| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Israel must topple Assad in next conflict with Syria proxies |
| 2010-04-25 |
| By Oded Tira Syria, according to recent reports, is supplying Hezbollah with Scuds and other missiles that possess a range covering all of Israel - prompting the question as to the implications of such military hardware during wartime. The missiles have the capacity to carry a ton of explosives or another warhead, and they don't require great sophistication to operate. The use of solid fuel might also make it possible to launch these missiles more quickly than the smaller missiles that were directed at Israel during the Second Lebanon War. Though the larger weapons are launched from mobile launch pads, they are more easily identified and destroyed than the smaller missiles. The accuracy of the current Scuds is a matter of hundreds of meters, a higher level of precision than that of the missiles which landed in Israel during the Second Lebanon War. At the same time, a missile that strikes an urban area does not require great accuracy. If Hezbollah arms itself with several hundred Scuds, over the course of a two-week war it could fire several dozen large missiles a day, causing physical damage or injury as well as affecting morale. And a strike at the commercial heart of the country could deter foreigners from doing business with Israel. The fact that Syria is arming Hezbollah with Scuds reinforces the assessment that the Syrians are not interested in direct confrontation with Israel, preferring instead to use a proxy to exert military pressure without exposing itself to an Israeli response which, it is thought, could topple Bashar Assad and the Alawites from power. The Syrians' fear of such a prospect should be the primary leverage used against them, and in response to their arming Hezbollah with Scuds. Advertisement Israel should be conscious of several factors in the face of the threat from the north. First, on the margins, one should bear in mind Justice Richard Goldstone's ruling in his report to the United Nations on Operation Cast Lead - that hitting a country's infrastructure is a war crime as it constitutes collective punishment, which is banned under international law. I am not saying that Goldstone must be obeyed, but his ruling must be taken into consideration. On a tactical level, Israel must develop the intelligence capability necessary to destroy the maximum number of Scuds possible and especially the missile launchers, either at the beginning of a war or even beforehand. Israel should also try to shorten the duration of any fighting as much as possible by hitting Lebanese infrastructure, but only in response to Israel's being hit first. In the event of war, Israel's strategic goal should be the overthrow of the Alawite regime in Syria, and with that aim should continue developing its mobile ground forces along with massive aerial firepower. Within the Israel Defense Forces' mobile units, the infantry forces and the special forces - particularly those that have the capacity to reach any location in the theater of battle - must be strengthened. Israel must prepare the international diplomatic community for a war of this kind and will have to make it clear from the beginning that we have no alternative. Israel will be tasked with explaining that, because the enemy is protecting terrorists during a time of war, we have no choice but to hit the enemy's home front and infrastructure. The very fact of an international debate on this issue is liable to deter the Syrians on the one hand, though it might also put Israel under international diplomatic pressure to restrain itself on the other - but that is a risk worth taking. Above all, Israel must make it clear right now that, in the event of a missile attack from the north, it will act on the goal of immediately deposing the Alawite regime in Syria even before turning its attention to the missile threat. Such a statement could deter the Syrians from arming Hezbollah with Scuds, out of concern that the Muslim organization might fire the missiles without first coordinating with Syria. The writer is a reserve brigadier general and former head of the IDF artillery corps. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #3 Assad isn't a Shiite, he's an Alawite, as is his family and closest thug-advisors. Alawites are considered heretics by Sunnis and used to be considered that way by the Shi'a. Recently the Mad Mullahs™ managed to get some sort of dispensation in Qom that made the Alawites a 'branch' of Shi'a belief. If I were president and had a CIA that could keep its mouth shut, there's a flame to be fanned in Syria ... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-04-25 17:04 |
| #2 Israel should put this in the context of "restoring majority rule" to Syria, whose majority Sunni are ruled over by a tiny minority of Alawite Shiite. While many Sunni are loyal to the government, the other Sunni powers in the area would raise their eyebrows with this, in the hope that the Shiite proxies in their region could be booted out. They have felt unbalanced since minority Sunni ruled Iraq was replaced with majority Shiite Iraq. So having Syria, and by extension, Hezbollah, declawed, it would do much to restore their equanimity. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-04-25 07:59 |
| #1 Israel should respond missile for missile against Syrian targets, starting with presidential palaces. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2010-04-25 01:28 |