Hezbolla

[EternalOptimist]

I always read a great deal of history, particularly military history. Of course there's not much point in doing it, apart from interest, unless it helps to predict.
Not many people expected the Israelis to get checked so easily in Lebanon recently and I was wondering if any of the congregation have any insight or ideas. Something has changed and I dont doubt that the Israelis (and us) should be greatly perturbed.

the usual factors are

numbers
technology
morale
supply
speed
tactical systems
leadership

[GreenerGrass]

With Hezbollah stuffed in between "civilian" targets Israel were never going to do as well as they might have in a straight fight with a conventional arab army, like in the 6 Day War .

But yes, I was surprised how many rockets were still being fired late into the campaign, they seemed to increase rather than decrease to a trickle as you might have expected.
I guess thats down to improved training, tactics and much longer range rockets supplied by Iran that no longer have to be right on the border.
They must have been stocking up and digging in at a hell of a rate over the last couple of years.

Beard-face (Sheik Hassan Nasrallah) actually admitted over the weekend that if he'd known what would have happened Hezbollah would never have kidnapped the Israelis in the first place, so perhaps Israel can draw on some deterrant value in terms of the destruction they wrought even if it wasn't anything like as effective as they'd hoped for in military terms.
No one really wins though.

[DimPrawn]

Except the American arms manufacturers and dealers.

[xoggoth]

Civilisation made the Israelis ineffective. Like most democratic countries the Israelis do not deliberately target civilians and in most cases dropped leaflets warning civilians of bombing raids. Hezbollah not only have no qualms about hitting Israeli civilians, they have little concern for Lebanese civilians either in that they protect themselves by making their bases in civilian areas contrary to the Geneva convention.

[AtW]

Bullsh1t.

Israel killed 1000+ civilians in this war (a lot more than Hezbollah for probably decade of shooting rockets at Israel), perhaps this is better than potential 10,000 they could have killed, but clearly enemy civilian losses are not a big factor for Israel. Lets also be clear about one thing - it was Israel that entered Lebanon - territory on which Hezbollah is based, its up to them to locate their forces since they are not obliged to line up in the clear field to make easy target for invador: this kind of stuff is only possible when both sides are honourable, but Israel prefers to bomb from skies, so I can appreciate that Hezbollah would not want to die for free, they simply have no choice. Just like Soviets had no choice but to fight in Stalingrad and other cities. Was that also against Geneva convention? F\/ck convetion - when someone invades your country, the only thing that matters is how you can ensure that the enemy fails, and if the price for victory is engaging enemy in your own cities, then so be it. I am sure British would have fought on London streets if Germany invaded Britain back in WW2.

So why did Israel lose this war? Very simple - Iran and Siria supplied modern Russian (say thanks to Europe supporting Mr Putin, apparently Mr Blair is his friend) anti-tank equipment: and that's it! I was telling for a long time that as soon as there is such equipment, then Israel's advantage will vanish big time - exactly what happened this time.

IMO what we have seen is actually a good thing - Israel had to fight proper war with Hezbollah, and they were not (unlike Palestinians) blowing themselves up in cafe's in Israel, so its pretty much as fair fight as it can get in this age. Could have been much worse.

[xoggoth]

Uninformed crap atw. Try and find out some facts. Compare the weekly civilian death rate over the course of the conflict with that in the first three months of the US/UK invasion of Iraq. It's less than half the lowest estimate of the latter and doesn't remotely compare with what they could have acheived if they had had a mind to.

[AtW]

Uninformed crap atw.

Hang on here - are you claiming that Hezbollah killed more Israeli civilians than otherwise? Those missiles they fires are grossly inaccurate and were mainly a PR gesture.

Now talking of civilian casualties during Iraq invasion - the scales are simply not compatible - there were far more troops moving in to Iraq, and actually real civilian death rate gone up after insurgency started, during actual war civlians were nowhere as badly his as they are now - mainly by insurgents.

By the way population of Iraq is 26 mln, vs 4 mln in Lebanon, naturally civilian casualties in Iraq will be higher, but like for like if Israel killed 1000 civilians during this war, then Allied should have killed ~7,000 civlians just to be on the same level, if I remember correctly during invasion stage around that many or less were actually killed, so its on par.

[oraclesmith]

I am sure British would have fought on London streets if Germany invaded Britain back in WW2.

I'm sure we would, but it wouldn't be because the other side is too 'humane' to avoid bombing civilian areas. The Nazi's bombed civilians deliberately from 1939 onwards. And before you counter with Dresden etc, the Nazi's had set the precedent well before this happened.

[AtW]

WW2 was the first war when fighting really moved into cities - previously typical fights were in a clear field without any civilians around, very fair and clean. But it suicide to stay in clear field when the other side bombards you with arty and airplanes, this happened to Soviet army and it moved into cities - Stalingrad is a very good example of countering highly technological force of tanks and aircraft to make the enemy pay. Same happened when Germans were defending their cities - capturing Berlin cost a lot of blood. This was 60 years ago and situation did not change much - just 10 years ago it repeated in Grozny (Chechnya), where it was again demonstrated that technological superiority of the attacker can be reduced big time if he is forced to fight in urban areas - ideally cities with big blocks rather than UK kind of houses that are pretty much useless (I mean 2 storey houses here).

Lets not forget that the defender has complete right to stay around their own civilians - not some abstract people, but their own relatives, friends who had to bear brunt of war. There is simply no other choice apart from giving up - if superior force attacked USA or UK, then you'd have to either give up or fight in cities where inevitably it would result in massive civilian casualties simply because its where civilians live.

Now if Hezbollah took houses with Israeli civilians while fighting, then this would clearly be against Geneva convention, but in this case it was their own civilians and to be perfectly fair when invader comes to your house then you won't give a fk about some convention that makes his life easier: unless of course you prefer to surrender without much fight, some nations did just that, strangely enough they are called "cheese eating surrender monkeys" rather than "honourable people who honoured Geneva convention".

As for bombings of UK cities by Germans, then I believe it all started from mistake by Luftwaffe, and then Britain retalliated and it all gone to hell.

Those who win write history books.

[oraclesmith]

WW2 was the first war when fighting really moved into cities -

Wrong ! There are numerous examples from ancient times onwards of armies besieging cities and slaughtering the civilian inhabitants; men, women and children alike. For example Merv 1221.

previously typical fights were in a clear field without any civilians around, very fair and clean.

Also wrong. Armies that fought pitched battles had camp followers in the baggage train. They were often attacked as an easy target and slaughtered along with the rest.

But it suicide to stay in clear field when the other side bombards you with arty and airplanes, this happened to Soviet army and it moved into cities - Stalingrad is a very good example of countering highly technological force of tanks and aircraft to make the enemy pay.Same happened when Germans were defending their cities - capturing Berlin cost a lot of blood. This was 60 years ago and situation did not change much - just 10 years ago it repeated in Grozny (Chechnya), where it was again demonstrated that technological superiority of the attacker can be reduced big time if he is forced to fight in urban areas - ideally cities with big blocks rather than UK kind of houses that are pretty much useless (I mean 2 storey houses here).

Yes, cities are difficult to take, but they are also easy to target if you don't mind killing civilians. The difference with Lebanon is that everything that happens is broadcast across the world and subject to international scrutiny.

Lets not forget that the defender has complete right to stay around their own civilians - not some abstract people, but their own relatives, friends who had to bear brunt of war. There is simply no other choice apart from giving up - if superior force attacked USA or UK, then you'd have to either give up or fight in cities where inevitably it would result in massive civilian casualties simply because its where civilians live. Now if Hezbollah took houses with Israeli civilians while fighting, then this would clearly be against Geneva convention, but in this case it was their own civilians and to be perfectly fair when invader comes to your house then you won't give a fk about some convention that makes his life easier: unless of course you prefer to surrender without much fight, some nations did just that, strangely enough they are called "cheese eating surrender monkeys" rather than "honourable people who honoured Geneva convention".

Hezbollah <> Lebanon. The Lebanese army didn't fight the Israeli's. The Lebanese people would rather this conflict hadn't been started in the first place. Hezbollah do not speak for all Lebanese, or even the majority of them.

As for bombings of UK cities by Germans, then I believe it all started from mistake by Luftwaffe, and then Britain retalliated and it all gone to hell.

Those who win write history books.

The events of 24th August 1940 are usually accepted as an accident, but council ARP wardens records show bomb damage in three different areas that night separated by some hours, in what appears to be three raids, not just one that had gone off course. And remember that we're just talking about London here. Hitler was bombing the other UK cities from July 1940. And it's not like there were rockets being fired from these cities !