| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| IDF Incensed At PM's Spinelessness -- US Approved Attacking Syria |
| 2006-08-10 |
| Relations between the country's political and military leadership are at the lowest point in the country's history, on the verge of a crisis. In addition, there is a growing lack of confidence between Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, the first CoS to hail from the air force, and many of his general staff colleagues from the ground forces, who say he and his "blue clique" [blue being the color of the air force uniform-ed] do not fully appreciate the nature of ground warfare. 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. This plan was supposed to have begun with a surprise air onslaught against the Hezbollah high command in Beirut, before they would have had time to relocate to their underground bunkers. This was to have been followed immediately by large scale airborne and seaborne landing operations, in order to get several divisions on the Litani River line, enabling them to outflank Hezbollah's "Maginot line" in southern Lebanon. 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. 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. A prominent wheeler-dealer attorney-negotiator prior to entering politics, he may have thought that he could succeed by the military option of filing a lawsuit as a negotiating ploy, very useful when you represent the rich and powerful, as he always had. Another motive may have been his desire to limit the economic damage by projecting a limited rather than total war to the international financial powers that be. Whatever his reasons, the bottom line, according to these military sources, is that he castrated the campaign during the crucial first days. The decision to not bomb Beirut immediately enabled Nasrallah to escape, first to his bunker, subsequently to the Iranian embassy in Beirut. 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. This is the background of yesterday's surprise effective dismissal of OC northern Command Maj. General Udi Adam. According to various media sources, Olmert was incensed at Adam's remarks that he had not been allowed to fight the war that had been planned. Adam allegedly made these remarks in response to criticism against his running of the war, and the results so far achieved. Olmert's responsibility for inaction goes much further. The US administration had given Israel the green light to attack Syria. A senior military source has confirmed to Israel Insider that Israel did indeed receive a green light from Washington in this regard, but Olmert nixed it. The scenario was that Syria, no military match for Israel, would face a rapid defeat, forcing it to run to Iran, with which it has a defense pact, to come to aid. Iran, which would be significantly contained by the defeat of its sole ally in the region, would have found itself maneuvered between a rock and a hard place. If it chose to honor its commitment to Syria, it would face a war with Israel and the US, both with military capabilities far superior to Iran's. If Teheran opted to default on its commitment to Damascus, it would be construed by the entire region, including the restless Iranian population, as a conspicuous show of weakness by the regime. Fascist regimes such as that of the ayatollahs cannot easily afford to show that kind of weakness. As previously mentioned, Iran's military capabilities are no match for Israel's. Bottom line, all Iran could do is to launch missiles at and hit Israel's cities, and try and carry out terror attacks. If there is one thing history has shown, it is that such methods do not win wars. Israel would undoubtedly suffer both civilian casualties and economic damage, but these would not be that much more than what we are already experiencing. We have already irreversibly lost an entire tourist season. Any Iranian and Syrian missile offensives would be relatively short, as they are further form Israel, and therefore would have to be carried out by longer range missiles. These, by their very nature are much bigger and more complex weapons than Katyushas. They cannot be hidden underground, and require longer launch preparations, increasing their vulnerability to air operations. In addition it is precisely for such kinds of missiles that the Arrow system was developed. The end result would be some additional economic damage, and probably around 500 civilian casualties. It may sound cold blooded, but Israel can afford such casualties, which would be less than those sustained in previous wars (for the record, in 1948 Israel lost 6,000, 1% of the entire population, and in 1967 and 1973 we lost respectively 1,000 and 3,000 casualties). The gains, however, would be significant. The Iranian nuclear threat, the most dangerous existential threat Israel has faced since 1948, would be eliminated. It would also change the momentum, which over the past two decades as been with the ayatollahs. This could also have a major impact on the PA, hastening the demise of the Islamist Hamas administration. Instead, according to military sources, Israel finds itself getting bogged down by a manifestly inferior enemy, due to the limitations placed on the IDF by the political leadership. This has been construed by the enemy as a clear sign that Israel is in the hands of a leadership not up to the task, lacking the required experience, guts and willpower. In the Middle East this is an invitation to court disaster, as witness by Iran's and Syria's increased boldness in significantly upping the ante of their involvement in the war. Some senior officers have been mentioning the C-word in private conversations. They have been saying that a coup d'etat might be the only way to prevent an outcome in Lebanon that could embolden the Arab world to join forces with Syria and Iran in an all out assault on Israel, given the fact that such a development would be spurred entirely by the Arab and Moslem world's perception of Israel's leadership as weak, craven and vacillating, and therefore ripe for intimidation. Seeing the once invincible IDF being stalemated by Hezbollah's 3,000 troops is a sure way to radiate an aura of weakness that in the Middle East could precipitate attacks by sharks smelling blood. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #35 Not sure if this article is real but it confirms exactly what has had me fuming the last couple days when it became obvious Olmert didnÂ’t have the sack. We need a Causi Belli to bomb the brakes of the Iranian military and nuke program to buy US enough time to get Iraq together and RR our forces. Israel needed Causi Belli to devastate the Paleo terrorist headquarters in Damascus. It was perfect HezboÂ’s jumped gave it to US. The LLL lites Hilary, CNN, ectÂ… were on board hell even the SUNNI governments were on board at first Egypt, Jordan, Saudi ArabiaÂ’s head Imam issued a Fatah that Hezbollah was EVIL. The situation was unheard able in history perfect ripe for the taken. Now its totally upside down I donÂ’t know who screwed the pooch Olmert seems high on the list I donÂ’t know but its FUBAR big time. Of course the Radicals are well known for making insane suicidal decisions due to underestimating their enemies. They may instead of accepting believe the hype and go for broke which will put Olmert into either risk being Impeached Removed by popular sentiment or give the green light. Who knows the next week will tell. And give me a break on the Causi Belli thing its late and I just cant remember how the hell its written so it may or may not be right donÂ’t look right thatÂ’s for sure. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2006-08-10 23:59 |
| #34 Yes, ironic, and tragic. |
| Posted by: leroidavid 2006-08-10 23:47 |
| #33 This is so ironic everytime Israel would fight the US told them to back off. Now the US is telling Israel to fight and their leadership wants to back off. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-08-10 23:44 |
| #32 It also seems that he owes allegiance to his wife, witch is a pacifist moonbat. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-08-10 23:36 |
| #31 olmert in a word = Socialist Hi allegiance is to the Comintern, not his own state. |
| Posted by: Glolusing Chains9685 2006-08-10 23:06 |
| #30 Spot on, leroidavid. I'd recall Dayan if I could. I guess Bibi will have to clean up the mess and prepare for the follow-on carnage to come. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-08-10 22:48 |
| #29 Golda Meir, Dayan, Ben Gurion, any of them would be OK... even the Rabin of the 6 Days War... |
| Posted by: leroidavid 2006-08-10 22:42 |
| #28 OS, ya'took words from my mouth. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-08-10 22:42 |
| #27 Or if only we could resurrect Golda. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-08-10 22:35 |
| #26 It wasn't a time of war till the Pacifist Liberals got into office. If only Arik had eaten fewer cheeseburgers. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-10 22:33 |
| #25 surprise air onslaught against the Hezbollah high command in Beirut, before they would have had time to relocate to their underground bunkers. ... followed immediately by large scale airborne and seaborne landing operations, in order to get several divisions on the Litani River line, enabling them to outflank Hezbollah's "Maginot line" in southern Lebanon. 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. Thos look like an awfully familiar plan with familiar words. Damn shame their guys couldn't sell it to the pacifist idiot leftists who have put their national survival (and our attempts at regional stability) in the sh*tter. LESSON: DO NOT PUT PACIFIST LIBERALS IN COMMAND DURING WAR. PERIOD. Got that America? Or we end up learning the same lessons, writ much larger, with an order of magnitude more deaths. I say this, if the pacifists take power and manage to get us clobbered, they will be exterminated politically in the US. Kos, that means you and your nutroots. Remember, in an anarchy, the anarchists are always the first ones against the wall. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-08-10 21:18 |
| #24 Hell fire, if Olmert did not know how to attack an embassy, all he had to do is to call Slick Willie and he (for a nominal fee) will tell how he did it in Serbia back in the Monica dayz. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-08-10 21:17 |
| #23 Iran doesn't recognize the sanctity of other nation's Embassies, so theirs should be fair game. File under: Gander - Sauce For |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-10 20:38 |
| #22 Sound like the IDF had a good plan. A successful flanking maneuver is the beginning, middle, and end of any battle. It's a real shame Olmert was too stupid to follow the plan. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2006-08-10 20:31 |
| #21 Flatten the Iranian Embassy in Beirut - take out the entire grid square. Iran doesn't recognize the sanctity of other nation's Embassies, so theirs should be fair game. Then, after it is a smoldering crater, Israel should apologize mildly. Oops, we thought we were attacking a combattant command and control HQ. Our apologies. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2006-08-10 20:26 |
| #20 L: It's very clear Olmert is a bad leader. But who made it possible for him to become Prime Minister, based on pie-in-the-sky notions of Israeli detente and land-for-peace deals with the Palestinians? The electorate. They are now paying the price for their foolishness. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-08-10 20:25 |
| #19 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. A prominent wheeler-dealer attorney-negotiator prior to entering politics, he may have thought that he could succeed by the military option of filing a lawsuit as a negotiating ploy, very useful when you represent the rich and powerful, as he always had. Another motive may have been his desire to limit the economic damage by projecting a limited rather than total war to the international financial powers that be. Will someone please tell this f&ckwit that there is no way to fight a conventional "limited war" against an enemy that is hell bent on religiously motivated genocide. The only "limited war" against terrorist Islam will involve a "limited" number of nuclear weapons. Something that looks more likely with each |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-10 20:16 |
| #18 If the info here is credible, then Olmert will find a unique place in Israeli history. Many ways to skin a cat. You hate to see a prime opportunity squandered by fluke chance - Ari's bad health leading to Olmert's emergence at a pivotal moment. This has been brewing for a long time... I am grieved most because of the huge political advantages and opportunities lost - imagine what bold Israeli action would have done to open the door for the US to get directly involved without further domestic poltical meandering and bullshit. Iran will fall. Syria will implode. Hezbollah will disintegrate into the usual Paleo-style twinks. Now much better than later. Later better than never. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-08-10 20:04 |
| #17 This is what must come from letting lawyers lead a nation. Lawyers think they can negotiate with satan and come out on top or unscathed. These clowns have to go. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-08-10 19:53 |
| #16 Cleret I think you are right, but even before that you will have a new Israeli PM. Bibi will be back in the chair before you know it. The US backing of Israel looks pretty foolish if they won't fight. The second time this happens (open war between Hezb and Israel) there will be no warning and no holding back. Amazing. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2006-08-10 19:48 |
| #15 Yeah, but the next war is gonna be a blood bath. That's what was supposed to be avoided by taking out Hiz-B now. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-08-10 19:46 |
| #14 acknowledged there's more to lay at his feet, but overtly changing governments in the middle of a war isn't to be done lightly, IMHO |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-10 19:44 |
| #13 If this is or not true is not really relevant to think that Olmert is an incompetent. After 1 week air power that was already clear. New war in 1 year and i am being optimist. |
| Posted by: Clerert Uneamp2772 2006-08-10 19:32 |
| #12 If true, Olmert is disgraced and should resign immediately |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-10 19:15 |
| #11 Good grief, this is grim to read. Is webinsider a reliable source? - I'm just hoping that this is DEBKA-esque, or that this is more disinformation. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-08-10 19:02 |
| #10 Olmert you dumbass, the US wanted an excuse to take out Iran and all they needed was you to blowup Syria, so Iran would come to its aid and we would have taken the nuke threat away. Now we are going to have to do it the hard way, no wonder Condi trying for a cease fire he don't want to fight. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-08-10 18:57 |
| #9 WOW! The implications are enormous. Oh what could have been. Iran's reaction to Syria being bitch slaped would have been very interesting. How many military personel do we currently have in Germany, Korea & Japan? |
| Posted by: RJB in JC MO 2006-08-10 18:52 |
| #8 Olmert is a loser. Since the beginning of this war, I was wondering why the IAF hadn't immediatly bombed the Hezbollah headquarters in Beirut, which was an obvious military decision. It's very clear Olmert is a bad leader. He was an attorney before entering politics, and he can't understand that you can't negociate with people who want to exterminate you. And not only has he been jeopardizing Israel with his awful handling of this war, but he is working to tie the hands of Israel for the future. When there will be an international force in South Lebanon, Israel will no more be able to fight Hezbollah, but Hezbollah will still fire rockets on Israel. Dismiss Olmert, and bring back Netanyahu ! |
| Posted by: leroidavid 2006-08-10 18:51 |
| #7 The Frogs probably figured Israel would squash Hezb'Allah and all they would have to do was mop up. Now there's a real force in Hezb (or at least so the Hezbos now think) and no real force in Israel. Being inbetween those would be a very dangerous place. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-10 18:38 |
| #6 As posted in another thread...if the Israeli Govt cannot / will not defend it's population, then is the state itself even necessary? It's population may be better off finding protection under other governments. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-08-10 18:35 |
| #5 Very interesting. Somebody in Israel has blown it big time. It will be interesting to find out who. Halutz and Olmert seem like the front runners. And if we gave them the green light on Syria and they didn't go, well that could have real repercussions in the future. The survival of Israel is not a necessary condition to the survival of the US. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-10 18:30 |
| #4 John Howard won't commit any significant numbers of troops. Any Oz contribution will be token. If the French are getting cold feet then the 'international force' is DOA. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-08-10 18:28 |
| #3 Very interesting. I wondered why the IDF was just pussyfooting around there. Olmert must have never heard of Viet Nam. "L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace." |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2006-08-10 18:28 |
| #2 from NRO more on the potential deal [Rich Lowry] From JPost: Among the ideas being discussed was a "substantially beefed up UNIFIL" force to be made up of German, Italian, Spanish and Australian troops that would move south to the border with the Lebanese Army and deploy where the IDF moves out. Another idea was for a French force to accompany the Lebanese Army. Senior sources in Jerusalem said, however, that there has been a major shift in the French position over the last week, with French President Jacques Chirac hesitant about committing French troops after seeing the difficulty Israel has had with Hizbullah over the last month. France was initially the major force working for deployment of an international force. More (letÂ’s hope this deal is worth it): The security cabinet's decision to widen the operation Wednesday, dependent on a final okay from Olmert and Peretz, led the US to publicly disagree with Israel for the first time since the war broke out. Following the decision, White House spokesman Tony Snow said that moving deeper into Lebanon did not correspond with American policy. "We want an end to violence and we do not want escalations," Snow told reports at President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. According to diplomatic officials in Israel and in Washington, the US was concerned that a widespread military offensive on behalf of Israel could undermine attempts to reach a new agreement between the US and France over a UN resolution. Posted at 5:37 PM |
| Posted by: Legolas 2006-08-10 18:20 |
| #1 Guess Tony Snow didn't get the memo |
| Posted by: Legolas 2006-08-10 18:16 |