down with dogs.
Secondly, it's my belief that the Israelis MUST rely upon special forces units, in any future war with Hezbollah, to take out the very top Hezbollah leadership as well as high level and mid level Hezbollah military commanders.
And finally, Israel must unleash ground operations from different parts of Lebanon - in other words, predicatably moving north up from the border no longers plays well - the Israelis need to drop forces in the north and west in Lebanon and squeeze Hezbollah forces.
Hopefully, the Israelis have read this report and are taking it seriously, because Hezbollah is growing more confident and it's my sincere feeling that they are planning some daring IDF soldier captures within the next few months and if that happens, war will probably grace Lebanon again.
Hizbullah's unwillingness to give up ground to advancing Israeli forces, its use of natural and man-made terrain for concealment rather than civilian populations, its concentration of forces and its "differentiated theater of war" distinguished the group's efforts from those of classic guerilla armies.Now, probably the most disturbing part of this report is that this is an analysis of Hezbollah's performance nearly 2.5 years ago - since then we have seen Hezbollah rearm to their strongest position ever and one has to assume that their training has increased as well over the past two years. Then, throw in even more technologically advanced weapons and Israel is facing probably the most lethal foe in the entire region.
"Hizbullah's skills in conventional war fighting were clearly imperfect in 2006 - but they were also well within the observed bounds of other state military actors in the Middle East and elsewhere, and significantly superior to many such states.
"In fact, Hizbullah inflicted more Israeli casualties per Arab fighter in 2006 than did any of Israel's state opponents in the 1956, 1967, 1973, or 1982 Arab-Israeli interstate wars," it added.
The report rated Hizbullah's combat performance as equal or superior to any other Arab army's engagement with Israel. It also compared the non-state force's tactics - alternating between "coercive" and "brute force" - with members of the Allied and Axis powers in World War II and aspects of NATO's 1999 involvement in Serbia.
If, G_d forbid, another war develops between Israel and Hezbollah, it's my opinion that Israel will need to take a much different approach to that war. Israel, in my view, will need to throw out any, and I mean ANY, rules of engagement that seeks to minimize civilian casualties in Lebanon. And this all means an absolute devotion to air strikes by the IAF - if Hezbollah continues to hunker down with their missile launchers in civilian neighborhoods of southside Beirut, then the IAF MUST take them out. I'm not an advocate of killing innocent civilians but the Lebanese people and government have legitimized Hezbollah in that country and now must be willing to pay the price for laying down with dogs.
Secondly, it's my belief that the Israelis MUST rely upon special forces units, in any future war with Hezbollah, to take out the very top Hezbollah leadership as well as high level and mid level Hezbollah military commanders.
And finally, Israel must unleash ground operations from different parts of Lebanon - in other words, predicatably moving north up from the border no longers plays well - the Israelis need to drop forces in the north and west in Lebanon and squeeze Hezbollah forces.
Hopefully, the Israelis have read this report and are taking it seriously, because Hezbollah is growing more confident and it's my sincere feeling that they are planning some daring IDF soldier captures within the next few months and if that happens, war will probably grace Lebanon again.
US report acknowledges Hizbullah 'skills'
However, the report, published this fall and titled "The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy," was not intended as a sui generis analysis of the 2006 war.
Rather, with extensive research (albeit exclusively from Israeli sources), it aimed to measure the potential affect that non-state armies performing in more conventional manners could have on the evolution of the US military.
Authored by Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, and Jeffrey A. Friedman, a doctoral candidate at Harvard University Kennedy School of government, the report questioned the institutional wisdom of transforming the US army into a force designed to subdue non-state, asymmetrical guerilla threats - a theory clearly tailored to the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The Lebanon experience ... suggests a future of less clarity and more diversity," it said.
Instead, it suggested, the US army should, at a minimum, prepare for the evolution of non-state armies into more conventional fighting forces. It cited, other than Hizbullah, cases of Balkan and Chechen separatist groups as well as Afghan and Al-Qaeda resistance in 2001-2 in the Shah-i-Kot valley. The great challenge facing the US military, it noted, is the continued prospect of facing non-conventional insurgencies while also recognizing that certain armed groups have begun to perform more conventionally, requiring a more conventional response.
No comments:
Post a Comment