WI Israel attacks Syria in 2006

Ak-84

Banned
During the Lebanon War the more hawkish elements in Washington wanted Tel Aviv to expand the conflict to include Syria, George W Bush mentions in bus memoirs thats the decision not to do so was wrong.


What would happen if the Israeli do so. It's now a war against a nation state and while Israel has traditionally done well against Syria, 2006 war was one where lots of things went wrong.

1) Where would they attack. An armored assault into the Golan sector followed by airstrikes in Damascus.

2) Syrian response, do they retaliate with missile fire into Israel? Any shocks for Israel, like the Gazelles were in 1982?

3) Would the US get drawn in?

4) How would the IDF logistics handle a major attack, logistics never been an IDF strength and in 2006 they were pretty bad.
 
The decision not to do so was wrong? :eek:

Well any Israeli attack on Syria will likely see no ground fighting but air bombardment.

I can't see what purpose it would serve though other than to make what was already a clusterfuck more fucked.
 
The decision not to do so was wrong? :eek:

Well, according to Bush, yes. Whether you believe him is a question best left to other parts of this website.

And to echo what you also said, I think it would mostly be an air war, and the Israelis would probably make neutralizing the Syrian chemical weapon stocks a priority.
 

Ak-84

Banned
I don't think a war with Syria would remain an airwar for very long. As it is the IDF had lost a lot of its armour skills in the years since 1982 (as the post war analysis showed) so this might be ibteresting
 
I don't think a war with Syria would remain an airwar for very long. As it is the IDF had lost a lot of its armour skills in the years since 1982 (as the post war analysis showed) so this might be ibteresting

For it to be anything other than an airwar there are only two ways for that to happen neither of which seems very likely:

1. Either side attacks the other across the Golan Heights and in the process attack through the UN forces stationed in the Golan Heights intended to deter just such an act. The side which does this would then be in violation of the previous ceasefire agreement and bring international condemnation down on its side. This is of zero benefit to Israel since Israel's official aim in the 2006 war was to retaliate for Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers that it claims were in Israeli territory at the time of capture. The IDF does not need to engage in tank battles with the Syrians past the Golans to further this aim. If Israel attacked Syria it would probably be on the pretext of Syria providing supplies to Hezbollah from Iran and the attack would be designed to cut off such supplies. Again, attacking through the Golans does not achieve this, but air bombardment of Syrian infrastructure and a blockade of the Syrian coast might do so in theory.

2. Either side attacks the other through Lebanon. This is also unlikely. The Syrians have no reason to send their army through Lebanon to attack Israel first and for Israel to do the reverse would imply a much larger ground operation in Lebanon in 2006 than happened historically. Additionally it would require the IDF to fight its way across a high mountain range into Syria. But again there would be no reason to do this. If Israel wanted to cut off supplies to Hezbollah with ground forces then all the ground forces need to do is to control the points of entry into Lebanon from Syria and for that you only need to occupy Lebanon, not invade Syria.
 

Ak-84

Banned
You are missing the political dimension here, the Syrians cannot tolerate multiple attacks inside Syria. They have to retaliate somehow and pressure on the Golan which threatens N Israel and also the IDF in Lebanon is the way to go.
 
You are missing the political dimension here, the Syrians cannot tolerate multiple attacks inside Syria. They have to retaliate somehow and pressure on the Golan which threatens N Israel and also the IDF in Lebanon is the way to go.

No I haven't missed that dimension.

The Syrians will attempt to retaliate via the air as well (that's part of the reason they have an airforce and why they have surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles).

Having been pressured out of Lebanon by the Cedar Revolution in 2005, I don't see the Syrians moving back into Lebanon without the explicit call of the Lebanese government for such assistance.

At worst we might see the kind of hostilities that occurred around Galilee and the Golans between 1949 and 1967 with intermittent shelling and maybe the occasional firefight. But Bashar al-Assad isn't stupid enough to think that attacking through the Golans will achieve anything other than probably another Syrian defeat at the hands of the IDF. The previous wars taught those who were willing to learn that you do not engage the IDF on its terms - that's why Hezbollah fared better in 2006 than the PLO did in 1982 because the PLO strategy was to build up a semi-conventional force while the Hezbollah strategy eschewed that in favour of a force suited to the conditions and with the aim of making any Israeli action costly and slow (so even if the IDF won it would seem like a pyrrhic victory).

But if Israel were insane enough to conduct a bombing campaign throughout Syria then Syria would openly support Hezbollah and begin a rocket and shelling campaign of its own towards Israeli military targets and supply even more rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

EDIT: And Assad doesn't have to worry about popular opinion concerning being defeated by the IDF. His father Hafez al-Assad saw the Syrian army defeated in 1973 and 1982 by the IDF and hung around til he died in 2000.
 
syria

If Israel ever attacked Syria i think Hezbollah would probably start causing probelms for Israel to take the pressure of Syria. In an air war Isreal would dominate as they did in Operation Mole Cricket 19 during the 1982 war in Lebanon. Any Israeli invasion of Syria i dont think would be very succesful.
 
As it is the IDF had lost a lot of its armour skills in the years since 1982 (as the post war analysis showed) so this might be ibteresting

how well has Syria kept theirs up? They did operate armor with the coalition in the Gulf War, IIRC. Any other action they've seen?
 
Top