View Single Post
  #234  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Aug 22nd, 2006, 09:51 PM       
It's way too early to "tally the scores".

I wouldn't cry for Halutz of Olmert or any of them. If the IDF took a defeat, it was really at the hands of it's own administration.

I would agree, there really was no reason for them to underestimated how intertwined Iran would be in a offensive attack by Hezbollah. Iran's capabilities should be considered Hezbollah's capabilities. Many Israelis are naive, and do not realize that while they've spent 15 years learning peace songs, the Arabs have been breeding animals for the sole purpose of wiping Israel off the map. To that end, neither side achieved their goals - it was a squirmish. The benefit to Israel is knowing who they're fighting against, and weakening Iran's second line in any possible attack on Israel. If we play the numbers game (not the best way to judge these battles though) 500 Hezbollah casualties is a huge hit considering estimates of an army of 1000, and possibly 10,000 reservists. Israel's 150 casualties, out of a force between 10,000-30,000 were largely due to their own self defeating strategy, putting their lives in danger to avoid casualties - or just outright idiotic positioning. Israel's initial reserve numbers in the 300,000 range but if shit hits the fan, you'll see more then half the country suit up, and every veteran from Dr. Ruth on down, hopping on a plane, and grabbing their walkers and their uzis. Anyway, in that regard, Israel did okay. In reality, I don't think anyone feels they lost 150 men in exchange for accomplishing anything aside from maybe Lebanon putting it's army in the South again.

Of course, if a small percentage of the entire Arab world just up and decides to rush the borders, Israel is dog meat. Like I've been saying, this has always been Israel vs. the Arab/Islamic world.
Reply With Quote