ChatterBank0 min ago
Israel's Military Chief resigns - how wars are lost
Israel's Military Chief Lt Gen Dan Halutz has resigned.
Gen Halutz is accused of relying too heavily on air power and waiting too long to send in ground troops. Israel failed to free the soldiers or destroy Hezbollah before a ceasefire ended the fighting in August, with Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah claiming a strategic victory over Israel.
About 1,000 Lebanese were killed in the conflict, mostly civilians in Israel's vast bombardment of the county.
Do you think the reliance on technology and not troop strengths is playing into the terrorist hands. The exact same thing happened in Iraq. 'Shock and Awe' followed by not enough troops. Followed by failure.
Do you think
Gen Halutz is accused of relying too heavily on air power and waiting too long to send in ground troops. Israel failed to free the soldiers or destroy Hezbollah before a ceasefire ended the fighting in August, with Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah claiming a strategic victory over Israel.
About 1,000 Lebanese were killed in the conflict, mostly civilians in Israel's vast bombardment of the county.
Do you think the reliance on technology and not troop strengths is playing into the terrorist hands. The exact same thing happened in Iraq. 'Shock and Awe' followed by not enough troops. Followed by failure.
Do you think
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Here;s the link to it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1992 181,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
A bit of a difficult question, and a different situation to Iraq, in Iraq, regardless of what anyone says, the 'Shock and Awe' worked, what did'nt, was the aftermath, they should have gone in with a 'Hearts and Minds' strategy, much too late now, but at the time, the populace would have worked with the troops.
As far a Lebanon is concerned, you have a good point, because no matter what type of war, ground troops will always be needed to finish off any resistance, doubt if it would have worked there though, because of the support from Iran and Syria, and fresh fighters coming in from those countries.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1992 181,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
A bit of a difficult question, and a different situation to Iraq, in Iraq, regardless of what anyone says, the 'Shock and Awe' worked, what did'nt, was the aftermath, they should have gone in with a 'Hearts and Minds' strategy, much too late now, but at the time, the populace would have worked with the troops.
As far a Lebanon is concerned, you have a good point, because no matter what type of war, ground troops will always be needed to finish off any resistance, doubt if it would have worked there though, because of the support from Iran and Syria, and fresh fighters coming in from those countries.
Lonnie, take a look at this. The Iraq bombing was precise, but took out buildings and infastructure rather than enemy fighters, and then the US underdeployed and never got control.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ A7053-2004Oct4.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ A7053-2004Oct4.html
Hi Gromit, its a good article, but I don't think Bremers right when he says more troops should have been committed at the beginning, (but who am i).
Regardless of the civilian casualties at the time, as I said earlier, the populace in general were pleased to see Saddams regime fall, and if they;d gone in with a 'Hearts and Minds' programme, things today would be a lot different. and you don't need more troops for that, just specialised ones.
But I completely agree with you that the US never got control, they also treated it as an occupied country, and still do.
Regardless of the civilian casualties at the time, as I said earlier, the populace in general were pleased to see Saddams regime fall, and if they;d gone in with a 'Hearts and Minds' programme, things today would be a lot different. and you don't need more troops for that, just specialised ones.
But I completely agree with you that the US never got control, they also treated it as an occupied country, and still do.
1 to 4 of 4
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.