Did "Occupationized" IDF troops account for Israel's Defeat?

(Editors Note: In order to understand what I am responding to please read this brief post. Also, I might add that the wording and overall coherence of the follwing post is not exactly very good. I wrote it in a hurry...besides, its not as if I were writing a paper. Then I'd have to revise it. I'm just too lazy.)

Following up on the post below.

Its tricky because in order to gauge how Israel failed we have to know what the strategic goal of Israel was in its conflict with Hezbollah. Tactics are supposed to flow from strategy.

If the strategic goal is to destroy or severely hurt Hezbollah than its clear that the tactics were wrong and in fact counter-productive towards achieving that strategic goal.

[For the uninitiated: Strategy is defined by 'What You Want to Achieve?' Tactics is how you go about doing that. How do tactics flow from strategy? Well, for example if your strategic goal is to be rich and happy, your tactics could be going to school, working hard, working smart, investing smart? That flows from the strategy. You could also rob steal and kill to get money, but you might undercut achieving your goal because these tactics might ultimately lead to you in prison, where you are broke and unhappy. Or you could end up dead, one more casualty of that lifestyle. This is counter-productive. Hey its the best I could come up with on short notice.]

In this case, Occupation-minded soldiers would have been a plus in fighting such an asymmetric foe. Such forces are better suited for asymmetric challenges.

Israel needed to use vastly more soldier to achieve that strategic goal of course (and that did not happen). That's irrelevant for several reasons:

The conventional tactics used by Israel such as massive airstrikes on infrastructure, of bombing which purposely or inadvertently killed civilians, and the heavy use of artillery (hurting and killing many civilians and damaging homes of innocent people) undermined any gains that large amounts of occupation soldiers would of done. Disproportionate force, through the use of weapons such as bombs (especially cluster bombs) killed more civlians than Hezbollah, it further radicalized the population and moved more people through the "recruitment pipeline" (to borrow the terms). It is for these reasons that it is well accepted that missiles, bombs, cluster bombs, and artillery are counter-productive - definite no-no's in most cases - when dealing with guerilla (or guerilla-ish) forces.

Why? Because asymmetric organizations require the continued support of the population they reside in, as lookouts, future recruits, financiers, collaborators etc... By its very nature, the IDF and the IAF will have overwhelming military superiority; Its military will always kill more Hezbollah than Hezbollah will kill them.

That is besides the point though, because if your tactics produce more recruits for the organization, than you can kill 20 and 50 more will replace them. In any case, conventional force tactics such as airstrikes are not really that effective against guerilla-ish warriors, making it even more foolhardy to use such tactics.

Israel's use of conventional force and tactics - airstrikes, artillery etc.. - was what really undercut the mission and prevented the achievement of the strategic goal, not "corroded" occupation-minded troops who 'lost their combat edge.'

Occupation would be neccessary for Israel to achieve its strategic goal, because if occupation is not part of the plan than there is no real way to battle Hezbollah without undue damage to civilians.

One might as well not go to war in the first place if one is not prepared to do it in the manner that is necessary and correct. In fact, I don't think Israel should have gone in at all.

If they were not willing to put in an occupation force, than they simply did not have the will to succeed. I say this for several reasons:

1) Fighting a guerilla force takes time. It will not be done in weeks or perhaps even months

2) If you bring in troops for a short time without a longer-term presence, than when you leave you will have left without having destroyed or wilted the organization. Hezbollah wins simply by surviving. If it survives, it will simply grow again, usually stronger than it was before. Any troop insertion, any boast or attempt to destroy Hezbollah had to be followed by invasion AND occupation and if it didn't, they might as well have stayed home and did nothing.

In fact, its better if Israel did not even try to occupy southern Lebanon in any case.

Why? Because Israel does not have a good track record handling internal insurgencies or guerilla movements, in any case: Its handled the Palestinian issue poorly, relying on faulty tactics which kill many civilians and ensure a steady stream of fighters and resistance to Israel. Thus ensuring the continuance of the conflict.

It has shown through its failure for the same heavy-handed reasons that it could not destroy Hezbollah and cut of their base of support in Lebanon during the 13 years that it did occupy Lebanon. There is no indication it would handle any more recent occupation any better. It would have been better if it never stepped foot within Lebanon to begin with.

Ultimate Conclusion: Israel is simply not equipped or prepared to fight a war that could succeed against Hezbollah. Its airforce and artillery batteries are counter-productive as are most conventional tactics, and with the examples of its handling of the Palestinian territories and earlier Lebanon occupation to guide us, it is very clear that the IDF, no matter if it was still a sharp combat-ready force or if it has "corroded" into Occupation-ready troops, would not be up to the task of running a successful campaign against Hezbollah. It would just get bogged down in continual violence as it has done in the Palestinian Territories and as it did in Lebanon all those years ago.

It shows no ability or willingness to adapt and I don't see it doing so in the near future. And that's how I see it.