Someone’s been looking long and hard at Israel’s dust-up with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006.
U.S. military experts were stunned by the destruction that Hezbollah forces, using sophisticated antitank guided missiles, were able to wreak on Israeli armor columns. Unlike the guerrilla forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, who employed mostly hit-and-run tactics, the Hezbollah fighters held their ground against Israeli forces in battles that stretched as long as 12 hours. They were able to eavesdrop on Israeli communications and even struck an Israeli ship with a cruise missile.
I think that’s less of a problem of having the right capabilities and more of a problem of essentially underestimating your enemy. Nevertheless, it’s a good debate. In truth, we need to be able to do it all, from low-intensity to full-on conventional combat. And let us not forget that “combat” doesn’t equal “war”…
“Even if the Israelis had done better operationally, I don’t think they would have been victorious in the long run,” said Andrew Exum, a former Army officer who has studied the battle from southern Lebanon. “For the Israelis, the war lasted for 34 days. We tend to forget that for Hezbollah, it is infinite.”
I think we’re in grave danger of making THAT mistake.
Yes, but fighting the war infinitely is not a solution either. In the end, we go bankrupt.
For the Israelis this is far less of a problem, as they only have to drive an hour up the road to go to war. We have to travel halfway around the world. Fighting is a less expensive endeavor, even if the consequences are a lot higher.
So, what to do?
[quote] fighting the war infinitely is not a solution either [/quote]
No, but preparing for war indefinitely is a requirement for nationhood. The primary function of any nation is self defense. If it cannot do that, it is not a nation in any meaningful sense.
If Exum’s summation was that the Israeli’s do not have a long view of war, then I would say that summation is wrong.
The Israelis seem to view their defense in light of various major events, such as the 2006 incursion, as milestones but not stand alone incidents.
Israel’s actions tell us they are content to beat back their opponents as the deem necessary but eschew decisive victory in order to maintain their alliances and prevent alliances of their enemies. Nothing more.
The Israeli strategy (along with a weak host nation) allows Hezbollah to fight in more traditional formations and thus allow for more traditional battlefield scenarios.
It is also useful to note that the weapons employed by Hezbollah require ‘sophistication’ to build, not operate. A long view of this war would require one to analyze the sources of those weapons and the motivation for their sale, not just their employment tactically.