WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 (UPI) -- In allowing the war in Lebanon to go on for as long as it did President George W. Bush may have contributed to the problem rather than the solution. Bush chose to allow hostilities to continue, arguing that a "sustainable
peace" and not just another cease-fire was needed.
Now, as Israel contemplates invading Lebanon -- yet again -- and with all the risks involved, the president is reaching for the panic button, asking the United Nations to push for a cease-fire.
The president, much like his secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, resisted earlier calls to urge Israel to stop hostilities so as to allow the Jewish state the time it needed to reach its objective -- the destruction of Hezbollah. But as one Israeli general said, not all wars are won in six days. Indeed this war may take a while longer and its outcome remains as hazy as the fog that surrounds every war.
One certainty is that Hezbollah is not about to be defeated as easily as was initially thought. In war, the only certainty is the uncertainty surrounding it. Any general worth his star will tell you that the best thought-out plans tend to go awry with the firing of the first salvo.
Now, one month into the conflict, Israel's war on Hezbollah is entering a new and more critical phase. Either an agreement is reached at the U.N. Security Council for an immediate cessation of hostilities, or Israel steps up its offensive, pushing as far north as the Litani River. Some observers think Israel might even go as far as the Zahrani.
The uncertainty of war is particularly more so in asymmetrical wars, as the one being fought between a regular army and a guerrilla force, as is the
case in the war the Israel is waging against Hezbollah.
Israel was forced to change tactics along the way, moving from fighting a war it initially thought could be won exclusively from the air, to committing boots on the ground, something it was highly reluctant to do. As UPI's correspondent in Israel Joshua Brilliant points out, the majority of today's soldiers are far too young to remember the last invasion of 1982, but their officers certainly do.
And tactics are not the only changes forced on Israel's military by this war.
Just four weeks into the offensive Israel's High Command felt the need to change a top military commander, a rare move in the middle of a war.
Military affairs specialists see this move as a blow to the Israeli army's morale, and pride.
The change came about as a surprise to analysts who did not anticipate the Israeli army's chief of staff appointing Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinski "to
coordinate operations in Lebanon." Kaplinski will serve in Maj. Gen. Udi Adam's Northern Command.
Ze'ev Schiff, who covers military affairs for Haaretz said: "Clearly, the change in the command leadership is not good for Adam personally, but it
also sends a negative signal to the (army) and the public at large."
These unexpected changes come about as the war enters its 30th day of what was initially believed would have been a quick decisive battle.
And as the focus shifts from the killing fields to the negotiating table, so does the cadence of war change. Aware that a call to stop hostilities may come at anytime, both sides begin stepping up their offensive, hoping last-minute territorial gains will allow them greater maneuverability at the peace talks.
The other major change for Israel is that for the first time since its war of independence, a war is being fought inside Israel.
Since the start of the conflict July 12, more than 3,200 rockets fired by Hezbollah militants have crashed into Israeli cities, towns and settlements,
killing more than 100 people. On Sunday alone a barrage of some 70 rockets were launched simultaneously by Hezbollah guerrillas. One rocket fell on a group of soldiers awaiting deployment near the town of Kefar Gil'adi, not far from the Lebanese border, killing 12. And Wednesday Israel suffered its heaviest losses when 15 soldiers were killed and 25 were injured.
But as numbers go this war is taking a huge toll on Lebanon's civilian population which continues to suffer the brunt of Israel's war machine: 1,020 killed, 3,568 injured and 915,762 displaced, according to official Lebanese sources.
As Israel is likely to begin moving deeper into Lebanon the risk of the conflict spreading is not to be ignored.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told senior officers during a visit to the Northern Command last week that Israel was not just fighting Hezbollah. But that Israel was fighting Iran and Syria.
What are the chances of the conflict spreading to Syria? All indications point to both Israel and Syria not wishing to engage in battle, despite a statement by Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Moallem that "Israel is welcome" to invade, if it so wanted.
Syria is not really in a position to strike back at Israel in a conventional sense. Without getting too technical, its air force is equipped with outdated Soviet era MiGs. Syria has approximately 650 combat aircraft. Almost all combat planes are Soviet manufactured. Syrian air force inventory includes 50 MiG-25 and MiG-25R (Foxbat) interceptors.
They also have 200 MiG-23S/U (Flogger) and Su-17 FitterK ground-attack and multirole aircraft. There were rumors that the Soviet Union, prior to its break-up had agreed to provide Syria with two squadrons of the advanced supersonic MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter aircraft equipped with top-of-the-line avionics. But Moscow did not want to trust its latest technology to Damascus and risk it being shot down by Israel and in turn handed over to the United States.
Syria's armor is not much better off. Syria has T62 and T72 tanks built with obsolete technology from the Soviet era. Nothing in Syria's arsenal
represents any real threat to Israel's U.S.-supplied advanced fighter jets, or American made Abrams M1A1 battle tanks or Israel's Merkava.
However, if the Syrians are unable to put up a conventional fight against Israel, they can always draw Israel into a protracted and costly guerrilla
war. The war between Israel and Hezbollah, as the war the United States is fighting in Iraq, have proven that in an asymmetrical war a conventional
army, no matter how powerful or technically advanced, finds itself at a disadvantage in the face of a well-organized and dedicated guerrilla force.
The United States may be in a slightly better position to sustain several thousand fatalities, as it has in Iraq. But in a smaller country as Israel, how many casualties can it suffer before the popular support Olmert has enjoyed so far begins to wane? And how long before the war in Lebanon spins out of control and turns into another Iraq?
--
(Comments may be sent to [email protected].)
