January10, 2007:
Israelis continue to examine what went wrong with their intelligence
efforts before, and during, the war with Hizbollah last Summer. There appears
to be general agreement that the intelligence officers in charge were sloppy
and missed some important details. There were some reasons for that. Lebanon
had become a secondary front since Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon in
2000. That gesture was supposed to have brought calm to the Lebanese border,
and for six years it did. Also in 2000, the Palestinians began a terror
campaign against Israel itself, and that led to more and more Israeli
intelligence resources being devoted to counter-terrorism. After about four
years, that battle was won, but resources were not shifted back to Lebanon. The
terrorist threat to Israel was still seen as the more important one, and
continued to demand a priority on intelligence efforts. Apparently, no one made
a big stink about the way intelligence work on southern Lebanon was
deteriorating.
The
commanders in northern Israel thought they had the intelligence situation under
control. There was a network of informants in southern Lebanon, and plenty of
air reconnaissance. But the Israelis missed the details of how the Hizbollah
rockets were stored. Also missed was the number of modern Russian anti-tank
guided missiles Hizbollah had, as well as anti-ship missiles, and how both of
these would be used. Worse yet, a lot of essential information that was in
hand, was not immediately given out to ground troops who were sent into
southern Lebanon. The delayed information was often highly confidential (much
of it coming from Lebanese informants), but if the troops didn't have it, the
data might just as well not have existed.
The
troops had not been trained for the kind of fighting they ended up doing in
Lebanon. This was another side effect of the counter-terrorism campaign against
the Palestinians. Proper training would have required more money, and attention
from the high command. Neither was forthcoming as long as everyone was focused
on keeping suicide bombers out of Israel.
The
problems the Israelis encountered here are classic, and have happened many
times throughout military history. It takes particularly strong leadership,
at the top, to insure that a secondary theater (like the Lebanese border) stays
sharp, while a more immediate threat (the Palestinian terrorism) is constantly
demanding immediate attention. The Israelis not only have to reconsider how
they run their intelligence operations, but how they select their senior
military leadership. The guy at the top can make mistakes with long term
consequences, and this was one of those examples of how that plays out.