Opinion - Editorials   

Israel comes off second best

Israel's failure to crush Hizbollah has significant implications for the strategic situation in West Asia. In stopping the region's most powerful military in its tracks, the militia did something no Arab army has done in nearly 60 years. With almost no means of defending itself and the people of Lebanon against attacks from the air, Hizbollah waited for the enemy's ground offensive to get under way so that it could spring a deadly surprise. It used an intricate system of well-concealed underground bunkers, high quality surveillance and communications equipment, and a range of Russian-origin anti-tank missiles to wreak havoc on Israel's infantry and armoured units. Unable to make significant inroads, the attacking forces gave up much of the ground they had gained since there was real danger that the militia would ambush supply columns or pounce in force on isolated units. Other regional armies now know these tactics can be very effective in hilly or broken terrain. Syria, for instance, might now reckon it has a chance of blocking an Israeli advance from the Golan Heights. The fear engendered by the Zionist state's spectacular successes in previous wars might have subsided to a considerable extent. This does not mean any of the Arab armies can or must contemplate offensive operations since the Israeli army can assert its superiority in a conventional war. For the moment there appears to be a strategic stalemate but this might not last for too long. All efficient armies learn from campaigns, whether successful or not.

"Nasrallah wins the war," says The Economist (August 19, 2006) on its cover, pointing out that "in asymmetrical warfare, the test of victory is asymmetrical too. Israel's prime minister set himself an absurd aim — the complete demolition of Hizbollah's power in Lebanon — and failed to achieve it." Israel, including its journalism and intellectual life, has many voices of truth, objectivity, and conscience. Not surprisingly, most Israeli analysts recognise that their army came second best in the war against Hassan Nasrallah's Hizbollah. The failure to attain any of the stated objectives has set off a furious political debate. Questions have been raised about lapses in intelligence gathering, in estimating the enemy's strength, and in training and logistics. Many Israelis now believe their government blundered by responding in a heavy-handed fashion to Hizbollah's abduction of two soldiers. The more perceptive among them go further: they think many of their compatriots have developed a distorted world view from easy victory gained in earlier military campaigns. Such triumphalism has bred an arrogant belief that negotiated, peaceful settlement of disputes with other peoples in the region need not be pursued seriously — because they would always lack the means to force Israel to change its stance and policies.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Stirring the Telangana pot
Israel comes off second best
Are Asians facing a witch-hunt in mid-air?
The empire strikes back
The undiminished popularity of A.Q. Khan
Degeneration of modern nations into tribalism
Corrections and Clarifications
Telangana issue
`No' to amendment
Unfortunate
Vande Mataram row
A shame!
A great loss

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu