Possible teachings in the war in Lebanon.

[Jesus Christ!]

I was reading an article in the New York Times about how the Hezbollah resistance is surprisingly doing so well. They attribute this fact to both 1) Hezbollah is a state sponsered guerrilla army 2) the design of the resistance. This is where I became intrigued. It quoted a scholar saying that this is a war of a state vs. a network and is the first of its kind. The difference in the two is that a state is structured hierarchically meaning that orders come from the top down. A network on the other hand is much more horizontal making the soldiers much more autonomous. My reason for making this topic is to 1) have someone point out any mistakes I've made in my interpretation or anything else 2) see if this is the first showing of a more autonomous/guerrilla/horizontally structured army is defeating a state army.

[BuyOurEverything]

Hezbollah is a state sponsered guerrilla army

False. Hizballah is not sponsored by the Lebanese state.


and is the first of its kind

Hardly. While I don't claim to be an expert on the internal orginizational stucture of Hizballah, I doubt it is completely decentralized. Nonetheless, more decentralized guerilla tactics are nothing new and have been a major factor for at least the last 50-60 years. They have met with some success, as in Cuba and Vietnam. Others not so much.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 11:45 PM

Hezbollah is a state sponsered guerrilla army

False. Hizballah is not sponsored by the Lebanese state.
But it is apparently sponsored by Iran and Syria, so it is receiving at least some support from an influential governing body, therefore gaining access to arms, medical aid and so on. That is of course if it is true that they recieve supplies from the Iranian government, I don't know enough about it to declare it absolutely true.

[вор в законе]

I am by no means a military expert and my knowledge is no more than yours.


False. Hizballah is not sponsored by the Lebanese state.

I believe he refers to Iran & Syria.


see if this is the first showing of a more autonomous/guerrilla/horizontally structured army is defeating a state army.

My thoughts are that most guerrilla armies are, due to the very nature of guerrilla warfare, to a lesser or more extent horizontally structured. This means that the various brigades or battalions that operate have a more autonomous role. There are a lot of factors that can force guerrilla armies to become more 'autonomous'. One of them is the level of the effectiveness of the network and the communication - and consequently cooperation - between the different brigades. An army that for various reasons does not have an effective communication system between its segments will rather chose to partition its forces into smaller and more autonomous divisions.

Now with regards the effectiveness. Horizontal structured organizations work good for terrorist organization, for example Al Qaeda, but for armies it depends on the equipment that the state army has. If the state-army is ill equipped then yes you do have a chance to win if you wage guerilla warfare or even a full scale war (e.g. Nepal). Now against a well equipped army, such as the IDF for example, you have no chance to win even in a guerilla warfare (full scale war is just out of the question). You will exhaust your enemy, deliver them heavy loses, win battles but an overall victory is rather unlikely, given that your guerilla army doesn't enjoy support from the majority of the working class of the nation-state that you are fighting against (the latter was not the case in Vietnam for example).

Remember, for the Ruling Class a guerilla army that might alter their status is a matter of life and death and they will use any means necessary to eliminate it.

Now regarding Hezbollah, I believe that if Israel used all of her firepower against Hezbollah, they could win but it would be a Pyrhic victory.

For us, I believe that a guerrilla warfare should be practiced only in underdeveloped countries where the state army is not well equipped.

But in the first world, I find it impossible and in the long run it would undermine our cause by alienating us from the working class. The only way to win in the first world countries is through a revolution which will have the support of the overwhelming majority of the people so that in the end, the state army will be won easily without the need of conventional warfare.

[Jesus Christ!]

I was referring to Iranian and Syrian support.

Red Brigade: In regards to our struggle don't you think a revolution would be more successful if while educating the working class and spreading propaganda, guerrilla attacks were taken out in major cities or major areas just to prove that not only is a fight against the establishment theoretically possible, but in-fact is already taking place? I feel like this would in-fact have a strong effect and make the working class realize a struggle is needed, and already underway. It is much easier to join existing fighting than to start the fighting yourself.