Gee, I should have picked the name "Grey Eagle" as a user name, then I'd always be one up on you LittleHawk.Yuk yuk.

In really ancient times armor and attire were pretty much hit or miss. Distinction was more the norm as counting coup and individual battle skill was important for your military and social prestige. There were individual champions and at times, when the hostilities were'nt too great, the battle of champions would settle the matter. In the near and middle east you had (have) the concept of the "harem" or the "ban". If it were a holy war or a holy cause the target people might be put under the ban. If that was the case then there would be no survivors. Men, women, children, livestock, every living thing was slaughtered, the town was destroyed and the stone buildings were dismantled and all were forbidden to build anything new there and no one was to ever live there again. Thus they took care of their problems. There are several instances of this in the Old Testament ( note King Saul's problems for not obeying the harem ). War settled EVERYTHING. Many archeological digs will come upon city/states of which no record is known in ancient history because of this fact. Many tels have never been explored or excavated due to lack of funds or access and no one knows who the people were! Unfortunately I see that same mindset in some of the Eastern groups today. Back to the uniforms. Armies did, however have certain uniform features: feathers, dyed cloth, familial tattoos, plaited beards, sheild shape, some featured that would allow them to distinguish friend from foe.

When the Greeks came along they brought uniformity to a science and the weaponery became uniform also. This aided in manufacture. The soldiers became faceless. They'd even organize rank and column by height. This was duanting to to less "hip" enemies as if one soldier fell another who looked, in the heat of battle, just like the other guy stepped up and they felt they were making no progress. Little touches like plummage or brooms would distinguish rank. Yes, it all involved discipline, morale and psychology. If the Greeks made warfare a scince, the Romans perfected it. Their armies were legendary.

And, of course as weaponry and tactics changed so did the uniform. Camoflauge reflects stealth and long range weaponry. BUT, since ancient times one thing has held true in the orderly chaos called "War" and that is that you never put on the uniform of the enemy or as a soldier, assumed the guise of a civilian. That made you either a traitor, a deserter or a spy and as such, your life was forfeit. Well, we are all somewhat familiar with the concept of espionage and how we deal with spies when there is no "hot" battlefield. They are pumped for info when caught or are traded like pawns. I bring all this up to make a point about "Is Hezbolla Winning?" because they bear no uniform. Their targets are indiscriminate as to whether they are military or civilian. Murder is their tactic, using the civilian population as a shield and hiding behind women and children because they know their enemy has a moral compunction against taking innocent life. It is about one of the most dispicable tactics there is. It is cowardly and evil. This "Army of God" is a reflection upon the god they serve. Why don't the moderate Muslims rise up with a clear voice and condemn this practice, this movement. Where are they? Is this truly what Allah is like? Not from what I have read in the Qoran (albeit the English version). I could be wrong but by their not doing so I get the impression that they are taking the "wait and see" approach. They don't want to take a stand because Hezbolla and other terrorists might win or the tentacles of Hezbolla might reach out and extract revenge upon them. Cowardice!

OK. You could argue that because they are small (they aren't: Israel is small) they use these tactics because they would be easily defeated were they to present their dispute with a uniformed army (which they or their prototypes have done before and have been soundly whipped. If they represent such a minority point of view then they need to get a new view point, one that more people will support.