Short '06 Lebanon War Stokes Pentagon Debate
A war that ended three years ago and involved not a single U.S. soldier has become the subject of an increasingly heated debate inside the Pentagon, one that could alter how the U.S. military fights in the future.
When Israel and Hezbollah battled for more than a month in Lebanon in the summer of 2006, the result was widely seen as a disaster for the Israeli military. Soon after the fighting ended, some military officers began to warn that the short, bloody and relatively conventional battle foreshadowed how future enemies of the United States might fight.
One could focus on the fact that this is a Pentagon debate on future development of US armed forces, or on giving terrorists propaganda points... guess which path Ynet chose?
Pentagon learning from 'IDF's disaster'
Second Lebanon War has become subject of increasingly heated debate inside US Defense Department, which could alter how American military fights in future, Washington Post reports. US army dispatches a dozen teams to interview Israeli officers who fought against Hizbullah
Take a comment inside an article - make it the title - and give the terrorist a reason to gloat.
Should I attempt to put the word "disaster" back into context?
The so called disaster is not a matter of who one - or who suffered more casualties. The problem discussed is a realization that Iran's proxy are trained as heavily armed and highly motivated military forces. The concept - which failed - still treated them as minor insurgents. There was no room for that concept to begin with because intelligence prior to the war as well as pretty visible signs suggested otherwise. In that sense, it is a political failure which led to failure to prepare the IDF for the war, even though they knew it was due.
The consequence was the Israeli public throwing both irresponsible "leaders" of Israel to the trash bin of politics. Olmert and Peretz were two imbeciles - unworthy of their position. Sadly for the US, current commander and chief seems to be as qualified and "combat smart" as they were.
There's no "disaster". There's a price to war - and when your opponent is as armed and trained as it is - the price goes up. How committed is the leadership and the armed forces to pursue victory? First one has to define victory as well as diplomatic resolve to achieve said goals.
If the leadership in Israel was unwilling to send ground forces deep, to occupy for months, and eventually take hold of every Shiite stronghold to uproot and disarm the enemy - they should not have made any proclamations which could have been interpreted as such. Occupation is always the last resort solution (not the cause to a conflict). One would hope that Lebanese would have learned a lesson or two regarding inviting blood and pain upon their people - however they are commanded by lunatics and religious fanatics who reside in a far away land and are willing to sacrifice every Arab Lebanee for their own glorification.