Within the last 72 hours, confusion and dissension has racked the IDF as the Israelis suffered their worst day of the war, losing 15 soldiers with an additional 38 wounded.
The situation couldn’t get much worse.
The furious finger pointing within the IDF is one thing. But there is also bitter criticism of Prime Minister Olmert for being too slow, too timid, and not listening to his commanders who have been telling him for three weeks that only a massive ground incursion into Lebanon will win the day by seriously damaging Hizbullah and recreating the buffer zone that will prevent the terrorists from attacking civilians.
What has many officers upset is the sudden elevation of IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz’s deputy, Major General Kaplinsky, as de facto commander in the north. This has angered northern commander General Udi Adam and many officers on his staff who see this move by Halutz as an attempt to deflect criticism from himself to Adam for the slow progress being made by the IDF on the battlefield.
According to the officers, Adam showed “loyalty to the system under the very difficult circumstances that were created. He gets alot of support from us, his subordinates, and for now he will probably stay at his job until the end of the war. But he has a bellyfull against Halutz and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and there’s no doubt that when things calm down, he’ll express his opinions.”Adam said yesterday to his subordinates, “the important thing now is to win the war. We’ll have time later to deal with this saga.”
The officers added that “a smear campaign” had been directed against Adam over the past few weeks,”to blame him for all the failures of the war.” It was carried out, the officers said, in a way that was “mean and low.” They said the purpose was clear: “to cover all kinds of mistakes that other people made and to turn the GOC into a scapegoat.” According to the officers, “Adam may be accused of all kinds of things. But the claims that he doesn’t understand tactics, that he was lacking in knowledge and is not a real leader, are false.”
Given these circumstances, who should get the blame for the dramatic rise in casualties in the last 24 hours? If Kaplinsky came in thinking he should immediately light a fire under the men and officers under his command, could it be that the increased casualties are the result of more aggressive movement by forces under his command?
We can’t be sure, but it is a telling coincidence.
There has also been fierce, almost unprecedented criticism of Prime Minister Olmert:
According to informed sources, there is an almost total breakdown in trust and confidence between the General Staff and the PM’s office. They have described the situation as “even worse than the crises that followed Ben Gurion’s decision to disband the Palmach, and Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan’s cynical decision to place all the blame for the Yom Kippur fiasco on the IDF’s shoulders.Senior IDF officers have been saying that the PM bears sole responsibility for the current unfavorable military situation, with Hezbollah still holding out after almost a month of fighting.
According to these officers, Olmert was presented with an assiduously prepared and detailed operational plan for the defeat and destruction of Hezbollah within 10-14 days, which the IDF has been formulating for the past 2-3 years.
In fact, General Adam presented Halutz with “detailed operational plans as early as July 23” for the massive ground assault into southern Lebanon approved yesterday by the Security Cabinet.
Those plans called for airborne landings south of the Litani River, bypassing the deeply dug in Hizbullah positions near the border as well as seaborne landings of troops north of the river. In effect, the IDF would then have put Hizbullah in a giant pincers, hammering them from the north with the paratroopers in their rear while holding them in place with forces from northern command on the border. The result:This would have surprised Hezbollah, which would have had to come out of its fortifications and confront the IDF in the open, in order to avoid being isolated, hunted down and eventually starved into a humiliating submission.
This was exactly what the IDF senior command wanted, as Israeli military doctrine, based on the Wehrmacht’s blitzkrieg doctrine, has traditionally been one of rapid mobile warfare, designed to surprise and outflank an enemy.
So what happened? Evidently, Olmert had other plans:
According to senior military sources, who have been extensively quoted in both the Hebrew media and online publications with close ties to the country’s defense establishment, Olmert nixed the second half of the plan, and authorized only air strikes on southern Lebanon, not initially on Beirut.Although the Premier has yet to admit his decision, let alone provide a satisfactory explanation, it seems that he hoped futilely for a limited war.
[snip]
The decision to cancel the landings on the Litani River and authorize a very limited call up of reserves forced the ground forces to fight under very adverse conditions. Instead of outflanking a heavily fortified area with overwhelming forcers, they had to attack from the direction most expected, with insufficient forces. The result, high casualties and modest achievements.
Whatever his reasons for trying to limit the conflict (Condi Rice supported limited objectives for the Israelis from the beginning of the war), Olmert may be losing the unqualified support he’s been getting from George Bush. Although there’s not much chance, the President evidently wants diplomacy to play out at the UN before Israel commits to the offensive:
The troops were already rolling late Wednesday when they were ordered to halt. It appears heavy US pressure delayed the offensive to allow diplomacy to run its course. A senior minister said Wednesday that Israel might delay the expansion for 2-3 days for that purpose.Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is ready to wait with the offensive until the weekend, said a senior government official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the issue with reporters. The offensive could begin earlier if Hizbullah launches a major attack on Israel, the official said.
Cabinet minister Rafi Eitan confirmed the government’s decision to wait. “There are diplomatic considerations,” he told Israel Radio. “There is still a chance that an international force will arrive in he area. We have no interest in being in south Lebanon. We have an interest in peace on our borders.”
Those diplomatic efforts to end the war appear to be bogged down by French insistence that there be an immediate cease fire followed by the deployment of the Lebanese army into the south, replacing the IDF as guarantors of Israeli security:
The word in New York yesterday was that France had made it clear to the U.S. that unless a new version of the draft proposal was reached that included the revisions it wanted, France would initiate a new resolution of its own. The two countries agree that the first version they formulated needed to be revised.[snip]
France yesterday offered to redraft UNIFIL’s mandate, devised when the force was deployed in South Lebanon in 1978, to enable the UN to reinforce and authorize the force to exercise a more effective presence. The French also suggested to the Americans that a symbolic multinational force be stationed at Shaba Farms.
The U.S. reiterated its position that it would outright reject any revision to the draft resolution that undermined assurance of keeping Hezbollah from reinfiltrating South Lebanon.
Any cease fire without a strong multinational force to be deployed in southern Lebanon will be rejected by Olmert and probably the Americans as well. Anything less would be a huge defeat for the Israelis as Hizbullah leader Hassan Nassrallah would have his men almost certainly filter back into positions they have abandoned over the last 3 weeks. Getting around the poorly trained and equipped Lebanese army would be a simple matter unless there was a strong international presence to block them. Hence, any resolution offered by France that simply augments UNIFIL will be rejected out of hand by Olmert.
Some analysts think that many of the moves Olmert is making now are being done with an eye toward the post war political battles that are sure to break out as a result of the disappointing performance of the IDF so far. That may be. But unless Olmert wants an unmitigated disaster on his hands, the IDF has to have a clear cut victory in the south following this massive offensive or the war of perceptions will have been won by Hizbullah regardless of what happens at the United Nations.
12:16 pm
Rick: did you see how quickly after France pulled the football away from him Bush put pressure on Israel to back off? It seems as if he’s only willing to back Israel if others are on board. And the idea of a ‘strong’ multinational force taking over from Israel is defective on its face. Hezbollah needs to be disarmed and moved away from the border and since they’re not willing to go peacefully (hence the fighting), force will have to be used… and who, other than Israel, has the ability and the will to do so? French troops won’t defend France, why should anyone think they’re going to take on Hezbollah?
12:20 pm
I think what both Bush and Olmert want at this point is avoiding a clear cut defeat. The world press won’t give Israel a victory no matter how this offensive turns out. So by insisting on an ironclad buffer – either policed by Israel or a multi national force – at least they keep the Hiz away from their old positions.
It’s not much, but its all they have at this point.
1:58 pm
Israel appears to have made some of the mistakes the US made in Iraq. We did not commit the proper amount of ground forces to the operation. Israel should have learned from this. Hopefully they can get this right now. The war has been going on less than a month and there is already finger pointing and complaining. We westerners have grown to soft. I think the greatest generation who fought WWII would be quite disappointed with us.
2:03 pm
I’ve never doubted that Israel could defeat Hezbollah. The question I’ve always had is would Israel being given enough time to do it. This is why it is of the utmost importance that they don’t dally around and get it done. This is also why it is important to us. If they don’t complete the mission, they lose and we lose.
2:08 pm
Olmert sounds like a timid political hack. His ditching of the airborne flanking maneuver in favor of a limited ground assault and airstrikes is reminiscent of the way Clinton approached his fight against terrorists: lobbing a few Tomahawks and calling it quits. I predict that one consequence of the political fallout will be the replacement of Olmert’s government with one that is more hawkish. I like Netenyahu as his replacement.
And, although I suppose it is commonplace, the political knife-fighting over blame is during this kind of crisis is disgraceful.
2:33 pm
B. Poster
What Israel is doing is completely different than the US-Iraq situation. We are trying to build a nation. Israel is trying to build a buffer between Hizbollah and themselves. It is clear why Olmert was wearing kids gloves when dealing with Hizbollah. Even the small team incursions are seriously frowned upon by the world. An all out invasion from the beginning would have made Israel look like jerks in the world’s progressive elites.
3:12 pm
Olmert is toast. He has written his own ticket to political oblivion.
4:01 pm
Svenghouli
As a born again Christian and based on understanding of the biblical scriptures my perception of the Israeli/Arab conflict will be affected. I freely admit that.
With that said, you may be on to something with your post. Israel has been surrounded by hostile enemies since its re establishment as a nation. I would be inclined to assume that they know what they are doing. I think America’s best course of action would be to stay out of Israel’s way and let them take care of business.
I think more troops should have been used from the start. This probably would have given Israel a more decisive victory in a shorter period time. Israel’s most ardent enemies control much of the world’s oil and they are capable of terrorist attacks any where in the world. This has led many nations to calculate that Israel is expendable in order to stay in the good graces of Arabs, furthermore, much of the world media is state controlled or quasi-state controlled and, as such, they will broadcast only what the state wants them to broadcast. Israel was going to come off looking like a jerk any way. With this in mind they should do the invasion right. Job one is to protect your citizens. With a decisive victory they will still be hated by the world but at least they will be more likely to be respected. Israel, the US, and the Western world are afraid of their own shadow when it comes to public relations. Our enemies ruthlessly exploit this character flaw and use it against us.
You are correct that exact comparisons between Israel’s actions and America’s actions are not possible. Both are military actions, as such, you are going to need ground troops to subdue your enemy. We did not use enough troops at the beginning of OIF and we have been paying for this over sight ever since. Thankfully Israel appears to be making the appropiate course corrections. The delay may simply be the time it takes to get the appropiate forces into place. Its hard to know.
As a conservative, I am generally against such nation building operations as we are engaged in with Iraq, however, I can understand the need to remove the Baathist regime. The purpose of a military is to either subdue something or to destroy something. If you are going to remake a country, you will need to destroy its war fighting capability and you will need to subdue it. We did not commit enough troops to do either of those things. We only commited enough troops to remove the Baathist government.
4:05 pm
“One whose upper and lower ranks have the same desires will be victorious.”
7:57 pm
I hate to see Isreal defeated, my heart aches when I see the really young kids, ilke our young ones in Iraq, I am just so afraid they aren’t gonna be ALLOWED to finish this cuz of the pissy world opinion.
Even after this morning in England with the MAJOR BOMB PLOT the demoncrat moonbats are still critizing Bush and Blair and are even saying they planned this together. God, these people are fools, just plain nuts, but I still pray each night for our troops and for Isreal’s troops.
10:45 pm
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885884780&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
to see the likely ROE for the IDF.
Not a chance in H3ll.
These are the Commanders placed in charge by the “We can surrender enough to have peace” coalition now running Israel. It is going to take a fall of government to replace these wusses.
2:38 am
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/9116.htm
What do you make of this?
7:40 am
Yet Another Roundup
How can anyone get bored with all the Middle East news in one place?My theory that Israeli indecision is actually psy-ops? I am doubting myself after reading this [URL=http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006 …
11:56 am
Has anybody seen the new TSA regs that recharacterize human bladders as carry-on compartments?
12:09 pm
[...] Olmert’s under tremendous pressure from three sides right now: the UN, which essentially wants to restore the status quo ante; the Israeli public, whose morale is finally starting to cool; and the military, which has accused him of being too timid and too enamored of air power. In fact, the IDF’s been begging him to give this order for days: After 30 days of fighting, the war with Hizbullah seemed to be nearing its conclusion Thursday. [...]
12:39 pm
I think those that propose Olmert loses, miss the bigger point. Bibi won’t advance all that far if elections get called t’marra. (And, they’re not going to be called until things become obvious.)
Israel is waiting for Assad. Assad refuses to engage. So, even Bolton, at the UN, is pushing the ‘pause’ button.
And, the pilots in the air force get a chance to rest. They’ll be back. And, it’s not going to be a foot race, or a foot war. It’s gonna blast syria’s position. Which brings in the iranians. Who don’t want engagement, either. Since “engagement” means bringing in the USA.
You can read the news anyway you like. But angering air flyers, (flying pedestrians), is about as dumb as the muzzies can get. People won’t react in fear. They won’t react in panic. But they’re getting very, very mad.)
Which means the wall calls, when they go out in the West, will have support.
But it won’t happen in the summer. I’ll bet the “engagement” gets real in the Fall. And, Olmert, ahead, comes out as a genius.
Bibi, if there were new elections, might hope to gain a seat or two. But even there, I see his timing as “off.” The settlers, again, can be counted on not to unify the whole country. Just taking advantage. Yelling FIRE in a crowded war theater. Even if you don’t smell the backfire, it works like a boomerang.
5:15 pm
I disagree. In another month there will be effigies of Olmert swinging from streetlights in Tel Aviv – if the Israelis can’t fight Hezbollah, they can sure as hell fight HIM.
10:28 pm
Stevie Key
I have several thoughts on the article you provided the link to, however, before beginning I should explain that my Christian faith profoundly influences my perceptions of the Israeli/Arab conflict. Evem if not for my Christian faith, I would still be very pro-Israel but I might not be as passionate about as I am.
1.) There never has been any doubt in my mind that Israel could defeat Hezbollah. The only question I had, from the beginning, is would Israel have enough time. I suspected the US would run interference for them for some time, however, given the current political realities, the ability and the willingness of the US to run this diplomatic interference is finite. In an ideal situation I would have liked to see the US run diplomatic interference indefinitely, however, barring divine intervention the ability of the US is limited in this regard.
2.) If Israel wanted to obliterate Lebanon, the Israeli Air Force could do so in less than 24 hours. Hezbollah would be completely destroyed. This would involve the kind of massive bombardment that was done to Dresden and Tokyo during WWII. Both the Israeli and American Aif Forces are significantly more powerful than any thing the Allies had during WWII. Neither Israel nor the US want to destroy Lebanon. With this is in mind, the only option Israel has is a sugical air campaign designed to strike terrorist targets and to follow it up with a massive ground campaign.
3.) From the article, it appears Olmert may have wanted a limited war. This seems to be exactly the kind of war that Donald Rumsfeld and company wanted for Iraq. Wars are not won that way. I would have thought the Israeli civilian leadership would have learned something from watching the Coaliton effort. The bottom line is both Israel and America seem to have under estimated the power of their enemies.
4.) Hezbollah is arguably the most powerful terrorist organization on earth. This organization’s fighting ability is probably greater than the fighting ability of the armies of many countries, however, if the Israeli government allocates the time and the resource to the IDF the IDF would defeat them, as Israel has one of the top armies on earth. In addition, this is a terrorist organization of global reach.
5.) Given that neither Israel nor the US want to completely obliterate Lebanon, the only option is the current campaign of surgical air strikes designed to limit the capability of Hezbollah to fight. This is to be followed by a massive ground invasion that features overwhelming force.
6.) It can be argued that Olmert was slow to commit the ground forces. If Olmert really thought this could be achieved with a limited war, this is very troubling. Any number of mistakes were probably made. This happens in all wars. Humans can and will make errors. The important thing is do we learn from the errors we made.
7.) As you probably know, Israelinsder is a very pro-Israel source. They provide an excellent counter to the msm who ranges from anti-Israel to neutral. This web site seems to be very informative. That said, I’m highly skeptical that anyone seriously believed they could fully defeat an enemy as powerful as Hezbollah, short of destroying the entire country in only 10 to 14 days. If they truly believed this, this would seem to be hubris in the extreme.
8.) Given the standard bombing campaign and a ground campaign, the IDF would probably need a minimum of six months to do this job right. This is, if we assume everything went perfect. If the operation runs into snags, as almost all human endeavors will, it would probably take longer. I have no doubt the IDF would win. It just takes the will of the leadership and the citizens to see it through to the end.
9.) Instead of a coup, if the the IDF leaders are unhappy, they should run for office. Also, they should try and keep a lid on all of the sniping. If this enemy even percieves weakness and disension, this will only embolden them.
6:58 am
hello, have nice day