Home >> Middle East >> Israel

     Email   Print 

Is Israel's Military Might a Myth?

Bhuwan Thapaliya - 8/30/2006

Are the dark clouds of bloody conflict that were gathered over Lebanon really parting? It may seem an unduly bleak question. Weeks after the U.N.-brokered ceasefire took effect, normality has returned to the country more rapidly than anyone expected. Lebanon's long war is finally over. Probably. But peace in Lebanon is not yet permanent. Agreement about how to reach a consensus could be months, if not years, away.

Critics and opposition figures have called Israel's assault on Hezbollah a total failure. None of Israel's aims has been achieved. Western powers now urge restraint, from both sides, as most no longer believe a military solution is possible -- good news for all the ordinary people trapped by the conflict.

Cross border terrorism issues continue to plague Hezbollah-Israel relationships. Israeli military chief of staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz has for the first time publicly admitted to failings in the conflict with Hezbollah. In a letter to troops, he said the conflict had exposed shortcomings in the military's logistics, operations, and command.

"We have to proceed to a meaningful examination of the successes and the errors. We have to extract professional lessons, as we are faced with more challenges. This test concerns us all, from me down to the last soldier," Halutz wrote in his letter, as quoted by the BBC.

Critics say the statement is a strong signal that Israel's military might is deteriorating, as Hezbollah was strong enough to resist their assaults with temperate ease. But Israel and especially America cried foul.

Despite Iran's claims of having had no direct intervention in Hezbollah's stronghold, southern Lebanon, circumstantial evidence suggests that Hezbollah forces received some sort of strong moral and artillery support from Iran.

Looking on anxiously is the United States of America, which can hardly be pleased by the latest turn of events. The U.S. and Israel have shared intelligence and enjoyed close military ties for decades. The U.S. is believed to have been training Israel's military and supplying it with modern high-tech warfare machineries.

It is conceivable that the Bush administration was not directly behind the Lebanon plot, but no more than conceivable: the overwhelming likelihood is that it was indirectly involved somehow.

Analysts say that on the surface this war was between Hezbollah and Israel. But below the surface, it was really a war between the U.S. and Iran. And this makes Middle East politics more complex.

Moreover, the way Hezbollah successfully resisted the Israeli attacks has chilled the spine of the Bush administration, which was closely involved in planning Israel's retaliatory attacks.

It is understood that mutual understanding with Israel is of extreme importance for the U.S., though Washington intends to achieve this understanding chiefly by taking into consideration U.S. strategic interests and long-term goals.

The astounding strength of Hezbollah's resistance, and its continuing ability to fire rocket after rocket into northern Israel in the face of constant Israeli bombing, has sent a strong message to those in the White House who want to use force in Iran.

The problem for both Israel and the U.S. is that even those who continue to support Israel's war against Hezbollah agree that American influence in the Middle East is waning.

Analysts are now asking whether the Middle East saga must now unfold in the same tragic sequence for Israel?

That depends on whether you weigh history in weeks or in decades. What makes the conjunction of these events distressing for Israel is the fact that prior to this latest conflict, the Israeli military was widely perceived to have failed in the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, too.