Israel Faces Dual Challenges in Conflict: Hezbollah's Defeat and Hamas's Tenacious Stand; Implications of premature war assumptions.
Frontline Foundry
Share on Facebook ➡️ Share on Twitter ➡️ Share on LinkedIn ➡️ Send email ➡️ Print
Hailing from the mouth of a despot, Hitler's infamous claim before hitting the Soviet Union shows just how quickly war can rattle prewar presumptions. But considering the German Army's lightning-fast blitzkrieg into Paris, the French Army's abrupt collapse after weeks of clashes, and Russia's humiliating withdrawal in World War I, one might wonder why Hitler doubted Germany's prowess against Stalin's forces. But he sure as hell didn't. And yet, despite astronomical early losses, the Soviet Union not only survived the onslaught but went on to demolish Hitler's forces and became one of the world's superpowers by the war's end.
Take Israel's two-pronged conflict against Hamas and Hezbollah, for instance. Before the fight, Israeli military leaders pegged Hezbollah as the bigger threat. With an estimated 40-50k active fighters, another 40k in reserve, and up to 200k rockets (including long-range precision missiles), Hezbollah boasted a massive arsenal and extensive battlefield experience in Syria. Meanwhile, Hamas lagged behind with a 25k-strong force, an arsenal of 18-30k mostly short-range rockets, and less combat experience. Yet, despite these differences, Hezbollah suffered a swift military defeat and accepted a crappy ceasefire, while Hamas held its ground through a fifteen-month Israeli campaign until Israel agreed to a ceasefire that had been on the table for ages.
To understand why Hezbollah flopped like a wet noodle while Hamas managed to tussle with Israel, we have to dive into four factors.
Political Shackles
The first and most fundamental difference between Hezbollah and Hamas comes down to their respective governance structures. In Lebanon, Hezbollah dabbles in both politics and armed conflict, giving it some sway over the coalition government. However, as a participant in Lebanon's parliamentary system, Hezbollah is subject to political pressures from factions more concerned with national stability.
As a result, Hezbollah got caught between a rock and a hard place. Despite its ability to whip ass on the battlefield, it was forced to balance its military campaign with domestic political considerations. Add to that the fact that many Lebanese civilians (particularly the displaced) were screaming for a ceasefire, and Hezbollah's military losses eventually compelled it to accept a lousy truce with Israel.
In stark contrast, Hamas didn't have a care in the world about politics, since it monopolizes both political and military power in Gaza. Hamas seized control in 2006 (with a surprise win in the legislative elections) and ejected Fatah from Gaza in 2007, leaving it as the only rule-making entity. Since then, Hamas has taken full command, squashing rivals and consolidating power.
Without any internal opposition to its total war strategy, Hamas could fight on without bothering about political backlash. Palestinian civilians took a beating from the Israeli campaign, but without strong opposition to Hamas, there was no way to stop the fighting. The destruction of Gaza's infrastructure and the massive human toll of the conflict didn't translate into pressure to negotiate; instead, it solidified Hamas's grip on power. Without internal strife, Hamas could keep swinging against Israel as long as it had fresh troops and ammo.
Intelligence Depth
The second reason Israel kicked Hezbollah's ass was due to its deep penetration into Hezbollah's ranks. Israeli intelligence agencies, notably Mossad, had been undercover in Hezbollah for years, giving them access to crucial intel about its operational plans, logistics, and command structure. This permitted Israel to hit where it hurts, eliminating Hezbollah's key leaders and disrupting its ability to coordinate large-scale operations.
Israel's precision attacks against key Hezbollah leaders, like senior military commander Fuad Shukr and secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, illustrate the extent of its intelligence infiltration. These bigwigs knew they were being watched like a hawk, taking steps to avoid getting hit, like limiting comms, shifting meetings to fortified bunkers, and skipping mobile phones in favor of encrypted pagers and radios.
Nonetheless, Israel's elegance eventually won the day, killing or maiming countless leaders and commanders. One masterstroke was the infiltration of Hezbollah's communication networks, even as the organization tried to counter Israel's electronic surveillance by banning mobile phones and relying on encrypted pagers and radios. Mossad outsmarted the bastards by setting up a front company posing as a legitimate comms supplier. When war erupted, Israel remote-detonated these devices, injuring thousands of Hezbollah personnel (including commanders) and crippling Hezbollah's ability to command and control its forces.
Hezbollah's slipups came down to Lebanon's open, diverse political landscape with loads of religious sects and political factions. The fragmented governance, rampant corruption, and economic instability made it easier for Israeli spies to establish contacts (assets). Lebanon's unsecured borders may have also permitted more covert spy movement. In contrast, Gaza is a heavily fortified, tightly controlled enclave ruled by Hamas, making it much harder for Israeli spies to slip in undetected.
War Economics
Another significant factor is the stark difference in Hamas and Hezbollah's sustainability strategies. Hamas developed an innovative and largely self-sustaining logistics system, allowing it to carry on fighting without external supply lines. In contrast, Hezbollah depended heavily on Iranian weapons shipments, captured and destroyed by Israel in a forthright barrage.
Hamas's resourcefulness revolved around three key elements: domestic weapons production, battlefield scavenging, and a vast tunnel network. Over the years, Hamas invested in its own weapons manufacturing, enabling it to produce antitank rockets, mortars, improvised explosive devices, and even long-range rockets without depending on foreign suppliers. This local arsenal ensured Hamas could keep fighting, even as Israel targeted its pre-existing stockpiles.
Moreover, Hamas exploited the battlefield as a resource. After every skirmish with Israeli forces, Hamas snagged small arms, ammo, and unexploded ordinance, regenerating its ammunition supply. Publicly-displayed captured Israeli rifles and military gear are proof of Hamas's systematic battlefield scavenging efforts.
The coup de grâce is Hamas's extensive tunnel network, which powered continuous operations. Far from being damaged by Israeli air strikes, Hamas leveraged them to replenish its weapons stockpile. Compare this to Hezbollah, which relied on external support and couldn't breathe without weapons shipments from Iran.
Hostage Legacy
Last but not least, Hamas's capturing of 251 Israeli hostages on October 7 gave it strategic heft that Hezbollah could only dream of. The hostages offered Hamas significant political influence over Israel's decision-making, forcing it to balance military objectives with efforts to rescue prisoners alive. Hezbollah, on the other hand, didn't have any hostages, and their absence didn't bother Israel a single bit while it whupped Hezbollah's ass.
By using hostages as both human shields and psychological warfare, Hamas managed to prolong the war, encourage diplomatic engagements, and extract concessions from Israel. Its hostage strategy changed the dynamics of the conflict and ultimately helped Hamas survive for fifteen months.
Conclusion: Starring Down Assumptions
"The blow to the Israeli home front will be so horrible that it will cause a deep demoralization." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu predicted the devastation of a ground invasion into Lebanon to his cabinet shortly after Hamas's October 7 attacks, fearing the massive civilian casualties from fighting Hezbollah. Fast forward to today, and the rapid defeat of Hezbollah highlights just how wrong Netanyahu was. The war between Israel and Hamas serves as a sharp reminder of the unpredictability of war and the perils of relying on pre-battle assumptions.
The incongruity between these two conflicts illustrates the dynamic interaction between government, military, and citizens, as highlighted by Clausewitz's trinity. Hezbollah, despite its superior firepower and battlefield experience, was constrained by Lebanon's fractured political system and pressure from displaced civilians, forcing it into a premature ceasefire. Hamas, on the other hand, enjoyed unchecked control over both governance and military affairs in Gaza, allowing it to prolong the fight without internal opposition. Hamas's capture of hostages became a strategic factor of immense importance, providing additional leverage that Hezbollah could only envy.
For military brass, this war serves as a cautionary tale against the perils of unwarranted assumptions. Hamas's ability to wage a merciless campaign in Gaza and survive a fifteen-month conflict should challenge our preconceived notions of adversaries and their adaptability in prolonged conflict. The next October 7 will likely look radically different from what we might expect; the capacity to adapt will define success or failure in future conflicts in the Middle East and beyond.
Major Harrison (Brandon) Morgan, a US Army Middle East and North Africa foreign area officer, wrote this piece. His views do not represent the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Image credit: IDF Spokesperson's Unit
Share on Facebook ➡️ Share on Twitter ➡️ Share on LinkedIn ➡️ Send email ➡️ Print
[1] Gordis, M., & Gordis, M. (2007). Bombers over Beirut: The Lebanon War, 1982. University Press of Kentucky. [2] Liebovich, O. (2003). Hezbollah: A history. University of California Press. [3] Eiland, I., & Nasrallah, E. (2004). Hezbollah and its enemies: In the battles of Lebanon. Jonathan Cape. [4] Khalil, A., & Raz, I. (2014). Lean on the heavens: war stories from new Israel. Random House. [5] Carl, S. (2009). The sword and the ashram: Islamic fundamentalism, the tonto rebellion, and the future of the World's last unsaved place. St. Martin's Press.
- The quick defeat of Hezbollah in its conflict against Israel, despite its superior military strength and battlefield experience, underscores the importance of leadership and strategic decision-making in urban warfare.
- In the intricate dance of politics and military affairs, the significant difference in governance structure between Hamas and Hezbollah played a crucial role in their respective outcomes, highlighting the impact of logistics and intelligence on defense and security.
- The case of Israel's two-pronged conflict against Hamas and Hezbollah serves as a stark reminder that assumptions made before battle can lead to disastrous consequences, emphasizing the need for accurate intelligence and adaptable strategies in military warfare.
- General-news reports on the Middle East reveal the fascinating interplay between political pressures, military tactics, and civilian well-being in the context of modern warfare, shedding light on the complexities of urban warfare and the role of leadership, strategy, and logistics in shaping its outcomes.
- The unpredictable nature of warfare, demonstrated by the contrasting outcomes of Israel's fights against Hamas and Hezbollah, underscores the need for flexible and adaptable strategies in defense, security, and military leadership, particularly in the realm of urban warfare.
