Memo to Conservative Journalists: Hezbollah is the Best Trained Arab Army Israel Has Ever Faced
Ralph Peters is giving Ehud Olmert military advice, arguing that air power isn't enough to win the war against Hezbollah. He thus joins the growing chorus of conservative journalists who can't understand why Israel hasn't won yet. Besides Peters, the best example of this frustration was yesterday's Bret Stephens column in the WSJ:
Israel is headed for the greatest military humiliation in its history. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Israelis were stunned by their early reversals against Egypt and Syria, yet they eked out a victory over these two powerfully armed, Soviet-backed adversaries in 20 days. The conflict with Hezbollah - a 15,000-man militia chiefly armed with World War II-era Katyusha rockets - is now in its 21st day.
That's mostly wrong in its facts, but even more egregiously wrong in its implications. As a strict factual matter, Hezbollah is not armed chiefly with WW2 weapons - Iran has ensured that their proxy army has of state of the art light weapons, cutting edge anti-tank weapons, and not a few anti-ship and anti-plane weapons. But more importantly - and read this carefully - Hezbollah is the best trained, best disciplined army that Israel has ever faced. Israel managed to turn back the Syrian army because, among other things, it had no idea how to manage battlefield communications. Hezbollah has no such problems - nowhere near them in fact. A friend of ours in the IDF was comparing Hamas's forces to Hezbollah's, and commented dryly that "Hezbollah's snipers actually hit things".
But what about Peters's suggestion that Israel has been relying too heavily on air power? That complaint also springs from what seems to be a misunderstanding. Since Israel left Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah has been availing itself of Israel's old bunkers. They've also dug their own encampments and bunkers. They are deeply, deeply entrenched into their positions. Ergo Israel's reliance on air power – it's nothing more than the prelude to an invasion. The IDF needed to soften up the enemy for a week or two before sending ground forces in. Israel is already going to take heavy casualties fighting the best army they've ever faced on a battlefield - no reason to make the situation more perilous by undertaking a rash invasion rather than a well-prepared campaign.
Israel is headed for the greatest military humiliation in its history. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Israelis were stunned by their early reversals against Egypt and Syria, yet they eked out a victory over these two powerfully armed, Soviet-backed adversaries in 20 days. The conflict with Hezbollah - a 15,000-man militia chiefly armed with World War II-era Katyusha rockets - is now in its 21st day.
That's mostly wrong in its facts, but even more egregiously wrong in its implications. As a strict factual matter, Hezbollah is not armed chiefly with WW2 weapons - Iran has ensured that their proxy army has of state of the art light weapons, cutting edge anti-tank weapons, and not a few anti-ship and anti-plane weapons. But more importantly - and read this carefully - Hezbollah is the best trained, best disciplined army that Israel has ever faced. Israel managed to turn back the Syrian army because, among other things, it had no idea how to manage battlefield communications. Hezbollah has no such problems - nowhere near them in fact. A friend of ours in the IDF was comparing Hamas's forces to Hezbollah's, and commented dryly that "Hezbollah's snipers actually hit things".
But what about Peters's suggestion that Israel has been relying too heavily on air power? That complaint also springs from what seems to be a misunderstanding. Since Israel left Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah has been availing itself of Israel's old bunkers. They've also dug their own encampments and bunkers. They are deeply, deeply entrenched into their positions. Ergo Israel's reliance on air power – it's nothing more than the prelude to an invasion. The IDF needed to soften up the enemy for a week or two before sending ground forces in. Israel is already going to take heavy casualties fighting the best army they've ever faced on a battlefield - no reason to make the situation more perilous by undertaking a rash invasion rather than a well-prepared campaign.
