Found this interesting bit in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer today:
Military analysts question Israeli bombing
From reading various and sundry articles over the past few years from the Seattle P-I, I am well aware of its reputation, notwithstanding the fact that it comes from the state that has given us Patty “Osama builds day care centers!” Murray (for a surprisingly good smackdown of Senator Murray for this comment from, again surprisingly, the same newspaper, go here) and Jim “Saddam Capture Was Staged” McDermott.
This article is, as expected, pretty harsh on Israel and their air campaign but with all due respect to the “experts” quoted I think they entirely miss the mark.
James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan who now heads military analysis for the Rand Corp., said choice of targets by Israel was the key and may be misdirected.
“The military rationale seems rather thin, since many of the targets have no conceivable relationship to Hezbollah,” he said.
I have a hard time believing that Israel’s targeting plan “has no…relationship to Hezbollah”. That is simply crap. Southern Lebanon isn’t simply next to Israel’s backyard, it practically IS their backyard. And has been for decades. Military intelligence (including humint, elint, reconnaissance, etc), I would submit, is very likely at an all time high in the region and as such the target sets that are coming out of the IDF air campaign planning centers are optimizing what needs to be done in combating a terrorist organization that utilizes civilian infrastructure in a docile and impotent nation to not only conceal weapons, ammunition and personnel but to attack Israel from, as well.
Targeting is both an art and a science and to do it successfully one needs to remember some of the principles of war – specifically:
1) Objective (Define a decisive and attainable objective for every military operation.)
2) Mass (Apply sufficient force to achieve the objective.)
3) Economy of Force (Focus the right amount of force on the key objective, without wasting force on secondary objectives.)
Ignoring these tenets only makes a difficult job even more difficult and I can’t believe for a second that the Israeli Defense Forces are simply throwing targets sets out there with “no conceivable relationship to Hezbollah.” It would serve no strategic, operational or tactical purpose and Israel has not survived this long by being deficient in its military operations. Not only would it put their air forces at even more risk in going after target sets that serve no tactical or operational purpose but would alsosignificantly complicate the international element that has to always be considered.
To put this risk level in the proper context let’s compare USN and IDF procedures: we would launch off the carrier, get our switches ready for whatever mission we were tasked with and we’d make the call “combat checks complete” – master arm switch would be on, missiles tuned and prepped, sidewinder volume adjusted, etc. When the Israelis launch for their combat missions, their call is “Fence checks complete” , because when they get wheels in the well and clear the base fence boundry, they have to be ready for combat *then*. Not exactly an environment that would lend itself to poorly constructed target sets and arbitrary mission goals that would have “…no relationship…” to the enemy.
The next thing in the article I take issue with is comparing Operation Summer Rains (the current Israeli operation) to the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999.
But the 78-day NATO bombardment of Serbia had clear international legitimacy and was more gradual. Air crews targeted Serbian military and communications sites first, and when that didn’t persuade the Serb military to pull out of Kosovo, planes hit civilian and government targets.
The “gradual” escalation of the air campaign in Serbia was perhaps one reason it took 78-days to accomplish anything. That and the incredibly convoluted and ultimately self-defeating bureaucracy of NATO and the UN did not help matters, either (read up on Srebrenica for a refresher on that).
Something can be said for Israel skipping “escalation” and going straight to “defeat the enemy in the quickest way possible”.
In addition, I suppose getting rid of a significant terrorist threat from an organization whose avowed purpose is to destroy your nation and kill your people lacks the “clear international legitimacy” that the article speaks of.
Gradual escalation doesn’t work very well when it comes to Air to mud operations. *Cough Cough*Rolling thunder.
Air crews targeted Serbian military and communications sites first,
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but Hezbollah doesn’t /have/ clearly marked military sites. That’s kind of the whole point isn’t it? I’m sure that if Hezbollah /had/ military bases, Isreal /would/ hit them first.
Brett,
That is exactly (one of) the point(s). From a “terrorist organization” perspective, one could almost make a case for some similarities between the two (Serbian military and Hezbollah) simply based on actions conducted in the field (pure, historically defined terrorism on Hezbollah part, ethnic cleansing/genocide on Serbia part), but that is where the same-same would end. Aside from the fact that both organizations utilized civilians and the public infrastructure to hide/employ weapons, Hezbollah by its very nature as an internationally outlawed organization (something the UN doesn’t seem to concerned about), it does not have any of the formal command and control elements available for targeting as was the case in Serbia/BH. As such, they use the Lebanese national infrastructure as their C2 backbone, making it a legitimate target in many case. The challenge is for Israel to minimize as much as possible the destruction of such elements while achieving their operational goals.
Iwonder if anyone has heard when and if the socalled “jihadists” will equip the missles they are so happily launching with some Weapon of Mass Destruction, i.e. sarin from the bekka Valley or spent reactor rods (maybe from Russia or Iran)?
And what will the world do at that point? Besides whine and dither. Remember what Robbie the Robot said int he 1970′s show “Lost in Space”
When in danger or in doubt
Run around scream and shout.
In 1990, when Hussain threatened to use biological and chemical weapons against Israel, Shamir responded with words to the effect of “If a drop of Anthrax touches Israeli soil, Baghdad will cease to exist by the next morning.” What’s more is that people believed him then, I think with reason. Israel would have little to no hesitation destroying Iran if they let Hezbullah go that far off the reservation.
The Israelis are showing restraint in attacking targets in Lebanon. I see three reasons for this:
1) The IDF is being careful to sort Hizballah from non combatants.
2) The Israelis would appear to be offering the Lebanese Army a face saving gesture by allowing them to condemn Israel, then at worst sit on its hands and do nothing as the IDF cleans house on Hizballah.
3) Israel would like to disuade Syria from active intervention by its regular military in Lebanon. I think the message is clear, “Does Syria want some of this, too?” The bottom line is that they do not, rhetoric to the contrary.
The article failed to mention the Bombing of the Chines embassy? I remember the anger in the press over that incident. At the time it was not considered a legitimate military target.
While word attention is focused on Lebanon, it seems to have glossed over the rockets that continue to fall on Israeli cities paralyzing the north of the country. There is a very real fear that one of those rockets will hit the industrial plants in Haifa causing an environmental catastrophe for the region.
It might also be said that for ten years Israel was in Lebanon proportionately responding to the threat and pulling out its troops with the support of a UN resolution, only to find itself back where it started.