The Ground War Has Begun

[Gothmog]

A bit long but quite interesting ... I thought some might be interested in the view of those who provide intelligence reports for a living.

 

Hopefully we can avoid discussing stuff we already know, like which side everyone hates/likes. If that turns out not to be the case, go ahead and move this topic to 'Fightin' Words'.

 

From Stragetic Forecasting

 

 

The ground war has begun. Several Israeli brigades now appear to be operating between the Lebanese border and the Litani River. According to reports, Hezbollah forces are dispersed in multiple bunker complexes and are launching rockets from these and other locations.

 

Hezbollah's strategy appears to be threefold. First, force Israel into costly attacks against prepared fortifications. Second, draw Israeli troops as deeply into Lebanon as possible, forcing them to fight on extended supply lines. Third, move into an Iraqi-style insurgency from which Israel -- out of fear of a resumption of rocket attacks -- cannot withdraw, but which the Israelis also cannot endure because of extended long-term casualties. This appears to have been a carefully planned strategy, built around a threat to Israeli cities that Israel can't afford. The war has begun at Hezbollah's time and choosing.

 

Israel is caught between three strategic imperatives. First, it must end the threat to Israeli cities, which must involve the destruction of Hezbollah's launch capabilities south of the Litani River. Second, it must try to destroy Hezbollah's infrastructure, which means it must move into the Bekaa Valley and as far as the southern suburbs of Beirut. Third, it must do so in such a way that it is not dragged into a long-term, unsustainable occupation against a capable insurgency.

 

Hezbollah has implemented its strategy by turning southern Lebanon into a military stronghold, consisting of well-designed bunkers that serve both as fire bases and launch facilities for rockets. The militants appear to be armed with anti-tank weapons and probably anti-aircraft weapons, some of which appear to be of American origin, raising the question of how they were acquired. Hezbollah wants to draw Israel into protracted fighting in this area in order to inflict maximum casualties and to change the psychological equation for both military and political reasons.

 

Israelis historically do not like to fight positional warfare. Their tendency has been to bypass fortified areas, pushing the fight to the rear in order to disrupt logistics, isolate fortifications and wait for capitulation. This has worked in the past. It is not clear that it will work here. The great unknown is the resilience of Hezbollah's fighters. To this point, there is no reason to doubt it. Israel could be fighting the most resilient and well-motivated opposition force in its history. But the truth is that neither Israel nor Hezbollah really knows what performance will be like under pressure.

 

Simply occupying the border-Litani area will not achieve any of Israel's strategic goals. Hezbollah still would be able to use rockets against Israel. And even if, for Hezbollah, this area is lost, its capabilities in the Bekaa Valley and southern Beirut will remain intact. Therefore, a battle that focuses solely on the south is not an option for Israel, unless the Israelis feel a defeat here will sap Hezbollah's will to resist. We doubt this to be the case.

 

The key to the campaign is to understand that Hezbollah has made its strategic decisions. It will not be fighting a mobile war. Israel has lost the strategic initiative: It must fight when Hezbollah has chosen and deal with Hezbollah's challenge. However, given this, Israel does have an operational choice. It can move in a sequential fashion, dealing first with southern Lebanon and then with other issues. It can bypass southern Lebanon and move into the rear areas, returning to southern Lebanon when it is ready. It can attempt to deal with southern Lebanon in detail, while mounting mobile operations in the Bekaa Valley, in the coastal regions and toward south Beirut, or both at the same time.

 

There are resource and logistical issues involved. Moving simultaneously on all three fronts will put substantial strains on Israel's logistical capability. An encirclement westward on the north side of the Litani, followed by a move toward Beirut while the southern side of the Litani is not secured, poses a serious challenge in re-supply. Moving into the Bekaa means leaving a flank open to the Syrians. We doubt Syria will hit that flank, but then, we don't have to live with the consequences of an intelligence failure. Israel will be sending a lot of force on that line if it chooses that method. Again, since many roads in south Lebanon will not be secure, that limits logistics.

 

Israel is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Hezbollah has created a situation in which Israel must fight the kind of war it likes the least -- attritional, tactical operations against prepared forces -- or go to the war it prefers, mobile operations, with logistical constraints that make these operations more difficult and dangerous. Moreover, if it does this, it increases the time during which Israeli cities remain under threat. Given clear failures in appreciating Hezbollah's capabilities, Israel must take seriously the possibility that Hezbollah has longer-ranged, anti-personnel rockets that it will use while under attack.

 

Israel has been trying to break the back of Hezbollah resistance in the south through air attack, special operations and probing attacks. This clearly hasn't worked thus far. That does not mean it won't work, as Israel applies more force to the problem and starts to master the architecture of Hezbollah's tactical and operational structure; however, Israel can't count on a rapid resolution of that problem.

 

The Israelis have by now thought the problem through. They don't like operational compromises -- preferring highly focused solutions at the center of gravity of an enemy. Hezbollah has tried to deny Israel a center of gravity and may have succeeded, forcing Israel into a compromise position. Repeated assaults against prepared positions are simply not something the Israelis can do, because they cannot afford casualties. They always have preferred mobile encirclement or attacks at the center of gravity of a defensive position. But at this moment, viewed from the outside, this is not an option.

 

An extended engagement in southern Lebanon is the least likely path, in our opinion. More likely -- and this is a guess -- is a five-part strategy:

 

1. Insert airmobile and airborne forces north of the Litani to seal the rear of Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon. Apply air power and engineering forces to reduce the fortifications, and infantry to attack forces not in fortified positions. Bottle them up, and systematically reduce the force with limited exposure to the attackers.

 

2. Secure roads along the eastern flank for an armored thrust deep into the Bekaa Valley to engage the main Hezbollah force and infrastructure there. This would involve a move from Qiryat Shimona north into the Bekaa, bypassing the Litani to the west, and would probably require sending airmobile and special forces to secure the high ground. It also would leave the right flank exposed to Syria.

 

3. Use air power and special forces to undermine Hezbollah capabilities in the southern Beirut area. The Israelis would consider a move into this area after roads through southern Lebanon are cleared and Bekaa relatively secured, moving into the area, only if absolutely necessary, on two axes of attack.

 

4. Having defeated Hezbollah in detail, withdraw under a political settlement shifting defense responsibility to the Lebanese government.

 

5. Do all of this while the United States is still able to provide top cover against diplomatic initiatives that will create an increasingly difficult international environment.

 

There can be many variations on this theme, but these elements are inevitable:

 

1. Hezbollah cannot be defeated without entering the Bekaa Valley, at the very least.

 

2. At some point, resistance in southern Lebanon must be dealt with, regardless of the cost.

 

3. Rocket attacks against northern Israel and even Tel Aviv must be accepted while the campaign unfolds.

 

4. The real challenge will come when Israel tries to withdraw.

 

No. 4 is the real challenge. Destruction of Hezbollah's infrastructure does not mean annihilation of the force. If Israel withdraws, Hezbollah or a successor organization will regroup. If Israel remains, it can wind up in the position the United States is in Iraq. This is exactly what Hezbollah wants. So, Israel can buy time, or Israel can occupy and pay the cost. One or the other.

 

The other solution is to shift the occupational burden to another power that is motivated to prevent the re-emergence of an anti-Israeli military force -- as that is what Hezbollah has become. The Lebanese government is the only possible alternative, but not a particularly capable one, reflecting the deep rifts in Lebanon.

 

Israel has one other choice, which is to extend the campaign to defeat Syria as well. Israel can do this, but the successor regime to Syrian President Bashar al Assad likely would be much worse for Israel than al Assad has been. Israel can imagine occupying Syria; it can't do it. Syria is too big and the Arabs have learned from the Iraqis how to deal with an occupation. Israel cannot live with a successor to al Assad and it cannot take control of Syria. It will have to live with al Assad. And that means an occupation of Lebanon would always be hostage to Syrian support for insurgents.

 

Hezbollah has dealt Israel a difficult hand. It has thought through the battle problem as well as the political dimension carefully. Somewhere in this, there has been either an Israeli intelligence failure or a political failure to listen to intelligence. Hezbollah's capabilities have posed a problem for Israel that allowed Hezbollah to start a war at a time and in a way of its choosing. The inquest will come later in Israel. And Hezbollah will likely be shattered regardless of its planning. The correlation of forces does not favor it. But if it forces Israel not only to defeat its main force but also to occupy, Hezbollah will have achieved its goals.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

[Doble Troble]

Very interesting, Gothmog. Thanks.

[FC]

It might work out that way, then again, Israel may give Hezbollah a thorough thrashing. On its side it probably has American intelligence, has good weaponry, good intel of its own, and good discipline. It has better training than the Arabs. The Arabs have IED knowledge probably, and a large dose of ill-placed zeal.

[Gothmog]

I think the author is suggesting that military defeat of Hezbollah is likely.

 

The question is, at what price? Have they indeed forced Israel into a war of attrition and/or caused the Israelis to subject their army to a protracted guerilla war? If Hezbollah has planned this as carefully as claimed here, you had better believe that the end game (guerilla insurgency) is already prepared for.

 

Israel cannot afford a tactical defeat, that is certain. With the smaller population base, major losses will be difficult to bear. Israel has the problem of the smaller side in a conflict: its forces must be highly skilled and cannot afford to lose.

 

In the past, the IDF has performed extremely well but a strategic defeat will be just as devastating as one on the battlefield ... and according to this intelligence, it is a strategic fight that Hezbollah has planned for.

 

And then there is the political field ... the last time Israel invaded Lebanon, they were forced by world opinion to let the PLO escape. This is more evidence that a tactical victory can be thwarted by other means.

 

I have to wonder if there will be a simultaneous escalation of activity in Gaza and within Israel to put more pressure on the IDF/security services?

[karlunity]

The IDF is going to have to move in troops and armor to defeat the Arabs.

Air and SF alone is not going to win.

 

They are going to lose troops and to limit it they are going to have to use supporting arms in the build up areas. This will kill a lot of women and kids.

 

The questions are:

 

Will the world let them?

 

How many troops can they afford to lose in "city fighting"?

 

How long will Mr.Bush keep the UN off their tail?

 

What will this do to the price of oil and the Market?

 

Most importantly how will this effect our troops in the Mid east?

 

Karl

[Gothmog]

To be honest, I was a bit surprised at the severity of the Israeli response. There have been kidnappings and rocket attacks for some time ... why the rapid military escalation? This sitrep more or less outlines why ... this battle has been quietly brewing for some time. I suspect that Sharon not being in the picture might also be a reason Hezbollah thought to test the new Israeli leadership.

 

In any event Karl, I quite agree with you, those are significant questions.

 

The one which can be answered is the question about the war's effect on the price of oil .... it will go up, of course. I am tending to agree with predictions of $100/barrel oil in the near future.

 

Hang on to your hats ...

[roscoedoh]

I am concerned that we may somehow get sucked into this fray and in turn end up fighting a protracted war with the entire Arab world. If the Israelies get in over their heads we have some responsibility to help bail them out. Furthermore, the word that's been passed to me by a friend in the Guard is that the Army is already looking ahead at a war with Iran. We already have troops virtually encircling Iran and this may be impetus we're looking for to attack. Why else would we ignore this developing situation when the possibility for yet another war is steadily developing?

 

Consider this as well: what if we do get involved in the Israel/Lebanon/Syria/Iran situation and this situation causes severe shortages of petroleum and China mobilizes to protect its need for oil? While I applaud the Israelies for their efforts and wish them Godspeed in sorting this problem out, I do not feel the protection of Israeli cities worth a global conflict.

 

The Israelies have taken care of themselves for a long time and are to be never underestimated. I hope for our sake however that they've got a plan for this one. I'll bet they do; like Goth said, they've seen this coming for a while.

[Gothmog]

Furthermore, the word that's been passed to me by a friend in the Guard is that the Army is already looking ahead at a war with Iran. We already have troops virtually encircling Iran and this may be impetus we're looking for to attack. Why else would we ignore this developing situation when the possibility for yet another war is steadily developing?

 

I think the plan has always been for the US to attack Iran ... Iran is strategically far more important than Iraq and the US would LOVE to have Iran in their back pocket once more. The loss of the Shah of Iran in the 1970's (and Iran with him) was a major strategic blow to American interests.

 

I have not been able to make heads or tails of the Iraq invasion (yeah, I know ... oil, democracy, humanitarianism, whatever, I just don't see it) except in the light of establishing a sound base of operations from which to re establish control of Iran.

 

I have read that Iran is using the war in Lebanon to dislodge their nuclear ambitions from world attention. Perhaps it is indeed all part and parcel of the same issue and America will simultaneously launch their attack on Iran. Perhaps the Israelis are hoping to catch Hezbollah without the means to be reinforced by Iran. Time will tell ...

 

Wasn't Newt suggesting WW3 was around the corner? I thought his remarks foolish when I heard them, but he may know something the rest of us don't.

[FC]

If I was them I would question Lebanon why they are willing to fight Israel, but won't go in and put the whoop on Hezbolla themselves?

 

If I was Israel I would get into Lebanon, kick butt as fast as possible until I got pressured to get out.

[karlunity]

If I was them I would question Lebanon why they are willing to fight Israel, but won't go in and put the whoop on Hezbollah themselves?

 

FC.

 

Lebanon is mostly an Arab state.

Hezbollah is not bombing them the Israels are.

 

AS to the USA sending troops to Iran

 

QUESTIONS:

 

Where are we going to find the troops?

 

Do you think that Mr.Bush would get Congress to support that this close to a tight election ?

 

if the GOP lose the House, some dems are already talking of impeachment, if that happens?

 

No, unless there is another 9/11 event, I don't see another major war any time soon.

karl

[roscoedoh]

Impeachment on what grounds? What has alledgedly Bush done wrong? And, even if he is impeached, will the Senate convict?

[Gothmog]

If I was them I would question Lebanon why they are willing to fight Israel, but won't go in and put the whoop on Hezbolla themselves?

 

If I was Israel I would get into Lebanon, kick butt as fast as possible until I got pressured to get out.

 

If Lebanon attacks Hezbollah it is very likely that another civil war will take place, probably along religious lines. At present the Muslims outnumber the Christians and whatever allies they might have ... it would be an unmitigated disaster, once again. The last civil war lasted from 1975-1991.

 

Fighting the Israelis at least pulls the nation together, and the Israelis will leave eventually while your countrymen are there to stay.

[Gothmog]

Impeachment on what grounds? What has alledgedly Bush done wrong? And, even if he is impeached, will the Senate convict?

 

I expect the Dems want 'payback' for Slick Willie's treatment. I expect they will claim that Bush lied in order to attack Iraq.

 

I don't think the Senate needs to pass the measure, it will be enough for the Dems if the House besmirches Bush's name in order to give Clinton company in the 'Impeached Presidents' category.

 

No, unless there is another 9/11 event, I don't see another major war any time soon.

karl

 

You mean like this:

 

Hizb'allah assault meant to swamp Israeli defenses

 

Tehran ordered the current Hizb'allah rocket assault on Israel in order to swamp Israeli defenses and open the door for an Iranian missile strike on Israel's population centers, wrote a group of Iranian exiles in a full-page ad published in Wednesday's Washington Times.

 

The Azadegan Foundation, led by former Iranian diplomat Assad Homayoun, warned that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad intends to use weapons of mass destruction against the Jewish state.

 

"We have know for some four years that Iran's clerical leadership has, mostly through Syria and with active participation from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, been pouring thousands of Zalzal-2 and Fajr rockets and missiles into HizbAllah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) units in Lebanon's Beqa'a Valley, for use against Israel.

 

"Now they are being used. And, clearly, this is only the beginning. They are the mass barrages meant to swamp regional defenses so that Iran's strategic Shahab-3 ballistic missiles and other weapons can deliver WMD against Israel and other targets in the region."

 

Adding to the growing sense of concern is the fact that Ahmadinejad earlier this week announced to Muslims throughout the region that a great day of "rejoicing" would soon be upon them.

 

If Iran's aim is to divert Israel's missile defense systems away from its densely populated central regions, it appears to be working.

 

World Tribune reported Wednesday that Israel is "urgently pooling its missile defense assets to defend against" the Hizb'allah threat in the north.

 

http://www.jnewswire.com/article/994

 

WMD hunt on in Lebanon

Report: Hizb'allah poised to launch 'dirty bomb' strike

 

Israeli commandoes are hunting day and night behind enemy lines in Lebanon and Syria for weapons of mass destruction believed to be in the possession of Hizb'allah, reported WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein in his Galil Report.

 

It is widely believed that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein transfered his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons to Syria just months prior to US invasion in March 2003. Many of those weapons were then passed on to Hizb'allah, which has a freer hand to act against Israel than its Syrian sponsors.

 

Klein reported that special teams of IDF Druze commandoes - chosen because of their ability to blend in to the local Arab populations - have orders to destroy long-range Iranian missiles and any chemical weapons they find, after first documenting their existence.

 

In related news, Klein quoted MI6 sources in London as saying Hizb'allah is poised to fire "dirty bomb" rockets at Israel using spent nuclear rods from Iran's nuclear program.

 

Said one British intelligence official:

 

"The [rockets] will contain spent nuclear rods from Iran's nuclear programme. The rods are wrapped with conventional explosives. The dirty bombs are primarily intended to create increased panic across an already nervous population in northern Israel."

 

http://www.jnewswire.com/article/995

 

Just a couple of stories thus far, probably more rumour than fact ... but ...

[karlunity]

No. I think that a 9/11 event would have to take place in the US and I don't think that the Arabs are dumb enough to do that.

 

As to impeachment, I agree with CG, the Dems don't require evidence they will roll their own.

 

karl

[Doble Troble]

Hopefully Isreal will live up to their reputation and kick terrorist ass. Hopefully we'll watch and learn. Hizbulla won't disappear, there's nothing else for fanatical young men of questionable intellegence to do in that region. The void will be filled and the process repeated again and again until islamo-fanaticism becomes as unpopular as it should be.

 

The war on terror is going to take a long time. I'm glad to have Isreal actively participating and I hope that we will cooperate with them to our mutual benefit.

 

A lot of ragheads are going to have to be killed. I hope we all will have the stomach to see this through, it won't be easy, and we're going to lose a lot more good, brave and honorable anti-terrorists before its over.

[fritz]

I don't think there will be any impeachment hearings forthcoming, given the result of the last attempt to impeach a president. But ask yourself this----is what Clinton did (lying about sex) more important to the country than what Bush is accused of lying about?

 

Think about it.

 

fritz

[karlunity]

The goals of impeachment would not be to remove Mr. Bush but to discredit his administration in the media and to tie up his last two years in office.

 

The idea being that if you tell a lie loud enough and often enough folks start believing.

 

a scandal would make the path to the White house and even control of the House and Senate a real possibility.

 

Very good for Hill and the left.

 

karl

[flaco]

Nobody could be better at discrediting the Bush Administration than the Bush Administration.

 

What a bunch of inept ideological bunglers.

 

What more needs to go wrong before you guys see--err,I mean admit--this?

 

flaco

[roscoedoh]

Flaco,

 

Would you please elaborate on what wrongs commited by the Bush Administration that you see as impeachable offenses?

 

I ask this not out of facetiousness, but because I would like to understand your position.

 

Thanks,

 

Jason

[FC]

I don't want to hear anything about impeaching the President after Bill Clinton went Scot free.

[Guest karl]

Bush rules!

Now if only he would close the border, I would name my firstborn "George".

 

Karl

[fritz]

If Bush don't close the borders soon, you might consider naming the kid "Jorge"!

 

fritz

[fritz]

"The idea being that if you tell a lie loud enough and often enough folks start believing."

 

Is that not what this administration is doing?

 

Think about it.

 

fritz