August 18, 2006
by: jovial_cynic
A recent AP article gave a dismal view of the Israeli army as they returned from their attacks in Lebanon, many of the reports from Israeli soldiers themselves.

Twenty-two year old infantryman Ilia Marshak was quoted in the article, stating that they had fought for nothing.

Marshak said his unit was hindered by a lack of information, poor training and untested equipment. In one instance, Israeli troops occupying two houses inadvertently fired at each other because of poor communication between their commanders.

"We almost killed each other," he said. "We shot like blind people. ... We shot sheep and goats."

These are the men Israel sent in to Lebanon. If young soldiers, lacking communications, are firing at one another, it's no wonder so many Lebanese civilians were killed in the action.

It's sad for the Israeli soldiers as well. The idea of Israeli soldiers being so thirsty in the field that they're forced to get water from the canteens of fallen Hezbollah fighters, as well as using their chlorine tablets in animal troughs is quite a statement about what the Israeli government thinks about their own troops. The lack of training for the Israeli soldiers (one complained about not having thrown a grenade in 15 years) indicates that perhaps this recent battle was more of a sudden political move on the part of Israeli's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert than anything else.

... but what war isn't a political move?
np category: politics


Luke said:
This is sad, but a complete reality in war. But of course war is nothing like the civilized world. Even good training that goes go the US soldiers fails at times with soldiers dying by 'friendly fire' because of bad coordinates or mistakes in the field. In WWII this was very prevalent. I'm sure the training in Lebanon was no better or probably worse. But then again they don't care if they hit civilians, it was their goal.
August 18, 2006

deek said:

August 18, 2006

deek said:
sorry, for the blank post (again).

luv the new design, very clean.

I think war is beginning to outlive its usefulness. Economic competition is so much cleaner and the the money gets spread around a little more.

August 18, 2006

jovial_cynic said:
Thanks for the compliments, deek. And no worries about the blank post. I think I'll build a script that'll prevent you from being able to submit without having any text...

Anyhow, yeah. I personally don't think the attack on Lebanon had any usefulness from the start.

Luke - I think it was likely the goal of some, and probably not the goal of some others. Reading the story of individual Israeli soldiers... it's pretty clear that many of the soldiers were left to fend for themselves, so... you know. There you go.

August 19, 2006

beowulf said:
In the US Army it's next to unheard of for POGs (people other than grunts) to qualify with grenades after Basic. Unless the seasoned Israeli soldier you mentioned was in the infantry or a commando-type unit it hardly surprises me his units have chosen not to endanger their soldiers' lives practicing with weapons they may never use.

About the water...a lot of marines came home from the initial invasion of Iraq with kidney stones from severe, prolonged dehydration. Fortunately, soldiers and marines get their quart per hour now.

April 02, 2007

add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 763796 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address ( will be logged.