RoR: Forum

Oh lawsy. Regardless of which "side" you want to be on, every rational human being needs to look at this new conflict and ask "Did the 2006 invasion of Lebanon work?" The answer is "No". If pro-Israel types (of which I am one) actually care about Israel, they would tell Israel to stop these fruitless strategies. "Shock and awe" did not help turn things around in Iraq; COIN (Counter-insurgency), dialogue with former enemies and general "HaM" operations did. Israel needs to stop swatting flies with MX missiles.

Post 1

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 4:27pm

What is your point?

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 4:38pm

When Krauthammer says that this is not a morally ambiguous conflict, I would have to say that he is incorrect. If Israel has the best intentions in mind for its citizenry, then it would employ different strategies, rather than these same, failed ones that continue to radicalize the populace (on both sides).

Post 3

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 6:59pm

What is HaM?

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 7:08pm

Perhaps they are moving away from the same old failed strategies. Previously their strategy involved bowing to international pressure and stopping while their enemies still cursed their names and vowed revenge.

Post 5

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 7:41pm

The only successful strategy in any of these conflicts it to eradicate the rampant ignorance that drives it.

jt

Post 6

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 12:29am

I don't know anything about Israel's internal politics, maybe they are tied up in partisan knots and more or less random actions squirt out now and then... But I'd suspect that somewhere in their government they have been thinking long and hard about what to do with Iran going nuclear. It is probably just me, but I can't help looking at their every action to see if it lends itself to some larger plan to remove the Iran danger.

Post 7

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 2:08pm

If I were an Israeli -- and I'm not -- then I wouldn't fear Iranian nukes, because I would believe that the US would destroy Iran if they ever nuked me. I would gamble my life on the Iranians having a Hobbesian instinct of self-preservation.

There are at least two assumptions there:

1. the US has my back
2. the Iranians want to live

Are they both "logical" assumptions?

Ed

Post 8

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 2:45pm

Ed, No and No.

And here is your third assumption:
3. I will still be alive after a nuclear blast.
No, again.

Post 9

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 3:05pm

Ed here are a few other assumptions to ponder.

1) One nuke would pretty much wipe out Israel as a functioning society.

2) Assuming Iran has nukes, Iran may think the U.S. would not risk harm to itself by nuking Tehran for fear of nuclear retaliation, i.e. why not call the Americans' bluff? Especially if they stand to lose one of their American cities.

Post 10

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 3:09pm

The only successful strategy in any of these conflicts it to eradicate the rampant ignorance that drives it.

jt

If by eradicating the Palestinian urge to destroy Israel simply because it exists, then I would agree. It seems Israel is doing that, one round at a time.

What shocks me about this is the outcry from media and protesters, none of which was ever seen while Palestinians lobbed rockets at civilian targets.

Didn't Golda Meir say, "When they love their children more than they hate us, we will have peace?" I say push them into the Mediterranean until they vow to never raise a hand to Israel again.

Post 11

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 3:43pm

Hamas is now the government - a much better place to have it then as an 'independent' terrorist organization. If I were Israel, I'd declare war, publish the terms for surrender - which would not be conditional - and if the terms weren't met, drive everyone who didn't surrender into the sea. I start shipping refuges to any arab state that could be shamed into taking them. There wouldn't be a second chance or another truce fire or any more ceding of territory.

But the big problem is still Iran. If I were Israel, I would be worried - and making plans.

Post 12

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 3:44pm

Regarding the "America has my back" idea. I would have to say that if there is any group of people on earth who might not be too keen on trusting foreign countries for their safety, it would be Israelis.
Also, Or president elect is already showing signs of bowing to hard left pressure on the decisions affecting OUR OWN security, what evidence do they have that he wouldn't do the same with theirs?

Post 13

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 4:49pm

Ed writes:

"2. the Iranians want to live"

If there is anything we have learned about Muslim fundamentalists since 9/11 it is that for many of them, they really do not care if they live or die - and for some, death is the preferable choice in their effort to get out of the living hell that they have created for themselves here on earth. So no, you can't rely upon this!

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 14

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 5:19pm

Previously their strategy involved bowing to international pressure and stopping while their enemies still cursed their names and vowed revenge.

Yeah, right.

Folks, look, I am a supporter of Israel, but not of how it has flubbed its treatment of the Palestinians. And by no stretch of the imagination is Palestine its "own nation". Israel has implemented air and sea blockades of all goods and regularly "incurs" into the territories. (Yes, I am aware that Hamas does this as well).

Israel's strategy will fail here, because it has failed so many times before. 44% of Gazans are under the age of 14, and this aggressive, over-the-top response will radicalize all of those young men into hating Israel, and round and round we go.

Post 15

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 5:26pm

I'm really not seeing where their operations are all that different than the ones we've used in iraq. I'm sure humanitarian aid missions and dialogue have contributed immensely, but I'm equally sure the 30k troop surge that immediately preceded a lot of success in iraq weren't running around all day dialoging and aiding. Israel has taken some pretty historic steps regarding palestinian territory and seems to be willing to honor its commitments. To the best of my knowledge the west bankers who haven't been firing rockets into Israel like they expire in a week aren't having to deal with Israeli missles and troops quite so much. Sorry Hamas, but when your stated methods only involve violence you can't get pissed when the other guy is better at it.

Post 16

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 5:46pm

Steven, what would you have a nation do if rockets are being launched at it, killing and scaring its civilians? Do you think not responding would not radicalize at least the Israelis to get rid of their government if it took no action? What would happen to Hamas if it saw there was no response to repeated rocket attacks? That wouldn't encourage them to take it further? You keep talking about using a different strategy but I'm not hearing what that is exactly.

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/03, 5:50pm)

Post 17

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 8:18pm

My precise and exact strategy (despite Mr. Roper's gross mischaracterization of it) is to proceed as the United States in Iraq did: the Anbar awakening did not happen by itself, enemy sheiks did not just wake up supporting the United States one day. This took time, effort and civilian engagement, along with a healthy dose of "what's done is done". Counterinsurgency (COIN) operations, along with humanitarian efforts on the part of Israel, would go a long way toward ensuring that Israelis are not killed in the future by failed military policy.

Do you think not responding would not radicalize at least the Israelis to get rid of their government if it took no action?

Where did I say anything about not responding? I said "Do not respond in this method, because it has been tried, and short of out-and-out genocide (which is unacceptable), it will fail again."

I know that "shock and awe" is sexy and cool and all that jazz, but you know what? It does not win this type of conflict. Israel needs to win the Palestinians over, not bomb the shit out of them.

I'm really not seeing where their operations are all that different than the ones we've used in iraq.

You should note, for one, that we did not shell entire blocks because insurgents launched rockets on United States bases. The Baghdad Security Plan (The Surge) worked because we increased our presence, but we did not engage in out-and-out warfare in the city streets.
(Edited by Steven Druckenmiller on 1/03, 8:25pm)

Post 18

Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 1:49pm

Steven what worked in Iraq may not necessarily mean it can work in Israel/Palestine. For one the Israelis historically have been besides the United States the biggest humanitarian aid supporters for Palestinians. They have openly traded in the past with Gaza and West Bank farmers. Many Arabs live peacefully within Israel proper, some hold legislative positions and are able to vote in Israel. There's a particular hatred that the Palestinian leadership has for Jews that do not equate to decades of a dictatorship under Saddam Hussein followed by an American military invasion. America does not share a border with Iraq. The goal of the Iraqi insurgency was not to destroy America, it was to drive out a foreign military presence in their country The Americans bought off Iraqi tribal leaders, they bribed them to fight for Americans. And largely, the Iraqi civilian population was at the receiving end of al-Qaeda attacks. To the Iraqis al-Qaeda was a bunch of foreign fighters only succeeding in ruining their country. They were sickened by the destruction al-Qaeda was causing and found incentive to side with the Americans to root out a common enemy, hence their cooperation. The continued building up of the Iraqi military and police force by the American military helped immensely as well in addition to building up their current political structure. I'm not so sure the Israelis can effectively pull of an outright occupation of Gaza, build up a pro-Israeli Palestinian military and police force while still having to bow to international pressure telling them to pull out, and give the Palestinians 'a chance to govern themselves'. As far as counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism programs, I think Israel has more experience in that than other country in the world does. I think unfortunately Israel's situation is unique, and it's geopolitically fallacious to equate it with Iraq/U.S.

You should note, for one, that we did not shell entire blocks because insurgents launched rockets on United States bases. The Baghdad Security Plan (The Surge) worked because we increased our presence, but we did not engage in out-and-out warfare in the city streets.

Yes because Fallujah was not out-and-out warfare in the city streets?

Say what?

Post 19

Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 2:09pm