Not every advance is a collapse, and not every retreat is a defeat

 

Is every ground advance considered a defeat for the Resistance, or could it be part of a plan of entrapment and attrition?

Talk about the fall of vast areas in southern Lebanon requires an accurate military and geographical reading. In wars, the map shown on screens — especially deceptive ones — is not the real map of control. In military science, control does not mean entering an area; it means stationing forces in it, securing it, establishing supply lines, and preventing the enemy from operating there.

First: The military fall of any area requires:

—Control of dominant high ground

—Deployment and stabilization of ground forces

—Establishment of supply lines

—Preventing ambushes or infiltration by Resistance forces

Any real control requires what is militarily known as “plates circles,” meaning the high ground that controls fire and visibility. Whoever controls these high grounds controls what surrounds them — not the other way around. Therefore, any talk of wide territorial loss without decisive control of these high grounds is militarily inaccurate.

Second: There is a well-known military rule: artillery does not shell land where your own army is located.

Therefore, when the Israeli army shells an area with artillery, this often indicates that Israeli forces are not inside it, because artillery is a wide-area destructive weapon and is not used over friendly forces. In other words, artillery shelling of an area that is supposedly “captured” is itself evidence that ground control there is not firmly established.

Third: Currently, the main fighting weight appears to be in the central sector (Bint Jbeil / Aita al-Shaab / Ainata…).

This area is militarily known as a complex combat zone: hills, valleys, forests, adjacent villages, and an ideal environment for ambush warfare and small-unit operations — the environment in which guerrilla warfare and Resistance forces excel, while regular armies perform better in open terrain.

Fourth: advance is a defeat.

One of the most important military tactics that pro-Zionist media analysts deliberately ignore is tactical withdrawal and entrapment.

The Resistance may allow the enemy to advance into the land because:

—Linear advance makes ambushes easier

—It lengthens enemy supply lines

—It exposes enemy forces from multiple directions

—It reduces the need to send large numbers of fighters to the front lines

— It reduces human losses (Resistance martyrs)

In short: Often, an advance can be the beginning of the attacker’s losses, not the beginning of his victory.

Fifth: The decisive factor is the will to fight. 

Military history proves that technology alone does not decide wars — especially when the will to fight is of a “Karbala-like” nature.

The decisive factors are:

—Will to fight

—Knowledge of the land

—Patience

—Attrition warfare

Again: long wars are not decided by the first strike, but by endurance.

Sixth: When interceptor missiles are depleted, the battle is prolonged, and the enemy is forced into ground combat in difficult terrain, the cost of war increases over time — and this in itself is a strategic military objective. 

War is not about who advances a kilometer, but who can endure longer and who loses more in the long run.

To the supporters of the Resistance who trust in it: not everything said in the media reflects the battlefield reality. 

Not every advance is a collapse, and not every retreat is a defeat. In wars, sometimes the most dangerous moment for an attacking army is the moment it believes it has won, because it may have entered exactly where the defender wanted it to be. Therefore, the most important factors at this stage are: patience, patience, patience, awareness, and not falling into the trap of psychological warfare — and before all that, prayer. 

Do not underestimate the “front of prayer.”