Israeli leaders face scathing report on war
Last summer's war on Hizbullah is now reaping a wave of critiques, led by the findings of the Winograd Commission.
from the May 1, 2007 edition
Page 4 of 4
Timur Goksel, a Beirut-based security consultant who served with UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon from 1979 to 2003, questioned if people would absorb the war's tactical and strategic lessons.
"Apart from Hizbullah, no one is looking at the technical aspects of the report and what that entails for the future. The reaction is all emotional," he says.
For Hizbullah, the war was another demonstration of the efficacy of armed resistance against Israel. "The model of resistance is out there and everyone is looking at it," says Nawaf Mussawi, Hizbullah's foreign-affairs adviser. "Now is the time of resistance – in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, other places."
"Hizbullah thinks the Winograd commission itself is the main proof of Israel's defeat , says Amal Saad-Ghorayeb of the Carnegie Endowment's Middle East Center in Beirut, "and it will continue to use it to refute skeptics who think Hizbullah lost."
Nicholas Blanford in Beirut and Josh Mitnick in Tel Aviv contributed.
Winograd Commission on Israel's war performance
• "Primary responsibility for these serious failings" in last summer's war against Hizbullah falls to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and outgoing chief of the military, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz.
• The war was not based on a thorough military plan and did not fully consider alternate responses.
• Though it became clear some declared goals were poorly defined and unattainable, political leaders failed to adjust plans accordingly.
• The military was "not ready for this war" and has not felt the need to update Israel's "overall security strategy."
•The government's "quality of discussions and decisionmaking" requires "urgent attention."
Source: Winograd Commission Partial Report
|
Stories
05/08/0705/01/07 10/02/06 09/25/06 |
09/22/06 Commentary
08/30/0608/28/06 08/25/06 |
RSS feed
