Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Will IDF succeed in their mission?

  1. Jul 22, 2006 #1
    IDF(Israeli defense force)'s mission in Lebanon is to A) free their servicemen B)render Hezbollah unable to attack Israel from Lebanon. how successful do you think IDF will be on these fronts by the time they withdraw from Lebanon?

    by the looks of it, there seems to be no shortage of resolve in the IDF and it seems they have the capacity to identify surface to surface missile sites and attack them with impunity. however, i don't know how they plan to interdict supplies from Syria or Iran (i haven't read much about the involvement of these countries with Hezbollah so I'm just going by what i hear on the news here) to Hezbollah without occupying Lebanon. unless IDF can get some better info on the location of Hezbollah leadership I'm wondering how much IDF is doing here aside from attacking resources that are replenishable and personnel that is recruitible. with the destruction of roads and bridges, that should slow down the resupply of Hezbollah for now. the way i see it, everything done in the last 2 weeks is temporary damage in this conflict unless there is regime change in Lebanon (although ineffective when dealing with Hezbollah, is the current regime not pro-west and pro-Israel interests?), a devastating blow to Hezbollah leadership or a long term occupation by IDF in Lebanon.

    as for the IDF servicemen held by Hezbollah, I'm quite pessimistic. Hezbollah is vary intent on preventing them from being freed by military force and a rescue operation in an environment like this could put the held service men's lives at extreme risk. i don't expect the servicemen to be freed without negotiation of some kind. this looks like a lost cause to me, unfortunately.

    my uneducated guess of future events goes something like this. 1) IDF will make some large incursions in the next two weeks as air strikes and missile attacks continue 2) Hezbollah will run out of missiles because of a combination of destroyed/expended/captured caches 3) the servicemen held by Hezbollah will be killed tragically in a failed rescue attempt 4) IDF will withdraw.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 22, 2006 #2
    One thing to be kept in mind is that the current campaign is part of an all-round effort that includes a lot of work by the ministry of foreign affairs. There's a good FAQ on their site, I suggest you review it.

    One of the aims of the current conflict is to have the Lebanese military deployed in south Lebanon. Then it is a matter of diplomatic coordination to uphold the UNSC resolution 1559.

    That is the sentiment here in Israel too. This, however, does not mean Israel should not attempt to recover them. It's quite clear that any negotiation for their return will strengthen Hizbullah and promote more abductions in the future. From the appearances of the soldiers' families in the media, it seems to me they realise this as well. The Israeli public embraces these families paying the ultimate price for our safety.

    That's a fair assessment IMO.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2006
  4. Jul 22, 2006 #3
    Israel's Army Chief of Staff said that if the if the soldiers were not returned they would "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years"; they are quite clearly succeeding in that mission.
     
  5. Jul 22, 2006 #4

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do you have a source? Both for the statement, and that they are succeeding?
     
  6. Jul 23, 2006 #5
    Sources for the statement. As for the success, 'turn back the clock by 20 years is' subjectively arguable so I can't rightly give you a "source" for that, but I hope you realize that General Halutz controls the means to succeed in whatever his concept of his goal is.
     
  7. Jul 27, 2006 #6
    I thought it'd be a good idea to post a quick description of yesterday's battle in Bint Jbeil that claimed the lives of 8 IDF soldiers, 3 of them officers. This is the picture I put together from the media reports and interviews of injured soldiers.
    It seems the IDF had taken the outer perimeter of the town sans a narrow corridor left for any remaining civilians' departure. Several forces were clearing specific houses intelligence showed were inhabited by Hizbullah activists. These searches revealed weapons and war rooms complete with maps and communication equipment. A vanguard force approaching a house across a section of open ground was the subject of a well planned manouver attack by dozens of Hizbullah guerillas. Another force operating nearby rushed to its aid, while the guerillas charged the force, prompting a charge by the aiding force. The ensuing battle in extremely close quarters and the initial volley claimed many casualties, though the charging Hizbullah force was stopped. The remaining soldiers fought while carrying their comrades to safety. The casualties were carried around 2km by foot to an area surrounded by smokescreens, where 3 blackhawk helicopters touched ground for less than a minute. They evacuated the injured to hospital while the fighting raged on for several hours.
    The interviews with the injured present a picture of a difficult battle against a large well-trained force with heavy firepower. However, the heavy losses are overshadowed by the realisation it could have easily been a costly defeat. The general sentiment by the reporters and injured soldiers, as well as the regiments' second in command in an interview the same evening, is rather that of success - albeit some underheard criticism of the initial situation. The rescue effort was well-organised and the forces reacted well to the attack. It's clear, though, that small forces are in greater danger than thought, and I think the northern command will rethink its methods for the remainder of the operation. Such deathtolls are not acceptable.
     
  8. Jul 27, 2006 #7
  9. Jul 29, 2006 #8
  10. Aug 1, 2006 #9
  11. Aug 1, 2006 #10
    Not unless the UN/US is prepared to let this war drag on for months, no, there is a resolution about to be chaired, I assume it calls for a ceasefire, so assuming the US don't veto it, which is always a possibility, then if they can do what they set out to do they'll have to make it snappy, in all likelyhood though, they won't have time.
     
  12. Aug 2, 2006 #11
  13. Aug 3, 2006 #12
    i dont think israel would agree to a cease fire resolution from the U.N. because they wouldn't trust hezbollah to respect the resolution either. i dont expect this issue will come up though because the USA will veto the resolution in the UN anyway
     
  14. Aug 4, 2006 #13
    However how long can the US get away with being the bad egg in the world, how often do you see people moaning about the US on forums, we blame them for everything that's wrong in the Middle East and there whole government stinks! But empashioned pleas aside, and reasoning it out sooner or later they have to understand that the world will not sit idly by while the US ruins the region with it's political shennanigans, if the US does this then we may rightly start comparing the US to Sharon in it's approach to the Middle East, it does not want peace it does not want progress all it wants is Israel to get whatever it feels it needs and to avoid any resolution against it's selfish desires.

    This may sound like a clever course of action if your side of the argument is only Israel exists. But I'm afraid if the US continues excercising it's power of veto over the UN then sooner or later the world will act without it, and that would be disasterous to the relationship the dissenting world has in the UN.

    There needs to be peace in the Middle East before progress can be made, even Condaleeza "magic wand" Rice must understand this? Although with the neo-con war machines propensity for violent confrontation I somehow doubt it, get these hard liners out of government is my advice before the Middle East is wrecked beyond all semblence of any real accord. Republican or Democrat, but not neo-con, please. Here ends the party political broadcast for the sanity party.

    EDIT: and thinking realistically it does not matter what Hezbolah wants really, because a UN resolution is empowered to use force to keep the peace as ironic as that sounds :smile: What Israel wants is assurances that Hezbolah will be stopped from firing into it's territory, if it can see this being a likely outcome, then why would it risk it's own men in a long war with Lebanon?
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2006
  15. Aug 4, 2006 #14
    (in context of usa vetoing a UN call for cease fire)

    as long as the american people support administrations that act like this, i expect the usa will act independantly from world opinion. the bulk of this particular topic could use another thread but i expect the USA has at least a few more years of these kinds of actions. although, i do agree that a forign policy like this is a short term fix for long term problems


    i dont think the UN would be able to do a much better job then the IDF in stoping hezbollah attacks with force. they would be using similar weapons after all. if israel violates a UN cease fire, they would lose some international support and reafirm their image as an agressive, unilateraly concern state. if hezbollah violates a cease fire then they might get bombed by the UN instead of israel (i highly doubt the UN would be as forcefull though) and they would be in the same situation, since they are not concern with their international image in the least.

    if the UN calls for a cease fire, israel stands to lose something while hezbollah and the people of lebenon can only profit (hezbollah in the form of resupply from iran/syria and the lebenon people in the form of humanitarian aid)
     
  16. Aug 4, 2006 #15
    Do we honestly think that the US supports it's government? And if they do do you honestly believe they are in a postion to make an impartial judgement seeing as US media is so biased? The man in the street does not know the half of it under Bush, IMHO; Media sells what you want to hear, not what reality dictates you should hear, it is the same reason I don't take my own media as gospel, nor should anyone, but they do anyway.



    Israel stands to lose something only if the means to achieve their goals aren't in place, and believe me a protracted war has never resulted in a good situation in the Lebanon, so why would you assume it will now? Do you know something I don't?

    If you believe only Hezbollah and the Lebanon would profit from peace then you have not understood how the situation played out the last time, war resulted in a widespread hatred of Israels policies that even Sharon could see were self defeating, could you explain how it's going to magically change now, and that hate will bring peaceful resolution? I'm all ears...

    http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2825_sharon_criminal.html

    It's not entirely relevant and this web site like most is biased, but it'll let you know the score. And also it will let you understand the comparissons with the US and Sharon, in a context.


    “I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him.”

    “I am for lasting peace... United, I believe, we can win the battle for peace. But it must be a different peace, one with full recognition of the rights of the Jews in their one and only land: peace with security for generations and peace with a united Jerusalem as the eternal, undivided capital of the Jewish people in the state of Israel forever.”

    Everybody has to move; run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours. Everything we don't grab will go to them.”

    “Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care.”

    Quotes by Sharon, not accusing the US(sheez the guy was a racist bigot) Of being like this but this is what lead to this situation in the first place, and yet still no one learns....
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2006
  17. Aug 4, 2006 #16

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If you have optimistic expectations of UN peacekeepers, then could you go over and read & respond to the peacekeeper thread?
     
  18. Aug 4, 2006 #17
    the reason why i think the government has the support of the people in the usa is because bush was voted in a 2nd time with basicly the same forign policy used to invade iraq (i think so anyway, i havnt heard much to the contrary). as for the people being missled by the media, i wount contest that. however, if a population supports a government because of misleading information, that support can still be quite solid.


    i would like to start by saying i think israel is going about their effort to forge a long lasting peace in the wrong way for the reasons you said, that using bombs to create peace is only a vary temporary soultion. just using bombs actualy amplifys the larger problem of anti-semitisium and anti-zionisum and increases support for groups like hezbollah. having said that, i would also like to say that i dont support actions by expecting them to happen. im only trying to predict the future here, not including what i would like to see happen... if a cease fire is called and it holds, that would be fantastic, im just saying i dont think it would hold by the looks of things now

    ultimatly israel wants peace but they believe to do this they must first crush hezbollah. because of this, a cease fire would not help them in their goals because they believe it would not be a lasting peace (for this thread i dont think "cease fire" and "peace" are interchangable)
     
  19. Aug 4, 2006 #18

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hey, I thought this was a thread on Israel, not the US... :tongue:



    It's easy to look to the future and criticize Israel because it's actions (alledgedly) won't bring about a long term peace. But as far as I can tell, these critics never seem to consider the short term cost.

    On the assumption that there will eventually be a long term peace, you still have to manage the period between now and then. 75 years of "bad" could easily be preferable to 50 years of "worse".

    The point of the invasion is (alledgedly) to mitigate the possibility for "much worse" in the short-term, and it's not reasonable to completely ignore that when criticizing Israel.

    (Of course, I realize that people debate over whether there are short-term merits to this conflict. My point is that it's not reasonable to completely ignore this aspect of the issue when delivering criticism)


    "even"?
     
  20. Aug 5, 2006 #19
    Yeah Sharon or the butcher of Lebanon as he's sometimes known, he was a pretty controversial figure believe it or not, there was an attempt to have him brought up on war crimes for his actions that lead to the butcher of hundreds of Palestinian refugees in the Lebanon, so even is apropriate.

    I would say it's easier to look at the past and present and criticise Israels actions, the future is not set in stone, the past is a little more concrete :smile: I base my ideas on history, and try and project what will happen in the future, judging the ceaselss violence as an almost umitigated disaster, apart from occasional peace treaties that failed. I'm all for a solution that involves lasting peace, not some war riddled area with western concerns playing puppet games for there own agendas, but hey that's just me. The whole situation is positively machievellian now with the US just itching to make Iran out as the axis of all evil, try speaking to the Iranians if you really want to know the score, diplomacy is the last resort of the US governement, it's sad to see, because now Israel have decided it's also a last resort for them, they have the great examples of Iraq and Afghanistan to look at, one a warzone to this day the other on the brink of civil war, nice.

    Already have think NATO would be better too, but then the UN needs to broker a deal first, then turn to NATO.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2006
  21. Aug 5, 2006 #20

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That is what I meant -- criticizing actions based on future prospects, without regard to what the results will be in the short-term.

    Me too -- but not at any cost. Maybe an analogy will help explain what I mean.

    Suppose you have a poor city riddled with gang violence. The long-term solution is (presumably) to invest in education and economic development so that people will stop joining the gangs. But you still need to invest in a police force to mitigate the damage in the meantime.

    There are, of course, all kinds of reasons why this is not an analogy for the conflict in the Middle East -- I only intended it as a concrete example that, even when seeking for a long-term solution, you still need to invest in short-term patchwork.

    Criticism that is simply based on the fact that this conflict (probably) is not a long term solution is, IMHO, too hyperopic to be considered reasonable.

    Israel, of course, believes that this conflict is good short-term patchwork. All other things being equal, a temporary reprieve is better than no reprieve. Of course, all other things are not equal -- each path (presumably) has its pros and its cons, which makes the right path nonobvious.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Will IDF succeed in their mission?
  1. Mars mission cost (Replies: 18)

Loading...