It Was Flawed Strategy, Not Failed Airpower, That Led to the IDF's Inconclusive Performance in Lebanon

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

It Was Flawed Strategy, Not Failed Airpower, That Led to the IDF's Inconclusive Performance in Lebanon AP photo by Hussein Malla It was flawed strategy, not failed airpower, that led to the IDF’s inconclusive performance in Lebanon. or 34 tense days in the sum- mer of 2006, the Israeli De- fense Forces conducted a Fcampaign against the Hezbollah or- ganization in response to a surprise cross-border incursion from southern Lebanon into Israel. Hezbollah terror- ists targeted and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers for use later as hostages. The Israeli counteroffensive, code- named Operation Change of Direc- tion, included the most complex and 112 AIR FORCE Magazine / September 2011 Behind Israel’s 2006 War With Hezbollah By Benjamin S. Lambeth sophisticated air operation in Israel’s declared his government’s main goals forces on the ground and thousands history. It also ended up being the most as an unconditional return of the two of daily rounds of artillery and battle- inconclusive performance by the IDF kidnapped soldiers and a permanent field rockets fired against targets in since the founding of the Jewish state removal of Hezbollah as a fighting southern Lebanon. in 1948. force in southern Lebanon. Those What ultimately “failed” in the As Israel’s counteroffensive pro- extravagant goals remained elusive campaign’s planning and conduct gressed, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert throughout the nearly five weeks of was not Israeli airpower or any other fighting. instrument of warfare per se. Rather, Left: Dahiyeh, a southern suburb of Bei- rut, Lebanon, and Hezbollah stronghold, The frustration felt among Israelis the problem was a blend of ill-advised after Israeli air strikes in August 2006. as the conflict unfolded intensified high-level leadership judgments on the Below: Two JDAMs are on the ramp as because their forces were unable to nature of the adversary; initial goals an Israeli F-16 advances in preparation stem the relentless daily barrage of unattainable by any mix of military for a mission against Hezbollah. short-range Katyusha rockets Hez- force that the Israeli people and the bollah fired into civilian population international community would likely centers in northern Israel. A cease-fire accept; a poor choice of alternatives finally brought an end to the lethal for pursuing the campaign’s goals; harassment. and government mismanagement of AP photo by Baz Ratner The IDF’s Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. public expectations. Dan Halutz largely determined the As the first day of combat ended, campaign’s conduct. He had previ- it became clear that Israel’s strategy, ously commanded the Israeli Air Force for the time being, was to rely solely (IAF) and was at the time the crisis on precision standoff attacks to co- erupted the first airman ever to occupy erce Hezbollah’s fiery leader, Hassan the country’s top military position. Nasrallah, to do its bidding. His chosen response was to rely The IDF had a refined contingency at first almost entirely on preci- plan ready for an air-land counterof- sion standoff attacks instead of a fensive intended for just such a sce- joint offensive that included an early nario to expel Hezbollah’s forces from commitment of ground troops. The southern Lebanon, but its leadership campaign’s halting progress and in- was not eager to implement it. Dur- decisive results led many to conclude ing the cabinet’s initial deliberations that the IDF chief, as an airman, had about a serious ground option as an succumbed to a parochial belief that early move, the IDF’s deputy chief airpower alone could bring about the of staff, Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky, campaign’s goals. warned that a major land invasion Furthermore, a predominant and could cost the IDF as many as 400 persistent early impression was that soldiers killed in action. Halutz’s initial choice of strategy The near-certainty of a high number and the IDF’s disappointing per- of friendly casualties was a major formance attested to a “failure of inhibiting factor affecting everyone airpower”—even though the IDF’s in the Olmert government. In 18 years counteroffensive included not only of occupation in Lebanon from 1982 around-the-clock strikes by IAF fight- to 2000, the IDF sustained more than ers and attack helicopters, but also an 600 troop fatalities, nearly as many as early insertion of special operations during the Six Day War of 1967. No one AIR FORCE Magazine / September 2011 113 tion to major ground fighting would produce an unacceptable number of Israeli casualties. Eventually, calls for a massive IDF ground incursion to drive Hezbollah’s forces out of southern Lebanon became more vocal. The IDF mobilized three reserve divisions on July 20, in its largest troop call-up in four years. The government’s issuance of the invasion order came only on Aug. 11, however. This left the IDF with three days to make the most of its long-delayed ground push before a cease-fire went into effect. During the final 72 hours of combat, the IDF tripled its troop numbers in southern Lebanon to a peak of around 30,000. It suffered its heaviest casu- alties during those last three days of fighting. Hezbollah continuously attacked Israel even after the Israeli withdrawal from Leba- Coordination among force elements non in 2000. Pictured is an Israeli civilian dwelling, destroyed by Hezbollah rockets. was uniformly poor throughout this final phase of the conflict. In some wanted a replay of the experience. For during the much higher-intensity Yom cases, embattled tank crews requested Israelis, the Lebanon occupation was Kippur War of 1973. immediate close air support but were and remains their country’s Vietnam- During the campaign’s first week, denied by the IDF’s Northern Com- like experience. Halutz rejected any the IAF flew some 2,000 fighter and mand out of concern that CAS would idea of the IDF going back into south- attack helicopter sorties day and night result in a friendly fire incident. ern Lebanon to recapture and occupy against a wide variety of Hezbollah The performance of IDF ground Lebanese territory immediately north targets. Despite tactical and opera- forces throughout this escalated end- of the Israeli border. tional-level successes that week, it game further revealed shortcomings The IDF’s ground commanders became increasingly clear that standoff in combat tradecraft. Infantry units also opposed a major land counter- attacks alone would never bring about were often unable to coordinate with offensive because their troops were the Olmert government’s overarching armor, and tank crews proved repeat- totally unprepared for combat against campaign goals. edly nonproficient in night operations. a robust opponent such as Hezbollah. Not long after, the government’s From start to finish, IDF ground Since the start of its preoccupation principals found themselves in an acri- activity lacked a clearly identifiable with the Palestinian intifada in 2000, monious debate on the IDF’s inability pattern. Troops returning from battle the IDF had conducted virtually no to stop the relentless Katyusha rockets reported that Hezbollah’s dug-in de- periodic large-scale training for major and the offsetting concern that escala- fenses and the hardened fighters who land combat. As a result, operational integration between Israel’s ground forces and the IAF had all but ceased to exist, and ground force readiness for any contingency other than con- taining the Palestinian uprising had been allowed to lapse. Yet, Halutz wanted to teach Hez- bollah a lesson its leaders would not AP photo by Mohammed Zaatari soon forget. Ever since the IDF had withdrawn from Lebanon, Hezbol- lah had continuously tested Israel’s patience through recurrent border provocations and random rocket fir- ings into northern Israel. With the final outrage of the troop abduction, Halutz decided to seek a sea change in the situation. The Campaign Unfolds From the first day onward in this second Lebanon war, some 173,000 Female members of Hezbollah shoulder Katyusha rocket models at a rally in artillery and rocket rounds were ex- southern Lebanon in 2007. The rocket attacks against Israeli towns did not stop pended. This was more than were used until a cease-fire halted the 2006 war. 114 AIR FORCE Magazine / September 2011 manned them proved far more resil- ient than anticipated. In the end, the IAF provided abundant on-call CAS as required, and many wounded IDF troops were promptly evacuated by UH-60 helicopters under heavy fire. AP photo by Kevin Frayer Strategic Errors The second Lebanon war’s less than resounding outcome for Israel in no way reflects a failure of the IAF to perform to the fullest extent of its abilities. Rather, it stemmed from a broader deficiency in the strategy of Olmert’s most senior leaders. There was nothing wrong in prin- ciple with the government’s decision to respond to Hezbollah’s cross-border provocation with escalated force. Yet the ramifications of the response were not adequately explored before An Israeli soldier protects his ears as a heavy artillery piece fires into southern proceeding. Lebanon in July 2006. That same day, Hezbollah fired a barrage of rockets into the There was more than one option Israeli city of Haifa, killing eight and wounding seven. available to the IDF in the immediate aftermath of the provocation. However, continuing rocket fire represented a be a mistake not to make the most of the options were not systematically core strategic threat to northern Israel’s them,” he said. assessed and rank-ordered by Israel’s civilian population and economy only Olmert himself voiced the senti- civilian leaders and by Halutz. As a became clear once the counteroffen- ment to IAF personnel at Hatzor Air result, the IDF initiated its counter- sive was well under way.
Recommended publications
  • The Hezbollah-Israeli
    The Hizbullah-Israeli War: an American Perspective Aaron David Miller It was unusual for an Israeli Prime Minster to break open a bottle of champagne in front of American negotiators at a formal meeting. But that’s exactly what Shimon Peres did. It was late April 1996, and Peres was marking the end of a bloody three week border confrontation with Hizbullah diffused only by an intense ten day shuttle orchestrated by Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Those understandings negotiated between the governments of Israel and Syria (the latter standing in for Hizbullah) would create an Israeli-Lebanese monitoring group, co-chaired by the United States and France. These arrangements were far from perfect, but contributed, along with on-again-off-again Israeli-Syrian negotiations, to an extended period of relative calm along the Israeli- Lebanese border. The April understandings would last until Israel’s withdrawal. The recent summer war between Hizbullah and Israel, triggered by the Shia militia’s attack on an Israeli patrol on July 12, masked a number of other factors which would set the stage for the confrontation as well as the Bush administration’s response. Six years of relative quiet had witnessed Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in June of 2000, a steady supply of Katushya rockets—both short and long range—from Iran to Hizbullah, the collapse of Israel’s negotiations with Syria and the Palestinians, and the onset of the worst Israeli-Palestinian war in half a century. A perfect storm was brewing, spawned by the empowerment of both Hizbullah and Hamas, Iranian reach into the Arab-Israeli zone, Syria’s forced withdrawal from Lebanon, a determination by Israel to restore its strategic deterrence in the wake of unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, and an inexperienced Israeli prime minister and defense minister uncertain of how that should be done.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrested Development: the Long Term Impact of Israel's Separation Barrier in the West Bank
    B’TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT Human Rights in the Occupied Territories 8 Hata’asiya St., Talpiot P.O. Box 53132 Jerusalem 91531 The Long Term Impact of Israel's Separation Tel. (972) 2-6735599 | Fax (972) 2-6749111 Barrier in the West Bank www.btselem.org | [email protected] October 2012 Arrested Development: The Long Term Impact of Israel's Separation Barrier in the West Bank October 2012 Research and writing Eyal Hareuveni Editing Yael Stein Data coordination 'Abd al-Karim Sa'adi, Iyad Hadad, Atef Abu a-Rub, Salma a-Deb’i, ‘Amer ‘Aruri & Kareem Jubran Translation Deb Reich Processing geographical data Shai Efrati Cover Abandoned buildings near the barrier in the town of Bir Nabala, 24 September 2012. Photo Anne Paq, activestills.org B’Tselem would like to thank Jann Böddeling for his help in gathering material and analyzing the economic impact of the Separation Barrier; Nir Shalev and Alon Cohen- Lifshitz from Bimkom; Stefan Ziegler and Nicole Harari from UNRWA; and B’Tselem Reports Committee member Prof. Oren Yiftachel. ISBN 978-965-7613-00-9 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................ 5 Part I The Barrier – A Temporary Security Measure? ................. 7 Part II Data ....................................................................... 13 Maps and Photographs ............................................................... 17 Part III The “Seam Zone” and the Permit Regime ..................... 25 Part IV Case Studies ............................................................ 43 Part V Violations of Palestinians’ Human Rights due to the Separation Barrier ..................................................... 63 Conclusions................................................................................ 69 Appendix A List of settlements, unauthorized outposts and industrial parks on the “Israeli” side of the Separation Barrier .................. 71 Appendix B Response from Israel's Ministry of Justice .......................
    [Show full text]
  • Armed Conflicts Report - Israel
    Armed Conflicts Report - Israel Armed Conflicts Report Israel-Palestine (1948 - first combat deaths) Update: February 2009 Summary Type of Conflict Parties to the Conflict Status of the Fighting Number of Deaths Political Developments Background Arms Sources Economic Factors Summary: 2008 The situation in the Gaza strip escalated throughout 2008 to reflect an increasing humanitarian crisis. The death toll reached approximately 1800 deaths by the end of January 2009, with increased conflict taking place after December 19th. The first six months of 2008 saw increased fighting between Israeli forces and Hamas rebels. A six month ceasefire was agreed upon in June of 2008, and the summer months saw increased factional violence between opposing Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah. Israel shut down the border crossings between the Gaza strip and Israel and shut off fuel to the power plant mid-January 2008. The fuel was eventually turned on although blackouts occurred sporadically throughout the year. The blockade was opened periodically throughout the year to allow a minimum amount of humanitarian aid to pass through. However, for the majority of the year, the 1.5 million Gaza Strip inhabitants, including those needing medical aid, were trapped with few resources. At the end of January 2009, Israel agreed to the principles of a ceasefire proposal, but it is unknown whether or not both sides can come to agreeable terms and create long lasting peace in 2009. 2007 A November 2006 ceasefire was broken when opposing Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah renewed fighting in April and May of 2007. In June, Hamas led a coup on the Gaza headquarters of Fatah giving them control of the Gaza Strip.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the Second Lebanon War and Operation CAST LEAD
    BACK TO BASICS A Study of the Second Lebanon War and Operation CAST LEAD Lieutenant Colonel Scott C. Farquhar General Editor Combat Studies Institute Press US Army Combined Arms Center Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Form Approved Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2. REPORT TYPE 2009 00-00-2009 to 00-00-2009 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Back to Basics. A Study of the Second Lebanon War and Operation 5b. GRANT NUMBER CAST LEAD 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION US Army Combined Arms Center,Combat Studies Institute,Fort REPORT NUMBER Leavenworth,KS,66027 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Osirik and Beyond
    Keeping Saddam away from mass-destruction weapons requires patience, perseverence, and an occasional bullet between the eyes. Osirak and Beyond REVENTING Iraq from building By Rebecca Grant Weapons of Mass Destruction has been a US objective for Pmore than two decades. Air- power has played a key role in that struggle, which is far from over. Defense analyst Anthony H. Cor- desman noted in a recent analysis, “Iraq is the only major recent user of Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Iraq’s Nuclear, Biological, Chemi- cal, and missile programs have emerged as Saddam Hussein’s per- sonal projects and they have sur- Photo via Israeli Air Force Magazine vived many efforts to kill them off. From Israel’s raid on the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 to Desert Storm in 1991 and another seven years of UN monitoring, keeping Iraq’s arsenal in check has gener- ated sanctions, inspections, and air strikes. From the beginning, international concern has focused on a specific problem: the danger Iraq would use its Osirak reactor to produce weap- ons-grade material for a bomb pro- gram. Iraq purchased the reactor from France in 1975. It was de- signed as a civilian power plant that could also produce highly enriched uranium. Iraq’s attempts to develop its own nuclear power sources dated to the 1960s. However, Saddam Hussein himself began the Iraqi nuclear bomb program in the 1970s while he was still vice chairman of the Revolu- An Israeli F-16 pilot’s view as he tionary Command Council, prior to lines up on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear assuming total control of the na- reactor in 1981.
    [Show full text]
  • Walid Jumblatt Is Included As an Edited Transcript of His Remarks and May Be Cited As Such
    Proceedings of the 2007 Weinberg Founders Conference Autumn of Decisions: A Critical Moment for American Engagement in the Middle East October 19–21, 2007 Proceedings of the 2007 Weinberg Founders Conference Autumn of Decisions: A Critical Moment for American Engagement in the Middle East October 19–21, 2007 The Washington Institute for Near East Policy 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 452-0650 All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. © 2008 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Published in 2008 in the United States of America by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036. Design by Daniel Kohan, Sensical Design and Communication Photography by Stan Barouh Editor’s Note Most of these conference proceedings are presented as edited summaries of speeches and panel discussions; text designated as such should not be cited as actual transcripts of speaker remarks. The presentation by Vice President Rich- ard Cheney is included as an unedited transcript of his speech and may be cited as such. The presentation by Walid Jumblatt is included as an edited transcript of his remarks and may be cited as such. Table of Contents Preface ix The Speakers xi The Struggle for Freedom and Democracy in Lebanon 1 Edited Transcript Walid Jumblatt Chairman, Progressive Socialist Party, Lebanon Turkish Foreign Policy: Western or Not? 15 Rapporteur’s Summary Soner Cagaptay Director, Turkish Research Program, The Washington Institute Asli Aydintasbas Former Ankara bureau chief, Sabah newspaper America’s Future Direction in Iraq 19 Rapporteur’s Summary J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation: Threatening Peace Prospects
    The Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation: Threatening Peace Prospects Testimony by David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process The Washington Institute for Near East Policy February 5, 2013 Hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Deutch, and distinguished members of the subcommittee for this wonderful opportunity to testify at your very first session of the new Congress. The issue of unity between Fatah and Hamas is something that the two parties have discussed at different levels since 2007 -- and certainly since the two groups announced an agreement in principle in May 2011. Indeed, a meeting between the groups is scheduled in Cairo in the coming days. One should not rule out that such unity will occur; but the past failures of the groups to unite begs various questions and suggests why unity may not occur in the future. While the idea of unity is popular among divided publics everywhere, there have been genuine obstacles to implementing any unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas. First, it seems that neither Fatah -- the mainstream party of the Palestinian Authority (PA) -- nor Hamas wants to risk what it already possesses, namely Hamas's control of Gaza and the PA's control of its part of the West Bank. Each has its own zone and wants to maintain corresponding control. Second, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has not been willing to commit to a Hamas demand for the end of PA security cooperation with Israel in the West Bank, which has resulted in the arrests of Hamas operatives by the PA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Israel Defense Force's Innovations Against Hybrid
    MEETING THE HYBRID THREAT: THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCE’S INNOVATIONS AGAINST HYBRID ENEMIES, 2000-2009 A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Security Studies By Eleazar S. Berman, B.A. Washington, DC April 16, 2010 Copyright 2010 by Eleazar S. Berman All Rights Reserved ii MEETING THE HYBRID THREAT: THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCE’S INNOVATIONS AGAINST HYBRID ENEMIES, 2000- 2009 Eleazar S. Berman, B.A. Thesis Advisor: Jennifer E. Sims, Ph.D. ABSTRACT The 2006 war between Hizbullah and Israel attracted great interest within the American defense community, awakening it to the challenges of “hybrid warfare”. The Israel Defense Force, considered an innovative military, has been working to adapt to Hizbullah and Hamas, both dangerous hybrid organizations. This study explores IDF innovations in two periods, from May 2000- August 2006, the end of the Second Lebanon War, and from August 2006- January 2009, the end of Operation Cast Lead. It gives a history of the campaigns against Hizbullah and Hamas, then details the most important innovations over the two periods. Developing a new analytical framework, this work examines the pressures on and incentives for military innovation in the international, civil/military, organizational, and cultural planes. Finally, the implications of the innovations on military effectiveness are explored. This paper concludes that the perception of failure in 2006 caused the military and civilian leadership to appreciate the same hybrid threat, and this was the main factor enabling the IDF to innovate successfully after the Second Lebanon War.
    [Show full text]
  • Adi Strauss Edan Kleiman Owner of the Strauss Group ZDVO Chairman APRIL 28 TUESDAY - from Sorrow to Joy
    ALOC T H HE EI M B Tamir Pardo Reuven Rivlin Former Director of the Mossad President of Israel ISRAEL 20/20 INSIDE EDITION Security & Leadership Conference Moshe Ya’alon Dan Halutz Former Minister of Defense Former IDF Chief of Staff 26-30 April 2020 Ritz-Carlton, Herzliya, Israel FEATURED SPEAKERS Join us for an inside look at the state of security in Israel and the region as the country’s most respected policy-makers and elite Yuval Diskin Gilad Shalit military personnel offer their Former Head of the Shabak Survivor of 5 years of Hamas captivity unique insights. Information and Registration: [email protected] [email protected] Adi Strauss Edan Kleiman Owner of the Strauss Group ZDVO Chairman APRIL 28 TUESDAY - From Sorrow to Joy * Morning Lt. Gen. (Res.) DAN HALUTZ, former IDF Chief of HIGHLIGHTS Staff and former IAF Commander Briefing withLt. Gen. (res.) MOSHE (BOGIE) * TENTATIVE, subject to change YA’ALON, former IDF Chief of Staff and former Minister of Defense APRIL 26 SUNDAY - Opening Day Afternoon Meet with DR. STEVE JACKSON, Senior Neurosurgeon, Neurosurgery Department, Rabin Medical Center: Treating Severe Brain Damage in Morning Opening Remarks by ZDVO Chairperson Adv. EDAN IDF Wounded Veterans. Severely wounded veteran KLEIMAN, ZDVF Executive Director Dr. MOSHE AHARON KAROV, treated by Dr. Jackson on SHEMMA, Col. (Res.), and ADRIAN TEPER, Conference evacuation to the hospital, will be in attendance Organizer and ZDVF Director for Latin America. Meet with TAMIR PARDO, former director of the Evening Attend Israel’s official Yom Ha’atzmaut Mossad: The Challenges of the Mossad and (Independence Day) Celebration and Torch- Changes in the Intelligence Arena (with special Lighting Ceremony at Mount Herzl, Jerusalem surprise guest to be announced) Afternoon AVRAHAM SINAI: The Rabbi From Hezbollah, the remarkable story of the Israeli spy in Hezbollah APRIL 29 WEDNESDAY - Yom Ha'atzmaut Maj.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Collection
    A, AIR & SPA ID SE CE MU REP SEU INT M AIRCRAFT COLLECTION From the Avenger torpedo bomber, a stalwart from Intrepid’s World War II service, to the A-12, the spy plane from the Cold War, this collection reflects some of the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS IN MILITARY AVIATION. Photo: Liam Marshall TABLE OF CONTENTS Bombers / Attack Fighters Multirole Helicopters Reconnaissance / Surveillance Trainers OV-101 Enterprise Concorde Aircraft Restoration Hangar Photo: Liam Marshall BOMBERS/ATTACK The basic mission of the aircraft carrier is to project the U.S. Navy’s military strength far beyond our shores. These warships are primarily deployed to deter aggression and protect American strategic interests. Should deterrence fail, the carrier’s bombers and attack aircraft engage in vital operations to support other forces. The collection includes the 1940-designed Grumman TBM Avenger of World War II. Also on display is the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, a true workhorse of the 1950s and ‘60s, as well as the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and Grumman A-6 Intruder, stalwarts of the Vietnam War. Photo: Collection of the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum GRUMMAN / EASTERNGRUMMAN AIRCRAFT AVENGER TBM-3E GRUMMAN/EASTERN AIRCRAFT TBM-3E AVENGER TORPEDO BOMBER First flown in 1941 and introduced operationally in June 1942, the Avenger became the U.S. Navy’s standard torpedo bomber throughout World War II, with more than 9,836 constructed. Originally built as the TBF by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, they were affectionately nicknamed “Turkeys” for their somewhat ungainly appearance. Bomber Torpedo In 1943 Grumman was tasked to build the F6F Hellcat fighter for the Navy.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from the Second Lebanon War
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND Browse Reports & Bookstore TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. All Glory Is Fleeting Insights from the Second Lebanon War Russell W. Glenn Prepared for the United States Joint Forces Command Approved for public release; distribution unlimited NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Joint Forces Command Joint Urban Operations Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Three-.Cwk
    Reading 3: Six-Day War THE BATTLES BEGIN Because Israel feared fighting on three fronts (Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian), and because it preferred that fighting take place in Arab rather than Israeli territory, Israel decided to strike first. On the morning of June 5 the Israeli air force attacked Egypt, the largest force in the region. The timing of the attack, 8:45 AM, was designed to catch the maximum number of Egyptian aircraft on the ground and to come when the Egyptian high command was stuck in traffic between homes and military bases. The Israeli aircraft took evasive measures to elude Egyptian radar and approached from directions that were not anticipated. The surprise was complete. Within hours of the strike, the Israelis, who focused their attacks on military and air bases, had destroyed 309 of the 340 total combat aircraft belonging to the Egyptians. Israeli ground forces then moved into the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, where they fought Egyptian units. Egyptian casualties were heavy, but Israel suffered only minimal casualties. War was not far behind on Israel’s eastern front. Israel had conveyed a message to King Hussein of Jordan asking him to stay out of the conflict, but on the first morning of the war Nasser called Hussein and encouraged him to fight. Nasser reportedly told Hussein that Egypt had been victorious in the morning’s fighting—an illusion the Egyptian public believed for several days. At 11:00 AM Jordanian troops attacked the Israeli half of Jerusalem with mortars and gunfire and shelled targets in the Israeli interior.
    [Show full text]