ahrammonline

In recent days, Israel has escalated its military operations in Lebanon, particularly targeting Hezbollah strongholds in the south and eastern Beqaa Valley. The situation on the ground has rapidly deteriorated, with many observers considering it a full-scale war, even though official declarations have not been made. The bombardment of southern Lebanese towns and villages has been relentless, with hundreds of strikes each day. This has led to the destruction of roads, effectively isolating these regions from the rest of the country and forcing thousands of civilians to flee northward.

Despite debates in international and national security circles about whether the situation should be termed a “war,” the reality on the ground speaks for itself. Retired Lebanese General Wehbe Katicha has called the conflict “a full-scale war,” describing how it has evolved in phases since the initial attack by Hamas on Israel on October 7. What started as rocket exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah has now escalated into daily airstrikes, with the number of casualties growing. This third phase, Katicha asserts, is the most devastating, with over 500 casualties reported in a single day of Israeli strikes.

The intensifying conflict has raised questions about the possibility of an Israeli ground incursion into Lebanon. Though Israel has not yet initiated such an operation, signs indicate it may be on the horizon. The Israeli Northern Command has warned that forces must be prepared for a ground offensive, with two reserve battalions already recruited. The goal would likely be to secure Israel’s northern border and enable displaced civilians to return to their homes. Major General Ori Gordin of the Israeli Northern Command has emphasized that the focus has been on significantly degrading Hezbollah’s capabilities, including its rocket systems and leadership.

The conflict has deeply affected the civilian population in Lebanon. Southern Lebanon, in particular, has been the epicentre of intense fighting, with homes and infrastructure damaged or destroyed by airstrikes. Roads have been blocked or destroyed, leaving only perilous routes available for civilians trying to flee to safer areas. In recent days, Israel has issued warnings to civilians to evacuate homes suspected of being used by Hezbollah to store weapons. Flyers dropped by Israeli forces in the Beqaa Valley gave civilians just two hours to evacuate their homes, and there have been unverified claims that these flyers included codes that could compromise mobile phones.

Lebanese civilians have been caught in the crossfire, dealing with both physical destruction and psychological trauma. Eyewitnesses describe terrifying scenes as rockets and bombs rain down on their communities. In one instance, civilians reported seeing ordnance explode in mid-air after an airstrike, further endangering those on the ground. Adding to the tension, Israel has reportedly been able to disrupt radio frequencies in Lebanon to broadcast warnings about impending airstrikes. This capability has shocked many Lebanese civilians, highlighting the technological gap between the two sides.

The conflict raises serious questions about Hezbollah’s ability to sustain its resistance against Israel. Khalil Helou, another retired Lebanese general, has labelled the conflict a “full-scale attrition war” and doubts whether Hezbollah can maintain the fight. He notes that Israel has proven capable of sustaining long-term attrition warfare, while Hezbollah may lack the resources and resilience to continue. Although Hezbollah possesses a large arsenal of missiles capable of striking Israeli territory, Israeli airstrikes have significantly weakened its leadership and infrastructure, potentially hampering its ability to respond effectively.

Daniel Byman, a senior fellow specializing in terrorism and warfare at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, believes that Hezbollah is on the defensive. While the group can still launch attacks against Israel, its internal communication and strategic capabilities may be compromised by the Israeli strikes. Israel’s precision in targeting Hezbollah’s leaders and key assets has left the group scrambling to adapt. However, Byman also cautions that there is much about Hezbollah’s current situation that remains unknown, leaving room for unexpected developments.

The looming question is whether Israel will launch a ground invasion of Lebanon. While Israeli officials have not confirmed such plans, the potential for an invasion remains a key concern. Katicha, the retired Lebanese general, hopes it can be avoided, as it would escalate the conflict further and result in even greater destruction. However, he acknowledges that the decision will ultimately depend on whether Israel feels it has achieved its strategic objectives through airstrikes alone. If the Israeli government concludes that a ground incursion is necessary to secure its northern border and bring stability to the region, such an operation may become inevitable.

In conclusion, while international leaders and military experts debate the semantics of what constitutes “war,” the situation in Lebanon has already reached that threshold for many civilians. With homes destroyed, roads blocked, and lives uprooted, the Lebanese people are facing the brutal realities of an ongoing and intensifying conflict. As the situation unfolds, the potential for a ground invasion looms large, and the prospect of a prolonged war of attrition between Israel and Hezbollah seems increasingly likely. For now, the region remains engulfed in uncertainty and fear, with no clear end in sight.

The US Air Force is actively developing Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) that will fly alongside manned military jets. However, it is not alone in envisioning these “loyal wingman” systems as a pivotal part of future airpower. The US Navy shares this vision, as do allied nations like Australia and the United Kingdom — and adversarial powers such as China and Russia.

In a four-part video series by Breaking Defense, Editor-in-Chief Aaron Mehta, reporters Michael Marrow and Valerie Insinna, and Stacie Pettyjohn from the Centre for a New American Security (CNAS) think tank come together to discuss the global landscape of CCA systems. This insightful panel explores how various nations are positioning themselves in the race for these next-generation air combat capabilities.

Credit: Breaking Defense

For more from this series, check out the videos below:

Major-General Tim Cross joins John to discuss his experiences in the military amidst global security challenges. Reflecting on his involvement in the 2003 Iraq invasion, he acknowledges the failures of the post-war period, criticising the poor decisions that undermined lasting nation-building efforts. He also examines the growing threats from authoritarian regimes like Russia and China.

Cross argues that the West is facing a leadership crisis and must embrace morally courageous decision-making to survive. He advocates for a strategic defence posture that enhances military capabilities to address modern threats, while also defending the core democratic values that are increasingly under pressure in the West.

A recent report from the US Department of Energy has dismantled the anti-nuclear rhetoric pushed by figures like Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. Contrary to their claims, the analysis demonstrates that integrating nuclear energy with renewables can reduce electricity costs by approximately 30%. This finding stands in stark contrast to the assertions made by Australia’s government leaders, highlighting the critical role nuclear energy could play in driving down energy prices.

The US Government’s plans to triple its nuclear energy capacity by 2025 further validate this conclusion. As America embraces nuclear power to strengthen its energy mix, Australia continues to lag behind, shackled by outdated assumptions and misleading reports.

One of the key misconceptions debunked by the US analysis is the longevity of nuclear plants. While the CSIRO’s GenCost report inaccurately stated that nuclear plants have a lifespan of only 30 years, the US data shows that these plants can operate effectively for up to 80 years. This staggering difference underscores how misinformed policies based on flawed data can hinder Australia’s energy strategy.

Moreover, the economic benefits of nuclear energy extend beyond just cheaper electricity. The US report highlights that jobs in the nuclear sector pay, on average, 50% more than those in solar or wind industries. This offers a compelling case for nuclear energy as a driver of economic growth and high-quality employment in the clean energy transition.

For years, advocates of nuclear energy have championed these facts. Now, with hard evidence from one of the world’s largest economies, ignoring this information is no longer just misinformed—it’s a deliberate choice. Yet, thousands of Australians continue to fall for fearmongering campaigns against nuclear energy, perpetuated by anti-nuclear advocates.

If every Australian were made aware of these facts, it would shift the narrative. The fear-based campaign that has clouded the nuclear debate would finally be put to rest, allowing for informed decisions that prioritize both economic and environmental sustainability.

CLICK LINK to read the report

Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear (nationbuilder.com)

The ABC’s credibility has been called into question following the appointment of an independent investigator to examine their dishonest claims regarding Heston Russell, an ex-Special Forces officer, and their proven false reporting of alleged war crimes. The ABC’s handling of the case has raised concerns about journalistic integrity, with calls for the government to intervene and hold the national broadcaster accountable.

Russell, who was featured in the ABC’s contentious war crime reporting, recently revealed that an independent investigator, Alan Sunderland, has been appointed to review both the claims made in the ABC’s “7 Spotlight” episode and other grievances raised by those who were interviewed during the ABC’s investigation. Sunderland, a Walkley Award-winning journalist, has a long history with the ABC, having served as its editorial director and worked for over four decades in Australian journalism.

Despite this development, the ABC has yet to engage directly with Russell or acknowledge his concerns. Frustrated by the lack of response, Russell’s legal team is exploring various options to ensure accountability. “We are working through a variety of legal strategies,” Russell stated, “to seek justice and accountability for the misinformation that was spread.”

The ABC’s appointment of Sunderland, who is expected to deliver a public report by the end of October, has done little to quell public outcry. Many, including Russell’s supporters, believe that a more comprehensive investigation led by an independent body or government intervention is necessary. The ABC, as a publicly funded organization, has a responsibility to uphold strict standards of journalistic integrity.

Critics argue that the internal investigation may not go far enough to address the damage caused by false accusations, especially without the involvement of external, impartial authorities. “This isn’t just about one man,” Russell emphasized, “it’s about the broader implications for public trust in our national institutions.”

Many are questioning why no criminal investigation has been initiated to examine the ABC’s misconduct. In response to the ongoing controversy, there have been increasing calls for the government to step in and demand accountability from the broadcaster. Russell’s legal team continues to push for a more rigorous inquiry, stating, “It’s hard to believe that no authorities have stepped up yet.”

As Sunderland’s report is anticipated, public support for Russell grows. Many Australians have contributed to his campaign, demanding transparency and truth from the ABC. Russell expressed his gratitude, thanking those who have supported his cause, and vowed to keep the public updated on the progress of his legal efforts.

The question remains: will the internal investigation be enough, or will it take government intervention to restore the public’s faith in the ABC? The clock is ticking, and the nation is watching closely as the deadline for Sunderland’s report approaches.

Military forces from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, and the United States recently conducted joint maritime operations within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The collaborative effort, held on September 28, featured the Australian Hobart-class guided missile destroyer HMAS Sydney and a Royal Australian Air Force P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.

This operation highlights the shared commitment of Australia and its international allies to uphold key principles of international law, such as freedom of navigation, overflight, and other lawful uses of international seas and airspace. These principles are particularly underscored by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Beyond the Philippines, HMAS Sydney also concluded its participation in Operation Argos in the Yellow Sea, which is focused on monitoring and deterring illegal ship-to-ship transfers of sanctioned goods. The Sydney’s MH-60R Seahawk helicopter, known as “Phoenix,” played a crucial role in this mission.

Leading Seaman Aircrewman James Neville, a member of the MH-60R Seahawk’s flight crew, played an essential role in tracking vessels of interest during Operation Argos. Meanwhile, the ship’s combat system operators in the Combat Information Centre monitored both surface and subsurface activities, providing key intelligence to the US Indo-Pacific Command’s Enforcement Coordination Cell.

Leading Seaman Combat System Operator Dion Dodd leads the team responsible for compiling and transmitting real-time tactical data from the Sydney to command headquarters. “My job is to ensure that what we observe here is communicated back to HQ,” Dodd explained. “This allows our commanders to make informed decisions on asset deployment during operations like Argos.”

The Sydney’s efforts were part of a broader multinational initiative embedded in the US Navy’s 7th Fleet. The primary goal of the collaboration is to support United Nations Security Council sanctions against North Korea by monitoring illicit maritime activities.

Commander Grant Coleman, the Commanding Officer of HMAS Sydney, expressed pride in his ship’s accomplishments. “Sydney’s operational success in Operation Argos follows a series of international engagements that have strengthened our relationships with allies and regional partners,” said CMDR Coleman.

“Dustoff inbound” was the message crackling over the radio that troops wounded in Vietnam most wanted to hear.

The message using the “Dustoff” call sign meant that an unarmed UH-1 “Huey” helicopter air ambulance with a red cross painted on the nose was coming for them no matter the weather, no matter whether the landing zone was “hot,” no matter whether there even was a landing zone — some 8,000 hoists while the aircraft hovered were conducted during the war.

To honour those who flew more than 496,000 Army medevac missions from May 1962 through March 1973, the House last week passed the Dustoff Crews of the Vietnam War Congressional Gold Medal Act.

The bipartisan bill to award the highest honour Congress can bestow was sponsored in the House by Reps. Derek Kilmer, D-Wash., and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash. The Senate in May passed the bill, which will now go to the White House for President Joe Biden’s signature.

The bill states that the Dustoff crews, consisting of a pilot, co-pilot, crew chief and combat medic, carried out “rapid medical evacuation and transported almost 900,000 United States, South Vietnamese, and other allied sick and wounded, as well as wounded enemy forces” in 11 years of operations in Vietnam.

The focus was on getting the wounded from the battlefield to a field hospital within the “golden hour” that greatly increased the chances for survival.

As a result of the Dustoff missions, “we would see patients so much more quickly than had ever happened before in a war zone, where you couldn’t depend on ambulance runs through rotten roads and muddy hills,” Dr. Michael Mittelmann, a surgeon with the 8th Field Hospital in Nha Trang, said in an oral history for the Vietnam Centre and Sam Johnson Vietnam Archive at Texas Tech University.

Newcomers to Dustoff units were immediately told what was expected of them in their missions: “No hesitation. No reservation. No compromise. You get the wounded out,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Steve Vermillion, a Dustoff pilot who flew 1,452 missions and picked up 2,217 casualties.

In a video call, Vermillion, 76, of Altadena, California, now president of the Vietnam Dustoff Association, recalled his first mission in Vietnam in January 1969 when he had to put the UH-1 Huey into a hover while under fire. “It was a hoist off a tank” of two badly wounded soldiers, he said. “It was controlled chaos.”

The red crosses painted on the unarmed helicopters signifying a medical mission offered little protection from the anti-aircraft fire of the North Vietnamese Army or the Viet Cong, said former Dustoff crew chief Gary Hagen, 72, of Medford, Oregon.

“We picked up a lot of guys and we got shot up a lot, almost every time going and coming out,” Hagen said at a recent press event with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

Of the approximately 3,400 Dustoff crew members who served during the Vietnam War, 211 were killed in action and 925 were wounded, retired Lt. Col. Chris Seidor, 77, of Barkhamsted, Connecticut, a pilot who flew Dustoff missions out of Binh Thuy in Vietnam, said in a phone call.

The dedication of the Dustoff crews to the rescue mission was epitomized by Maj. Charles Kelly, who commanded the 57th Medical Detachment and was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the nation’s second-highest award for valor after the Medal of Honor.

On July 1, 1964, Kelly “demonstrated exceptional courage, strong determination, and complete disregard for his own personal safety while participating in an aerial medical mission to evacuate wounded soldiers from an area under heavy attack by hostile forces,” the DSC citation said.

Ground commanders repeatedly told Kelly he was in grave danger and recommended that he take off and leave the area, but Kelly refused: “Not without the wounded,” he said. Kelly succeeded in taking aboard the wounded “moments before he was mortally wounded by hostile gun fire,” the citation said.

Army Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of the Military Assistance Command in Vietnam from 1964 to 1968, cited Kelly as an example of “the greatness of the human spirit” and highlighted his “not without the wounded” reply as an inspiration to all combat troops.

Gen. Creighton Abrams, who succeeded Westmoreland as overall commander in Vietnam, said of the Dustoff crews that “courage above and beyond the call of duty was sort of routine to them,” and “it meant so much to every last man who served there. Whether he ever got hurt or not, he knew Dustoff was there.”

Todd Mikolop, a lawyer with the Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP firm, which assisted the Vietnam Dustoff Association in mustering support for the Congressional Gold Medal, said in a video call that in the course of lobbying he heard from several veterans who had been wounded in Vietnam and told him, “When I heard the Huey coming, I knew I was going to be OK.”