Article

2006-07-25 Israel-Palestine-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Funny they come up with this after my Patton analogies the other day.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-07-25 00:57|| 2006-07-25 00:57|| Front Page Top

#2 So many points to argue, but prefer to keep it narrow - first off, iff the IDF is doing a "Monty" its becuz of their concern for genuine civilians, as opposed to terrorists-militants whom are civilians one day and armed bloody anti-Israeli, anti-democracy terrorists the next. Second, IRAN for time being can attack Israel only with terror proxies - it cannot use its full conventional forces agz Israel wid out crossing sovereign Muslim nations whom are also Allies, however imperfect, of USA + West. Third, Israel has been a military nuclear power far longer than Radical Iran andor Syria, so neither Radical Iran or Syria is currently ready or wiling to invite Israeli conventional or nuclear retaliation. LASTLY, THE FIGHTING IN LEBANON IS SYNONYMOUS WID ARGUING BETWEEN ME DEMOCRACY VS. RADICALIST GOD/ISLAMISM-BASED TOTALITARIANISM AND IRAN-/SHIA-CENTRIC REGIONAL EMPIRE. This is Lebanon's and ME's 9-11, as decisive and important as LEPANTO, TOURS, JERUSALEM, and ACRE, etal - why, becuz the "status quo" is no longer acceptable to Israel = USA's enemies. Israel = 9-11 USA > now in a WAR TO THE DEATH. FOR TIME BEING, ISRAEL'S ENEMIES = USA'S ENEMIES > BOTH WISH TO AVOID MUTUALLY DESTRUCTIVE NUCLEAR WARFARE WHILE ATTEMPTING TO DE FACTO USE ANY MEANS NECESSARY TO PC DESTABILIZE AMERICA, ISRAEL AND THEIR ALLIES, more popularly known as Appeasement and Concession, from Israel and USA, and only Israel and USA. The irony for Sunni- and moderate Muslims is that any defeat and destruction of Israel also means the defeat and destruction of Sunni-Moderate and pro-USA-Western Democratic Sovereign Muslim nations looms vv Radical Iran. BOTH LEBANON AND SYRIA HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL IS WORTH THE FUTURE SUBORNMENT OF SOVEREIGN LEBANON AND SYRIA TO RADICAL IRANIAN CONTROL. Israel goes down, so does Sunni Islam and ME Muslim democracy - POST 9-11 > ARMISTICE = means enemies rebuild and refortify to make war again later on, except this time in Israel's = America's = West's back yards, mainstreets, and Any Towns, AnyCity(s). "POLITICS AS USUAL" FOR EVERYONE ENDED THE DAY GORBACHEV CAME TO POWER IN THE FORMER USSR, NOTSOMUCH TO REFORM OR DESTROY COMMUNISM-STALINISM BUT TO SAVE, RENAME AND RE-LABEL IT.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-07-25 01:07|| 2006-07-25 01:07|| Front Page Top

#3 Glaring error:

Doing high-risk armored thrusts made sense for Patton (though Eisenhower kept him on a short leash). It never made any sense for Monty. Nobody at Whitehall was going to thank him for winning a battle and losing his army.

Monty's foot dragging at Falaise allowed 300,000 battle hardened German troops to escape - troops that would later grind up Allied forces in the West Wall, and participate in the Battle of the Bulge.

Monty wasted a LOT of lives with his insistence in plodding when Patton could have closed the gap form the south at Argentan.

So Monty didn't lose his army - he let the Nazis keep theirs by plodding - and arguably extended the war by months and Allied casualties greatly during the fighting in the Western wall.

Secondly, Monty destroyed the British "Red Devils" airborne, the Polish Airbone brigade at Arnhem, tore apart the 82nd and 101 Abn at Nijmegen, and decimated 30th Corps (and with it a lot of British armor) with his futile narrow thrust up a single clogged road in the defective Operation Market Garden.

So he not only lost the battle, he lost his army as well.

So the author of the article is pretty much full of crap - he better learn his history.

Grinding away and committing your forces piecemeal is a recipe for disaster. Go back to to the Alexander, the Spartans, Hannibal, Crechy, Hastings, etc. Look at just about any historical military campaign -- and look especially at the US Union side in the east in the US Civil War prior to Grant (The Army of the Potomac under McClelland comes to mind) as well as the Napoleon at Waterloo (Ney dallied while the opportunity slipped away to use the "force majeure" against the separated English and Prussians, causing Napoleon to commit the Old Guard too late and in too few numbers to have sufficient impact). Look at Verdun. Look at Stalingrad.

All of those illustrate the effects of decisive commitment of a concentrated hard strike by the main force versus failure of piecemeal commitments scattered across time and area.

Military history teaches this lesson time and again.

Would someone please educate the press beyond something they learned from a crappy high school history class?

Posted by Oldspook 2006-07-25 01:20|| 2006-07-25 01:20|| Front Page Top

#4 Do they teach history in high school anymore?

Interesting post - OS.

Posted by 2b 2006-07-25 02:13|| 2006-07-25 02:13|| Front Page Top

#5 Hizbullah, claiming victory at every turn, reminds us of the Black Knight from Monte Python...

Posted by borgboy 2006-07-25 03:11|| 2006-07-25 03:11|| Front Page Top

#6 No Arms, no legs, no God.

It is only a "Flesh Wound".

Posted by newc">newc 2006-07-25 06:44|| 2006-07-25 06:44|| Front Page Top

#7 Old Spook, the press and writers are kind of lazy. History has little regard for them. I heard a press type this a.m. referring to "Teflon" body armor. I'm not certain they are educatable. Maybe they should just stay the hell out of war zones and write the garden column or restaurant review.

Posted by JohnQC 2006-07-25 07:58|| 2006-07-25 07:58|| Front Page Top

#8 Look at Cold Harbor. Look at the Somme. Israel cannot afford victories such as those.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 08:00|| 2006-07-25 08:00|| Front Page Top

#9 The Brit refrain in 1944 was that the Yanks were over here, overpaid, and oversexed. The Yanks replied the Brits were underpaid, undersexed, and under Monty.

Note well. Patton didn't leave the airborne down at Bastonge like Monty did at Arnham. He didn't do months planning or wait for good weather. He just did what needed to be done.

Posted by Thetch Sperelet4392 2006-07-25 08:15|| 2006-07-25 08:15|| Front Page Top

#10 And Monty was getting a unique feed, direct from Churchill's office, of German enigma intel, else he'd have had his ass handed to him long previously in N Africa by Rommel.

Posted by cruiser 2006-07-25 08:18|| 2006-07-25 08:18|| Front Page Top

#11 There was a great line in the movie Patton after Patton fought his way up Sicily General Bradley tried to guilt him over the dead soldiers caused by his rash move. Pattons response was something like "How many casualities would we have if we were still locked in fighting on that damn road."

It's a lesson more military commanders should learn. The US Marines seem to be one of the few groups that learned the lesson. If you are gonna take casualties one way or the other sometimes taking a lot now can prevent even more later. You just have to have the stomach.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2006-07-25 08:53|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com] 2006-07-25 08:53|| Front Page Top

#12 And the capacity. Why do they call them Pyrrhic victories?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 09:23|| 2006-07-25 09:23|| Front Page Top

#13 I originally estimated it would take Israel 14-15 days to prepare the battlefield, mobilize and set logistics. Time is up. This is the time for the "Strong sweep" along the Litani up the coastal road then across. They should commit in a big way to interdicting anything that tries to cross the Litani or the Bekka (Syrians), and start isolating and reducing the Hezbollah "hedgehog" strong-points.

Surround all of them, then reduce each one in turn. Give them 24 hours to get out: no weapons, vette the people as they leave, then transport them to the Litani and dump them on the N side never to return. Remind them that it was Hezbollah that started this, that Hezbollah caused the destruction of their homes by militarizing them.

Then flatten the villes with artillery and use D-9's to scrape the remains into rubble heaps, which would then be mined.

Make no pretensions about "saving" the villes or occupying them. Say what you re doing: preventing these areas from being used by Hezbollah as fortresses to attack from, and that they had been so heavily booby-trapped that anything other than destruction is impossible.

After the first 4-5 of these are done, the rest will fall more or less voluntarily.

Its all a matter of staying power - do the Israelis have the guts it takes to hold out and do the tough work they now face - work that is a result of their coasting for 5 years and having a massive intelligence failure in S. Lebanon.

After these have been reduced and Hezbollah terrorists killeed in large numbers and their equipment destroyed, then and only then, hand the area over to the Lebanese and NATO so it stays disarmed.

Anything else requires a diplomatic solution, and the sum of these for Israel has only been more combat and attacks by the Islamists on them.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-07-25 10:32|| 2006-07-25 10:32|| Front Page Top

#14 FYI, by Artillery, I mean a rolling barrage, hub-to-hub concentrations, almost World War I style. A vertical curtain steel rain marched across the towns.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-07-25 10:34|| 2006-07-25 10:34|| Front Page Top

#15 Then flatten the villes with artillery and use D-9's to scrape the remains into rubble heaps, which would then be mined.

Caterpillar Announces 2nd Quarter Results for 2006 Caterpillar Profit Per Share 41 Percent Higher than Second Quarter 2005; Full-Year Outlook Increased.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-07-25 10:35|| 2006-07-25 10:35|| Front Page Top

#16 It was reported on Fox a little while ago that Olmert has told Rice he wants another two weeks...

Posted by cruiser 2006-07-25 11:09|| 2006-07-25 11:09|| Front Page Top

#17 Two ? Approved, give Olmert another two months.

Posted by wxjames 2006-07-25 11:20|| 2006-07-25 11:20|| Front Page Top

#18 Cruiser, that about fits with the way I see it.

If they have started the big push now, there are 5 key bridges over the Litani and 4 main roads inthe Bekka to be interdicted/secured in order to isolate the battlefield. Looking at the map of Hezbollah "fortresses", there are 5 key ones (in terms of interlocking, logistics, comms) that need to be reduced to isolate all the others. This woudl take a week or so, and then a week after that a large number of the others would begin to collapse under a lack of comms, leadership and supplies.

The modern Arab is bascially a coward - they do well when being the bully, showing off (their gun-porn stuff) etc - and they excel at attacking women and children and civilians. But when faced with hard "Western" military they tend to fold up after they put an initial brave face on things. Collapsing Hezbollah's command and logistic structure will accelerate the basic cowardice of the Arabs - only where the Persians stiffen them wil they stand and fight.

(Remember that Afghanis are NOT included in this group - they are not Arabs, neither are the Kurds nor the Persians. Those groups have shown that they will fight tenaciously).

Posted by Oldspook 2006-07-25 11:26|| 2006-07-25 11:26|| Front Page Top

#19 Geez! Don't the people who write this shit read history books? Monty wasn't worthy to drink Patton's bathwater. Without constant goading, superior numbers, stolen German codes and AMERICAN supervision, Monty would have been one of the worst generals of WWII. Patton understood the intrinsic value of cutting off your opponents head...and to do so quickly.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-07-25 11:41|| 2006-07-25 11:41|| Front Page Top

#20 Different war, different foe, different capabilites, different objectives. Comparisons to Monty or Patton are absurd.

Posted by DoDo 2006-07-25 11:51|| 2006-07-25 11:51|| Front Page Top

#21 The comparison is quite apt. Monty and Israel have the same objective: don't lose the Army. Comments here reflect the assumption that Monty had the same objective as Patton, Win the War. He didn't. That's the point. Monty succeeded. He brought an Army home.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 12:01|| 2006-07-25 12:01|| Front Page Top

#22 I believe you are mistaken.

Ask those who had to grind their way through 300,000 combat veterans ensconced in fortifications in the central part of the front. Ask the Red Devils about coming home. Ask the dead in the Bulge about coming home.

Monty lost a LOT of the allied army in his command - his wasteful efforts at Market Garden cost a lot of lives, his failure to clear the Schelde (he did Market Garden instead) caused a large extension of the war due to the logistics problems of not having Antwerp and shorter supply lines, and his hesitance aroudn Caen as well as his inability to close the Falaise gap ALL meant a lot more dead that didn't have to be dead due to the excape of 300K german combat troops. In Sicily, had Patton not made an end run, they'd have allowed the entire German garrison there to escape. Enough of the Sicily garrison did, so that they were able to firm up defenses at Anzio and Cassino, etc.

Montgomery's slow tactical grinding is a sure recipe for disaster for the Israelis - after all, they dont have large numbers of US troops to grind up like Monty did (and he tended to be profliggate in his use fo US troops for grinding combat).

IMHO, Monty was a failure - only rescued by "PR" and the large number of US (and significant amount of Candian) forces that took the brunt of the fighting while he dawdled and misstepped.

The Israelis cannot afford a "Monty" approach - slow tactical grinding, failed thrusts, and a general dependance on US logistics and firepower to dig them out from their mistakes, and a reluctance to truly commit in a logical way sufficient force to collapse the enemy on a strategic basis. Thats the Monty solution -and its a loser.

The comparison is not apt - its poor at best - and its based on a false image of FM Montgomery, and a poor analysis (or ignorance) of military actions throughout history.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-07-25 12:36|| 2006-07-25 12:36|| Front Page Top

#23 Anyone else auditing here at Rantburg U. this course on military history?

Posted by badanov 2006-07-25 12:43|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2006-07-25 12:43|| Front Page Top

#24 OS, As they prep for movement in the next few weeks, what is your take on Gaza. We know Iran has moved advisors there. Does Israel have the mass to cover both Gaza and Leb when they become fully enguaged as well as standing by for the threat from Syria and Egypt?

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-07-25 12:48|| 2006-07-25 12:48|| Front Page Top

#25 I'm not arguing that Monty was a success in any military sense, quite the contrary. Otherwise, Churchill would not have given Ike permission to sack him. But in the geopolitical sense of bringing an Army back to Britain, Monty accomplished the goal laid out for him.

Israel must follow Monty in this geopolitical respect, but not in his flawed military tactics. It would be unwise for Israel to assemble masses of artillery, hub-to-hub, for a rolling barrage, a curtain of steel rain, preceding a measured advance. Israel should proceed carefully, obtaining the best intelligence and designing operations that keep the enemy from realizing the benefit of their fortified positions. I trust the Israelis to act with audacity when the opportunity presents itself.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 12:56|| 2006-07-25 12:56|| Front Page Top

#26 Me, badanov. Even when I don't understand it all, I take advantage of an education unavailable anywhere else in the world. ;-)

49 Pan, I thought we knew that Iran sent Republican Guard troops to operate the targetable missile launchers, like that Silkworm that hit the Israeli ship last week? And the 7 (or perhaps 35) bodies of RG troops returned via Syria for burial the other day?

Posted by trailing wife 2006-07-25 13:05|| 2006-07-25 13:05|| Front Page Top

#27 Whoops! I misread your comment, 49 Pan. Please ignore my response.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-07-25 13:08|| 2006-07-25 13:08|| Front Page Top

#28 Tw your right on that one. I think I see a Hezbullah attempt at envelopment here. OS had to go to work so I hope the Prof will be back later. I just don't know enough about the IDF's ability to sustain a fight. If they do get in to a fight on three sides and are unable to sustain it then we will have to go help. But I don't think Israel or the US want that so I would suppose that soon as Syria begins to mass troop we will end up with peace talks. I was hoping Prof OS would shoot this down or generate his thought on the next steps.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-07-25 13:21|| 2006-07-25 13:21|| Front Page Top

#29 Anyone else auditing here at Rantburg U. this course on military history?

Absolutely. Sounds a lot more impressive than "lurking," too.

Posted by Xbalanke 2006-07-25 13:44|| 2006-07-25 13:44|| Front Page Top

#30 I,m auditing too. I feel I can usually hold my own in "civilian" discussions of military tactics. However on this thread, I am spending much more time listening than speaking... a rarity that those that know mw will confirm!
I am a little better prepared in discussing the Italian campaign, where Monty and George played in the same sandbox. It is my understanding that Pattons end runs in Sicily were actually a new understested tactic that suprised the germans. However it is also my understanding that most german assets got off the island before Allies managed to get into Messina. Also, much like the British in the colonies during our revolution, Italian duty was considered sub standard to the germans, who viewed trying to make italian facists into soldiers as not worthy.
Patton and Monty both cut teeth in "fixed position" fighting tactics in WWI. Patton, in my view, embraced the future better than Monty, who had a bit too much British military history and organizational theory behind him.
Circling back to todays conflict, one big difference between what Israel faces and comparisons to Patton or Monty is that the Hizzi's have chosen fixed positions, with no strategic advantage in defensive distance, topography or logistics that I can find. I noticed that Fox interviewed soldiers already coming back from the line. Would it not be possible that the IDF can almost fight this as a "commuter war", where soldiers can not only come back off the line for a rest, but can get hope to mow the lawn and pay the bills! IDF has access to project force, at least on the hezzi's, whenever, whereever and whatever. I'd rather be IDF fighter than a hizzi sitting duck.

Posted by Capsu 78 2006-07-25 14:27|| 2006-07-25 14:27|| Front Page Top

#31 Capsu, were I the Israeli Commander, I'd have my forces advancing in shifts. They would become adept at waking up in a bed, suiting up, taking a ride to the front, then rat hole fighting for about 6 hours then back to do supply work and finally home to bed again.
My enemy would have no rest. When he moved above ground, he would be a target, and when he went under, he would drag my attentions with him. His supplies, his food, his command posts, his hospitals would all be targets and objects of constant seeking. I would think of my strategy as Patton by platoon. Contact the enemy and close on him. Since he can draw me into minefields and ambush, I would lead with mortar patterns as often as not.

Posted by wxjames 2006-07-25 14:58|| 2006-07-25 14:58|| Front Page Top

#32 Forget the author's assessment of Monty and Patton, it doesn't even jibe with what I've read of IDF history. My understanding of the IDF strategy in both the six-day war and Yom Kippur war was to seize the initiative with attack, attack, attack using armor (and the IAF) until a weakness in the enemies position presented itself...and then attack some more until they reached the Suez Canal or secured the Golan heights. In summary, attack even in the face of a superior, entrenched enemy.

The reason being that even if the IDF were to dig in at the border and then survive the waves of Arab armor, most all of Israel would still be in range of Arab artillery. Secondly, with a significant portion of the population called up, a long seige would cripple Israel's economy. Is my understanding incorrect?

I realize that this conflict is different in that Israel's objective is not to control territory, but is rather attrition of the enemy.

However, I still say the author of the article is ignorant at best.

Posted by psychohillbilly 2006-07-25 15:03|| 2006-07-25 15:03|| Front Page Top

#33 Patton & Rommel both practiced a form of "maneuver warfare". It's basically what we in the Corps do now. Pit your strength against an enemy's weakness or critical vulnerability. Focus on soft targets such as comm sites, log lines, flanks vice against hardpoints or "surfaces". Throwing a massive force at a single weak point at a decisive moment is the most laymen's way to sum it up. The objective being to shock and paralyze the enemy. Heck, even Genghis Khan practiced this in a way. For ref, read USMC FM-1 "Maneuver Warfare." The very first book they give all officer candidates. The Corps figures we will usually be outnumbered on the battlefield so we have to adapt and make the enemy play our game. Hit fast and hard at the site of our choosing. Unfortunately sometimes geography dictates maneuver i.e. the island hopping campaigns.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-07-25 15:15|| 2006-07-25 15:15|| Front Page Top

#34 oldspook is speaking in terms of operational level war, where i lack the expertise to discuss Monty vs Patton.

However for Israel, which is much smaller in scale, the operational issues are also strategic, and even grand strategic.

At that level NS point about "bringing the army home" is more relevant - and the conflict is not Patton vs Monty, but Marshall et al vs Churchill et al - the US high command in WW2 did not want to pursue Op Torch - they wanted to pursue a landing in France in 1943. They saw Torch as nibbling at the edge, rather than concentrating force at the main point. Britain, which, as NS says, COULD NOT AFFORD TO LOSE AN ARMY, fought bitterly against this. FDR finally agreed with Britain, and I would say history proved him right. A '43 invasion of France would likely have been a disaster.

Israel has to A. conserve its ground forces B. Pay attention to the political balance in Lebanon and C. Pay attention to its political relations with the rest of the world.

They will NOT A. Attempt to prevent the inhabitants of South Lebanon from returning. B. Mine the area or C. Destroy buildings that arent more or less directly connected to Hezbollah.

They probably will NOT completely destroy Hezbollah as a military force. Its unlikely they could even if they made a desert South of the Litani. Hezb has bases north of the Litani, and in South Beirut. To take similar actions all the way to Beirut would lose Israel not only the diplo gains theyve made in Europe, it would lose them the support of the United States.

Instead they will hope to do the maximum damage they can to Hezb with more limited tactics, and then attempt, with US help, to change the political situation in Lebanon. There is already a developing consensus among non-Shia in Lebanon that the destruction is Hezbollahs fault (whether that would continue if Israel pursued scorched earth tactics, I doubt) All that is missing is the ability to disarm Hezbollah - but that can be made up for by an international force (preferably NOT blue helmeted) with a mandate to disarm Hezbollah.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-07-25 16:39|| 2006-07-25 16:39|| Front Page Top

#35 re : The Six Day war

I recommend Michael Orens book. The IDF did an awful lot of improvising then - and I mean strategically, not just tactically. I dont think anyone in Israel envisioned the final stop lines - esp in Sinai, they expected to stop short of the canal, but the tactical-operational realities of pursuing the retreating Egyptians led them to the Canal.

Also, throughout, they were abundantly conscious of what was going on at the UNSC, and of the necessity of following any ceasefire resolution. Therefore their plan was based on achieving all key objectives quickly, before a resolution was passed.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-07-25 16:42|| 2006-07-25 16:42|| Front Page Top

#36 "Operational issues" should always mirror clearly defined tactical and strategic goals. Failure to make the appropriate linkages can result in situations like the ones we've faced for over 60 years later in Korea, 11 years in Vietnam, and currently in Iraq. Total victory is the key, ie, thoroughly defeat the enemy, then and only then establish government. I still believe this entire exercise is simply IDF bait to lure much larger regional fish. The next few days and weeks will be very interesting indeed. Just my 2 cents worth.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-07-25 17:01|| 2006-07-25 17:01|| Front Page Top

#37 I still believe this entire exercise is simply IDF bait to lure much larger regional fish.

I certainly wish it were so. But I doubt it. Remember a week ago the Deputy Chief of Staff of the IDF was saying they weren't going to send in ground troops at all. Now they're sending them in a little bit at a time.

My suspicion is that there were, and perhaps still are, divisions about how to respond to the Hezb'Allah provocation within the senior Israeli war councils. That's not surprising given that there has just been a transfer of government, in effect, from Sharon to Olmert. That's one reason why there doesn't yet appear to be the level of agressiveness we've become accustomed to in these conflicts.

Another is that this isn't a state-state conflict, but a state-? conflict. It is not clear how to confront and indirectly threaten the ?. Another is that the ?, Hezb'Allah, is dug into well designed defensive positions that Israel has not confronted in the past and apparently was not as well prepared to confront as it might have been. Just as they surprised Israel with the C-802 missile, they may have surprised the Israeli Army with weapons and tactics at the tunnels.

Israel has also not moved its forces in a manner likely to threaten or invite a response from the larger region fish.

Neither party to this war desired or expected it. To Israel it was a surprise. Nasrallah was clearly surprised the Israeli's would not cut a deal. If it were to spiral into a bigger war, it would probably have done so by now. However, all the parties seem to be under control of their patrons for now.

Israel will probably sanitize south of the Litani and turn it over to some international force that includes some adults as soon as possible. Much as I'd like it, I doubt they'll even go to the Bekaa Vally.

I do think this will take longer than most anticipate. And all bets may be off on August 23.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 17:46|| 2006-07-25 17:46|| Front Page Top

#38 I remember quotes from Patton being really fucked off at at Ike for making the strategic decision to allow the russians into Berlin first, then i compare that with a statement from a russian private terrirified of taking on the berlin assault and considering the half million casualty figures Stalin suffered, I still wonder who was right.

Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-07-25 20:43|| 2006-07-25 20:43|| Front Page Top

#39 The Berlin decision is a one place where Patton's aggressiveness may have cost us had Eisenhower reeled him in. But there is an alternate view: had he been allowed the resources that were used for Market-Garden (and Monty had cleared the Schelde instead of bypassing it so Antwerp could be opened for logistics), he very likely would have slammed through the Rhineland quickly and caught the Germans flat-footed. At the time the Germans were stretched very thin trying to hold too long of a line in the east - and were in the process of a coordinated fallback. To hasten that could have caused a route that the Russians would have rolled all the way to Berlin with. So Patton's thrust to Berlin might have had the effect of shortening the war by 6 or 7 months, by destroying their heartland industrial area and threatening the capital, or else causing the collapse of the East front when too many reserves were removed too quickly. Zukhov would have been on them like a hound. Quite a dilemma. But the plodding "broad front" allowed the Germans to retreat in an orderly fashion, shortened their lines to pull units out, horde supplies and rest some divisions in the west - leading the Wacht Am Rhine.

So its arguable either way.

One thing is for sure about the Israelis: they really screwed up intelligence-wise by allows such a buildup in close proximity to their border by an extra-national force controlled by the Iranians.

That's why the Arabs are sitting this one out - its their land, their economy and their military that will get trashed if they fight the Israelis. The Iranians don't care how many Arabs they get killed in their service. But if too many go, their client state (Syria) will have serious problems controlling it society - and any potential coup attempts that would want to "pull a Qaddafi".

Israel's main strategic objective must be to utterly destroy Hezbollah and its fortified areas in south Lebanon. Along with this, they need to continue to interdict Hezbollah's supplies (from Iran by way of Syria), and destroy command elements wherever they find them (And they are striking specific locations in the Lebanese-Syrian border areas from what I hear in the rumor mill - that means the Bekaa).

The best way would be to interdict anything between Tyre on the coast and Baniyas in the Golan - and the Litani provides a very good natural barrier for this. Qiryat Shemona and Alma in Israel become the "horns" from which assaults into the Hezbollah zones are done - places like Bent Jabil and Ramaich.

But the one Israel cannot afford to do is get into a plodding and grinding "set piece battle" mode a'la Montgomery. They have to interdict, and hit hard - maximum impact in minimum space and time to shatter the enemy at specific points, and get inside his ability to counter and react. That's why C3I targets are the most important to begin with - once you are inside the IDCA cycle (Intel-Decision-Command-Action) of the enemy, you can keep him so off balance that eventually his command structure and logistics will collapse - and at that point, you've won. Even Terrorists, without support and comms, cannot hope to be effective in holding terrain. Ask the Taliban about that.

"They will NOT A. Attempt to prevent the inhabitants of South Lebanon from returning. B. Mine the area or C. Destroy buildings that aren't more or less directly connected to Hezbollah."

Nice opinion, its a shame its not likely to happen. That's a civilian/scholarly/diplomatic approach. Soldiers look at it differently.

Israel cannot separate the sheep from the goats - so they will NOT allow the return of civilians since that also entails infiltration of Hezbollah. At lest not for quite a while and only after someone else is on the hook for securing the areas. See Kosovo/Bosnia as a big example of that.

As for mines: mining the fortified areas that they were able to reduce, but not clear, is a prudent precaution in preventing anyone from using them, and its saves the manpower that would otherwise be lost or killed or wasted in clearing these areas. Mines prevent access - and that's what Israel would need to do to the areas, and the fastest way to do that is mines - they don't screw up your optempo, they don't take large amounts of troops that are needed elsewhere, and they definitely put a crimp in anyone's plans to reoccupy fortified areas. Only political concerns would prevent it. Minefields need not be permanent either. A fast laid temporary minefield would be quite effective in this role of denying the area to any terrorists who wish to sneak back in.

And Israel has already destroyed a lot of buildings that were not connected with Hezbollah in case you hadn't noticed. Those were buildings that might come in handy for Hezbollah, so they were demolished to prevent their use. Either they were tactical in nature (location, observation etc), or operations (needed to be cleared to give a better corridor), or else strategic - like water plants, electrical power stations and large transmitters.

To think otherwise is naive at best.

BH6 is right in talking about USMC FM-1. The Army Equivalent from FM 100-5 is what I learned. But the elements are the same:

Preemption of the enemies actions, dislocation of his forces, disruption of his command control and logistics. This started with the old "Airland Battle" concept that we learned in the 80's and got the toys to do it with: Abrahms tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Apache helicopters, and a C3I battle manegement system and organizational structures that could handle the stresses incurred in applying the operational art of manuever - fighting outnumbered and winning. We executed it the first war in the sandbox.

I'm dead tired. See ya tomorrow again after work. Maybe (may work late again)

Posted by Oldspook 2006-07-26 00:05|| 2006-07-26 00:05|| Front Page Top

20:06 Old Patriot
00:05 C-Low
00:05 Oldspook
23:53 Fordesque
23:46 Fordesque
23:04 gorb
23:03 Adriane
22:59 long hair republican
22:50 Glains Threrese9277
22:44 Hupuse Snamp6542
22:42 Eric Jablow
22:27 Hupuse Snamp6542
22:27 Griper Whegum8464
22:24 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:23 Scott R
22:23 Griper Whegum8464
22:21 Barbara Skolaut
22:18 Glenmore
22:14 Chomble Grolutch3348
22:13 Hupuse Snamp6542
22:12 tu3031
22:11 Champ Angeger5024
22:08 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:03 DoDo