Hyopthetical Israel/Syria war
- Thread starter Surpluswarrior
- Start date
The terrain in Southern Lebanon is completely different than th road to Damascus. You have lots of hilltops with villages and valleys with dense bushes, trees and natural caves.
On the other hand from the Golan heights to Damascus is only a flat, hard plain (=tank territory)
FreeAsia2000
Junior Member
Roger604 said:
I also think the odds of Syria getting involved now are higher because the Syrians and the Israeli's have come to the same strategic conclusions.
The world is becoming more multi-lateral
The US will not always be able to provide Israel with weapons which
are qualititatively better than those supplied to the Arab states
Sooner or later the Arab states will have weapons which are better than
Israel.
Israel needs to ensure that it is surrounding by small divided Arab states
in order to counter the above see the Kivunim plan
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
by Oded Yinon, translated by Israel Shahak | KIVUNIM / Palestine with Provenance | February 1982
The Syrians have realised that they are next on the target list. They intend to teach Israel a bloody lesson in Lebanon. If they succeed the likud party in america and in israel will be forced back to the negotiating table. If they fail
Israel and america will move onto Syria. Iran of course cannot permit this to happen.
googeler said:
Yeah .. but the syrian won't wait at their boarder , Lubnan act as a buffer zone for syria , when israel reach certain point in Lubnan ... the syrian will cross the boarder and fight in lubnan side where's they still get an advantages of a dense area . Road to Damascus is deadly is israel public willing to accept huge amount of death.
FreeAsia2000
Junior Member
googeler said:
Perhaps you should ask the people of lubnaan what they call their country.
Syria - Shaam
Egypt - Misr
Jordan - Urdan
India - Bharat
etc.
I believe that Syria has calculated that Israel will not dare to overthrow
the Syrian government at the present time therefore it is entirely possible that Syria may send it's ground troops in order to acquire some battlefield experience
coolieno99
Junior Member
It will be a good test for the AT-14 Kornet as well. Since it has a range of 3.5 km, the missile crew can launch it at its furthest range. At that distance, the missile crew is nearly invisible.googeler said:
coolieno99 said:
Quite true. I think the Syrians have around a thousand or more Kornets in their arsenal.
IMO from Syria's point of view, it may be impossible for them to defend Damascus from Israeli invasion (in event of Israeli-Syrian war) due to close proximity of Damascus to Israel (see Syria map for refernece). So the survival of the Syrian government should not depend on Damascus.
Syria is not a small country like Lebanon, and has vast territory behind Damascus that they could retreat into. The Israeli military may have better jets and tanks, but on the ground as an occupation force, they're going to get shot at and blown up daily (see: Iraq). Also, although Syrian military is not as advanced, they do have weapons in large quantities.
Israel is a small country with 1/3rd the population of Syria. In war they'd have to call people away from their daily lives to serve in the military. To conquer and occupy most of Syria, with its hostile population, would put huge strains on Israel. It's not just the cost, but also the most productive young people are taken away from the economy and put in uniform to get shot at.
At best, I think the Israeli can hope to destroy Syria's military assets, impose a "buffer zone", and go home.
When the British drew Palestine-Syrian border initially, they purposely placed Palestine territory to occupy both sides of water sources (rivers, lakes, watersheds). The purpose is simple, no water, no people. When Israel conquered the Golan Heights, it gave them access to major water source and immediately expelled its residents and sent in Jewish colonizers.
Syria's loss of the territory is partially due to the fact that the Golan Heights had low population density. Had Syria put 1 million population in the area, instead of 80,000, the Israelis wouldn't have been able to expell its inhabitants so easily and colonize it (this is also how China lost Outer Manchuria).
From Syria's long-term point of view, I think instead of military buildup, it may be better to urbanize the border area and transplant a lot of people there, to apply pressure on the Golan heights area, as well as sucking up as much water as possible via wells or tapping water sources upstream, and actively reduce the amount of water made avail to Israel, then spraw over the LoC with squatters. If Israel opt to intervene militarily, then the area can be turned into another "Gaza Strip" where Israel can invade, but cannot afford to occupy over time, at great cost to the Israeli government.
Syria is not a small country like Lebanon, and has vast territory behind Damascus that they could retreat into. The Israeli military may have better jets and tanks, but on the ground as an occupation force, they're going to get shot at and blown up daily (see: Iraq). Also, although Syrian military is not as advanced, they do have weapons in large quantities.
Israel is a small country with 1/3rd the population of Syria. In war they'd have to call people away from their daily lives to serve in the military. To conquer and occupy most of Syria, with its hostile population, would put huge strains on Israel. It's not just the cost, but also the most productive young people are taken away from the economy and put in uniform to get shot at.
At best, I think the Israeli can hope to destroy Syria's military assets, impose a "buffer zone", and go home.
When the British drew Palestine-Syrian border initially, they purposely placed Palestine territory to occupy both sides of water sources (rivers, lakes, watersheds). The purpose is simple, no water, no people. When Israel conquered the Golan Heights, it gave them access to major water source and immediately expelled its residents and sent in Jewish colonizers.
Syria's loss of the territory is partially due to the fact that the Golan Heights had low population density. Had Syria put 1 million population in the area, instead of 80,000, the Israelis wouldn't have been able to expell its inhabitants so easily and colonize it (this is also how China lost Outer Manchuria).
From Syria's long-term point of view, I think instead of military buildup, it may be better to urbanize the border area and transplant a lot of people there, to apply pressure on the Golan heights area, as well as sucking up as much water as possible via wells or tapping water sources upstream, and actively reduce the amount of water made avail to Israel, then spraw over the LoC with squatters. If Israel opt to intervene militarily, then the area can be turned into another "Gaza Strip" where Israel can invade, but cannot afford to occupy over time, at great cost to the Israeli government.
Many of the olden days methods of subduing a hostile population after invasion - such as burning cities, taking sons and daughts as ransom etc are no longer a credible policy - for this reason conquoring countries is much costlier in terms of committed troops than it was in past times - Alexander the Great wouldn't be quite so successful today, lol. But it's a serious point borne out by the US in Iraq, USSR in Afghanistan (although they were quite brutal) etc.