Comments on: Hezbollah on Steroids

By: on the scene

on the scene — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:23:59 +0000

I agree with Reno. Israel was and continues to be the real “terrorist” in the middle east. What everyone who speculates about what weapons systems or tactics to employ on the battelfield I would like to point out that the soldier with the highest morale has and always will prevail…eventually. And Israel is an invading army, a foreign entity that hides behind its technological superiority. They got so used to shooting at unarmed Palestinian rock throwing children they found themselves unprepared to battle an organized trained miltary force in Lebanon.

In close combat in south Lebanon against a highly skilled, highly motivated hizbollah force defending its hometurf, the Isrealis were beaten badly. They pulled out and carpet bombed the entire area with the lowest tech weapon they had, single fuse cluster bombs. So much for high tech platforms.

Unless we have moral justification beyond oil or protecting Israel, our troops can not win and we would be wasting their lives needlessly. A strong but flexible army with coordinated comand and control designed to defend not occupy is more useful to our security.

By: Reno

Reno — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:19:13 +0000

I see no one is facing the facts that Israel is the aggressor in the Middle East.

By: steroids

steroids — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:16:02 +0000

Those munitions are now getting ever more precise. What makes the IED such an effective weapon is it allows insurgents to put artillery rounds precisely on target.

By: Johnny Fly

Johnny Fly — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:15:32 +0000

To Christian Henry’s point, unmanned capabilities are a key arrow in our quiver; however, at some point on the operational continuum (from killing people and breaking things to delivering humanitarian relief and winning hearts and minds) it has to become “personal” — with boots on the ground. If the United States of America does not transform its current mobility solution to allow combat or sustainment brigades to deploy through “points” of debarkation, versus “ports” of debarkation, then we will watch LMSRs and commercial ships, packed with our best gear, burn pierside at the Ports of Debarkation, and C-17s/Commercial CRAF airframes crash upon approach, or explode on the ground at our Air Ports of Debarkation. Platforms such as the Joint High Speed Vessel are at the leading edge of this much needed, austere entry capability; however, unless we view the Ports of Embarkation (CONUS) as the Line of Departure (POE = LD) — thereby giving us a truly “global maneuver” quality for our Brigade Combat Teams and Sustainment Brigades — then we may be destined to have one in the “loss” column before we even make contact with the enemy with boots on the ground — given the enemy’s continual development of innovative anti-access/area denial capabilities. Airfield-independent air platforms and port-independent sealift platforms, delivering in-tact, immediately employable combat power anywhere in the world, exponentially complicate our adversaries’ ability to interdict us using anti-access/area-denial capabilities at our most vulnerable point, which is at A/SPODs in or near their neck of the woods. Navy and Air Force programs must balance transformational “strike” versus transformational “lift” capability to counteract this inevitable trend in capability development by astute and dynamic future adversaries.

By: Lighthouse

Lighthouse — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:34:38 +0000

Alright, this has nothing to do with the article.

@Darin, Paul: I want to be able to read what you write. Seriously, I want to read varying opinions. To do this, make paragraphs, and reread what you write to see if it’s actually worth it. That’s my time of being the grammar nazi.

Now, this part does -

@ Darin — I like your post, seems like its what we’ve done or been doing. Only with huge concrete walls everywhere.

@ Paul — As much as I want to say yes, I have to say no. If this was an all out war to kill everyone in the country, I would say yes. However, it’s not. It’s a policing mission that the military got stuck with.

While we did kill terrorists and find weapons in Fallujah, major players and leaders (the guys who really matter) left with the population. The whole thing about not caring about them is stupid. They run the cells and plan the operations. The others are just pawns.

@ Greg Gant -
To combat against G-RAMM straight up like Israel, laser weaponry and/or a Phalanx type system would have to travel with the armor.

Laser weaponry is apparently now almost battlefield strength (100kw or so) and the Army did drawn up some plans to develop a wheeled laser truck. Perhaps even an air drone that follows the column that can knock down any airborne threats before it reaches them.

Like Chief Houston said, “don’t underestimate your enemy” and use your brain.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:33:42 +0000

Darin, why be so expensive and complicated? First you warn the host country's government that their terrorist problem must disappear or suffer the consequences. Of course, we all know that's not going to fix the problem, so send in the Phyops guys to drop leaflets warning the local population to get outta Dodge by X date or die in their homes. Next send in your AF and level your target area....mighty destructive and disruptive to the terrorist. Next you send in your ground troops....behind a good, ol' fashion, rolling barrage. Destructive and keeps heads down while your guys are on the move. (Very WWI) Take the target objective, mop-up any of the bad guys still standing, and root out as much of that "high tech" gear of their that you can find, that's still in one piece. Now, this parts very important: Reapply as necessary, as far into the host country you need to move.. If the bad guys move out with the civilian refugees, your air assault troops have already been lifted and dropped where they can at least search out a lot of the terrorist's gear that they try hide amongst the refugees. (Hammer and Anvil?) If they decide to stand and fight, at least you've moved them outta their holes and they've lost their main advantage. Of course, there is one thing about my military operation........you've got to have the desire to beat your enemy......and......NO FREEKIN' SILLY-AZZ RULES OF ENGAGEMENT!!!!!! You warn the civilian population of what's coming, if they don't move out.....oh well, like they say in the Russian Marines......tuffski-shitski! They die. Plus with all that destruction to the infrastructure, the host state's government will find it cheaper to keep the terrorist out the country in the future. Pretty old school, eh?

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:28:31 +0000

Thanks Chief.

They are starting to adopt “smart” weapons. I will not take long before they develop some sort of cyberwarfare capabilities. That is when this will become dangerouse for the United States again.

DC2

By: Chief Houston

Chief Houston — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:25:28 +0000

Thank you guys for staying on point. Our issues here are too important to let any propoganda get us side tracked. Political hacks, stay some where else or get run over.

21st century battle is just that. Anticipate the probable, do not underestimate your enemy,train hard and fight easy using your best weapon-your brain!

By: Darin

Darin — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:42:51 +0000

The two most important elements in these types of engagements weren’t even mentioned in the article. First, state actors need to manipulate the encounters by ‘framing the engagements’. If your enemy has precision munitions in sufficient quantity, then you have to draw them out to use them when and where you want them to be expended. This is accomplished by relegating those areas you don’t want them in as veritable waste lands in relation to their immediate tactical interests. Making corridors of a city to smell like rotting flesh or feces is simple, economical and highly effective. Non-lethal munitions force the enemy into the places you want them to be. You can also bait them by ‘offering’ HVTs, etc. In concert, such tactics change the nature of the conflict. Second, and perhaps more importantly, large state actors like the US need to operate with a ‘lights on/ lights off’ preparation of the battlefield. Force multipliers like precision munitions require predetermined conditions. Turning the battlefield ‘light switches’ off for electromagnetic equipment prior to engagements and selectively allowing them to be turned on throughout a conflict are essential. Micro pulse weaponry has already been miniaturized and is deployable with directional orientation. In conjunction with traditional radiowave jamming techniques, using electronic equipment is yet another variable under complete control by state actors. The affected area can be as small as one square meter to several square kilometers. Combined these two elements condition conflicts and change battlefield outcomes by controlling the terms of engagement. The difference between having precision guided munitions and being able to use them is now the critical difference that separates winners from losers in hybrid conflicts.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:59:42 +0000

Yeah, blame Obama carl.

By: jjstorm

jjstorm — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:57:30 +0000

dumb*ss rag heads

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:53:01 +0000

I bet we will find out soon enough. Something’s gotta give over there. Iran’s nukes, Hezbollah etc. I bet the Israeli’s will conduct ops alot differently next time.

By: Christian Henry

Christian Henry — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:30:13 +0000

This is the kind of article with the kind of information that makes me think we as a nation need to GREATLY increase our investment and direction to all things unmanned. All the way from AWACS to hand launched ASV’s and heavily armed Predator III’s ! Think of how effective an Abrams with no on-board crew, only super thick armor and extra ammo would be.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:05:08 +0000

Carl,

You are a partisan hack idiot.

There are terrorists in our midst right now. They kill doctors while attending church. The blow up backpacks during the Olympics. The blow up abortion clinics and then set secondary charges to go off when first responders arrive. They walk into holocost museums and kill security guards. The least of which they do is to arrive at the funerals of our fallen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to spew their hatred.

These are the American Taliban. They stand beside those countries that espouse anti-semitism. Those countries the proudly tout “we have no gays”.

And Carl, your beliefs are far closer to theirs than to America’s beliefs.

Keep up the good work, idiot.

DC2

By: Carl Rizor

Carl Rizor — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:23:39 +0000

A truth that rocks the foundation of modern warfare! I see these Hezbollah dudes operating in the United States, thanks to our new Muslum pres. He will bring these people here for a face to face and they will blow him away and then start taking out ALL citizens of this U.S.A. This guy is really not, with it, much like the peanut farmer. The peanut farmer did more damage to our network of CIA operatives than any enemy nation. Like Senator Fred Thompson stated, “OB AMA is a young kid playing the game with the pros.” Unless OB AMA is perfect in the brain department he is going to be eatten up and crushed by our enemies without any effort on their part. OB AMA is so predictable it is not funny. He knows very little and goes into things blind. Clinton and Biden are really no help to him either. Spending money like it grows on trees, with nothing to back it up is stupid and history has proved that. OB AMA does not give a rats a-ss about the past, he is all about the future, with himself being the central figure. He is soo much in love with himself and his elitist Chicago Gang, they will have the U.S. Military using sling shots agains’t our enemies and being defeated like never before in the human life span.
George Soros is the main supplier of the money for these Hezbollah types. He enjoys seeing American Military beeing wiped out, with terrible effect. He needs to be taken out as well if the U.S.A., is to continue as a leader in everything good in this world.

By: Lighthouse

Lighthouse — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:51:27 +0000

Think outside munitions, small arms, “MANPAD,” etc.

Go to the original source — who is supplying Hezbollah with these weapons? Yes an arms supplier who may or may not be a nation, person, or corporation. Find them.

In addition, they’re sending trainers to other countries to teach them new tactics. These trainers can not be allowed to do this.

How is this accomplished? Information. Military Intelligence cannot be an oxymoron anymore. We have to have actually people, not just satellites in every country in the world. Not to treat the country as an enemy, but to find connections. To make connections with people so if a guy in Iraq is trying to buy weapons from an arms dealer in Poland, we know about it and we know both sides.

There is more to it (a lot more), but here is my two cents.
Oops…forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one.

By: Jupiter

Jupiter — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:22:41 +0000

Finding those supplying Hizbollah with weapons and training isn’t the challenge– it’s pretty clear the IRGC and others in Iran/Syria are responsible. The problem is, what can be done about it? Military action against either will not eliminate the Hizbollah problem, it will simply turn one adversary (restrained by its cautious state sponsors) into multiple enraged and unrestrained adversaries.

More important than investing in expensive, high-tech defenses against comparatively crude munitions, the US needs to train its military leaders and thinkers to adapt faster and find ways to streamline the bureaucracy so that it doesn’t take three years into a war for the right doctrines to emerge. Our strengths are superior technology and advanced weaponry, but the asymmetric threat seeks to render them impotent; prescribing more flashy toys is counterproductive, and only a change in American strategic thinking is going enable us to meet these emerging threats as they happen, rather than after they’ve killed a few thousand of our troops.

By: Lighthouse

Lighthouse — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:20:46 +0000

Think outside munitions, small arms, “MANPAD,” etc.

Go to the original source — who is supplying Hezbollah with these weapons? Yes an arms supplier who may or may not be a nation, person, or corporation. Find them.

In addition, they’re sending trainers to other countries to teach them new tactics. These trainers can not be allowed to do this.

There is more to it (a lot more), but here is my two cents.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:12:06 +0000

A heady and thorough article. I am trying to find definitive statistics as to how many actual Merkaba tanks were knocked out and how many were utterly destroyed. It depends on which source you tap and the answers vary greatly.

This is not uncommon. To this day there is a huge disagreement on the number of F-86s that shot down Mig-15s and visa versa. Solid answers simply do not exist and are the fodder of gossip and misinformation suppliers.

I would love to see the actual figures of how many Merkabas Hezbollah actually knocked out.

That said, I do believe that MANPAD precision munitions are the great equalizers in the coming Mideast conflicts.

Daniel
Civilianmilitaryintelligence group.com

By: Bambooviper

Bambooviper — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:53:11 +0000

If I were these countries, I would lay down my arms, let the big oil companies build their stupid pipeline, then tap into it and steal the oil. Afghan, Pac, LIB, Sir, all about the pipeline the way Iraq was about the oil. While we are there anyway, this CIC is trying to make things turn out right, so I hope he can do it and I’m with him a 100%.BV