Israeli Attack Plan made a year ago!

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   

More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. Under the ground rules of the briefings, the officer could not be identified.


Here is an overview of the attack plan.

Phase 1: (First week). Destroy Hezbollah's heavier long-range missiles, bombing its command-and-control centers, and disrupting transportation and communication arteries.

Phase 2: (Second week). Shift focus to attacks on individual sites of rocket launchers or weapons stores.

Phase 3: (The third week). Offensive by ground forces in order to knock out targets discovered during reconnaissance missions as the campaign unfolded.

There was no plan, according to this scenario, to reoccupy southern Lebanon on a long-term basis.

Unfortunately, the Israelis had not anticipated the stiff resistance put up by the Hezbollah. So in all probability, this campaign will be prolonged and thus put Israel in a fix. With so much diplomatic and political pressure, their war aims are likely to go awry.

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2006/07/21/MNG2QK396D1.DTL




posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

Phase 1: (First week). Destroy Hezbollah's heavier long-range missiles, bombing its command-and-control centers, and disrupting transportation and communication arteries.




In my opinion this is quite strange. According to every news source the Mossad failed to identify Hezbollah's arsenal. They actually didn't know Hezbollah had mid and long range missiles. Then how could it be part of a strategy plan written months/years before?



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Why would the Israeli army give presentations to journalists and think tanks about their plans to invade lebanon? I can just about understand why they would brief diplomats but journalists and think-tanks?

That just doesn't sound right. Is this normal practice?





 
0

log in

join