Interesting Comment

London Times blogger Mick Smith suggested this:-

So What Did it all Achieve - Apart from Making Israel Weaker and Hezbollah Stronger?

and received this comment:-

I agree with your broad points. In fact, I would like to suggest that at present no major state army has been prepared to fight in a way you describe. What is surprising in this case is that Israeli Army grew from exactly such roots! But, it is big, mightily equipped and has ambitious generals who are looking to make their name (like Sharon, Rabin and Nettanyahu before them).

I believe that Israeli Army consists of mainly young conscripts, not professional soldiers. Senior posts are held by professionals and reservists with experience. So, many of them are civilians, just like Lebanese victims of bombing. Quite a few are reluctant soldiers. Many have families who had to go south or were spending their days and nights in bunkers. Again, very similar to the families sitting at the Hezbollah tunnel entrances or trying to get away.

The USA, on the other hand, was sitting and waiting. Why? I hope my story below offers some insights. These are purely operational and tactical, not political explanations.

Some 10 years ago I was speaking at the same platform as then US Army Chief of Staff. He later told me about the major change in the way of fighting which they were tackling. As he put it, their main enemy disappeared overnight (read USSR). Instead, they were faced with situations where one has no idea who enemy is or what is your role until you get on the ground (eg. Haiti intervention at that time). This clearly requires totally different type of millitary personnel - people able to make decision quickly and then get them executed effectivelly. In other words, well trained and educated soldiers. Yet, they were facing then a recruitment problem - fewer applicants compounded by being worse educated then earlier generations. Guess this shows up in Iraq.