Real reason for Hizbollah action

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Aug 4, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Browsing through the papers today, I read that Dr John Pike of Global Security believes that the IDF offensive has taken place for one reason:

    When Iran's reactor is bombed (by the US?) next year, there will be an attempt at retaliation - so the aim is to destroy Hizbollah before the bombing. The US are in on this, and Bliar has been told.

    Tinfoil hat time or plausible? I reckon the latter!
     
  2. This is what everyone tells me, George W's mission is not yet completed, Iran will not be allowed to prosper, the Saudi's are with the US on this one.
     
  3. As this policy will give those naughty Shi'a a good kicking!
     
  4. What Hezbollah have done is the normal MO for the region: provoke Israel into a war by attacking them, and then the "international community" will bail you out with a ceasefire when it looks like you're about to lose, and will apportion all the blame to Israel.
     
  5. I see

    Farsighted Bush manipulates Hezbollah into going for a kidnapping of Israeli soldiers last November. Undeterred when they fail in their objectives he orders a major raid a month or so ago which succeeds.

    Hmmmmmmmm
     
  6. Dr John Pike being?
     
  7. RTFQ

    RTFQ RIP

    It's a bit naive to think this is really down to a couple of soldiers being kidnapped. They were dead within 96 hours of being lifted. I can see how the prevention of rocket attacks on N Israel would be a logical reason for the present action, but this operation wasn't launched as a knee jerk to the kidnapping, some considerable thought and planning went into it.

    I'm torn as to whether this is purely a defensive measure to stop hezbollah rocket attacks, or whether it's also part of a chain of events that will ultimately enable a military contingency to be fielded against a nuclear Iran. They play the long game in the ME, so it wouldn't surprise me.
     
  8. Hizbolla say the Israeli soldiers are still alive,so do many humanitarian agencies,the Israeli's believe them to be alive as well.How come you believe them to be dead within 96 hours?
     
  9. Whether or not the present fracas is down to kidnapped soldiers or not, that is the reason it kicked off in the first place - If the Israelis were waiting for something to happen they could have used last Novembers failed attempt to get stuck in and would not have lst 8 men
     
  10. Do you mean that the thought/planning is indictated by the 'broadness'/intricacy of the operation?

    I would hope the 'POWs' are alive, if nothing else in this current conflict Hezb need strong 'bargaining' chips. Unfortunately, Hezb have an appalling record with prisoners.
     
  11. RTFQ

    RTFQ RIP

    There's a difference between a spark and a cause.

    Quite a lot happened between Nov 05 and Jul 06: Iran announced it had produced enriched Uranium and the US got to test the mettle of the UN Sy Council's opposition to a nuclear Iran, and perhaps guage the consequences of using a military option to remove that threat. While Israel isn't perhaps the american lacky that many think it to be, it would have very much wanted US support before hitting the Lebanon with such a large operation as it is now doing. I'm not saying it wouldn't have done it anyway, but the US acquiesced when Israel started this op, and despite what we think of the Bush administration, it wouldn't have been so supportive without good reason. I believe the reason was to enable Israel to take out Iran's main external player, Hezbollah, with a view to possible subsequent ops against Iran itself.

    Even if that is a flawed theory, Israel itself has made much of the rocket attacks prior to and during this invasion - they seem to be hailed as more of a casus belli than the kidnappings.
     
  12. RTFQ

    RTFQ RIP

    Yes, absolutely. It's too soon to analyse the results, but we've seen a strong attempt at effects based warfare. Israel went after the mechanisms and infrastructure of the state of Lebanon, in so doing negated a lot of the progress made since 1990. it did so deliberately and then backed it up with a comprehensive military op against Hezbollah. Its controversial effects were deliberately sought, not flung together to teach hezbollah a lesson.
     
  13. RTFQ - The targets are already pre-planned and operational plans are always in place even in times of lull. The IDF is trained to forward think to the endth degree in terms of planning and operation. The intricacy of the operation and it's planning is not the consequence of some sinister plot as some may think here. The IDF fights on and around it's borders and so can always plan accordingly.
     
  14. I'm inclined to agree with you. But rather than go along with the idea that it's part of some grand scheme that takes possible US action against Iran into account (as argued by others), I'd argue that Israeli planners would have needed to be absolute numpties not to have a plan stuffed in a filing cabinet, ready to go. Now that I think about it, the campaign we've seen seems to a large extent to be what my spam friends call a "cookie cutter" or "one size fits all" approach, not really taking into account the intricate little variables which are hard to model in the planning stages.

    Surely even the US Administration has enough sense to know that there's no way they could attack Iran without making matters in the Middle East incomparably worse than it already is. If nothing else, Pace and Abizaid went before the Senate only yesterday and told the world that they've already got their hands full.

    Edit- Bloody Hell! I'm agreeing with Arik.
     
  15. Always a first time for everything!! Perhaps there is hope for the future? Or would that be going too far? :lol: