THE SECRETS OF HEZBOLLAH'S SUCCESS

"We are in a world today where we have a non-state actor using all the tools of weaponry... That’s what this new 21st-century warfare is going to look like. We have now entered an era where non-states or quasi-states do a lot better militarily than states do." Peter Singer (Brookings, author of "Corporate Warriors") in reference to Hezbollah's performance against the Israeli military. From a NYTimes article by Thom Shanker.

Although Peter Singer's statement is likely unsupported, he does stumble onto a conclusion that captures the essence of the moment. Hezbollah's performance in a set-piece battle with the Israeli military (arguably once, a top notch conventional military) is an excellent example of how non-state groups have radically improved their ability to conduct tactical and strategic operations. To wit, the continued success of its efforts has put the Israelis on the horns of a dilemma: either request a ceasefire that locks in military defeat - or - push for a full invasion of southern Lebanon (each are fraught with disastrous consequences).

Organizational Improvements

The central secret to Hezbollah's success is that it trained its (global) guerrillas to make decisions autonomously (classic 4GW), at the small group level. In every area -- from firing rockets to defending prepared positions to media routing around jamming/disruption -- we have examples of Hezbollah teams deciding, adapting, innovating, and collaborating without reference to any central authority. The result of this decentralization is that Hezbollah's aggregate decision cycles are faster and qualitatively better than those of their Israeli counterparts.

Hybrid Methods/Systems

Ancillary to the improvements in organizational design (unlikely to be replicated at the state level), Hezbollah also demonstrated its ability to supercharge antiquated conventional weaponry/tactics with off-the-shelf technology to create weapons systems and hybrid tactics attuned to defeating Israeli military systems. We can expect to see this behavior accelerate among non-state groups as readily available commercial technology continues its pace of radical improvement.

Extracting an Economic Toll

Hezbollah's success against Israel codifies two strategic methods that we will see global guerrillas emulate. The first is the value of strategic coercion through economic attrition. Ongoing disruption of the Israeli economy through rocket attacks attaches a quantifiable strategic cost to the conflict. This offensive decisively couples what was previously separate: ground/air offensives by the Israeli military against non-state groups in the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon -- and -- domestic economic/social activity in Israel (business as usual). If Hezbollah remains intact, nothing will be the same. With the economic clock ticking (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a day), Israel has been forced into an aggressive air campaign to accelerate progress on the ground against missile launch sites and interdict resupply of new missiles from Syria. This air campaign has backfired due to the asymmetry of targets, in that Israeli air strikes have alienated the Lebanese government and increased the moral cohesion of its foes.

Leveraging force protection and an aversion to casualties

A second strategic method is to trade territory (something a non-state organization is easily able to ante up) for the blood of professional soldiers and delay. The intent is demonstrated by Hezbollah's dispersal of units across a wide geographic area in small autonomous units (defense in depth, rather than concentrating its defenses along the border). This deployment clearly shows Hezbollah's willingness to trade ground for the lives of Israeli soldiers and time. It succeeds by leveraging the aversion to casualties and dedication to force protection found in modern Western militaries (these men are professionally educated and therefore considered too valuable for use as cannon fodder). An aversion to casualties ensures that assaults by conventional militaries will bog down if faced with stiff opposition, until intense applications of firepower to clear the path (which is made much less effective due to Hezbollah's high level of dispersion and fortifications). Time is a factor that clearly works particularly in the favor of Hezbollah (due to the potential of a widening conflict) and more generally in favor of any non-state group fighting a state.

Comments

[Z]

The other secret success, according to Mitch Prothero, is their secracy;

" "You can be a member of Hezbollah your entire life and never see a military wing fighter with a weapon," a Lebanese military intelligence official, now retired, once told me. "They do not come out with their masks off and never operate around people if they can avoid it. They're completely afraid of collaborators. They know this is what breaks the Palestinians -- no discipline and too much showing off." "

[Dan Shappir]

From my perspective Hezbollah has one major advantage over the IDF: their mandate of operation. By definition the mandate of the Israeli Defense Forces is the defence of Israel. Thus anything the IDF does is geared towards reducing Israeli casualties and suffering. Hezbollah, while it presents itself to an extent as the defender of Lebanon, has a totally different mandate. In fact, where Hezbollah has failed up to now, and suffered in the Lebanese public opinion, is with that pretence. In reality Hezbollah has done nothing to defend Lebanon or the Lebanese. Quit the contrary, it started this conflict with total disregard for the welfare of the people of Lebanon, and is continuously using them as human shields.

What Hezbollah has been most successful at is playing a double game of being both a part of the Lebanese government and yet a separate entity from the Lebanese state. This forces Israel to fight a Lebanese military force, while being forced not to fight the Lebanese state itself.

Moreover, as has been discussed here in the past, any harm done to the Lebanese state can actually work in favor of Hezbollah. The incident at Qana is probably the best thing that has happened for the Hezbollah in the conflict up to now. Where as the Israeli civilian casualties at the worst thing that has happened for the IDF. Bottom line, its always easier to have a nihilistic mandate that a constructive one.

[Z]

"This forces Israel to fight a Lebanese military force, while being forced not to fight the Lebanese state itself."

While I agree with some of what you say, I think its hard to argue Israel isn't also fighting the Lebanese state. You are, of course, correct that Hizbullah isn't burdened with encumberance of a state, while Israel is.

True also that mass civilian casualties work against Israel. But so long as casualties are a few at time, they tend to escape thw world's notice.

The same can be said for terrorism. It is viewed as dispicable by the rest of the world and tends to earn sympathy (rightfully so) for the victim. It also increases the public's support for the government and calls for revenge.

I disagree completely-as do most Lebanese- that Hizb does not protect Lebanon. While they did "start it" by attacking on Israeli teritory, this is hardly the first time Israel has struck Lebanon. The prime novelty is that this is the first time Lebanon has had any capability to strike back...a situation that neither Israel nor the U.S. can countenance.

The other novelty is that this is the first time Israel actually has a credible pretext. The pretext for 1982 was that the Abu Nidal group, which had no presence in Lebanon, attempted to assasinate an Israeli Ambasador (to England IIRC.) And the '78 pretext was two Israeli soldiers killed when they ran over a land mine IN LEBANON!

The third novelty is that, unlike other times, the IDF is reluctant to barrel through Lebanon. They may still do it, but they seem far less eager than in the past. Wether anyone wishes to admit it or not, that is deterence.

P.S., while you may sense that many people on this board are less than sympathetic to the Israeli POV, rest assured the opposite sentiment exists on any U.S. news channel, even after Qana II

[sammy small]

"Hezbollah's performance in a set-piece battle with the Israeli military (arguably, pound for pound, the best conventional military in the world) ..."

I heard this notion regarding the Israeli military during the 70's, post Vietnam era many times. While it may have been true then, I can't believe that anyone thinks that it still applies. The U.S. military has made incredible strides in tactical development and training over the past two decades which I would say are second to none.

On your other points regarding Hezbollah, I agree that they represent almost the perfect 4GW group for the situation that exists today in the ME. Being able to take advantage of the cover of a civilian populace (see this)
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html
with impugnity provides an incredible leverage for non-state groups. They have taken the time to understand the limitations of civilized warfare standards observed by state militaries and have successfully turned the odds in their own favor. Maybe Israel should declare Hama rules.
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/63P58.htm

[Marcello]

"The U.S. military has made incredible strides in tactical development and training over the past two decades which I would say are second to none."

For the conventional warfare part, yes.It is also obvious that at the same time they tried pretty damn hard to forget any lesson learned from counterinsurgency in Vietnam.
Which at the end of the day makes them a bunch of fools.

"Maybe Israel should declare Hama rules."

Then Olmert and his supporters would be the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein.And would deserve the same fate.

[Nicholas Paredes]

Hama Rules! I remember reading that op-ed shortly after 9/11... Is it really apt? And, what are the implications of such a devastating mode of action? Last night I chatted with some friends regarding the conflict, and as war buffs they lit up with the mention of the alternatives.

My belief that Israel can become South Africa, the Third Reich, or retrench and reconsider its plight. Hama rules imply a sort of ethnic cleansing within the state of Israel as the threat increasingly will come from within demographically speaking. A recent article described the alternatives: Israel as an island, or as an actor within the broader middle-east. Sadly for all, the state has chosen to ensure that a smooth surface free from contaminants exists along their border. These contaminants are pissed.

Pragmatically, trying to live an austere germ free life has its consequences. I prefer the role of states, interacting with alternative social structures. Pretending that these have never existed and that there are not models for engagement is silly. As if W does not pander to religious groups, unions, and have to deal with issues like organized crime. Often these actors play roles within different structures (crimal politicians). Israel can act until it sickens itself with brutality or recognize that these groups are very simply all that remains within a region devoid of effective representative states.

While the US continues to destroy states, will they also continue to argue that they have no one with which to speak? This all strikes me as delusional child's-play. Children with munitions of course... It reminds me of the final chapter of "Non-Zero" were the choice is to become either an actor within the larger world or retrench into feuding isolationism. Israel, the US, and the various religious extremist groups all seem to be playing their roles.

[Marcello]

Israel cannot have it both ways.
They can behave as a local thugocracy and proceed to bomb,nuke and torture anyone at their heart's content.But then no more propping up with billions of civilian and military aid, no more international sympathy (or what's left of it).If
ruthlesness succeeds, well.If they still go under,well, no tears shed.
OR they can play the civilized party, keep the billions and put up with the shit which comes with 4GW.

[g510]

Nonstate actors will always have an advantage in that they are lower on the entropy gradient than states. That is, a state is a more complex and highly-organized entity, and it must protect its complexity (economy, legal system, etc.) against those who intend to damage it by force.

A nonstate actor has no such constraints. To the extent that it provides any services to civilians, whatsoever, it will look "benevolent," even "heroic." Refuse collection once a month by a terrorist affiliate group is more "impressive" than refuse collection once a week by a government agency.

That being said, the primary problem in the Middle East is cultural:

Every culture in the region, almost without exception, operates on the premise of positive feedback cycles with regard to the use of force. An eye is repaid with two eyes, a tooth with two teeth, an insult to a family with an "honor" killing, two kidnapped soldiers with an invasion, and an invasion with hundreds of rocket raining down upon civilians.

We often think of the phrase "an eye for an eye" as a rationalization for barbarity, but the fact is that the Jewish prophets who advocated that position were attempting to DE-escalate from the prevailing culture of "two eyes for an eye." Jesus attempted to take it one step further by advocating an overtly *negative* (limiting) feedback cycle, with his exhortation to "turn the other cheek." I am hardly literate in Islam but it seems evident that the Prophet himself attempted to do likewise, for example (if memory serves me correctly) by advocating moderation in the conduct of warfare. So we see a constant thread throughout the history of the major Western monotheisms in the region, to do anything possible to counteract the positive feedback of force.

Yet to this day, the cultures of the region still suffer from "two eyes for an eye" and the escalating positive feedback cycle of force. And now they have nuclear weapons, with more on the way.

I'm going to say something that will probably be highly unpopular but on reflection you will see it is also correct (and I should preface this by saying that I find the "end-timers" who eagerly wish for Armageddon to be downright detestible):

These people will probably have to nuke each other into trinitite before they can finally break out of the thousands-of-years-old cycle of the positive feedback of force.

This is no different than a substance abuser "hitting bottom" or a habitual petty thief finally getting caught and sentenced to prison. When a pattern of dysfunction is so deeply engrained, it takes severe circumstances to change the behavior. And, those who attempt to intervene to prevent the worst of consequences are merely "enablers" whose interventions in fact allow the dysfunction to continue and deepen.

The rest of the world needs to put Israel, Lebanon, et. al. on notice: We will no longer intervene as moderators, we will no longer try to mitigate the consequences of your actions, we will not even stop your attempts to obtain atomic bombs. The positive feedback of force must stop, and this is up to you and you alone.

[Gerard]

g510, that certainly was blunt. We all hope that it doesn't come to that but I guess some of us differ in how far we should go to prevent the mid-east from "hitting bottom." I think you under-estimate how far down the bottom really is. Josh Marshall has been for the past few weeks saying about the Middle East: "It can always get worse."

You posit that a nuclear exchange (or worse - a one way strike) might be the rock bottom that ends the positive feedback of force. I think the desire for revenge would supercede any thoughtful reflection on "how it got to this". The region seems to have painfully long memories (one of the reasons Bush's "crusade" comment left such a mark.) I can only imagine the passion that would ensue if a Muslim city or holy site was nuked.

For our own selfish reasons I don't think we could throw our hands into the air and walk away anyway. With all this talk about Jihad we have forgotten McWorld, the world is becoming smaller and flatter. We in the west have many interconnections with the region aside from the obvious oil.

[Duncan Kinder]

"Nonstate actors will always have an advantage in that they are lower on the entropy gradient than states."

To quote myself from a post several months ago, the biggest, baddest transnational organization of them all is the Roman Catholic Church.

The level of relative organization depends upon the state and also the nonstate. Microsoft Corporation probably has a higher entropy gradient than, say, Chad, but I would not characterize it as a state.

Much of what is discussed on this blog is how networks and other ultra modern developments are simultaneously making non-state actors more effective and state actors less effective. If correct, that would mean that, with time, states will become less organized and non-states more so.

John Robb, if I understand him correctly, thinks that these resulting global guerrillas are criminals.

I question this. While, many obviously are criminal, permantly criminal organizations do not enjoy long shelf lifes. Also, many of these organizations at least profess various religious or other higher beliefs. Finally, if you look at - say the Chinese Revolution from between the Tai Ping Rebellion and the Communist takeover - you will find a similar melage of both criminal and ideological illicit organizations - some of which are now part of Global Guerrillas today.

Your argument that culturally the Mideast has positive feedback loops regarding force would be comforting to those who believe that its inhabitants belong to some other species. I, for one, believe they are Homo Sapiens and generally tend to react to things much as we do. I would suspect Mideastern feedback loops of force resemble those found in - say - Latin America. And, indeed, Latin American and MidEastern global guerrilla activity actually do resemble each other.

[g510]

Re. Gerard:

Underestimating the bottom: Seems to me that trinitite (glowing green slag) is about as far to the bottom as one can get.

If the desire for revenge persists after *that*, then clearly it (a nuclear exchange) wasn't enough to break the bad habits of the past, and more/worse is inevitable. But as I said, it can't get much worse than having your country turned into glowing green slag.

Now here's another terribly crass bit of truth: If for the sake of re-venge and re-re-venge and re-re-re-venge, they exterminate themselves down to the last man, then in the long term, archaeologists will view them as a failed subset of the human species, much as we view those peoples who burned through all of their natural resources until they rendered themselves extinct. Darwin does not choose favorites; the chips fall where they fall.

As for our selfish reasons as Westerners, the first thing we need to do is make a WW2-level effort toward full energy independence, using climate-clean sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar, wherever possible. Second, a full lockdown on immigration and travel from the entire region (for the obvious reason of preventing someone using themselves as a suicide-carrier of bio weapons via commercial air travel). In fact the former step by itself might be sufficient to put the regional powers-that-be on notice that we are moving toward letting them stew in their own juices until they figure out what's up.

As for individuals already in-country, as long as they abide by the law, no problem. If they violate the law (i.e. commit terrorist acts), they can be prosecuted same as anyone else (and without need for excessive and frankly unconstitutional measures).

Re. Duncan:

Re. the Catholic Church. If ever there were a single entity anywhere in the world, that was more responsible for our mad dash for the edge of the cliff of population overshoot and collapse, I have yet to find it.

Microsoft vs. Chad: Technical correction: should be "MS is higher on the entropy gradient..." think of it as an inclined plane, with anarchy at the bottom and increasing degrees of civilization as one moves up the slope, where civilization is defined as the condition of society where knowledge increases over time and violence decreases over time.

"...with time, states will become less organized and non-states more so." Good insight, makes sense, and also seems inevitable. Probably what will occur is a kind of leveling-downward toward a mean average. How to quantify that remains to be seen but would be an interesting exercise.

Criminals: These are usually qualified by the question of means: using criminal means toward whatever ends. What does one do with criminal acts that are side-effects of other means toward other ends? And where is the line crossed? For example, the institutional cover-up of a large number of child molesters over a period of decades, and institutional protection of them from prosecution by the proper authorities, with the result of literally thousands of raped children, would qualify any organization as a criminal enterprise. How is it that an exception is made for the Vatican...?

Re. the Middle East and "...another species." No, the racial arguement fails totally, as follows: Israelis of European ancestry who move into the region, seem to fall into the same pattern as Israelis whose ancestry is within the region. (Thus we could predict that persons who move from Western countries to Muslim countries in the Middle East would show the same dynamics.) And those (of any religion) whose ancestries are within the region, when they move to the West, are at least reasonably likely to give up the bad old ways. The bad ways correlate with the location rather than the genes. (There is a PhD thesis waiting to be done on this topic if anyone has the guts to try it!)

The root cause of the Middle East problem, all of the warped cultural variables and positive feedback cycles of force escalation, and the rest of it, is this:

Once it was a lush, fertile region, with ample supplies of food and water, and a moderate climate. Somehow (probably via mismanagement of agriculture and water works), humans managed to screw it up and turn it into a baked, barren desert. Yet the population levels only reluctantly adapted to the reduced resource base, and even today remain pressed up against the resource limits with practically zero wiggle-room.

In that type of environment, humans revert to a vicious type of collective survivalism that is based on genes and tribe (see also the Biblical obsession with begetting and begatting).

This is not a different species. It is what happens to our species when we overshoot the natural resource limits and crash the ecosystems on which we depend for our sustenance.

And we had better learn the lesson fast.

[noname]

lets get on-topic, please.

the reason of hezbollah's "success" against the IOF is a simple one and it has to do less with hezbollah than with the jews. if we take a step back from all the "global guerillas" and "4th GW" preaching, the human reality on the ground is what ultimately counts. it is as simple as it is intellectually unspectacular.

after 60 years as king of the hill, the IOF is accustomed to the easy kill, to always win any skirmish they engage with the racially inferior palestinians. shooting at 8-year-old boys or at 13-year-old schoolgirls from 100 meters away, demolish houses and stealing the property of a defenseless population without fearing consequences is what the IOF has become accustomed to.

the IOF operates on the assumption that all arabs are dogs or less, that they don't know how to defend themselves, that they are stupid and that it is ok and honorable to kill them wherever they are found, never mind that the impassivity of their arab neighbors has less to do with them not knowing how foght than with the total corruption of their political establishment by and for the western powers.

yeah, its exactly that. after 60 years of easy victories, the IOF have become accustomed to be manly and play it macho when fighting women and children and torturing the men cuffed to bars in their ample gulag.

so, now these manly cowards who know nothing but victory after victory go into southern lebanon and the first thing that happens is that they get they sorry racist arses kicked badly by the racially (and morally) "inferior" hezbollah (after all, the hezbollah has been labeled "terrorist" by the westerners). the golani unit sent in to boss them over was ripped apart, and, here is a small secret, the hezbollah got lucky and dan halutz was severely injured while pulling his "generalisimo" show at the front.

as a consequence we've been treated to a lidice memorial show in Qana yesterday. the IOF acted out like spiteful drag queens, angry for the beating they got in a fight on equitative terms, and angry for what happened to their cocksucker in chief. who would-a-thunk that gods chosen ones could be so badly wupped by these "beasts on two legs" worth less than cocroaches in their racist eyes ?

given their less than spectacular equipment, the hezbollah would probably have been smoked out by any other army, but not by the cowards of the IOF, who suffer many of the same ailments as the societies of nazi germany and of todays jewish society at large (lets not forget the americans, who fit in pretty well here): moral inferiority in means and in motivations for their engagement vis-a-vis their enemy because of deeply rooted racism and intense hate and disdain for all "lesser" (other) peoples.

to engage in gratuitious slaughter of defenseless civilians in order to "make up" for lost battles in the military realm just does not "make right" but puts to show a gross lack of moral and discipline of the perpetrating army. to murder the weak because of spite betrays some very deep-seated weaknesses in those who commit such atrocities.

that is what hezbollah has shown the world, and it is what will ultimately undo israel as a viable state. one could (rightly) argue that the hezbollah is also targeting civilians with their puny rockets, but it is IMO improper to assign to them the deep rot displayed by the israelis.

sun tzu said some simple as valid words about these things about 5000 years ago. the jews should have read those words with utmost care.

[Tangurena]

>Once it was a lush, fertile region, with ample supplies of food and water, and a moderate climate. Somehow (probably via mismanagement of agriculture and water works), humans managed to screw it up and turn it into a baked, barren desert.
Irrigating farmland tends to concentrate salts into the soil: water comes in, bringing salts, the plants take up the water, leaving the salt behind.

Over time, the crops that you used to plant perish from the salt, so you have to use hardier plants, which tend to have lower yields, until even those plants stop growing. Which is why some parts of the Iraq landscape SHINE in the sun: they have so much salt that nothing grows there anymore.

California has a similar situation in some places. Irrigation has raised selenium levels to toxic levels, so high that many animals perish before they are born. As thousands of years of selenium run-off gets concentrated in farmlands due to irrigation. The Colorado River is so depleted from farming irrigation that it is more of a marsh where it crosses the border into Mexico than an actual river. Yet the idea of stopping farming on these lands is anathema. Some folks claim that Doha round of WTO talks broke down because the US wouldn't give an inch on farm subsidies.

There are a number of books that describe this situation, including "Cadillac Desert" and "Collapse."

Collapse covers several civilizations that vanished because they were unwilling or unable to face the issues confronting them. For many peoples, that change would change them so much that they'd rather perish than change, and so they did perish.

Another book, The Ingenuity Gap, describes the gap between what is needed to survive and what people are capable of "inventing" to solve their problems. Some of the civilizations mentioned in Collapse weren't able to invent their way out of the corner they ended up in.

Bringing this thought back to the main thread of this post, many tribal subcultures, like the conservatives and neoconservatives, are obsessed with repeating failed actions, while blaming the failures on their political opponents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstosslegende
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=83795
http://www.harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html
And the "stab in the back" urban legend will get repeated until people believe it to be true, like the woman who dried her poodle in the microwave, or returning vietnam vets getting spat on.

Learning from past mistakes, and then "not doing *that* again" is the scientific approach to the world. The neocons have shown that they chose to invent their own "reality" which is distinct and separate from the world we live in, as well as virulent opposition to truth, science and rational thought. Most people would recognize that as a form of insanity.

[John Robb]

Here's an interesting topic of discussion. What if Hezbollah's missile capacity remains intact after the ceasefire (it is getting more likely by the day). Will it become a strategic deterrent to Israeli action in Gaza/West Bank?

Here's one potential formula: if an airstrike is made against a Gaza target, Hezbollah sends in 100 missiles over two days at a cost of $50 million to the Israeli economy (or you can suggest your own formula).

[Movie Guy]

"What if Hezbollah's missile capacity remains intact after the ceasefire (it is getting more likely by the day). Will it become a strategic deterrent to Israeli action in Gaza/West Bank?"

The answer is no. If you believe that Israel will shake in its boots and allow Hamas or Hizballah to perform another round of attacks as just occurred without any response, then you don't understand Israel. At all.

[DEATH FROM ABOVE]

I’m not a global guerrilla’s philosopher but in my opinion there are only two operational strategies to defeat Hezbo/Iraqi/Taliban/Hamas and this site’s labeled fourth generation warfare/4GW. The first is nuclear attack, providing a significant deterrent to future negative behavior from other radical Islamic terrorists and the second is overwhelming invasion/ground/air forces killing everything that moves (WWII and Fallujah order of battle examples). But because of world politics, media coverage (dead children), and public outrage/sympathy, neither strategy is currently feasible until a nation/state's survival is threatened to extinction where the former will become a reality (WWII bombings/invasion/conquer resulted from Allied nation/state survival from the Axis of the Nazis/Japanese aggression/world domination). Example: If a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb detonates in DC or NY, you'll see a nation/state (USA in this case) survival retaliation against those responsible (If, whoever is left in charge is able to determine who was responsible). The concern for "innocent" civilians who live in these terrorist inhabited/sponsored countries (Lebanese, Palestine, Syria, Pakistan or Iran) will be part of the problem because they support, sympathize and hide the terrorists so they will not be spared/immune from attack. These enemies do not wear uniforms or practice war in accordance with the Geneva conventions of warfare. Israel will not stop bombing/attacking Southern Lebanon until the launching of rockets/missiles into Israel ceases (Reinforced by Hezbo’s leader’s approval/orders) and a buffer zone is established to ensure the larger cities are safe from multiple rocket/missile attacks. Wasting time and soldiers lives with what is being practiced in Iraq and Lebanon today (IEDs and rocket/missile attacks are indiscriminate and are not of any military significance other than propaganda/fear)…provides the enemy with a political/media propaganda advantage. Bringing in a UN multinational force will not end the fighting from Hezbollah. I enjoy your site and readers responses. End of story.

[dan]

JR

I think it's a bit premature to be talking about a ceasefire at this stage - the UN meeting that was supposed to start the ball rolling has been postponed indefinitely, the IDF are still making ground incursions into Lebanon ( there was some nifty live footage of a tank being disabled that has been repeated all day on the UK news channels ) and Olmert is still insisting that there is no ceasefire.

The US, and Blair, are still giving sufficient diplomatic cover for this to continue for a few more days at least - and this "extension" allows the basic rule of the ME to remain in play: "it can always get worse".

The IAF is still bombing Lebanon - although at a much reduced intensity today. Hizbullah seem to have switched the Katyushas off for today, but there has been some mortar fire into Kiryat Shmona; I would not expect this to last, and if the Israelis go back into full offensive mode tomorrow, I think we can expect the rockets to ratchet up again.

There was a sustained bout of celebratory gunfire in Beirut this afternoon as the news that Hizbullah may have hit another Israeli ship was relayed.

Now a lot of civilians in the deep south are going to get take the opportunity to flee, and this will give the IDF the green light to ramp up the firepower again. We'll see if the Franco-Iranian meeting in Beirut delivers in the next 24 hours - my guess is that it won't, as the Israelis are still desperate to create facts on the ground so that they have something to show for all this effort.

[Barry]

"Sadly for all, the state has chosen to ensure that a smooth surface free from contaminants exists along their border. These contaminants are pissed."

Somebody put it as 'Israel wants security, but is not willing to allow any of their neighbors to have security'.

[Z]

"What if Hezbollah's missile capacity remains intact after the ceasefire (it is getting more likely by the day). Will it become a strategic deterrent to Israeli action in Gaza/West Bank?"

That is the crux of the matter. The Israelis (and the U.S.) are looking for the holy grail of security; The ability to strike at will without the slightest fear of retaliation. The idea of some kind of balance, which sounds reasonable at first glance, is unnacceptable when they feel they can achieve a total imbalance in their favor. If Israel is successful, and the U.S. manages to 'neutralize' Iran, then indeed that will be the case.

Then, in the ensuing instability, israel can resort to "massive Retaliation." Whatever the moral implications of such a policy, it is only practical if the other guy can't retaliate back.

"second is overwhelming invasion/ground/air forces killing everything that moves (WWII and Fallujah order of battle examples). But because of world politics, media coverage (dead children), and public outrage/sympathy, neither strategy is currently feasible"

I'm afraid you underestimate how much misery the world can watch on TV. With America's total political cover Israel could-and likely will-try to implement a sort of ethnic cleansing in Lebanon. After a few months of complaining, the world will forget.

How successful such a policy will be is less certain. Russia has been quite unrestrained in Chechnya, and previously in Afghanistan, and the results have been mixed, at best. And that is likley the scenario here; Beirut as Grozny.

[syberberg]

"Here's one potential formula: if an airstrike is made against a Gaza target, Hezbollah sends in 100 missiles over two days at a cost of $50 million to the Israeli economy (or you can suggest your own formula)."

John,

I seriously doubt that the economic side of things is bothering the Israelis, at least not yet. After all, their economic infrstructure is intact, whereas the Lebanese isn't and they can rely on American aid (either governmental or pirvate donations) to clear up any loss fairly quickly. Lebanon has already lost at least $2billion in tourist income and god alone knows how much it's going to cost to rebuild and clear up the mess.

Economically speaking, the Israelis have won, where they have lost everywhere else in this campaign. How much of a factor this will be in the long run, I'm not sure I'm qualified to conjecture.

[Marcello]

"With America's total political cover Israel could-and likely will-try to implement a sort of ethnic cleansing in Lebanon. After a few months of complaining, the world will forget."

Essentially what I defined in the past as "the easy way out of the 4GW conudrum".
Using the state superior firepower to wage a total war against the enemy civilian population.Ethnical cleansing, concentration camps and if all else fails outright extermination (I do not think that in this case Israel will go beyond ethnical cleansing, concentration camps and small scale killings).
Generally speaking it won't be feasible in many cases but here,as the average american either does not give a damn or is thirsty for arab blood,it might work.It is risky though given the possible ripercussion in the ME.
The soviets employed very brutal tactics in Afghanistan but they never attempted something as systematic as I am suggesting, although apparently some officers brought this possibility up back then. Chechenya is another matter altogether.

[g510]

Re. what if Hezb's missile capacity remains intact...? (Are we talking about missiles here or rockets? Thus far it's been rockets.)

1a) Hezb would probably relocate the rockets & supporting infrastructure during the cease fire. All other factors equal, it's a sensible move.

1b) IDF intel is apparently seriously lacking here. The lack of HUMINT and SIGINT is not particularly remarkable under the present conditions, but you would think IDF would have acceptable IMINT capabilities in this engagement (IDF drones; possible digests via USA NRO) ...and yet apparently they don't, else we would be seeing far different results. (This is interesting: why isn't the US helping out more in this department, eh? Methinks there are policy conflicts below the surface....)

1c) Thus the only way IDF can get a fix on Hezb. rocket emplacements is by backtracking the trajectories after they launch. We can reasonably assume Hezb can hide their rockets wherever they wish, and not worry about getting shot at until after they shoot. As long as they keep their launches below the threshold needed for that type of backtracking (and then move), they can keep shooting.

Does this constitute a deterrence capability? I'm doubtful.

2a) Israel appears stuck between the "regional superpower" mode and the "colonial power" mode: relying on superiority of conventional forces and conventional strategy & tactics, backed ultimately by a nuclear arsenal.

2b) I'm not convinced that IDF understands the decentralized warfare paradigm. As Tangurena remarked (paraphrase), smarts = the ability to change to respond to changing conditions, i.e. "not doing *that* again." Yet what we see appears to be a repetition of what "worked" before, whether or not it actually "worked" to begin with. (That is, the difference between merely temporarily suppressing, vs. long-term neutralizing, the capability of an opponent to attack and inflict damage.)

2c) Thus, Israel would likely not be deterred. Israel's policy inertia is too high, and the IDF could respond to rocket attacks as it has done in the past. If nothing else, this would be sufficient to placate Israeli public opinion.

Which brings us to a prediction or two....

3a) If Hezb. tries to utilize its rocket capabilities for deterrence, this will not succeed: Israel will continue to behave as before.

3b) Israel's response to Hezb. attacks will not deter Hezb. from further attacks, in fact quite the opposite: it will egg them on (positive feedback cycle of force).

3c) Hezb. will make regular use of its rockets to attack Israeli cities: small numbers of rockets at quasi-random intervals

3d) The rocket attacks add something new to the totality of forces impinging on the Israeli state. To the extent that Israel's attacks on Lebanon have degraded the Lebanese state and economy, Hezb. has little to lose by attempting to degrade the Israeli state and economy to a similar degree.

3e) Unchecked, the above development (3d) would constitute potential for pushing Israel down the entropy gradient by a small but measurable degree (i.e. slightly increasing the entropy of the Israeli state & economy). This would be an adverse strategic outcome for the US (at least according to present doctrines of US interests in the region).

3f) Therefore, what happens ultimately is that the US supplies aid both financial and military, to counteract the entropic impacts of Hezb. rocket attacks. In other words, Uncle Sam to the rescue (again).

Opinion:

4a) How long this goes on before someone realizes that "doing the same thing over and over again" isn't producing progress, is anyone's guess.

[Marcello]

"As long as they keep their launches below the threshold needed for that type of backtracking (and then move), they can keep shooting."

Insofar I know there is no "threshold".
We have moved beyond flash spotting and sound ranging for counterbattery.
Shell tracking radars and computers are used to plot the firing position very quickly,although accomplishing all the others tasks necessary for executing an CB mission may still require several minutes.
As I noted previously classical shoot and scoot is not the tactic which is probably being employed here.They are using relatively expendable single rail launchers which are probably left in place during the israeli CB fire.With a very simple cable remote and a reinforced position few hundreds of meters away they would not even have to move at all.

[Z]

According to the Haaretz news ticker, the plan is to push Hizb beyond the Litani and await international peace keepers. Anybody care to game that scenario? I'm assuming most civilians will leave, ig they haven't already.

Short of Iran aquiring nukes in the next few weeks, I don't see how Hizb can hold on. Though they will certainly put up a fight.

[DEATH FROM ABOVE]

BREAKING NEWS: Appears Israel realizes they are in the fourth quarter of this Middle East playoff game and has implemeted the 2-minute drill...an all out offensive to kill Hezbos and drive them back to their end zone before the French and Iranians broker a cease fire deal with the UN to save their radical Islamic coward asses. If that fails, I'm guessing Syria and (Iran; secretly) will want to enter the playing field to save them but I think someone needs to inform the red team that they are out of timeouts and challenge flags before they do. Israel may suffer heavy casulties but they will take a large number with them. Don't mess w/Texas Bush is the coach of this game and is determined not to lose this battle. I wouldn't be surprised if the US is providing B-52/B-2 bombing support during the hours of darkness? The fight is on.

[g510]

Marcello: Bad me; while editing that down for length, I removed the line about "...now this is way outside of my expertise, but..."

I'm primarily a telecoms geek, so I'm out of my field when it comes to ordnance. Thus the probability of mistakes if I speculate about same. OTOH, I don't think that invalidates the overall analysis.

[Tangurena]

>"With America's total political cover Israel could-and likely will-try to implement a sort of ethnic cleansing in Lebanon. After a few months of complaining, the world will forget."
Nope. Arab leaders have moved from anti-Hezbullah comments to anti-Israel remarks in the last week due to the over-reaction by Israel. The US and Israel are going to end up alone in this, and it is likely that we'll see a repeat of what the Arab world did as a result of the Yom Kippur War - the oil embargo in 1973. Even the British won't be helping the US in this fiasco.

I believe that the goal for this war is to draw Syria and Iran into combat, so that the bush administration can attack them as they've wanted to do all along.

The last time Iran's oil exports went offline, in 1979, world oil prices only doubled as Saudi Arabia was able to pick up much of the slack. This time, I think Saudi will be cutting back on oil exports.

>"According to the Haaretz news ticker, the plan is to push Hizb beyond the Litani and await international peace keepers. Anybody care to game that scenario? I'm assuming most civilians will leave, if they haven't already."

There have been news reports of "taxis" charging $3k/carload to get people out of the area. Some folks are getting robbed by the "taxidrivers" who take their money and leave them stranded. Not everyone has that kind of cash laying around.

If you think that everyone can, or will, abandon all their worldly possessions to flee, one need only remember the number of people unable to leave New Orleans last September as Katrina rolled in. Or perhaps like the following family:
http://www.docstrangelove.com/2006/07/31/war-crime-in-qana/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5232434.stm

All of the countries that might have participated in a peacekeeper mission are now backing out, since the only mission that the US will permit is one protecting and guarding Israel, and no one other than the US is willing to become a punching bag on behalf of Israel. Especially after Israel bombed several UN outposts killing the current peacekeepers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5216230.stm

Evacuate people? Israel wants no outside observers to witness the "ethnic cleansing" that they need for their Lebensraum.

Remember, this is the middle east. Things can always get worse™.

[syberberg]

Interesting article in The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2289232,00.html

Thoughts anyone?

[Adam]

syberburg,

This has gone a little long. Apologies.

The Times is being kind:
http://www.wujs.org.il/activist/campaigns/hasbara.shtml

There are any number of pro-Israeli advocacy organisations, and they have a major effect on US politics.

For a number of years politicians had to be signed off as "kosher" on a regular basis by at the very least the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) or no money for them. In fact the vetting procedure was more intense than that of MI5, which is only every five years. Jewish votes are in some primaries very important (mainly Democratic ones in California). Its an easy way of getting rid of awkward (those against Israel or neutral) candidates without having to go to a full election. Most elections in the US are not about the Middle East, so its best to weed the candidates out early.

Sadly American laws make it quite difficult to work out who is working for Israel. Its normally either a press release saying that they're a "friend of Israel", or a photo of an Israeli official and the candidate. Following the money can be very hard.

However we do know that current goverment officials/close advisors Dick Cheney, Richard Pearle, and the following defense officials: Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Rubin (AEI), David Schenker WINEP), and Michael Makovsky (Brother of WINEP fellow - and former editor of the Jerusalem Post - David Makovsky). All of these political appointees have a close identification with the far right-wing Likud Party. Both AIPAC and WINEP are front organisations for the Likud party. WINEP employs a large number of writers who support Israel, for example Daniel Pipes. Pay is around a quarter of a million dollars a year for a low grader writer. Daniel Pipes apparently got $20m for 10 years work; not that I'm jealous. It was WINEP that argued for Ahmed Chalabi and disbanding the Iraqi army.

That said most US Jewish voters support Democratic candidates. At its best the need for support can result in total reversal of political principles. As a result Tom Hayden (Jane Fonda's husband) wound up supporting the full-on 1982 invasion of Lebanon ("Hanoi Jane says Yes to War" should have been the headline, but wasn't).

That is has happened is because this has been part of the Israeli foreign policy for nearly sixty years. The 1948 Israeli Symphony World Tour (the US only world tour ...) was just the start of a long campaign. Its included books, films, and other material.

The Israelis have even supported Christian fundamentalist politicians, creating the legendarily loopy "Christian Zionism" which says that the sooner the Palestinians are butchered / ethnically cleansed / Holocausted, the sooner Christ will come back. Of course Christ might have a few things to say about genocide in his name, but frankly who can be bothered with all that complicated religious shit, there's a-lynching to be done boys. Without the millions of these Republican voting Christian fruitbats Israel would be much less influential and effective.

Overall the Israelis have aimed for quantity.

A less comforting though is that AIPAC currently has a spot a commie project running against academics. In the US the academics now have to teach a balanced curriculum ("today children we're going to say that its right to bomb people with F-15s but wrong with a truck...") Of course this idea of balanced teaching in a straight right or wrong area would be lefty hippie and liberal, unless you're a rabid rightwinger and know that you're in the wrong, in which case balance looks good all of a sudden. Either way it means that the next generation of US citizens will continue to understand nothing.

By comparison the Saudis, who concentrate on just a few American families (the Bush family for a start) are much more quality oriented. On the other hand no-one's asked any questions about September 11th, so that's money well spent.

Of course the issue is that the US has given a large chunk of its foreign policy over to other people. As a result the US has spent the last few years running a Likud foreign policy.

The Likud policies centre around reversing Oslo (translation: stealing people's land). Strangely when you do this people shoot back and this has produced enormous amounts of "terrorism" against Israel. Israel now argues that further annexation is necessary because there is terrorism. Which will create more terrorism, hence more annexation. Some Likudniks now openly speak of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, using the same argument.

Sadly for them the Oslo peace process reduced terrorism. But reality is a long way from US/Likud foreign policy these days.

The drawback for the US in all this is that US government backing for Likud makes it hated in the Muslim world. Muslims who oppose Israeli aggression are called "terrorists". The result was of course September 11th. Any number of Likud apologists have stated the story that al-Qaeda did not care about Palestine, but that is silly. Bin Laden has a track record of fury about the occupation of the three holy cities (Mecca, Medina and ... dandandaaa Jerusalem). Likud propaganda relies on ignorance.

All of this is happening at a time of turmoil in Israeli politics. The Labor Party in Israel has been eclipsed by the Likud coalition (and then again the Kadima coalition - which is Likud in a new guise and no change in policy was part of it), both of which include proto-fascist groups.

But there is a real effect - in 2004 US policy changed to endorse the expansion of the Israeli colonies ("settlements") in the West Bank. Its there that the shooting is in Palastine as the Israelis eliminate the people who currently own the houses, farms, and groves. It turns out that the cheapest way of buying a house is to shoot the owner.

[syberberg]

Adam,

No worries about the length there, I prefer as detailed a reply as possible and also thanks for the link. I've bookmarked it for further study.

I've been aware of the pro-Israeli (esp. Likud) hijacking of the American democratic (possibly a bigger oxymoron than "military intelligence") process, but didn't realise it was so deep.

I'd also say that this could be a sign of how desparate the Israeli pseudo-facists have become to win the "propaganda war". If you listen really carefully you can hear Goebbels applauding.

I also found this:

http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/33264

Which appears to back-up one of my posts in another thread here, that Israel ordered a recce troop into Lebanon to provoke Hezbollah. It's not as if the IDF doesn't have past form on this:

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997.

Sorry for straying off topic folks...

It doesn't really matter what the military outcome of this is, Hezbollah have won where it matters, in the public mindset and in isolating Israel/US and to a certain extent the UK (thank you Mr. Blair, you wanker).

[brian]

'In reality Hezbollah has done nothing to defend Lebanon or the Lebanese. Quit the contrary, it started this conflict with total disregard for the welfare of the people of Lebanon, and is continuously using them as human shields.'

Hizbollah is NOT using human shields...what is being used are IOF propaganda...

Why use human shields when Israel shows no compunction about killing arabs?

In QANA, where the psychotic IOF said Hizbollah fired rockets...there WERE NO Hizbolah to fire rockets:

No Hezbollah Activists in Village of Qana, Israel
Bombing Civilian Buildings and Vehicles

30 July 2006 | 12:13 | FOCUS News Agency

Qana/Sofia. "There are no Hezbollah activists in the
village of Qana, Israel is bombarding civilian
buildings and vehicles", Spanish journalist Monica
Leiva, who is in the southern Lebanese village at the
moment, told FOCUS News Agency.
“I am at the site of the bombarding at the moment.
Here the people are still trying to pull the bodies
out from under the ruins. At the moment they are
trying to free the bodies of the children killed in
the Israeli air raid. The bombarding continues.
What more can I say? Israel is firing at everything –
buildings, roads, vehicles. It is practically
impossible for the locals to leave the area, as there
is no guarantee that they will not be fired at while
trying to escape the war zone. The people are very
scared. The air raids started during the night and
continue. There are no Hezbollah activists in Qana.
There are only civilians here,” the Spanish journalist
said.
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?catid=138&ch=0&newsid=93149

[Azrael]

Hizb-e-allah's secret of success is simple. It attacks Israeli economic and military targets then fades into the background noise of lebanese society. Israel for it's part, unable to effectively target hizb-e-allah's paramilitary assets, hits civilian infrastructure and the more than occasional civilian. This in effect enacts a defacto policy of ethnic cleansing in south lebanon. The chilidren of these refugees will in turn channel their terror, fear and feelings of weakness into the focused rage neccesary for them to excel in the rank and file of hizb-e-allah's armed wing a few years hence.
Thus hizb-e-allah attacks cause a re-enforcing feedback cycle that makes hizb-e-allah stronger with every israeli counterstrike. Sort of reminds one of what obi-wan-kenobi told his killer right before his death.

[Z]

Its still hazy at the moment, but most readers by now are aware of some sort of special forces raid in/near Baalbek. Obviously, if the raid has succeded in rescuing the 2 soldiers then Hizb's legitimacy suffers a devastating blow. If they managed to capture a senior Hizb figure, that would still be a very potent blow in a war that now seems about perceptions. If the appearance is that Hizb has been outwitted, it's support among Lebanese would crumble. Weather this would force them to accept a ceasefire on unfavorable terms remains to be seen.

At the moment, the Haaretz real states the IDF claims soldiers returned safely fromm Baalbek. No other info about its mission or success. Speculation abounded that this was a Hizbullah "trap," but that doesn't appear to be the case. If it were, then Global Guerrillas are becoming capable of sophisticated counter inteligence; an entirely new plateu.

[andy]

Hi Z
can't remember the details but there were at least two occasions before ISraeli withdrawla in 2000 were Hezbollah's organised a trap for ISraeli special forces, along the lines you describe, ambushed and defeated them.

Thoughts were they used triple agents to feed back false information tot he israelis about the wherabouts of senior Hezbollah members

[Grimgrin]

One thing I'm curious about is repeated mentions of bunkers and tunnels being dug along the border by Hezbollah.

How effective have these concealed fortifications been at shielding the rockets and fighters from IAF reprisal?

After all, if you can dig in deep enough even the most powerfull bunker buster won't be able to touch you, and with multiple entrances and blast doors you can lessen the effectivness of thermobaric weapons.

I don't have a good idea how well these sorts of fortifications hold up under bombardment from a modern Air Force, but I suspect that they're part of the reason why Hezbollah is so tenacious.

Think ratholes and tunnels for rapid movement. Think in terms of geographically dispersed mini-caves/pits that mitigate against everything but a direct hit -- for the storage of a small number of personnel/weapons/supplies (where the loss of any one is minor). The problem isn't that the targets are elaborate fortifications that too difficult to destroy (deep, armored, etc.), the problem is that there are too many of them to find,target and destroy (disconnected micro-clusters with not central hub of any meaningful value).

[Marcello]

"After all, if you can dig in deep enough even the most powerfull bunker buster won't be able to touch you"

The GBU-28 is rated for six meters of concrete (unspecified type) and thirty meters of earth.That would be more than adequate to deal with both the above ground and underground components of a typical Maginot artillery fortress.That's a standard which would be hard to match. Exceptions would be of course cave style fortifications dug inside mountains.
But in any other place I would expect these shelters to be much less strong than that.
I would expect them to be built to withstand medium artillery barrages and generic aircraft bombs.
I would also expect the extensive use of camouflage and dispersion instead of greater concrete thicknesses and deeper depths and as the main defense against the more powerful but rarer weapons like the bunker busters.
Thermobaric weapons are the biggest question mark.You would probably need ermetically sealed doors and modifications to the air circulation systems, which would raise cost and complexity.

[Bob Salsa]

"Any number of Likud apologists have stated the story that al-Qaeda did not care about Palestine, but that is silly."

Adam, maybe not exactly Palestine --

"...And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children..." OBL 11/01/04 transcript

But it doesn't matter. The jinni has been released; faith-based terror can now only expand far beyond the holy lands.

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 009:005 “

As has occurred to the Israelis, it's now only a question of being struck by the "diamond bullet"

"And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that... these were not monsters. These were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment. For it is judgment that defeats us" -- Col. Kurtz, Apocalypse Now

With deference to Jim Morrison -

"lost in a roman... wilderness of pain
and all [Abraham's] children are insane
All [His] children are insane
[no longer just] waiting for the summer rain"

And it is all Abraham's children --
http://www.modbee.com/life/faithvalues/story/12456248p-13175747c.html

[JC]

Hezbollah's greatest advantage over Israel is Israel's population is less willing to stand and fight - or stand and be shot at.

The Arabs have little choice about staying in the region. And if a few do go, their birth rate makes up for it. The Israeli population is extremely mobile, and has a lower birthrate

Nor can the Arab population exert much pressure on Hezbollah if they wished it to stop. The Israelis can exert massively greater influence on their government.

So while the Israelis posess the mucher greater apparatus for inflicting violence, Hezbollah enjoys a virtual immunity to its effects.

Despite talk about Effects Based Warfare (surely once the worst acronyms ever invented as the doctrines is one of means, infrastructure destruction, rather than "effects") hitting the Israeli population is much more effective for Hezbollah than attacking infrastructure - people can be made fearful and uncertain, and they emigrate and vote.

Hezbollah's strategy isn't even the conventional guerilla one of trying to provoke an over-reaction - they're demonstrating to the Israeli population that they are vulnerable and can't react effectively.

[Z]

Question; Does any of Hizbullah's success have any applicabilty to war with Syria?

Hizb has apperently been able to use natural and man made fortifications to fight back and inflict casualties, especially on israeli tanks. all this is done without any means of defending against air attack.

Presumably Syria has in abundance all the anti-tank weapons that Hizb has used effectively. And while Syria's airforce and airdefense is antiquated, Hizb Lebanon has none at all. Presumably, even if the IAF looses few or no planes at all, it would still have to take precautions it can safely ignore over Lebanon.

Also, since the Israelis would prefer not to attack through Syria's Maginot line on the Golan, they would try to go through Lebanon and take Damascus from the west. Would Hizb be a serious threat to vital supply lines?

All this has a point. If Hizb is to contniue resisting, it will need supplies. For Syria to supply it, it would risk Israel attack. But if it is strong enough to inflict real casualties on its enemy, then perhaps they will feel confident enough to continue supplying Hizb.

All comments welcome.

[Grimgrin]

They may not need resupply for a while yet it's likely that Hezbollah doesn't need independant supplies of food and water but instead can just use supplies from civilians in the area or simply take off their uniforms and become "civilians" when they need to resupply. Even if they have to supply their own food and water, you can easily fit a years supply of essentials in a basement or a cave somewhere. Obviously they're not a mobile force, and they don't have a command structure requiring constant communciation, so they don't need fuel or spare parts.

In fact, just about the only thing I can see they're not going to be able to get locally is ammunition and ordinance. The question of when the the front line fighters will need resupply then becomes, how many boxes of 7.62 x 39 mm, RPG-7's and Katyushas do you think they had time to bury between the Israeli pullout and the start of this war?

God knows. But God also knows I wouldn't bet on it being a small number.

[Adam]

Z,

Syria is an odd fish. Physically they're extremely vulnerable to Israel: Damascus is almost in sight from the Israeli occupied Golan Heights; Israel outspends them 10:1 on military equipment; Syrian troops have been historically inferior; Syrian arms, equipment, doctrine and so on are a generation out of date; their military is a lot weaker than that of the Israelis; the US will provide direct support for the Israelis.

Syrias population is 3 times larger than that of Israel though and Israel cannot swallow the barely half the size Lebanon - any war would be intended as a quick in and out from the Israelis.

An out of date analysis is here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/syria/army.htm

Its the politics and the upshot of that is currently stopping Israeli invasion plans.

In 2003 Syria attempted to work with the US in Iraq, but was rebuffed. After that it was clear that US policy would be to attack Syria so in recent years they've had to ally with Iran. Its not perfect but its hang together or hang separately. The key moment was November 2005 when Iran and Syria agreed a treaty of defence co-operation against "American and Israeli threats". The upshot of this accord is that in a time of crisis the two countries will provide co-operation and mutual aid. Times of crisis include international sanctions or military confrontation with the West. The specifics allow Iran to store weapons in Syria - or vice versa - in a time of crisis. In return the Syrians receive weapons, advanced communications equipment, ammunition and training from their richer neighbour. Syrian missile and chemical warfare capabilities took a big leap forward with that as Iran are probably the regional experts in the field.

Which brings us to why Israel really doesn't want conflict with Syria. Syria has balanced Israels nuclear weapons with chemical weapons, the poor mans' nuke. At present there are around 100 Syrian long-range ballistic missiles (probably Scud C or D types - estimated range 500-700km, one landed in Turkey in 2005) that are equipped with VX nerve gas warheads (since 1998) aimed at central Israel.

VX is incredibly nasty stuff, and the Israelis know it. Invented by the British in the 1950s (and everyone British here should now look proud: we invented the damn thing and refuse absolutely to deploy it. We think nuclear weapons are nicer and we're probably right. France, US, and Russia deploy VX).

Anyway it was traded to the US for nuclear weapons information, who gave it to Sadaam, who used it on Iran in the 1980s, who got the formula themselves. Supposedly its the gas that hit the Kurds, which is probably why the Americans aren't trying Sadaam for that crime - a little too close to home. VX is also the gas in the film "The Rock" and if anything The Rock understated it, stopping at merely killing thousands of people. The long term impact of the gas is that it has an adhesive quality that means that it is virtually impossible to remove from a surface that it is in contact with. Scrubbing the affected surface with chemicals whilst wear a full defensive suit is the only option. On a city that means everything: every car, building, under every window ledge and railing, every sign, everything. It would be simpler to knock down the city and start again.

Sure Israel can respond with nukes, but blasting Syria in exchange for your ideal homeland seems kind of pointless.

Israel may get Damascus, but it loses everyone in Tel Aviv unless they can get full chemical warfare suits on - and keep them on. And there's no chance of that; they've not been issued. And we've seen this last month, and in Desert Storm, just how impossible it is to find the launchers and stop them in a small area; and Syria is a bloody large area.

In short, Syria might go down, but it'll choke the Israelis to death as it does so.

The other side of that is that Syria is saying it will intervene if Israel launches a full invasion of Lebanon. Its a political reason why the Israeli advance has been so dismal. They're worried about having to fight the Syrians. Currently the Syria army is at the highest alert levels, which is hardly surprising. What is suprising is that Syrias elite Special Forces division (the troops they had in Beirut) has left its base near Damascus and is now on the Syrian-Lebanon-Israel border.

The sudden arrival in Lebanon of advanced laser guided Kornet-E and man portable AT-13 (Metis-M) anti-tank guided missiles made in Russia is being touted as proof that either Syria or Iran is supplying Hizbullah with advanced weapons; probably through Eritrea.

Its the presence of these state of the art anti-tank weapons that have caused the Israelis so many headaches on the ground. It would appear that these weapons are capable of killing the vaunted Merkava tanks or, more importantly, the crews.

The Israelis have announced that they have no intentions involving Syria (so the Israeli Defence Minister says). Problem is that the Syrians remember the Israeli invasions of the past all to well and simply don't believe them. It doesn't help that Israeli backers are saying that that although Syrian actions are defensive (true) they cannot predict the judgement of President Assad (because obviously the Israelis can be trusted not to launch no-notice invasions, so perhpas the Israelis should launch one first!). Sure...

However this would mean that Israel is now fighting on 4 fronts (Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank being the original 3). Any attck from Israeli into Syria would, at this stage, be awesomely messy.

[Marcello]

"Presumably Syria has in abundance all the anti-tank weapons that Hizb has used effectively"

Not really.The issue is that the Hizbollah is a small organization which can spend its money on weapons that are actually useful, while the syrian army is a bloated one which is forced to spend its money to mantain big ticket items,like tanks and planes, which will provide the IDF with target practice.With maybe 400-500 "modern" (anything better than the Sagger) launchers for an army of 250000 I bet that the relative concentration of ATGMs teams is much greater among the Hizbollah.
Fun fact, they are apparently using american TOWs (some were found in one of their depots).

[Marcello]

"The Rock" and if anything The Rock understated it, stopping at merely killing thousands of people."

Not, really.Chemical weapons have been turned into a boogeyman with no relationship with their actual capabilities.
A London style terrorist strike (multiple attacks on several trains) was carried out in the Tokio subway (an ideal environment for gas attacks) using several liters of Sarin.It killed a grand total of a dozen of people on five thousands exposed.
In other words only a fraction of the number killed by good old fashioned explosives in similar circumstances.
VX is generally classed as persistent agent.Such persistency is not absolute however;it is soluble in water for example (not terribly well but still) and weather action (rain, sun etc) will reduce its concentration in a matter of weeks, although I agree complete decontamination will be a bitch.Persistency is also the opposite of volatility,which means it will tend more to stick to a given place which can be delimited and avoided rather than forming a cloud killing anyone on its path.
Ballistic missiles are less than ideal delivery systems and the twentysomething syrian SCUD TELs will probably have an harder time, although they can probably still perform their missions.
Provided that some basic precautions are taken civilian losses to chemical agents will probably be very limited.

[dan]

Adam/Marcello,

Bear in mind that vast quantities of Iraqi weaponry was being exported via Beirut in the aftermath of the US invasion - I would imagine that Hizbullah was able to cream off plenty of usable kit from that source as well.

[Marcello]

Chemical weapons can kill a lot of people if they are used against unprepared people in great concentrations.The readiness of Israel civil defense is unclear to me but even just gas masks, warning and training will reduce casualties considerably, even if full NBC gear is not issued to everyone an his dog.And for the concentration part, I already noted that ballistic missiles aren't the best tools for the job.Those 20-25 vehicles will probably be the most sought after targets in military history, much more so than in 1991, and I would not rule out tactical nukes for counterbattery.
In those conditions firing many missiles in quick succession to achieve the best effects will be a bit tad difficult.The iraqis achieved survivability at the expense of rate of fire.

"Bear in mind that vast quantities of Iraqi weaponry was being exported via Beirut in the aftermath of the US invasion"

Iraqi weapons are either obsolete or beyond the expire date.The standard RPG-7 is a the a marginal weapon against modern western MBT.Against tanks like the Merkava 4 or late models Merkava 3 is next to useless.The tandem warhead rounds would be the bare minimum to make it useful in its original AT role but these are are rare in the third world.Others weapons would be decent ATGMs like the Sprandel,TOW,Kornet, Milan etc.Iraq did not have decent quantities of these still in usable conditions and there are reports that Syria supplied some of the to Iraq, rather than the other way around.

[Z]

Marcello, according to the Moscow Times (01/18/05) Russia had already sole a thousand Kornet missles to Syria. They may have sold more in the 20 months since the article. The few that Iraq had proved effective against Abrams tanks in Iraq. Presumably they would hurt a Merkava. Also in that article there is talk of having sold Igla-2 anti aircraft missiles with "optic recognition" and alegedly not fooled by decoys. The article also talks of selling some Iskander-E S to S missiles that are accurate up to several meters and so could be used to target airbases. But an april 05 Pravda article claimed Putin forbade the sail under U.S. pressure. Still, its not inconcievabe that Syria aquired some anyway.

According to; http://www.meforum.org/article/510
Syria also has some fairly accurate Scud-Ds and 1000 less accurate but nevertheless effective Scud-Cs. They are apperently housed in deep reinforced underground shelters and silos, making them more difficult to destroy. Syria's VX weapon, while perhaps not so devastating, would likely be painfull enough to make Israel hesitate about causing the sort of infrastructural damage they cavalierly inflicted upon Lebanon. But Syria would only consider VX if national survival was at stake. And even then it might only use them at a millitary target just to force them to work in chemical suites.

None of this is to suggest Syria could prevail in war against Israel. The question is; do they have a strong enough deterent to prevent Israel from attacking them, even in the face of the "provocation" of arming Hizbullah?

[Marcello]

"Marcello, according to the Moscow Times (01/18/05) Russia had already sole a thousand Kornet missles to Syria."

The good question is: how many firing posts were included?
This isn't the Sagger, the missile is a laser beamrider and the launching equipment is fairly complex.

"The few that Iraq had proved effective against Abrams tanks in Iraq."

Last time I heard about that it was still unclear if it was an ATGM or a T-12 antitank gun.But I never followed after that.

"The article also talks of selling some Iskander-E S to S missiles that are accurate up to several meters and so could be used to target airbases."

A truly excellent weapon.But with insufficient range for going after Tel Aviv.
Persistent chemical weapons.
Firing persistent chemical agent against the airbases is a staple of communist bloc warplannning.The idea being not so much causing casualties among the personnel but forcing them to go in NBC mode, slowing down sortie rate.The beauty of the plan is that even if the enemy retaliates in kind communist armies greater reliance on artillery rather than on planes for fire support would still result in a net gain.The whole thing is however a mean to an end, which to say support of a rapid mechanized offensive.The soviets could probably have pulled that off in some periods.But the syrians...Don't think so.

They are apperently housed in deep reinforced underground shelters and silos, making them more difficult to destroy.
The "silos" are shelters rather than launchers.The launchers themselves are a couple of dozens of TELs.

Finally don't get me wrong, a chemical attack would be nasty but if they have taken some basic steps they can keep casualties to a minimum.

[Z]

"A truly excellent weapon.But with insufficient range for going after Tel Aviv."

From what I've read, The Iskander-E has a range of 280-300 KM which, assuming its fired from just north of Damascus should put most points north of Beersheva within range. The best targets would be air bases and air fields.

"The whole thing is however a mean to an end, which to say support of a rapid mechanized offensive.The soviets could probably have pulled that off in some periods.But the syrians...Don't think so."

The scenario I envision is Syria being attacked and simply trying to survive as long as possible. In that regard, anything that slows down IAF sorties would be helpful. They are unlikely to try an attack, but simply hunker down on their side of the Golan and try to inflict casualties on the attacking IDF.

Anyway, back to the original question; If the Hizbollah war goes unfavorably for Israel-meaning a steady stream of casualties without a clear endpoint-and the Isaelis feel Syrian resuply is to blame, will Syria's millitary power be any deterent or will the Israelis assume Syria has no means to hurt them significantly?

The second question, can Syria resuply Hizbollah given the blockade that has been imposed?