Talk:Operation Changing Direction 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] Day one

7 werent killed in fighting. Media is reporting 5 IDF dead in 'clashes' and 2 IDF died when they were crushed beneath an IDF tank.[1] RandomGalen 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That info is about the day one of

That info is about the day one of the conflict by an Israeli media, showed in the reuters web site.We must wait until the conflict continues to get the real toll, and wait for the Official IDF casualties.
Also try to understand that the casualties should be considered from non-hostile and hostile action because both are consecuenses from the Operation. Hezbollah IDF claimed casualties(40) does not number the non-combatant and combatant casualties it is just and aproximation (is very rare to infict 40 casualties exactly, no more no less).So we should keep the page intact, the Sunday 13 edition of 2006 Litani Offensive is not POV and with good sources so dont change it.
Miguel

[edit] Victory in this offensive

Israel surely had a tactical victory, but some are claiming Hezbollah had a strategic victory. I would be interested to see if anyone has any oppinions on this? ~Rangeley (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, i don't think israelis can claim victory, their stated goal before the offensive was the destruction of Hezbolla fighting capabilities, in the final 48 hours of the conflict, Hezbolla killed around 30% of the israeli soldiers killed during the whole offensive, so Hezbolla is still militarily powerful as ever, as for their second goal which is destroying hezbolla's rocket launching abilities, in the last day before cease fire, the largest single day barrage of rockets hit into northern israel (250 missles), not to mention that the rocket launching campaign started after the israeli offensive began, so i don't think that stopping the katyushas would be considered as a legitimate reason for the 1 month war since the beggining of the war preceeded the katyusha launching. As for the 2 israeli soldiers held by hezbollah, well i believe they are still in hezbolla hands..of course the israelis will state that the lebanese army will replace hezbolla in south lebanon, but come to think of it, this process was already being discussed in the lebanese parliment before the war, so i think this war just gave more value to Hezbolla's presence. on the other hand, hezbolla now stands as a hero for arabs & muslims, nasralla is some sort of che, & the lebanese are united behind hezbolla for the first time since the syrian withdrawal of lebanon..i believe the war has acheived the exact opposite results it was waged for. 195.229.41.163 09:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Papi

That would be a discussion of the war itself, I am talking about this particular offensive, which was done as a mad rush to do as much as possible before the ceasefire. It is a tactical victory because Israel wasnt beaten back by hezbollah and gained territory on the battlefield. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The damage to the IDF's aura of invincibility could be considered a marginal strategic setback. But it may be too early to determine how the strategic situation has changed as a result. But it seems clear that the IDF's reputation has been knocked around a bit, despite their tactical victory, as the offensive has demonstrated Hezbollah's capability to inflict casualties, something many uninformed neutrals like myself did not expect. 71.123.31.93 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right about That would be a discussion of the war itself, I was talking about the war, i don't think we can really set a result for a single operation, i mean this is a guerilla fight, it is not a traditional fight between 2 armies where the victor is the one controlling more land. When you have a force of 30,000 driving in tanks against a few hundreds you don't expect them to be driven back, don't forget that in this mad rush the IDF left resistence pockets all behind its back.. a rookie's mistake, this costed it more casualities in one day than it suffered in 2 weeks, hence they were forced to accept the cease fire. Of course this is my opinion, but i think if IDF thought operation litani was a success the fighting would just go on untill Hezbolla is no more. [User:213.42.2.11|213.42.2.11]] 04:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Papi

A tactical victory is "a success in battle without substantive or long-lasting gain." I think that that applies to this. Saying its a tactical victory doesnt imply they acheived all goals, but instead came out on top. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Came out on top of what exactly?!! am really not sure what exactly the IDF wanted to acheive in this offensive, am not sure they know either, Hezbolla can claim a tactical victory in the same sense, or even a strategic victory if they consider that the end of war came because of Israeli casualities during litani offensive, again, when the 4th army in the world loses 34 elite soldiers in 2 days, when they expose their backs to pockets of resistance all around them, this can't be considered a victory in anyway, this was a military failure.

When one side gains territory on the battlefield and is not pushed back, its still a victory. To the extreme extent, when one side gains territory but at a very high cost, its called a Pyrrhic victory. Such as the Battle of Thermopylae, which despite the high cost was still a Persian victory. This offensive wasnt such a high cost so as to call it Pyhric, but it certainly wasnt a big one either, hence the "tactical victory." ~Rangeley (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In the aftermath of the offensive Hezbollah still held Bint Jbeil and several strategic border towns. Further more the defense in depth tactics Hezbollah used for the battle all but preclude the use of territory as a barometer for victory. The fact is tactically neither force defeated the other and the attack itself seemed to stall. Hence the Stalemate aspect.Freepsbane 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC) When dealing with Asymmetric warfare it is unwise to use the same judgment scale as with set-piece battles, something known in military science. In that senario for determining the tactical victor you use a combination of body counts and the effectiveness(Intactness) of both fighting forces by the end of the engagement.Freepsbane 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The result is israeli withdraewal - according to UNSC resolution. No one can deny it.

'When one side gains territory on the battlefield its still a victory' this could be true if we were talking about a war between 2 armies, hezbolla is leading a guerilla war, their goal was declared by nasrallah ( we don't claim to be able to stop israeli invasion, but we promise to inflict casualities wherever they go), i think that is exactly what hezbolla have done, so i unlike IDF, hezbolla acheived its goals.