Israeli warplanes, drones violate Lebanon’s airspace

[Formozgan]

Formozgan posted this in his article by Thalif Deen. Not an assumption, heven highlighted his favorite parts about casaulties

-I'm not a Muslim. I'm also not an Arab. Even if Iran has had an historic tendency to imperialism, it has not carried out an aggression to a foreign or nearby nation in around 70 years, which is longer than Israel's existence where they have been harassing their neighbors ever since. This thread is a good example of a very typical Israeli passive-aggressive attack.

-I mentioned casualties only because he mentioned something about nuclear and military capacity. He appeared to diminish Hezbollah to a mere bunch of vandals. In reality they are a very complex network that doesn't only engage in warfare, yet they have proved they can consistently retaliate.

-I don't necessarily support all of the ideas of the author, but the main point is still there and has been observed by a large range of authors of diverse backgrounds. There are more detailed articles on this matter:

At this point, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made a political decision: he would deploy the full might of the IDF to defeat Hezbollah at the same time that his top aides signaled Israel’s willingness to accept a ceasefire and the deployment of an international force. Olmert determined that Israel should not tip its hand–it would accept the deployment of a United Nations force, but only as a last resort.

First, he decided, Israel would say that it would accept a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) force. In keeping with this strategy, Israeli reserve forces were called to the front on July 21. The surprise call-up (the IDF was to defeat Hezbollah first from the air, and then–if that failed–use its regular forces, with no reserve forces to be called) made the initial deployment of the reserves hurried and uncoordinated. (It is, to repeat, likely that Israel did not believe it would have to call on its reserves during the conflict, or it would have called them much earlier.)

Moreover, the decision to call the reserves took key senior reserve officers, usually the first to be notified of a pending call-up, by surprise. The reserve call-up was handled chaotically–with the reserve "tail" of logistical support lagging some 24-48 hours behind the deployment of reserve forces.

The July 21 call-up was a clear sign to military strategists in the Pentagon that Israel’s war was not going well. It also helps to explain why Israeli reserve troops arrived at the front without the necessary equipment, without a coherent battle plan, and without the munitions necessary to carry on the fight. (Throughout the conflict, Israel struggled to provide adequate support to its reserve forces: food, ammunition and even water supplies reached units a full 24-48 hours behind a unit’s appearance at its assigned northern deployment zones.)

The effect of this was immediately perceived by military observers. "Israeli troops looked unprepared, sloppy and demoralized," one former senior US commander noted. "This wasn’t the vaunted IDF that we saw in previous wars."

In keeping with Olmert’s political ploy, the IDF’s goal of the total destruction of Hezbollah was also being markedly scaled back. "There is one line between our military objectives and our political objectives," Brigadier-General Ido Nehushtan, a member of Israel’s general staff, said on the day after the reserve call-up. "The goal is not necessarily to eliminate every Hezbollah rocket. What we must do is disrupt the military logic of Hezbollah. I would say that this is still not a matter of days away."

This was a decidedly strange way of presenting a military strategy–to conduct a war to "disrupt the military logic" of an enemy. Nehushtan’s statement had a chilling effect on IDF ground commanders, who wondered exactly what the war’s goals were. But other IDF commanders were upbeat–while the IAF had failed to stop Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli cities, fewer rockets were fired at Israel from July 19-21 than at any other time (a very small number on July 19, perhaps as few as 40 on July 20 and 50 on July 22).

July 22 also marks the first time that the United States responded militarily to the conflict. Late on the day of the 21st, the White House received a request from Olmert and the IDF for the provision of large amounts of precision-guided munitions–another telltale sign that the IAF had failed in its mission to degrade Hezbollah military assets significantly during the opening rounds of the war.

You can read more:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ12Ak01.html

[Shah-Jehan]

-I'm not a Muslim. I'm also not an Arab. Even if Iran has had an historic tendency to imperialism, it has not carried out an aggression to a foreign or nearby nation in around 70 years, which is longer than Israel's existence where they have been harassing their neighbors ever since. This thread is a good example of a very typical Israeli passive-aggressive attack.

-I mentioned casualties only because he mentioned something about nuclear and military capacity. He appeared to diminish Hezbollah to a mere bunch of vandals. In reality they are a very complex network that doesn't only engage in warfare, yet they have proved they can consistently retaliate.

-I don't necessarily support all of the ideas of the author, but the main point is still there and has been observed by a large range of authors of diverse backgrounds. There are more detailed articles on this matter:



You can read more:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ12Ak01.html

Anglojew wanted to troll you, he got caught in the trolling himself...