Hi, everyone!

This is my first post here and I specifically joined this forum to ask the following.

In light of the recent war in Lebanon, the IDF has been criticised for almost everything it has done to conduct its war with Hizbollah. Without getting into the justification of the war and not to mention how successful it wasn't on Israel's behalf, my main point is to inquire from all of you on this board about certain military tactics which, I'm sure, most of you here know about and if they are "acceptable".

Israel's destruction of infrastructure has been, at worst, described as "crimes against humanity". Just as a disclamer, I think war, in itself, is a crime against humanity in general and, in practicality, can not be waged humanely. There is not a concept of a "sanitary war" where civilians would not be killed. Everybody is affected in war and gets hurt or killed - the soldiers (mostly young kids!), "innocents" (children, elderly). However, war, while not acceptable in my view, is a necessity in some situations and can and must be waged if found to be in the interest of the people to "save their souls".

Israel has gone off to destroy roads, bridges, power plants, oil refinieries; You name it. I didn't understand how even reporters in the media were baffled why Israel would destroy bridges! I mean, aren't bridges essential for supplies and, by destroying them, you eliminate a vital supply line for the enemy?! (Why wouldn't war reporters know such a simple military tactic!?)

I was told that, today:"Roads are helpful, but not essential for mobile warfare. Almost all military vehicles today are all designed for maximum off road mobility. So to the military roads are helpful, but not essential in waging war. To the ordinary man in the street, roads are essential to getting around."

There is no doubt that roads are essential for the "ordinary man on the street". But how are these roads not essential to modern war machines? I doubt that Hizbollah has such advanced weaponry that all of their vehicles can work off road without problems. Even we used normal roads in the Finnish army when I was doing my service - and the Finnish army has very capable transportation devices, as all of you might be aware of (?). I do understand that there might be a possibility for off road movement but it's infinitely more difficult and not a preferrable option, especially for supplies?

What is the significance, today, of destroying infrastructure against a "civilian army" (like Hizbollah) and should a defending/offensive force be more worried about enemy civilians then the well being of its own i.e. not making life harder for the opposing military force so that "their" civilians would not be affected while, from these actions, you will be risking the lives of your own civilians?

Thanks - I hope this is the right place to ask this stuff!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: danholo,

Destroying the infrastructure in Lebanon was as you stated, a tactical decision. It was the right thing to do. Deny the enemy mobility.

Limit the range of those rockets.

That destroying the infrastructure would present hard times to the citizens, was a minor consideration to those on the receiving end of those rocket attacks.

I agree with thegunny. Even if Hizbollah had heavy vehicles capabil of rapid off-road transport, the riads would have given a significant advantage to any advancing vehicles of any sort.

And, hizbollah are terrorists. I say, give them back what they give to others. They deserve nothing mroe or less.