War in Gaza

[Ernie]

At this point Israel has lost 75 soldiers in Gaza.

What if Israel had secured its borders after the attack... (e.g. two rings of tanks around the perimeter of the enclave) and never entered Gaza.

My question is, why are they willing to lose this many or more soldiers to "destroy" Hamas with a ground invasion. I don't think Hamas people/ideology will ever be fully gotten rid of. It will always come back, probably with a different name. Why not just secure the border and shoot down rockets?

Again... I am asking these questions simply from an earthly strategy perspective, not from a kingdom of God perspective.

[Soloist]

At this point Israel has lost 75 soldiers in Gaza.

What if Israel had secured its borders after the attack... (e.g. two rings of tanks around the perimeter of the enclave) and never entered Gaza.

My question is, why are they willing to lose this many or more soldiers to "destroy" Hamas with a ground invasion. I don't think Hamas people/ideology will ever be fully gotten rid of. It will always come back, probably with a different name. Why not just secure the border and shoot down rockets?

Again... I am asking these questions simply from an earthly strategy perspective, not from a kingdom of God perspective.

Anyone who’s ever played any tactical strategy game or read up on history knows one simple fact. Turtling will eventually result in them killing you. A good defense is a strong offense. It doesn’t matter how strong you are, stagnant defensive lines will be destroyed every time.
You allow the enemy to plan the offensive and the timing. They can take advantage of anything if you just sit there and turtle. Too easy to end up with complacency which breeds weakness.

[Bootstrap]

At this point Israel has lost 75 soldiers in Gaza.

What if Israel had secured its borders after the attack... (e.g. two rings of tanks around the perimeter of the enclave) and never entered Gaza.

I think that would have been a great opportunity to do a "hearts and minds" campaign. Do a huge blitz to make sure they know what Hamas did to Jews in Israel. Drive home the need to protect Israelis. Let them know very loudly that there has to be a solution that means Hamas is not running Gaza. Start thinking about how to get there from here, with what mediation.

My question is, why are they willing to lose this many or more soldiers to "destroy" Hamas with a ground invasion. I don't think Hamas people/ideology will ever be fully gotten rid of. It will always come back, probably with a different name. Why not just secure the border and shoot down rockets?

Again... I am asking these questions simply from an earthly strategy perspective, not from a kingdom of God perspective.

I have no idea at all what their military objective is. How will they know when they have "destroyed Hamas"? They have already "destroyed Gaza", that doesn't seem to be good enough, what military steps will "destroy Hamas", especially since a lot of Hamas is not even in Gaza?

[Bootstrap]

At this point Israel has lost 75 soldiers in Gaza.

What if Israel had secured its borders after the attack... (e.g. two rings of tanks around the perimeter of the enclave) and never entered Gaza.

My question is, why are they willing to lose this many or more soldiers to "destroy" Hamas with a ground invasion. I don't think Hamas people/ideology will ever be fully gotten rid of. It will always come back, probably with a different name. Why not just secure the border and shoot down rockets?

Again... I am asking these questions simply from an earthly strategy perspective, not from a kingdom of God perspective.

Anyone who’s ever played any tactical strategy game or read up on history knows one simple fact. Turtling will eventually result in them killing you. A good defense is a strong offense. It doesn’t matter how strong you are, stagnant defensive lines will be destroyed every time.
You allow the enemy to plan the offensive and the timing. They can take advantage of anything if you just sit there and turtle. Too easy to end up with complacency which breeds weakness.

Well sure, you shouldn't park the tanks and wait to be hit.

But "securing a perimeter" is a pretty common thing for a military to do, isn't it? You don't think Israel could do that?

Seems cheaper and easier than what they are doing now. And more clearly linked to a cleanly defined military goal.

[Soloist]

Well sure, you shouldn't park the tanks and wait to be hit.

But "securing a perimeter" is a pretty common thing for a military to do, isn't it? You don't think Israel could do that?

Seems cheaper and easier than what they are doing now. And more clearly linked to a cleanly defined military goal.

Securing a perimeter is a function of bases or siege lines. You don't simply secure a nation's borders of an enemy who attacks you and do nothing.
Missiles fired in requires removing the ability to fire missiles even if you are capable of stopping them because at some point as demonstrated, they either fire enough to overwhelm defenses or have modified them to penetrate defenses.
Every single military will respond to attacks by neutralizing the ability to attack or attempting to.

We actively sent patrols out to stop offensive operations before they were launched, we didn't sit in our base and wait for attacks. When the enemy first attacked us, they would set up their mortars and fire. We of course fired on their position when we figured out where they were. Next they figured out that by the third shot we could take them out so they would shoot and scoot.
The advantage is always on the attacker for adapting to the defender.
Eventually, defenders who do not attack the attackers will be overwhelmed.
This is basic tactics.

If securing the perimeter is all that is needed to keep a nation safe, why is Ukraine attacking Russian assets in Russia? I would hope you can understand why from reading this. If not, read Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, study why Hannibal was defeated by the Romans, spend some time reading tactics and the military leaders and especially, the mistakes they made. I understand you are not military, and like myself, are not in a position to decide or even have all the information but there is much you can understand if you study these things.

[RZehr]

At this point Israel has lost 75 soldiers in Gaza.

What if Israel had secured its borders after the attack... (e.g. two rings of tanks around the perimeter of the enclave) and never entered Gaza.

My question is, why are they willing to lose this many or more soldiers to "destroy" Hamas with a ground invasion. I don't think Hamas people/ideology will ever be fully gotten rid of. It will always come back, probably with a different name. Why not just secure the border and shoot down rockets?

Again... I am asking these questions simply from an earthly strategy perspective, not from a kingdom of God perspective.

Hostages. It has been obvious that the hostages are a huge factor, probably the single biggest factor. This is what is driving the emotions in Israel. This is what the negotiations have been about. In order to negotiate successfully, it is helpful to create conditions that push the opponent towards negotiation.
The only cease fire of the war, has been because of hostage release.

Playing defense such as you propose does not release anyone. It simply drives the cost of release higher. Wield demolition and death in one hand, and you have a cease fire to offer in exchange.

[Soloist]

Local Security
1-92. Local security is the low-level security activities conducted near a unit to prevent surprise by the enemy
(ADP 3-90). It includes any local measure taken by all friendly units against enemy actions to prevent a unit
from being surprised and is an important part of maintaining the initiative. It involves avoiding enemy
detection or deceiving enemy forces about friendly positions and intentions. It also includes finding any
enemy forces in the immediate vicinity and knowing as much as possible about the enemy force’s positions
and intentions. Local security prevents a unit from being surprised, and it is an important part of maintaining
the initiative. All units perform local security when conducting operations.
1-93. Units use both active and passive measures to provide local security. Active measures include using
observation posts and patrols, establishing specific levels of alert in the unit, and establishing SOPs detailing
alert procedures. Passive local security measures include using camouflage, movement control, noise and
light discipline, electromagnetic protection, and proper communications procedures. They also include
employing available sensors, night vision devices, and daylight sights to maintain surveillance over the
immediate area.

You might find this helpful to understand the concept of a perimeter.

[Bootstrap]

Local Security
1-92. Local security is the low-level security activities conducted near a unit to prevent surprise by the enemy
(ADP 3-90). It includes any local measure taken by all friendly units against enemy actions to prevent a unit
from being surprised and is an important part of maintaining the initiative. It involves avoiding enemy
detection or deceiving enemy forces about friendly positions and intentions. It also includes finding any
enemy forces in the immediate vicinity and knowing as much as possible about the enemy force’s positions
and intentions. Local security prevents a unit from being surprised, and it is an important part of maintaining
the initiative. All units perform local security when conducting operations.
1-93. Units use both active and passive measures to provide local security. Active measures include using
observation posts and patrols, establishing specific levels of alert in the unit, and establishing SOPs detailing
alert procedures. Passive local security measures include using camouflage, movement control, noise and
light discipline, electromagnetic protection, and proper communications procedures. They also include
employing available sensors, night vision devices, and daylight sights to maintain surveillance over the
immediate area.

You might find this helpful to understand the concept of a perimeter.

But isn't the Gaza / Israel Barrier a perimeter in this sense? Couldn't it be beefed up?

It includes a 7-meter wall with sensors, remote-control machine guns and barbed wire in the three areas where the border runs adjacent to Israeli settlements.[12] The land taken from the corresponding kibbutzim was compensated for, with some controversies.[13]

Overall, the first barrier is a barbed-wire fence without sensors. The second barrier codenamed Hoovers A is 20 meters off and consist of a road and a fence with sensors. These existed before 2005. A new element is a 70-150 meter wide buffer zone codenamed Hoovers B with motion sensors in the ground and surrounded by a new sensor-equipped fence with watchtowers every 2 kilometers, equipped with remote-control machine guns instead of soldiers, which could be targets of Palestinian snipers.[12]

The barrier is patrolled both from the air and on the ground.[12]

[Soloist]

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs ... -WEB-1.pdf

Boot, read Chapter 8 and then consider the situation

[Josh]

Israel did actually build a giant wall and a perimeter with Gaza, but then for unknown reasons, Netanyahu's administration decided to understaff the patrols that guarded this border. It would seem to me that with the existential threat Israel claims Gaza is to itself, they would put a lot more effort into securing that border, as opposed to having a bored teenage girl manning a lone IDF post (and in some places they did not even have that). Let alone investing more in high-tech stuff to monitor the border.

The border was literally breached by paragliders - a country with an air force and advanced air defences should have been able to detect flying objects leaving Gaza, and then have quickly mobilised a response. It shouldn't have taken 5-6 hours.