While no one in the Israeli military expected Hizbullah to be easily defeated, some senior officers are saying publicly that the Islamist militant group is turning out to be a much tougher foe than expected - "by orders of magnitude - than the armed Palestinian groups in the territories."
The Washington Post reports that while not surprised at Hizbullah's expertise in fighting a guerrilla-style campaign, losses like the ones Israeli forces had Wednesday (losing nine men in fierce fighting) "expose the limits of a modern national army pitted against a well-schooled guerrilla force fighting amid a civilian population that largely supports its goals."
Military analysts, former senior Israeli officers and soldiers say the mounting casualties in a still-small ground war are rooted in Israel's scant battlefield intelligence, the challenge of operating in civilian areas and the skill of Hizbullah fighters armed with weapons far more advanced than anything many young soldiers here have seen. For example, they said, Hizbullah has been using laser-guided antitank missiles ...
"Obviously it's more difficult than what was anticipated," said Yossi Alpher, a former official of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, who once ran the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. "I dare say, based on what we've seen so far, these may be the best Arab troops we've ever faced."
The Boston Globe also reports on the strength being shown by Hizbullah in its battle with Israel. Israeli soldiers returning from the front lines described their adversary as "deeply dug-in, well-trained, and disciplined."
"In my opinion the Hizbullah fighter is much tougher than the Israeli one," said a member of the Israeli special forces who was hitchhiking from his post on the northern border to his home in the Galilee. "I've seen them face to face, they shot at me and I at them, and I killed more than one.
"They wait for you, they ambush you on every occasion. . . . Compared to them, the Palestinians are nothing," said the soldier, who like other soldiers interviewed [Wednesday] spoke on condition of anonymity because he was commenting without the permission of his commanders.
The soldiers interviewed said they felt that Israeli troops could "handle" Hizbullah, but that "defeating the group will require house-to-house warfare, of which there has been little so far."
 |
|
|
|
|
Subscribe via RSS Feed:
    |
The Los Angeles Times reports that the tougher-than-expected battle against Hizbullah has Israeli leaders trying to lower expectations about possible outcomes. During the first few days of fighting, Israeli leaders were unequivocal about the reason for fighting - "We intend to break this organization," Defense Minister Amir Peretz said. But after three weeks of often intense ground fighting, Israelis are being told that "Hizbullah can be weakened but not eradicated, that Israeli forces will not be able to police the border zone themselves, and that Hizbullah's rockets continue to pose a threat to Israeli towns."
"The target is not to totally dismantle Hizbullah," said Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, a former head of Shin Bet, Israel's domestic security service. "What we are doing now is to try to send a message to Hizbullah."
Yaron Ezrahi, a political analyst at Hebrew University, said that "the rhetoric from the political establishment was extremely overheated in the early days" of the confrontation. "Now they are trying to calibrate people's expectations, bring them more in line with what might actually be achieved," he said.
The Jerusalem Post reports that Thursday morning the Israeli security cabinet expressed opposition to a plan put forward by Israeli Defense Force (IDF) senior officers to expand ground forces in Lebanon. Prior to the meeting, the BBC had reported that Israel viewed the decision by diplomats Wednesday in Rome not to call for an end to the Lebanese offensive as a "green light" to continue.
One reason that an expanded IDF mission in southern Lebanon was passed over is that it could create another problem, Ha'aretz also reports. Officers expressed concern that expanded operations could be misinterpreted by Damascus as preparation for an attack on Syria, despite Israeli statements to the contrary. Syrian troops have gone on high alert in the past few days, fearing an Israeli attack.
The only participant who expressed support for an operation against Syrian targets involved in the fighting in Lebanon was Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, who said that before expanding the ground operation, Israel must consider "the day after" and the goals it hopes to achieve.
It appears that the army is gradually moving away from its previous tactic of raids targeting specific positions along the border, in favor of one of capturing and temporarily holding a security zone whose aim would be to push the rocket launchers further north.
Columnist Larry Derfner of The Jerusalem Post writes Thursday that while he would not have joined the 2,500 people who last week protested against the war in Lebanon – because he believes the war was forced on Israel – if Israel is still fighting in Lebanon in a week, he will go "looking for an antiwar protest to join – and my guess is that such a protest, if it's still necessary, will attract a lot more people than the 2,500 who showed up for the first one."
So let the IDF take a few more days to kill as many Hizbullah men and destroy as much of their weaponry as possible – but then this has to stop. There is just so much we can reasonably expect to achieve in this war, there is only so high a price we can pay – or make Lebanon pay – and just so great a risk we should take.
We've about reached the limit of what's reasonable. If the IDF keeps going, it will be fighting on overconfidence, and that's a dangerous thing. The war could get out of control and become one Israel can neither win nor walk away from. It's happened to Israel before in Lebanon. It's happened now in Iraq to America, Israel's patron in the new war against Hizbullah.
The Chicago Tribune reports that in Rome, Lebanese leader Fuad Siniora had pleaded for "an immediate and comprehensive cease-fire," saying that only "only despair and fanaticism would emerge from Lebanon's rubble."
"Is the value of human life less in Lebanon than that of citizens elsewhere? Are we children of a lesser God?" Mr. Siniora said, according to a copy of his remarks. "Is an Israeli teardrop worth more than a drop of Lebanese blood?"
- 'Waiting to get blown up': Some troops in Baghdad express frustration with the war and their mission (Washington Post)
- Haifa, suddenly vulnerable, by turns is stoic and fearful, stir-crazy and looking to fight (New York Times)
Feedback appreciated. E-mail Tom Regan.
RSS feed