War in Gaza

[Soloist]

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.

Paragliders are non-traditional attack forms and might not have had an counter immediately available. The other lapses point to a multiple breakdown in defense strategy and you can clearly see the Navy wasn't subject to these problems suggesting corruption in the ranks or conditions allowed that broke down defensive capability.

[Bootstrap]

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.

The border wall is pretty imposing. I've seen some of it. 6 meters high, too.

Here's the basic idea:





This wasn't supposed to be possible:

[Ernie]

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.

Who is the "we"?

[Ernie]

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.

In general, I think you are correct.

But in this case, Israel's capabilities are 1000 times more powerful than Gaza's. Gaza does not have Hi Tech weapons. Israel could have been doing constant "live exercises" all around Gaza. And the exercises could have been random so that Hamas would not have known what to expect at any given time.
Yes, IDF forces weren't trained for paragliders, but any fighting vehicle or gun could have made a paraglider inoperable, had there been IDF forces in the area.

[Ernie]

Any modern fighting vehicle can stop a payloader. The problem wasn't that Israel's front line was caught sleeping. There wasn't any frontline.

[Ernie]

It appears to me that in the case of 9/11 and 10/7, the militaries were caught off guard.
It seems to me that in order to save face and retaliate, the attacked went into major ground invasions, which cost the lives of their own soldiers. The best solution would have been alertness in the first place.

at 9/11, the US was facing a foe that it didn't know much about. The US is trying to guard thousands of miles of border. It went across the world with the goal of getting rid of the enemy.

In most people's opinion, the US spent trillions of dollars and made a worse mess of things than before. (Afghanistan and Iraq.)

Israel knows its enemy well and has it confined to small area.

[Bootstrap]

Any modern fighting vehicle can stop a payloader. The problem wasn't that Israel's front line was caught sleeping. There wasn't any frontline.

And according to a podcast I heard, there was no real response to the breach, it wasn't even detected very quickly, and this gap in the fence was still there 14 hours later. I may have my facts wrong - this is based on my memory of a podcast I listened to a month ago.

Beyond that, I think the general rule of thumb is that an offensive force needs a 3:1 advantage over a defensive force. So if Israel is defending, Hamas would need to be more powerful than Israel's defenses. I realize there are exceptions to that rule, but it seems easier to defend this walled area than to invade and "destroy Hamas", whatever that means.

[Ernie]

I think I understand what you are saying about defense but no offense.

So to continue the conversation, let's assume that defense is needed.

So in addition to securing the border, Israel did air raids in Gaza for a number of weeks and basically lost no soldiers. Why the need for a ground campaign? Wouldn't continual airstrikes have brought about negotiations?
It seems to me that the ground invasion is all about image - not that the ground invasion is needed to bring Hamas to the negotiating table. Do you think the ground invasion was necessary to bring about negotiations?

So to ask again...
Hi tech militaries like those in the US and Israel can hit the rear passenger side of a car with a weapon, without ever setting foot in the country. Why the need for a ground invasion?

[Soloist]

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.

Who is the "we"?

I tend to use the “we” when referring to the empire we reside in. The US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Bootstrap]

It appears to me that in the case of 9/11 and 10/7, the militaries were caught off guard.
It seems to me that in order to save face and retaliate, the attacked went into major ground invasions, which cost the lives of their own soldiers. The best solution would have been alertness in the first place.

I agree. And in both cases, I think the war started long before military objectives were defined - what exactly is this war supposed to accomplish, and how?

Some of that is a response to the trauma and a desire for strong leadership. Attacking with great force looks like leadership, even if it inflicts great suffering without accomplishing any particular military goal. And it rallies the population against a common enemy.

at 9/11, the US was facing a foe that it didn't know much about. The US is trying to guard thousands of miles of border. It went across the world with the goal of getting rid of the enemy.

In most people's opinion, the US spent trillions of dollars and made a worse mess of things than before. (Afghanistan and Iraq.)

Israel knows its enemy well and has it confined to small area.

I agree.

I was struck by this interview with Tareq Baconi:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/podc ... aconi.html

But even since then, despite the massive destruction and the horrifying loss of life in Gaza, Hamas’s military actually hasn’t been fundamentally challenged yet. If we look at the numbers, Hamas’s military is about 50,000 fighters. About 4,000 have been killed so far. That’s not a significant number.

14,000 civilians killed. 4,000 Hamas fighters. Half of the buildings destroyed. And most of Hamas is still strong. A lot of Hamas is not even in the Gaza Strip. So what's the game plan?

Of course, a game plan is very, very hard. I disagree a LOT with some of the things Tareq Baconi says, but I tend to agree with Aaron David Miller in this interview:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/podc ... Position=9

I am praying for leadership on both sides. The interview will show why I think that's a good idea .... and a hard one ...