Hezbollah - a new form of guerilla warfar
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13684
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 08:04
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Hezbollah - a new form of guerilla warfar
Posted By: Sikander
Subject: Hezbollah - a new form of guerilla warfar
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 14:45
|
PROBLEM:
Hezbollah, as a political/military force, is an hybrid.
Politically, it is a non-State organization for which you cannot ask for responsabilities but it also has all the requirements of a conventional political organization/State: political representation (in the Lebanese Parliament); military organization (it is the "de facto" Lebanese Army) and, in a sense, Diplomatic capability (nowdays only vis a vis Syria and Iran but who knows in the future?). As for it's military, Hezbollah has the sophistication of a national army: it posesses missiles (namely SS, SA and naval cruise missiles and anti-tank missiles), drone planes and a well developed ground infra-structure so they have the organization and firepower to threaten the northern half of Israel.
But on the other hand, Hezbollah has the lethal invisibility of a guerrilla army: wille they attack both military and civilian Israelis indiscriminately, they hide amongst their civilians, thus making attaks on their positions very risky in terms of killing innocents. Hezbollah dispersed its fighters with no distinguishing markings or uniforms or vehicles. Fighters access the weapons only at the moment of attack, and then disappear so that preventing their attacks is all but impossible.
NOTE: Though I'm talking about Hezbollah, these characteristics can also be ascribed to similar movements like the Colombian FARC, for instance.
QUESTION:
In your opinion, what is the best way for a State to deal with this sort of "quasi-State" guerilla movements?
- Do you think "its takes a network to fight a network"? That the best way to deal with this new form of guerilla is with an aliance between
State's intelligence agencies + the military (like in Afghanistan, when intelligence officers and small groups of Army Special Forces worked with local fighters?)
- Or that the best way is to "cut off state support, or eliminate the ability of the networks to survive in ungoverned areas"?
- Or perhaps another (old) form of warfare like using contractors (mercenaries) to do the dirty job without State's official support/acknowledgent?
I would be much obliged if you sticked to these technical questions and avoided unsolicited political isues like the booooring "Israel vs Palestinian - who is to blame and who is the uglier/meaner/worst of them all?" question, of which I have no interest whatsoever.
This post was inspired by a very interesting article in the NYTimes. Here goes the link to it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/weekinreview/30shanker.html?ref=middleeast - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/weekinreview/30shanker.html?ref=middleeast
|
Replies:
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 01:08
|
The best way to deal with an organization like Hezbollah is to take a more indirect approach. Cut off their international funding, here in Canada Hezbollah was named a terrorist organization several years ago and it is now illegal to raise funds for them.
The best way to deal with insurgents militarily is to use smaller counter-insurgent forces using some of the same hit and run tactics employed by the terrorists. The use of hit squads to target the leadership is also an effect way to reduce the fighting ability of an organization like this. Cut the head off the serpent and the body will die.
Also if an organization like this has a patron state that is vulnerable to conventional attack, this can be carried out to pressure the terrorists to stop their attacks. ------------- |
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 01:44
|
I think it's very important not to respond as Israel is
currently. It is not possible to defeat an organization like Hezbollah
through brute force, especially when that force is implemented with
what is obviously insufficient regard for the lives of innocent
civilians. This response will inevitably, and usually quite quickly,
strengthen organizations like Hezbollah and - I believe - justly so. In addition to collosal failures like both Qana massacres, collective punishment is also a recipe for disaster. Bombing bridges, highways, residential blocks - even gas stations - while there are civilians in these areas going about their daily lives should be a clearly defined war crime. Not only is it morally wrong, it does not serve Israel's stated purpose and - like the attacks on Qana - strengthens Hezbollah's ideological appeal, which in turn will - sooner or later - strengthen its militant abilities. The best course of action, I believe, is to use specially trained forces to surgically remove the most obvious dangers. This would include terrorist meeting places, weapons caches, and other such things. Using force isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. Israel should be able to take control of Lebanon's borders in such a situation, including sea and airports. They shouldn't be destroyed, however (along with civilians who happen to be there). They should be secured and handed over to any more acceptable governing body - be it of Lebanese or international origin. Everything coming in should be checked and the supply of weapons going to Hezbollah cut completely - without any ill effects on the Lebanese population. As Hezbollah decays from within, it's very important to replace its many generous contributions to Lebanese society. Charities, schools, hospitals, and so on - all of these things must receive new funding once Hezbollah funding runs out. The Lebanese people must be shown that Hezbollah is not the ticket to a better life that, through its daily actions, it appears to be. There are countless other measures along these lines that must be taken, all with the same goal of winning over the Lebanese people. There will never be any real success for Israel without doing so, regardless of what right-wingers and neo-cons may believe. If it were possible to achieve peace at the expense of Arab civilians, peace would've been already achieved. Amnesties must be granted. When you're dealing with an organization like Hezbollah, which includes among its members everyone from young, uneducated, male militants to old, female Nuns teaching at Catholic schools in the south - it is very important not to paint everyone with the same feather. Hezbollah is the middle aged woman in Sidon who volunteers every Friday to cook meals at the homeless shelter. It's also the talented neurosurgeon brought in from Egypt to operate on the little boy in Yaroun. It's also the beautiful young woman who drives all the way from Beirut to Bint Jbail to play violin at the old age home. Hezbollah is all these things in addition to being a terrorist organization and if you do not offer its members a chance to switch sides without losing face, without having to admit they've even been involved with a questionable organization, you'll force them - often for simple pride - towards the extremists among Hezbollah's ranks. Hezbollah is already doing all of the things I've mentioned above, that is why it - and other militant organizations - are so strong. They focus on winning the hearts and minds of the people whose causes they hijack and claim to represent. It's a successful way to operate, this has been proven time and time again - and there's no reason why everyone can't play the same game. The most important thing right now is that Israel completely overhaul the way it responds to these situations because it does nothing but serve both Hezbollah and Israel's right-wing. I'm biased enough to believe that's probably what many in Israel's government want, but I'm not biased enough to suggest these solutions in bad faith. I truly believe they will work. ------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 03:29
|
Its not so easy just to drop in speical ops units. If Israel had lead in with the dropping of speical forces types the civilian casualities would of been much higher. You have to remember that Hezbollah runs the show in the south of lebenon. It is free to intermingle and in alot of cases, even before this conflict, was well liked by the public in the south. This would cause huge inteligence problems which is a key factor for a successful special forces unit. Special forces also usually operate at night under limited in and out time contraints. It would take them many months to root hezbollah out. This all while rockets rain down on Israel.
Israel has pretty much displaced half a million people so they could go at hezbollah without the risk of mass civilian deaths(10000s). Obviously its just another form of temporary invasion which doesnt go over well in the world as we see. They have also proved like the U.S. in the past that there is no such thing as percision bombing or surgical strikes. Collateral damage is impossible to miss. Its dissapointing to see how wreckless Israel is in their bombing campaign. It was almost an unneccasary campaign if they were going to warn people they were bombing an area. Like they think hezbollah cant read the warning and move. I think its unavoidable to not go head on against Guerilla armies. As Al qeada has proven for 5 years its extremely difficult to beat these organizations. They dont fight by conventional rules, force the issue and do what they can to win. Their not dumb either and know their enemy and its weaknesses very well. Sanctions and petty UN wrist slapping have never worked. A consistant historic side taking will always allow these type armys/units to recieve weapons and funding as they are always backed by some larger interested power. Flooding an opposition side with money is also a no no as the U.S. has demonstrated as well. Every situation is different and for a different cause which compounds the problem even more and makes every solution never the same. How do the Russians deal with this? ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 03:47
|
If they're not vulnerable in the field then do like I said earlier. If the weapons and orders are coming from Iran then target Iran. Arming and supporting a guerilla force to attack another nation is an act of war, legally Israel has the right to defend itself. Bomb the factories producing the weapons and the tranportation facilities used to ship them. ------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 07:17
|
The Hizbollah is extremely respected by the Arabs, so it is a political force as much as the christian churches are or any group or corporation is. It is considered in the Arab countries the Hizbollah freed southern Lebanon from Israel (I've heard that several times, so the idea exists) and has not only fought Israel but built schools, hospitals, clinics and maintain order in some area. So yeah, it is a political force, completly. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 12:41
|
Thanks for all the answers so far!
So, first af all, we have the social/political aproach. I agree that Hizbollah has played brilliantly in the social sphere by giving support to people in need. Thay also have become the only Arab-Muslim movement that forced Israel to retreat. That gave'em leverage that other Lebanese/Arab/Muslim political forces don't have. But let's face it: Israel cannot compete in that sort of game or give that same sort of support to the Lebanese people. After all, Israel is neither Lebanon's government, nor UN nor an NGO.
But let's get back to the operational/military aproach:
You talked about the indirect aproach, i.e., taking Iran (or the cocaine producers in Colombia who support the FARC) out of the business.
But how about another indirect way by using contractors, i.e., paramilitary units not connected to the State (for instance, the USA used MPRI to support the Croatian government in it's war against the Serbians)?
What do you think if Israel used such contractors - not connected to the Israeli State in any way, not even by a contract (they could be contracted by an offshore company, for instance) - in order to reach it's goals?
Do you think that it could be effective? And why?
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 12:58
|
Using independent contractors can blow up in your face fairly easily as they operate with little control, that's the whole point. They could easily escalate hostilities instead of neutralize your opposition. ------------- |
Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 12:17
|
"Using independent contractors can blow up in your face fairly easily as they operate with little control, that's the whole point. They could easily escalate hostilities instead of neutralize your opposition." Intersting. Do you all agree with that?
What if the "independent" contractor are unofficially controled (just like they are unofficially contrated to do the job)?
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 19:27
|
• Israel during the first war in Lebanon used what could be considered as contractors: the Christian and Druze militias in Beyrouth and South Lebanon. Didn't work that well. Also they weren't private people only loved by profit seeking, they were highly involved and had political and religious matters against Hizbullah. That said it doesn't mean a few mercenaries through once in a while to the face of the Shia militia could be a good option and quite cheap both politically and financially. It could be the first real war of civilizations fanatism against capitalism. Previously mercenaries fighting again a state failed (see Nigeria 1960's) but against a terrorist network it might work. The CIA troops sent to Afghanistan in 2002 to shoulder up the Northen Alliance could have been private mercenaries, it wouldn't have changed much of the success. • On the ground most of the Israeli soldiers are surprises by the professionalism of the Hizbullah fighters. They look nothing like guerilla fighters or talibans, they have uniforms, heavy weapons and so on. A proper little army. It is most likely why Israel didn't manage to win quickly the war at its begining. Yet on the long term it may aslo be the biggest mistake of Hizbullah. As proved in Irak, Palestine and other places, an army as no chance against small groups of terrorists, but wins easily as soon as they become another army (see Talibans). In my opinion (which is poorly educated military-wise I agree) Hizbullah will lose very soon if they don't rush back to guerrilla and terrorism. M. Edit: the difference between FARC, Philipinos rebellion, Tamul tigers on the one hand and Hizbullah on the other is that the latter is not lost in the middle of a wide jungle, they are stuck in a very smalll area. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 22:39
Completely agree. I see Hezbollah as a fundamentalist Islamic group that knows how to gain public support to further their goals. They don't care about the Lebanese people. But, if they act like it, then they gain their support, and that's a major PR tool for them. especially when theri enemy is the one country that all Arabs dislike. Their fundamentalist ideology is overshadowed by their battle against the Israelis. This is the only thing I see different. Hezbollah, unlike alot of terrorist groups has really grasped the concept of public relations and successful propaganda. I think that's the new age of terrorism. Instead of killing and obtaining goals through fear. They obtain their goals by looking like the savior of the people. When you're in dire and desperate circumstances, you're happy to get what relief you can. Regardless of who it comes from. Hezbollah's true ideological beliefs are probably not too important at this time to many of the Lebanese. |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 00:31
Although this is true and that it is illegal to raise funds for a terrorist organization, it still occurs. Unfortunately due to Canada's very multicultural voting population, legitimate political parties sometimes bend the rules to garner votes. An example of this is when the Liberals attended a banquet hosted by a front of the Tamil Tigers, a organization labelled as a terrorist organization, two years ago.
Also, sometimes charities can be fronts for terrorist organizations. For example, a charity for a mosque in the United States was shut down after it was discovered the funds went straight to al-Queda.
Conclusion: warfare ain't what it used to be  ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 14:16
|
Historically there are two ways to counter an assymetric guerilla army: (1) the "evil" way and (2) the hard way
The "evil" way employs harsh methods that amounts to genocide and depopulation. As you might have guess, this method is no longer acceptable in this day and age but they have proved very effective in the past. Recent examples of this are:
The hard way is called waging the peace. This method involves small band of special forces supported by air power. In addition, special civic projects that are aimed to gain good will through the native population. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 15:03
|
When the Israeli entered Lebanon in 82, the resistance ended in a matter of days and Northern Israel was safe for a very long time till the recent war. How did the Israelis do this? 60-70 thousand men, heavy bombardment and total occupation and clearace of guerrilla hideouts, the cost, some 50 tanks, several Helicopters and 700 KIA. this is what should have been done in July 06 and it is going to be surprisingly more safer for civilians.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 19:24
|
^ You forgot Hizbullah.------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 19:46
|
What do you mean? Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 20:02
|
Another result of "Operation Peace for Galilee". Much worse than Al-Fathe ever was. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 20:12
|
Actually if you look at Stats, you will find that the Palestinians were much more effective than Hezbullah during the 70s and 80s. Some 400 Israeli soldiers, before the invasion of 82, and 200 civilians died while thoughout its history, Hezbullah failed even to half that number, excluding of course the last war. Also, Palestinians had some 20 000 men under arms and were fighting against three fronts when the Israelis came, the Syrian army in the North and east, the Christian lebanese forces in Beirut and the mountain and an internal struggle against other factions and yet they suffered Israel some 450 menin the first 3 months and 700 the final total.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 14-May-2008 at 17:53
|
According to what I have read (political and military reports ans assessments), the israeli soldiers became surprised by the prowess of the Hizbullah militias. They (the israelis) also performed poorly, and this has at least two explanations:
1 - The terrain were the operations took place is very hard, brushy, with a severe orography (deep valleys and steepe hills), that encumbers vehicle movements;
2 - The guerilla took time (about 10 years) to improve their defences, such as concrete bunkers (some of them 20 meters from UN observation posts, which might explain the fatal incident that occurred in the 2006 war);
3 - The israeli military doctrine emphasises movement, as in a Blitzkrieg sort of war. This has been used to great effect vs their Arab neighbours, who proved less skilled with both weapons and small team tactics (an heritage from their soviet instructors);
4 - The southern units' performance, used to either guard duties or movement tactics, were inferior to the northern units, who performed ok;
In general terms, however, the war was badly led from the Israeli perspective. They didn't used enough force and were always under fire from the international media who even indulged herself to take part in staged tours by Hizballah (but seldom with the IDF).
The role that the media takes in the assymetric wars is also interesting and could be explored in this post.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2008 at 19:50
|
The Media always supports the underdog, in this modern period. We're skeptical of media accounts which seem to support the war and cause, labeling it "propaganda" and "big brother lies." The media understands that this is what sells. News has become a narrative. We like movies like "Rudy" and any other movie about the little guy taking on the big dogs, and snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. People like their news to be the same way. Israel's reliance on vehicles cost them he war in 2006. That terrain is not conducive to tank warfare. Neither is asymmetrical warfare. In such conflicts, armor and apc can become little more than coffins on treads. Loose-formation infantry units, in massive and overwhelming numbers, are what win. Hizbullah has no armor to sweep infantry aside, and lacks the capability to seriously invade Israel. Due to the limited size of Southern Lebanon, a massive infantry push, followed up by reservists and supporting units to sweep any captured territory for insurgents and weapons caches, would have swiftly over-run the region, requisitioned hidden weapons stocks, and rounded up large numbers of fighters. Marching north to the Syrian border, rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and setting up hospitals and aid centers would have yielded far better results. While seemingly an occupation, Israel should stay long enough to heal some wounds, garner some decent press coverage, and then rapidly evacuate. In this way they ruin Hezbollah's infrastructure, hopefully install a friendly new regime, disprove some of the conceptions of their supposed brutality and lack of care for Arab civilians, and get out before it gets too expensive. Setting up information and intelligence networks during the occupation which get left behind after the withdrawal is another plus for that scenario. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 14-May-2008 at 20:54
|
They did exactly that after 82 and failed miserably. Israel is dreaming of ever getting any support from Arabs whatever was their religion or sect. During their occupation of southern Lebanon their main support came from the shias yet they decided to bet on the more "western oriented" christians, what happened was that Christians were the bane of their ocupation, they were the most valueable informants for the hizb, the organised a powerful underground system of organisation and when the Israeli left the celebrated except those who served with the Israeli army who fled with them.
One of the main reasons why Israeli can't do such a big operation beside expected high losses is economics. Israel has very limited resources and a vulnerable and currently economy. Israel cannot afford to go into major military engagements, unless appropriated by the US, in the current time.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 14-May-2008 at 21:21
|
Exactly Al-Jassas, they sailed very close to the wind with the ordnance stockpile they had in 2006 when the US desperately rushed munitions to them. They have no economic or industrial depth. Something to be expected given Israel's puny land mass and otherwise limited resources such as capital and man power. ------------- |
Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 17:37
| But the same can be said of Hezbollah, who is supported by Syria and Iran. And according to intel report, Iran may even have send some Guards's experts to help Hezb with more sofisticated equipment such as SS missiles. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 17:39
|
Hezbollah isn't a nation and Hezbollah hasn't invaded, nor does it intend to invade Israel and negating any such heavy economic relativity. ------------- |
Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 11:31
|
The definition of Nation is not the same as State. State is related to power+land, while Nation is related to people (ethnically speaking)+power+a certain land (the land of the forefathers, the Promissed Land, whatever). So, if the Lebanese Xiites consider that land as their own, and if Hezbollah can rule that part of the country as a "Xiite country", than Hezbollah is a nation. Nevertheless Hezbollah possesses all the elements of State power:
1 - an army (wich is far more powerfull than the official lebanese army);
2 - a diplomacy of its own with foreign powers;
3 - media facilities (whose atempted closure trigered the latest events in Lebanon) which equals to more power;
4 - economic means to bolster its activities. They don't have to produce, like Israel, they receive instead.
So, that's the problem I referred to in the first place: how to deal with a quasi-State entity such as Hezbollah which, even if it doesn't intend to invade Israel, it still carries attacks beyond the borders, receives support by foreign powers and is, in fact, more powerfull than the Lebanese State itself?
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 12:06
Don't get all semantic  , I meant state and you know it. Hezbollah's "army" numbers at about 3000 regulars. How do you deal with it? You kill all Lebanese Shiites or you negotiate with it. ------------- |
Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 23-May-2008 at 17:22
|
Well, that would be an option! It is hard to analyse the current situation, though. Syria is out of the territory but still holds some leverage, and the same goes for Iran; Hezbollah, though with nimble numbers, is far better armed and trained that the Lebanese Army and yesterday's agreement seems to confirm just that as Hezbollah gained the upper hand in terms of political affairs in Lebanon;
but on the other hand Hezbollah took a beat in the 2006 war and is no longer in control of the South or, at least, doesn't have a free move in that part of the territory, at least that I know of, so part of it's capacity to gain political leverage as "resistants" will be lost in due course.
|
