The Myth of the Myth of Israeli Invulnerability Being Shattered

BluffTHIS! · #1 08-15-2006, 11:27 PM

A lot of news pundits and jubilant extremist Islamic Arab states are opining that the "myth of Israeli invulnerability" has been overturned by its perfomance in the Lebanese war and its inability to totally stop Hezbollah's missile attacks on Israel proper.

This however is talking apples and oranges. Israel is in fairly invulnerable to conventional ground attack, as no nearby nation can compete with it in conventional fighting. If Israel wanted its tank brigades in Beirut or Damscus, they would be there in short order, and only US and other international pressure stopped that in previous wars when their tank columns were moving in on Damascus and Cairo.

However Israel certainly isn't invulnerable in the arena of fighting against insurgencies, as no nation really is. This is the most difficult type of war to wage when any minimal consideration is given to not slaughtering civilians en masse, and neither Israel nor anyone has claimed otherwise, as such a claim would be disproved instantly by 30 years of Palestinian terrorist insurgencies. This whole news pundit and enemy claim is just a strawman.

iron81 · #2 08-15-2006, 11:45 PM

While Bluff's post is largely true, the fact that Israel was unable to halt the rocket attacks was a significant surprise to myself and many people. I don't recall hearing reports that Israel was even able to destroy a significant number of rockets on the ground. Being an invincible army isn't merely a function of punching through enemy lines, you have to be able to exercise some minimal control of the territory you capture. I really thought Hezbollah did better in this conflict that I thought they would have.

jokerthief · #3 08-15-2006, 11:49 PM

I think Israel failed in the Hezbollah conflict but that failure was political not military. They went in with a 3 to 1 advantage on the ground against a well entrenched opponent and met with considerable casualties. They should have gone in with 10 to 1 minimum and they should have done it a lot sooner. Israel comes out of this conflict really looking weak and their enemies are sure to be emboldened. Olmert ought to be tossed IMO.

jokerthief · #4 08-15-2006, 11:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
While Bluff's post is largely true, the fact that Israel was unable to halt the rocket attacks was a significant surprise to myself and many people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way to do that was with a massive ground assult which they didn't have the nerve to do.

Knockwurst · #5 08-16-2006, 12:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of news pundits and jubilant extremist Islamic Arab states are opining that the "myth of Israeli invulnerability" has been overturned by its perfomance in the Lebanese war and its inability to totally stop Hezbollah's missile attacks on Israel proper.

This however is talking apples and oranges. Israel is in fairly invulnerable to conventional ground attack, as no nearby nation can compete with it in conventional fighting. If Israel wanted its tank brigades in Beirut or Damscus, they would be there in short order, and only US and other international pressure stopped that in previous wars when their tank columns were moving in on Damascus and Cairo.

However Israel certainly isn't invulnerable in the arena of fighting against insurgencies, as no nation really is. This is the most difficult type of war to wage when any minimal consideration is given to not slaughtering civilians en masse, and neither Israel nor anyone has claimed otherwise, as such a claim would be disproved instantly by 30 years of Palestinian terrorist insurgencies. This whole news pundit and enemy claim is just a strawman.

[/ QUOTE ]

When assessing a military's performance, it's always best to move past the news pundits and listen to the professional military strategists. Col. Pat Lang is one of the most erudite military scholars I've come across and he has discussed the IDF's and Hizbollah's military performances extensively on his website sic semper tyrannis.

bisonbison · #6 08-16-2006, 01:03 AM

If the US bordered a hostile nation, there is little we could do to stop incoming personal payload missiles without resorting to an all-out occupation.

I doubt any nation in the middle-east is now thinking "I should start a 1 on 1 fight with Israel".

ACPlayer · #7 08-16-2006, 05:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of news pundits and jubilant extremist Islamic Arab states are opining that the "myth of Israeli invulnerability" has been overturned by its perfomance in the Lebanese war and its inability to totally stop Hezbollah's missile attacks on Israel proper.

This however is talking apples and oranges. Israel is in fairly invulnerable to conventional ground attack, as no nearby nation can compete with it in conventional fighting. If Israel wanted its tank brigades in Beirut or Damscus, they would be there in short order, and only US and other international pressure stopped that in previous wars when their tank columns were moving in on Damascus and Cairo.

However Israel certainly isn't invulnerable in the arena of fighting against insurgencies, as no nation really is. This is the most difficult type of war to wage when any minimal consideration is given to not slaughtering civilians en masse, and neither Israel nor anyone has claimed otherwise, as such a claim would be disproved instantly by 30 years of Palestinian terrorist insurgencies. This whole news pundit and enemy claim is just a strawman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the shattering (cracking?) of the myth of invincibility has to do with the military not achieving the political objectives.

It is a mistake to look at military might on its own. The military is a means, a tool if you will, for a nation to achieve political goals. If the military is unable to do so, whether it is because it is incapable (not so for Israel), not able to counter the enemy tactics effectively (perhaps so in the lebanon war) or not given clear objectives (even more so in the lebanon war).

There were similar problems in Vietnam and Iraq (and to some extent in Afghanistan).

cambraceres · #8 08-16-2006, 06:06 AM

Israel has the capability to assert itself anywhere in the area, their only concern is diplomatic. They will do what Bush allows, currently, only a tiny potion of their force is being utilized.

Think about it, Israel has over 75 F-18 fighter jets, all fully capable, along with several hundred a-4 jets. Not only that but the Israeli Air Force is one of the best trained in the world. If they were allowed too, they could literally erase Lebanon. International concern is their only hinderance.

Cam

vulturesrow · #9 08-16-2006, 09:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
will do what Bush allows, currently, only a tiny potion of their force is being utilized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel has a long history of doing exactly what Israel wants to do regardless of the US's wishes on the matter. The only notable exception I can recall is their agreement not to respond militarily to the Scud launches directed at Israel by Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm.

cambraceres · #10 08-16-2006, 10:01 AM

Didn't they get a little overzealous at the end of the war of attrition? Then they lost all support and learned a valuable lesson, moderation. I remember this story as a foggy estimation of what happened. The Israeli army marched in, and behind them were christian vigilantes, who murdered women and children, you know, aslt the earth type stuff. The whole fiasco was a tactical victory but a strategic loss. It took a long time for Israel to get back in the good graces of the international community.