You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Syrian official says war with Israel will not be conventional
2007-06-19
Introducing the new arab buzzword.

Yaakov Katz, THE JERUSALEM POST

Former Syrian information minister Mahdi Dakhlallah said Monday that if a war broke out with Israel, it would be a war of Resistance™ and not a conventional war that Israel was accustomed to winning.

The Syrian official's remarks confirmed fears in the Israeli defense establishment that Syria was preparing to use Hizbullah-like guerrilla warfare tactics in a future conflict.

"I believe that if a war breaks out, it will not be a conventional war - the kind of war that Israel is used to winning swiftly," Dakhlallah, said in an interview on NBN TV which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). "It will be a war of Resistance™, in which the armed forces may be defending the rear lines of the Resistance™."

According to Dakhlallah, terror Resistance™ was the "method that opened before the Arabs the path to victory" and succeeded in defeating Israel. President Bashar Assad has said that Resistance™ appears to be the only way to liberate the Golan Heights.

"When Israel [fought] armies, it reached Beirut and the outskirts of Damascus, but ever since the Arabs have begun using Resistance™, the Israelis are building a security wall to hide behind," he said. "They are the ones who say it is a security wall. Therefore, even though I don't know the scenario of this war, I know it will definitely not be a conventional war."
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".
Senior officers in the Northern Command warned recently of the possibility that Syria would launch terror attacks along the border in an effort to draw Israel into a conflict. The officers pointed to the large amounts of money Syria had invested in replicating Hizbullah military tactics, particularly in establishing additional commando units and fortifying its short and long-range missile array.

Syria, the IDF has warned, had also built fake villages along the border that could be used to draw Israel into an asymmetric war like the that which the IDF encounters in combat against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well as against the Hizbullah in Lebanon.
Posted by:anonymous5089

#23  lets game this out.

Sure. Some call it 'work', but what the hey.

Lets say, the tribunal finds Syria guilty wrt to Hariri, and they try a war with Israel as a diversion. What do they do?

If the Syrians do anything, it'll be before the tribunal comes to a judgement.

Well leaving aside the main front, they get Hamas to go to war, and they mess around in Leb.

Quite likely.

But Hamas is contained in Gaza. Some nasty hits to Sderot, but not as bad the hurt that Hamas takes.

If Hamas attacks, it won't be with just missiles. Walls aren't impregnable. As fat as the 'hurt' I suspect that will already be factored in.

They have Hamas cells attack Fatah in the WB, but that means blowing Hamas' sleepers for Syrian purposes, and a one time gain at that. Fatah will be rocked, but may hold. At worst, Jordan will back them up.

Possibly. Likely what one would see is a repeat of what is going on in Lebanon.

Syria cant to much in Leb without provoking the euros. Not a good move, unless theyre completley desperate.

Ah, here's where we have a slight disagreement. It may not be Syria itself doing the heavy lifting. And you are counting on a better reaction from the Europeans than I am.

On the main front. they start shooting long range missiles at Israeli cities. Daring the Israelis to come in conventionally along the main front. Along which theyve a hezb style defense, well trained infantry (Assuming Syr inf is as trained and motivated as Hezb) in heavily fortified villages.

Again, it may not be Syria directly initiating, but counter-responding to the IDF.

If your IDF CoS, what do you do? First...

Again, it all depends on howw it starts. That's the 'fun' of playing defense.

Will the Israeli homefront be willing to take hits, knowing youre inflicting worse? Will the US be able to defer a UNSC ceasefire while you do what you need to do? Keeping in mind that Syrias not quite as popular at the UN as Leb is.

A lot of ifs-and-maybes. Syria may not be quite as popular, but it has some pretty powerful backers in the UN. North Korea is even less popular than Syria - what has the UN accomplished in that matter?

And lastly, at what point is the Syrian govt to weakened to maintain control against the various oppositions.

Ah, the linchpin. Same thing can be argued about Syria's partner, Iran (except that it's more a matter of control over its population). Judging by the two nations' reactions, I'd say they are quite concerned.

Assads last trump, of course, is your fear that if hes gone the MB will come to power. But if Syria is attacking Israeli cities, and supporting a Hamas war in the WB, how much worse can the MB be?

Not necessarily much of a trump. But I'd also wager that Iran is quite willing to let Assad hang if it advances their objectives.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-06-19 22:20  

#22  RESISTANCE IS FUTILE ---
BEHOLD THE ARMY OF RESISTORS!!!!
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2007-06-19 21:08  

#21  Wars of "resistance" only work if the occupier wants to hold land and if the occupier cares what a fifth-column of press has to say about said occupation. Rubble does not make trouble. Kill everything. Withdraw to the heights.

Word, Excal.

The only answer for such tactics is total destruction, say the first mile in from the border -- after bouncing the rubble pound it to dust, incidentally collapsing the bunkers in on the occupants. Israel doesn't need to conquer with boots on the ground like in 1967, they just need to erase the problem. Syria's problem is that they only see as far as the testosterone riddled romance of the terrorists, not the businesslike response of those who fight wars to win (God grant the new defence minister means to do exactly that!).

Had enough, have we, dear trailing wife? It is distinctly cockle-warming to see more and more people throw the old "boots-on-the-ground" strategy under the bus. Why risk any troops when all you really need to do is leave some smoking holes in your wake?
Posted by: Zenster   2007-06-19 17:56  

#20  israel too syria: you will lose in an unconventional war too
Posted by: sinse   2007-06-19 16:42  

#19  lets game this out.

lets say, the tribunal finds Syria guilty wrt to Hariri, and they try a war with Israel as a diversion. What do they do?

Well leaving aside the main front, they get Hamas to go to war, and they mess around in Leb. But Hamas is contained in Gaza. Some nasty hits to Sderot, but not as bad the hurt that Hamas takes. They have Hamas cells attack Fatah in the WB, but that means blowing Hamas' sleepers for Syrian purposes, and a one time gain at that. Fatah will be rocked, but may hold. At worst, Jordan will back them up.

Syria cant to much in Leb without provoking the euros. Not a good move, unless theyre completley desperate.

On the main front. they start shooting long range missiles at Israeli cities. Daring the Israelis to come in conventionally along the main front. Along which theyve a hezb style defense, well trained infantry (Assuming Syr inf is as trained and motivated as Hezb) in heavily fortified villages.

If your IDF CoS, what do you do? First you go after the rockets from the air. As in Leb, you dont have to kill them all, just keep them off balance, to reduce damage to Israel. You go after the villages with armor and infantry, but this time you mobilize from the start, and you try to use armor more creatively. You also pulverize villages from the air. Not good for your image, but these are Syrians, not Lebs, and you arent worried about the political impact in Syria. At the same time you hit back on Syrian infrastructure. This time without apology. Will the Israeli homefront be willing to take hits, knowing youre inflicting worse? Will the US be able to defer a UNSC ceasefire while you do what you need to do? Keeping in mind that Syrias not quite as popular at the UN as Leb is. And lastly, at what point is the Syrian govt to weakened to maintain control against the various oppositions.

Assads last trump, of course, is your fear that if hes gone the MB will come to power. But if Syria is attacking Israeli cities, and supporting a Hamas war in the WB, how much worse can the MB be?
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2007-06-19 14:38  

#18  What a stupid sod - whenever *I* hear the phrase 'not conventional' I equate it to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. I imagine that the Israelis think something along those lines too. Now the mere fact that Israel is *known* to have at least one 'non-conventional' weapon would be enough to make me very careful about using the phrase 'not conventional' when talking about future wars with the Israelis.

So why is he saying this then?
#1 He's a bloody idiot, and is talking tough to get attention with all the keffiyeh wearing dolts
#2 He's a bloody idiot
#3 He's aware that Syria has it's own 'not conventional' weapons (was it a fiction, all those lorries leaving Iraq in early 2003, on their way to Syria?) and thinks he can go toe-to-toe with the Israelis

I'm presuming #1, (#2 goes without saying) but if it's #3, then things could get very nasty indeed, and it's got to be likely that the Syrians would lose control of the situation very quickly indeed...
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2007-06-19 14:26  

#17  There's more petrol targets than you might think in Syria, they've become a minor player from a few finds recently.
Posted by: Shipman   2007-06-19 14:19  

#16  I dunno - if they're threatening "non-conventional" warfare, I read it to mean they will use chem/bio (since they have no nukes) against Israel.

The mere threat should be enough to get Damascus leveled.
Posted by: mojo   2007-06-19 11:58  

#15  #7: My goodness,TW,is that really you ? Methinks the forum here is having an effect on your civilized sensibilities after all. Once everyone has modified their approach to the Death Cult, the solution is simple and direct. Wonderful !
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970   2007-06-19 11:43  

#14  Pity the syrians are cursed in the field of cranial wealth extraction.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan   2007-06-19 11:01  

#13  Great minds, y'all. ;-) Although I don't know that Syria has much has much oil infrastructure, though. The Syrians were almost as blessed as the Jews in the mineral riches of their homeland.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-06-19 10:09  

#12  Rubble does not make trouble.

Excalibur, I am soooo gonna have to steal that line.

The 'burg is right. Syria is too rich in hard targets to fight a "resistance" war properly. I think Assadie is counting on the fact that Israel will not bomb them because of the flak it would catch from the Western nations. Might work. Might not. Depends on if leaders are chosen that are willing to take off the gloves.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-06-19 10:04  

#11  what number 3 said. Israel had lots of political complexities bombing Leb infrastructure, since Israel wants to influence Leb politics, since the Lebs are sympathetic in the West, etc, etc. No such constraints apply in Syria.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2007-06-19 09:37  

#10  Isaiah 17:1 "The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap."

Methinks it's about time for this prophecy to come true.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-06-19 09:33  

#9  5089 seems to be alluding to a different meaning of 'non-conventional' war, because if there is a sustained SW wind Israel could still likely 'win' that kind of fight quite quickly. Neither Dakhlallah nor Israel would be occupying Damascus for 10,000 years.
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-06-19 09:30  

#8  Mahdi Dakhlallah is probably right about the war with Israel not being conventional. He is wrong about it being a "path to victory", or defeating Israel. The Syrians would do better to build a fake Damascus, instead of fake villages. The real one will probably be standing "for a limited time only" -

Isaiah 17:1 "The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap."
Posted by: Mullah Lodabullah   2007-06-19 09:22  

#7  The only answer for such tactics is total destruction, say the first mile in from the border -- after bouncing the rubble pound it to dust, incidentally collapsing the bunkers in on the occupants. Israel doesn't need to conquer with boots on the ground like in 1967, they just need to erase the problem. Syria's problem is that they only see as far as the testosterone riddled romance of the terrorists, not the businesslike response of those who fight wars to win (God grant the new defence minister means to do exactly that!).
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-06-19 08:59  

#6  The All New "Arab Warfare"! Now with Resistance™!!
Posted by: tu3031   2007-06-19 08:57  

#5  amen. When Damascus streets can't be travelled due to the rubble, and the highways are potholed and no power or water is available, that "unconventional" war isn't gonna be much comfort, Syrian Assholes
Posted by: Frank G   2007-06-19 08:53  

#4  Wars of "resistance" only work if the occupier wants to hold land and if the occupier cares what a fifth-column of press has to say about said occupation. Rubble does not make trouble. Kill everything. Withdraw to the heights.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-06-19 08:43  

#3  Um, Syria has a plenitude of "hard targets" that precludes the use of strictly guerrilla tactics.
You can sneak around in the bushes all you want, but when the Jews bomb the shit out of your power plants and oil infrastructure you are still hurting at the end of the day. This is so arab, I can't even conjure the words.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2007-06-19 08:42  

#2  The secret's in the headband, they're magik.
Posted by: Shipman   2007-06-19 07:05  

#1  1. he thinks Syria is good at fighting such a war
2. he thinks Israel can't learn from mistakes and adapt appropriately
Posted by: PlanetDan   2007-06-19 06:34  

00:00