October 26, 2024
Nasser Kandil
One needs to step back from the noise of futile media debates dominating television screens and social media pages to attain a degree of mental clarity, free from confusion and distraction, to reflect calmly on the reality unfolding along Lebanon’s southern border. Days into an escalating conflict, the resistance has regained vitality, mastering its firepower and adapting its plans to counter the ground assault.
This moment introduces a strategic paradigm shift for the region. It doesn’t resemble the attritional wars fought by Arab national armies against the occupying army in the Egyptian (1968-1970) and Syrian (1973-1974) theatres, where relentless attacks from both sides occurred. Nor is it akin to the heroic guerrilla warfare by Lebanese Hezbollah fighters in the 2006 July War, when their tactics on multiple fronts inflicted significant losses on the occupying forces, preventing them from securing stable positions. It also contrasts with the daily battles in Gaza, where resistance inflicts heavy human and material losses on the occupying forces, reinforcing the impossibility of control or triumph in such a prolonged engagement.
Over the past week, the conflict has taken on the character of a World War II-style confrontation, with two conventional armies facing off along a fortified battle line marked by trenches, hills, and valleys. Thousands of soldiers mass along each side, with tens of thousands waiting behind, while the battlefield sees thousands of artillery shells, tens of thousands of bullets, and hundreds of anti-armor rockets exchanged daily. Hundreds of airstrikes are launched by the occupying army on the rear lines, met by an array of short- and medium-range rockets from the resistance, just kilometres from the frontline, aside from deeper strikes carried out by both sides.
In this full-scale war, fighters engage at point-blank range, with the smell of gunpowder and clouds of dust and smoke from burning buildings blanketing the 50-kilometre front. Around the clock, the occupying army attempts advances, cycling through tactics from elite infiltration by Egoz units, to battalion-wide thrusts with armoured support, in hopes of breaking through. These manoeuvres have continued relentlessly since the attempt to breach the Ramiyeh-Ayta Shaab-Qawzah triangle. However, each attempt collapses into mass casualties, as happened in the Shomera settlement yesterday when the resistance’s rockets struck troop concentrations.
The resistance no longer needs reminders of its resilience against what were intended to be fatal strikes; it has risen with exceptional speed, displaying extraordinary tactical prowess. This is no longer merely a feat of resistance – its endurance on the battlefield speaks for itself. Fighters, including senior commanders, lead with a spirit of relentless dedication, executing detailed and adaptable plans with strategic foresight, as envisioned by the late commander Imad Mughniyeh.
Significantly, this is the first conventional, sustained ground war over an entire week, fought on a single front – Lebanon, traditionally seen as the smallest and weakest of the Arab fronts. During the 1973 October War, comparable combat across Egyptian and Syrian fronts lasted five days, followed by an “Israeli” counteroffensive that restored balance, ending with a ceasefire 18 days later. Now, the “Israeli” army fights on a single front with a secondary front of attrition in Gaza, yet it cannot repeat its past counterattack success, despite facing only one Arab force rather than two, without the superior air power and armour that once helped secure its positions.
Honouring the historical significance of Egyptian and Syrian advances in 1973, what unfolds on Lebanon’s southern front is nothing short of miraculous. The resistance has not only prevented the occupying army from achieving its military goals, it has blocked any meaningful advances that could serve as leverage for political and security concessions. The occupying forces have failed to create an opening, their ambitions of strategic depth and territorial expansion frustrated by entrenched resistance.
The occupying army, once considered the region’s strongest, finds its ground capabilities dismantled at Lebanon’s border. The elite Golani Brigade teeters on the verge of withdrawal, Egoz unit has lost its effectiveness, and heavy losses have been sustained at strategic bases in the Golan and Binyamina. Seven days of intense fighting have left hundreds of casualties, both killed and wounded, with dozens of armoured vehicles lost.
The Defense Minister’s talk of ending the ground operation, followed by the Chief of Staff’s hint at possibly ending the war, amounts to an admission of defeat. The ground assault, far from a minor element, formed the backbone of their military plan. If the assassination of key resistance figures were enough for victory, they would have declared it earlier without needing a ground assault. If airstrikes alone could displace the resistance beyond the Litani River and allow northern settlers to return without ground operations, why did they launch a ground campaign?
This is a unique type of conventional warfare fought by the resistance along a stable geographic line – the southern Lebanese border – dismantling the “Israeli” strategic blueprint for imposing its concept of national security on the region, and with it, depleting the occupying forces. This urgency has sent U.S. officials to the region, hoping to preserve the occupying entity’s prestige and U.S. dominance without making substantial concessions, while salvaging the occupying army from what is shaping into a significant battlefield disaster. If this continues for several more weeks, it may fundamentally reshape the region’s future.
