Eugene Tanner, AFP/Getty Images
Hillary Clinton spoke Friday at APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit, which the US is hosting this year in Honolulu. She looks bedraggled-- tough week. And Reuters reports she "demanded..Iran respond within days" to the [already debunked here and here] IAEA report and said "Washington was consulting allies on further steps to pressure Tehran."
Meanwhile across the globe in Vienna at a technical meeting for the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's Ambassador to the IAEA , looks cheerful. The contrast speaks volumes.
How did this get posted as journalism?
“debunked”, where?
Are you talking about the report itself, or the varying interpretations of the report and political significance?
try opening the links and then we’ll discuss it. here’s another from today that might interest you
link to moonofalabama.org
How did ANY of those debunk either the report, or the varying interpretations and proposed responses?
did you read them? because the word is out.
Richard Witty, who supports the invasion of
IraqIran becauseSadam HusseinMahmoud Ahmedinejad CLEARLY has a nuclear program. It is in the vital national interests ofIsraelthe United States that we commit to military action there, if necessary!richard, you responded to my comment within 2 minutes. you didn’t actually read gareth porter’s link did you? or the new moa link. try getting informed before you initiate debate about something you know nothing about.
Bingo, annie! As a matter of empirical fact, though, Witty isn’t interested in honest debate, merely spreading his brand of propaganda.
Witty, if you don’t understand how the report has been debunked by some simple fact checking, there is very little hope for your comprehension skills. Why are you so eager to post comments without taking the elementary step of reading the post and links? What part of your ego feels the need to strut around the comments without any substantive or germane point to make? Or do you suffer from Tourette’s Blogger Syndrome?
he does more than strut around. he races to be first comment which highjacks the thread. he’s like a child who wants his narrative to lead. it is the me me me..just races to the front of the line whenever he can completely unprepared except with his arsenal of scepticism.
I just don’t have a clue what you think was debunked.
Perhaps you could summarize what you understand the report conveyed, why, and to what extent, and then proceed to criticize it.
“Debunk”.
link to npr.org
In this NPR interview, the “experts” declare that the there is no smoking gun, no evidence that is clear.
So, a reasonable argument against military action would be “how can you willingly kill hundreds or thousands over something that you really don’t know about?”
On the other hand, there is a firm assumption (even defended here) that Iran IS developing nuclear weapons. The AIEA report apparently did disclose that Iran had been actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program before 2003 (at early stages, but definitively weapons).
That conflicts with their and proponents public statements that they never intended to construct weapons, and that it violated Islamic law and would never do so.
Are we to have confidence only so long as our memory is short, so that we can be told different stories at different times?
The danger is an arms race in the region.
There are already nuclear weapons in the hands of India, Pakistan, China.
The “experts” claim that Saudi Arabia would likely begin a nuclear arms program. Syria had reportedly started construction of a nuclear program (noone is sure whether it was for power or for weapons).
The reason for weapons is not to use, but to be able to threaten to use, to hold hostage for less severe power struggles.
Similar to the threat by Assad to rain missiles on Israel if NATO (not Israel) intervened in its human rights fiasco.
“If you”…. “we will escalate, and you know we have a nuke”.
Is it necessary for Iran to have nuclear weapons? (I don’t know.)
Is it necessary for Iran to gain the world’s confidence that it is not developing nuclear weapons, and will never? (For peace, yes)
This is the same NPR that spent maybe five minutes cumulative talking about a thousand Palestinian prisoners? And then ran at least one special report on Gilad Shalit?
Remind me again, where was NPR on the nukes in Iraq fiasco? Do you have confidence only so long as your memory is short, Witty, so that you can be told the SAME story and swallow it twice?
And still, what is needed for the report to be debunked rather than the credibility of a single scientist siting doubt (not debunked), is to summarize what the report claimed, and address the points made.
Until then, it is literally only he said/she said.
And do it here, not in 18 links.
We know you don’t have a clue Witty. You’re a senile troll who is to lazy to do his homework.
Experts? Not one of them is an expert on nuclear proliferation.
That assumption was there long before this IAEA report came out, so it’s never been one based on evidence.
The AIEA report apparently did disclose that Iran had been actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program before 2003 (at early stages, but definitively weapons).
False. The bulk of the lies in the IAEA report are ore 2003, but they are still lies.
Those claims are all based on the alleged studies documents, and IAEA inspectors who saw those documents stated there was no proof they were authentic.
Are we to have confidence only so long as our memory is short, so that we can be told different stories at different times?
Our Wittgenstein, our “liberal” neocolonialist emperor, speaks.
We know the meta-narrative by now, it’s unconvincing.
Fercrissake RW, use your fingers to search.
Watch this:
“Joseph Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshares Fund, an organization devoted to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, informed a seemingly stunned Tony Birtley that most of what’s been revealed “is not new”.”
link to pulsemedia.org
There is already an arms race in the region and the US is fueling it. Zionists as Washington hawks have no problems with arms races so long as they are the only guys in the race.
The nukes in India, Pakistan, and China had nothing to do with the ME.
The “experts” you keep referring ro are not experts and have been wrong about everything.
Which is what the US and Israel have been doing for decades. Like I said, you lunatics have no problem with arms races when they are a one team event.
Is it necessary for Israel to have them?
No. Iran has proved that it is not irrational. It has not attacked or invaded anyone in 300 years.
Would you prefer we drew pretty pictures for you Witty?
As each day passes, you’re Ali ding more and more like a precocious child with ADD. If you’re too lazy to readings, then don’t participate in the debate. We are not here to educate you or do the research in your behalf.
What the hell are you babbling on about? The report isexactly what we are tackling. No one is questioning the credibility of the Rusdian scientist, who himself has stated he has had itching to do with nukes since his career began. It is the report that is claiming he us a nuclear scientist assuring Iran produce nuclear implosion devices.
Seriously Witty, your willful ignorance on this subject is beyond ridiculous.
Can people please stop replying to anything Witty is spewing? Seriously! (I’m not Erin Burnett, no worries).
Ok so this super troll just drank a red bull and now he’s framing the debate on mondoweiss? Make it stop!!!!
Hey, I’ve honestly got nothing better to do. The moderators are, quite frankly, openly hostile toward my posts and they let Witty post crap like this willy-nilly. I don’t tolerate hypocrisy well, I think I’ve made that much apparent.
Chaos, no one is forcing you to stay here and post. I don’t think Phil and Adam have you locked up in a basement somewhere with only access to Mondoweiss.
I have followed Joseph Cirincione for decades, heard him speak in Boulder. He is generally fact based except when it comes to Israel. Do not let him fool you. He is an Israeli firster
“Bingo, annie! As a matter of empirical fact, though, Witty isn’t interested in honest debate, merely spreading his brand of propaganda.”
And proving to Phil Weiss that leaving Richard Witty out of Mondoweiss (except as a common commenter) was the biggest mistake he ever made! Richard is sure that if Phil would ask his parents they would insist Richard be included!
@ Richard
Don’t know what you have been reading but all I have been reading the last few days has been pretty scathing of the IAEA report.
From Robert Kelly who worked as an weapons inspector in South Africa, Iraq, Libya and was in charge of the Iran brief up until 2005 who called the report “unprofessional” and “amateurish analysis”.
Source: link to csmonitor.com
To the Russian Foreign Ministry who sent out a statement saying they were “disappointed” with the IAEA report and that it contained “rumours and speculation”.
Source: link to english.ruvr.ru
To India’s former Ambassador and foreign policy bigwig MK Bhadrakumar who called the report “spin”. I would say that most foreign policy circles online have been dismissing the report. Indeed when journalists and bloggers online can tear huge holes in the report you would wonder what the Intelligeance agencies around the world are able to do with it.
thanks gonzo. richard would know about all that stuff had he read the first embedded ‘debunked’ link in this article and followed the links. he doesn’t want to know.
Why do I get the impression nobody except Israel, Great Britain and Australia are going to be distraught when we pull out of the UN over the anti-Palestinian hate legislation that Obama is selectively enforcing? It seems like everything our government touches becomes a twisted mockery full of obvious lies and deliberate war-mongery.
You forgot Canada.
And lately Germany, truest vassal of the USA
Chancellor Schröder had the guts to say no to the war in Iraq, however
“Dampfnudel” Merkel follows the official road of the USA.
I suspect Germany and Canada are more susceptible to leaving the Anglo-Imperialist block, actually, when push comes to shove. Canada can only chafe under a US leash for so long, and Germans no better than to put themselves right in the flashpoint of yet another World War.
Bush gave Harper a hug, and said he was brave.
No one is forcing you to post on MW, Dick. If you don’t think the material is up to your journalistic standards, why do you continue to troll the blog?
Probably because almost nobody reads his.
but u respond to EVERY one of his posts
I think the motivating force in responding to Richard Witty’s hasbara posts is that lurkers and newbies to MW may be much more ignorant of the subject matter and may, without rebuttal, think Witty may be sensible as he uses abstract humane rhetoric to distract, divert the issue and to fool them in his repetitious big lies by omission and assumption.
I like to think of myself as the Mondoweiss garbage man. Somebody has to take care of the trash.
but u respond to EVERY one of his posts
bummerella. hey am-m, what do you think of russia asking the iaea which countries fed them the ‘info’. ha. ha. busted.
annie, can you link to that? I haven’t heard that yet. (been studying)
Pretend you lived in an apartment complex near a crazy neighbor that everybody was afraid of. Pretend this neighbor constantly called the cops saying you had a meth lab in your apartment. The cops have checked out your place a few times and found no evidence of a meth lab. This time the cop who checks it out (who is friends with the crazy neighbor) says your coffee pot is being used as a mini-meth lab. Yes a coffee pot can be used for other things like … making coffee.. but that would be unlikely (even though the pot smells like coffee). The cop says you were even seen working with a ‘meth specialist’ named Juan Valdez. We called up Mr. Valdez and he claims to only be a coffee farmer.
Ridiculous? Well that’s how the IAEA report reads. Common sense is the only debunking required. If you don’t have any, bloggers spelled it out before the report was released. Everything doesn’t need to be on NYT or CNN to be official. They are part of the problem. Again, look what they reported in 2002-2003 about Iraq. The only thing you can trust them with is lying. When they occasionally tell the truth, it’s like the broken clock being right twice a day thing.
Similarly, if you saw that crazy neighbor from above slashing your tires and they denied it, they still slashed your tires. When Israel denies Ilan Grapel being a spy, that doesn’t magically mean he isn’t a spy. When Salvador Guersson Smecke and Saur Ben Zvi were arrested in Mexico’s congress carrying 9-mm pistols, nine grenades, explosives, three detonators, and 58 bullets, the Israeli embassy pressured for their release. Then Israel denied they were spies and denied there was any sort of plot to blow up the congress despite what the Mexicans said. Common sense, what do you think they were going to do? Any other country would not get away like that
i like your comment and analogy of the coffee pot charon. it reminded me of one of b’s comments in his new post:
That someone uses a screwdriver to fix a car does not provide that s/he plans to stab the neighbor.
Yeah, great post, Charon.
ditto. i don’t think i’ve ever seen this mentioned in the news here.
Israel attacks Mexico?!?!!!
another bogus Mossad conspiracy theory. Throwing shit against the wall and see what sticks.
Am_America, more BS from you.
El Diario de Mexico, October 11, 2001, (From my files)
From the HistoryCommon.org: link to historycommons.org
i’m unclear on why folks still respond to comments by this guy. he manages to hijack so many comment sections on this blog, and i bet he’s been the focus of more comments than most of the other writers and subjects who have appeared on mondo. can’t we just all kind of agree not to respond to this dude until he recognizes that the blog ain’t wittyweiss?? or can we start wittyweiss as like an act of kindness, and then he can offer himself advice on what protest/dialogue/activism/blog articles should look like, and the rest of us can just enjoy uninterrupted the amazing collection of writings that mondoweiss has to offer?
emi, here’s why: link to mondoweiss.net
mrw, i get why phil tolerates witty’s incessant posting to the blog, and i’m not suggesting witty shouldn’t be permitted to post here. what i’m asking is why so many mondo readers bother to respond to him. why not just ignore? it’s sad to me when i read a thought-provoking, heavily commented-on article here that i love, but then the bulk of the comments go down some witty-dug rabbit hole. there are so many fora on palestine where folks can go to battle the wittys of the world–why can’t this space be for something else?
The wittys of the world include eee, jonah, hophni, Werdine, and others. They all hijack and dig rabbit holes.
But they have their place here, as responses can highlight truths that might not otherwise get aired. I have learned quite a lot from these.
However, I agree there are sometimes too many responses that mean the original article has been hijacked.
It is an individual choice whether to ignore them or take the bait just one more time. It’s up to us what we write and when, and who we respond to or ignore. What happens comes with the territory.
Be less idealistic and more realistic, just appreciate what we have here! As I wrote yesterday, Mondoweiss rocks!!
Hallelujah!!!!!!!!
I love especially this part: “the bulk of the comments go down some witty-dug rabbit hole.”
Hallelujah!!!!!!!!
And this part too: what i’m asking is why so many mondo readers bother to respond to him.
Hallelujah!!!!!!!!
i don’t think eee, hophni, etc are wittys at all. i don’t think a witty is defined by having opinions that fall outside of those of other commentors. i’d define a witty as one who comments non-the-duck-stop, and usually near the beginning of the chain, throwing off the whole comments section on a very consistent basis. yes, dialogue with the folks you’re talking about can highlight truths, but they can also lead to endless comment feedback loops that get further and further from the original content, or much content at all. i have no issue with those loops in general when they occur with the commentors you’ve mentioned, or with comment conversations shifting to new themes, but it’s frustrating that so much power over this dialogue is willingly ceded to this one guy, again and again, after he makes a cursory dismissal of the substance above the comment chain. by this point i think most of us know just where witty will weigh in on any given topic, and yet each time he pokes so many of us roar back at him. and simply exercising my own option of not responding to that kind of use of comment space doesn’t really solve the specific problem i’m talking about–seeking out comments relevant to the post can be pretty difficult when they’re drowning in a sea of witty.
haha, thanks friend! ^_^*
Probably you are right about RW, emi. He is generally more over the top in his own way than anyone else, complete with, too many times, his own invented strange word combinations or ideas.
He thinks of himself as an enlightened liberal Zionist, and that that somehow makes him what I called him today, “squeaky clean”.
I indulged him when I first started posting here but found he often didn’t even get what I was saying, or gave no answer. So I have usually ignored him since then; today is likely to be a one off.
To get anywhere on this you’ll have to either convince posters, or convince Phil. Your chances either way do not appear high.
You are not alone in thinking this and wanting change. However, I guess when most of us see stuff we consider is false or stupid or uninformed, we find it hard not to put in our two cents worth.
Thought this might interest you, emi. Some quotes from this stream that sum up our discussion:
“As a matter of empirical fact, though, Witty isn’t interested in honest debate, merely spreading his brand of propaganda.” (chaos4700)
“I’m sorry that I jumped on your report Annie. My first emotional reaction was that it was preaching to the choir here, and not a summary of actual considerations.” (Richard Witty)
“Ok so I’m doing what I’m preaching one should not do: replying to Witty. the way you thunderously started the comments in a context where you’re on very thin ice was utterly dishonest. So hijacking the thread with some propagandistic grandstanding makes you lose all credibility. ” (jewishgoyim)
“So why don’t you learn a little humility and stop posting such idiotic assumptions before doing some reading. Have you any idea of how tiresome it is reading your posts which jump to conclusions without any foundation? Show some respect to the people here instead of relentless whining and sandbagging. Credibility has to be earned, you have a long road ahead of you to get there.” (justicewillprevail)
haha, wow–you’re right, john h! that sums up our discussion pretty perfectly!
>> How did this get posted as journalism?
How did this get posted as a “better argument”? It comes across as nothing more than “dissent”.
more indication of a dud
Amano has really stepped into a noose of his own making.
He’s now not only disaparriaged by the Non Aligned Movement, but Netenyahu is attacvkgin him for not making the IAEA report inflamatory enough.
I suspect he’ll be stepping down shortly.
it’s probable the only reason he got the job is because he’s a tool. he shouldn’t have pandered to them.
there’s something about that grin of his…
“there’s something about that grin of his…”
50,000 Iranian missiles aimed at TA from only 72 miles away may have a bit to do with it, Annie. The promise that they would be unleashed if Iran (or Syria) was bombed was again hinted at Hizbullah’s Rememberance Day gathering in Beirut yesterday by someone that had an even wider grin.
that wasn’t what i was thinking walid. if you follow the ap link the grin was at the beginning of the ‘technical’ meeting at the IAEA. this meeting was planned after the release of the report i think to discuss the allegations of the report. (i read that on a cbs article last night). so i think the grin was probably a result of the report being such a dud and knowing they had nothing on iran. that’s why i think he was confident.
i think there is a contrast between what he said before the report came out..vs afterward.
So Hizbullah is a Iranian/Syrian puppet. Good to know. If there is such a regional war, Israel will not show the restraint it did in 2006.
Only a psychopath would attack civilians, sow cluster bombs everywhere, maiming children and adults alike, and claim they are being ‘restrained’. Like a serial killer who says, “I could have killed more people, but I let some off”. Gee, what a model of restraint.
Israel showed no restraint on 2006. Dumping 1 million cluster bombs on civilian areas on the last 72 hours prior up ceasefire was frantic, viscous and desperate.
Israel got their asses handed ro them by a better side, not because of restraint.
“Israel got their asses handed to them by a better side, not because of restraint.”
Spoken like a true sports fan defending his team.
DBG’s comment left me feeling ill.
Unfortunately, should a war with Iran start, it will probably kill many tens of thousands within a very few weeks, and would have a high chance of going nuclear once the first Iranian counter-attacks began. Only fools recommend war with Iran.
Walid,
I watched that speech and the whole event thang yesterday too with some Lebanese friends in south Lebanon: the hizb marching band dressed all in white and the cool psychedelic video vignettes of the hizb in heroic action by beautiful Galilean springs, setting traps for the enemy in hilly wildernesses etc. I especially enjoyed the video of the very old lady dressed in funeral black, ambling through foliage and wild brush up a hill, stopping then uncovering an AK47 hidden under leaves, picking it up and taking cover behind a nearby rock, then aiming and shooting below at the idf murderers of her children and invaders of her land. That segment was awesome :-)
And Shingo my friend, don’t you just love the lofty spirituality of our own zionist ‘inter-faither’ DBG? And something else too buddy, I reckon there’s a masochist in DBG that loves to be told again and again about the crunched nuts that hizbollah gave the idf in 2006 and the time before that and the many more times before that during the israeli occupation of Lebanon. Yeah sure I think the sucker DBG loves to hear all about it – again and again and stupid again! Now I’d call that loser’s porn, what would you call it?
Spoken like a sports fan who’s team go walloped.
I think by ‘no restraint’ DBG means ‘nuke Lebanon’
IDF got pwned in 2006 by a resistance group because they are not a real army. You need soldiers to use all that high-tech modern military equipment complements of the USSA. They don’t have soldiers, just a bunch of kids dressing up and playing army whose ‘experience’ consists of using civilians for target practice.
Israel has been in a constant state of ‘war’ for 63 years yet relies on US mercs to fight the real battles with their enemies. They are the aggressor and prefer preemptive attacks on their neighbors, usually starting with military targets to weaken them. 1973 was the only war Israel didn’t start and they nearly lost and threatened to use nukes. They only won because the US freaked out and provided enough traditional weapons to gain the upper hand.
Of course 2006 was not the only time in history where Israel terrorized Lebanese civilians, they did the same thing in 1982. They tortured children and removed their gentiles and limbs, there were stacks of them. That occupation and ‘war’ is what led to the creation of Hezbollah. Israel’s goal was probably to steal more land and exterminate Muslims to make a majority-Maronite mini-Lebanon, something they openly favored.
So where is this proof that Hamas and Hezbollah are ‘proxies’ of Iran, anyways? Iran donated money but so do other countries. Iran provided training to some Hezbollah soldiers probably because of the mutual defense thing they have with Syria. The proxy thing has been used in the past to tie PLO with the USSR. It’s BS
R. Werdine, you have to be the only Jew in the world with Lebanese roots that doesn’t root for Lebanon against the Zionists. In 1948, Lebanese Jews actualy donated money towards the war effort against the Zionists and the Jewish population there kept increasing from 1948 until the late 60s when they started to leave for better economic opportunies elsewhere and hardly any went to Israel. This is what makes your stated Lebanese roots very suspect.
Taxi, I wish I could find the 1-hour documentary prepared by Israel’s Channel 2 on the soldiers returning from Lebanon. It was both funny and sad at the same time as the young IDF lads kept saying that Hizbullah fighters were like ghosts that came out of te ground or that jumped down from trees. The sad part was how they had been left in Lebanon without food and water and had to break into homes to find food. It was then they discovered the difference between fighting men in Lebanon and fighting women and children in the occupied territories as they had been doing.
Hey Walid,
I too was looking for that youtube link. I was sure I saved it, but I can’t find it either.
Yeah, Charon, Israel is Dennis The Menace with Daddy’s arsenal and no adult supervision.
Shingo and Walid,
It’ll be cool if you guys could one day find the youtube link to the traumatized by battle Apartheid israeli so-called soldiers.
Seared in my brain from the 2006 war: on CNN: brief live footage of idf soldiers wearing oversized camouflaged shower-caps, all lined up in some barren border field and one by one being blessed by a rabbi while another rabbi hands them a cookie and a glass of milk :-)
And I thought soldiers were supposed to bite off the heads of live poisonous snakes as a psych-up before charging the battlefield.
was that before or after the footage of Hezbollah firing from houses and mosques, using civilians as human shields? If Hezbollah was as strong as you say they are, they wouldn’t have been silent for the last 5+ years following their so called ‘ass-kicking’ of Israel.
Neither, seeing as those allegations proved utterly false once investigations were conducted.
And Hezbollah have been anything but silent. They rose to power politically and now belong to the ruling coalition in Lebanon.
Yes, Phil M, most of us here agree–as does the former Mossad chief and M Dayan’s widow, who knows Zionism is way passed its expiration date–those supporting the last option on the table are themselves chickenhawks with a firm belief they themselves will always have a moat between them and the animals. Historical truism.
QUESTION:
ANSWER
The irony of it — an American woman with a Jewish-sounding name is protected from an Israeli unilateral strike on Iran by —— Iran.
Say thank you, boys and girls.
I’ve been reading Annie’s MoA debunking links but nonetheless, sparks will soon start flying. I wasn’t trying to spook DBG as I would have mentioned the rumoured fully trained 100,000 fighters itching to jump the border or the suspected SAM installations that will greet the F16s but just trying to bring something else into a discussion bogged down by everyone’s obsession with Zionists. Things have been happening with Syria that could have an effect on Iran such as today’s Arab League suspension of its membership that’s a prelude to an eventual NATO-Libya type attack that will draw Iran and Hizbullah and consequently Israel into the conflict and as Phil Munger said, tens of thousands will die on each side especially Israel’s, the failed attempt by the US to instigate a civil war there since 6 years and 8 months because of Syria’s refusal to divorce itself from Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas and Assad’s refusal to let the US build a pipeline from Iraq to a Syria Med terminal which the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood have already agreed to let the US do, and the expansion of the Russian naval base at Tarsus, Syria that’s a giant pain in the US’ backside. There’s something else happening in the world beside Zios on the prowl. The Arab League that’s had the bit in its teeth for taking down the Syrian regime ever since it accomplished its mission on Libya won’t go anywhere near a discussion on Bahrain and Yemen where the regimes are allied to the US. I’m not a fan of Assad’s Syria as I wasn’t of Saddam’s Iraq but I’m also not a fan of Western countries making regime changes in Arab countries, even if the regimes are ones I don’t like.
Walid, what kind of SAMs do they they have? if their technology is anything like their rockets, it will be WWII technology. Israel was able to fly over both Lebanon and Syria to destroy their covert nuclear weapons program in 2007. There isn’t much to worry about in terms of defense there.
Also how are these 100,000 fighters going to cross the border? it is heavily mined and well defended. (I think the number is 30,000, but multiplying a number by three is kind of the standard operation procedure for your propaganda wing.)
No they didn’t They bombed a building they claimed was a nuclear reactor, but there was no evidence of any nuclear material present after the attack.
DBG,
The Syrians are armed with exclusively Soviet made SAM’s from the 1960′s and 1970′s (SAM-2,3,5,6,8, 10, and 11′s). In June 1982 the IAF destroyed the entire network of SAM-2, SAM-3, and SAM-6′s that the Syrians had deployed in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon in 2 days, and, with American F-15 and F-16 fighters, shot down 85 Syrian piloted MiG’s without losing a single plane. These SAM-2,3, and 6′s comprise over two-thirds of Syrias current air-defense arsenal. I hope there is not another war, but if there is, this does not bode well for the Syrians in a future air clash the Israelis.
Throughout the cold war American air hardware and tactics were found to be demonstraby superior to that of the Soviets. This is even more pronounced today. The Israelis and the Americans have made great strides in air-defense technology, while others have stood still. The Israelis, however, still have yet to solve their Hezbollah Katyusha problem.
Walid,
I am not a Jew, and I don’t “root” for anyone. I hardly consider it a fault of mine that I do not “root” for a terrorist organization that has been and is currently terrorizing and oppressing Lebanon into a gangster state, and has brought nothing but misery and suffering with its senseless war on Israel.
shingo, have you ever read b’s debunking of the syria bombing? it’s awesome.
No I havn’t Annie, but I will.
The simple fact is that nuclear reactors are among the most hardened buildings in the world. Even after the heaviest of bombing, there would be a lot let behind to investigate. Nuclear reactors don’t dissapoear into thinair.
Throughout the cold war American air hardware and tactics were found to be demonstraby superior to that of the Soviets.
On the contrary. The Migs were always superior to US counterparts. Friends I had in the US air force told me that the first thing they were told was that if they ever came face to face with a Mig in air to air combat, to “get the fuck out of there”.
This is even more pronounced today.
False. When it looked like the Iranians would take delivery of the S300′s, Washington and Tel Aviv were furious and admitted that the missiles (already superceeded BTW) were a game changer. The IAF admitted they would prevent Israel attacking Iran.
After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Russia gave up competing with Washington head to head on building aircraft carriers and focused on anti ship missiles. It was the US that stood still in missile development for over a decade.
As a consequence, Russia developed the SS-N-22 and Granit Missiles, which Washington have admitted are a decade ahead of US technology.
shingo, check this out. this too:
link to moonofalabama.org
What more proof does one need that that indeed Werdine is rooting for Israel.
ps, also worth checking out is the latimes blogpost i link to @ #50 in the comment section in the 2nd link in my last comment? note how this appears 3 days after b did the homework.
link to latimesblogs.latimes.com
fyi, this has happened time and again PLUS, because you can watch who is on w/their cite meter there have been many times in the past we’ve seen the military watching the blog. especially during high alert times, like certain covert attacks. b’s very on the ball an he knows his way around intel and military operations. his analysis of Nahr al-Bared refugee camp was spot on and as i mentioned before the georgia attack on south ossesia.
Thanks Annie,
The Mossad seriously needs a few lessons in how to use Photoshop and 3D rendering.
That’s right werdine, you’re just a poor Germanic shia from the bucolic Bint J’bail who leaned all about the evils of Lebanon while living and studying in the Dahia ghetto.
Kazzab kazzab kazzab!
DBG November 12, 2011 at 6:52 pm
“Walid, what kind of SAMs do they they have? if their technology is anything like their rockets, it will be WWII technology.”
DBG, probably better tech than they used in 2006 to almost sink Israel’s Saar 5 destroyer, the “Hanit” that was anchored 10 km off Beirut’s coast to shell Dahieh’s civilians. The surface to sea missile hit 3 meters away from the ship’s critical area that woud have sunk it but it still killed 4 Israeli sailors and injured several others and the “Hanit” had to be towed to Haifa where it took over a year to repair it. Probably the same tech that immobilized about 80 of Israel’s “invincible” Merkava tanks and that brought down a couple of helicopters in the same war. Don’t be misled by Hizbullah’s fleet of antiquated Nissan and Toyota pickups that they use to move around.
I don’t know that much about military stuff so I can’t talk about exact numbers or what type of SAMs these guys probably have or don’t have but I can tell you that Israel has stopped buzzing the skies over Beirut several months back so it can’t be because it has suddenly developed good neighbourly manners and I read somewhere that only senior Israeli pilots now enter Lebanese airspace. You can do your own guessing from that.
Robert Werdine November 12, 2011 at 9:08 pm :
“Walid, I am not a Jew”
What are you then, a Christian Zionist? There sure isn’t anything remotely half-Shia about you, as you claimed because you wouldn’t have accepted all what the Israelis have done to the Shia.
Shingo,
Said you:
“On the contrary. The Migs were always superior to US counterparts. Friends I had in the US air force told me that the first thing they were told was that if they ever came face to face with a Mig in air to air combat, to “get the fuck out of there”.
This is utterly laughable. In the Korean War, American F-86 Sabres worked up a kill ratio of more than 10 to 1 against Soviet MiG-15’s, and 17 to 1 in the last 7 months of the conflict.
In Vietnam, USAF F-4 Phantoms and F-105 Thunderchiefs scored a 3 to 1 kill ratio against Soviet MiG-17 and MiG-21’s, and the US Navy, while scoring a 3.7 to 1 ratio between 1964-1968, scored 12.5 to 1 in the 1969-1972 period as a result of the establishment of the Top Gun fighter academy in 1968.
In the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Israelis, using F-4 Phantoms and French Mirage IIIC’s (and American Sidewinder and Sparrow AAM’s), worked up a kill ratio of 22 to 1 against Soviet MiG-19 and MiG-21’s.
On June 27, 1979, 6 Israeli-piloted American F-15 Eagles met 8 Syrian MiG-19’s in the skies over Lebanon and sent 6 of them spiraling to the ground without losing a plane, and in 1982 Israeli piloted American F-15 Eagles and F-16 Falcons scored 0 to 85 against Syrian piloted Soviet MiG-21 and MiG-23’s over the Bekaa Valley.
On August 19, 1981, two Libyan piloted Soviet Sukhoi SU-22’s suicidally fired on two US Navy F-14 Tomcats in international waters and were splashed to sea within seconds, and on January 4, 1989 two Navy Tomcats similarly dispatched another two Libyan-piloted Soviet MiG-23’s to the bottom of the Gulf of Sidra.
Soviet airborne communications and radars were distinctly inferior, were narrow in scope, and were easily jammed. Soviet infrared AA-2 Atoll AA-8 Aphid air-to-air missiles, which could only be fired within a narrow frame behind an enemy’s tail, were no match for American radar-guided Sparrow, Sidewinder, and Phoenix missiles, which could be fired from any position or angle—the Phoenix from 126 miles distance. The Israeli Python III model heat-seeker was even superior to the American Sidewinder, and had greater turning ability
I agree the S-300′s are nothing to sneeze at, and the alarm of the IAF was understandable. But how they would fare against American B-2, F-22, and F-35 stealth aircraft is questionable. I read in Jane’s a few years ago that the IAF conducted computer simulations that indicated the extent to which the F-35′s outperformed the S-300′s.
I know absolutely nothing about military stuff — whether SAM can down a B52 or an F 16 is eye-glazingly meaningless.
But what should be realized is that as more Americans return from military postings, with nothing but war and fighting in the neurons, and few opportunities to be as important and supported and surrounded by like minds as they were in the field, we will be hearing a lot more militarized, testosterone-laced talk dominating the Public Square.
Soldiers are trained to destroy and kill. It’s not so much that their psyches are manipulated to see the Other as less than human — which is the case, but that soldiers are over-trained to LOVE their comrades to the extent that they will kill for their brother in arms. That is to say, everyone NOT the brother in arms becomes the Other. And when that Loved, supportive Brother is no longer surrounding a returned soldier with defense and support, and he feels alone and naked with no skills applicable to a (putatively) civilized field, he feels detached from the only reality he knows. Joseph Campbell calls this state of psychic estrangement a “wasteland,” frequently resulting in a “psychotic break.”
How does a bankrupt nation reprogram such damaged human beings?
None of your examples demonstrates current Soviet technology at the time. What they showed were state of the art US weaponry against a generation old Soviet counterpart.
That has more to do with the air to air missiles than the planes themselves.
Again, the stealthiness of the above are hyped. I spoke to radar operators from the Australian Navy who said they can see these planes approaching over the horizon. The Americans were shocked to hear it.
Simulations hah? Let’s see how they fare in the real world and like I said, the S-300 is already superseded.
On the contrary. The Migs were always superior to US counterparts.
So the Syrians must have had children flying them when they tried to intercept Israeli assets over Lebanon, huh Shingo? You know Israel shot down 86 Syrian Migs with zero losses right?
Reminds me of this old (lame) military joke:
The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon resulted in many dogfights between Syrian and Israeli jet fighters. In the end, the Syrians lost over 80 planes and had a number of SAM batteries knocked out, while the Israelis lost no planes. Sometime later the Syrian Defense Minister was shopping for weapons in Moscow. His host, the Soviet Defense Minister, was embarrassed about the scorecard from Lebanon. He told his Syrian guest, “Take anything you want – our best tanks, rifles, or surface-to-air missiles.” “No, no – you don’t understand!” the Syrian replied. “Last time you gave us surface-to-air missiles. This time we need surface-to-*jet* missiles!”
Again, the stealthiness of the above are hyped. I spoke to radar operators from the Australian Navy who said they can see these planes approaching over the horizon. The Americans were shocked to hear it.
cough*** bullshit*** cough****
Smart discussion regarding the S-300/400 versus the F-22. To be fair, I don’t know if Shingo’s ‘friend’ from the Australian air force was included in this discussion.
link to forum.keypublishing.com
Walid,
Your talk of 100,000 trained soldiers waiting to cross the border seems exaggerated. Where does this figure and the 50,000 missiles come from?
In any event, this kind of talk is extremely troubling. Hezbollah did not win a “victory” in the last war. They unquestionably performed well on the defensive in the urban areas and proved themselves fearsome in close quarter combat, but Hezbollah is, at best, a substandard conventional military force with serious deficiencies, not to mention a total disregard for civilians and some bad human-shielding habits. The IDF ground campaign was half-hearted and disorganized, and this played into the hands of Hezbollah.
This is of more than just academic interest. What we say here matters little, but what matters is the conclusions that are drawn from the 2006 war in the Dahiya and throughout Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. I fear that the rosy and exaggerated views expressed by you and others on Hezbollah’s “victory” are more widely held and will translate into a contempt for perceived Israeli weakness, and will make a future Iran/Hezbollah provocation more, rather than less likely. Next time, the war will be for real.
The men in the Dahiya are not fools. I believe that Nasrallah, in his heart of hearts, knows this to be untrue, whatever his propaganda. I believe he knows that another war will be calamity for both Lebanon and Hezbollah, which accounts for his inactivity on the border for the last 5 years. But you never know. Victories, both real and perceived, tend to intoxicate and corrupt, not sober those who win or claim them.
link to jpost.com
Of course they did, they kow it and Israel knows it, which is why Isrlae felt the need to re-etsablish it’s deterrrence capacity by bombing Gaza in 2008.
This was already debunked by subsequent reports that revealed there were no Hezbollah fighting where Israel were bombing.
Amnesty and HRW Claims Discredited in Detailed Report
link to ngo-monitor.org
Human Rights Watch: Troubling Report
link to nysun.com
Israeli ‘human shield’ claim is full of holes
link to thenational.ae
Israeli accounts aknowledgd that Hezbollah proves itslef to be an incresible force, managing to tackeland defeat the 4th most poewerful military even with it’s limited means.
No, the IDF ground campaign was smashed by a superior one.
The conclusion is what Israel has no hessitanction with targetting civilians and civlian infrastructure.
Yeah, they said that in 2006 after the humiliatrion of 2000. Next time will be the same.
Yeah Werdine – it must be that Shia Arab DNA of yours – even if diluted with Ashkenazi heritage.
How would you explain Israel’s inactivity on the border for the last 5 years Werdine?
Very true. Israelis still haven’t woken up from teh intoxication of the last war they won back in 1967.
The Military Channel had a special on which was better, more effective, the Mig-15 or the Saber Jet? Conclusion was it was a stand-off; they each had superior off-setting qualities. Saber Jet was designed by former Nazi Germans. Another special listed the Mig 15 v Saber contest as the only one in the history of Top 10 historical airplane fighter planes.
Also, in the immediate wake of World War II, the Soviet Union captured a wealth of German jet engine and aeronautical research. Utilizing this, they produced their first practical jet fighter, the MiG-9,, which became the Mig-15.
So, the two best fighters of the first significant war after WW2, on opposing sides, was due to superior German brain power. Shall we start a German geography site to compete with all the sites that brag about Jewish accomplishments? Let’s see, we could start with American soul food, hot dogs n hamburgers . Why is it that German pride is not acceptable, but Zionist Israeli pride is? I mean, it’s not the Nazi German Era now, but the Zionist Israeli Era. Time to turn the tables in the interest of objective justice. We have to do something about this handing of the Nazi baton over to Israel at the expense of the world, and most especially, at the expense of the Palestinian people, and our American Dick n Jane.
This is correct. Actually, F-86 Sabre pilots found that the MiG-15 had marginally greater maneuverability, a greater rate of climb, and a higher service ceiling. The MiG, however, was slower, was unstable at high speeds, had a tendency to lose control in sharp right turns, and had a poor gunsight. Also, the American pilots all wore G-suits; the Communist pilots did not. Many of their pilots undoubtedly blacked out in dogfights at over 600mph. The F-86 was faster, rock stable at high speeds, and better armed.
Gosh Robert, is there anything you don’t know? Able to make authoritative comparisons of fighter planes! We should listen to you about everything!
Shingo,
In this back and forth over whether Hezbollah “won” the 2006 war, it really comes down to this: you are arguing that Hezbollah defeated Israel because Israel failed to destroy them; hence, Hezbollah “won.” I believe Hezbollah’s survival and the IDF’s failure to destroy Hezbollah as a military force was due more to the IDF’s own mistakes and deficiencies, rather than anything to do with the military performance of Hezbollah, though I don’t downplay the ferocity of the resistance they offered the IDF and the steep challenges that the IDF faced in confronting them. There was also, to a lesser extent, the international situation that was not going to remain silent and idle indefinitely while the Israelis ravaged Hezbollah in south Lebanon with a free hand.
In determining whether either side won a victory in the 2006 war, I distinguish carefully between where one belligerent inflicts a decisive defeat on another on the one hand, and the failure of one belligerent to achieve its strategic goals against another belligerent for reasons unrelated to decisive victory or defeat, on the other. You call the end result of the war a victory for Hezbollah because they survived. But their ultimate survival, thanks to a half-hearted, confused and scattershot Israeli ground campaign, was never much in danger in the first place. To call this a “victory” is to cheapen the word. A victory is decisive and conclusive. This was not a victory for Hezbollah; it was a reprieve. The war was indecisive, and was not fought to a conclusion. Israel did not destroy Hezbollah, and Hezbollah did not eject the Israelis from South Lebanon by force; the IDF was still deployed in force south of the Litani at the time of the cease-fire some 30,000-strong. You can spin this as a Hezbollah “victory” all you want, but the truth is that it was a stalemate. You don’t win a “victory” with a ceasefire and the enemy still deployed in force on your territory, and occupying stretches of it.
As Lt Colonel Hany T. Nakhleh of the Lebanese Army wrote:
“At the cessation of hostilities, both sides, Israel and Hizbollah, declared victory. This was perplexing. As UN Deputy Secretary General, Mark Malloch Brown, remarked during the fourth week of fighting, this was an “odd war” in which “both sides think they’re winning.” It was not easy to decide who was the victor and who was the vanquished. Analysts, who wrote about the war, come up with different views depending on their backgrounds and opinions. In fact, one could argue that each side has achieved some successes and some failures.”
(“THE 2006 ISRAELI WAR ON LEBANON: ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS,” BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL HANY T. NAKHLEH
Lebanese Army, 2007)
This is probably the most accurate statement on the 2006 war I have ever read.
The indecisive results of the 2006 Lebanon war show, to some extent, that the word “victory,” like “success,” is relative; it can mean whatever you want it to mean. Politically, we are largely in the realm of interpretations and perceptions here that further argument is unlikely to resolve. But one thing can be stated with certainty: I believe the Israeli failure was rooted doctrinally within the IDF, its manner of deployment, its tactics and its strategy (such as it was). I also believe that Hezbollah gave a good account of itself in close quarter fighting, and proved itself a determined and redoubtable opponent. You, on the other hand, are arguing that Hezbollah inflicted a decisive defeat on Israel at both the tactical and strategic level, and that the IDF’s anemic performance in the war renders Hezbollah the equal of the IDF in conventional warfare. That is simply false.
Militarily, I believe that Israel failed to achieve the objectives it set for a variety of reasons at both the tactical and strategic level. Bad or inapt tactics can usually be redeemed by a sound strategy, but in this instance a bad strategy was made worse by inapt tactics, and a lumbering, confused, and piecemeal deployment. As I said before, the war unquestionably exposed failures in planning, intelligence, counterintelligence, command, mobilization, execution, and logistics. The Israelis wished, to the greatest possible extent, to destroy Hezbollah’s infrastructure and weaponry, neutralize them as a military force, and force their removal north of the Litani. They also hoped that a favorable political diminishment of Hezbollah within Lebanon would follow the successful military campaign. None of these objectives were achieved, but this failure does not a “victory” for Hezbollah make.
Militarily, there are victories at both the tactical/operational level (battles), and the strategic level (wars). But there is a qualitative difference between winning a victory and being saved from defeat in battle or war. It is the difference between a propaganda victory and an actual one. On the tactical level, when the Romans attacked the Carthaginians at Cannae in 216 b.c. and Hannibal maneuvered them into encirclement and surrender, that was a Carthaginian victory. When Wellington’s Foot Guards withstood the advance of Napoleon’s Old Guard at Waterloo in 1815, and then routed them from the field, that was a British/Allied victory. When the Germans attacked the city of Stalingrad in 1942, were stopped on the banks of the Volga, were surrounded, and forced to surrender, that was a Soviet victory.
When Japan attacked the US and was bombed and driven back from island to island to surrender, that was a strategic American victory. Saddam did not win a “victory” by surviving the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf War; he was permitted to survive, by mutual exhaustion of both belligerents (and Iran’s fear of US intervention) in the former, and by American folly and weakness in the latter. Hezbollah, like Saddam, was permitted to survive by an inconclusive war the cessation of hostilities.
As Michael Young has written:
“So perhaps a victory it is, but in that case Hezbollah’s victory is no different than most other Arab victories in recent decades: the “victory” of October 1973, where Egypt and Syria managed to cross into Israeli-held land, their land, only to be later saved from a thrashing by timely United Nations intervention; the “victory” of 1982, where Palestinian groups were ultimately expelled from West Beirut, but were proud to have stayed in the fight for three months; the Iraqi “victory” of 1991, where Saddam Hussein brought disaster on his country but still held on to power. Now we have the Hezbollah “victory” of 2006: the Israelis bumbled and blundered, but still managed to create a million refugees, to kill over 1,000 people, and to kick Lebanon’s economy back several years. One dreads to imagine what Hezbollah would recognize as a military loss.”
link to reason.com
You undoubtedly think I am saying this only out of my contempt for Hezbollah as a terrorist group. I am not. I am looking at their performance as a military organization, and frankly, it leaves much to be desired. In my previous post, I detailed what I believe were Israel’s failures and deficiencies. Here I focus on Hezbollah.
On the tactical level, they showed absolutely no proficiency for large scale maneuver. None of their counterattacks took place at anything above a platoon level, and though they did show some ability to coordinate these squad and platoon level attacks into main and secondary efforts with supporting indirect fire, none of these local counterattacks succeeded even in their in their modest objectives. Said Biddle and Freidman of Hezbollah counterattacks:
“Not all of these, however, can be distinguished unambiguously from confused movement toward undetected Israeli positions, ambush attempts, or other actions that may not have involved the intention to regain lost ground. None of these actions, moreover, was at anything larger than platoon scale, and none succeeded in securing its territorial objective. But the engagements noted above were all unambiguous, deliberate attempts to close with Israeli defenders in positions recently taken by the IDF in ways that imply an intent to regain lost ground.” (Biddle and Friedman, p.p. 40-41)
What would Hezbollah do if the IDF invaded with division and corps sized units? Attack them with platoon level units?
As I said before, at Maroun al-Ras and Bint J’Bail Hezbollah militants made excellent use of direct and indirect small arms and anti-tank fire from concealed positions, and they worked their elaborate tunnel system to excellent effect, hitting the IDF advance guard from multiple emplacements, and thoroughly disorienting their attackers. Their fire control was excellent and well coordinated. Yet, instead of adopting a mobile defense that would enable them to inflict punishment on the attackers, withdraw, and regroup to do so again, Hezbollah opted for a largely static defense. Though there were some exceptions, Hezbollah strategy, such as it was, seems to have been seized by a fortress mentality and the firm holding of ground. The border villages were all fortified, and well stockpiled with supplies and ammo to this effect. What Hezbollah was to do when these village strongholds were surrounded and cut off as they inevitably would be in a full scale Israeli ground assault, was unclear. They did not allocate reserve positions for mobile defense; every man was to fight and die where he stood. No one, whatever they may think of Hezbollah, can possibly withhold admiration for the steadfastness with which their soldiers held their positions, and fought to the death.
From a command perspective, however, this was not only unimaginative and tactically pointless, but betrays the brutal, cold-blooded contempt for life that is the chief identifying mark of this terrorist group. Nothing is more contemptible than commanders or higher-ups who hold the lives of their soldiers cheaply. Commanders like Hannibal, Stonewall Jackson, and Rommel, who won battles with their brains instead of the lives of their men, would have shaken their heads at such profligacy. Militarily, Biddle and Friedman note the unwisdom of this unflexible defense:
“If their intent were merely to coerce Israel through the killing of IDF soldiers, they could have done so at much more advantageous loss-exchange ratios (and hence have continued such attrition longer, and killed more Israelis with the forces available to them) if they had not accepted decisive engagement by holding positions for so long, or if they had not attempted counterattacks, or if they had persuaded civilians to remain under lower intensity combat and intermingled their fighters with the population.”
The Hezbollah strategy of holding (and dying) in place and fighting to the last man, resembled nothing so much as what the Japanese did at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and many other Pacific island battles. Yet, instead of maneuvering division and corps sized mobile units around urban strongpoints such as Maroun al-Ras and Bint J’Bail, surrounding them, and reducing them bit by bit, the IDF, following Halutz’s “raiding” strategy, engaged them frontally with company and battalion sized units that played to the defender’s strengths of urban ambush and defensive concealment, just like the Germans did at Stalingrad. Yet, despite even these advantages, Hezbollah casualties, like those of the Japanese in the Pacific, were often more than several times that of their attackers.
In the Winter War of 1939-1940, when the Russians invaded Finland, they outnumbered the Finns by 3 to 1 (40 to 1 in population). Skillfully exploiting weather and terrain, the Finns conducted a model mobile defense. In the battle of Suomussalmi, an understrength Finnish division under General Hjalmar Siilasvuo surrounded one Russian division and cut another one to pieces. Though the ultimate end result of a conflict between a nation of 170 million and one of 4 million was never in doubt, the Finns, at the end of the 3-month conflict, inflicted about a 10 to 1 kill ratio upon their attackers.
Said Biddle and Friedman on other Hezbollah deficiencies:
On barrier defenses:
–“Some minefields south of the Litani were organized to canalize IDF vehicles into open ground within range and in view of ATGM positions north of the river. Yet the most extensive Hezbollah minefields could readily be bypassed, and Israeli combat engineers encountered relatively few integrated barrier defenses requiring deliberate combat clearance under fire. Booby traps were common, especially in and around abandoned
houses, but little of the actual combat action took place through defended barrier systems, and massed indirect fires on assault forces in breaching operations were infrequent.”
On defensive posture:
–“Much of the Hezbollah defense was static; reserve movements were very small scale;
Hezbollah commanders rarely succeeded in adapting to changing conditions quickly or responsively; and Hezbollah’s limited freedom to maneuver under Israeli air supremacy made any large-scale integration for mobile defense at the theater level impossible even
if Hezbollah would have attempted this otherwise.”
On formation maneuver:
–“In particular, Hezbollah demonstrated no ability to control or coordinate the maneuver of large formations. Counterattacks, for example, never exceeded platoon strength, and many were considerably smaller, with individual maneuver elements sometimes as small as 3-5 soldiers; deliberate retrograde movements were normally limited to handfuls of combatants at a time; small detachments often fought isolated actions; and whereas perhaps 60-100 commandos were moved over great distances, no large reserve was withheld or maneuvered to counterconcentrate against IDF movements, and movements of Hezbollah forces within their forward defenses were small-scale and over short distances.”
On combined arms cooperation:
–“Hezbollah demonstrated only limited combined arms cooperation. They frequently used ATGMs in concert with small arms and heavy machine guns in direct fire, and they made significant use of mortars—but rarely were direct and indirect fires combined
against single targets or in single engagement areas.And Hezbollah showed no ability to orchestrate mines, obstacles, direct and indirect fire in a single, synchronized defense, or to do so over any extended defensive front.”
On flexibility:
–“Few Hezbollah units showed much apparent ability to react to changing conditions. Counterattackers taken under surprise fire from previously concealed IDF positions away from the assault objective, for example, often halted and fell back in disorder rather than
reorienting to the new threat, redirecting suppressive fire, and continuing the advance. Where Hezbollah organized linear defenses these were often flanked by Israeli attackers; the defenders, however, typically either fought on in the same positions or simply withdrew, rather than forming a new front to meet the assault.”
On counterintelligence:
–“Although Hezbollah made apparent attempts to monitor Israeli communications networks, some of which (such as medical evacuation nets) operated in the clear, there is no evidence they were able to exploit any information gained.”
The authors conclude:
“Hezbollah did some things well, such as its use of cover and concealment, its preparation of fighting positions, its fire discipline and mortar marksmanship, and its coordination of direct fire support. But it also fell far short of contemporary Western standards in controlling large-scale maneuver, integrating movement and indirect fire support, combining multiple combat arms, reacting flexibly to changing conditions, and small-arms marksmanship. Hezbollah appears to have attempted a remarkably conventional system of tactics and theater operational art, but there is a difference between trying and achieving, and in 2006 at least, Hezbollah’s reach in some ways exceeded its grasp.”
Hezbollah does not lack for brave soldiers who fight to the death to defend their homeland, and small unit commanders who show much resourcefulness and ingenuity in urban warfare. But an inflexible, static defense, failure to integrate barrier defenses, failure to maneuver formations above a platoon level, failure at combined arms cooperation, failure to react to changing conditions, and loss-exchange ratios of four or five to one. How does any of this reflect favorably on Hezbollah as a conventional military organization?
Said you in previous posts:
Said you:
“The Pentagon’s J-8 Directorate for Force Structure Resources and Assessment, which among other duties conducts analysis, assessments, and evaluates strategies for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some special American friends, agrees with Israeli military planners and Hezbollah on at least one subject– The next Hezbollah-Israel war will not see Israel using many ground forces outside of armored personnel carriers once they enter Lebanon. The reason is that all three agree with the Pentagon’s J-8 Directorates’ opinion that based on previous battlefield performance, it will likely require 5 Israeli soldiers to offset one Hezbollah defender’s battlefield acumen.”
It’s funny, Franklin Lamb, in an October 8, 2010 article published in Foreign Policy Journal also wrote,
“Despite Barak’s instructions, the Pentagon’s J-8 Directorate for Force Structure Resources and Assessment, which among other duties conducts analysis, assessments, and evaluates strategies for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some special American friends agree with Israeli military planners and Hezbollah on at least one subject: The next Hezbollah-Israel war will not see Israel using many ground forces outside of armored personnel carriers once they enter Lebanon. The reason is that all three agree with the Pentagon’s J-8 Directorates opinion that based on previous battlefield performance, it will likely require 5 Israeli soldiers to offset one Hezbollah defender’s battlefield acumen.”
link to foreignpolicyjournal.com
Either this is another example of your “sloppiness,” or Lamb must have plagiarized that from you.
In any event, this is rather puzzling considering that Hezbollah suffered such high exchange loss ratios while on the tactical defensive.
Said you:
“the Hezbollah forces routing of the Israeli “elite” Golani, Egoz and Magland Brigades at Maron al Ras on the Lebanese-Palestine border between July 25-30, 2006.”
There was a fierce battle, but no “routing.” What, pray tell, were the circumstances of this “routing,” and where were the IDF brigades “routed” to? The bulk of the fighting took place between July 18-22 in and around the village, and though sniping from outside the village continued for some days afterward, the Israelis secured the village and held it until the August 14 cease-fire.
“The Battle of Bint Jbeil which Dan Halutz called Israel’s planned “Web of Steel’, was expected to take less than 48 hours to defeat Hezbollah forces starting on July 24. By July 30, the much battered Golani forces withdrew and the Israeli air force renewed indiscriminate aerial bombardment.”
No question A and C companies from the Golani got their noses bloodied, but the IDF withdrew only to reenter several days later, and they had the town secured by the time of the cease-fire, though sniping around the village continued.
“In Aita al-Shaab, Israel lost 26 soldiers and more than 100 severely injured without gaining an inch of territory.”
“Gaining” territory was not the objective, and IDF losses were 13 dead, and 50 wounded.
Said an IDF commander:
“The idea, a senior officer said, was to stay in the village for up to 24 hours, to kill as many Hizbullah gunmen as possible and then to move on to the next village with the ultimate goal of pushing the Hizbullah as far north as deemed necessary even beyond the Litani. A total of five brigades were operating in the region, and heavy gunfights involving light machine guns and rockets were reported.”
link to jpost.com
Like I said before, Hezbollah defenders showed they were prepared to extract a steep price for the loss of real estate to their attackers, but once they lost it they allocated no resources and had no plan of action to retake it. Having no defense in depth from which to counter-concentrate and regroup, their cadres simply fought in place until overwhelmed, and their counterattacks floundered and squandered lives to no effect or benefit. The IDF, in the course of its meandering and unfocused campaign, hit Hezbollah not where they were weakest, but where they were strongest. Hezbollah were saved first and foremost by an Israeli strategy that was confused, inadequately resourced, and incompetently executed, and lastly by the weight of international pressure to end the conflict and effect an Israeli withdrawal.
“Gosh Robert, is there anything you don’t know? Able to make authoritative comparisons of fighter planes! We should listen to you about everything!”
You said it Mooser. Why, if it weren’t for Robert, we would be in quite a pickle if we wanted to know some information about airplanes that’s listed on Wikipedia. Without him, we would have no way of finding out that information.
the Migs, the Migs!
Oh, touch my Glock, the US Aircraft industry didn’t suffer a scratch during the Big One. That Russia, un-imaginably devastated, was able to field so much as a flying chicken coop is a tribute to its “rock stable” Soviet government; that, or to the tenacity and inventiveness of the Russian, read Slavic, people, or some combination. BTW, Mr I-know-everything-bout-guns, how many German aircraft engineers found work in the Soviet Union after the war? My dad met Herr Messerschmidt when he worked for IIRC Northrop or Hughes Aircraft, one of them.
“Gosh”
He reminds me of these two gents I saw at the library with a big “Golden Book of All the World’s Guns” open before them. Arguing over screw threads, Whitworth? No, SAE!
Robert Werdine says: “Greetings to the word-starved readers of mondoweiss who are anxiously awaiting my next pontification. For those who are too pressed for time to digest my scholarly tomes, I offer the following brief summary. When Israelis kill in large numbers, it is either entirely justifiable or inadvertent or excusable or accidental. When Arabs kill in smaller numbers, it is a racist attempt at genocide of a noble people, borne of jealousy and hate. And I’m of Arab descent, so I can be trusted, even if I think Nakba is spelled Nabka! No matter how you spell it, it was self-inflicted, unlike the Hocolaust, that dastardly collaboration of the Palestinians and Nazis.”
“Pray tell…”
F@ck! Who in hell do you think you are fooling? You love war!
Go, find a quiet room and a comfortable chair. Sit therein, concentrate on your breath, give your head a shake, and ask yourself in all seriousness, with the solemnity of a true and humble seeker after wisdom, Am I not perhaps out of my cotton-picking mind?
Sheesh, do sumpin bout this retarded threading regime! You can keep your widgets and drop-down menus!
Hear! Hear!
“that was not going to remain silent and idle indefinitely while the Israelis ravaged Hezbollah in south Lebanon with a free hand.”– Robert the garrulous
“When Israelis kill in large numbers, it is either entirely justifiable or inadvertent or excusable or accidental.”–David correctly interpreting RW (both of them, actually)
What good ole Rob doesn’t seem to get is that the Israelis weren’t just ravaging “Hezbollah” with a free hand, but a whole bunch of civilians. But he can’t bring himself to write that. Strange, since he doesn’t seem to have trouble typing.
Thanks, David, for the usual ankle-biting jabs, cheap shots, and ad-hominem slander. I can just never get enough of them.
but he just quoted you robert. maybe you forgot you wrote it. i think it’s squished in somewhere between your 17th and 23rd paragraph.
“When Israelis kill in large numbers, it is either entirely justifiable or inadvertent or excusable or accidental. When Arabs kill in smaller numbers, it is a racist attempt at genocide of a noble people, borne of jealousy and hate.”
Annie, I have never even remotely expressed anything this ludicrous. I believe that the Arab-Israeli conflict and every death that has resulted from it is a tragedy. Every civilian death in any war is a tragedy, but not every tragic civilian death is a war crime. David frequently tells me that intent is inferred from the circumstances, but every time I get into the circumstances of a contentious issue, he just calls me names. Which is fine, but then why engage me in the first place?
Both sides have been guilty of atrocities at times, but each case where this is alleged must be evaluated on the facts. That is what I believe. I also believe that there are many instances where the Israelis have been unjustly accused of deliberate attacks and war crimes (USS Liberty, Qana), and I have always tried to argue these instances factually. If I have failed, then the fault is mine.
My post, btw, merely addressed the military aspects of the 2006 war, which Shingo and I have been debating for the last few weeks. I believe the 2006 war was a catastrophe for all concerned, and I am concerned that all this talk that I frequently hear about the Hezbollah “victory” is more widely shared throughout the ME and will tempt Hezbollah and their backers into starting a rematch. Israel and Lebanon are two nations that, but for Hezbollah, have no cause for quarrel. Let it remain so.
(I can already see you rolling your eyes and dismissing me with the wave of your hand upon reading this)
C’mon Welldone, don’t be so thin skinned. There’s terrain to be surveyed, intelligence to be gathered, radar to be deployed, battles to be won!
annie, and I thought I was the only person who actually read through RW’s screed.
Robert, you’re welcome. btw, a “cheap shot” is an undeserved criticism or insult, and “slander” is a false statement about someone. Sorry to lecture, but it seems to me you are unfamiliar with those terms because you are using them incorrectly. I did get a kick out of “Nabka”; did anyone else notice the mistake?
Werdine,
No, I am arguing that that Hezbollah defeated Israel because Hezbollah achieved their strategic objectives and Israel did not. That’s how victory is defined.
Hezbollah’s strategic objectives were to:
1. Resist the onslaught of Israel
2. Prevent Israeli ground forces from establishing any foothold in Southern Lebanon
3. Drive Israeli ground forces out of Lebanon
Hezbollah achieved all of these spectacularly and in the wake of that war, their stature rose politically, whereas Kadima tanked. This is in spite of the fact their enemy enjoyed overwhelming superiority in arms and resources.
While this is false it is also irrelevant. Wars are usually lost by the side that makes the mistake. After all, is it not understood that one of the reason Israel prevailed in 1948 was because of the mistakes and deficiencies of the Arab armies?
The “international situation” was only relevant insofar as it was damaging Israel’s image, but as I explained earlier, the US would have been happy to continue vetoing ceasefires at the UN is things were going to plan for Israel.
Recycling the arguments from the Vietnam era, are we? I love the way the war-mongers like you fight to keep reality out of your analysis, such as it is. The US has been using this same argument to explain their failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The reality, then: the United States has been engaged in two wars for over 9 years. In that time, the executive has never been curtailed by the Congress; every request for further funding has been rubber stamped. Yet, all we kept hearing is that the generals were holding “our boys back”, not “letting them win.” We’ve heard all this SHITE before: whenever the U.S. comes up against a determined foe it can’t handle, like the Vietcong or (to a lesser degree) Afghani extremists, no credit is given to them. It’s always, rather, that WE were never ‘allowed’ to win or in the case of Israel, we let them win. Imagine that: the “greatest military” in history – so called – cannot quell resistance fighters armed with Kalashnikovs and IEDs.
And now we’re hearting the same BS to expolain why Israel got their asses handed to them in 2006.
So what do you want, sport? Tactical nukes? Mustard gas? Agent Orange? What “handcuffs” should have been removed? Do you intend to inject substance into the debate or simply proffer moral indignation and outrage as a substitute?
To claim a half-hearted effort of course, is to miss the following, crucial point: its not altogether clear whether Israel CAN defeat a determined and well armed opponent. But you are immune to this thinking because you assume, without foundation, that there is lurking within the IDF some sleeping giant that merely needs to be awakened. Alas! Were it not for the leadership or world opinion, victory over the Islamist scourge would have been achieved long ago.
Israel goes into a refugee camp (Gaza), slaughters 1400 people – 400 children among them – and you still claim it “labors under limited rules of engagement”.
No it isn’t, which is why we have the term “decisive victory”. Israel claimed victory in 1967, which was described as “decisive”, and yet the events of 1973 demonstrated that it was not “conclusive”.
It might not have produced the conclusion that Israel wanted, but there was indeed a conclusion. Long gone are the days when one side surrenders to the other.
Yes Robert, the Israeli border is indeed South of the Litani. As Robert Fisk observed, the claims of Israeli forces on occupying stretches of Southern Lebanon were utter rubbish.
Stalemate huh? Whatever you say Robert. LOL
link to youtube.com
Ceasefires follow victory and the only Israeli forces on Lebanese territory were the IDF troops running back home having soiled themselves. Claims of IDF occupying stretches of Lebanese territory were all bluff. Israeli forces barely managed to cross the border, which is why Fisk described what was supposed to be an Israeli mopping up exercise ended up being a Hezbollah one.
Statements by the Lebanese Army can safely be dismissed, especially seeing as the US puppet Siniora was in office at the time. The Lebanese Army came out of the 2006 conflict looking grossly incompetent and impotent, not to mention, badly bruised from IDF bombing. For the second time in a decade, Hezbollah had done the job they were unable to pull off and they looked weak and irrelevant.
No, it’s the statement that you’re most desperate to believe.
Seriously Robert, has no one ever told you that when you’re in a hole, you should stop digging? You keep changing the goal posts. First you start out by arguing that Hezbollah were blown away, then it was a draw, and now you’re arguing that “victory” is relative.
I agree. The IDF are not the army they were in 1967. The decades spent bashing the defenceless Palestinians have made them soft and weak. We saw that again with the Mavi Marmara debacle. The IDF Dough Boys are accustomed to witnessing success at the flick of a switch of press of a button.
Even more embarrassing, was the report that former IDF personal who watched the footage of the incident were reportedly suffering anxiety attacks. I mean, seriously, what a pathetic excuse for a military the IDF has become!
You’re again regurgitating the arguments of Vietnam.
I never suggested that the Hezbollah is the equal of the IDF in conventional warfare, but the days of conventional warfare ended decades ago. We’ve now entered the realms of 4th generation warfare, and dinosaurs like Israel and the US have failed to adapt.
Bad or inept tactics usually emerge when things don’t go according to plan. What made Israel Israel’s strategy bad or inept is the fact that they were defeated.
In which case, this speaks volumes about what the IDF has become. It is evidence of systemic problems with the IDF rather than simply being an anomaly.
The excuse of poor planning etc on the part of the IDF doesn’t hold water in any case. It was widely reported that the Israelis were giving power point presentations in Washington about the plans to attack Lebanon in January of that year. So Israel had spent probably a year planning this exercise of not longer.
Israel were simply defeated by a tougher, smarter and more determined enemy.
It accounts for half for the victory. Had Hezbollah employed bad or inept tactics or poor strategy, then there would have been no victory.
Not so much these days. If propaganda wars weren’t as important as the actual wars, then the DOD would not have a 4 billion annual PR budget would it?
Michael Young of reason? On please, why not spare us your pretence or concern for facts and simply cite Max Boot or William Krystol?
Young’s argument sounds like a precursor to Friedman, when he argued that Israel achieved victory by targeting enough civilians to stymie any future attack by Hezbollah on Israel.
BTW. Young’s recollection of 1973 is laughable. He states that Egypt was “saved from a thrashing by timely United Nations intervention” while predictably omitting the fact that Israel were saved from a thrashing by timely and biggest airlift of weapons in history by the United States to Israel.
Thanks for the comic relief Robert.
No, I simply think you’re saying this only out of your devotion to your faith and your Zionist roots.
While it’s odd to hear a Zionist giving advice to Hezbollah, I’m sure they are desperately to find your expert analysis Robert on how they more efficiently defeat Israel the next time they come into contact.
Yes you keep repeating this as though it’s supposed to mean something. It apparently has never occurred to you that they stuck to platoon level counterattacks because operating smaller units played to their advantage.
As the DOD has estimated (and Israel verified), the average Hezbollah fighter proved to be as effective as 5 IDF fighters. In which case, why wouldn’t Hezbollah operate in such a way?
On the contrary. They were incredible effective, which is why Israel were intimately sent packing back to Israel, and why it was Israel that failed to achieve every one of their objectives.
The three of you are clearly out of your Zionist minds. Hezbollah’s territorial objective was to kick Israle out of southern Lebanon, or prevent them from securing territory. Ding dong, Hezbollah succeeded.
Do what they did last time. Smash them and then kick them out.
And guess what? It worked.
It is unclear because it didn’t happen. Hezbollah have spent years planning every contingency and outcome. They would obviously not have ruled this option, out, but Israel have never been allowed to apply this strategy in the past.
Another thing you’re forgetting is that division and corps sized units rely heavily on securing supply routes, so who’s to say they wouldn’t be the ones being cut off?
Hezbollah are a small militia with limited resources. If they didn’t allocate reserve positions for mobile defenses it’s likely because they didn’t have reserves to throw around or they didn’t need them. The philosophy of fighting and dying where they stood may seem flawed, but again, this plays to the advantage of these fighters.
On the contrary, it makes a great deal of sense. This degree of commitment and single mindedness explains why the Pentagon estimates that each Hezbollah fighter was as effective as 5 IDF fighters.
Thus, from a command perspective, this is an invaluable position. No one forced these people to join Hezbollah. Hezbollah prides itself on discipline and willingness to put their lives where their mouths are.
Those who demonstrated the true , cold-blooded contempt for life, as the Israelis and their strategy to bomb civilians and inflict enough suffering so as to hope to turn the civilian population against Hezbollah.
As for the commanders or higher-ups who hold the lives of their soldiers cheaply, that mantle belongs to Olmert and co, who initiated the war, not Hezbollah, who were left with no choice but to defend their territory.
That’s very magnanimous of you Robert, but it doesn’t ring consistent with your earlier denunciation of them as cowards who fight among civilians.
No Robert, they would have shaken their heads at the sheer cowardice, incompetence of the Israeli leadership and the pathetic showing of the pampered and limp wristed IDF Dough Boys who ran screaming back to their mommy’s and refused to even hold their posts for more than 24 hours without being relived of duty.
Biddle and Friedman are a bunch of clowns. They are so obsessed with outmoded and outdated forms of battle that they missed the elephant in the room with IDF DEFEAT written all over it.
What Biddle and Friedman are prescribing are strategies that the IDF would have expected and played into the hands of the IDF. By holding their positions, the Hezbollah fighters were able to hold and stop the IDF platoons from going anywhere.
Of course, Hezbollah are only a relatively new fighting unit and make mistakes like any other fighting force. They will undauntedly have realized where they went wrong and how to do better next time.
That still does not detract from their incredible victory over the hapless IDF.
Pointless argument. Hezbollah are not beneficiaries of massive volumes of arms from a superpower like Israel. They make do with what they have. The only state of the art wepoans they used, and to spectacular effect, was the anti tank Kornet missile.
On counterintelligence Biddle and Friedman are completely in denial and off base. Hezbollah’s counter intelligence was blowing holes throughout the IDF and crating absolute pandemonium among the high command.
To hear Biddle and Friedman criticize Hezbollah for falling “short of contemporary Western standards in controlling large-scale maneuver” etc is farcial. What Biddle and Friedman are complaining about is the fact that Hezbollah didn’t play according to Western rules, which made them awkward and frustrating for the IDF to deal with. What Hezbollah achieved in 2006 continues to confound people like Biddle and Friedman who undoubtedly had predicted as quick and decisive victory prior to Israel’s blunder.
Really? And you’re here to tell me that Biddle and Friedman plagiarized all their talking points from you?
Please!!
No it’s not. The exchange loss ratios you are assuming have only been supported by IDF sources, so they are suspect at best.
Of course there was. Israel were sent packing.
The Golani never returned. They continued on their way home, sobbing as they went.
Need one say more?
False. As Fisk I pointed out, they lost no real estate.
Apart from kicking the IDF out of Southern Lebanon.
Yes Robert, that’s called a victory.
Look Robert, remembering back to the aftermath of the 2006 war, I know how traumatic it was for you Israelis to deal with the loss of that war. Israel had never known such humiliation and defeat and it’s no surprise that you are struggling to come to terms with it.
The bottom line is very obvious, albeit painful for you Israelis. The reason that Hezbollah kicked the shit of the Israeli forces is because the latter is just not that good anymore. Israel could boast of a true citizen’s army forty years ago, formed, as it was, in the curcible of its socialist origins and its spirit of self-sacrifice. But this is no longer the case: as each decade passes, Israel fights smaller opponents with less conclusive results. It’s soldiers have become too Westernized and thus soft; they play video games and surf on the net more than they drill. Much like the U.S., the IDF has become too reliant on its technological superiority. So please stop lionizing Israel and its prowess. It has no basis in reality.
Ding dong, Hezbollah succeeded.
pow pow shiwishshsh …kick to the groin. SHINGO decimates the lil internet wannabe warrior robert ( alleged/supposed lebanese..oh please mr bill!!) the zion!
loved the video ;) you so rock shingo.
Thanks Annie,
That video is a favourite of mine, because it perfectly sums up so much about Israel in Lebanon and the US in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I should have added a lot more detail in my rebuttal, but I was pressed for time. While many excuses have been made for Israel’s ill preparedness for the war (even though they planned it for a year in advance), the side that was really caught by surprise was Hezbollah. Nasrallah admitted that Israel’s military response to the abduction of two of its soldiers and the killing of eight others on the morning of July 12 came as a surprise to the Hezbollah leadership.
So as it turns out, Hezbollah had far less time to prepare than Israel.
Anthony Cordesman published an account of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict and came to the exact opposite conclusions that Biddle and Friedman produced. Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry wrote an amazing 3 part report that covers this and absolutely eviscerates Werdine’s pathetic fairytale.
Part 1 – link to atimes.com
Part 2 – link to atimes.com
Part 3 -http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ14Ak01.html
This is a general summary:
Interviews with Israeli, American and European military experts revealed the following conclusions.
1. That Israel’s offensive in Lebanon did not significantly damaged Hezbollah’s ability to wage war
2. That Israel failed to degrade Hezbollah’s military ability to prevail in a future conflict
3. That contrary to Robert’s claims, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), once deployed in large numbers in southern Lebanon, were not able to prevail over their foes and dictate a settlement favorable to the Israeli political establishment.
From the onset of the conflict to its last operations, Hezbollah commanders successfully penetrated Israel’s strategic and tactical decision-making cycle across a spectrum of intelligence, military and political operations, with the result that Hezbollah scored a decisive and complete victory in its war with Israel.
At no point during the war was any major Hezbollah political figure killed, despite Israel’s constant insistence that the organization’s senior leadership had suffered losses.
According to one US official who observed the war closely, the IAF’s air offensive degraded “perhaps only 7%” of the total military resource assets available to Hezbollah’s fighters in the first three days of fighting and added that, in his opinion, Israeli air attacks on the Hezbollah leadership were “absolutely futile”.
While IDF officials publicly announced success in their offensive, their initial assessment of the damage inflicted on Hezbollah was exaggerated. Qana was the result of Olmert’s agreement to “stretch the target envelope”. That is, the bombing of targets “close in” to southern Lebanon population areas was the result of Israel’s failure in the war – not its success. The failure of Israel’s air campaign to degrade Hezbollah assets significantly in the first 72 hours of the war meant Israel’s chance of winning a decisive victory against Hezbollah became highly unlikely.
“Israel lost the war in the first three days,” one US military expert said. “If you have that kind of surprise and you have that kind of firepower, you had better win. Otherwise, you’re in for the long haul.”
The “target stretching” escalated throughout the conflict; frustrated by their inability to identify and destroy major Hezbollah military assets, the IAF began targeting schools, community centers and mosques – under the belief that their inability to identify and interdict Hezbollah bunkers signaled Hezbollah’s willingness to hide their major assets inside civilian centers.
With regards to intelligence activities, over a period of two years Hezbollah intelligence officials had built a significant signals-counterintelligence capability. Throughout the war, Hezbollah commanders were able to predict when and where Israeli fighters and bombers would strike. Their intelligence officials had perfected their signals-intelligence capability to such an extent that they could intercept Israeli ground communications between Israeli military commanders.
Israel’s decision to launch a ground war to accomplish what its air force had failed to do was made hesitantly and haphazardly. The Israeli Air Force kept claiming that it would succeed from the air – in just one more day, and then another. Senior Israeli officers continued to tell their press contacts that the timing of a ground offensive was a tightly kept secret when, in fact, they didn’t know themselves.
Throughout the ground war, Israel struggled to provide adequate support to its reserve forces: food, ammunition and even water supplies reached units a full 24-48 hours behind a unit’s appearance at its assigned northern deployment zones. This should answer Robert’s question as to what would Hezbollah do if Israel were to send in larger regiments.
Late on the 21st, the White House received a request from Olmert and the IDF for the provision of large amounts of precision-guided munitions. This revealed that the IAF had failed in its mission to degrade Hezbollah military assets significantly during the opening rounds of the war.
The shipment dismayed senior Pentagon officials , as it meant that Israel had expended most of its munitions in the war’s first 10 days – an enormous targeting expenditure that suggested Israel had abandoned tactical bombing of Hezbollah assets . The deployment of US munitions to Israel was reminiscent of a similar request made by Israel in 1973 – at the height of the Yom Kippur War. “This can only mean one thing,” an officer said at the time. “They’re on the ropes.”
US intelligence officials were conducting assessments of the war’s opening days noted that in spite of the sustained Israeli air offensive, Al-Manar was still broadcasting in Beirut, though the IAF had destroyed the broadcast bands of Lebanon’s other major networks. How effective could the Israeli air campaign have been if they couldn’t even knock out a television station’s transmissions?
On July 22, Hezbollah units of the Nasr Brigade fought the IDF street-to-street in Maroun al-Ras. While the IDF claimed at the end of the day that it had taken the town, it had not. Hezbollah fighters had not been dislodged. Many of the Nasr Brigade’s soldiers had spent countless days waiting for the Israeli assault and, because of Hezbollah’s ability to intercept IDF military communications, Israeli soldiers bumped up against units that were well entrenched.
The difference between “pushing” out a force and invading and occupying a town was a clear signal to US military experts that the IDF could enter a town but could not occupy it. IDF troops never fully secured the border area and Maroun al-Ras was never fully taken. Hezbollah ever feel the need to call up its reserves, as Israel had done.
“The entire war was fought by one Hezbollah brigade of 3,000 troops, and no more,” one military expert in the region said. “The Nasr Brigade fought the entire war. Hezbollah never felt the need to reinforce it.”
How better to illustrate the degree to which Hezbollah were in control?
The IDF was “a motley assortment”, one Lebanese official with a deep knowledge of US slang reported. “But that’s what happens when you have spent four decades firing rubber bullets at women and children in the West Bank and Gaza.”
On July 25, Israel also reported that Abu Jaafar, a commander of Hezbollah’s “central sector” on the Lebanese border, was killed “in an exchange of fire” with Israeli troops near the border village of Maroun al-Ras – which had not yet been taken. The report was not true. Abu Jaafar made public comments after the end of the war.
The Israeli military fought its way into Bint Jbeil, calling it “Hezbollah’s terror capital”. The fight for Bint Jbeil went on for nine days. But it remained in Hezbollah hands until the end of the conflict.
To counter Robert’s repeated BS about how Hezbollah only managed to fight with platoon sized units, the Hezbollah tactics were reminiscent of those followed by the North Vietnamese Army during the opening days of the Vietnam conflict – when NVA commanders told their troops that they needed to “ride out the bombs” and then fight the Americans in small unit actions.
On July 26, IDF officials conceded that the previous 24 hours in their fight for Bint Jbail was “the hardest day of fighting in southern Lebanon”. After failing to take the town from Hezbollah in the morning, IDF commanders decided to send in their elite Golani Brigade. In two hours in the afternoon, nine Golani Brigade soldiers were killed and 22 were wounded. Late in the afternoon, the IDF deployed its elite Paratroopers Brigade to Maroun al-Ras, where fighting with elements of the Nasr Brigade was in its third day.
On July 27, in response to the failure of its units to take these cities, the Israeli government agreed to a call-up of three more reserve divisions – a full 15,000 troops – and still they failed to take these towns.
One Middle East expert with access to senior Pentagon officials told us. “They were aghast. They well know the limits of their own power and they know how it can be abused.”
“It seemed to them [USAF officers] that Israel threw away the book in Lebanon. This wasn’t surgical, it wasn’t precise, and it certainly wasn’t smart. You can’t just coat a country in iron and hope to win.”
In some cases, Israeli units were defeated on the field of battle, forced into sudden retreats or forced to rely on air cover to save elements from being overrun. Even toward the end of the war, on August 9, the IDF announced that 15 of its reserve soldiers were killed and 40 wounded in fighting in the villages of Marjayoun, Khiam and Kila – a stunning casualty rate for a marginal piece of real estate.
As for reaching the Litani River, that too turns out have been a case of wishful thinking. Prior to the implementation of the ceasefire, the Israeli political establishment decided that it would “clear drop” Israeli paratroopers in key areas along the Litani River. The decision was apparently made to convince the international community that the rules of engagement for a UN force should extend from the Litani south. Such a claim could not be made unless Israel could credibly claim to have cleared that part of Lebanon to the Litani.
A significant number of Israeli forces were airlifted into key areas just south of the Litani to accomplish this goal. The decision might well have led to a disaster. Most of the Israeli forces airlifted to these sites were immediately surrounded by Hezbollah units and may well have been decisively mauled had a ceasefire not gone into effect. The political decision angered retired IDF officers, one of whom accused Olmert of “spinning the military” – using the military for public relations purposes.
As for body counts, Israel claims that it killed about 400-500 Hezbollah fighters, while its own losses were significantly less. But a more precise accounting shows that Israeli and Hezbollah casualties were nearly even. Lebanon says the number of Shi’ite martyr funerals in the south can now be precisely tabulated at 184.
But by any accounting – whether in rockets, armored vehicles or numbers of dead and wounded – Hezbollah’s fight against Israel must be accorded a decisive military and political victory. Even if it were otherwise (and it is clearly not), the full impact of Hezbollah’s war with Israel over a period of 34 days in July and August has caused a political earthquake in the region.
Hezbollah’s military defeat of Israel was decisive, but its political defeat of the United States – which unquestioningly sided with Israel during the conflict and refused to bring it to an end – was catastrophic and has had a lasting impact on US prestige in the region.
thanks shingo. i really appreciate your contributions to MW.
Robert Werdine: “’When Israelis kill in large numbers, it is either entirely justifiable or inadvertent or excusable or accidental. When Arabs kill in smaller numbers, it is a racist attempt at genocide of a noble people, borne of jealousy and hate.’
Annie, I have never even remotely expressed anything this ludicrous. ”
Yes you have Robert. No , you didn’t use the precise words I put in your mouth, but you have consistently expressed those precise sentiments. Just a short list of your positions:
1) Ben-Gurion and Sharon’s attack on Qibya in 1953, in which they slaughtered scores of innocent Arab villagers, began as a legitimate “reprisal” that unfortunately “lapsed” into a massacre
2) The attack on the Liberty was a mistake, which only the deranged (presumably including the surviving sailors) would challenge.
3) Israel’s deliberate attacks on civilians in Lebanon, your mother’s homeland, in its 1982 invasion had a death toll under 20,000, and other parties killed more Lebanese than theIsraelis, so it couldn’t have been that bad.
4) Rabin’s bombing attacks on Lebanon in 1993 caused the death of only 118 Lebanese civilians, which could not have been deliberate because Israel could have killed many more
5) Israel’s attack on Qana, Lebanon in 1996, which killed another 100+ civilians, was another accident (see USS LIberty)
Let’s just take number 3 on the above list. You claim: “I believe that the Arab-Israeli conflict and every death that has resulted from it is a tragedy.” Yet you refused to condemn Israel for that invasion because however many thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians died at the hand of Israeli firepower was not a sufficient case of mass murder, in comparison to . . . whatever. Or number 4 – lower death toll, but your logic is so laughable I cannot believe you published it under your own name.
How can you defend yourself from my accusation that you bend over backwards to defend Israelis taking human life, while condemning in the strongest terms Arabs who take far fewer lives? Everyone who reads your comments knows what I am saying is true.
David Samel you are succinct and brilliant.
Unlike the loquacious bullshitter mister werdine.
I’ve heard that loquaciousness is a symptom the undersexed suffer from.
Shingo Shingo Shingo!
LOL I love your patient and precise style!
Thanks Taxi. I sure hope your last sentence is wrong. I write a few hundred thousand words a year in my day job. Still, unlike Robert W, I try to make them readable.
LOL David,
Getting paid for writing a few hundred thousand words a year is not the same as incessant talking for the benefit of only oneself.
Here’s a comparison of Mig-15 v F-86 Sabre, by every major function and attribute conceivable: link to militaryfactory.com
Note: at bottom of the comparison list, there’s a link to another page with every minor function and attribute conceivable.
What a fine picture we have here. Shingo (who “rocks”) unsheathing his sword and sallying off to slay the “lil internet wannabe warrior robert alleged/supposed lebanese,” with Annie waving her pompoms and David hooting and heckling from the bleachers. How sweet.
Said Shingo:
“I am arguing that that Hezbollah defeated Israel because Hezbollah achieved their strategic objectives and Israel did not. That’s how victory is defined.”
That is how you are self-servingly defining it in this instance. You are failing to distinguish between a political/diplomatic “victory,” which is an arguable matter of perception (and propaganda), and a military victory, which is a factual, demonstrable occurrence where one belligerent in some way inflicts surrender, retreat, or a reverse on another at the tactical or strategic level. I could similarly spin the fact that Hezbollah has not attempted a similar provocation along the border as an instance of an Israeli “victory” but I think that would be disingenuous in light of the IDF’s operational failures. You, however, admit to no Hezbollah failures and, like most apologists for the terrorist group, have invented a “victory” that comports with your crude fantasies and wholesale rewriting of the historical record.
That Hezbollah won the propaganda war throughout the ME there is no doubt; whether the Sh’ia of south Lebanon, who bore the brunt of the Hezbollah “victory” deem it so, is another matter. (I wonder how many more such “victories” they can survive and have to look forward to). In any event, I was not in my previous post, and am not here, concerned with the spin war on both sides as to who “won” the political war. I am concerned here with the military dimension of the conflict, what really happened, and why.
Hezbollah did not win a military victory; they were granted a reprieve with a half-hearted IDF campaign that was followed by an internationally imposed ceasefire. Your hysterical, almost unhinged hero-worship of Hezbollah and your adolescent bad-mouthing of the IDF do not change this. The IDF, whatever its failures, was not ejected from Lebanon by force by Hezbollah; they left voluntarily following a ceasefire. This is a matter of record. The war ended; it was not fought to a conclusion.
“Hezbollah’s strategic objectives were to:
1. Resist the onslaught of Israel
2. Prevent Israeli ground forces from establishing any foothold in Southern Lebanon
3. Drive Israeli ground forces out of Lebanon
Hezbollah achieved all of these spectacularly and in the wake of that war, their stature rose politically, whereas Kadima tanked.”
(GO TEAM! RAH!)
This first objective, in fact, was a signal failure; the IDF crossed the border in force and penetrated to many areas within, sometimes unopposed.
The second and third were similar failures; the IDF did not do much with the territory they did occupy, but that they were there is beyond doubt, and they remained deployed in force (10-30,000+) north of the border and south of the Litani at the time of the ceasefire.
Said I:
“You call the end result of the war a victory for Hezbollah because they survived. But their ultimate survival, thanks to a half-hearted, confused and scattershot Israeli ground campaign, was never much in danger in the first place.”
Said you:
“Recycling the arguments from the Vietnam era, are we? I love the way the war-mongers like you fight to keep reality out of your analysis, such as it is. …We’ve heard all this SHITE before: whenever the U.S. comes up against a determined foe it can’t handle, like the Vietcong or (to a lesser degree) Afghani extremists, no credit is given to them.”
This is a profoundly stupid statement that betrays your ignorance of both conflicts. The United States never attempted to invade and occupy North Vietnam, and fought a war of attrition—i.e., on terms favorable to the enemy, in the south. The VC, like Hezbollah, were able guerilla fighters well trained in the arts of defensive concealment, ambush, and human shielding. Yet, again like Hezbollah, and despite the advantages inherent in the defense, they too suffered outrageous loss exchange ratios of 10 to 1—sometimes much higher. The NVA and the VC spent nearly three years waging a guerilla war only to see the bulk of their cadres decimated. The VC and NVA specialized in hit and run and ambush; they were wholly deficient in open combat, and like Hezbollah, usually opted for static defense over maneuver, incurring high casualties to little benefit where a sensible withdrawal would have enabled them to fight another day.
In January 1968, they opted for a conventional invasion of the south, and suffered an annihilating military defeat in which they had every advantage of numbers, proximity, and surprise, suffered wildly disproportionate losses, and were defeated in every engagement. By 1969 the VC were all but in tatters, and the NVA again took the conventional invasion route in 1972 only to be repelled by the South Vietnamese Army with the help of American air-power. Our abandonment of the South after 1973, and a generous Soviet and Chinese rearming of the North in 1973-1975, hastened their fall in 1975. The NVA won through patience, a willingness to incur outrageous losses, a flawed American strategy, and the political collapse of the American will to fight, not through combat efficiency or superiority. There is a whole body of scholarship by Guenter Lewy, Lewis Sorely, Mark Moyar, Mark Woodruff, and others that has challenged the conventional wisdom on this subject.
Anyone who underrates the tenacity and combat efficiency of Taliban insurgents is on drugs. They are ruthless, tenacious fighters, and they exploit the advantages of time, space, inhospitable terrain, and weather to excellent effect. How this will end, no one knows.
“After all, is it not understood that one of the reasons Israel prevailed in 1948 was because of the mistakes and deficiencies of the Arab armies?”
Yes. But they outfought and drove back the Arab armies by force; Hezbollah did not do that to the IDF in 2006.
“To claim a half-hearted effort of course, is to miss the following, crucial point: its not altogether clear whether Israel CAN defeat a determined and well armed opponent. But you are immune to this thinking because you assume, without foundation, that there is lurking within the IDF some sleeping giant that merely needs to be awakened.”
You are daydreaming, and merely badmouthing the other team again, sport, not offering a serious analysis. You are, typically, exaggerating the IDF’s poor performance into some permanent disability. Armies, especially those in democracies, tend to undergo rigorous self-examination following failures or defeats, like the Union Army did after the opening battles of the Civil War, the Americans did after Kasserine Pass in 1943, and the Israelis did after October 1973. The Winograd Commission put all of the IDF’s failures under a microscope, and diagnosed them rather severely and at length. Anyone who reads the report can see that.
If there is a next time, the IDF is unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the previous conflict and underestimate Hezbollah. They have also garnered a stock of on the ground intelligence of their bunker network, minefields and ammo stocks. They have not solved the Katyusha problem, but it seems unlikely that anyone can stop a rocket all the time, as opposed to a short range ballistic missile, any more than one can stop an artillery shell. In any event, while the rockets will wreak terror on Israel’s northern population, they are militarily insignificant. A future war will not be won or lost by Hezbollah’s rockets.
There is simply no evidence to support your contention that the war was not a confused, half-hearted effort by the IDF. Matt Matthews, in his scathing assessment of the IDF’s performance in the 2006 war, recounts in detail how Halutz rejected the full scale ground deployment that would follow 48-72hrs ahead of the air assault envisaged in the contingency plan MEY MAROM, and opted for a more limited, piecemeal deployment that was ludicrously ineffective. He also recounts the extent to which Halutz was advised against this course of action.
Said I:
“Israel did not destroy Hezbollah, and Hezbollah did not eject the Israelis from South Lebanon by force; the IDF was still deployed in force south of the Litani at the time of the cease-fire some 30,000-strong. You can spin this as a Hezbollah “victory” all you want, but the truth is that it was a stalemate. You don’t win a “victory” with a ceasefire and the enemy still deployed in force on your territory.”
Said you:
“Yes Robert, the Israeli border is indeed South of the Litani. Ceasefires follow victory and the only Israeli forces on Lebanese territory were the IDF troops running back home having soiled themselves.”
(Another one for the team!)
“Claims of IDF occupying stretches of Lebanese territory were all bluff. Israeli forces barely managed to cross the border, which is why Fisk described what was supposed to be an Israeli mopping up exercise ended up being a Hezbollah one…As Robert Fisk observed, the claims of Israeli forces on occupying stretches of Southern Lebanon were utter rubbish.”
This is nonsense. In the first place, ceasefires do not always “follow victory”; it would depend with the situation. In this case there was merely a cessation of hostilities in a low intensity ground engagement.
Secondly, Fisk did not say what you are having him say. Here is the quote in context:
“Israeli military authorities talked of “cleaning” and “mopping up” operations by their soldiers south of the Litani river but, to the Lebanese, it seems as if it is the Hizbollah that have been doing the “mopping up”. By last night, the Israelis had not even been able to reach the dead crew of a helicopter – shot down on Saturday night – which crashed into a Lebanese valley.
Officially, Israel has now accepted the UN ceasefire that calls for an end to all Israeli offensive military operations and Hizbollah attacks, and the Hizbollah have stated that they will abide by the ceasefire – providing no Israeli troops remain inside Lebanon. But 10,000 Israeli soldiers – the Israelis even suggest 30,000, although no one in Beirut takes that seriously – have now entered the country and every one of them is a Hizbollah target.”
link to independent.co.uk
Fisk simply did not say (or suggest) that “what was supposed to be an Israeli mopping up exercise ended up being a Hezbollah one” or that “the claims of Israeli forces on occupying stretches of Southern Lebanon were utter rubbish.” He was indulging a glib, half-sarcastic observation by local Lebanese on Israel’s misfortunes on the last day of the campaign, and he noted that the IDF still had 10-30,000 troops left in south Lebanon, though he doubted the higher figure. In any event, he did not say what you are having him say and the fact is that there was no retreat and no ejection of the IDF by force, and the IDF was still strongly deployed in south Lebanon at the time of the ceasefire.
“Statements by the Lebanese Army can safely be dismissed, especially seeing as the US puppet Siniora was in office at the time. The Lebanese Army came out of the 2006 conflict looking grossly incompetent and impotent, not to mention, badly bruised from IDF bombing. For the second time in a decade, Hezbollah had done the job they were unable to pull off and they looked weak and irrelevant.”
Are you kidding with this? Hezbollah was the one who got them into the whole fearful mess to begin with! I mean, are you really going to suggest that the Siniora government and Israel would have gone to war by themselves in 2006, and that Hezbollah stepped in to save the day?
Said I: “The indecisive results of the 2006 Lebanon war show, to some extent, that the word “victory,” like “success,” is relative”
Said you: “Seriously Robert, has no one ever told you that when you’re in a hole, you should stop digging? You keep changing the goal posts. First you start out by arguing that Hezbollah were blown away, then it was a draw, and now you’re arguing that “victory” is relative.”
Please. Let’s finish the rest of what I said, shall we? “Politically, we are largely in the realm of interpretations and perceptions here that further argument is unlikely to resolve.” I was merely observing the fluid, partisan nature of the political debate over who “won” the war. I said that neither Hezbollah nor Israel won a victory, and that both lost from the war more than they gained. Hezbollah survived, and scored some propaganda, which must have sounded pretty hollow to the Sh’ia of South Lebanon who were left to reap the rubble-strewn consequences of the “victory.”
Said I: “You, on the other hand, are arguing that Hezbollah inflicted a decisive defeat on Israel at both the tactical and strategic level, and that the IDF’s anemic performance in the war renders Hezbollah the equal of the IDF in conventional warfare. That is simply false.”
Said you: “I never suggested that the Hezbollah is the equal of the IDF in conventional warfare”
Oh? Said you to Jeffrey Blankfort on November 1: “Hezbollah clearly has Israel’s number in conventional warfare…”
link to mondoweiss.net
“the days of conventional warfare ended decades ago. We’ve now entered the realms of 4th generation warfare, and dinosaurs like Israel and the US have failed to adapt.”
Another incredibly ignorant statement. The US and Israel have mastered anti-terrorist and COIN operations to an extent unequaled by any other nation except the British. In fact, as Matt Matthews and others have argued, it was precisely because the IDF had been so consumed with counter-terrorist operations over the previous two decades that their conventional proficiency had declined at the time of the 2006 war.
“The excuse of poor planning etc on the part of the IDF doesn’t hold water in any case. It was widely reported that the Israelis were giving power point presentations in Washington about the plans to attack Lebanon in January of that year. So Israel had spent probably a year planning this exercise of not longer.”
Whatever was presented at this event could not have been the plan that was executed in July 2006 because that plan did not yet exist. The “plan” such as it was, was an improvised variant of an IDF contingency plan consisting of an air assault (code-named ICE BREAKER) to be complemented with a massive ground assault 72 hours later (code named MEY MAROM).
Said I: “To call this a “victory” is to cheapen the word. A victory is decisive and conclusive.
Said you: “No it isn’t, which is why we have the term “decisive victory”. Israel claimed victory in 1967, which was described as “decisive”, and yet the events of 1973 demonstrated that it was not “conclusive”.
You are again mistaking perceived political victories for demonstrable military ones. Militarily, there is no comparison between the ’67 and ’73 wars and the 2006 war. In 1967 Israel decisively defeated three countries on the battlefield, and had conquered whole stretches of their territory at the end of hostilities. In 1973, the Israelis absorbed the Syrian and Egyptian blows, and counterattacked them back to their lines and beyond, repelling and reversing the attack in full.
Israel’s ’67 military victory did not translate into political or diplomatic victory, but it certainly rid them of their “Auschwitz lines” and brought them some much needed space to absorb a future Arab attack. The ’73 was somewhat different in that while Israel held and beat back the Arab offensive, they had been guilty of failures of intelligence, deployment, and underestimation of the enemy that led to the initial reverses and casualties over four times that of the ’67 war. It was a close call. Bottom line: the ’67, ’73, and 2006 wars all ended with the IDF well entrenched on enemy territory; Hezbollah did not drive the IDF from Lebanon by force; the IDF left following a ceasefire.
Said I:
“None of their counterattacks took place at anything above a platoon level..”
Said you:
“Yes you keep repeating this as though it’s supposed to mean something. It apparently has never occurred to you that they stuck to platoon level counterattacks because operating smaller units played to their advantage.”
It does mean something, and even on this scale they were completely ineffective even when they were faced with similar sized IDF deployments in the battles fought. All of the encounters of this war took place at the platoon and squad level, though there were some company sized engagements. This was, at best, war on a local scale. In fact, I’m not even sure the word “war” applies here at all. It was more like a large-scale, gradually escalated anti-terrorist operation, and while Hezbollah’s performance even on this scale was proficient in some ways, it was notably deficient in most others.
Said I: “What would Hezbollah do if the IDF invaded with division and corps sized units? Attack them with platoon level units?”
Said you: “Do what they did last time. Smash them and then kick them out.”
Really zinged me there. Smash them and then kick them out—the Shingo Doctrine. Except they weren’t “kicked out.” They left.
Said you:
“Another thing you’re forgetting is that division and corps sized units rely heavily on securing supply routes, so who’s to say they wouldn’t be the ones being cut off?”
Cut off with what?! Platoon and squad sized units with grenades, mortars and ATGM’s? Please.
Said I: “none of these local counterattacks succeeded even in their in their modest objectives.
Said you: “On the contrary. They were incredible effective, which is why Israel were intimately sent packing back to Israel, and why it was Israel that failed to achieve every one of their objectives.”
Please cite an instance of one of these counterattacks that supposedly sent the IDF “packing back to Israel,” and the circumstances.
“The three of you are clearly out of your Zionist minds. Hezbollah’s territorial objective was to kick Israle out of southern Lebanon, or prevent them from securing territory. Ding dong, Hezbollah succeeded.”
(TOUCHDOWN!)
“Hezbollah are a small militia with limited resources. If they didn’t allocate reserve positions for mobile defenses it’s likely because they didn’t have reserves to throw around or they didn’t need them. The philosophy of fighting and dying where they stood may seem flawed, but again, this plays to the advantage of these fighters.”
Huh? How does fighting and dying in place play to your advantage when you can conduct a gradual, fighting withdrawal that allows you to both bleed the enemy and fight another day? Also, this tactical approach would have enabled them to regroup and concentrate sizable reserves to launch effective counterattacks on the IDF when their supply lines got too thin from advancing. The narrow, built up urban areas and forested rural terrain of South Lebanon would have been ideal for this approach. As Frederick the Great once said, “He who defends everything, defends nothing.”
“Biddle and Friedman are a bunch of clowns. They are so obsessed with outmoded and outdated forms of battle that they missed the elephant in the room with IDF DEFEAT written all over it.”
(Take THAT, Biddle and Freidman!)
Biddle and Freidman’s study of Hezbollah tactics in the 2006 war is studied in staff colleges around the world, and is one of the most detailed studies of Hezbollah’s tactics that we have. The study is not concerned with who “won” the war; it is a copiously documented, thoroughly objective analysis. They examine Hezbollah strategy and tactics and conclude that Hezbollah adopted a hybrid approach partaking of both conventional and insurgent models, evaluates their performance in battle, and their application to future conflicts with non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Queda. Obviously, obsessed as you are with your Hezbollah “victory,” you missed that.
And btw, Anthony Cordesman (whom Norm Finkelstein called a “war whore” for his defense of the IDF in Gaza in 2009) did not focus on Hezbollah tactics in his preliminary study or his book on the 2006 war. He, like Matt Matthews, addressed the IDF’s political, and military failures and does not differ significantly from either Matthews or Biddle and Freidman.
Said you: “And you’re here to tell me that Biddle and Friedman plagiarized all their talking points from you?”
So I cite my sources and paraphrase from them and this is equal to your serial plagiarizing from Franklin Lamb, Alan Hart, Abu Sitta and God knows who else? Please.
Said you: “So please stop lionizing the IDF’s prowess”
I’ll wager that anyone who reads my November 6 post on the IDf’s performance in the war would see that I did no such thing and that compared to your partisan cheerleading, it at least tried to be objective.
link to mondoweiss.net
Your argument, such as it is, really boils down to this: Hezbollah won a “victory” because the IDF is a “pathetic excuse for a military,” are “Dough Boys [who] are accustomed to witnessing success at the flick of a switch of press of a button,” who are “pampered and limp wrested,” who “ran screaming back to their mommy’s and refused to even hold their posts for more than 24 hours without being relived of duty,” who “[ran] back home having soiled themselves…sobbing as they went,” and whose “bashing of defenseless Palestinians” has made them “soft and weak.”
Furthermore, Hezbollah “kicked the shit out of the Israeli forces,” who were “simply defeated by a tougher, smarter and more determined enemy,” and who were “too Westernized and thus soft,” who “play video games and surf on the net more than they drill,” and who thus “got their asses handed to them in 2006.”
Other than expressing your unhinged hero-worship of Hezbollah and your bottomless hatred of Israel and the IDF, your post, which gives the cynical veneer of a debunking, conceals a morass of mendacity, irrelevancies, and non-responses. You have mastered the genre of the pseudo-response, and are a practitioner of what I call the Commissar version of history. It is the history where people and events are erased from pictures and history and other people and events are inserted and embellished to emphasize some crude ideology or political agenda. The Soviets excelled in this. Stalin had numerous old comrades of his purged and literally erased from countless photographs and books as if they never existed, and Soviet students were taught, for example, that at Trafalgar in 1805 Admiral Horatio Nelson stole his strategy from some obscure Russian admiral named Ushakov, that there apparently was no battle of Waterloo in 1815 since Napoleon was defeated by Russia in 1812 and 1813, and that inventions like the telephone, the automobile, the tank, and the airplane all originated in Russia. Your hysterical rewrites of 1948, 1967, the Liberty attack, 2006 et al, are all in this ignoble tradition.
The truth of what happened and why in 2006 matters. As I have said before, all of this is of more than just academic interest. What we say here matters little, but what matters is the conclusions that are drawn from the 2006 war in the Dahiya and throughout Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. I fear that the rosy and exaggerated views expressed by you and others on Hezbollah’s “victory” are more widely held and will translate into a contempt for perceived Israeli weakness, and will make a future Iran/Hezbollah provocation more, rather than less likely, though there is reason to believe that Nasrallah is not so foolish to believe his own propaganda. Next time, the war will be for real. Of course this whole danger could disappear overnight if Hezbollah would disarm and behave like any other political party, abandon their violent Jihad against Israel, and for Lebanon and Israel to go on living in peace beside one another. But this seems as remote as ever.
werdine,
The whole world, including the idf war-theater eggheads admitted to defeat by the hizb so STFU!
Remember them so-called cousins of yours in Bint J’bail, well they sure kicked the ass outta your Apartheid israel! Just go ask them, you know, go ask your shia cousins, they’ll show you a real fine looking markava cemetery just down the hill from your beloved Bint J’bail!
Did you read this authoritative analysis on the 2006 war:
link to atimes.com
link to atimes.com
link to atimes.com
Well what the heck you waiting for? Read up and weep! The pentagon itself realized that israel had lost after a mere THREE FRIGGING DAYS of fighting the hizb!
And stop regurgitating your endless nonsense – time waster!
“…because
Israel did not win the war, it is judged to have lost.” link to brookings.edu
Israel was expected to win; US was really disappointed. US, like Israel, always plans an unfair fight. Maybe both should try some new approach? US grunts use Israeli-made bullets; Israel’s big military hardware is all US-made, and all gifts from US taxpayers. The big thing: not new ground tactics, stronger armored vehicles, more effective anti-communication devices, but how to stifle swelling of World opinion, and especially Dick & Jane’s, against the US-Israeli imperial mission?
Robert,
The only thing one can describe as half hearted would be your own argument. You’re desperation for us to come to a symbolic agreement that Israel didn’t really suffer a defeat to Hezbollah is pitiful. There are numerous terms one could use to describe Israel’s effort in 2006 – deranged, sadistic, manic, irrational – but half hearted isn’t one of them. A half hearted effort would not have lead to them blowing entire stockpiles of ordinance in the first 72 hours or aerial bombardment. Israel threw everything they had at Hezbollah short of using nukes, and achieved nada.
Your phoney indignation at “unhinged hero-worship” doesn’t fool anyone, especially given your unbridled sycophancy and devotion to the IDF. One minute you’re squealing about “adolescent bad mouthing” of your precious IDF, while the next, gratuitously labelling Hezbollah as a terrorist group. You’re like some tragic soccer mom demanding that the score didn’t count because her son’s team were off their game and the other side were just lucky. Losing sides never claim they gave it their best, which is often true because a losing means your plans are in disarray. The argument that Israel’s efforts were half hearted is just a lame excuse for being out fought and out smarted.
In spite of your protestations, the universally accepted view of what defines success is based on achieving one’s strategic objectives. Your nostalgic interpretation involving admissions of defeat or surrender, is beyond pathetic. Your ideas are both anachronistic and irrelevant, especially in the small arenas that comprise modern warfare. If we take Cast Lead for an example, Hamas never surrendered. There is no evidence the Israelis forced Hamas to retreat and reverse (since they had nowhere to go), let along change their tactics and strategy. One could argue that Cast Lead was not fought to any obvious conclusion either. Does that mean Cast Lead ended in a stalemate too?
Even if we have it your way, Hezbollah were indeed victorious because:
a) they forced Israel to retreat and reverse (one of the strategic objectives that they achieved) – Israel were not able to hold any territory
b) they forced Israel to change their tactics and strategy numerous times (easily demonstrated)
No political or diplomatic victory is possible without at tangible victory on the ground and no victory exists without a political or diplomatic victory.
Actually, you already did. In fact, not only was this your first line or argument, but such a talking point is standard among Israeli propagandists trying to spin the 2006 war as anything other than an Israeli defeat – and yes, it is disingenuous. If you’re going to sign on to be an Israeli shill and propagandist, it pays to remember what you’ve already posted.
While I’m sure Hezbollah would admit they made mistakes (who doesn’t in war?), it’s rather odd that a cheerleader for the losing side would invest such effort to highlight the short comings of winning side. One has to bear in mind that in spite of their humiliation, Israel were far better prepared for this conflict than was Hezbollah, who had only minutes to react to Israel’s attack on Southern Lebanon. The Winograd Commission Report stated categorically that Israel initiated the war, and as I explained previously, Israel had been marketing the war for a good 6 -12 months prior to the attack. In other words, Israel had a least a 12 month head start so in light of this, Hezbollah’s achievements are all the more remarkable.
The argument that the suffering incurred by the Shiite population is supposed to prove anything smacks of desperation on your part. The civilian population of Great Britain would have been in no hurry to enter any more wars after WII, but that would hardly demonstrate that Britain were defeated by Germany.
It was not Hezbollah that were granted a “reprieve”, it was Israel. First of all, Israel blew their wad in the first 72 hours and ran out of ordinance by the 10th day. Upon Israel’s request for emergency supplies, the Joint Chief’s of Staff in Washington concluded that Israel’s bombing campaign was futile and that Israel was “on the ropes”. Israel were also looking to interrupt Hezbollah’s weapons supplies and focused attacks on Qana, believing that this was a transit point. It turned out that no weapons were being moved because Hezbollah’s front lines were already stocked with sufficient ammo to last them at least another 3 months. On July 28, Mossad officials leaked that Hezbollah might be able to carry on the conflict for several more months. Meanwhile, Israeli forces on the front lines were waiting 24 – 48 hours for supplies to reach them.
In light of this evidence, it’s obvious that had the war lasted much longer, the outcome would have been devastating for the IDF.
Your insistence that the ceasefire was imposed on Israel is complete rubbish. There were repeated calls for ceasefire at the UN, and not only did Israel dismiss every one of them, they were predictably blocked by the US anyway. The US would have continued doing so had Israel been getting their way. The ceasefire resolution was passed only because Israel needed to get out of the mess without suffering more losses.
While the military dimensions make for interesting reading, not only does your analysis smack of pro Israeli BS and justification (ie. It is false), but at the end of the day all that counts is the outcome. Alistair Cooke’s analysis makes an utter mockery of Biddle and Friedman.
On the contrary. Hezbollah succeeded. Crossing the border is no big deal – anyone can do that, especially from 30,000 feet up in the air. Hezbollah simply don’t have the means to fight an aerial war, so their lack of participation can hardly be described as a failure. The onslaught comprised of 72 hours of massive bombardment where Israel threw everything they had at Hezbollah and achieved nothing. Israel were forced to scramble to Washington and ask for more bombs. What more can one say when the IAF were floundering to such an extent that they were even lying to the IDF to save face? Surely a huge success for Hezbollah.
Israel never established a foothold anywhere in Southern Lebanon, so again, mission accomplished for Hezbollah.
Lastly, Israel were sent packing, so mission accomplished for Hezbollah.
Yes the IDF were South of the Litani because that is where you find the Israeli border. One could have 2 out of the 4 wheels of an APC on the Lebanese side of the border and claim to be in Lebanese territory. And need I remind you, Israel never even recovered the Merkava tank that was destroyed during the initial capture of the IDF soldiers. You at least deserve credit for backing away from your earlier claims that Israel made progress across the Litani.
The very nature of occupations means they are always fought on terms favourable to the enemy. How you can suggest that the VC would have benefitted by withdrawal to fight another day is laughable. They fought right up until the last US helicopter airlifted the last passenger from the roof top of the US Embassy. At the end of the day, the US has their asses handed to them just as Israel did in 2006. And in spite of your obsession with body counts, that’s never been how victories were judged.
I agree, though I had no idea drug abuse was such an epidemic in Washington. Of course, we know how it will end. The US is going to leave with their tales between their legs, just as they did in Iraq.
So did Hezbollah on many occasions. On others, they held their ground.
Tragic, but true. The IDF is a one trick pony that has come to rely entirely on high tech weaponry. The era of the Union Army are long gone. The armies of the US and Israel forces are inflexibly structured around what they perceive to be their unchallenged dominance, so those are the areas they will continue to exploit. That is why the US are rolling out planes like the F35, which is so expensive that the US will end up with fewer attack aircraft than they previously have, and that US pilots will log far fewer hours learning to fly them.
The trouble is, the US and Israeli forces are still based around WWII era warfare and have failed to adapt to 4th generation warfare. No amount of self-examination will reverse Israel’s exclusive reliance on air power. The IDF is guaranteed to repeat the mistakes of 2006. How do we know that? Because the mistakes they made in 2006 are the same mistakes they made between 1982 and 2000. In fact, as proof that Israel learned nothing in 2006, they even promised to apply the failed Dahiya doctrine in 2009 to Gaza. The IDF is a one trick pony.
As for Israel’s intelligence about Hezbollah’s bunker network, Hezbollah have always been one step ahead. Prior to 2006, Hezbollah were fully aware of Israeli spies in the area and turned most of them. This lead to phony intel getting back to Israel. Furthermore, Hezbollah ensure that even their top commanders do not know about the whereabouts of more than small components of the tunnel network. This level of security is practically impenetrable.
That’s debatable, though the same is certainly true for air power. The rockets in 2006 were not very effective and Hezbollah stuck to short range rockets. The next time will be different. When rockets start landing in Tel Aviv and the port/refinery at Haifa, you can be sure that it will have a serious impact on the war, because it will deliver a significant blow to Israel’s psyche. The minute Tel Aviv starts getting hammered, there goes any pretence of Israel’s deterrence capability.
Matt Matthes’ analysis is completely devoid of reality. While Halutz has become the scapegoat, the reality is that the IAF failed to do their job in the 72 hours they were assigned. The plans for the massive ground invasion (after 72 hours) were shelved because the IAF could not give the green light even though they claimed success. They kept insisting that they needed another 24 hours, and then another etc. When the IDF spokesmen insisted that the date for their ground invasion was a tightly guarded secret, the truth was that they themselves had no idea when it was to take place.
None were strongly deployed. You’re talking absolute rubbish just as you did when you suggested that IDF commando units had inflicted significant damage on Hezbollah. The reason any remained was that they were moving slowly to avoid being ambushed by Hezbollah as they left.
Rubbish. Siniora was exposed for having been in on the whole deal from the start. As a puppet of Washington, he gave the go ahead for the attack on Hezbollah, and thus made the decision to sacrifice the Sh’ia in Southern Lebanon. The plan went pear shaped for him when Israel (being true to their typically irrational and psychotic selves), began bombing Lebanese military bases, while simultaneously demanding that they (the Lebanese army) real in Hezbollah. I recall one great comment that described this as a piano teacher whacking a student’s knuckles with a ruler until they got the piece right. Israel also undermined Siniora when they began bombing Christian neighbourhoods to the north, which turned out to be another monumental blunder and it served to align the Marionite Christians behind Hezbollah – quite an achievement!
Yes, it was a bad campaign for Israel, but there is no cure for rank stupidity.
The results are conclusive and contrary to your argument, Hezbollah’s star has risen ever since, which explains why they are in power in Lebanon while Kadima has been relegated to the political irrelevance. And while you go to great pains to pretend to care about the Sh’ ia in the South of Lebanon, Hezbollah also won a massive popular support for their outstanding restoration efforts. The events coincided with the fallout of the Hurricane Katrina debacle in the US and the contrast was enormous. Having witnessed the speed and efficiency with which Hezbollah we able to rebuild Southern Lebanon, some commentators in the US suggested they be invited to the US to do the work that Washington were clearly too inept to carry out.
You really are wasting your talents here Werdine. You should be writing satire for the Washington Post.
First of all, COIN was recognized as a failure in Washington over a year ago – though never acknowledged in public. Secondly, the British were lousy at it – just ask Menachem Begin. Thirdly, if Israel were so good at it, they wouldn’t have had their asses kicked to such a degree in 2006. Mind you, if COIN was indeed the IDF strategy in 2006, it might explains why they failed so miserably.
link to democracyarsenal.org
Of course it did. It was widely reported that Bush and Blair were informed of Israel’s plans to attack Hezbollah well before the cross border skirmish, so the plan was not improvised at all. The response by Israel (devoid of any attempt to rescue or recover the captured IDF soldiers) was to bomb Southern Lebanon in the hopes of turning the Lebanese community against Hezbollah – a strategy that Israel had in place since 2000. That’s not an improvised strategy, but one aimed at inciting internal strife in Lebanon. Plans that involve a 72 hour bombing campaign, followed by massive ground assault take months of organization.
This is demonstrably false on multiple counts. First of all, Israel were staring at defeat and turned to Washington to deliver the biggest airlift of arms to them in history. Secondly, Egypt actually took back a significant amount of territory. Interestingly, after the 2006 SOS to Washington for ammunition supplies, military experts began comparing the situation to the predicament Israel were in 1973 – ie. Israel were in trouble.
The 1967 lines were not so much the “Auschwitz Lines” as they were the lines of lamentation. Needless to say, they territory they stole in 1967 didn’t help them at all in 1973, especially seeing as Israel never intended to use the space to absorb any attack so much as settle it (illegally of course). 1967 was the last war Israel ever won. They were never entrenched in enemy territory in 2000 or 2006; on both occasions Israel were driven home with their tales between their legs under the guise of a ceasefire agreement.
Demonstrably false.
In Mroun al-Ras, the IDF claimed it had taken the town on July 22, and described it as it’s first foothold, but neither were true. The IDF failed to flank Hezbollah who destroyed several AV’s. The IDF managed to enter the town but never hold it. Whenever battles with similar sized deployments took place (such as Bint Jbeil), the IDF were forced to call to reinforcements, pulling in the Golani Brigade, then it’s elite paratroopers (all against one Hezbollah platoon) and still failing to take any town. Failing this, teh IDF then called up 15,000 reserves.
Things were going so badly for the IDF that by July 25th, they gave up even trying to take any territory and settled for creating a “security zone” in Southern Lebanon, though even that failed. The IDF commanders complained bitterly about the lack of discipline, even among it’s best-trained soldiers. The reserves were a complete joke. The fight in Bint Jbeil went for 9 days but remained in Hezbollah’s hands till the end. The final signs of defeat were signalled when Israel began dumping cluster bomblets over Southern Lebanon, in what can only be described as the ultimate act of spite, viciousness and sour grapes.
Occupiers like Israel doesn’t leave unless they are kicked out. They prefer to claim they left to soften the humiliation.
Yes, that’s how the Taliban are doing it in Afghanistan, and doing it with even less than that. As I pointed out, the divisions were already experiencing 24-48 hour delays in receiving supplies, and that was without Hezbollah lifting a finger. Alistair Cooke cites numerous examples of Israelis being sent packing back to Israel in his 3 part report.
First of all, the supply lines were already failing even without the IDF advancing. Secondly, Hezbollah were launching very effective counterattacks on the IDF with their “platoon sized” units and lastly, they were doing so without requiring any such reserves. Allowing IDF to advance would have played into IDF hands due to Israel’s air capabilities, not to mention relinquishing territory that overlooked the territory to the south.
That would explain why the US is being brought to it’s kneed in Afghanistan. Biddle and Friedman’s analysis is replete with false information. Cordersman did not claim to focus on Hezbollah tactics in his 2006 study. Hezbollah would not speak to him, though he did conclude that everything Israel had claimed was false.
Sounds good to me. How much do you want to wager? Let’s put this to a vote among the members of MW to see how many regard any post you ever made here as objective and anything less than sycophantic cheerleading for Israel. Let’s bear in mind that you’re so called objective analysis began with baseless statements about Hezbollah hiding among civilians and civilians populations, as well as denigrating Hezbollah for being cowards – it has since slowly morphed into your begrudging admiration for the bravery of their fighters.
Sometimes your statements are so devoid of awareness that I can’t help wondering if you are being sarcastic.
You’re an insufferable bore Werdine. There is no limit to the extent of your lies, and your capacity for self deception. I haven’t decided whether it is comical or tragic when a fraud such as yourself demonstrates the sheer vulgarity to accuse those who see right through him of being practitioners of Commissar versions of history. On topics of Israel’s wars, deliberate expulsion of Palestinians, the deliberate attack on the USS Liberty, the Iraq war/WMD, and the debunked IAEA report, you have regurgitated the pro Western and pro Israeli version of events to the letter; even long after those arguments have been comprehensively refuted and exposed for the lies that they are.
You’re clearly becoming increasingly unhinged and trying every manoeuvre in the book to try and pretend that 2006 was no big deal. First you pointed to the sadistic and barbaric bombing of Southern Lebanon as proof of who won the war, then you changed tact to argue that the outcome was inconclusive, then you changed tact again by arguing that it wasn’t really a war anyway (ie. merely a series of small skirmishes), only to finally settle on the position that this is all academic anyway, and doesn’t mean anything.
Your level of bombast, deception and volume of your bloviating diatribes increases proportionately with your level of frustration and desperation when your arguments fail, so in spite of having to wade through the morass of your bile, I do gain some satisfaction for my patience and persistence. Indeed, the truth of what took place in 2006 is what matters, but you show little regard for it. While you pretend to fear that Hezbollah will make the same mistake that Israel made in 2006 (underestimating their enemy), anyone with any understanding of Hezbollah know that this is would be out of character. Since 2006, it has been Israel who have violated the ceasefire on no less than 2,500 occasions (as reported by UNIFIL), not Hezbollah. It is Israel that have continued to conduct cross border raids to kidnap Lebanese civilians, not Hezbollah. The stupidity and recklessness that you project onto Hezbollah is being demonstrated every day by the military you worship so wantonly.
If there is another conflict, it won’t be Hezbollah who start it, just as it wasn’t Hezbollah who started it in 2006.
The 2006 war was certainly for real. Much as you try to convince yourself and others that it wasn’t, Israel threw everything they had at Hezbollah and were exposed as weak and inept. Israel knew it and so did Washington. The reverberations were enormous. I recall that there debates taking place in Washington as to whether Israel could even be considered a competent military asset in the future, and whether Israel could be counted on to handle Hezbollah in the event that the US chose to attack Iran. In fact, Israel themselves acknowledged the significance of 2006 when they made the mind numbing claim that the turkey shoot in Gaza (ie. Cast Lead) somehow served to re-establish Israel’s deterrence capability – one that they clearly believed they had lost in 2006. That has to go down as one of the most obscene conclusions one could imagine. It would be akin to the Italian mob being beaten by their Russian rivals in a gangland war and then mugging a group of school kids to reclaiming their street cred.
For Israel to place that much significance on Cast Lead, you have to believe that 2006 was very much for real.
Sure it would Werdine, but of course, there was no Hezbollah when Israel invaded Lebanon (on false pretences) in 1982 and proceeded to massacre 20,000 Lebanese. Before that, Israel started every war since 1948 (with the exception of 1973). The call is always for everyone but Israel to disarm and we know why, Israel cannot tolerate the very suggestion of a fair fight. Then again, in the mind of a crazed Zionist Likudnik like yourself, there is no danger so long as it doesn’t affect your own brethren South of the border.
Shingo,
Said you:
“Even if we have it your way, Hezbollah were indeed victorious because:
a) they forced Israel to retreat and reverse (one of the strategic objectives that they achieved) – Israel were not able to hold any territory
b) they forced Israel to change their tactics and strategy numerous times (easily demonstrated)”
A) For the last time, they did not force Israel to “to retreat and reverse”; the IDF was still occupying stretches of South Lebanon and were deployed in force there at the time of the ceasefire and, for all of your cheerleading blather and IDF-badmouthing, you have not come even close to proving otherwise.
B) The IDF strategy, such as it was, was a work in progress; it was an improvised, incoherent muddle that was aggravated by inapt tactics to execute it.
Hezbollah survived. Their “objectives” such as they were, were achieved outside the arena of the battlefield, by a tardy, scattershot IDF ground deployment which had barely even got moving within a few days of the ceasefire, and an IDF withdrawal mandated by the ceasefire itself. As I said before, to call this a “victory” is to cheapen the word.
As Daniel Byman and Steven Simon have written in “The No Win Zone: An After Action Report From Lebanon”:
“There should be no mistake that Hizballah suffered serious losses. Though exact figures are hard to come by, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) claim to have killed about 500 of Hizballah’s most trained fighters. Many of those who remain were at least pushed–more or less–out of the area south of the Litani, at least temporarily. Air strikes and infantry sweeps probably eliminated about half of the longer-range rockets that were not expended, as well as a large number of launchers. Hizballah’s elaborate infrastructure in south Lebanon was disrupted, and many of its facilities in the Beirut suburbs were razed. By the time Hizballah was pushing for a cease-fire, which winners do not normally do, its fighters were trapped in a box between the Israeli border, a blockaded coast, blown bridges and roads leading north, and a large IDF force in Marjayoun, poised to march up the Bekaa to the east. Both Hassan Nasrallah and Mahmoud Koumati, the second in command of Hizballah’s political arm, have told interviewers that Hizballah was completely surprised by the ferocity of Israel’s response to the raid. Nasrallah, in a rare confessional moment, claimed that if he had known the Israelis were going to react so violently, he would not have ordered the kidnapping.”
link to findarticles.com
Said you:
“Israel threw everything they had at Hezbollah short of using nukes, and achieved nada…The argument that Israel’s efforts were half hearted is just a lame excuse for being out fought and out smarted.”
As I have recounted numerous times, the IDF first opted for an improvised air assault punctuated with small-bore border forays (i.e., “standoff attacks”). Then, when that was found to be inadequate, they deployed company and battalion sized assaults to raid and engage Hezbollah strongholds (extended standoff). Then, when that was found wanting, they poured more forces into the mix within days of the ceasefire to utter negligible effect. This is throwing “everything they had?”
Said the Winograd Commission:
“After a long period of using only standoff fire power and limited ground activities, Israel initiated a large scale ground offensive, very close to the Security Council resolution imposing a cease fire. This offensive did not result in military gains and was not completed. These facts had far-reaching implications for us, as well as for our enemies, our neighbors, and our friends in the region and around the world.”
In my Nov. 6 post, I argued that the IDF could only have achieved their strategic goals through a full scale combined arms operation, and, failing that, should have limited themselves to smaller objectives. This is echoed in the Commission report:
“The decision made in the night of July 12th to react (to the kidnapping) with immediate and substantive military action, and to set for it ambitious goals – limited Israel’s range of options. In fact, after the initial decision had been made, Israel had only two main options, each with its coherent internal logic, and its set of costs and disadvantages. The first was a short, painful, strong and unexpected blow on Hezbollah, primarily through standoff fire-power. The second option was to bring about a significant change of the reality in the South of Lebanon with a large ground operation, including a temporary occupation of the South of Lebanon and ‘cleaning’ it of Hezbollah military infrastructure.
The choice between these options was within the exclusive political discretion of the government; however, the way the original decision to go to war had been made; the fact Israel went to war before it decided which option to select, and without an exit strategy ˆ all these constituted serious failures, which affected the whole war. Responsibility for these failures lay, as we had stressed in the Interim Report, on both the political and the military echelons.
After the initial decision to use military force, and to the very end of the war, this period of ‘equivocation’ continued, with both the political and the military echelon not deciding between the two options: amplifying the military achievement by a broad military ground offensive, or abstaining from such a move and seeking to end the war quickly. This ‘equivocation’ did hurt Israel.
Despite awareness of this fact, long weeks passed without a serious discussion of these options, and without a decision one way or the other ˆ between them.
In addition to avoiding a decision about the trajectory of the military action, there was a very long delay in the deployment necessary for an extensive ground offensive, which was another factor limiting Israel’s freedom of action and political flexibility: Till the first week of August, Israel did not prepare the military capacity to start a massive ground operation.
As a result, Israel did not stop after its early military achievements, and was ‘dragged’ into a ground operation only after the political and diplomatic timetable prevented its effective completion. The responsibility for this basic failure in conducting the war lies at the doorstep of both the political and the military echelons.”
To Repeat:
–“After a long period of using only standoff fire power and limited ground activities, Israel initiated a large scale ground offensive, very close to the Security Council resolution imposing a cease fire. This offensive did not result in military gains and was not completed.”
–“… to the very end of the war, this period of ‘equivocation’ continued”
–“ there was a very long delay in the deployment necessary for an extensive ground offensive”
–“ Till the first week of August, Israel did not prepare the military capacity to start a massive ground operation.”
–“[Israel] was ‘dragged’ into a ground operation only after the political and diplomatic timetable prevented its effective completion.”
As Max Boot, who has written expertly on the 2006 War and on fourth generation warfare in general, has written,
“Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a former mayor of Jerusalem, and his defense minister, Amir Peretz, a former trade union leader—both national security neophytes—approved a war plan presented by Halutz, the first air force general to lead the IDF. The plan initially called for fighting Hezbollah only from the air. This was reminiscent of the small wars the United States waged in the 1990s (Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sudan), when it relied on bombs and missiles fired from afar and ran away as soon as it suffered any casualties (Somalia). The Israelis quickly discovered what the United States had learned: Airpower divorced from ground action seldom produces decisive results.
Yet Olmert was so eager to avoid a ground war at first that he ordered only limited raids into Lebanon. These met strong resistance from Hezbollah fighters, who proved better armed and more motivated than the Arab foes that Israel had gotten used to defeating handily. Olmert was forced to call up the reserves, but it soon became apparent that their training and equipment were not up to snuff. Complaints about inadequate logistics were rampant, with many soldiers grousing that they weren’t even given enough to eat while in Lebanon.
Partly because of delays in mobilizing reservists, but mainly because of his own caution, the prime minister did not order an all-out assault to secure all of Lebanon south of the Litani River until just 48 hours before a U.N.-brokered cease-fire took effect on August 14. The premature end of hostilities kept the IDF from wiping out Hezbollah’s terrorist army. Hundreds of rockets continued falling on northern Israel every day right up until the end…. The fact remains, for all the losses that IDF tanks and infantry suffered at the hands of Hezbollah fighters armed with sophisticated anti-tank missiles, Israeli soldiers won every tactical engagement. There is no doubt that, if given the necessary time and freedom, the IDF would have eviscerated Hezbollah.”
So there you have it. The IDF did not throw “everything it had” at Hezbollah, and engaged with a confused, tardy and piecemeal deployment. The evidence supporting this fact is simply overwhelming, and has been copiously documented with an abundance of after action reports, evidence and testimony. The limited and brief ground war, such as it was, was interrupted and not fought to a conclusion. Not even close. There was no “victory” for either side; the fighting was at a stalemate when it was interrupted. The IDF did not destroy Hezbollah, and Hezbollah did not prevent the IDF from crossing the border, did not win a single ground engagement, and did not eject the IDF from Lebanon by force. This is a fact.
An unchangeable, immutable, unalterable fact. Deal with it.
Said I: “I could similarly spin the fact that Hezbollah has not attempted a similar provocation along the border as an instance of an Israeli “victory”…
Said you: “Actually, you already did. In fact, not only was this your first line or argument, but such a talking point is standard among Israeli propagandists trying to spin the 2006 war as anything other than an Israeli defeat – and yes, it is disingenuous. If you’re going to sign on to be an Israeli shill and propagandist, it pays to remember what you’ve already posted.”
Swell. Let’s remember. In my October 31 post I remarked,
“For the IDF, the war unquestionably exposed failures in planning, intelligence, counterintelligence, command, mobilization, execution, and logistics. But where was this Hezbollah “victory?” Hezbollah did not “win” a single engagement they fought. They sat by helplessly while the IAF pulverized their equipment and infrastructure, lost 500 of their best fighters and were driven back in every ground engagement, fired off most of the missiles not destroyed by the IAF to negligible effect, cowardly and deliberately targeted Israeli civilians and used Lebanese civilians and civilian areas for shielding purposes, booby trapped homes, used mosques, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure for military purposes, and instigated a war that brought death and destruction to South Lebanon unlike anything seen since the Civil War. This was a victory?”
Every word of this is true.
In my November 6 post I elaborated in detail on what I believe were the failures and deficiencies of the IDF and, to a lesser extent, those of Hezbollah. In my November 15 post I elaborated in detail on what I believe were the failures and deficiencies of Hezbollah. I have argued all along that neither side won a victory, and that the efforts on both sides to argue otherwise is disingenuous.
Said you: “The Winograd Commission Report stated categorically that Israel initiated the war, and as I explained previously, Israel had been marketing the war for a good 6 -12 months prior to the attack. In other words, Israel had a least a 12 month head start so in light of this, Hezbollah’s achievements are all the more remarkable.”
First of all, you are taking this statement from the Report ludicrously out of context, and you know it.
Said the Report, in words that will thrill your pro-Hezbollah heart:
“11. Overall, we regard the 2nd Lebanon war as a serious missed opportunity. Israel initiated a long war, which ended without its clear military victory. A semi-military organization of a few thousand men resisted, for a few weeks, the strongest army in the Middle East, which enjoyed full air superiority and size and technology advantages.”
The Report then continues two sections down explicitly noting that hostilities were initiated in response to the kidnapping incident:
“13. The decision made in the night of July 12th to react (to the kidnapping) with immediate and substantive military action, and to set for it ambitious goals…”
And if you have trouble with that, then listen to UNIFIL:
“The situation in the UNIFIL area of operation remained tense and volatile, although it was generally quiet during most of the reporting period. This situation completely changed on 12 July, when the current hostilities broke out and the area was plunged into the most serious conflict in decades.
The crisis started when, around 9 a.m. local time, Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the withdrawal line (the so-called Blue Line) towards Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel and attacked an IDF patrol. Hizbollah captured two IDF soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more. The captured soldiers were taken into Lebanon. Subsequent to the attack on the patrol, a heavy exchange of fire ensued across the Blue Line between Hizbollah and IDF. While the exchange of fire stretched over the entire length of the Line, it was heaviest in the areas west of Bint Jubayl and in the Shab’a farms area. Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns south of the Blue Line. Israel retaliated by ground, air and sea attacks.”
link to domino.un.org
Secondly, Halutz explicitly rejected the full scale ground deployment that would follow 48-72hrs ahead of the air assault envisaged in the contingency plans ICE BREAKER and MEY MAROM, in favor of his improvised version, which he adjusted continuously throughout the campaign. This is a matter of record.
Said the Commission on the confusion of strategy and planning:
“12. In the period we examined in the Final Report – from July 18, 2006, to August 14, 2006- again troubling findings were revealed, some of which had already been mentioned in the Interim Report:
• We found serious failings and shortcomings in the decision-making processes and staff-work in the political and the military echelons and their interface.
• We found serious failings and flaws in the quality of preparedness, decision-making and performance in the IDF high command, especially in the Army.
• We found serious failings and flaws in the lack of strategic thinking and planning, in both the political and the military echelons.
• We found severe failings and flaws in the defence of the civilian population and in coping with its being attacked by rockets.
• These weaknesses resulted in part from inadequacies of preparedness and strategic and operative planning which go back long before the 2nd Lebanon war.”
Said you: “Lastly, Israel were sent packing, so mission accomplished for Hezbollah.”
(HOMERUN!)
Said I: “The United States never attempted to invade and occupy Northern Vietnam, and fought a war of attrition – i.e., on terms favourable to the enemy, in the south.
Said you: “The very nature of occupations means they are always fought on terms favourable to the enemy.
I am not “obsessed” with body counts and the US was not occupying North Vietnam; they were deployed in the south to help the ARVN combat the VC insurgency. I agree that strategically, body counts are a misleading metric for success, especially against an enemy prepared to incur outrageous losses. Tactically, however, they are an important indicator of combat proficiency and small-unit leadership. I was discussing the NVA and VC’s poor proficiency in open combat, and the outrageous loss-exchange ratios they suffered. After Ia Drang in 1965, for example, General Giap observed that it would take several NVA regiments to counter one single American one.
The obsession with body counts in fact was the critical mistake of Westmoreland’s search and destroy strategy: it was attrition centered. Units would be sent in to sweep out some nest of VC, wipe them out, and more VC would then come sallying down the Ho Chi Minh Trail to take their place. Westmorland’s problems were a) the Ho Chi Minh Trail, b) that he was adopting a conventional, head-on approach to an insurgency, c) that he was neglecting population security, and d) that he was neglecting the proficiency of the ARVN as a fighting force and refusing to allocate manpower and resources to improve them. All of this was a gift to the enemy.
General Creighton Abrams, Westmorland’s replacement in 1968, took a radically different approach. Abrams, who knew the perilous state of the NVA after Tet (and the even more perilous state of the VC), was determined to capitalize on their disarray. The mauling of the VC and the NVA after Tet allowed him to direct American forces into smaller units and deploy them in tandem with ARVN units in enforcing population security, much as Petraeus was to do in 2007-2008. The security situation in the villages in 1969-1972, as in Iraq in 2007-2008, improved dramatically and the NV were forced to limit themselves to small scale harassing attacks. Abrams complemented this with successful forays into NVA sanctuaries in Cambodia, compelling the NVA to fight on the defensive to disproportionate losses in men and equipment, and once again forcing them to resume the conventional offensive in 1972 to regain the initiative, again to no success.
“How you can suggest that the VC would have benefitted by withdrawal to fight another day is laughable. They fought right up until the last US helicopter airlifted the last passenger from the roof top of the US Embassy.”
The first statement is utterly irrelevant to the second. Regarding the first statement, I was merely arguing that the NVA and the VC, when they fought conventional engagements, usually opted for frontal attacks and static defense, both of which wasted manpower to little effect. You have a problem with this?
As for the second statement, the last US combat forces (3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry, and G Battery, 29th Field Artillery) had been withdrawn from South Vietnam on August 12, 1972—two months after the failure of Hanoi’s Easter Offensive and two years and eight months before the Saigon embassy was evacuated; they hardly “had their asses handed to them.” There was only a token force of Marine security left at the Saigon embassy in April 1975, and there was no combat fought between American security personnel and the NV forces during the evacuation.
The NV forces had benefited from a generous rearming form their Soviet and Chinese benefactors in 1973-1975, and this, coupled with the absence of any American military presence in the south after 1973, along with America’s slow strangulation of aid to the South Vietnamese (courtesy of Congressional Democrats), ensured their victory over the south in 1975. 35 years has not been nearly long enough to wipe away the shame of our abandonment of the peoples of Indochina to the mass murder and genocide that would soon engulf them.
“The IDF is a one trick pony that has come to rely entirely on high tech weaponry. The era of the Union Army are long gone. The armies of the US and Israel forces are inflexibly structured around what they perceive to be their unchallenged dominance, so those are the areas they will continue to exploit. That is why the US are rolling out planes like the F35, which is so expensive that the US will end up with fewer attack aircraft than they previously have, and that US pilots will log far fewer hours learning to fly them. The trouble is, the US and Israeli forces are still based around WWII era warfare and have failed to adapt to 4th generation warfare. No amount of self-examination will reverse Israel’s exclusive reliance on air power.”
More brainless badmouthing of the other team. Your fantasy portrait of US and Israeli forces seduced by technology and their “unchallenged dominance” and stuck refighting WWII is so pregnant with ignorance and falsehood as to stagger belief.
“First of all, COIN was recognized as a failure in Washington over a year ago – though never acknowledged in public. Secondly, the British were lousy at it – just ask Menachem Begin. Thirdly, if Israel were so good at it, they wouldn’t have had their asses kicked to such a degree in 2006. Mind you, if COIN was indeed the IDF strategy in 2006, it might explains why they failed so miserably.”
Ditto. First, who, pray tell, has “recognized” this “failure?” Coalition forces in Helmand and Kandahar provinces have noted a 26% drop in enemy attacks between July and September of 2011 compared with the same period last year. Marjah, which was a virtual shooting gallery a year and a half before, and a talking point for those espousing the “failure” of COIN, has been mostly pacified, and the Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, are now in the process of handing over control of the population center to the Afghan Police and Army while the Marines pursue the remnants of Taliban in the outlying areas. In contrast to over a year ago, Marines now patrol whole stretches of land without engaging Taliban. These gains, along with those in Kandahar City, which has seen reduced levels of violence, and the Kandahar district of Arghandab, the Garmsir and Nawa districts of Helmand province, do not exactly point to a “failure” of COIN.
COIN operations by coalition forces are playing an important part in helping to stabilize Afghanistan, but they will not do so alone. There must be a corresponding effort on the political and diplomatic fronts as well, to tackle corruption, and for coalition governments (read: USA) not to engage in precipitous troop withdrawals for the next few years until certain districts can be safely handed over to Afghan Army and Police units. Obama’s politically-motivated drawdown, not the Taliban, is putting this in peril.
Second, the British were not performing COIN in Palestine in the mid to late 40’s. In Malaya in the 1950’s and Northern Ireland the SAS conducted model COIN operations. At Loughgal in 1988, the IRA got the first taste of what happens when their enemy beats them at their own game. From this point on the SAS out-thought, out- fought, and out-generaled the IRA, and had so infiltrated their ranks that life became unsafe for them. It was this, and not the healing hands of George Mitchell, that brought Adams and McGuinness to the negotiating table.
And third, the IDF did not even attempt COIN in Lebanon in 2006. It was a mishmash of conventional and anti-terrorist ops, with not enough of one, and too much of the other.
“Matt Matthews’ analysis is completely devoid of reality. While Halutz has become the scapegoat, the reality is that the IAF failed to do their job in the 72 hours they were assigned. The plans for the massive ground invasion (after 72 hours) were shelved because the IAF could not give the green light even though they claimed success. They kept insisting that they needed another 24 hours, and then another etc. When the IDF spokesmen insisted that the date for their ground invasion was a tightly guarded secret, the truth was that they themselves had no idea when it was to take place.”
Halutz envisioned an air assault doing the job, then opted for increased standoff attacks near the border when the air assault was not doing the job. At no time before late July did Halutz even consider a sizable ground invasion. The rest of your post merely underscores the incompetence of improvised IDF planning, decision making, and deployment that I have been arguing all along
“Siniora was exposed for having been in on the whole deal from the start. As a puppet of Washington, he gave the go ahead for the attack on Hezbollah, and thus made the decision to sacrifice the Sh’ia in Southern Lebanon.”
Your need to absolve Hezbollah is becoming almost pathological. What has any of this to do with the fact that Hezbollah provoked this entire conflict to begin with? How does any of this, even if true, absolve them? There would have been no war but for Hezbollah and its actions. (Not even you are brazen enough to argue that the Siniora government would have perpetrated the border kidnapping, but, then again, maybe you are). First of all, what was Siniora “in” on? Secondly, Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel retaliates, and it’s Siniora who “thus made the decision to sacrifice the Sh’ia in Southern Lebanon?” Do you know how insane this sounds?
Said I: “Whatever was presented at this event could not have been the plan that was executed in July 2006 because the plan did not yet exist
Said you: “Of course it did. It was widely reported that Bush and Blair were informed of Israel’s plans to attack Hezbollah well before the cross border skirmish, so the plan was not improvised at all. The response by Israel (devoid of any attempt to rescue or recover the captured IDF soldiers) was to bomb Southern Lebanon in the hopes of turning the Lebanese community against Hezbollah – a strategy that Israel had in place since 2000. That’s not an improvised strategy, but one aimed at inciting internal strife in Lebanon. Plans that involve a 72 hour bombing campaign, followed by massive ground assault take months of organization.”
You are again mishmashing vague political and military objectives into a confusing mélange. Stay focused. The Israelis wished, to the greatest possible extent, to destroy Hezbollah’s infrastructure and weaponry, neutralize them as a military force, and force their removal north of the Litani. They also hoped that a favorable political diminishment of Hezbollah within Lebanon would follow the successful military campaign. That the IDF had contingency plans for a future conflict with Hezbollah is of course true. If you are suggesting that Israel had planned to invade Lebanon that summer absent the border skirmish, please present evidence of this.
The military strategy, FOR THE LAST TIME, was a Halutz improvised variant of the ICE BREAKER AND MEY MAROM contingency plans. This is a matter of record. You yourself admitted that “When the IDF spokesmen insisted that the date for their ground invasion was a tightly guarded secret, the truth was that they themselves had no idea when it was to take place.” Even this, however, overlooks the fact that the most ground activity that was planned in the first week were standoff attacks, not a full scale ground invasion.
“In Mroun al-Ras, the IDF claimed it had taken the town on July 22, and described it as it’s first foothold, but neither were true. The IDF failed to flank Hezbollah who destroyed several AV’s. The IDF managed to enter the town but never hold it. Whenever battles with similar sized deployments took place (such as Bint Jbeil), the IDF were forced to call to reinforcements, pulling in the Golani Brigade, then it’s elite paratroopers (all against one Hezbollah platoon) and still failing to take any town. Failing this, the IDF then called up 15,000 reserves.”
The reserve call-up occurred several days before Bint J’Bail. It would seem that we are going to descend into a semantic debate about the difference between “occupy” and “secure.” No thanks. The IDF, which made no systematic attempts to occupy territory for other than raiding purposes before early August, secured perimeters both inside and outside both cities, and though sporadic gunfire continued in and around the towns, the IDF was never ejected by force, all Hezbollah counterattacks failed in their objectives, were beaten back, and the IDF were deployed in force in both towns at the time of the ceasefire. You can fantasize, bluster and prevaricate to your wits end, but it does not change this simple fact. You have not come even close to proving otherwise.
Crook and Perry, in their second article, underscore much of my criticism of the IDF strategy and the manner of their deployment:
“Israel’s decision to launch a ground war to accomplish what its air force had failed to do was made hesitantly and haphazardly. While Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) units had been making forays into southern Lebanon during the second week of the conflict, the Israeli military leadership remained undecided over when and where – even whether – to deploy their ground units.”
Some of their account of Maroun al-Ras is contradicted by the consensus of information garnered from interviews with IDF personnel, testimony, and after action reports. The IDF was certainly met with ferocious resistance that threw them off balance, but they did in fact eventually flank the city, and by July 25 they had already deployed units of the Golani to the northeast of Bint J’Bail, and units of the Paratrooper 101st and 890th Battalions were deployed to the south and southwest.
That the IDF accomplished very little, if anything in both actions, goes without saying. But they secured a presence in both cities that they held to the ceasefire, though they did make a tactical withdrawal from Bint J’Bail on July 30 before reentering it in force several days later. Afterward, they were not ejected by force, and remained to the ceasefire.
Some of Crook and Perry’s analysis is incisive and to the point, but much of it is just souped-up partisan advocacy.
In their third article, Crook and Perry draw the following conclusion on how “Hezbollah has provided the model for the defeat of a modern army”:
“The tactics are simple: ride out the first wave of a Western air campaign, then deploy rocket forces targeting key military and economic assets of the enemy, then ride out a second and more critical air campaign, and then prolong the conflict for an extended period. At some point, as in the case of Israel’s attack on Hezbollah, the enemy will be forced to commit ground troops to accomplish what its air forces could not. It is in this last, and critical, phase that a dedicated, well-trained and well-led force can exact enormous pain on a modern military establishment and defeat it.”
This is pretty silly. How could someone as intelligent Mark Perry sign his name to this absurdity. What we have here is a retrospective embellishment of the conflict now being represented as some master plan of action. Such “tactics” are only applicable if the enemy cooperates as the Israelis did in 2006 with a confused, half-hearted, and scattershot ground deployment of limited duration, and not a full scale combined arms assault with the clock not ticking.
The rest of Crook and Perry’s third article is a rapturous Hymn to Hezbollah that could have been written in the Dahiya—and probably was considering that Crook is a rank apologist for militant Islam and the gangster-mullahs of Iran.
link to motherjones.com
link to huffingtonpost.com
“Let’s bear in mind that you’re so called objective analysis began with baseless statements about Hezbollah hiding among civilians and civilians populations, as well as denigrating Hezbollah for being cowards – it has since slowly morphed into your begrudging admiration for the bravery of their fighters.”
Hezbollah is a terrorist group who, like Hamas, are prolific and cowardly human shielders. Also, many of their soldiers fought bravely and tenaciously in battle. Same could be said about the Taliban. Not much point in denying this; both are true.
“Your level of bombast, deception and volume of your bloviating diatribes increases proportionately with your level of frustration and desperation when your arguments fail, so in spite of having to wade through the morass of your bile, I do gain some satisfaction for my patience and persistence.”
Two things in life are infinite: the universe, and your capacity for self-congratulation.
“You’re clearly becoming increasingly unhinged and trying every maneuver in the book to try and pretend that 2006 was no big deal. First you pointed to the sadistic and barbaric bombing of Southern Lebanon as proof of who won the war, then you changed tact to argue that the outcome was inconclusive, then you changed tact again by arguing that it wasn’t really a war anyway (ie. merely a series of small skirmishes), only to finally settle on the position that this is all academic anyway, and doesn’t mean anything.”
Is it not interesting that each post of mine you respond to finds me more and more “unhinged” and “desperate?” Must see a doctor about that.
That depends on what you mean by a “big deal.” It was an absolutely important conflict, with serious ramifications, but the ground engagements were on a local scale, and they lasted for but a few weeks. It was certainly not on a scale of the numerous company and battalion-sized engagements in the first civil war stage (Dec.1947-April 1948) of the 1948 War between the Haganah and Palestinian/Arab militias, or the brigade and division sized encounters of 1956, 1967, 1973, or 1982. This is a fact. Not my fault that it’s not.
For the rest, well, what a frightful tangle of mendacity and misattribution we have here. I did not at any time assert or suggest that “the sadistic and barbaric bombing of Southern Lebanon [was] proof of who won the war”; I merely argued on Oct 31 that the war could not be argued a Hezbollah victory in light of their losses, the destruction wreaked, and other failures on their part . I did not, in this post, elaborate on the matter in detail, and did not declare the war an Israeli victory. In my November 6 post I did elaborate, and argued, from a military perspective, why I believe that both sides had grave deficiencies, made critical errors, and why the war was no victory for either side. I elaborated on this further in my November 15 post, and I did not “finally settle on the position that this is all academic anyway, and doesn’t mean anything”; I said that “all of this is of more than just academic interest. What we say here matters little, but what matters is the conclusions that are drawn from the 2006 war in the Dahiya and throughout Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.” And that is the truth.
***
Tell you what. You go on dreaming your dreams of Hezbollah “victory”; it costs you nothing. Meanwhile, both Gaza and South Lebanon have been converted into defacto military fortresses by paramilitary terrorist groups wedded to lunatic ideologies of violent jihad and martyrdom. When not oppressing and torturing their subjects, the bulk of their resources and activities are almost solely dedicated to the next round of martyr-making with Israel. They are merchants of death, and nothing but. They worship it, preach it, practice it, and industriously instill it into their youth as if nothing else in the world mattered. All for jihad. Jihad, jihad, jihad. For this, they will happily convert the whole of their dominions into rubble-strewn scrap-heaps of smoke and flame again and again. I sometimes wonder how you would feel if you yourself had to actually live under the brutal jackboot of the Hezbollah or Hamas regimes in these future killing grounds, and not just observe them from the safety and comfort of your computer.
The philosopher Plato could afford to admire Sparta because he did not have to live in it. By the same token, you and others here can afford to admire Hamas and Hezbollah from a comfortable distance because you don’t have to live under them. Maybe you should.
Robert,
You obviously know you’ve lost the debate here and are simply trying to salvage some pride by keeping this thread going. You’re even contradicting your own original thesis. First you blamed Halutz for not sticking to the existing strategy, then you blamed him coming up with the strategy in the first place.
False. Israel were not deployed in force in South Lebanon at any time throughout the conflict. Only a few of their assets managed to even make it onto the Lebanese side of the border, and when they did, they were lambs to the laughter. The post mortem on the conflict revealed how much the IDF has exaggerated their position and you’re simply making a fool of yourself by repeating this BS.
The problem with your argument is that you refuse to ask the simple questions as to why, because it inevitably leads you to the conclusion you are so desperate to ignore. Why was the IDF strategy an improvised, incoherent muddle? Why did the ground assault never get moving?
Answer: Because the IDF came up against an enemy that outfought and outsmarted them.
It’s not that the IDF strategy was a work in progress, it was a strategy that fell apart when the 72 hours of bombing failed to produce the expected outcome. From that point onward, Israel’s plans were in disarray. They knew it and Washington knew it. What you interpret as poor preparation was simply the outcome of a failed strategy.
As Crooke and Perry documented so thoroughly in their 3 part report, Hezbollah achieved their objectives both on and off the battlefield. The IDF ground deployment was scattershot because Hezbollah thwarted it so comprehensively. The ground deployment began on the 21st, but the fact that it barely even got moving was because Hezbollah stopped it in it’s tracks.
As Crooke and Perry stated:
From the onset of the conflict to its last operations, Hezbollah commanders successfully penetrated Israel’s strategic and tactical decision-making cycle across a spectrum of intelligence, military and political operations, with the result that Hezbollah scored a decisive and complete victory in its war with Israel.
Let me repeat that. Hezbollah scored a decisive and complete victory in its war with Israel.
Byman’s and Simo’s analysis is as farce as all the other sources you frantically dug up. There no evidence that Hezbollah suffered serious losses, but quite the contrary. The Pentagon and Mossad acknowledged that:
1. the IAF barely managed to make a dent in Hezbollah’s ability to wage war
2. Hezbollah would have been able to sustain the battle for several more months (contrary to Byman’s and Simo’s analysis)
3. The IDF were so ineffective that Hezbollah fought the entire war using just the “The Nasr Brigade (only 3,000 troops) and never even felt the need to call on reserves.
Had Hezbollah suffered losses that Byman and Simo imagined, there would have been evidence of it in terms of diminished rockets attacks, the weakening of fighting capability on the ground and the disruption to Hezbollah’s communications and command structure. None of these was remotely affected.
Though figures are hard to come by because Israel’s claims are false. This has been debunked by Crooke and Perry, who pointed out that the number of fighters Hezbollah lost was 184.
Israel now claims that it killed about 400-500 Hezbollah fighters, while its own losses were significantly less. But a more precise accounting shows that Israeli and Hezbollah casualties were nearly even.
Given the extent of the IDF’s intelligence failure (as well as the IDF’s tracks record of inflating or minimizing figures for propaganda reasons), not only can the 500 number be safely dismissed, but so too can the claim that the victims were among Hezbollah’s most trained fighters. Crooke and Perry provide the only verifiable means of establishing the number of Hezbollah deaths.
Temporarily meaning, they held their ground and took back whatever Israel temporarily claimed. As Uri Avnery said right after the war, Hezbollah remained unmoved throughout and not remotely disarmed.
As Perry and Crooke reported:
“Prior to the implementation of the ceasefire, the Israeli political establishment decided that it would “clear drop” Israeli paratroopers in key areas along the Litani River. The decision was apparently made to convince the international community that the rules of engagement for a UN force should extend from the Litani south. Such a claim could not be made unless Israel could credibly claim to have cleared that part of Lebanon to the Litani.
A significant number of Israeli forces were airlifted into key areas just south of the Litani to accomplish this goal. The decision might well have led to a disaster. Most of the Israeli forces airlifted to these sites were immediately surrounded by Hezbollah units and may well have been decisively mauled had a ceasefire not gone into effect. The political decision angered retired IDF officers, one of whom accused Olmert of “spinning the military” – using the military for public relations purposes.”
In other words, Israel were saved from disaster and further humiliation by the ceasefire, not stifled by it.
Again debunked. On the 28th, the Mossad leaked that Hezbollah were able to maintain the fighting for several months and the Pentagon estimated that the air strikes and infantry sweeps had negligible impact.
There was no disruption to any of Hezbollah ‘s infrastructure in south Lebanon, let alone their communications infrastructure or even their television channel. The only infrastructure that was affected was civilian infrastructure.
This is demonstrably false. Hezbollah was in favour of the ceasefire from day 1 out of concern for the citizens of Lebanon, unlike Israel, who were only too happy to sacrifice the residents of Haifa. Byman and Simo obviously have no clue what they are talking about. While it is true that Nasrallah acknowledge that Hezbollah were surprised by Israel’s decision to start a war in response to the raid, what he meant was that he did not expect a war based on previous such incidents. So while Hezbollah were surprised by Israel’s decision to go to war, they were certainly not caught unprepared.
Recount it all you like, you’re simply continue to be wrong. The air assault was a full scale bombing campaign that was of such a magnitude that not only did Israel run out of ordinance after 10 days, but the request for more supplies of bombs led military experts in Washington to conclude that Israel had taken the bombing to a point where is ceased to serve any useful purpose . And as I pointed out, the air assault was completely futile. The small-bore border forays only served to drop IDF members to their deaths.
Absolutely. The IAF threw everything they had and achieved nothing. Then the IDF battalion sized assaults produced nothing. The extra forces they were pouring into the mix were whatever was left ie. the reserves, which were a complete shamble and an embarrassment.
Wrote Crooke and Perry:
“IDF commanders were also disturbed by the performance of their troops, noting a signal lack of discipline even among its best-trained regular soldiers. The reserves were worse, and IDF commanders hesitated to put them into battle.”
Israel were saved by the ceasefire. With the mobilization of the reserves, the body bags would have increased ten fold.
As for limiting themselves to smaller objectives, Israel did that. Olmert clearly walked back their original plans to destroy Hezbollah to more modest objectives of preventing rocket attacks on northern Israel and they still failed miserably.
Yeah whatever, at the end of the day, this means only one thing Robert. Israel lost and Hezbollah won. You can try all you like to pretend that Israel scored own goals and made all the wrong choices, but as I’ve explained to you repeatedly, that’s how wars are won and lost.
Yes, Robert, Israel lost and the blame naturally falls at the feet of the political and the military echelons. Political and the military echelons are where wars are carried out.
Max Boot expertly wrote? Talk about a contradiction in terms! Have you completely lost your marbles? You’re citing Max Boot, the worst of the worst empire loving, war obsessed, Islamophobic, Israel worshipping neocons and yet you have the gall to accuse Crooke of being a rank apologist for militant Islam and the gangster-mullahs of Iran ?
Is there no limit to your hypocrisy and stupidity? Like you, Boot completely lost his marbles when Israel were defeated and never came to terms with the reality.
Let’s review what Uri Avenry said:
Hizbollah has remained as it was. It has not been destroyed, nor disarmed, nor even removed from where it was. Its fighters have proved themselves in battle and have even garnered compliments from Israeli soldiers … In Israel, there is now a general atmosphere of disappointment and despondency.
Crooke and Perry also reported that:
“After-battle reports of Hezbollah commanders now confirm that IDF troops never fully secured the border area and Maroun al-Ras was never fully taken. Nor did Hezbollah ever feel the need to call up its reserves, as Israel had done. “The entire war was fought by one Hezbollah brigade of 3,000 troops, and no more,” one military expert in the region said. “The Nasr Brigade fought the entire war. Hezbollah never felt the need to reinforce it.” “
How’s that for an indictment of how pathetic and ineffective the IDF were!! Hezbollah were doing it so easily that the reserves didn’t even need to get out of bed. Talk about an ass kicking!!!
In any case, Olmert and Perez are by no means the first leaders to believe that air power could achieve a conclusive outcome. The US has never truly learned this lesson.
Crooke and Perry write:
Olmert decided to deploy the full might of the IDF to defeat Hezbollah at the same time that his top aides signaled Israel’s willingness to accept a ceasefire and the deployment of an international force. Olmert determined that Israel should not tip its hand – it would accept the deployment of a United Nations force, but only as a last resort. In fact, the decision to call the reserves took key senior reserve officers, usually the first to be notified of a pending call-up, by surprise.”
Did you hear that Robert? Olmert deployed the full might of the IDF, so there’s no point denying that Israel threw everything they had at Hezbollah. No matter how extensive an all-out assault Israel would have rolled out, Israel never had a hope in hell of secure Lebanon south of the Litani River. The cease-fire was only brokered once Israel knew they were never going to be able to wipe “out Hezbollah’s terrorist army”. After all, what is an all-out assault anyway, other than throwing everything they had at Southern Lebanon – and as I explained, they tried that and failed.
It was Hezbollah fighters that every tactical engagement. In the end, it was Hezbollah that eviscerated the IDF.
Israel ran out of ammo by day 10, at which point they had affected no more than 7% of Hezbollah’s assets. There is no doubt they threw everything they had at Hezbollah, and because it produced no negligible results, the blow to morale produced the confused, tardy and piecemeal deployment. The evidence supporting this fact is simply overwhelming, and has been copiously documented by Crooke and Perry.
The limited and brief ground war, such as it was, was certainly fought to a conclusion, just not the conclusion that Israel had hoped for. It was indeed an emphatic “victory” for Hezbollah. The IDF failed to destroy Hezbollah, and Hezbollah prevented the IDF from establishing a presence in Southern Lebanon. This is a fact. An unchangeable, immutable, unalterable fact.
Deal with it. At least try to.
As for Boot’s fantasies about the IDF eviscerating Hezbollah, Crooke and Perry put that delusion to bed:
“Moreover, and more significant, Hezbollah’s fighters proved to be dedicated and disciplined. Using intelligence assets to pinpoint Israeli infantry penetrations, they proved the equal of Israel’s best fighting units. In some cases, Israeli units were defeated on the field of battle, forced into sudden retreats or forced to rely on air cover to save elements from being overrun”
Yes Robert, those are the failures that always lead to defeat, especially when they all take place concurrently.
Israel were defeated and sent packing. That it true.
This is a common fall back position by those that a losing the debate. The conclusion admits that Israel initiated the war. What is out of context about that?
Initiated is defined as “To set going by taking the first step; begin”. That tells us that Israel took the first steps or started the war. The kidnapping incident did not have to lead to war. Israel chose to use the incident as an excuse to roll out the war.
UNIFIL made no statement that accused Hezbollah of starting the war. What UNIFIL describes is routinely perpetrated by the IDF and those incidents have not resulted in war.
Try and get your story straight Robert. First you claim that Halutz came up with the plan, then you claim that Halutz explicitly rejected it.
So which one is it?
Only if one were to assume both sides of the conflict were equally well armed, which was not the case. Heavy losses are the consequence of confronting an enemy with superior arms. The VC did incur huge losses, but they defeated the US and one could argue that the cost incurred by the US is still being suffered.
The means by which a weaker army defeats are more powerful one relies heavily on the element of surprise. They don’t usually have the luxury of long drawn out tactics that allow their enemy to regroup.
Oh poor Robert. His beloved team (the IDF) are being bad mouthed and that’s just unacceptable.
The “Lone Guerrilla Paradox” and the Failure of COIN Doctrine in Afghanistan
Read more: link to defensetech.org
Defense.org
link to defensetech.org
Failure of USA in Afghanistan, failure of COIN – Counter Insurgency — NY Times
link to janamejayan.wordpress.com
Funny how the sample period ends in September 2011. This might explain it:
Worst month for US deaths in Afghanistan
link to smh.com.au
U.S. Afghan Toll Reaches New High
link to battleland.blogs.time.com
Absolute rubbish. They’ve been talking about of handing over control of the population centre to the Afghan Police and Army for the last 3 years. The reason they are handing over control is because the US forces are being withdrawn and they have no other option.
Yeah right.
US losing in Afghanistan: Taliban
link to news.smh.com.au
How Many Ways Can We Lose in Afghanistan?
link to foreignpolicy.com
COIN is dead and it’s a failure, most notably because an occupying power has no authority or credibility to influence political and diplomatic progress.
Halutz had no choice. Without the air assault doing the job, the ground assault would have been suicidal.
Of course he did. He simply had no opportunity.
Try to keep up Robert, though it must be hard with such verbose diatribes. First of all, Hezbollah did not provoke the conflict. The conflict was entirely one of Israel’s choosing.
Secondly, you blamed the Hezbollah for getting the Lebanese military into “the whole fearful mess to begin with”, when in fact the war had been planned6-12 months prior and Siniora gave the go ahead to Israel to attack Southern Lebanon.
That’s farcical even by your standards. You already acknowledged that Israel had been giving power point presentations on the war plans in Washington in January of 2006, so there is no dispute that Israel were clearly looking for any excuse to unleash it – they simply waited for the opportunity. It is also beyond dispute that Blair and Bush were informed prior to the capture of the IDF soldiers, that the war was about to take place.
link to newstatesman.com
No, they declared they were going to achieve these objectives at the outset. They soon downplayed these objectives and lowered the bar when they were getting their asses kicked.
War on Lebanon Planned for at least a Year link to juancole.com
Israel set war plan more than a year ago / Strategy was put in motion as Hezbollah began gaining military strength in Lebanon
link to articles.sfgate.com
It was not a contingency plan for a future conflict. Contingency plans are not shopped around Washington and preceded by political leaders being informed that such a conflict was
But even the full scale ground invasion, which was never planned because of the death toll it would have produced, was still incumbent upon the IAF achieving their objectives in the first 72 hours.
False on all counts.
1. The IDF did attempt to occupy territory. It’skind of an addiction they seem unable to shake
2. They never secured any perimeters
3. They were clearly ejected by force because Hezbollah counterattacks were spectacularly successful
4. The IDF were never deployed in force anywhere before or at the time of the ceasefire.
As Crooke and Perry reported:
“ The fight for Bint Jbeil went on for nine days. But it remained in Hezbollah hands until the end of the conflict. By then, the town had been destroyed, as Hezbollah fighters were able to survive repeated air and artillery shellings, retreating into their bunkers during the worst of the air and artillery campaign, and only emerging when IDF troops in follow-on operations tried to claim the city.”
And yet, you expect us to believe your lame excuse that the umpire blew his whistle just as the IDF were about to get serious? If that were true, then Israel would have continued to oppose the ceasefire at the UN, but the truth is that they gave it their support because they needed a way out of further humiliation and disaster.
You can fantasize, bluster and prevaricate to your wits end, but it does not change this simple fact. You have not come even close to proving otherwise.
That’s hardly compelling seeing as the IDF have little to gain by acknowledging how badly they were humiliated.
As crooke and Perry reported:
“IDF detachments continually failed to flank the defenders, meeting counterpunches toward the west of the city. Special three-man hunter-killer teams from the Nasr Brigade destroyed several Israeli armored vehicles during the fight with light man-made anti-tank missiles. “We knew they were going to do this,” Ilay Talmor, an exhausted Israeli second lieutenant, said at the time. “This is territory they say is theirs. We would do the same thing if someone came into our country.”
The IDF never managed to flank the city and the Golani were driven back to such an extent they called for further reinforcements – and still achieved nothing. They completely failed to secured any presence in any cities that they were subsequently driven from Bint J’Bail and never returned.
Translaction. Crook and Perry’s analysis makes a joke of your own sycophantic cheer leading propaganda.
Yes Robert, that’s what a defeat looks like.
As opposed to what Werdine? Your own rapturous Hymn to the IDF that was written in Jerusalem? Just admit it Werdine. Crook and Perry nailed it and have burst your sacrosanct alter at which you worship the IDF.
Seeing as you’re a rank apologist for militant Zionism and the gangster-Likudniks of Israel, that’s strikes me as a serve case of the pot meeting the kettle. Seriously Werdine, being sacked by a rank and putrid war criminal like Blair should stand as a badge of honour.
Your refusal to tackle any aspect of Crooke’s analysis and revert to flaming him speaks volumes. Crooke’s part analysis has obviously flawed you and left you scratching your head looking for a congent respose –
Another frank admission that you’ve lost the argument. The claim that Hezbollah used human shields in 2006 has been comprehensively debunked. Nor are they a terrorist group, though the term is entirely meaningless. After all, Israel’s strategy in 2006 was the epitome of terrorism – inflicting sufficient death on civilians in order to influence a political outcome (ie. turning the population against Hezbollah).
Hezbollah is a political party who form part of the ruling coalition of Lebanon. They happen to also have a very strong and effective militia that has confounded military strategists from Tel Aviv to Washington and practically re-written the book on modern warfare.
As Crooke and Perry noted:
First, the Hezbollah victory has shown that Israel – and any modern and technologically sophisticated Western military force – can be defeated in open battle, if the proper military tactics are employed and if they are sustained over a prolonged period. Hezbollah has provided the model for the defeat of a modern army.”
More importantly:
The Hezbollah victory provides another and different model, of shattering US hegemony and destroying its stature in the region.
I can picture how those words must infuriate you.
Make that three. Your capacity for posting long winded meaningless diatribes and insufferably pretensions drivel.
Irrelevant. How lost did the 1967 war last?
The era of company and battalion-sized engagements is a thing of the past. You keep trying to insist that this is of any relevance when Hezbollah proved that it isn’t.
The same could be said of Israel in it’s entirety. Like the you, Israel worships the IDF, and the state is practically one large military base. The vast majority of Israeli homes have underground bomb shelters. The same is certainly not the case in South Lebanon.
Your attempt to drag Gaza and Hamas into this discussion is the epitome of desperation and irrationality on your part. Gaza has nothing to do with this discussion.
They don’t oppress or torture their subjects, though they certainly do when it comes to spies. As for being solely dedicated to the next round of martyr-making with Israel, who can blame them? Israel is a criminal that is addicted to war and mass murder. What’s more, having now twice inflicted humiliation on Israel, they would be foolish not to maintain vigilance.
Monumental ignorance and bigotry on your part, but what else do we expect from a such a militant Zionist? Israel kill far more civilians than their enemies, so the mantle of “merchants of death” is certainly theirs.
Still entertaining fantasies of seeing South Lebanon turned into smouldering ruins Werdine? If that were true, then not only would your argument (that the destruction wreaked on Southern Lebanon has stymied Hezbollah since 2006) be rubbish, but we would surely have witnessed another war since then.
Like I said, this conversation not about Hamas, but having been to Lebanon, it’s one of my favourite destinations. The dance parties in Beirut look amazing, though I’m a bit long in the tooth for such escapades.
And what part of Israel do you live in Werdine? Do you guys ever bother to listen to the garbage that pours forth from your mouths?
Hezbollah are part of the ruling coalition that was democratically elected to power in Lebanon, in spite of the millions poured in by Washington to influence the outcome. They are revered and celebrated in the South of Lebanon and respected throughout the state. Apparently the Lebanese population is quite happy to live under them – which I know must really get your goat.
I really do owe you a debt of gratitude Robert. Prior to our exchange, I had not fully appreciated the extent to which Hezbollah defeated Israel, but having gone back and reviewed all the evidence, it is beyond dispute that the victory was not only symbolic, it was empathic and absolute.
Shingo,
Were you born patient? Good grief I never known ANYONE as thorough and as methodical too!
I wanna go to your school of debate – be here your first willing student.
You really are too brilliant for words!
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and your keen and IRREFUTABLE analysis. ALWAYS sharing.
Summed up: Hizbollah’s victory over the crapping-in-their-underpants idf is as you rightly conclude: EMPHATIC AND ABSOLUTE!
So dear Robert Werdine, you fuzzy germanic wannabe shia, how’s it feel to be fed SOOOOO much crow? Lovely yum tasting truthsssssssss n’est pas?!
Thanks for the kind words Taxim
But I can easily name someone who is far more thorough and as methodical than I – Hostage.
He’s the one who’s too brilliant for words.
Tearing or Werdine’s post was easy. He simply repeated the same crap 3 posts in a row, so all I had to do was come up with the same answers.
“I had not fully appreciated the extent to which Hezbollah defeated Israel”
Truly funny. As proven so often, your perception of reality does not seem to follow the tracks of observation and logic.
So now Hezbollah should have defeated Israel …. yes, and in such a extend that even 6 years later it appears to be fully deterred by the potential Israeli reaction. Since Hezbollah “defeated” Israel it has not fired one shot. It is only good that Nasrallah is still hiding in his bunker and his motley crew lies quiet and idle. They are already busy enough with their exploding arms depots.
They wisely understood the message, unlike you Shingo.
Hezbollah’s goal is not the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah’s goal is to prevent Israel from murdering the Lebanese and taking more land.
Since 2006, Israel troops or settlers haven’t entered Lebanon at all.
Israel started the invasion and Israel gained nothing. Hezbollah fought a defensive action and lost no territory.
Ergo, Israel lost. You didn’t get anything out of your military adventurism.
jonah, why so serious?
Last time I checked, Israel is vastly more powerful than Hezbollah and yet you’re gloating that Nasrallah is ‘hiding in a bunker’ – as if you knew where he was anyway. If so, please alert the Israeli government!
If you’re going to counter Shingo then try to produce an actual substantiated argument.
It is amusing to see you so desperate though.
And what, no rehash of the 1-2-3 Zionist hasbara punch? Blah blah Hamas charter blah blah only democracy blah blah throw into sea blah blah left Gaza, got rockets blah blah.
You’re not doing a good job at defending your racist, apartheid State.
Israeli settlers in Lebanon? WTF? do you know anything about this conflict? BTW Lebanon started 2006, Nasrallah said it best, if he knew what Israel’s reaction was going to be, he wouldn’t have STARTED the conflict.
Yes Shingo, I’ve already praised Hostage on another thread a while back, and I praise and marvel at him silently all the time. But here and now I wanna tell ya how impressive and brilliant YOU ARE! I wanna give YOU the praise for your tireless blogging activism. Please accept my earnest praise and leave Hostage out of it!
Hahahahaha!
Yeah Shingo you are a wonderkid and a half and SHOULD I ever grow up, I wanna be just like YOU!
“It is only good that Nasrallah is still hiding in his bunker and his motley crew lies quiet and idle.”
Jonah, the hiding-in-the-bunker business Israelis have been gratifying themselves over has nothing to do with the man’s fear of Israelis. It’s because the town’s been abuzz for over 5 years with secret service people from Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, the US and of course, Israel that all have been looking for him. His crew has not been idle but getting ready to travel south when the time comes.
“BTW Lebanon started 2006, Nasrallah said it best, if he knew what Israel’s reaction was going to be, he wouldn’t have STARTED the conflict.”
Nasrallah did not intend to start anything in 2006 other than open negotiations with Israel for the exchange of prisoners since Israel had a policy of never releasing Lebanese prisoners unless during an exchange. Israel had reneged on a deal to release Kuntar in exchange for information on the missing terrorists Arad, so Nasrallah was forced to go back to the old-fashioned way of getting Israel to release the prisoners.
You misunderstood what Nasrallah said about his regretting Israel having started a war over what until then had been a routine exchange of prisoners that would have been the 4th or 5th in a long line of routine exchanges. You’d never get such an honest reaction or answer to a question from an Israeli leader. That war had been pre-planned by Israel and the US that jumped on the opportunity of the capturing of Israelis to start it and kept going for 33 days despite Olmert having wanted to end it after 6 days but the US wouldn’t let him. Ever heard of the Winograd and what was concluded in it on who won that war?
Walid,
Have you noticed how especially dbg ALWAYS tries to smartass Apartheid israel’s defeat in the 2006 war? It’s hilarious how dbg’s goat is got – all you gotta do is say the name ‘Nasrallah’ and bamm! you just know she’s gonna slot in a comment right then and there that COMPLETELY denies the idf’s humiliation and defeat. Never mind ALL the EVIDENCE and INDEPENDENT STUDIES presented time and time again and time again s’more.
I love how the ziobot agents here get clearly and deeply irate at this topic. I read that as their degree of FEAR heh heh heh.
Man, Walid, your country’s fucked but you sure do got a smart and strong and good-looking people there. And the best thing about your country is that it’s right there in the fat face of ugly Apartheid israel – and simultaneously right there kicking it’s white racist butt over and over and over s’more!
Lebanon has the most awesome resistance the world over. Their organizational skills and their resolve are astounding! Legendary! Legendary like a folktale or a Greek myth except its for real-real wow.
Good for you l’il Lebanon! Of all the Arab countries, you sure did teach the Palestinians by deed how to deal with the insatiably criminal Apartheid israel – an inspiring lesson that the Palestinians were in dire need of for many suffering bondaged decades.
As is always the case Jonah, you’re like the proverbial nerd that always turns up to the party a week late. Even your fellow traveller Werdine, has aknowlegded that the argument that the 2006 war has deterred Hezbollah from launching attacks against Israel, could just as easily be turned around to prove that Israel have similarly been deterred from a repeat ass kicking.
Since Hezbollah “defeated” Israel, Israel has not fired one shot either
It is only good that Nasrallah is still hiding in his bunker and his motley crew lies quiet and idle.
You mean, the same motley crew that has since taken power in Lebanon, while Kadima has bee relegated to political oblivion?
You mean the BS about exploding arms depots don’t you?
and:
link to moonofalabama.org
You guys are just too willing to be made fools of – must be a consequence of that ass kicking you got in 2006.
Thank you for your latest pseudo-response. Your devotion to Hezbollah is of an intensity of an Elvis fan for the King.
Said you:
“You’re even contradicting your own original thesis. First you blamed Halutz for not sticking to the existing strategy, then you blamed him coming up with the strategy in the first place.”
I said no such thing and you know it. Halutz did not “create” the MEY MROM contingency plan, and I never said he did; the plan was in the works long before he became COS. I said, “Halutz explicitly rejected the full scale ground deployment that would follow 48-72hrs ahead of the air assault envisaged in the contingency plans ICE BREAKER and MEY MAROM, in favor of his improvised version, which he adjusted continuously throughout the campaign.” Liar.
“Israel were not deployed in force in South Lebanon at any time throughout the conflict. Only a few of their assets managed to even make it onto the Lebanese side of the border, and when they did, they were lambs to the laughter. The post mortem on the conflict revealed how much the IDF has exaggerated their position and you’re simply making a fool of yourself by repeating this BS…Hezbollah prevented the IDF from establishing a presence in Southern Lebanon. This is a fact. An unchangeable, immutable, unalterable fact. Deal with it. At least try to.”
Your continuing denial of this documented, verifiable fact betrays the intensity of your Hezbollah hero-worship and your contempt for facts and reality.
The number of IDF troops operating in Lebanon grew gradually from 1200 on July 19 to 10,000 on August 11. An AP story of August 11, 2006 noted that the IDF had still not launched its ground offensive:
“Beirut was rocked by 14 powerful explosions early Friday morning as Israel resumed airstrikes on the Lebanese capital, local media reported. Warplanes pounded Hezbollah strongholds in the southern Dahieh suburb and also destroyed a bridge in Akkar province, 60 miles north of the city, the reports said. There was no immediate word of casualties.
The moves came on the heels of an Israel grab of strategic high ground in south Lebanon on Thursday, but the Jewish state delayed a major push northward as diplomats cited progress toward agreement on a UN cease-fire resolution that could soon go to a vote.”
link to foxnews.com
An AP story of August 12, 2006 noted the tripling of the number of ground troops, i.e., the tardy commencement of OPERATION CHANGE DIRECTION 11:
“We have almost tripled our forces that our operating in Lebanon,” Halutz told reporters. In the first stage of the ground war, some 10,000 forces operated in Lebanon. A tripling of troops would mean Israel now has a fighting force of some 30,000 soldiers in Lebanon.”
link to foxnews.com
A CNN report on August 21, 2006 noted that there was still sporadic fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah in Lebanon:
link to articles.cnn.com
A BBC report as late as October 1, 2006 noted that the IDF was only then completing its withdrawal:
“UN HAILS ISRAEL PULLOUT
Since the ceasefire came into force on 14 August, Israel has been withdrawing troops from a peak of 30,000 during the fighting. Lebanon had complained in recent days that the pace of the withdrawal was too slow.”
link to news.bbc.co.uk
So there you have it. Not only were there still sporadic engagements still occurring after the ceasefire, but the Lebanese government was still complaining about the slowness of the IDF withdrawal as late as October. The matter is settled. Some 30,000 IDF troops were deployed in South Lebanon at the time of the ceasefire. This is a fact. This is four divisions!
The Reserve Armored Division was deployed in Marjayoun; the 162 Infantry Division had advanced 6 miles westward from Addaisseh through At Tayyibah to Ghanduriyah and successfully linked with units of the Nahal that had been airlifted there; the 91st Division had advanced 3 miles northwest from Bint JBail to a position between Kafra and Brashit; and the Airborne Reserve Division had advanced 6 miles north through Debel to a position just south of Bayt Lif. When 30,000 or even 10,000 troops are deployed in an area running 15-20 miles from north to south and an equal distance from east to west, THAT IS A DEPLOYMENT IN FORCE, AND NOTHING BUT.
“The problem with your argument is that you refuse to ask the simple questions as to why, because it inevitably leads you to the conclusion you are so desperate to ignore. Why was the IDF strategy an improvised, incoherent muddle? Why did the ground assault never get moving?
Answer: Because the IDF came up against an enemy that outfought and outsmarted them.”
More propaganda cheering for The Team.
“Why was the IDF strategy an improvised, incoherent muddle? Why did the ground assault never get moving?”
You know why. Because Halutz, whose faith in airpower was boundless and unequivocal, believed airpower combined with small-bore standoff attacks would suffice to collapse Hezbollah and achieve Israel’s strategic goals. When, a week into the conflict, this was found to be inadequate, Halutz marginally escalated the standoff attacks. Then, in early August, he inexplicably commenced an inadequate ground assault within days of the ceasefire that would have no chance to achieve anything of consequence in the narrow time frame until the ceasefire. You have been advancing two contradictory arguments: 1) That the IDF went in with a full scale ground invasion which Hezbollah either prevented and/or beat them back, and 2) that they feared to do so out of fear of casualties. Which is it?
This first is a fantasy. The confused, piecemeal nature of the Israeli deployment between July 19 and August 11 is a matter of record, and has been extensively criticized in the Winograd report. Of course, you know all of this, but you will go on to the end denying the obvious in favor of your fantasies.
As for the second, well, duh, of course they wanted to avoid casualties; Halutz thought he could win his war on the cheap from the air, with small-scale standoff attacks on the ground. Needless to say, that failed.
“The IDF ground deployment was scattershot because Hezbollah thwarted it so comprehensively. The ground deployment began on the 21st, but the fact that it barely even got moving was because Hezbollah stopped it in it’s tracks.”
This first statement is not only false, it is nonsensical. If a deployment is “scattershot” then the fault is in the inadequacy of the deployment. All of the IDF ground deployments between July 19 and August 11 were standoff deployments directed at pinpointed targets, though in early August there was a gradual escalation. Again, you need to present evidence to the contrary, which you have so far failed to do.
“From the onset of the conflict to its last operations, Hezbollah commanders successfully penetrated Israel’s strategic and tactical decision-making cycle across a spectrum of intelligence, military and political operations, with the result that Hezbollah scored a decisive and complete victory in its war with Israel.”
What possible evidence is there to support this? This claim is simply unverifiable and you know it. Crook and Perry themselves have stated unequivocally that,
“Hezbollah officials will neither speak publicly nor for the record on how they fought the conflict, will not detail their deployments, and will not discuss their future strategy.”
So Crook and Perry have no more specialized access to Hezbollah deployments or tactics than anyone else, and that includes information on Hezbollah casualties, damage to infrastructure, or counter-intelligence efforts. The Winograd Report was pretty withering on IDF intelligence and counter-intelligence failures, but there is no mention in the report of Hezbollah intercepting IDF communications. Also, there is no mention of this in all of the interviews with IDF personnel conducted by many American and other Western authors and think-tanks.
On Hezbollah’s casualties, on August 4, 2006 by Con Coughlin
“Although Hizbollah has refused to make public the extent of the casualties it has suffered, Lebanese officials estimate that up to 500 fighters have been killed in the past three weeks of hostilities with Israel, and another 1,500 injured.
Lebanese officials have also disclosed that many of Hizbollah’s wounded are being treated in hospitals in Syria to conceal the true extent of the casualties. They are said to have been taken through al-Arissa border crossing with the help of Syrian security forces.
Hizbollah’s operational council has drawn up casualty lists that have been passed to the Shaheed Foundation. Copies have been seen by The Daily Telegraph, and have also been obtained by Lebanese newspapers, which have been pressurised by Hizbollah not to publish them.
“Hizbollah is desperate to conceal its casualties because it wants to give the impression that it is winning its war,” said a senior security official. “People might reach a very different conclusion if they knew the true extent of Hizbollah’s casualties.”
link to telegraph.co.uk
Another report on August 22 by the Daily Telegraph,
“UN officials believe that Hizbollah will not want to reignite the conflict, at least for a while. The organisation’s culture of secrecy has disguised the true number of its casualties – funerals of “martyrs” are being staggered to soften the impact of the losses. Some were interred without ceremony for re-burial later. A UN official estimated the deaths at 500, 10 per cent of the force Hizbollah is thought to muster, not all of whom are front-line fighters.”
link to telegraph.co.uk
The UN, the Lebanese government, and the IDF all agree that Hezbollah lost some 500-600 of its fighters. Crook and Perry are simply parroting the Hezbollah narrative. They present no evidence of access to any info that proves their assertions.
“Had Hezbollah suffered losses that Byman and Simon imagined, there would have been evidence of it in terms of diminished rockets attacks, the weakening of fighting capability on the ground and the disruption to Hezbollah’s communications and command structure. None of these was remotely affected.”
Huh? There is absolutely no way to assess where in Hezbollah’s infrastructure the losses would be impacted; it is highly unlikely that any such losses, terrible though they may be, would have any significant impact on their short range rocket launching attacks, since many of these were already successfully eluding being targeted and destroyed and thus not suffering great losses in the first place, and the loss of some 500 fighters, while significant, would not be sufficient to destroy Hezbollah as a fighting force south of the Litani. They had 3000 fighters there.
Said I: “As I have recounted numerous times, the IDF first opted for an improvised air assault punctuated with small-bore border forays (i.e., “standoff attacks”).
Said you: “Recount it all you like, you’re simply continue to be wrong. The air assault was a full scale bombing campaign that was of such a magnitude…”
Whether the air assault was “full scale” or not is irrelevant; no amount of air assault by itself was going to defeat Hezbollah or even weaken them significantly. Surely we can agree on this. This was the critical flaw in Halutz’s approach. The IDF did not invade Lebanon with a full scale combined arms assault by land, sea, and air. Not even close. This is the point of what I have been repeatedly making and which you have not refuted one iota. An air assault, whatever its dimensions, is no substitute for a full combined arms assault; that would be “throwing everything they had.” But they did not. When are you going to face reality and get this through your head?
As Zachary Jones notes in his study “Strategic Theory, Methodology, Air Power, and Coercion in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War,”
“Air power is neither strategically useless nor supreme in any type of conflict, a fact that holds for this type of conflict as well. Nonetheless some specific characteristics of air power and of many non-state actors may serve to inform us of what air power can and cannot do in such a conflict. Air power can effectively deal with large weapons systems, fixed targets, and infrastructure. Non-state actors generally do not have many of these targets. Targets of this type that can be identified should be struck quickly, forcefully, and without warning to maximize their effect. If these targets are positively identified they are likely to be especially time-sensitive. Attempting to strike targets which do not fall into any of the three above categories is likely a waste except when flying as close air support for ground forces. Air power enthusiasts have long overestimated the effectiveness of coercion by strategic attack from the air.
Similarly, the backlash against these air power boosters has created unrealistic and unsupported claims about air power’s ineffectiveness. Air power is simply another tool in the military toolkit. Successful coercion depends on selecting the right tools for the right job and employing them effectively. War is a human affair and does not conform to neat theories. The relevant variables in any interaction are basically infinite and so we should exercise great caution in determining a causal link between any phenomena in war. This is perhaps the most important lesson gleaned from my study of air power during the 2006 war: be humble in your conclusions. “
“A significant number of Israeli forces were airlifted into key areas just south of the Litani to accomplish this goal. The decision might well have led to a disaster. Most of the Israeli forces airlifted to these sites were immediately surrounded by Hezbollah units and may well have been decisively mauled had a ceasefire not gone into effect.”
“Might have led to disaster?” “May well have been decisively mauled?” My, how powerfully the wish begats the thought!
There is no record of any IDF units airlifted into place that were outflanked or overrun; for example, units of the Nahal were airlifted into the vicinity of Ghanduriyih on August 12 to secure a link-up with the 162 Division which was advancing westward. The Nahal had scouted the high ground around Wadi Saluki and pronounced it clear of the enemy. However, some 100 Hezbollah fighters armed to the teeth with small arms and ATGM’s had taken up positions beyond the area they scouted. Unbeknownst to them, the 24 tanks and two companies in the advance guard of 401 Brigade were walking into one of the fiercest ambushes of the war.
After a Merkava had hit an IED, the 24 tanks on the narrow incline were now plastered with a hail of ATGM fire. In the ensuing firefight, 11 of the 24 tanks were hit with ATGM fire, two of which were destroyed. 8 tankmen were killed, along with four infantry. The 401st could get no air cover for fear of fratricide, but once they brought up their artillery to bear on the attackers, the Hezbollah attackers ceased firing and withdrew, leaving 80 dead behind them. The 162 division continued its advance and linked with the Nahal outside Ganduriyuh.
In Ghanduriyuh, Hezbollah had skillfully prepared a series of defensive positions. However, when IDF units took one position, the defenders would move to the flank of the attackers in an attempt to retake the lost ground instead of withdrawing and regrouping to the previous defensive lines. Once again, Hezbollah defenders had an opportunity to bleed the enemy and conserve their forces for a stronger defense or a concentrated counterattack, and they instead opted for one of their usual pointlessly costly, to-the-last-martyr static defenses. IDF units had a fierce firefight with the town’s defenders, but they cleared it; the IDF lost 12 soldiers killed, and 57 dead Hezbollah were counted within the town. A squad sized counter-attack by Hezbollah on the town’s casbah was a failure. 162 Division was in firm possession of the town at the time of the ceasefire.
“Air strikes and infantry sweeps probably eliminated about half of the longer-range rockets that were not expended, as well as a large number of launchers.
Said you: “Again debunked. On the 28th, the Mossad leaked that Hezbollah were able to maintain the fighting for several months and the Pentagon estimated that the air strikes and infantry sweeps had negligible impact.”
You are answering a specific assertion with a general observation, and thus not refuting it one iota. As Zachary Jones notes in “Strategic Theory, Methodology, Air Power, and Coercion in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War,”
“By Israeli police figures 92 rockets were fired at Haifa, 7 at Alufa, 6 in Beit Shean, 2 in Tirat HaCarmel, 2 near Hadera, and 1 near Zikhron Yaakov; all cities outside of the range of short range Katayushas near the Israel-Lebanon border. Although some suggest that this does constitute heavy fire, and is evidence that the July 12 operation was not effective, nor primarily targeted on the Zelzals, the aforementioned record of observed rocket fire lends at least some credence to the IAF’s claims. Compared to the much heavier rocket fire endured by northern cities such as the Kirat Shmona area which was hit by some 1,102 rockets, the bombardment was light. This may have been due to the IAF’s early success at destroying an impressive amount of medium range rockets and their launchers, or perhaps because Hezbollah either lacked significant numbers prior to the war, or abstained for political reasons.
Intelligence assessments prior to the war do indicate that Hezbollah was seeking larger, longer range rockets and missiles, casting a large measure of doubt on the idea that the lighter bombardment of the abovementioned cities was because Hezbollah did not possess significant numbers of medium range rockets and missiles. Similarly there is little reason to believe that Hezbollah would have abstained from firing rockets further south for political reasons. Indeed as just indicated Hezbollah did fire a number of rockets and missiles into cities in the middle of Israel, just not in as great numbers as were fired into northern Israel. The volume of continuous rocket fire is alone enough to disabuse one of the idea that Hezbollah decided to not fire medium range rockets. Simply put it seems highly unlikely that Hezbollah didn’t have significant numbers of medium range rockets, and even more unlikely that it had them and chose not to use them. As a result it seems far more believable that the IAF significantly damaged Hezbollah’s longer range capabilities, and perhaps deterred them from using their remaining stores absent some measure of defensive capability.”
That Hezbollah would have declined to fire its arsenal of medium ranged missiles for reasons of political reticence or restraint is of course laughable. This would mean that only 110 of the nearly 4000 rockets fired into Israel were medium ranged missiles, marking the rest as either being too few to be expended or destroyed by the IAF. This is probable because of their larger launching platforms and, unlike the more mobile shorter ranged rockets on pickup trucks, are much more easily targeted.
“The IAF threw everything they had and achieved nothing. Then the IDF battalion sized assaults produced nothing. The extra forces they were pouring into the mix were whatever was left ie. the reserves, which were a complete shamble and an embarrassment.”
Complete, total fantasy. So the incremental escalation of troops until early August was “whatever was left?” They had no more troops? Oh, please. A complete Israeli mobilization would number in the hundreds of thousands.
“Yeah whatever, at the end of the day, this means only one thing Robert. Israel lost and Hezbollah won. You can try all you like to pretend that Israel scored own goals and made all the wrong choices, but as I’ve explained to you repeatedly, that’s how wars are won and lost.”
DING-DONG HEZBOLLAH WINS!
“Talk about a contradiction in terms! Have you completely lost your marbles? You’re citing Max Boot, the worst of the worst empire loving, war obsessed, Islamophobic, Israel worshipping neocons and yet you have the gall to accuse Crooke of being a rank apologist for militant Islam and the gangster-mullahs of Iran ?”
I guess part of being an unhinged ideologue is that you assume that everyone is as unhinged and ideological as you are. And this slander of Boot is based in what, YOUR books on irregular warfare that are read in military academies, and YOUR intensive research and writing on the subject? What a pitiful, mindless slander. Typical of you.
“After-battle reports of Hezbollah commanders now confirm that IDF troops never fully secured the border area and Maroun al-Ras was never fully taken.”
What “after-action reports?” Where were these accessed, and by who? How can Cook and Perry have accessed these “reports” when they openly admit that Hezbollah gave them no such access?
“Did you hear that Robert? Olmert deployed the full might of the IDF, so there’s no point denying that Israel threw everything they had at Hezbollah.”
Your desperation to prove this fantasy continues, and now you are citing this characterization as “proof.” It is no such thing, and you know it. What matters are the facts. The only way you can possibly prove that the “full might” of the IDF was directed at Hezbollah on the ground is to demonstrate this in the actual troop deployments themselves. Since nothing even approaching a deployment of the “full might” of the IDF ground forces ever occurred (even the August 12-14 was only 4 divisions—hardly the “full might” of the IDF), and there is no evidence of it, you will probably have to resort to your usual obfuscations and pseudo-responses to “prove” this. Good luck.
“This is a common fall back position by those that a losing the debate. The conclusion admits that Israel initiated the war. What is out of context about that?…Initiated is defined as “To set going by taking the first step; begin”. That tells us that Israel took the first steps or started the war. The kidnapping incident did not have to lead to war. Israel chose to use the incident as an excuse to roll out the war.”
So Hezbollah provokes the conflict with a cross-border assault and kidnapping, killing 3—a brazen act of war, and Israel responds to this act of war with war, and Israel, by initiating hostilities in response thus “started” the war. Got it.
“You already acknowledged that Israel had been giving power point presentations on the war plans in Washington in January of 2006, so there is no dispute that Israel were clearly looking for any excuse to unleash it – they simply waited for the opportunity. It is also beyond dispute that Blair and Bush were informed prior to the capture of the IDF soldiers, that the war was about to take place.”
I acknowledged what? You said on Nov. 15, “It was widely reported that the Israelis were giving power point presentations in Washington about the plans to attack Lebanon in January of that year. So Israel had spent probably a year planning this exercise of not longer.” To which I said “Whatever was presented at this event could not have been the plan that was executed in July 2006 because the plan did not yet exist,” to which you replied, “Of course it did. It was widely reported that Bush and Blair were informed of Israel’s plans to attack Hezbollah well before the cross border skirmish, so the plan was not improvised at all.”
So let us be clear what you are asserting here:
1) That the plan adopted by Halutz in July of 2006 was the contingency plan that had been prepared months before, i.e., MEY MAROM.
2) That Israel intended to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 absent the kidnapping in July.
3) That Bush and Blair “knew” of this alleged Israeli plan to attack Lebanon in 2006.
Your evidence to prove this is as follows:
1) A report from the SF Chronicle that notes that, “By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we’re seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it’s been simulated and rehearsed across the board.” 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.”
2) Juan Cole’s July 23 post citing the above article.
3) John Kampfner, then editor of the radical left-wing New Statesman, asserting on August 7, and without evidence, that he was “told” that “The Israelis informed George W Bush in advance of their plans to “destroy” Hezbollah by bombing villages in southern Lebanon. The Americans duly informed the British. So Blair knew.”
The plan referenced in the SFC article cannot have been the Halutz version because Halutz had not yet decided upon that plan until July. While at war, nations do not publicly reveal their adopted plans so the enemy can know them; that is why the article is silent on the contents of the plan it references, and does not inform us whether the plan is the original contingency plan or the Halutz version of it. Again, it was reasonable to assume that the current plan of action was the original contingency plan but it was not. No one had ever made the contents of that contingency plan public to the SFC or anyone else, and the contents of any IDF contingency plan would only be known to a few Pentagon and civilian higher ups. But lets put all that aside. Let’s say that the Halutz plan was the contingency plan, and the one shared with the Pentagon months before. What would this possibly matter? What would this possibly prove? Absolutely nothing, except that this was one lousy contingency plan.
It is a matter of record that the ICE BREAKER contingency plan, which envisaged a 72hr air assault followed by the MEY MAROM plan, which envisaged a full scale combined arms air, sea and ground assault which was to follow, was rejected by Halutz in favor of his own scaled back version at the outset of the conflict in staff meetings. He adopted the air assault but scaled back the ground activity to small-bore stand-off attacks. He was warned at this stage by Lt. Col. Ron Tira, formerly of the Air Planning Staff of the IAF, that his scaled-back version “didn’t make sense at all. You either activate MEY MAROM and occupy the entire rocket launch area or you don’t. There is absolutely no sense in raids. They are not going to stop the rockets, and soldiers can get killed. It is risk without reward.”
Tira observed in Halutz’s over-reliance on air power a misreading of the American “Shock and Awe” doctrine:
“[There was an] over-zealous embrace of the American effects-based operations (EBO) idea. EBO’s aim is to paralyze the enemy’s operational ability, in contrast to destroying its military force. This is achieved by striking the headquarters, lines of communication, and other critical junctions in the military structure. EBO [was] employed in their most distinct form in the Shock and Awe campaign that opened the 2003 Iraq War. However, the Americans used EBO to prepare the way for their ground maneuvers, and not as an alternative to them.”
The contingency planning for a full scale conflict with Hezbollah had of course been in the works for years. The plans were refined, updated, and adjusted over the years like all contingency plans are. Your statement that “It was not a contingency plan for a future conflict. Contingency plans are not shopped around Washington and preceded by political leaders being informed that such a conflict was” is both false and actual nonsense. You simply made this up.
The IDF and the Pentagon share their contingency planning with regard to a whole host of scenarios on the highest levels and with the greatest transparency. There is no evidence, repeat, NO EVIDENCE, that the Halutz plan was the original contingency plan (and makes not a whit of difference even if it was), NO EVIDENCE that Israel was intending to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 absent the kidnapping, and NO EVIDENCE that Bush or Blair “knew” of an Israeli attack before the kidnapping for the simple reason that no such Israeli attack had been planned. You, along with Cole and Kampfner, are simply taking the fact that the IDF shared its contingency planning with regard to Hezbollah with the Pentagon—an utterly routine occurrence—and exaggerating it into some supposed specific plan to invade Lebanon in the summer of 2006. It’s all bullshit, and nothing of the hearsay and speculation that all three of you have cited “proves” anything of the sort.
“It was Hezbollah fighters that [won] every tactical engagement. In the end, it was Hezbollah that eviscerated the IDF.”
I have repeatedly requested you to give me a single example of where one of these “victories” occurred, and you just keep repeating the same old hooray-for-Hezbollah cheerleading tripe.
On Maroun al-Ras:
“IDF detachments continually failed to flank the defenders, meeting counterpunches toward the west of the city. Special three-man hunter-killer teams from the Nasr Brigade destroyed several Israeli armored vehicles during the fight with light man-made anti-tank missiles.”
This was true—in the opening stages of the battle on July 19. In fact, the advance guard infantry platoon of the Maglan brigade was very nearly surrounded and cut to pieces at this stage. I described this in my November 6 post:
“After some initial missteps in which an infantry platoon from the Maglan brigade found itself temporarily surrounded, a reinforcement of an infantry company and an armored platoon was brought up, and a 5-7 hour firefight ensued in which all of the Hezbollah defenders were killed in place. Later in the day, some 15-30 Hezbollah militants counterattacked an Israeli company deployed in buildings on a hillcrest within the secured perimeter; the company was surprised, and there ensued some brutal hand to hand fighting before a score of the militants were killed, and the rest put to flight. The Israelis lost 8 killed and Hezbollah lost 24, and, though sniping from outside the village continued for some days afterward, the Israelis secured the village, if not the entire surrounding area.”
This statement of Crook and Perry’s then refers to a situation that occurred in the opening stages of the battle—not the end result. By July 25 the IDF did in fact eventually flank the city on all sides, and by July 25 they had already deployed units of the Golani to the northeast of Bint J’Bail, and the 35 Brigade, Paratrooper 101st and 890th Battalion, 7th Armored were deployed to the northwest and the south, respectively. This in fact set the stage for the battle of Bint J’Bail. If these three IDF units had failed to flank Maroun al-Ras, they could not have deployed there and there thus would have been no battle of Bint J’Bail.
Said you: “The IDF never managed to flank the city and the Golani were driven back to such an extent they called for further reinforcements – and still achieved nothing. They completely failed to secured any presence in any cities that they were subsequently driven from Bint J’Bail and never returned.”
There is no evidence that the units of the Golani were “driven back” in the battle of Maroun al-Ras. 5 soldiers of the Egoz unit of the Golani were killed by an ATGM, but the other units of the Golani there were nowhere “driven back.” After the battle they were withdrawn for the pending assault on Bint J’Bail. The fact is the IDF secured perimeters both inside and outside both cities that they held to the ceasefire, though they did make a tactical withdrawal from an exposed position inside Bint J’Bail on July 30 before elements of the Golani and the 91st Division reentered the town in force several days later. Afterward, they were not ejected by force, and remained there to the ceasefire.
Crook and Perry’s treatment of the actual ground engagements is limited to the battles of Maroun al-Ras and Bin J’Bail and is cursory and incomplete. For Maroun al-Ras they describe the events in the opening of the battle, and only assert that the IDF “had not taken the town” and that Hezbollah “had not been dislodged.”
For Bint J’Bail, they state,
“But it remained in Hezbollah hands until the end of the conflict. By then, the town had been destroyed, as Hezbollah fighters were able to survive repeated air and artillery shellings, retreating into their bunkers during the worst of the air and artillery campaign, and only emerging when IDF troops in follow-on operations tried to claim the city.”
Hezbollah militants were certainly still hiding here and there in the rubble in and about the town, but the town was not “in Hezbollah hands until the end of the conflict.” The whole battle of Bint J’Bail consisted of sporadic fighting in and around the town, with areas see-sawing back and forth, and the IDF did not fully secure perimeters in the town until August 14, by which time the Israelis had lost 14 killed and 31 wounded, and Hezbollah had lost about 80 men killed.
The first part of the battle raged from July 26-July 30. The second stage occurred on August 3 when the IDF reentered the town, destroyed a Hezbollah missile launcher, and discovered a cache of assault rifles. On August 5, some 8-10 gunmen were killed, IDF units discovered a cache of Katyusha rocket and Sagger missile stores, and hit another rocket launcher on August 6. On August 8, there was a fierce firefight between units of the Golani and Hezbollah when the IDF commandeered a Hezbollah command post where two IDF, and six Hezbollah were killed. A Hezbollah ATGM hit an IDF infantry position, wounding six and damaging a tank.
Needless to say, Crook and Perry do not go into detail about the “follow on operations” in the last week of the campaign because in that period the IDF killed a number of militants and established perimeters in the town which they held to the ceasefire and, according to UNIFIL, did not even begin to evacuate until late August. In fact, while deployed in the town in this period, the IDF uncovered and photographed a number of arms caches that had been stockpiled in the dwellings.
Crook and Perry are merely arguing that the IDF failed to fully secure both towns. This once again leads us to the pointless semantic debate over the word “secure.” It is pointless because the IDF secured perimeters inside and outside both towns, but they did not occupy the entire surrounding areas, nor did they intend to in the July 19-30 period; they were securing tactically important perimeters for “raids.” Hezbollah fighters conducted a few costly counterattacks on positions in and around both towns which were wholly unsuccessful, and they harassed the IDF positions with some sporadic small-arms fire to the end of the conflict, but they never succeeded in ejecting the IDF from their held positions, and the IDF were deployed in force in both towns at the time of the ceasefire.
If you are going to prove that IDF units were not deployed inside both towns at the time of the ceasefire, you’re going to have to do better than merely quoting Crook and Perry, some of whose points are valid, and some of which are vague and unsourced assertions that are not adding up to much. You, in fact are making claims that not even they are making. They are merely arguing that the IDF failed to fully secure both towns, and, overall, that the IDF failed to destroy Hezbollah or even weaken them significantly, all of which would at least fall within the purview of legitimate debate; you, however, are arguing that Hezbollah defeated the IDF in both towns and ejected them by force. You are also arguing that the IDF “never secured any perimeters [in Lebanon], were clearly ejected by force because Hezbollah counterattacks were spectacularly successful,” and “the IDF were never deployed in force anywhere before or at the time of the ceasefire.” All of this goes far beyond anything asserted by Crook and Perry.
***
If you wish to argue that the end result of the conflict was a political victory for Hezbollah, you are free to do that; I personally believe, for reasons I have stated at length, that the conflict a political stalemate, and that nobody “won,” though I recognize that Hezbollah snatched a propaganda victory. Whatever; in any event, arguing the politics of the conflict is an endless argument. Everyone will simply insist on their own interpretation.
The events of the military conflict, however, are factual and demonstrable. Either Hezbollah prevented the IDF from crossing the border or they did not; either they defeated the IDF in Maroun al-Ras and Bint J’Bail, i.e., drove them out or forced their surrender, or they did not; either the IDF was deployed in force in Lebanon at the time of the ceasefire, or they were not, etc., etc.
I have argued all along, per the facts, that the IDF engaged Hezbollah with a confused, tardy and piecemeal deployment. The evidence supporting this fact is simply overwhelming, and has been copiously documented with an abundance of after action reports, evidence and testimony. The limited and brief ground war, such as it was, was interrupted and not fought to a conclusion. Not even close. There was no “victory” for either side; the fighting was at a stalemate when it was interrupted, and the IDF remained deployed in force at the time of the ceasefire. The IDF did not destroy Hezbollah, and Hezbollah did not prevent the IDF from crossing the border, did not win a single ground engagement, and did not eject the IDF from Lebanon by force.
You, on the other hand have argued that
1) That the IDF “never secured any perimeters” within Lebanon, and “were never deployed in force anywhere before or at the time of the ceasefire.”
2) That Hezbollah “won every tactical engagement” and that the IDF were “clearly ejected by force because Hezbollah counterattacks were spectacularly successful.”
3) That Israel intended to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 absent the kidnapping.
This first is demonstrably false. Some 30,000 IDF troops—four divisions—were deployed in South Lebanon at the time of the ceasefire. The Reserve Armored Division was deployed in Marjayoun; the 162 Infantry Division had advanced 6 miles westward from Addaisseh through At Tayyibah to Ghanduriyah and successfully linked with units of the Nahal that had been airlifted there; the 91st Division had advanced 3 miles northwest from Bint JBail to a position between Kafra and Brashit; and the Airborne Reserve Division had advanced 6 miles north through Debel to a position just south of Bayt Lif.
Secondly, the IDF were not driven from Maroun al-Ras or Bint J’Bail at the time of the ceasefire, and nothing stated by Crook and Perry asserts or proves otherwise. Crook and Perry do not describe the engagements fought at Markaba, Marjayoun, Shaked Outpost, Ayta ash-Shab, Muhaybib, Ghanduriyih, Dayr Siryan, and Tayyibah for the simple reason that there were no Hezbollah “victories” there or anywhere else. They would surely have mentioned them if there were.
Thirdly, you have provided not a whit of evidence to prove that Israel intended to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon in the summer of 2006, absent the kidnapping.
At some point I think you are simply going to have to admit that these assertions of yours are simply false. Instead of all these rhetorical and argumentative gymnastics, why don’t you just admit the truth: that there is not a shred of evidence to prove your assertions?
Thank you for your latest instalment of your on – going psychotic episode. Your devotion to Israel is of an intensity best described by the Youtube video of this send up of the Brittney Spears fan.
link to youtube.com
That three times now you’ve changed your story.
- First you claimed that Halutz rejected the plan
- Then you claimed there was no plan
- Then you claimed he came up with the plan
- Finally you are arguing that there was a plan in place for a long time.
And you call me a liar?
First of all whatever Israel undertook in Lebanon in 2006 was not a contingency plan, but an act of aggressive war that was carefully coordinated with Washington. It had been in place for at least a year prior. Secondly, whatever the plan was, it was a non starter, given that the that the 48-72hrs air assault was itself a complete failure.
Thirdly, Halutz was not calling the shots alone. Olmert was on the same page throughout and endorsed the Halutz plan entirely, as did Perez.
Sorry, but citing the claims by the IDF does not make it a documented, verifiable fact. Fox, AP and CNN were merely parroting what the IDF told them. Furthermore, your own links are contradictory. If the number of troops in Lebanon was 10,000 on August 11, how can they possibly have been at 30,000 by the 12th?
You really should read your own sources before venturing out to make such a fool of yourself.
Israel might have prepared 30,000 troops with the hope of pushing north into Lebanon, but in retrospect, it’s beyond dispute that they never made it there.
It is also worth noting that the news coming from the MSM during the 2006 war turned out largely to be false, due entirely to the fact that the US media was simply acting as a stenographer for Israeli propaganda at the time.
Post mortems from Robert Fisk and many other later revealed that Israeli claims were ridiculously exaggerated, and that the war in fact turned out to be a mopping exercise by Hezbollah.
Your Fox news link is completely absurd on it’s face. As has been explained to you repeatedly, the Israelis were not interested in any ceasefire and knew that a US veto was guaranteed at the UNSC, so the claim that the push northward was delayed because of possible “progress toward agreement on a UN cease-fire resolution” is laughable to say the least. The Israelis contempt for the UN was demonstrated by their bombing of a UN outpost – something that has become a trade mark of the Israelis.
We’ve already established that the Israelis were in a state of utter chaos and that the delay in pushing northward was a consequence of:
a) The complete failure of the air campaign
b) The fact that they had not even agreed as to when the push northward was even to begin
c) Hezbollah were tearing the IDF ground forces apart
We’ve also established that the Israelis never managed to grab any strategic high ground in south Lebanon.
The existence of sporadic fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah in Lebanon on August 21 is proof of nothing. In fact, there was sporadic fighting well into 2007 – long after Israel’s withdrawl was completed.
The last dregs of the IDF were able to drag their feet because of the presence of international peace keepers who were there largely to protect them.
The BBC report that the IDF completed its withdrawal in October does not indicate how many troops were ever in Lebanon. In fact, the only specific mentioned is the presence of some troops in the small border village of Ghajar.
Halutz’s bravado is reminiscent of John McCain’s the 2008 campaign when he insisted that “we had them right where we wanted them”, while he was getting his presidential ass handed to him.
So in spite of 3 links that point tot the same source (Halutz), there is actually no independent evidence provided that 30,000 IDF troops were ever were deployed in South Lebanon. Having 30,000 troops standing with one foot in Israel and the other on the other side of the Blue Line, and refusing to follow orders to march to their deaths, is hardly “en force” deployment.
Clearly there was nothing remotely line a deployment in force.
No Robert. First of all, Olmert shared Halutz’s believe in the omnipotence of air power and secondly, even if we were to believe your scapegoating of Halutz, the “MEY MROM” plan, or whatever plan Israel had, was dead on arrival due to the complete failure of the air campaign. Israel continued to ramp up air strikes til the, not limit them, thus proving they had no other plan.
Secondly, the argument that Halutz rejected the existing plan in favor of his own defies logic. The tactics used by Israel during Cast Lead (relying almost entirely on air power), are identical to what you attributed to Halutz. If Halutz’s plan had been to blame, Israel would not have repeated the mistake of relying on 2 weeks of air assaults before committing ground troops in Gaza. In fact, Israel were so proud of the Dahiyeh doctrine that they vowed to unleash it on Gaza.
What this tells us Robert, is that there is only one plan when it comes to Israel – air power and more air power.
The fact is that Israel were never going to commit to a massive ground invasion from the outset because it doesn’t provide them a tactical advantage. Remember that the other problem Halutz had was that Israeli forces refused orders to advance against Hezbollah fighters, happily opting for 14 day jail sentences for failure to obey orders.
As Crooke and Perry have explained, the ground assault was going to be inadequate no matter what the numbers. Hezbollah had routed and driven out Israeli forces, including the Golani and reinforcements and done so with only 3,000 troops.
Secondly, there was no narrow time frame until the ceasefire. There was no time frame set for the ceasefire. The ceasefire only came into affect when Israel decided it was in their interests to have one.
There is no contradiction here. The Israelis absolutely went in with a full scale ground invasion and were beaten back, but Israel only did so when it became apparent the IAF had failed to deliver.
Confusion is the inevitable outcome of being overwhelmed in battle. You continue to cling to the fantasy that the IDF were holding back, but the reality is that Israel had nothing left in the tank. They blew all their arms stockpiles in the first 10 days of fighting. The call for reserves was a clear sign of desperation when they were short of fighters
All deployments look scattershot when they fail. When they succeed they look focused.
You have presented no evidence that that IDF deployments between July 19 and August 11 were standoff deployments directed at pinpointed targets.
What possible evidence apart from the fact Crook and Perry wrote a 3 part report explaining it all to you in meticulous detail?
Part 1 was entitled Winning the Intelligence war
Part 1 was entitled Winning the ground war
Part 1 was entitled The political war
a) How about the Israeli and British media, which was rife with examples of the Hezbollah successfully penetrating Israel’s strategic and tactical decision-making cycle across a spectrum of intelligence, military and political operations.
b) Within the first week of fighting, Hezbollah successfully targeted an ultra secret communications post in Northern Israel. This sent shockwaves throughout the Israeli government and the IDF.
c) Haaretz were publishing daily reports that Hezbollah were running rings around the IDF’s military operations and even you have admitted that Hezbollah vanquished Israel politically.
d) Even Robert Fisk, no fan of Hezbollah, was already observing that Israel’s defeat was looking imminent.
e) The Hezbollah television completed the circle, enabling Hezbollah to penetrate right in to Israeli living rooms.
f) Nasrallah became the most popular figure in the Arab and Islamic world.
g) Israel was torn apart politically by the war
On the contrary Robert. Crook and Perry were referring to Cordesman’s report and his access to Hezbollah sources, not their own. As a former MI6 officer, Crook would have no problem gaining access to such information, whether from Hezbollah directly or otherwise.
Even so, mainstream reports were providing an abundance of material and information to support Crook’s and Perry’s findings, not least of which was the Hezbollah television network, which was so successful that Israeli citizens were tuning into it – believing that it’s reporting was more accurate that Israel’s reporting.
I remember myself closely following Bilmon’s daily commentary on the Wiskey Fire blog, where his analysis mirrored Crook’s and Perry’s report in real time, and his only sources were from the public record.
Winograd’s omission of Hezbollah intercepting IDF communications is hardly surprising. Such a finding would undoubtedly be considered too sensitive for public consumption. Blaming the strategy is easy, but admitting that the enemy has routed your intelligence and communications systems is fatal.
Similarly, the reticence of IDF personnel to discuss this matter with American and other Western authors and think-tanks proves does not undermine the fact that Hezbollah were able to penetrate Israeli communications channels.
Hezbollah demonstrated their capacity for doing so abundantly when they released footage they intercepted from an Israeli drone on the day of the Hariri assassination.
I thought you’d scraped the bottom of the barrel when you cited Max boot, but it seems I gave you too much credit. Rolling out the pathological liar and Israeli propagandist extraordinary, Con Coughlin, has to be a new low point even by your shameless and despicable standards. Coughlin is without a doubt, one of the most discredited sources in any print or electronic media. A week before the IAEA report on Iran was released, he was declaring that he’d seen that too and that it contained undeniable proof that Iran was producing nukes – so when this low life claims that staff at the Daily Telegraph had seen a report containing the number of Hezbollah casualties from 2006, but failed to produce it 5 years later, it’s obvious he was lying then, as he has always done.
Seriously, are we to believe that Hezbollah have such influence at a right wing, rabidly pro Israeli tabloid in London to discourage it from publishing such a powerful piece of propaganda as this alleged Hizbollah’s operational council casualty list?
What planet are you from Robert?
Absolute rubbish. The UN has never produced any estimate as to the number of Hezbollah fighters lost in 2006, only the number of civilian casualties, As for the Lebanese government estimates, you are of course referring to the sock US puppet , Siniora, who was cimplicit in the Israeli attack and has no credibility whatsoever. That leaves the IDF and the IDF alone as your source, and your own prior links have admitted that this estimate is simply a guestimate (ie. lie) on Israel’s part.
So you admit that there is no way to assess the degree to which Israel destroyed Hezbollah’s infrastructure, and no evidence (apart from IDF claims) as to the number of Hezbollah fighters killed. Yet you simply assert that it must have been significant because…. well….because that’s what the IDF told you. Not only did Israel fail to impact Hezbollah’s short range rockets attacks, they failed to impact any aspect of Hezbollah’s ability to wage war. How can the losses have been so terrible when the communications network remained unscathed and the reserves weren’t even called up?
You cling to your unverifiable belief in spite of the fact that the Pentagon and even the Mossad admitted that the IDF made no significant impact on Hezbollah’s ability to wage war, and that includes the longer range rockets.
So in other words, you are simply clinging to a fantasy.
As Crook and Perry have explained, the only credible number of Hezbollah fighters killed in 184.
False on multiple counts.
1. This is a critical flaw is Israel’s approach full stop, not just Halutz’s. Israel used the same approach during Cast Lead, but were able to get away with it due to the weakness of Hamas.
2. Air assaults tend to work on weak groups like Hamas, where overwhelming military superiority compensates for flawed tactics and strategy. Israel have become lazy with fighting such an ineffective opposition
3. Even the MEY MROM relied on a successful air campaign, and that was never going to happen
First of all, Israel never had the means to launch sea and air assault, but the attempted invasion was indeed a full scale land invasion – at least, that’s what Israel attempted, until they got pushed back. The IDF were taking 48-72 hours to deliver supplies to their front line as it was, so how on earth could they ever tackle the logistics to move hundreds of thousands?
A sea assault would have been a disaster for them based on the direct hit Hezbollah made on the Israeli navy ship. Helicopters carrying troops would’ve been dropping like flies from the sky.
Israel simply had no means to conduct a full combined arms assault. They threw everything they had from the air and then threw everything they had on the ground and lost.
They lost big time!!
My how sour those lemons were that you’ve been sucking on for 5 years.
Where did you read this crap? Hezbollah absolutely mauled the 162 Division and the events at Ghanduriyih turned out to be an absolute disaster for the IDF –throughout the entire conflict.
Simply repeating your Israeli centric BS is wearing thin and convincing no one. You continue to insist that Hezbollah should have fought the war your way (or Israel’s way), but the fact is that at no point did Israel manage to hold any territory whatsoever. None. They certainly never held Ghanduriyih.
They got smashed at Ghanduriyih.
Nothing from Zachary Jones refutes that Mossad had established that Hezbollah were capable of fighting the war for another several months . Jones’s argument, while amusing, is entirely irrelevant and flawed. There is no evidence that the IAF managed to destroying any significant number of medium range rockets and their launchers, nor does he even address Hezbollah’s ability to wage the ground war, where they were clearly dominant.
Zachary Jones theories simply fail the most basic of scrutiny. If the middle range missiles were destroyed because their launchers were less mobile, then how does that explain the IDF’s inability to lay a hand on Hezbollah’s communications network, which wasn’t mobile at all?
Jones believes (but provides zero evidence) that there is no reason to believe that Hezbollah abstained from firing rockets further south for political reasons, when this has been widely documented. In fact, he can’t make up his mind whether Hezbollah’s medium range rockets were destroyed (obviously not the case) or whether Hezbollah believed this would lead Israel to respond with even more insanity and sadism towards the Lebanese public.
Jones argument is that because Hezbollah were not firing mid range rickets, that this proves Israel destroyed them.
That’s it. Nothing else. No post conflict reports, no reconnaissance evidence, nothing. That and the unsubstantiated rejection that Hezbollah withheld firing these missiles for political reasons.
What’s also interesting is that Jones describes Israel’s attempt to capture the high ground (thus underlining it’s importance) while Bard and Freedman (who you cited previously) criticized Hezbollah for not ceding this strategically valuable territory.
Nothing like citing 2 papers that contradict one another entirely, while trying to prove the same argument. Way to go Robert.
Jones’ piece reads like the large tribe of hand picked Hasbara academics, handsomely paid by various Israel lobby funders to produce feel good reports that conclude the next Hezbollah Israel war will be nothing like the 2006. In addition, pro-Israel authors like Jones routinely skew their research to reassure their paymasters that Hezbollah will lose to the spruced up, better-equipped and trained Israeli soldiers.
People like Jones were making the same predictions before 2006. They were predicting the Merkava would run roughshod over Hezbollah and crush them. It turned out to be nothing more than an armor plated coffin. They were wrong then and they will be proven wrong again. In spite of all the feel good papers funded by the Israeli lobby to make Israel feel good about the next war with Hezbollah (ie. the ones you keep dredging up) Washington has clearly decided that Israel is incapable of taking on Hezbollah.
The US Senate Armed Services Committee staffer reported that while “seemingly counterintuitive given the past six decades of US coddling Israel with all manner of support and political cover” , the White House has informed Israel that the days of ‘green lights’ for trampling and carpet bombing Lebanon are over. Thus not only does Washington not believe Israel can take on Hezbollah, they’ve also deduced that if there was to be another war, Israel would repeat the same mistakes it made in 2006 – because as I said earlier, Israel is a one trick pony.
Secretary of State Clinton reportedly told PM Netanyahu during a visit to basically ‘forget about it’ when Israel’s Prime Minister repeated ad nausea the mantra that “Lebanon is now Hezbollah and Hezbollah is now Lebanon” so Israel can exercise “blanket self defense.” ( Ed: gets to bomb and obliterate at will).
Much noise is made of the game changing technology that Israel will have the next time around, but as Cordesman has reported, such new toys will likely will not function in real war conditions .
Timur Goskel, former advisor to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), is dismissive of many of these “Research Papers” you keep citing and their (almost without exception) Zionist authors:
“They don’t know the other side of the story. They don’t know what is happening here in Lebanon or what is Hezbollah doing or what Hezbollah is capable of. They will likely be shocked when they find out. They guess from newspapers and whatever and Hezbollah is not the organization you can read about in newspapers accurately. They don’t talk too much.”
The only thing laughable is your pathetic posturing. Restraint is a term that has become synonymous with Hezbollah. After the 2006 war, Sy Hersh reported (after having interviewed Nasrallah), that Ahmadinejad had committed to footing the bill to rebuild Lebanon if Nasrallah decided to use the longer range missiles to strike deeper into Israel. Such strikes would have obviously led Israel to bomb even more civilian areas of Lebanon. But he left the decision in Nasrallah’s hands. Hersh reported that Nasrallah took the decisions that the cost to Lebanon’s civilians would be too great and demurred.
Crook and Perry also tear holes in Jones’s thesis:
Olmert approved these (increased air sorties against potential Hezbollah caches in marginal target areas) attacks, while knowing that in making such a request his senior officers had all but admitted that their initial assessment of the damage inflicted on Hezbollah was exaggerated.
Qana was the result of Olmert’s agreement to “stretch the target envelope”.
In fact, Crook and Perry go on to explain that the failure of the IAF assault was absolute:
One US military expert who monitored the conflict closely had this to say of the Qana bombing: “This isn’t really that complicated. After the failure of the initial campaign, IAF planning officers went back through their target folders to see if they had missed anything. When they decided they hadn’t, someone probably stood up and went into the other room and returned with a set of new envelopes of targets in densely populated areas and said, ‘Hey, what about these target envelopes?’ And so they did it.” That is, the bombing of targets “close in” to southern Lebanon population areas was the result of Israel’s failure in the war – not its success.
The “target stretching” escalated throughout the conflict; frustrated by their inability to identify and destroy major Hezbollah military assets, the IAF began targeting schools, community centers and mosques – under the belief that their inability to identify and interdict Hezbollah bunkers signaled Hezbollah’s willingness to hide their major assets inside civilian centers.
Does that sound like an outfit that was able to take out Hezbollah’s mid range missiles? Do you think Hezbollah were stupid enough to risk losing their mid range missiles by making such fundamental errors?
No way in hell.
Surely, mid to long range missiles would qualify as major Hezbollah military assets would they not? The best one can say about Jones’s absurd thesis, is that he meant well (from a Zionist perspective), but the conclusion is based on wishful thinking rather than evidence.
No it wouldn’t. Israel is not capable of a mobilization of hundreds of thousands. 2006 demonstrated that:
a) they don’t even have the logistics to transport 10% of that many troops, let alone keep them fed.
b) They wouldn’t even have enough ammo to arm all these troops, or they would run out within the first few days
I take it you are speaking from experience Robert.
Based on the fact that Boot is a delusional nutcase who had a wet dream about the unipolar world, full spectrum dominance and American empire. He’s slowly waking up from that wet dream and struggling to come to terms with reality. He was wrong on Iraq, he was wrong on Afghanistan, and as Crook and Perry demonstrated, he was wrong about 2006.
Check out his latest foray into delusion. While even the right wing has come to terms with the folly of nation building, Boot is among the last dead enders still trying to revive this deluded policy.
link to articles.latimes.com
Stephen Glain sums up Boot beautifully here:
Among other things, he associates America’s withdrawal from Southeast Asia in the early 1970s with the fall of the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam, the holocaust in Cambodia, the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the evolution of al Qaeda.
Who would have thought that America’s withdrawal from the quagmire it created for itself in Vietnam would have precipitated such a nasty chain of events? Practically no one except Boot, whose understanding of the evidence he marshals on his own behalf must have been nurtured in the hot house that is the Council of Foreign Relations, where he is a senior fellow.
link to usnews.com
They never admitted Hezbollah gave them no such access, they said Hezbollah gave Cordesman no such access. In any case, the after action reports are clearly available not only from on the ground reporting, but to anyone interested in visiting the location.
How is it then that you accept the claims by the IDF at face value? Look Robert, if Israel had not mobilized anything even approaching a deployment of the “full might” of the IDF ground forces, then why were they calling on reserves? Why did they settle for being defeated so emphatically if they had so much left in the tank?
What were they saving the “full might” of the IDF for ?
Save your wining for the Winograd Commission Robert, that’s the conclusion they came to. Israel didn’t respond to the cross-border raid. They didn’t even make an effort to rescue the 3 captured IDF soldiers. They seized on the incident to unleash a plan they had in the works for over a year. A plan they had already discussed with the war criminals Bush and Blair long before the cross-border assault.
And what makes it a brazen act of war Robert? The fact that Hezbollah conducted a cross border assault and kidnapping, killing 3 or the fact that it was done to Israel? Israel pulls stunts like this all the time in Gaza, and continues to do it in Lebanon. In January alone, Israel kidnapped a Lebanese farmer after launching a cross border raid.
Was that an act of war?
Yes, let’s be clear about who is asserting what.
That was your claim not mine.
Without question, which is why Israel were marketing the plan in Washington 12 months earlier.
Again, without a doubt.
Robert, it’s you brought up the argument as to who in Israel came up with the plan. The argument is utterly irrelevant.
The plan was not revealed publicly. The report of the plan surfaced after Israel initiated the war.
It would be fundamental because:
a) A plan to start a war is by definition not a contingency plan
b) It would prove that Israel were planning to start a war with Hezbollah and merely waiting for an opportunity to exploit.
It is completely irrelevant whether Halutz rejected ICE BREAKER or the MEY MAROM plan because ultimately Israel were looking for a war with Hezbollah. You seem to believe that getting bogged down in the minutia of Israel’s plans for war somehow negates the fact that they started a war that they wanted for 6 years.
That might be true of contingency plans, but Israel’s plan was not a contingency, it was an aggressive war plan to destroy Hezbollah. Destroying Hezbollah has been a goal of Israel since 2000 and thus is clearly not a contingency but pre mediated goal.
No, I provided links to reports supporting both. You are simply a liar. Repeating over and over again that this was a contingency plan changes nothing. It was not a contingency plan. Israel stated from the outset that they were going to destroy Hezbollah. If there was a contingency plan, it came into effect when Israel realized they weren’t going to be able to do it.
I agree that is makes no difference one way or the other. You’re the one to raise this argument, and now pretending as though I came up with it to begin with.
Of course there is and I cited it. As Crook and Perry explained:
That idea, to punish Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah and so turn the people against the militia, had been a part of Israel’s plan since the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000.
There is no question that this was exactly what Israel had in mind in 2006, to punish the Lebanese population for allowing Hezbollah to exist and hope to turn them against Hezbollah. Not only did this fail, but it backfired, especially when Israel moronically got into a predictable bombing frenzy and also bombed the Christian neighbourhoods, thereby encouraging the Christians to side with Hezbollah.
Your refusal to accept it is entirely up to you, but does not refute the fact that Israel were planning this war 12 months prior, informed Bush and Blair of it and even more damming, carried it out at the behest of Dick Cheney.
Following briefings from top Israeli military officials, Cheney approved plans for an air war against Lebanon as a preliminary move to disarm Hizbullah in advance of America’s broader military objective – to launch an air war against Iran. Had the US launched its war against Iran without Olmert’s intervention in Lebanon, Hizbullah would have been free to attack Israel. Cheney’s plan was designed to disarm Hizbullah, but it was based on what now appears to have been a false assumption – that Israel would win their war in Lebanon.
link to globalresearch.ca
Cole and Kampfner have presented a case that you are at pains to address so all you can do is throw your hands up in the air and all it bullshit.
Cole explains that the “Three Week War” was shown to Washington think tanks and officials last year on powerpoint by a senior Israeli army officer
Three weeks is pretty much how long the war lasted. Kalmn reported that:
“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.”
Now if this was merely a contingency plan that was routinely shared between Israel and Washington, why did Israel only begin giving PowerPoint presentations to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks (in revealing detail) 12 months prior to the Israeli attack? Surely, such presentations would have been routine – PowerPoint has been around for decades.
As Cole also explained, Israel prefers to launch their wars of choice in the summer (to minimize university opposition), which is precisely when the 2006 war was started.
As Cole explained:
This war has nothing to do with captured Israeli soldiers. It is a long-planned war to increase Israel’s ascendency over Hizbullah and its patrons.
Israel had already been driven out of Lebanon by Hezbollah in 2000 and were itching for payback ever since.
the Israeli planning had to have been done in conjunction with Donald Rumsfeld at the US Department of Defense. The US Department of Defense is committed to rapidly re-arming Israel and providing it precision laser-guided weaponry, and to giving it time to substantially degrade Hizbullah’s missile capabilities. The two are partners in the war effort.
link to khaleejtimes.com
The Administration were expecting the Israelis would destroy Hezbollah and it came as a huge shock to Washington that Israel proved to be so inadequate. In fact, the great fear in Tel Aviv was that Washington might cease to regard Israel as a strategic asset.
I have repeatedly presented you with such examples and you simply respond by asking for me to provide them again. Let’s put it in the words of Shaol Mofaz, who had this to say:
“ we have to admit that we lost this war with Hizbollah , yes we lost the war because of Olmert ,Perez and their non responsible plans , the military intelligence also share a big responsibility they didnt know the real military power of this terrorist organization they didnt know that Hizbollah own high tech equipments, our army was hitting blindly the air force didnt stop the missiles from reaching deep inside Israel ,Hizbollah terrorists were hunting our Mercavas like ducks they even partially destroyed one of our big military ships ,some of our soldiers were left without food for 72 hours inside the Lebanese lands and I have to admit our soldiers were not trained hard to go into this war we thought that Golani brigade was the best of the best but they didnt do well, 32 days of war nothing have been done our soldiers kept dieing and seriously injured , the long range missiles didnt stop from falling deeply inside Israel ,many Israeli left their beloved cities and the one who chose to stay lived in a shelter underground in harsh conditions , the IAF used the “burned land” tactic and this didnt stop the missiles, I wonder what our army was doing during 6 years were Hizbollah was preparing himself they didnt know that Hizbollah own 250km long range missiles, long range hi-tech anti-ships missiles and hi-tech anti tanks missiles.”
Several senior officials acknowledged unequivocally that Israel lost the war against Hezbollah, and confirmed that this is a widely held view inside the Israeli government — despite many public pronouncements to the contrary by Israeli leaders.
On Maroun al-Ras, Hezbollah forces routed of the Israeli “elite” Golani, Egoz and Magland Brigades at Maron al Ras on the Lebanese-Palestine border between July 25-30, 2006.
Rubbish. Crook and Perry state that the situation remained unchanged until the ceasefire. The Golani failed to make any difference and they subsequently called the paratroopers, but the situation remained unchanged.
And to think, that Hezbollah pulled this off with no more than 3,000 fighters!! Even you must be in awe of such an incredible feat Robert.
Robert Fisk, who was on location at the time witnessing the battle of Bint J’Bail, wrote an article on the 27th entitled, Is Israel Losing Its War In Lebanon?
link to countercurrents.org
So clearly, your claim that the IDF eventually flank the city on all sides is BS.
Fisk went on to say that:
The battle for southern Lebanon is on an epic scale but, from the heights above Khiam, the Israelis appear to be in deep trouble.
At battle of Bint Jbeil which Dan Halutz called Israel’s planned “Web of Steel’ which was expected to take less than 48 hours to defeat Hezbollah forces starting on July 24. But by July 30, the much battered Golani forces withdrew and the Israeli air force renewed indiscriminate aerial bombardment.
You prefer to use the term “tactical withdrawal”, as though that’s supposed to mean something other than being driven back, when it’s clearly IDF propaganda to save face. It was a defeat, pure and simple.
Rubbish. Crook and Perry explain that it was always in Hezbollah hands and remained as such until the end of the conflict.
Even if the IDF killed a number of militants, the area remained in Hezbollah hands throughout until the end of the conflict.
Yeah sure Robert, along with their photos of the Loch Ness Monster.
As Crook and Perry point out, the IDF never secured perimeters inside or outside either of these towns, let alone occupy any of it. The IDF were certainly not even remotely deployed in force in either of these towns at the time of the ceasefire.
Crook and Perry have already given a rock solid account of the events right up to the end of the conflict. You’re the one who has failed to refute a single aspect of their report.
Yours are the vague and unsourced assertions that are not adding up to much.
You’re simply reading straight from the IDF script and making an even bigger idiot of yourself – if that were even possible.
It is certainly true that the end result of the conflict was a political victory for Hezbollah, as was the ground war victory and the intelligence victory. I could care less what you personally believe, because frankly, I have no respect for the opinion of a pathological liar and a fraud.
Simply put, there could not have been a political victory without a military one.
Hezbollah did prevented the IDF from carrying out any ground assault and they certainly defeated the IDF in Maroun al-Ras and Bint J’Bail, namely by driving them out. The only reason Israel even made it into Southern Lebanon was due to the sheers enormity of the firepower given to them by the US.
At Aita al-Shaab, Israel lost 26 soldiers and more than 100 severely injured without gaining an inch of territory.
The IDF engaged Hezbollah with a full scale deployment that was torn apart by a superior opponent and was made to look confused, tardy and piecemeal. As I have argued all along, such excuses are often cited by a bad loser looking for excuses as to why they were outfought and outsmarted.
The evidence supporting this fact is simply overwhelming, and has been copiously documented by Crook and Perry, Cordesman as well as Fisk and many others.
The ground war was not interrupted, it was fought to a conclusion and Israel’s neck was saved at the 11th hour by the ceasefire. There was an emphatic “victory” Hezbollah. The only reason any IDF remained at time of the ceasefire and beyond was due to the largesse of the peacekeeping force that was heavily biased towards Israel.
Hezbollah did indeed prevent the IDF from deploying in South Lebanon and won most encounters and ,pre ground engagements. They did eject the IDF from Lebanon by force.
No they weren’t . There are is no evidence of this other than the hollow claims of a failed military leader that was facing enormous embarrassment and trying o save face. Simply having troops cross the blue line is not the same as having them deployed. You yourself originally argued that the ground assault never even begun, but now you’re arguing that 30,000 troops were deployed?
Get real! You can’t even remember what you originally said can you?
Yes, you’ve said repeated this same diatribe at least 3 times in the same post, but provided no evidence to support it. Hezbollah repeatedly crippled the 162nd Armoured Division during the 2006 war.
In fact, far from enjoying any success, Ghanduriyah was a disaster. Israeli forces experienced a catastrophe at Wadi Slouqi, a ravine through which a column of Israeli tanks were sent to link up with airlifted troops at Ghandouriyah village. The Israeli plan, read by Hezbollah forces from the onset, was to move toward Tyre and head north. “They (Hezbollah forces) jumped up out of the ground all around us” one Israeli at the scene testified later. Hezbollah hit more than a dozen tanks, quickly killing 17 Israelis and wounding more than fifty. It became known in Israeli military circles as “the Black Sabbath, the goddamned Sabbath”, as one Israeli war room officer commented.
It is odd however, why you feel the need to paste the same paragraphs, verbatim, multiple times in the same comment. Are you under some delusion that repeating the propaganda multiple times will make it true?
Israel only managed to gain a temporary foothold in 2 of the 12 villages, so there was no need.
At some point I think you are simply going to have to admit that Hezbollah scored a conclusive and emphatic victory over the IDF in 2006. Shaol Mofaz certainly has, as have many Israeli political leaders in private.
During US Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, John Kerrey’s visit through the region, he carried the message to Israel that Washington does not want an Israeli attack on Lebanon or on Iran for precisely the same reasons. Israel can’t win Washington increasingly believes and the risk of regional conflagration from either is too great.
I suspect you already know this to be true, but are trying to exercise your demons by trying to resuscitate the debate and pretend that the outcome was disputed.
There is simple not a shred of evidence (outside the unsubstantiated IDF claims) to prove your assertions.
For the past five years, has insisted that “This time Hezbollah must be totally eradicated from Lebanon. We don’t even want to find their residue after the next operation!”
Despite Barak’s instructions, the Pentagon’s J-8 Directorate for Force Structure Resources and Assessment, which among other duties conducts analysis, assessments, and evaluates strategies for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some special American friends, agrees with Israeli military planners and Hezbollah on at least one subject–The next Hezbollah-Israel war will not see Israel using many ground forces outside of armored personnel carriers once they enter Lebanon. The reason is that all three agree with the Pentagon’s J-8 Directorates’ opinion that based on previous battlefield performance, it will likely require 5 Israeli soldiers to offset one Hezbollah defender’s battlefield acumen.
I think the greatest evidence of Hezbollah’s victory in 2006 is illustrated by the circus known as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Having realized Israel has no chance of defeating Hezbollah, Washington and Tel Aviv opted for a legal war, which predictably, they also lost. Hezbollah MP, Nawaf Moussawi has said on many occasions that the STL indictment accusing Hezbollah of the Hariri assassination will be dealt with as a US Israeli invasion, and to date Hezbollah has proven to have great skills in countering ‘invasions.’
“Hezbollah’s greatest advantage against Israel in the next war against Israel”, according to Pentagon sources, including a 22 year veteran who maintains an office in Beirut, “is not seen in Washington as being based on just Hezbollah’s demonstrated ability to prevail on the battlefield against Israeli ground forces, withstanding potential days or weeks or months of carpet bombing and during hugely asymmetric conflicts. Rather, increasingly Hezbollah’s success against Israeli is being explained by its moral, political, popular, religious, psychological, culture that were enhanced by Hezbollah’s “Lebanonization” and growing acceptance by other sects while being dubbed by some at the Pentagon as now “the 8th greatest missile power in the World.”
In the eyes of a rabid Zionist Likudnik like yourself Robert, Hezbollah has committed a grave sin because it has smashed the myth of Israel’s invincibility. More importantly, and more unforgivably in your atrophied mind, Hezbollah has inspired Arabs to believe that they can and will liberate Palestine because they possess the qualities and acumen to do it. Such notions would drive a lifelong and committed Zionist like yourself to the brink of insanity. This might explain your near mental breakdown we are witnessing on this forum.
BTW. I remembered your comical effort to argue that COIN was succeeding when I came across some recent reports that made a mockery of your arguments AGAIN. In over a decade of war in Afghanistan, about half of all Americans killed in action and two thirds of those wounded have done so in 2010 and 2011, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
At the time the report was published on November 16, 1,723 Americans had died for the war in Afghanistan and 14,837 had been wounded. In just the past two years, 890 have been killed and 10,060 have been wounded.
link to battleland.blogs.time.com
Last of al, I’ll leave you with this little youtube clip, as Israeli soldiers recount what it meant to come face to face with Hezbollah.
link to youtube.com
Shingo,
I have been pondering that long, disjointed mad-hatter’s rhapsody that was you most recent post in our ongoing 2006 war saga.
A response.
Said you:
”- First you claimed that Halutz rejected the plan”
He did reject the contingency plan, in favor of his own variant.
“- Then you claimed there was no plan”
Nope. Said no such thing. Didn’t happen.
”- Then you claimed he came up with the plan”
Nope. The Halutz plan of action differed from the contingency plans in ways that have been explained endlessly and repeatedly to you. He tried his plan (Air campaign w/standoff ground attacks) which failed, then he improvised the campaign from there.
”- Finally you are arguing that there was a plan in place for a long time.”
Correct. The contingency planning had been in the works for a long time, and they had been adjusted over time. ICE BREAKER/MEY MAROM was the most recent contingency plan on the shelf.
“And you call me a liar?”
You need to ask?
“First of all whatever Israel undertook in Lebanon in 2006 was not a contingency plan, but an act of aggressive war that was carefully coordinated with Washington. “
No facts, no evidence, just more conspiracy BS.
“If the number of troops in Lebanon was 10,000 on August 11, how can they possibly have been at 30,000 by the 12th?”
Easily. They had been massing there, albeit chaotically, on the border areas since late July.
“Israel might have prepared 30,000 troops with the hope of pushing north into Lebanon, but in retrospect, it’s beyond dispute that they never made it there.”
Right. And all the media on the ground in South Lebanon were all shilling for the IDF to hide the fact that there 10,000 troops instead of 30,000 and to hide the “fact” that on August 12, 2006, 20,000 troops attempted to cross into Lebanon but “never made it there” despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence to prove this and no record of this “fact.”
“Post mortems from Robert Fisk and many other later revealed that Israeli claims were ridiculously exaggerated, and that the war in fact turned out to be a mopping exercise by Hezbollah.”
It has already been explained to you that Fisk simply did not say (or suggest) that “what was supposed to be an Israeli mopping up exercise ended up being a Hezbollah one” or that “the claims of Israeli forces on occupying stretches of Southern Lebanon were utter rubbish.” He was indulging a glib, half-sarcastic observation by local Lebanese on Israel’s misfortunes on the last day of the campaign, and he noted that the IDF still had 10-30,000 troops left in south Lebanon, though he doubted the higher figure. In any event, he did not say what you are having him say
“We’ve also established that the Israelis never managed to grab any strategic high ground in south Lebanon.”
“We” have not established that this was ever their intention.
“Clearly there was nothing remotely line a deployment in force.”
Yes, clearly. Four divisions (11 brigades) deployed in South Lebanon is not a deployment in force because the IDF lied about it for whatever unfathomable reason, the AP, Reuters, press aided and abetted this lie, and because, well, you say so.
Here is the IDF order of battle in Lebanon on August 13, 2006, published in orbat.com, which publishes orders of battle from numerous contemporary and historical sources:
link to orbat.com
“First of all, Olmert shared Halutz’s believe in the omnipotence of air power and secondly, even if we were to believe your scapegoating of Halutz, the “MEY MROM” plan, or whatever plan Israel had, was dead on arrival due to the complete failure of the air campaign. Israel continued to ramp up air strikes til the, not limit them, thus proving they had no other plan.”
This is dumb. You are simply confusing the difference between an assault where the air campaign is the main line of attack that is supported by small standoff attacks on land, which is what the Halutz plan of action entailed and involved, and an air assault that is limited to a preparation and a ground support role for a full-scale combined arms assault envisaged by the ICE BREAKER/MEY MAROM contingency plans. In the latter scenario, the ground operation isn’t scrubbed because an air attack “fails.” The air assault is merely in a supporting role.
The ICE/MAROM plan would have seen an air assault hitting key targets to disorient the enemy and soften up positions at the points of entry, quickly followed by a massive ground assault to hit the enemy where he was weakest, attacking in force all along the border areas at divergent axes, supplemented by sea and airborne assaults, compelling them to scatter their forces, and outflank them from every direction with shock, speed, and surprise. It envisaged the kind of classic combined arms blitzkrieg that the Germans employed in Poland and France in WWII, and the IDF employed so successfully in 1956, 1967, and 1982.
“Secondly, the argument that Halutz rejected the existing plan in favor of his own defies logic. The tactics used by Israel during Cast Lead (relying almost entirely on air power), are identical to what you attributed to Halutz. If Halutz’s plan had been to blame, Israel would not have repeated the mistake of relying on 2 weeks of air assaults before committing ground troops in Gaza.”
It is remarkable, in light of all the coverage and outrage expressed on this blog about the Goldstone Report and Cast Lead, how uninformed many here seem to be on the particulars of the actual campaign itself.
Cast Lead did not rely “almost entirely on air power.” This is simply false. Anyone who knows anything about Cast Lead knows that it was a full scale combined arms assault that commenced with a wave of airstrikes on December 27, 2008, followed the next day by surface to surface naval attacks, then followed by a ground invasion into Northern Gaza on January 4, 2009. There was excellent air-ground-sea coordination throughout. Anthony Cordesman, whom you and Crook and Perry have of spoken so approvingly, wrote an excellent analysis of IDF’s superb combined arms proficiency in the campaign, how much they had obviously improved since the 2006 debacle, though he was critical of Israel’s PR and political conduct, which he thought inept and self-injuring. He also rejected any suggestion that the IDF intentionally targeted civilians.
Said Cordesman:
“The air-land phase of the fighting scored continuing tactical gains, but it also exacerbated the political, strategic, and humanitarian problems that had arisen during the air phase. At the same time, it showed that the IDF could fight an extended land battle against a non-state actor employing many of the same tactics that the Hezbollah had in 2006, and do so with considerable tactical effectiveness. Israeli officers and senior officials also felt that the air-land phase of the campaign showed that the IDF had recovered its readiness and had mastered many of the lessons of the fighting against Hezbollah in 2006.”
link to csis.org
See also “Back to Basics: A Study of the Second Lebanon War and Cast Lead” which includes an essay by Matt Matthews, “Hard Lesson’s Learned,” which charts the IDF’s post-2006 transformation, and its doctrinal reform.
link to cgsc.edu
The strategic confusion and inapt tactics that characterized the 2006 war were nowhere in evidence here; there is simply no comparison between the two. There was a fundamental disconnect between the political strategic goals of the 2006 war, the military strategy to accomplish those goals, and the tactics employed to accomplish the meandering military strategy. In Cast Lead all arms were focused on narrow, achievable military objectives, and carried them out with expert timing, coordination, and execution.
“Hezbollah had routed and driven out Israeli forces, including the Golani and reinforcements and done so with only 3,000 troops.”
Complete fantasy.
“The Israelis absolutely went in with a full scale ground invasion and were beaten back, but Israel only did so when it became apparent the IAF had failed to deliver.”
“Beaten back” where?! When? There was no “full scale ground invasion” in the first 30 days of the campaign, and even OPERATION CHANGE OF DIRECTION 11 lasted a full two days and saw advances of a few miles to little benefit. You can criticize the deployment (as I have), and its meager gains, but you cannot deny its existence. No IDF unit was “beaten back” anywhere except in your imagination. You are delusional!
“You have presented no evidence that that IDF deployments between July 19 and August 11 were standoff deployments directed at pinpointed targets.”
This is simply unbelievable! The controversy over Halutz’s decision to use air power w/standoff attacks, and then gradually escalate them to negligible effect, is a matter of record, as are the debates within the IDF high command about Halutz’s decision. There are reams of testimony and documentation presented to the Winograd Committee, it has been endlessly debated in the Israeli and Western media, in military circles, and among military scholars in countless books and studies. This is a fact, and an uncontroversial one at that.
“Where did you read this crap? Hezbollah absolutely mauled the 162 Division and the events at Ghanduriyih turned out to be an absolute disaster for the IDF –throughout the entire conflict. Simply repeating your Israeli centric BS is wearing thin and convincing no one. You continue to insist that Hezbollah should have fought the war your way (or Israel’s way), but the fact is that at no point did Israel manage to hold any territory whatsoever. None. They certainly never held Ghanduriyih. They got smashed at Ghanduriyih… In fact, far from enjoying any success, Ghanduriyah was a disaster. Israeli forces experienced a catastrophe at Wadi Slouqi, a ravine through which a column of Israeli tanks were sent to link up with airlifted troops at Ghandouriyah village.”
The above paragraph well encapsulates the dishonesty, confusion and incoherence that permeates your entire post. The 162 Division could not have fought at Ghanduriyih if it had not advanced through Wadi Saluki, and it could not have advanced through Wadi Saluki if it had not beat back the company sized Hezbollah attack the on them there. At Wadi Saluki 11 of the 24 tanks were hit with ATGM fire, two of which were destroyed, and 8 tankmen were killed, along with four infantry. This was hardly a “catastrophe,” and a company of 100 Hezbollah fighters, however well armed and motivated, are not sufficient to “smash” an entire division. Once the 401st Armored Brigade brought up their artillery to bear on the attackers, the Hezbollah attackers ceased firing and withdrew and regrouped in Ghanduriyih, leaving 80 dead behind them. The 162 division then continued its advance and linked with the Nahal outside Ganduriyuh, where it fought another battle in which 12 IDF and 57 Hezbollah were killed.
My source for this is Biddle and Freidman, who provide a substantial description of the battles at Wadi Saluki and Ghanduriyih:
“On August 11, the IDF launched the final phase of the ground campaign, Operation CHANGE OF DIRECTION 11. Described as a “push to the Litani,”
the main effort was actually a westward advance parallel to the river: an armored column from the 401st Brigade moved from At Tayyibeh toward Frun and Ghanduriyih (about 12 km west of Israel’s northern tip) in order to link up with troops from the Nahal Brigade who had been airlifted into position. As the 401st moved toward its objective through the Saluqi valley on August 12, it was ambushed with anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) fire; 11 tanks were hit, and 12 soldiers were killed. Meanwhile, Hezbollah had regrouped in Ghanduriyih, leading to firefights in the town and its surrounding area throughout the final 2 days of the war.” (pp. 32-33)
“In the Saluqi valley, Hezbollah ATGM teams occupying a series of positions in depth received return fire from Israeli Merkava tanks after their initial launches, but stood their ground and continued to fire at least 10 additional missiles, easing fire and withdrawing only when IDF artillery was brought to bear.” (p.36)
“At Ghanduriyih, defenders whose positions had been flanked but who retained potential escape routes through the town nevertheless remained in position and were eventually destroyed in close combat; IDF attackers could make only 600 meters of progress in a day of hard fighting. Of the Hezbollah fighters, 57 dead bodies were recovered from the town.” (pp.37-38)
“Hezbollah defenders at Ghanduriyih occupied a series of defensive lines disposed in depth; on several occasions when a line was taken, defenders would maneuver to the attackers’ flanks in an apparent attempt to retake the positions.” (footnote # 78, page 40)
None of this is contradicted or even addressed by anything written by Crook and Perry or even Robert Fisk. If you have information that contradicts or disproves Biddle and Friedman’s assertions, please give very, very, specific details of this “disaster,” and how the 162 Division got “smashed” at Ganduriyih. The IDF were deployed there and the surrounding area at the time of the ceasefire.
By the same token, the IDF could not have fought engagements at Bint J’Bail from July 25-30 and August 3-14 if it had not flanked Maroun al Ras from all sides, as Bint J’Bail is just directly to the north. See how that works? Or maybe you want to argue that there was no battle of Bint J’Bail. I wouldn’t put it past you.
“Crook and Perry were referring to Cordesman’s report and his access to Hezbollah sources, not their own. As a former MI6 officer, Crook would have no problem gaining access to such information, whether from Hezbollah directly or otherwise.”
This is false. Said Crook and Perry in their first article about the direct access they were unable to obtain:
“The portrait that we give here is also limited. Hezbollah officials will neither speak publicly nor for the record on how they fought the conflict, will not detail their deployments, and will not discuss their future strategy. Even so, the lessons of the war from Hezbollah’s perspective are now beginning to emerge and some small lessons are being derived from it by US and Israeli strategic planners. Our conclusions are based on on-the-ground assessments conducted during the course of the war, on interviews with Israeli, American and European military experts, on emerging understandings of the conflict in discussions with military strategists, and on a network of senior officials in the Middle East who were intensively interested in the war’s outcome and with whom we have spoken.”
So Crook and Perry make no claim to any specialized access to Hezbollah. Fail.
“As Crook and Perry point out, the IDF never secured perimeters inside or outside either of these towns, let alone occupy any of it. The IDF were certainly not even remotely deployed in force in either of these towns at the time of the ceasefire.”
Does it occur to you that your whole sordid effort to deny this deployment in force at the end of the conflict is contradicted by a statement you made in an earlier post which read:
“That contrary to Robert’s claims, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), once deployed in large numbers in southern Lebanon, were not able to prevail over their foes and dictate a settlement favorable to the Israeli political establishment.”
In any event, Crook and Perry say no such thing and you know it. They do not even address whether the IDF were deployed occupying perimeters inside or outside the towns, or what the IDF deployment in Lebanon was at the close of the conflict. In fact, Crook and Perry spend all of about six of the forty-six paragraphs of their second article addressing the battles of Maroun al-Ras and Bint J’Bail, and do so rather cursorily. They lack details, and are not comprehensive. The spotty nature of the initial IDF deployment allows them to argue that the IDF failed to secure both towns and that there were Hezbollah still resisting in and around the area, but, then again, they misleadingly fail to note the nature of the deployment that made this possible. Thus, if there are Hezbollah still resisting and harassing IDF emplacements, then Hezbollah “retains possession.” The argument thus hinges on an utterly meaningless distinction between “possessing” “occupying,” and “securing.” The IDF secured tactically important perimeters in and around both towns, and held them till the end of the conflict. I mean, so what? Big deal? You act like this is some unconscionable humiliation that must not be allowed to stand. And, again, you have presented absolutely no evidence to disprove this, and have merely repeated the usual, tired, hooray-for-Hezbollah cheerleading that is your main line of defense.
Crook and Perry further assert:
“Israel’s decision to launch a ground war to accomplish what its air force had failed to do was made hesitantly and haphazardly. While Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) units had been making forays into southern Lebanon during the second week of the conflict, the Israeli military leadership remained undecided over when and where – even whether – to deploy their ground units.
In part, the army’s indecisiveness over when, where and whether to deploy its major ground units was a function of the air force’s claims to victory. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) kept claiming that it would succeed from the air – in just one more day, and then another. This indecision was mirrored by the Western media’s uncertainty about when a ground campaign would take place – or whether in fact it had already occurred.”
This is true, confirms what I have argued all along, and contradicts completely your assertion that the IDF went in with a full scale ground attack, and was “beaten back.” This is nowhere indicated or even asserted in the article.
Also Crook and Perry accurately portray the strategic confusion on the ground:
“In keeping with Olmert’s political ploy, the IDF’s goal of the total destruction of Hezbollah was also being markedly scaled back. “There is one line between our military objectives and our political objectives,” Brigadier-General Ido Nehushtan, a member of Israel’s general staff, said on the day after the reserve call-up. “The goal is not necessarily to eliminate every Hezbollah rocket. What we must do is disrupt the military logic of Hezbollah. I would say that this is still not a matter of days away.”
This was a decidedly strange way of presenting a military strategy – to conduct a war to “disrupt the military logic” of an enemy. Nehushtan’s statement had a chilling effect on IDF ground commanders, who wondered exactly what the war’s goals were.”
Said you: “What’s also interesting is that Jones describes Israel’s attempt to capture the high ground (thus underlining it’s importance) while Bard and Freedman (who you cited previously) criticized Hezbollah for not ceding this strategically valuable territory. Nothing like citing 2 papers that contradict one another entirely, while trying to prove the same argument. Way to go Robert.”
I love how you play at being the analyst. What “attempt to capture the high ground?” What are you talking about? Who is Bard and Freedman and what did they say?
“Jones’ piece reads like the large tribe of hand picked Hasbara academics, handsomely paid by various Israel lobby funders to produce feel good reports that conclude the next Hezbollah Israel war will be nothing like the 2006. In addition, pro-Israel authors like Jones routinely skew their research to reassure their paymasters that Hezbollah will lose to the spruced up, better-equipped and trained Israeli soldiers.”
“Hasbara academics?” “Paymasters?” Zachary Jones study was a masters thesis that “analyzes the air power, coercion, strategic theory, and strategic methodology in the 2006 Israel/Hezbollah War.”
And,
“By examining the 2006 Israel/Hezbollah war, which is an excellent example of a high-intensity conflict between a very capable state military, and a well-equipped non-state actor, Hezbollah, I analyze the ways in which air power is most useful in state versus non-state actor conflicts, the efficacy of coercion in such conflicts, and the role of strategic theory and methodology in such conflicts. I conclude that air power is best used against material high value targets, and against outside state sponsors of non-state actors, as non-state actors often blend amongst non-combatants, disperse their men and material widely, and are difficult to target with accuracy. I also conclude that the basic logic of coercion used in state versus state conflict is sound, but that the logic is complicated by the non-state actor’s reliance on outside powers for war material, meaning that attempts to coerce without applying pressure to the outside power will be unlikely to succeed.”
Again, I guess part of being an unhinged ideologue whose blinding, idolatrous worship of militant jihadists knows no limit, is that the notion that there are objective scholars out there who seek to study past events with an eye toward understanding and uncovering the truth, and drawing useful insights and lessons from those truths, is simply incomprehensible. Everything is either for the team, or against the team.
***
The truth about the 2006 conflict is not terribly complicated or controversial. The Israelis, following the border kidnapping, wished to the greatest possible extent to destroy Hezbollah’s infrastructure and weaponry, neutralize them as a military force once and for all, and force their removal north of the Litani. They also hoped that a favorable political diminishment of Hezbollah within Lebanon would follow the successful military campaign. On July 24, 2006 the MFA enumerated the following goals:
“First, regarding southern Lebanon, Israel wishes to preserve the gains of the current military campaign, whereby Hizbullah has been removed from the border region.
Second, regarding the Hizbullah’s long-range missiles which are fired at Israeli civilians from beyond the border zone – unless Hizbullah disarms itself willingly, this threat must be clearly addressed.
Third, the Hizbullah must be prevented from re-arming. This will require close monitoring of the possible routes into Lebanon from Syria or elsewhere.”
To accomplish these goals, the IDF Chief of Staff, Lt. General Dan Halutz, eschewed the contingency plan in place concerning a war with Hezbollah, which consisted of an air assault (code-named ICE BREAKER) to be complemented with a massive ground assault 72 hours later (code named MEY MAROM), for an improvised air assault punctuated by pinpointed “surgical” forays (standoff attacks) at Hezbollah militants and strongpoints along the border. Halutz was repeatedly told by both military and intelligence analysts that such an approach would be wholly inadequate to eject Hezbollah from south Lebanon, but he ignored them.
After a week of air assaults and standoff attacks the decisive victory promised by Halutz was nowhere in sight. Hezbollah was just as firmly entrenched along the border and south of the Litani as they ever were, and rockets were still popping into northern Israel at 100 or more a day. Halutz, realizing that air assault alone was not doing the job, now consented to the ground operation he had previously dismissed as unnecessary. Yet even here he equivocated; instead of the full-scale ground invasion envisaged by MEY MAROM, the IDF would deploy battalion and company size units in “raids” into Maroun al-Ras, Bint J’Bail, and elsewhere, where they encountered well trained Hezbollah militants who ambushed them with a skill and a ferocity that shook them.
Halutz was warned at this stage by Lt. Col. Ron Tira, formerly of the Air Planning Staff of the IAF, that his “raid” strategy “didn’t make sense at all. You either activate MEY MAROM and occupy the entire rocket launch area or you don’t. There is absolutely no sense in raids. They are not going to stop the rockets, and soldiers can get killed. It is risk without reward.”
Up until the end of July the IDF, consistent with Halutz’s “raiding” strategy, made no attempt to occupy territory for more than raiding purposes. By the 1st of August, the IDF now decided to increase the forces on the ground and by August 12 Operation Change Direction 11, an advance of 4 divisions, including a westward drive of 162 Division from At Tayyibeh to link up with elements of the Nahal Brigade that had been airlifted into position there near Ghanduriyih, had commenced. The ground campaign lasted two days, each division advanced several miles, killed some Hezbollah, occupied some strategically dubious territory, and accomplished absolutely nothing of significance. To emphasize this failure, Hezbollah tossed a few hundred rockets into Israel on the last day of the campaign.
The air campaign and the efforts on the ground thus failed to destroy Hezbollah and failed, through its efforts and strategy, to stop or even limit the rocket attacks into Israel. The war exposed failures in planning, intelligence, counterintelligence, command, mobilization, execution, and logistics on the part of the IDF. The ground campaign was found to have been conducted on the fly with inadequate, ill-equipped formations, senior commanders and brigade commanders who had not trained in maneuvering large mobile formations in years, regulars and reservists who had received little or no training, and soldiers and tank crewmen whose only experience was patrolling the West Bank and Gaza.
For most people, these facts are apparent and uncontroversial, and are deeply unflattering to the state of the IDF in 2006. Yet, even this is not enough for you. You’re greedy. Your bottomless hatred of Israel and the IDF, and idolatrous worship of Hezbollah impel your fanatical fervor to preposterously exaggerate the admittedly fierce resistance offered by Hezbollah into some all-encompassing military “victory” that has the IDF being defeated in every tactical engagement, “never secur[ing] any perimeters [in Lebanon],” being “clearly ejected by force because Hezbollah counterattacks were spectacularly successful,” and being “never deployed in force anywhere before or at the time of the ceasefire.”
So, it would seem, then, that since Hezbollah talks to no one, the IDF lies to reporters (and everyone else) about their deployments for some unfathomable reason two days before the ceasefire, no less, and reporters on the ground in South Lebanon are either being duped or are aiding and abetting some inexplicable campaign of deceit to misinform the world about Hezbollah casualties and the IDF order of battle there at the close of the conflict, as well as to conceal the “fact” that IDF troops were “beat back”—a “fact” that no one has ever recorded or reported—well, all of this clearly points to the “fact” that the IDF attacked Hezbollah in Lebanon with a full scale ground attack but were “beaten back” into Israel.
To conceal news of this terrible defeat, unreported and unrecorded until now by anyone except commenter Shingo on Mondoweiss, the IDF fabricated a massive campaign of deception during the war to mislead the world into believing the following: that there was an IAF air assault with IDF standoff attacks which failed to destroy Hezbollah. Then, when that was found to be inadequate, the IDF deployed company and battalion sized assaults to raid and engage Hezbollah strongholds. Then, when those failed to produce tangible results, they poured more forces into the mix piecemeal to utter negligible effect, and finally capped it off with a four-division-sized ground offensive that lasted two full days, and accomplished nothing.
This, then, was the Big Lie with which cunning Israel has once again duped and swindled a naïve and credulous world. Until now, that is. This campaign of deception, btw, was not limited to the events of the conflict; the deception continued after the war with unanimously false testimony to the Winograd Committee, which also received detailed fabrications of IDF after-action reports, troop movements, deployments and orders of battle, and then issued a report which portrayed a military campaign of staggering confusion, incompetence, and strategic incoherence. All to Israel’s immeasurable benefit.
The campaign of deceit continued on when these embarrassingly unflattering untruths were then disseminated throughout the Israeli and Western media, and specifically to pro-Israel think tanks in America, all of which recognized Hezbollah’s prowess, and commented witheringly on the IDF flaws and mistakes.
So that’s it. You nailed it. It was all a lie. Having been “destroyed” in battle, and “beaten back,” the IDF then opted to mislead the world by thoroughly embarrassing themselves around the world by fabricating a floundering military campaign that cast them in the worst, most humiliating light, and then, afterward, fabricating details about the fabricated military campaign at a time when it served no purpose to do so, then issuing a scathingly self-critical report that revealed them in an even more embarrassing light. What genius, this hasbara.
Werdine,
As has been explained to you, it was not a contigency plan, it was an atatcke plan coordinated with Washington 12 months priot to the conflict.
Actually it did. You first clamed that Halutz rejected an existing plan, then you argued he came up with the plan, then you argued the plan was in place for a long time, even while claiming the plan discussecd in Washington was another plan. Your lies were easily exposed.
Yes, facts were presented to you that showed that the 2006 war plan was coordingated with Washington 12 months prior. First you claimed that this was not the plan that was applied, then you changed your story and argued that it never happened.
Another lie.
While you have produced no independent evidence that 30,000 Israeli troops made it across the border, let’s assume you are correct. As I explained repeatedly, having one foot on the Israelis side of the border and another on the otehr side fo the Blue Line, does not contitute en masse deployment. It is clear that the Israelis barely made it over the border.
Yes he did. It’s very clearly stated in his article. How can you possibly deny it? Let me quote the passage for you again:
Israeli military authorities talked of ‘cleaning’ and ‘mopping up’ operations by their soldiers south of the Litany river but, to the Lebanese, it seems as if it is the Hizbollah that have been doing the ‘mopping up’.
link to isj.org.uk
Now you might want to believe that he was indulging a glib, half-sarcastic observation by local Lebanese, but if that were true, he would have qualified the statement by a counter argument. He does not. In fact, he goes on to explain that “By last night, the Israelis had not even been able to reach the dead crew of a helicopter…”, which clearly gives credence to the statement about mopping up.
Like I said, when the Israeli border also happens to be South of Lebanon, this claim it entirely meaningless.
No I am not. You are simply arguing about a distinction without a difference. Both plans, if you will, are entirely reliant on the outcome of the air assault. A failed air assault impacts both plans in the same way and renders them useless. The IDF went to extreme lengths to hit key targets to disorient the enemy and soften up positions” but they were unable to. In fact, their attempts to locate and hit those key targets is what led to the chaos.
The outcome would have been identical with either plan regardless of whether the planned ground assaults were small standoff attacks on land or massive ground assault to hit the enemy where he was weakest . Neither could take place because Israel’s air assault failed.
In other words, it was just like the Lebanon plan, the only difference being that in Gaza, Israel had no resistance of any kind to contend with. It is beyond surreal that Cordesma would describe the IDF’s effort as a superb combined arms proficiency in the campaign when in reality, the campaign was nothing more than a glorified military exercise. How can anyone possible suggest that Israel had improved since the 2006 debacle when for all intents and purposes, they were facing no opposition? The reason Israel’s PR and political conduct were inept and self-injuring is because the PR was also the same as it was in Lebanon, though because they already controlled all air, land and sea access to Gaza, they were at least able to keep out the foreign media from entering Gaza and proving independent reports.
Israel apparently believed that if they were able to blind the foreign media to the events in Gaza, they would benefit.
Abd like the 2006 Lebanon campaign, Cast Lead was also started by Israel and planned well in advance. IN fact, a Wikipedia leak revealed that the reason Israel initiated Cast Lead was not because of rocket attacks or even the threat that Hamas would break the ceasefire, but because the ceasefire was empowering Hamas politically.
Lie I said, Israel is a one trick pony.
So did Goldstone, but as has been explained, the argument about intent is a non sequitir given that here is no way to read people’s minds. Israel most certainly DID targeted civilians.
As to Cordesman’s bizarre analysis:
“The air-land phase of the fighting scored continuing tactical gains, but it also exacerbated the political, strategic, and humanitarian problems that had arisen during the air phase.”
Hitting civilian targets and targeting civilian infrastructure ( a war crimes) has that affect.
“ At the same time, it showed that the IDF could fight an extended land battle against a non-state actor employing many of the same tactics that the Hezbollah had in 2006, and do so with considerable tactical effectiveness.”
This statement had me staring at the screen, with my mouth wide open in bewilderment. How on earth can anyone draw a comparison between Hezbollah in 2006 fighting from sovereign territory that Israel does not control in any way, to Hamas in 2008, where Israel controls all air, land and sea access?
If Israeli officers and senior officials truly believed that the campaign showed that the IDF had recovered its readiness and had mastered many of the lessons of the fighting against Hezbollah in 2006, they are beyond delusional. This is akin to a street gang being defeated in a street fight by a rival gang and the picking on a bunch of school kids to regain their credibility.
The very fact that If Israeli officers and senior officials can dare to make such shameless and cowardly declarations only serves to underline the extent of the fear they have for Hezbollah.
The only way Israel will even demonstrate their readiness and ability to fight a protracted ground war against Hezbollah is to fight a protracted ground war against Hezbollah – not some broken rag tag gang that has lived under 3 – 4 years of severe economic blockade which has prevented them from arming themselves in any regard.
Of course the strategic confusion and inept tactics were nowhere in evidence in Cast Lead. The former involved a formidable opponent fighting on their terms and from a territory that they controlled, whereas the latter involved as very weak and already defeated non entity putting up a pathetic fight from within the walls of a massive open air prison. Even if there have been strategic errors and inept tactics, the magnitude of the disproportionality in firepower would have hidden such mistakes from view.
How you can even stand behind this argument with a straight face and not be embarrassed is a testament to your monumental delusion .
So in that sense, we are in total agreement – there is simply no comparison between the two.
In Cast Lead all arms were focused on narrow, achievable military objectives, and carried them out with expert timing, coordination, and execution.
That’s truly amusing to hear Werdine. To this day, the Israeli government has failed to explain what those military and political objectives were.
To this day, Israel have claimed that the war was about:
1. Stopping the rockets – it didn’t and it was also a lie
2. Destroying Hamas – it didn’t
Oddly enough, the frequency of rockets attacks that ensued after Cast Lead was equal to or greater than the frequency of rocket attacks that preceded the violation of the ceasefire buy Israel that led to Cast Lead. Thus, like the 2006 war, Cast Lead achieved absolutely nothing other than the murder of roughly the same number of civilians.
Hezbollah had routed and driven out Israeli forces, including the Golani and reinforcements and done so with only 3,000 troops. In fact, if we are to believe that Israel had 30,000 troops in Southern Lebanon and that all were engaged in the ground campaign, then what we have is nothing short of a monumental effort on the part of Hezbollah to defeat ten times as many troops with far superior weaponry.
“Beaten back” where?! When?
Bint J’Bail and Maroun al-Ras to name but a few. They were beaten back, though you prefer we call it a tactical withdrawal – which is the same thing. As I explained, when the much battered Golani forces withdrew, Israeli air force renewed indiscriminate aerial bombardment.
Perhaps you could explain the tactics in that?
I’ve already explained this to you hand a dozen times. Read my earlier posts.
Yes we already agree on that. There was no full scale ground invasion because Israel were thwarted and precented from launching one. The failure of the air assault was preventing it from taking place.
So which is it Robert? You keep insisting that there was no full scale ground invasion, but you still insist there was a deployment. There obviously had to have been a deployment of sorts for Hezbollah to beat them back.
“Where did you read this crap? Hezbollah absolutely mauled the 162 Division and the events at Ghanduriyih turned out to be an absolute disaster for the IDF –throughout the entire conflict. Simply repeating your Israeli centric BS is wearing thin and convincing no one. You continue to insist that Hezbollah should have fought the war your way (or Israel’s way), but the fact is that at no point did Israel manage to hold any territory whatsoever. None. They certainly never held Ghanduriyih. They got smashed at Ghanduriyih… In fact, far from enjoying any success, Ghanduriyah was a disaster. Israeli forces experienced a catastrophe at Wadi Slouqi, a ravine through which a column of Israeli tanks were sent to link up with airlifted troops at Ghandouriyah village.”
Of course they could.
Tell that to Israeli military circles, for whom the event was referred to as “the Black Sabbath, the goddamned Sabbath”
False. The Israeli plan, read by Hezbollah forces from the onset, was to move toward Tyre and head north. “They (Hezbollah forces) jumped up out of the ground all around us” one Israeli at the scene testified later. Hezbollah hit more than a dozen tanks, quickly killing 17 Israelis and wounding more than fifty.
“On August 11, the IDF launched the final phase of the ground campaign, Operation CHANGE OF DIRECTION 11. Described as a “push to the Litani,”
That’s truly amusing Robert. The Israelis were declaring they were within reach of the Litani throughout the 33 days of the conflict and got nowhere near it.
Biddle and Friedman are also wrong about their fact.
1. More than a dozen tanks were hit, not 11.
2. 17 Israelis were killed not 12.
It certainly is by Franklin Lamb, who debunks this fiction quite easily.
Hezbollah damaged the 162 Division regularly during the 2006 war as well as confronting the 36th Armored Division normally assigned to the Golan Heights, and at least three reserve armored divisions.
The fact that the IDF were still around Ganduriyih at the time of the ceasefire proves nothing. The ceasefire resolution was already passed and due 3 days later.
Why not? There are at least 3 other passages to Bint J’Bail that do not go through Maroun al Ras.
This is false. Said Crook and Perry in their first article about the direct access they were unable to obtain:
False. From the passage you quoted, they state that:
“Even so, the lessons of the war from Hezbollah’s perspective are now beginning to emerge and some small lessons are being derived from it by US and Israeli strategic planners. Our conclusions are based on on-the-ground assessments conducted during the course of the war, on interviews with Israeli, American and European military experts, on emerging understandings of the conflict in discussions with military strategists, and on a network of senior officials in the Middle East who were intensively interested in the war’s outcome and with whom we have spoken.”
Do you get a kick out of making yourself look like an idiot Werdine?
I didn’t claim that Crook and Perry made claim to specialized access to Hezbollah, I stated that they were able to garner information they need from other sources. Learn to read.
No at all. Deployment in force is not the same as being deployed in large numbers, especially if those numbers are sitting along the border , and toops are ignoring orders to advance.
They do not even address whether the IDF were deployed occupying perimeters inside or outside the towns, or what the IDF deployment in Lebanon was at the close of the conflict.
So what? Even if the IDF were deployed occupying perimeters, it clearly was so ineffective that they might as well have been in the Golan Heights. You’ve been arguing for a dozen posts what the “securing “ of perimeters was of major consequence, and now you’re prepared to accept it is meaningless so long as I agree with you.
Bizarre.
That’s because the nature of the deployment is entirely irrelevant. If a team scores a goal, the goal still stands regardless of the nature of the other teams defensive strategy.
No it doesn’t, it actually contradicts your assertion that the Israel’s defeat in 2006 was Halutz’s fault for going with the wrong plan, even though the one he supposedly rejected also relied on the success of the air assault. Had t Halutz stuck to the plan, it’s likely the IDF would still have lied about it’s success and thus contributed to the indecisiveness of the ground deployment.
Right,, So I’m playing analyst and you’re dong what exactly?
Yes, a maters thesis that bases his assumption that Israel destroyed Hezbollah’s long range rockets not on evidence, but the laughable assumption that Hezbollah lack the discipline to refrain from firing long range rockets.
Well isn’t that interesting. According to your quote from Codersman, Israel apparently rectified all their mistakes from 2006, yet they used air power in 2008 against non-state actors.
This is getting better and better. And he goes on to state that “attempts to coerce without applying pressure to the outside power will be unlikely to succeed.”
So what are we to deduce from Cast Lead? Was any pressure applied to Iran? Nope. Did Cast Lead succeed or didn’t it?
So to summarize, you’ve walked away from your claim that the civilian body count in Lebanon was proof of an Israeli victory, or that the absence of subsequent attacks by Hezbollah proved that Israel achieved their aims. You’ve also walked back your claim that Israel inflicted any significant damage to Hezbollah’s infrastructure or that COIN is anything but a farce.
You’ve come a long way Robert.
I agree that the truth about the 2006 conflict is not terribly complicated or controversial. Hezbollah defeated Israel and did so comprehensively. Israel planned the war for over a year with the collusion of Washington and London. They sieved on a routine border skirmish to unleash that war. They vastly underestimated Hezbollah’s ability, determination intelligence and weaponry and they got their asses kicked.
The IDF revealed itself to be a weak and ineffective fighting force that had grown fat and lazy from decades of imposing the occupation and shooting at unarmed targets. As Mio Peled explained to his exasperation, the IDF troops regard the occupied territories as a war zone when it is not even close to being one.
Having been defeated and humiliated in 2006 by Hezbollah, the IDF turned to launching a turkey shoot against Gaza and the infinitely weaker and less prepared Hamas and unsurprisingly, met little or no resistance. From that effort, they concluded that they had regained their deterrence capacity.
It’s so pathetic and cowardly, it defies description.
I know this off topic but it’s about another debunked narrative. Christianity Today posted yesterday a story which promotes the narrative of archeological spade in one hand and the Bible in the other, talking about Israeli archeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar. It then discussed that propaganda park, the alleged City of David.
link to christianitytoday.com
What the article failed to mention and as I pointed out in the comments was that just last month Dr. Mazar had a falling out with the City of David over its well-known shoddy scientific practices.
link to forward.com
richb, not off-topic in Zionist principle. Whether talking about the actual Iranian danger or archeological evidence of actual history, the Zionist word is, “the show must go on!” That’s what happens when one substitutes worship of one’s ethnic identity for that of worship of God or historical and/or scientific truth. See the works of Nazi cultural writers for another model.
hi rich, yes i remeber when you brought that to our attention a couple weeks ago. i’ll check out christianity today. maybe this is something you could write phil about and turn it into a front page article opening it up to the larger community.
Archaeology is pretty messed up in Israel. Probably cause the stuff they unearth disproves their biblical claims so they have to make stuff up to keep the tourists interested. For example, the aqueducts pre-date the actual Hebrews meaning they didn’t build them.
The Crusaders erroneously thought the Dome of the Rock was Solomon’s Temple (which there is no archaeological evidence of). About 1,000 years ago, a Jewish man named Benjamin of Tudela wrote that he believed the Temple Mount was the location Herod’s Temple. All other evidence (including ruins) stated it was in southeastern Jerusalem.
Were they wrong? Jews have flip-flopped which wall they pray at before settling on the Western Wall that some sources say was part of a Roman Fort. The al-Aqsa Mosque likely wasn’t built on the ruins of a Christian church, it probably is the church, at least partially. These are all things that happen when you mix religion and history. People are allowed to believe what they want, but for the extremists it can be dangerous. Especially when they want to blow up the Dome of the Rock to re-build a temple that might have been located elsewhere
There are also those ‘archaeologists’ who fake and forge artifacts like Oded Golan’s James Ossuary. It’s a huge business. To be fair though, archaeology is messed up all over the place. I think Egypt will be better off without that Zahi Hawass guy spoiling everybody’s fun or making drawing King Tut as a white guy
Another mess surrounds the tomb of one of the kings of Macedon, advertised by the Greek authorities (will the EU insist on changes?) as being the tomb of Philip II, Alexander’s father, belonging to an ‘Hellenic kingdom in the age of democracy’ – all about glory and success. Others attribute it to Philip III, Alexander’s unfortunate and murdered successor – all about a king who died young and a kingdom that was shrinking back to its original size after a short imperial venture.
I’m not too good at supplying links, but would mention a blog called Bible Places, with interesting articles about Mazar, dated Feb 2010 and June 2011 (see interesting comment by someone called Ritmeyer, of whom I should probably have heard more).
Mazar has been responsible for what seems to be a very implausible, but officially encouraged, identification of the Water Gate (related to the Dung Gate of which Kate has written recently) and also for the identification of a tenth century wall and ‘house of David’ – the house, she says, from which David withdrew when menaced by the Palestinians. All very speculative.
She’s probably aware that she has pushed the ‘trowel in one hand, Bible in the other’ technique as far as it can reasonably go and that if things are pushed beyond all reason by tourist-trappers there will, at long last, be a reaction towards incredulity.
have to make stuff up to keep the tourists interested.
it’s not just for the tourists charon, it’s for their own ‘history’ to prove to every one their dominance in the region.
Thanks for you comment on CT. I added the following two comments.
Rich
November 13, 2011 11:05am
“there has never been an archaeological discovey that has disproven any part of the bible. ” Yes and no. The archeological evidence points to the conclusion that the Biblical description of ancient Jerusalem was exaggerated. On the other hand, the same evidence confirms the prophetic era and its commonality with today, especially the occupy movement. Social tensions accompanied the expansion of the city, and there is a correlation between the Prophets’ warnings and the physical evidence: substantial gaps in income and signs of resistance to the ruling elite. Over the years many houses were abandoned in the lower city, and on the eve of its destruction, the city was a sparsely populated shell. When the Babylonians captured the city in 586/7 B.C. only the northern part of ancient Jerusalem — the elite quarter — was looted and set on fire; the other parts of the city had been abandoned — over the course of the previous century — without the physical destruction of the houses.
Rich
November 13, 2011 10:01am
That Mazar is a serious scholar is without question. “She’s a good archaeologist,” said Lawrence Geraty, a former ASOR president. “She understands stratigraphy…” Really? The City of David uses tunneling rather than stratigraphy which has been accepted for over a century now. The tunneling makes dating nearly impossible and allows ignoring the Byzantine period and the Jewish quarters under Muslim rule because that doesn’t fit the Israeli narrative. Showing Jews and Muslims living in peace is bad for the “clash of civilizations” narrative. By the way, the Christians that I talked to who live there also said they suffer more from Israeli occupation than Muslim oppression. Even with the substandard techniques the truth still comes out when you visit. The Jebusite water structures are impressive but the wealthy section of Jerusalem in the 10th Century BC was pathetic. While there were many inscriptions praising minor officials there were none referring to any of the kings of Judah.
One more thing. I highly recommend the following for archeological background on the City of David and should be required reading prior to going on any Christian Zionist or Birthright tour. Warning: the following link is a large pdf.
link to alt-arch.org
I believe Taxi and Walid when they say Tel Aviv is going to be hit in the next war. I hope the Kirya gets what Gaza got.
Hezbollah had the capability in 2006, but it was all destroyed in less than an hour. Rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv are much harder to hide amongst civilian population centers.
Hezbollah won’t risk another war with Israel, it would be a death sentence for their movement in Lebanon.
Put a sock in it dbg!
Like Nasrallah said, I mean ‘promised’: a school for a school, a hospital for a hospital and an airport for an airport. You know, the civic locations that Apartheid israel is so fond of targeting with hellfire and violence.
You’d better believe the idf eggheads believe him!
And also, let me remind you here that the Hizb also has a substantial stock of kamakazi drones – small, fast, and low flying – escaping radar detection.
That’s precisel;y what did NOT happen. Israel dumped everythnig they had on Lebanon in 72 hours (so much so they needed supplies from Washington) and barely laid a scracth on Hezbollah.
That’s wat Iserael said in 2006, and it made Hezbollah more popular than ever.
Of course, Hezbollah won’t start another war with Israel, but they’ll finish the one Israle starts – just like 2006.
That’s precisel;y what did NOT happen. Israel dumped everythnig they had on Lebanon in 72 hours (so much so they needed supplies from Washington) and barely laid a scracth on Hezbollah.
Focus Shingo, we are talking about rockets which could hit Tel Aviv.
DBG,
So like Shingo should “focus” on your fake gold pendant, watch you swing it and get hypnotized by your stupid swindling suggestions?
LOL you can be deluded about Apartheid israel’s invincibility all you like – all the more reason the next war will be quick: hizbollah will again be fighting a buncha overfed israeli idiots.
By the way, we ain’t talking “rockets” here, we’re talking MISSILES!
I know what you’re talking about, and it’s still BS. The IAF made lots of claims about it’s successes, which not only turned out to be BS, but compounded the problems of the ground invasion.
The US military stated that Israel’s 72 hr air assault was utterly futile, and even Israel’s leadership gave up claiming they had made any impact on Hezbollah’s ability to wage war.
Hezbollah made tactical choices not to strike Tel Aviv. In fact, it used one of it’s longer range rockets in the last days of the conflict, which only further debunks you Israeli government BS.
To further highlight how off base you are, while Israel were sending out calls for more ordinance after 72 hours, it was reported that Hezbollah had enough rickets and missiles to last them a further 3 months.
Now also consider this. If that was the degree of mayhem Hezbollah were able to inflict using 4000 short range rockets, just imagine what they could do with 50,000 – including long range rockets?
seafoid, the next surprise in store for Israel will be SAMs to take care of the F16s when the shooting starts. Israel has seen what missiles Hizbullah had that knocked out its Merkavas, Apaches and Saar 5 in 2006. In the next war it will discover what it has to knock out TA and F16s. With all its spies buzzing all over Lebanon, Israel probably also has a good idea of the number of fully trained Hizbullah fighters ready to cross the border and the rumoured number, since no one realy knows for sure, is something like 30 times what it was in 2006. That’s why neither the US nor Israel will attack Syria or Iran but instead will continue stirring shit to start civil wars within these countries. All this brouhaha about hitting Iran is to justify the US appeasing Israel with a few zillion dollars of new aid money or arms to help it feel safer. Wait for the announcement.
what time of SAMs we talking Walid? you honestly think Hezbollah is going to ‘invade’ Israel, that is so laughable. Usually an invasion requires air support or at least artillery support. If Hezbollah tried to lay down artillery support they’d no doubt kill more militants than Israelis. WWII technology isn’t good with pinpoint accuracy.
dbg,
It’s easy to invade a territory that’s been abandoned – and we know in 2006 norther Apartheid israel emptied out because the cowardly racist residents couldn’t take the heat.
And by the way, it won’t be called an ‘invasion’, it’ll be called LIBERATION OF ARAB LAND!
Boy are you guys in for the shock of your lives!
Pity, no one at State has told her. All the I/P firsters keep her isolated.
you don’t think she knows MRW, about the debunking of the IAEA’s Danilenko theory?
it really hasn’t been debunked. Why would they be doing this ‘nanodiamond’ research @ a military facility Annie? If it was for use in microchips, why the need to militarize it?
Here’s another one who can’t be bothered to inform himself about the deliberate vague references in the report, and what interest Iran might have in nanotechnology.
dbg, i’m really not that interested in duking it out with you. but no one need register to comment here. and b’s around as as you can see he answers much more complex questions than yours in the comment section. why don’t you just go ask him.
plus, look on the bright side. since the news has gotten out about his research the sites been swamped (there is a site reading meter on the bottom left hand corner of the blog). he has a new post up so your brilliant question could be read by everyone who stops by. you could really throw some egg in his face with a question like that. if you had the cajones to go ask him yourself. why don’t you?
DBG, I don’t see where the report mentions this in conjunction with a military facility. Unless I’m missing something, it says Iran conducted a nanodiamond detonation in Marivan.
Page 10 of the annex mentions a ‘cylindrical object’
“which would be suitable for carrying out the type of experiments described in paragraph 43″ (‘high explosive’ experiments aka nanodiamond research). In this context, ‘would be’ is the same as ‘could be’ which is NOT the same as ‘is being’ or ‘was’
‘Cylindrical object’ might as well be ‘aluminum tubes’
You asked two rhetorical questions based on this assumption as an attempt to dismiss the debunking, likely as a persuasive trick to influence casual readers that don’t post comments, taking advantage of the fact that most blogs have a higher reader to comment ratio.
This Zionist rhetorical trick is used on any I/P article or blog with a comments section. They don’t always go for accuracy either. After the Oslo shooting, a JPost comment said something like “Why were the students playing war games on the island? What was Hamas doing there? What was the real purpose of the island?”
The device, which was supposedly used for ‘nanodiamonds’ was at the Parchin military complex.
link to thedailystar.net
“The device, which was supposedly used for ‘nanodiamonds’ was at the Parchin military complex.”
LOL. so what? Placing industrial production facilities on military bases is a common occurrence everywhere.
Parchin is a facility for both military and industrial applications. It makes perfect sense that a detonation take place there.
You what sickens me? People who are so dull when it comes to science they think that the industrial uses of diamond are mythical.
DBG, because the nanodiamonds were made with explosives. That was the Ukranian scientist’s speciality, what he had been doing since 1962 or 1952.
The device, which was supposedly used for ‘nanodiamonds’ was at the Parchin military complex.
Landstuhl has a hospital on its premises… Oh bother…
Parchin is a facility for both military and industrial applications. It makes perfect sense that a detonation take place there.
yeah and so is Dimona Shingo. why don’t you prove it?
Sure. Just ask Olli Heinonen, no friend of Iran.
Iran has admitted in the past that it works on explosives at Parchin, and seven years ago it briefly allowed I.A.E.A. inspectors into the site to look around. But it insisted the work was entirely on conventional weapons, and the inspectors found no evidence to contradict those statements. “We took environmental samples, saw equipment, and didn’t notice any nuclear signatures at that stage,” said Olli Heinonen, the former chief inspector at the agency, who is now at Harvard. “Most of the high-explosive test installations we saw were still under construction.”
link to nytimes.com
It looks like you contradict yourself with that statement. so now you are admitting it was used for conventional weapons and the ‘nanodiamond’ theory is not true?
annie,
you don’t think she knows MRW, about the debunking of the IAEA’s Danilenko theory?
No, I don’t. There’s one thing about Clinton: she doesn’t like to be shamed. She’s been traveling, her people hand her her talking points, and the news briefs along with the CIA reports. She’s had briefing books the size of the telephone book to digest before touching down in each of the seven countries she’s been visiting. I’ll bet Bill will get ahold of her.
There is something weird about Hillary’s personality that makes her susceptible to being kept ignorant.
I have read numerous profiles on her over the years and how she makes her underlings her ‘family”..as in actual ‘family’. She operates like some combination of fairly godmother and matriarch who finds great “personal” pleasure in the loyalty and affection of her employees.
I don’t think being a Super Mom and treating the State Dept or any gov office like a ‘family”, making it personal and about ‘motherly feelings’ for your advisors and staff produces the best results and objective information.
It’s like Hillary always sets up little ‘Queendoms’ in her political offices where she will be worshipped or loved….not a good mix for receiving/judging ultra important info and making decisions.
The duel makes Hillary Clinton look like an idiot.
And like Ronny Cox in Deliverance, she should know to surrender before she is totally toast, and ask Iran to teach her how to play the banjo.
another thing, Danilenko said he didn’t work on the chamber at all, doesn’t this kind of contradict his ‘nanodiamond’ expertise? You guys gotta work on your story!
This AP story does a pretty good job of debunking all of the moonofalabama’s ‘claims’
link to taiwannews.com.tw
could you please copy the part where it debunked any of it. because i couldn’t find it.
You have to go to Taiwan to read an AP report which summarises the report without question, and claim it debunks the critics, who by the way, are not restricted to one person. Fail.
It looks like DBG is trying to outdo Witty in the idiocy cared gory. Danilenko did not deny working on the chamber at all. He denied any involvement in nukes.
It debunks nothing. The article tries to throw up dust and hope to confuse dolts like DBG.
Shingo,
On Danilenko, another diplomat who is familiar with the IAEA’s Iran probe said the scientist told the agency that he did not work on such a chamber. That, said the diplomat, directly contradicts a statement by his son-in-law, who said the container was built under Danilenko’s direct supervision.
Who’s the diplomat (not even from the IAEA) and where is the actual statement from Danilenko?
That’s right DBG, there isn’t one.
The statement by Danilenko’s son actually proves the diplomate a liar.
I’m glad you could say it, my post got blocked in moderation. You’d think if they didn’t want firefights on the blog, they’d block the posts by the people who post outrageous lies from the get-go instead, but oh well.
This report has not been debunked; it has been disputed. That is all. The weight of evidence indicates that Iran is almost certainly working to develop a nuclear weapon.
Said the IAEA report:
“While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.
The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be
ongoing.”
The IAEA has determined that Danilenko, his denials to the contrary, has considerable proficiency in specific nuclear weapons subjects. Also, it should not be forgotten that the Iranians have wide and diverse apparatus of private and governmental civilian organizations and companies that front for their nuclear program. The notion that Danilenko is doing purely civilian related work in Iran strains credulity, and is further undermined by the AP report.
Under “Possible Military Dimensions” the IAEA report read:
“The Board of Governors has called on Iran on a number of occasions to engage with the Agency on the resolution of all outstanding issues in order to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. Since August 2008, Iran has not engaged with the Agency in any substantive way on this matter.
The information which serves as the basis for the Agency’s analysis and concerns, as identified in the Annex, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. The information comes from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency’s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself. It is consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organizations involved, and time frames.
The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex,
Section C.3);
The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).
While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons.
The information indicates that prior to the end of 2003 the above activities took place under a structured programme. There are also indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing.”
The Iranians have also denied the inspectors access to the heavy water plant at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) to take samples, and continues uranium enrichment related activities at both the UCF and the Fuel Manufacturing Plant, in defiance of their obligations.
The weight of extensively corroborated evidence and testimony in the report coupled with the Iranians’ non-cooperation on key issues of disclosure do absolutely nothing to indicate that this is a peaceful nuclear program. What is perhaps most alarming is that the IAEA, in contrast to their withering skepticism over evidence of Saddam’s program in 2003, is now leading the charge on their conclusions about Iran’s. If people here want to argue that the report is not a smoking gun, fine; but let us please dispense with this nonsense that the report has been “debunked.”
The statement by Danilenko’s son actually proves the diplomate a liar.
Wow, what? that statement you made above proves that Danilenko is their nuclear weapons expert. I love getting you guys in a corner, you’ll say the most ridiculous things :)
hey dbg..try googling this:
“”V. V. Danilenko. Nanocarbon phase diagram and conditions for detonation nanodiamond formation. Proceedings of NATO Advanced Research Workshop
“Ultrananocrystalline Diamond”, p. 181 (2004)”
i wonder why nato is sponsoring advanced research workshops with some no nothing nuclear guy? weird!
i think it was an ex son in law but why get picky..
Some work going on in nanodiamond research does not negates the fears that have been building up over years about Iran’s nuclear capability. This Russian dude Danilenko is hardly going to be privy to what is going on across the whole of Iran’s nuclear program. All this unsubstantiated speculation and the post of ‘Moon of Alabama’ hardly knocks the looming threat on the head. This piece of pseudo sensationalism from annie is no better than what Murdoch dishes up in his tabloids.
I was hopping you’d way in on this thread Werdione, given your penchant for being publicly humiliated.This is one topic you definitely want to stay away from. The weight of evidence is paper thin, if non existent.
1. Iran is under no obligation to adopt the additional protocol.
2. This is the first Time the IAEA has ever alluded to undeclared nuclear material. There is no evidence provided that there is any, which means this is simply innuendo. In fact, it is a resurrection of the demands made by the US that Iraq prove a negative.
The claims of explosives relevant to a nuclear device do not prove those experiments had anything to do with nukes, so it’s not evidence of any kind, just innuendo.
3. The reference to possible military dimensions is not evidence, but also innuendo, hence the necessity for the words possible a and dimensions . These qualifiers amount to an admission of speculation, nothing more.
It claims to have credible evidence but has refused to release it.
The same claims were made about Iraq’s WMD.
4. The claim that Danilenko has any proficiency in the field of nuclear weapons is not supported by any evidence. His career is extensively documented and no links to nuclear weapons appear anywhere. As has been explain, he was invited to speak about nanodiamonds in the US earlier this year.
5. The allegation that there is something nefarious about the fact that there are multiple private as well as government organizations involved with Iran’s civilians nuclear program is simply a case of blowing smoke. That is the norm in all countries with nuclear power industries.
6. The AP report does nothing but cite the unsubstantiated claims by an unnamed “diplomat”, and does not even challenge the fact that Danilanko’s expertise is exclusive to nanodiamonds production.
7. The claim that “Since August 2008, Iran has not engaged with the Agency in any substantive way on this matter” is false. Iran has indeed addressed all matters pertaining to matter related to the the Safeguards Agreement. This is why the IAERA has reported every time that they could verify, with certainty, the non diversion of nuclear material.
That is where the scope of the IAEA’s responsibility ends.
Anything beyond that area is beyond the scope of the NPT and none of the IEAE’s business.
8. The claims that that information is credible is itself dubious seeing as the IAEA has no intelligence gathering assets. Before Amano (who has declared his servitude to American interests) took office, the IAEA did not find the evidence to be credible, nor have a number of IAEA scientists who investigated the material in the annex and have since left the IAEA.
The Member States cited are never mentioned, though interestingly, Israel has never been a member state of the NPT.
a) It is widely understood that most equipment related to enrichment is of dual use nature (ie. centrifuges) , and given that the IAEA has verified the non diversion of nuclear material, it cannot be conclude that the acquisition of such equipment is related to nuclear weapons production. Indeed, the IAEA reports does not even attempt to make such a claim, so this point is moot. This statement is clearly intended to confuse and cast doubt.
b) The efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material was debunked by Dr Gordon Prather and Dr Gareth Porter. Production of Green Salt (which former IAEA inspectors have dismissed as weak or fabricated) makes not sense in any scenario, seeing as the production of uranium tetra fluoride (green salt) is actually a redundant step to production of uranium hexafluoride, which Iran has already achieved.
c) The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network has already been debunked – see Danilenko. The documentation is based on forgeries from the alleged studies documents on the stolen laptop – also debunked.
d ) There is no evidence of work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon or testing of components. The allegation references possible dimensions to experiment that have other non nuclear repeated uses.
e) With the exception of the BS about the design of the modificati9on to the Sahab 3 missile nose cone, there are no other references to anything specific to nuclear weapons. With regard to the Sahab 3, the allegations were debunked when it was revealed that the Sahab 3 had been decommissioned in the late 90′s and replaced with the Sahab 4. The forgers were unaware of this development at the time.
f) The claims that there are indications (or not) that some activities relevant (or not) to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may (not) still be ongoing verges on meaningless if not farcial.
Such a sentence is so vague and non committal that it amounts to an admission of how paper thin this the case really is.
g) Under the NPT, the Iranians have no obligation whatsoever to allow inspectors access to the heavy water plant. in fact, Iran’s heavy water reactor won’t even be finished until 2013 or 2014.
The IAEA has no need to access the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) to take samples. All the Iranians are obliged to do is allow the IAEA to measure the total nuclear materiel entering and leaving the UCF.
The continued uranium enrichment related activities at both the UCF and the Fuel Manufacturing Plant, are not in defiance of their obligations under the NPT, which is the only matter of concern to the IAEA. The matter as to whether Iran are violating the UNSC resolutions is completely outside the domain of the IAEA’s responsibilities.
Such a statement is purely political.
In spite of all this junk contained in the annex, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that Iran is pursuing nukes, which is why no such allegation is contained in the actual report. In fact, with the exception of the Danilenko debacle, everything in this report was already debunked by 2008. The Danilenko allegation was debunked just 24 hours prior to it’s release.
What ever it is you’re smoking, it’s clearly not helping your intellect or ability to reason. Put it away.
Some work going on in nanodiamond research does not negates the fears that have been building up over years about Iran’s nuclear capability.
no the fears are still there largely because the masses have been fed uber amounts of fear mongering propaganda.
. All this unsubstantiated speculation
ah, that’s what’s in the IAEA report.
hardly knocks the looming threat on the head.
what looming threat? that’s what the IAEA is supposed to satisfy. it didn’t
ker plunk
It does when they misrepresent Danilenko as a nuclear weapons scientist.
WTF are you babbling about? If Danilenko was who the IAEA said he was (a nuclear wepoans scientist), then how could he not be privy to what is going on WRT Iran’s nuclear program?
It does when it knows the basis for the claim of the looming threat.
Be honest. The fact is that you, Witty, DBG, and Werdine are disappointing you night not get to have your Iranian blood bath just yet.
Clearly none of you are remotely interested in finding out the facts.
EXACTLY
Why is it that the ZioTrolls and the Zionist Jew pretending to be a Muslim Arab for Israel, are so DESPERATE for Iran to HAVE nukes?
It’s this disgusting pathological desire to be eternal victims that pervades every single comment by the Zionist cultists on MW.
“Murdoch dishes up”
Way to go for the two-fer: blah blah Iran, blah blah Fox. Yep, he’s one of us good guys.
Come on Werdine, admit it: You’re itching to send a Hellfire down A’jad’s chimney. Face the horror within you, like a man!
“Clearly none of you are remotely interested in finding out the facts.”
Except for the one fact they are all equally sure of: if there is a war on Iran, they won’t have to do any of the fighting or the dying. And with that fact in mind, it’s “Faster, faster”. Just like Iraq all over again.
Debunked? In the eyes of the movers and shakers?
USA acts as if it were not debunked and, for the USA (GoUSA) it is not debunked — it is a red flag. Ditto GoIsr.
OTOH, GoRussia and GoIndia (perhaps) and GoIran (certainly) are not persuaded that there is a casus belli in the report; so, for them, it is debunked.
Where you stand (what you “believe” and speak) depends on where you sit. So “debunking” is not a logical process but a political process.
GoRussia and GoIndia (perhaps) and GoIran (certainly) are not persuaded
you can add china to that list.
Thanks, Annie, for China. Also, where you stand may depend on where you buy your oil. I forgot that. I guess that is part of “where you sit”.
Do the bomb Iran shuffle
By Pepe Escobar
Get ready for a flurry of fuzzy satellite ”intelligence” of generic warehouses all across Iran frantically described as segments of a nuclear bomb assembly line (Remember a famous ”secret nuclear facility” in Syria not long ago? It was a textile factory.)
Get ready for a flurry of crude diagrams depicting suspect devices, or the containers that hide them, all capable of reaching Europe in 45 minutes.
Get ready for a flurry of ”experts” on Fox, CNN and the BBC endlessly dissecting all this extended black ops dressed up as ”evidence”. For instance, former UN weapons inspector David Albright, now at the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), has already pulled his return of the living dead stunt, displaying his ”bomb Iran” credentials complete with diagrams and satellite intel.
Forget Iraq – it’s sooo 2003. Hit the new groove; hyping overdrive for the war on Iran.
First of all, ditch common sense.
If Iran were developing a nuclear weapon, it would be diverting uranium for it. The report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) this week – as politicized as it may be – flatly denies it.
link to atimes.com
I’m looking forward to a cartoon drawing of the secret underground nuclear weapons labs like they did with Osama’s Afghan cave fortress
Yep.that propaganda has receded into the mists of disinformational history.The day I could critique the Iranians trying to (allegedly)seek the big one is the day that the IAEA says Israel must destroy its nuclear arsenal or face international sanctions.The day that will never come,huh?
Even if the Iranians came out and said they were developing nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them you would be against bombing Iran. So why are you even bothering to attack the evidence? We know already, no evidence is a good enough reason for you.
Evidence eee?
We know how you hate to see perfectly good lies go to waste. Folks in Tel Aviv worked long and hard to concoct this stuff, and it seems such a shame to see it go to waste
Good point eee. Absolutely correct.
If possessing or developing nukes covertly is a cassus belli, Dimona should have been bombed decades ago.
Frankly, an Iranian bomb could possibly do us all a favour by causing Israel to keep its dick in its pants and start behaving like a member of the community of Nations. No bad thing.
Yup. I for one would oppose bombing Iran even if they were developing a nuke. They know as well as you and I that if they deployed one aggressively, their arse would be glass. The deterrent value vis a vis Israeli aggression would be interesting.
Hasn’t Iran already responded to the report? Their ambassador to the IAEA said it was”unfounded, groundless and scientifically baseless”
Debating the IAEA is kind of like a straw man argument if Iran probably bought nukes from Ukraine years ago. “Reza Kahlili” ex-CIA spy and Zionist propagandist wrote about it recently:
link to washingtontimes.com
He even throws Pakistan in there. You would think the neocons would be all over this instead. The article is BS, but Ukraine selling nuclear warheads to Iran probably isn’t. It’s plausible. It’s likely. It doesn’t bother me. A nuclear Iran is a good deterrent to a nuclear Israel.
Why fabricate nonsense that says they are trying to makes nukes instead of exploring the plausibility that they already have them? I guess ‘stopping Iran from becoming nuclear’ is a better excuse for preemptive war.
Explosion in Iran today:
link to cnn.com
Witty and DBG’s reponse is very revealing here.
If they were really concerned with Israel’s security and avoiding a war that could be hugely destructive to Israel, they would welcome the evidence that Iran is not working on a nuke.
Instead, both display disappointment and denial that the IAEA report has fallen short of giving them a strong case for war.
This is why I say Zionism is a sickness. These 2 so called “liberal Zionists” would rather maintain hostilities with Iran and even go to war than make peace – even if it leads to Israel’s demise. This sadistic ideology is why Israel is doomed.
I’m craving credible description, compelling description that confidently describes that Iran is not developing nukes.
I haven’t gotten it yet.
Hostilities remain with Iran so long as it retains an anti-Zionist foreign policy, confirmed and applied by 50,000 missiles aimed at Israeli civilians by a proxy militia.
If you want to stop hostilities, advocate for the missiles to be removed.
Advocate for acceptance of Israel by Iran, and for active reconciliation.
You’re still looking for nukes in the Iraqi desert as far as this is concerned, Witty.
Why do you keep repeating that? I don’t understand.
Of course you are Witty, just like you’re craving the Zionism that exists only in your imagination.
Did you ever get it about Iraq’s WMD ?
Do you expect such hostilities go away while Israel maintains an anti Iranian one?
But not by the delivery of bunker busters to Israel or it’s nukes pointed at Iran right?
If you want to stop hostilities, advocate for the missiles to be removed.
No. Those missiles as no threat unless Israel attacks. Gone are the days when Israel gets to keep all it’s weapons and threaten everyone who is defenseless.
It’s time Israel grew up.
How does Hezbollah’s missiles confirm and apply anything? Syria and Iran have a mutual defense policy. Hezbollah is a Shia resistance group, Iran has a majority Shia population. Syria and Iran have assisted Hezbollah with training and aid. If Iran get’s attacked, they’re going to help out an ally. Kind of like NATO or the former Warsaw Pact or any other sort of military alliance.
Nations all over the planet have weapons pointed at their enemies for deterrence. Israel has nuclear-armed submarines in the Mediterranean never in the same place. Their location is secret. They are prepared for a second strike in the event of Israel’s annihilation and rumor has it they would attack major cities in Europe in such an event for allowing it to fall.
Zionists subscribe to a double standard and take that chosen one thing to their heads I guess.
Syria and Iran have a mutual defense policy.
They did a heck of a job defending each other following Israel’s destruction of the covert nuclear weapons program. Proof they are both scared to death of Israel’s capabilities.
DBG, you do have a point
Just don’t expect Iran to respond that way if Israel attacks them. Iran’s facility is public knowledge and they have already threatened to counter any attack. Syria’s was shrouded in secrecy even after the facility was destroyed. Yes they did consider attacking Israel with chemical warheads and decided not to in fear of a nuclear counter-attack. You don’t need proof to fear nuclear weapons. They can destroy entire cities and even states within a fraction of a second among other ill effects. Not only that, but you can bully everybody around who doesn’t have them just like Israel
What covert nuclear weapons program?
They did a heck of a job defending each other following Israel’s destruction of the covert nuclear weapons program. Proof they are both scared to death of Israel’s capabilities.
Oh? You mean this “destruction of the covert nuclear weapons program?” This one is delish.
link to joshualandis.com
I could tell the nuclear claims against Syria were pure bullshit just by looking at the satellite photos of the site that was bombed. Yeah, you can’t exactly put up a fissile reactor in a warehouse and run off nukes like you were doing a trucking service.
In Israels case wouldn’t they have to worry about which way the wind is blowing,and that the wind will be constant?How could they nuke their neighbors who are in close proximity without fallout and collateral damage?A conundrum?
Dahoit, I think Israel is cavalier enough to take that risk. They know that every single time they fuck up, they can count on Uncle Sam. So the US would bankrupt itself to do anything and everything to shield and remedy the effects of fallout in Israel and Israel alone, because that’s what AIPAC would demand of American politicians.
Are you an expert on covert nuclear weapons installations? Did your A.I. sphere help you ascertain this information?
Are you Am_American? What covert nuclear weapons installations are you refrring to?
Am_Apartheidisrael,
Can you just give us YOUR “nuclear weapons installations” expertise mister Einstein ?
Or you just wanna keep sounding like Dumb & Dumber together inhabit your single cognitive chamber?
P.S. targeting chaos with your stupid nasties won’t get you the Pulitzer for nano-physics – most certainly won’t get you a mondoweiss supermodel for a girlfriend neither – but then again, you’re NOT really here to make friends, right? Au contraire.
“but then again, you’re NOT really here to make friends, right?”
I have received assurances from incredible sources that Phil and Adam do not have all the trolls locked in durance vile, forcing them by a steady diet of knout to comment at a site they hate.
The most probable explanation is that their browsers have become stuck on this site. Isn’t that ironic? Their browser gets stuck on a site they don’t like, don’t believe, and where they have a low opinion of the commenters, but they can’t contact any other website. Isn’t that the way? Darn computers! I mean, given what we have seen from them, can you think of any other reason they might be here?
@Witty
“I’m craving credible description, compelling description that confidently describes that Iran is not developing nukes.”
So, you are looking to prove a negative? Your educational ladder is lacking a few rungs, at least in the logic department.
>> I’m craving credible description, compelling description that confidently describes that Iran is not developing nukes.
>> I haven’t gotten it yet.
As always, it’s up to everyone else BUT Israel to “humanize ‘the Other’” and to make “better wheels”…even as Israel continues with its ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder, and with its existential threats against Iran.
Go figure…
It doesn’t help that the top of Witty’s ladder is blocked by a manhole cover, too.
>> Hostilities remain with Iran so long as it retains an anti-Zionist foreign policy, confirmed and applied by 50,000 missiles aimed at Israeli civilians by a proxy militia.
Hostilities remain with Israel so long as it retains a religion-supremacist foreign policy, confirmed and applied by dozens upon dozens of nuclear missiles presenting overt and existential threats. C’mon, Israel, make the “better argument”! You know RW wants you to!
Yep, and nothing is keeping nuclear-armed religious-supremacism as foreign policy Israel from extending their hand and offering friendship to their ‘enemies’ like Iran. Nothing except their smug double standards and pride. That doesn’t mean Iran would accept, but how do you know unless you try? They did say all options are on the table, that seems like it should be the first one.
The US should do the same thing, I don’t know why they don’t. They’re the ones of overthrew a democratically elected government in a CIA coup, downed an Iranian commercial airliner, and even rejected a diplomatic relations offer that had no pre-conditions attached (Bush Jr. rejected it).
Who knows, they might accept. Then no more anti-Zionist foreign policy. Again, Witty is blaming the effect instead of the cause. Israel’s behavior is the reason for Iran’s anti-Zionist foreign policy. Constantly threatening an attack is not going to change this. Oh I forgot, Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust. A belief not shared by his fellow diplomats. Not a reason to attack a country either. Then there is the infamous ‘wiped off the map’ thing which is taken out of context from a comment that said ‘erased from the pages of history’. Not the same thing, sorry the Ziocons take it that way. They’re nuts you know
>> Again, Witty is blaming the effect instead of the cause. … Oh I forgot, Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust.
Ahmadinejad questions the Holocaust but i) he was born after WWII (1956, according to Wiki) and ii) he does not CURRENTLY advocate for genocide of Jews. To condemn Ahmadinejad – and, by extension, all of Iran – would be nothing more than, in RW’s own words, “academic speculation”.
Iran is in a state of war with Israel, and with proxy militias in Lebanon and slightly less directly in Gaza and Syria, an active one.
The common thread between Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas is that they are the last remaining residual powers that actively work to end Israel as Israel.
The Iranian English-language press service is the entity that provided the translation “Wipe them from the map”, a terminology implying genocidal intent, in contrast to the “erase from the pages of history” which is the language that Jews speak of Hitler (“may his name be erased”). The Iranians wouldn’t know that in their communications, but that never stopped them from horrendously violent confrontational rhetoric.
They only meant to remove Israel from the list of sovereign nations, and prospectively to send them back to Europe, you know, their home.
But, 70% of Israelis were born in Israel, their home.
Call us when you care about facts, Witty, like what Ahmedinejad REALLY said.
link to arbeiterfotografie.com
What the world wants to end is the Occupation and Apartheid. If Israel has to be destroyed to end the Occupationa and Apartheid, well then, schade. You shouldn’t have built your “Jewish state” on the bones of murdered Palestinians.
Israel is in a state of war with Lebanon, Gaza and Iran.
No, that was MEMRI, which is a neocon front group. There was nothing genocidal mentioned, which is why the comparison with the fall of the USSR was raised.
“Iran is in a state of war with Israel”
Yes of course, according to your definition of “horrendously violent confrontational rhetoric.”
“powers that actively work to end Israel as Israel.”
No, to end Israel as a Zionist state, not to end Jewish lives or Jews living in Palestine.
“the translation “Wipe them from the map”, a terminology implying genocidal intent, in contrast to the “erase from the pages of history” which is the language that Jews speak of Hitler (“may his name be erased”).”
Your view that that terminology is “implying genocidal intent” comes from your confrontational Zionist mindset that triggers an emotional reaction rather than actual consideration of the facts.
The “erase from the pages of history” intent has been proved and cited countless times.
Charon,
I like you!
If memory serves, I think you posted in the past that you’re thirty years of age. You’ve got a better grasp of the I/P conflict than a heckalotta people twice your age.
Taxi, if your memory is correct, anyone like Charon has indeed stolen a march on people like me.
Take a look at what MRW and I had to say on this on the thread “Saul Bellow didn’t like WASPs”, the guy he talks about was really one special dude out of the box.
It starts about two-thirds the way down. Enjoy!
richard witty says
“Hostilities remain with Israel so long as it retains a Zionist foreign policy, confirmed and applied by 400 nuclear bombs aimed at Iranian civilians.
If you want to stop hostilities, advocate for the nukes to be removed.
Advocate for acceptance of Iran by Israel, and for active reconciliation”
i totally agree!
“Flynt Leverett, former Senior Director for Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council, discusses how the most crucial part of the IAEA report on Iran – that declared nuclear material isn’t being diverted to weapons manufacturing – has been buried under a heap of unsubstantiated rumors and accusations; the evidence that new IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano is much more cozy with the US than his predecessor Mohamed ElBaradei; why those who defend Iran’s rights under the NPT aren’t necessarily minions of the Ayatollah; the equally-wacky end-times theology of the major Abrahamic religions; and why Israel’s real “existential threat” is from losing the support of Jews worldwide, not from an incredibly improbable Iran attack.
link to antiwar.com
As for the origin of most of the IAEA’s self-described ”credible” intel, even the New York Times was forced to report that ”some of that information came from the United States, Israel and Europe.” Gareth Porter offers the definitive debunking of the report.
Moreover, expect major pressure on the CIA to renege the crucial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which established – irrefutably – that Tehran had ditched a nuclear weapons program way back in 2003.
All this dovetails with the dogs of war already barking.
The favorite neo-con 2002 road map still applies, the targets being Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan – all key nodes in the Pentagon-coined ”arc of instability”.
“IAEA’s “Soviet Nuclear Scientist” Never Worked on Weapons
By Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Nov 9, 2011 (IPS) – The report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published by a Washington think tank Tuesday repeated the sensational claim previously reported by news media all over the world that a former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist had helped Iran construct a detonation system that could be used for a nuclear weapon.
But it turns out that the foreign expert, who is not named in the IAEA report but was identified in news reports as Vyacheslav Danilenko, is not a nuclear weapons scientist but one of the top specialists in the world in the production of nanodiamonds by explosives.
In fact, Danilenko, a Ukrainian, has worked solely on nanodiamonds from the beginning of his research career and is considered one of the pioneers in the development of nanodiamond technology, as published scientific papers confirm.”
link to ipsnews.net
There was a question why a research/production facility would be located in a military zone.
Like many other militaries, Iranian military has its own production facilities, both for conventional weapons and civilian products. And of course their main focus is improving their conventional weapons like the missiles cited by Walid.
“IAEA’s “Soviet Nuclear Scientist” Never Worked on Weapons does not conflict with the statement
“that a former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist had helped Iran construct a detonation system that could be used for a nuclear weapon.”
Both statements could be true. Not exactly “debunking”. Maybe the element that you consider debunked is that there is a smoking gun (which nowhere appears in the AIEA report, but does appear in public opinion and in the press).
I don’t think that anyone is describing a smoking gun, but just the increased likelihood of a nuclear weapons program, and conducted by a regional power-seeking regime that is historically a sworn US enemy, and a sworn enemy of US allies.
Its a substantive concern.
The next good question is “what is the appropriate response?”
That it seems parallel to Iraq, is partially a phenomena that there is no smoking gun, but a risk assessment.
Do you go to war for a risk? I, Goldberg, Friedman, other liberal Zionists say no.
But, the risk that we might change our minds prompts you to similarly condemn in anticipation, rather than respond, SAME logic as US and Israel relative to Iran, same as you criticize.
Both statements are false. He is not a nuclear scientist and he did not help Iran produce anything related to nukes.
Do you still want to go to war over lies Witty?
“Maybe the element that you consider debunked is that there is a smoking gun (which nowhere appears in the AIEA report, but does appear in public opinion and in the press).”
The report was presented in the NYT as devastating and irrefutable in its arguments that Iran is a danger. So far, in actuality it seems to leave us about where we were. Iran might have some people investigating how to make a bomb, or it might not. The main danger here comes from what the US or Israel might do in response to the alleged threat, just as the biggest danger from Saddam’s alleged WMD’s was not the WMD’s even if they had been real, but the possibility (which turned real) that the US would invade in response to the alleged threat.
The saner and more rational analysts say that the real danger (from their US and/or Israel-centric perspective) of an Iranian bomb would be its deterrence effect. Nobody would feel too safe bombing Iran if they know Iran has nukes. Then Iran gets to have more influence in the region, or so the argument goes. Now if people wanted to discuss that issue calmly and rationally, fine. I won’t feel too much sympathy for the US or Israel. The Iranian theocracy is not a government I like, but then it’s hard to think of any government in the region that is admirable (Israel included) and the US influence is largely in favor of the thugs (Israel included). If Iran has the Bomb that’s bad, but so is the fact that Israel has the Bomb, and the worst thing about it would be to have two hostile countries with the Bomb, when both say nasty things about each other and Israeli officials openly discuss attacking Iran.
But most of the American discussion isn’t very calm or rational even from the morally constricted and narrow perspective of US interests, whatever the hell that phrase is supposed to mean. Instead there’s a lot of hysteria about the Iranian bomb, and some of the people you claim oppose military action (like Goldberg) are actually laying the rhetorical groundwork for making military action seem like a reasonable option even if not something we should be cheering about. Goldberg has learned one thing from Iraq–the people who actually gloated over the prospect of an Iraq War and talked about how wonderful the results would be now look like complete fools even to themselves. (Not that they admit it.) So if you want to make an Iranian War seem like a reasonable option you have to seem a little more restrained and less bloodthirsty about it.
“So if you want to make an Iranian War seem like a reasonable option you have to seem a little more restrained and less bloodthirsty about it.”
Are you speaking of Goldberg, who argued that a war with Iran would be a gross mistake, or with me that argues the same?
The only thing that Goldberg did was make explicit what was being discussed. You want to call that advocacy, I think you wildly mistaken (as is Phil).
You didn’t say war with Iran would be a gross mistake, you said it was an option.
“Are you speaking of Goldberg, who argued that a war with Iran would be a gross mistake”
Wrong. He thinks an attack by Israel alone would be a gross mistake.
This is what Goldberg said link
Here are some key excerpts–
“Yes, an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites is a bad idea. So is the idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons. Hence, a dilemma.”
” I tend to think now that an Israeli strike would be very ineffective and dangerous no matter what point in the future it is launched, in part because Israel’s capabilities are so much more limited than America’s.”
“As for the U.S., I believe two things: One, that President Obama is serious and sincere when he says that all options remain on the table and that a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable” to him, and two, it is a good thing that Obama is sincere, because I don’t have much faith in the idea that the U.S. could safely contain a nuclear Iran, as some people have argued. President Obama rightfully fears a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which is what would happen once Iran goes nuclear, and a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region could lead to a nuclear exchange, even an inadvertent nuclear exchange.
I’ve been raising the issue of Obama’s record of seriousness on counter-terrorism and nuclear nonproliferation issues (to the chagrin of some critics to my right) because I believe Iran should take him seriously on this particular matter, and I also believe Israel should take him seriously. There are many advocates in Israel of a preemptive strike against Iran who do not believe that Obama would ever use force to stop its nuclearization. These are the sort of people who are pushing hardest for a unilateral Israeli strike, soon. I think they are wrong. I believe, in part based on reporting that appears in this article, that Obama understands the threat posed by Iran, and would contemplate military action against Iran. ”
“As for me, well, I don’t know which one is worse: A preemptive attack, or a nuclear Iran. An attack would be disastrous on many levels, but I also think that a nuclear Iran would not be fully containable. ”
————————————————————————————
So summarizing, his argument is this–
1. War is a bad thing.
2. Iran with nukes is a bad thing. Obviously he thinks it would be worse than war.
3. Israel shouldn’t attack Iran because its military capabilities aren’t up to the task.
4. Goldberg likes and trusts Obama because he thinks Obama believes an Iranian Bomb is unacceptable and would be willing to use force. Goldberg doesn’t think an Iran with the Bomb would be “containable”.
Pay attention, Richard. He’s opposed to Israel going it alone, but all that hemming and hawing is just an acknowledgment that a war would have bad consequences. Good for him–he’s learned not to pretend it’s the obvious solution. However, he’s in favor of Obama using force if it’s a choice between war and an Iran with a nuclear weapon.
What he means by Iran “not being containable” is an interesting question. I think that’s a deliberately vague formulation. Does he mean Iran would start lobbing nuclear bombs at Israel? I think he wants people to have that idea in mind without saying so. The more likely scenario is that an Iran with nuclear weapons isn’t going to be intimidated and will be free to support who it wants, or that’s what the analysts fear.
Of course the other problem is what sort of evidence of an Iranian bomb would Goldberg need to justify an attack on Iran by the US? Probably nothing even remotely conclusive, based on past history.
I think Goldberg is describing the very knotty confusion in dealing with Iran.
The fraud relative to Iraq was the assertion of knowledge, rather than the assertion of risk.
Even among progressives, the assumption that Iran could pursue nuclear weapons from their current technological understanding is near 100%. The question of whether they would is closer to 80% in the affirmative.
For Goldberg to say that is not saying all that much. To make a big deal about Goldberg elaborating on what a vast majority hold to be likely, is not really saying much about Goldberg.
I don’t know personally. I hear contradictory statements from people that seem like they might know.
The AIEA report is not a smoking gun, and I understand your concern that the report is not being summarized accurately, and that subsequent political conclusions are being made on those innaccurate summaries.
Its one reason that I asked for an alternative summary, so that the better argument get made, rather than the better identification of who is cowboy and who is Indian.
The knotty confusion is your’s entirely. You haven’t even read Goldberg’s piece have you?
What are you babbling on about Witty? The arguemnt was that Iraq had WMD and was going to use them. That is a risk to those who believe it.
Cut the bullshit about what the assumptions are Witty. Try to deal in facts for once in your life. As Annie and many have pointed out, the same argumen can be made about 40 other countries in the world. What do you know about Iran’s current understanding? Did you read the IAEA report? No. Did you read the revuttals to the IAEA report until you were provided a link? No.
The fact is that Iran is not 100% gurtaneed of producing a nuke even if they tried, because as of yet, they stil haven’t tackled let alone overcome, many technical challenges that need to be mastered before producing nukes.
So STFU until you have a clue what you are talking about.
Having an understanding about how to produce a nuke is not a crime, it is not an act of war, it is not an act of agression. It is not even immoral.
So what’s your argument? That Iran need to be punished becasue of what they know?
Where did you get the 80% figure from? Did you make that one up too?
“To make a big deal about Goldberg elaborating on what a vast majority hold to be likely, is not really saying much about Goldberg.”
I just described what Goldberg was doing, complete with cites, and you ignored it. Whatever.
“that subsequent political conclusions are being made on those innaccurate summaries.”
There you got it right.
Donald, just because Goldberg says something, it doesn’t mean it’s what Witty wanted him to say, or what Goldberg should have said, according to Witty.
Arguing on the basis of what Goldberg, or Witty actually said, or, for that matter, what Israel actually does is unfair or possibly anti-S. You should know that!
link to csmonitor.com
This article convinced me that the reports of Iranian nuclear weapons development are still speculative if not actually doubtful.
I’m sorry that I jumped on your report Annie. My first emotional reaction was that it was preaching to the choir here, and not a summary of actual considerations.
I think your writing did leave a great deal of doubt. The CSMonitor reference was much more convincing to me, as it did not exhibit any prejudice or rancor.
Oh just say it. “I was wrong.”
So why don’t you learn a little humility and stop posting such idiotic assumptions before doing some reading. Have you any idea of how tiresome it is reading your posts which jump to conclusions without any foundation? Show some respect to the people here instead of relentless whining and sandbagging. Credibility has to be earned, you have a long road ahead of you to get there.
Newsflash: A mysterious drone has spectacularly crashed and burned today at an anti-Zionist site. An eyewitness said it had been circling since early morning indiscriminatingly dropping a series of wildly-inaccurate “debunker busters”.
The mystery deepened when examination of the wreckage revealed it was of a classic Israeli design though it had American markings and reportedly operated out of a secret base in western Massachusetts.
Wierd libra.
So, I assume you read the Christian Science Monitor report.
Do you get how I would perceive that as a more reliable reporting (for the tone and presentation) than the original here?
Anything to learn from that? Assuming that my process is not atypical.
Do you get how I would perceive that as a more reliable reporting (for the tone and presentation) than the original here?
No one here is pretending to be reporting on this subject. The blog post is highlighting further evidence of the holes and fabrications of the IAEA report.
Had you bothered to do any research and inform yourself, you would have been able to debate the topic, rather than ignorantly troll the and highjack the thread.
Hey Richard. This is from your very good friend Jewishgoyim:
link to youtube.com
(link to “You’d better stop!” from Sam Brown)
Ok so I’m doing what I’m preaching one should not do: replying to Witty. I consider we’re so far down in the comment section that it does not matter anymore.
Witty, with your involvement in the topic at hand, haven’t you noticed a behavioral pattern among some players? Don’t you realize at this point that swallowing what you’re fed by the IAEA is idiotic? Any good faith commenter with your level of information should be very cautious with the last US/Israeli propaganda stint. So hijacking the thread with some propagandistic grandstanding makes you lose all credibility. And your frankly ridiculous epiphany following the CS article is pathetic. Trying to regain some credibility at comment 140 after (knowingly in my view) burning it all at the beginning?
I think you do know how the game is played. I think you do know the actors and their methods. I think you don’t need the CS monitor article. You’re a sorry propagandist. Playing dumb/well intentioned dude part here. Not buying it.
I’m not saying that knowing the actors should not keep everyone’s mind open. I’m just saying that the way you thunderously started the comments in a context where you’re on very thin ice was utterly dishonest. As is your “CS Monitor epiphany”. Or you’re not so smart which is also a possibility.
Any good faith commenter with your level of information
jewishgoyim, “level of information”? witty 101 becomes much easier once you grasp witty does not rely on information to make points, he ignores it and invents his own information.
grandstanding makes you lose all credibility.
witty? credibility? i think it’s long gone.
example:
link to mondoweiss.net
he’s pretending we haven’t told him a million times (w/links) that legally there’s no difference between racism applied to ethnicities vs races. he just won’t get it or accept it or something.
“Told a million times”
Are you that passive relative to “what you are told”?
Repetition that doesn’t address reasoning is thin.
The presence of occupation is not apartheid. Even the presence of some racial component in the suppressive institutions of occupation are not apartheid.
Apartheid is fundamentally racial, not incidentally. It means that like South Africa, the presence of suppressive racial originating purpose is what is required for the definition of apartheid.
That does NOT resemble the Israeli system, in which within Israel, its basic laws (constitution) include the provision for equal voting, free speech, free peaceable assembly, equal due process under the law.
And, within occupied territories, they are occupied, not institutionalized apartheid.
If annexed and then racial or ethnic prohibitions from voting occur, then it might become apartheid, but it isn’t now.
You’ve been told that a few times Annie. How come you don’t adopt it?
Maybe it doesn’t to YOU Richard, but you’re just one zionist ‘holding his nose’ as others do the dirty work for you.
The description of Israel as an apartheid state is taking hold in mainstream consciousness because it is fundamentally true.
When are you going to grow a pair and face up to what a monster Israel is? It will be too late in 10 or 20 years, Israel will cease to exist in a recognisable form.
Got it.
You’re looking for an accurate term to name-call.
Do you want it to change, or to disappear?
“You’re looking for an accurate term to name-call.”
Here’s a thought–we can all agree that what Israel does is “literally horrid”. Name-calling that you’ve blessed by using that term yourself, though only about Iran supplying Hezbollah with rockets.
AS I’ve stated often, please read my comments to a Jeff Halper post on 972 today, the greatest problem with the use of the term “apartheid” to describe Israel is that that word is easily dismissed, in fact is a frame that says polemicist.
So, rather than have the description of Israeli/Palestinian relations and proposed remedies dismissed, other language is useful.
On the contrary Witty. For even Goldstone to be strong armed into writing an op ed tryhig to refute teh charge proves it is not dismissed. When South Africans come out and compare Israel with apartheid, that’s incotrvertible. When Nelson Mandella and Desomnd Tutu descrbe ISrale as worse than apartheid, yo’ve already lost the debate.
Useful to whom Witty? Zionist shills like yourself that cannot stomach reality?
“the greatest problem with the use of the term “apartheid” to describe Israel is that that word is easily dismissed, in fact is a frame that says polemicist.”
Wrong. It only says “polemicist” to people who don’t want to hear what is being said. The term is used to describe Israeli behavior by Israelis, Desmond Tutu and others. The reason the word is dismissed is because Israel defenders don’t want to admit to themselves or the world the full severity of what Israel does to Palestinians. In sharp contrast, virtually all Westerners (I don’t know about the Arab world) grant that the Palestinians have used terrorism and that terrorism is wrong, and so long as Israel can be portrayed in relatively benign terms, as a country which maybe has engaged in some unfair real estate land grabs, but otherwise only imposes harsh policies in self-defense, it gives them the moral high ground. I have a friend in real life who once repeated what I think he’d read in the NYT (possibly quoting Madelaine Albright,but I’m not sure)–that there is no moral equivalence between bulldozing a house and murdering civilians, no equivalence between taking land and killing a child.
This is bullshit, but it’s bullshit that has a purpose–it’s to make the Israelis seem like the civilized side and the Palestinians the side which engages in murder. You do it, everyone who defends Israel does it. Whether it’s a conscious deception or not varies from person to person–my friend was duped by the NYT and by his liberal notion that any criticism of Israel that went beyond the very mildest level was “anti-semitic”. Once the conflict is described that way then we are guaranteed to see discussion and a “peace process” which is biased against the Palestinians. Israeli crimes will be whitewashed or even supported and nothing is ever done, except that the US administration might say that this or that Israeli action isn’t helpful. Then they do nothing about it. Why should there be, if everyone thinks as you do, that Israeli violence and repression is basically legitimate while Palestinian or other Arab violence against Israel is “literally horrid”?
I don’t expect you to take in one single word of this Richard, because you have a remarkable capacity for not taking in things that might disturb you. I don’t think you can help it. But it’s worthwhile, I think, to explain why there are practical consequences to the whitewashing of Israeli crimes.
Why what you are doing is almost as bad as Holocaust denial.
It’s fascinating how Israeli shills will accept that Israel has murdered people, and many of them, but the mention of apartheid really freaks them out.
I suspect it’s because, strange as it may seem, while mass murder doesn’t help Israel’s image, it can be spun to look like muscular militarism which impressed the American public. Apartheid on the other hand, is ugly no matter how one spins it. More importantly, the aknowlegement of apartheid is the admission that Zionism is a failed ideology.
The more I learn about Witty, the more I am convinced he is on teh same page as Netenyahu.
For even Goldstone to be strong armed into writing an op ed tryhig to refute teh charge proves it is not dismissed.
In the UN footage that Adam posted the other day (“Wayback Machine”), the New Zealand ambassador eloquently – albeit unwittingly – explained why it is a charge that Israel and its supporters must refute at all costs. Ambassador Templeton noted that apartheid is universally considered to be racist, but Zionism is not apartheid and therefore should not be equated with racism.
But what if it could be demonstrated that Zionism (or, more precisely, the system of religio-ethnic separation and discrimination in force in the State of Israel) is apartheid, or something very close to it? Should it not then be universally considered racist as well, and treated as South Africa was?
These are high stakes – for the Palestinians, for human rights and international law, and for Israel and Zionists.
An accurate term, based on a UN-sanctioned legal definition. You can interpret that as name calling if you wish, but I think that’s more about what is left of your conscious than my intentions in using the word.
I want it to cease to exist in it’s current apartheid form. Whether that occurs in a one- or two-state format does not particularly bother me.
Practically speaking, I don’t believe Israel will ever let a viable and autonomous Palestinian state come into existence, so I make no efforts in that direction.
I’ve stated the above opinion many times before; I don’t know why you’re asking again.
Donald,
You confirm my point, more than dispel it.
The point was that name-calling is not information. And, if the point of dissent is to convey information, that the IMPORTANT thing to do is to find a way that that information can be conveyed without being dismissed.
I wrote to Jeff Halper that what the world needs from responsible dissent is to present experience and argument that is not dismissable.
Name-calling is the opposite of that.
Zionism at its root is a liberation movement, and only in corrupted applications an effort at racially motivated suppression.
The failure to accept Israeli self-governance is a racism, and the desire to expropriate and expel outside of need is a racism.
BOTH, not one or the other.
There are only two ways to realize a change:
1. Consented peace (implying acceptance of Israel, and of Zionism if only silently)
2. War (violent and/or non-violent)
If there is an accepted minority within Israel, equal due process under the law, rights to assemble, vote, rights to publish and speak, then there is no apartheid in Israel.
If there is occupation that is maintained pending a political agreement, then that is not apartheid, as it is not racial, ethnic, of national origin in origination, but political.
I get that there is some point where the occupation becomes in fact permanent, and not the facade of temporary.
But, that Olmert and Abbas both declared personally to Bernard Avishai that they were close, months, from an agreement, indicates that some Israeli administration intends to reconcile.
It doesn’t prove it, but it more than suggests it to me.
And, in that light, I believe that the factors that work to change hearts and minds, and elections in Israel, towards electing an administration that will realize a fair peace deal, is the way to go.
And, that name-calling DETERS that effort.
It is a choice made to actively deter social (attitudes) and electoral efforts, not a choice to focus on other areas, but a conscious choice to act for NO CHANGE.
So why refer to anyone as a terrorist? Does the term not convey infomration about those who are labbeled as such? When South Africa practiced partheid, it was not name calling to refer to it as Apartheid South Africa, it was an accurate description of the social and political nature of the state.
So if Israel practices apartheid, it is not name calling. You refuse to discuss whether Israel is an apartheid state and prefer to dabble in the minutia as to whether the term is came calling.
All arguments are dismissable – the very nature of arguments and debates lends itself to dismissal unless you are envisioning a fascist dictatorship that outlaws such basic tenets of free speech and free ideas.
Zionism never had anything to do with liberation, becasue at it’s root was the belief that displacing existing populations was necesary and morally acceptable. If anything, Zionism at its root is oppression.
It the failure only to accept Israeli self-governance is a racism? Because Ben Gurion made it abundantly clear that Palestinain self-governance was to be denied and rejected. Of course, wjhat we are discussing here is not Israeli self-governance, but Israeli human rights abuses which you wnat to shield behind the cloack of self governance.
This is particularly sadistic of you given that you ealrier argued that Iran shuld be denied nukes in case it used the threat of it’s nukes to prevent ïntervantino” in Iran.
So does that mean you deny Iranian self governance Witty and doesn’t that then make you a racist?
Not just those things Witty. As was established in the 2004 Wall case, apartheid also covers denial of the following:
*the right to adequate supplies of food and water
*the right to work
*the right to education
*the right to health
*the right to freedom of movement and residence.
Israel does not provide all of these to it’s Arab citizens and denies all of these to the Palestinians in the OT. Thus, you would have to agree that there is indeed apartheid in Israel and most certainly, apartheid in the occupied territories, which are 100% controlled by Israel.
False. The occupation is not pending a political agreement. It is there to expropriate land and protect settlements, which you yourself insist should always remain. Hemce it is most certaionyl apartheid.
There were some in apartheid SA who were opposed to aparthrid too. That didn’t mean it was not also apartheid like Israel is today.
If the effort is legitimate and has majority suport, name calling is of no consequence. The reality si that your BS about changing hearts and minds si nothing more than hot air to make yourself feel good while nothign of the kind it taking place.
That’s what we’ve come to expct from you Witty. In the face of irrefutable evidence that Zioinism is racism and colonialism, you stick youer head in the sand and pretend that your imaghinary Zionism is the real one. In the face of irrefutable evidence that Israel has no intention of making peace or returning trriotory for the same of peace, you close your eyes and imagine a non existent political wave of good will from Israel that would make everythign better.
And when people draw your attention to the realities of Israel, you insist it’s name calling or polemics. Simply put, you can’t handle the truth about Israel or even the depths of your own repugnant racism and sense of supremacy, so you pefer to live in a land of make believe.
Israel remains engaged in an immoral, unjust and ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder. It has the power to halt that campaign – to pursue a just and moral course – immediately and completely…but name-calling DETERS it!
It would be amusing if it weren’t so pathetic.
(Notice, too, that Palestinians aren’t granted the same lee-way. Apparently being oppressed, colonized and murdered, and constantly being demonized as terrorists, Jew-haters, murderers and “dissent” does not DETER efforts to change Palestinian hearts and minds.)
“That’s what we’ve come to expct from you Witty. In the face of irrefutable evidence that Zioinism is racism and colonialism,”
But, the evidence is not irrefutable in the slightest.
Your amplified name-calling doesn’t change the reality, some of which supports your contentions, and some of which conflicts with your contentions.
Israel is a mix of jewel and dirt.
The jewel components: self-governance for the Jewish people combined with equal due process under the law for all individuals and minority communities, are worth preserving.
The dirt components are worth opposing, but not by replacement with a pendulum alternative persecution.
So, I contest that the electoral path is the fundamental viable one to make change, and to accomplish that takes respectful persuasion.
Innaccurate rhetorical name-calling hinders that effort.
I have discussed my sincere impression that Israel is NOT an apartheid state, as apartheid rests on an original fundamental racial purpose for discrimmination.
The features of suppression that Palestinians experience do not originate in racial purpose, but political.
Its a different wrong, with apartheid-like features, but not apartheid.
Donald,
You confirm my point, more than dispel it.
No big surprise here. Yes, that’s how ideology works, ultimately everything confirms the world view.
“Zionism at its root is a liberation movement, and only in corrupted applications an effort at racially motivated suppression.”
In your dreams. Zionism at its root is a subjugation movement. It is a classic expression of the victimized becoming the victimizer. Its corrupted application is not mere suppression but the taking of the land and heritage of another people and the creation of enemies.
“There are only two ways to realize a change:”
Remember and apply what you wrote yesterday about Martin Luther King. This is what he said about your two ways:
“True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice. Without justice, there can be no peace. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.
War is a poor chisel to carve out tomorrow. The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies – or else? The chain reaction of evil – hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars – must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.”
The true and only way to peace, Richard, is the justice that will lead to reconciliation.
Justice is not achieved by negotiation, because justice is nothing less than wrong being righted in a practical way. That can only happen in two ways:
1) The full reversal of the injustice, the wrong done or existing, if that is possible, to the satisfaction of the wronged.
2) The full accountability of the guilty party, and/or full compensation to the injured party.
That is the foundation for reconciliation, the aim of which would be to restore the situation to what existed between Jew and Arab in Palestine before Zionism arrived.
The closest example of what that might look like is South Africa.
If you look at South Africa, a good example, thank you Judge Goldstone, is truth AND reconciliation.
The definition of justice that only includes accountability, but not reconciliation, is not justice, but something else.
In the case of Israel/Palestine, the populations in the region are close to 50/50, and each, according to all polls taken to date, state that each community desires to self-govern, two states.
A definition of justice that results from non-acceptance of the other, including Zionists, is not justice.
Justice is not achieved by “only negotiation” would be a much much more accurate description. That would be a truth.
The evidence is overhwleming Witty.
Nothing is being amplified other than the reality you are so desperate to deny. Israel is becomming more dirt than jewel, if it ever was one.
Self-governance is not a jewel when it comes at the cost of oppressioon and dispoission of another society. You wouldn’t accept the ppressioon and dispoission of the Jewish people, therefore this is clearly nothing jem like about self-governance. Does the fact that a rapist gets to experience some degree of pleasure make rape a mixture or jewel and dirt Witty?
There is no equal due process under the law when an Arab can be imprisioned for rape for simply failing to reveal his Arab identity to his otherwise consenting Jewish partner durign a one night stand. The rights of the minority communities are beign errorded.
That’s clealy false. The electoral path is leadign Israel further and further to the right. The electoral path has not produced any reforms in 64 years, so it’s clearly never going to.
When government services try to come to teh aid of abused child, they don’t usualtyl return that child the custody of the abusive parent -yet that is what you are proosing.
On the contrary. The first step in the rehabilitation of an alcoholic is to admit that he is one. The same goes for Israel and it’s admission of apartheid.
No one is interested in your sincere impression as to whether Israel is an apartheid state or not. You have demonstrated that you are impervous to logic and factual debate. When confronted with these, you retreat to your personal beliefs and then expect them to havbe the same ligitimacy and facts.
Only a fool would make such an assumption.
Politics is driven by racism.
As they say, if it looks like a duck, sounds like one and walks like one…
I agree that truth AND reconciliation si the wy to go, but it would never have beenpossible while apartheid was maintained. In Isralel apartrheid will end when Zionism ends.
What is it Witty? Our system fo justice makes no mention of reconciliation. Does that mean it’s not a justice system but somethign else?
In the case of Israel/Palestine, the populations in the region are close to 50/50, and each, according to all polls taken to date, state that each community desires to self-govern, two states.
Except that Israel has insisted on conditions which makes two states and self-governance for both, impossible.
True, but Israle has never accepted the ida of a Palestinian state. Zionism has to go.
“The jewel components: self-governance for the Jewish people combined with equal due process under the law for all individuals and minority communities, are worth preserving.”
The Jewish experiment in self-governance has been an unmitigated disaster and is therefore not worth preserving.
As for equal due process under the law, this is a joke that just illustrates why Zionism cannot continue to have such a rotten effect on people’s lives.
Want some proof? Well, for a start, read Bassem Tammimi’s statement to the Ofer military court. And then the Mondoweiss article, “Endangered Palestinian Village…” and note especially the Mayor’s letter that annie quotes.
Want something within Israel? Read Udi Aloni’s Mondoweiss article on November 9 and grasp why he said this:
“The Supreme Court knows that in the mixed cities of Jaffa, Acre, and Lydda, cruel creeping deprivation of Palestinian citizens of Israel is taking place.
The Court knows and collaborates. The Supreme Court of the State of Israel is a loyal servant of a racist ideology that does not differ much from the racism of the rabbis who signed the manifesto of the Israeli Nuremberg Laws.
Like the court in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, which bends the civil law in favor of the Christian ruler in order to harm Shylock the Jew, the Supreme Court in our reality has become a verbal whitewashing machine for occupation and plundering on a nationalist basis.”
Force dominates the revolutionary urge (in the hypocritical opposition to the use of force.)
Persuasion dominates the electoral and the judiciary, and so long as both those institutions remain, they are the appropriate means to pursue institutional change.
To divest in electoral and judicial efforts is to divest in efforts at justice and reconciliation.
Dissent only goes so far as to inform, and once informed, hopefully opening hearts and minds to the experience of the other, it must be implemented institutionally, through governance.
Force dominates the revolutionary urge (in the hypocritical opposition to the use of force.)
Force is Israel’s asnwer to everything Witty. Talk to them.
They might be, but they are not working. If anything, these institutions have become highjacked by right wing, apartheid facist elements (ie. Zionism).
Wrong. As JFK said, if chnge cannot be brought around through peaceful dissent, violent dissent becomes innevitable. If Israel choses not to chengem, then it must be forced to chnage.
Witty, just be sure to keep up that condescending, hideously avuncular, self-righteous tone. With that and your complete unwillingness to grasp the issues, all it takes is a smattering of New Age malapropisms to make your comments completely revolting.
Stay as sweet as you are, Richard.
“The jewel components: self-governance for the Jewish people combined with equal due process under the law for all individuals and minority communities…”
Christ on a unicycle, the man simply cannot bring himself to say “equal rights under law for all” when it comes to Zionism. He can’t consider any kind of Zionism which does not give privileges to Jews, and relegates others to “minority communities”.
Of course, now he will argue that the superiority of Jews gives them the right or even the obligation to rule the others.
But the”equal rights” under which the Jews have flourished in America is not good enough for the dirty Arabs Israelis are forced to live with. And anythought that the Zionists didn’t have the right to take Palestine from the “Arabs” is a curse against God!
And there you have the whole of his arguments, stripped of his clumsy and transparent obfuscations and elisions.
Force dominates the revolutionary urge (in the hypocritical opposition to the use of force.)
This doesn’t bode well for Israel, which:
- remains engaged in an ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder, which it has the ability to halt immediately and completely; and
- is permitted to engage in offensive military actions and to use the resulting response to carry out “belligerent reprisals”.
RW talks an awful lot about Palestinians having to use persuasion, having to remain calm, having to make “better arguments” and “humanize ‘the Other’”. But when it comes to Israel – to the religion-supremacist oppressor state – not so much.
Go figure.
“I’m doing what I’m preaching one should not do…”
Stay firm in your resolve. Don’t be a backslider.
In other words, you are admitting you argued from a position of complete ignorance and have simply wasted everyone’s time – as you have always done.
It is not the responsibility of others on this forum to hand you this information on a plate witty. If you are at all interested, do your own fucking research and educate yourself. If you refuse to, then stay the hell out of the discussion and stop making such a nuisance or yourself.
The concensus of even progressives is that Iran is attempting to develop nukes.
See the Derfner bloggingheads discussion on 972.
Here is the only “progressive” advocacy location that I’ve found where many assert that Iran is not seeking to become a nuclear power.
And, the politics of the present and future are very complex with many many possibilities, such that any simplistic position is innaccurate.
I don’t hear much actual discussion here. And, that bothers me, as then an effective optimally helpful response is just a gamble, like all careless politically correct formations are.
No, it isn’t. Progressivism isn’t owned by Jewish Zionists so stop speaking for us.
Consensus is a sleazy word for those who have been tricked and lied to. The consensus in 2003 was that Saddam had WMD.
You always turn to consensus Witty, when the evidence is not on your side.
What’s that supposed to mean? That evidence and facts are irrelevant?
WTF are you talking about? You didn’t even know which was was up when Anni opened this thread and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to read an article that explained it all to you.
You’re nothing but an ignorance, insufferably pompous and narcissistic bigot who thinks thinks he’s some intellectual giant.
Newsflash:
Hilary Clinton is going to the hair salon “For Witches Only” for a day .
This will give Iran one more, extra day to respond to “her” demands.
She will still consult with allies via burning leaves outside the salon.
Dark smoke will means “yes,we can”, white smoke will mean “no, we can’t”.
She demands that nobody, withing 500 miles distance, burn leaves that day since in may give a wrong signal to the allies.
Being the u.s. secretary of state is like being a salesman for a shit company. it is very very hard work selling shit. It takes a vast amount of personal psychic energy selling shit. this is particularly true if someone is fairly smart. Hilary, though in at least one instance a massively poor judge of men or perhaps easily gulled by a certain type, is smart. Thus she knows she is selling shit and is, at some level quite conflicted and wearied. In order to not being fatigued selling shit it takes someone smart enough to present things well but still dumb enough to believe that what they are selling isn’t shit. These folks, not being internally conflicted, don’t show the strain. Rather like Condolezza Rice who rarely broke into a sweat while selling shit.
great comment. i would have appreciated being a fly on the wall when ross’s resignation came up last week. fun for hilary?/not
Yuki Amano is another who should be resigning – him along with David Albright.
She was in Australia, annie. She’s been buzzing around the world touring seven countries. She probably looks like a wreck because she’s been partying and staying up late. Those Aussies can drink anyone under the table, and they like to partay late.
here is a funny, cute video/song ,which kind of illustrates how the public,
( busy talking about nada importante, chewing 200 times “news” spit by lying media and politicians, , inhaling happily poisonus main-stream-medial fumes to the point of a total numbness), is being ripped off in a broad daylight.
And they don’t even know it.
link to youtube.com
I dunno, IMO Hilary likes being a shit salesperson. It was her husband who appointed Ross as envoy. Rumor also has it she favored Ross over Mitchel. There are some out-there rumors about the powers-that-be elite having the desire to JFK on down the chain of command so she could be POTUS.
The Clintons are pretty Zionist-friendly. Bill wouldn’t have had a second term if he was serious about the peace process. Yitzhak Rabin was probably more serious than Clinton and paid for it with his life. Sure there was whitewater. You can tell the Zionists were responsible for exploiting it because Michael Chertoff was involved. Maybe travelgate too cause Robert Fiske was involved in both as a prosecutor. Netanyahu didn’t trust Clinton though. Some say Israeli spy technology used on the phones in the WH is what outed the Lewinsky thing, compliments of Bibi. Bill recently said bad things about Bibi but then went on to say that the ‘generous offer’ was generous and Arafat was a fool to reject it.
phone system in the WH at that time some how affiliated with Abramoff. Allegedly the Clinton administration was after a mole in the WH at that time. FBI investigation .
Leon Fuerth? ????Lots of candidates
Condi was always twitching when talking bullshit. Colin Powell with his deep baritone was a master of the craft — and I guess he did not believe a word of it. But I agree that this is a rare talent.
Being smart, intelligent or well educated is only one, fairly important thing in life. But not the most.
A lot of Nazi’s were very well educated, intelligent and “sophisticated” people. And they were still able to commit the worst atrocities to the humankind.
What really counts is, “are you a good, , honest, trustful, honorable,decent person” ?
Can we say that about “our politicians”??
I can’t .
secretary of state hillary clinton & secretary of defense leon panetta as bad cop & good cop, respectively?
warmonger vs possible conciliator?
the illusion of preventing a war by negotiations & such?
holding out a slim ray of hope until the very last day?
with our president then telling the public that he knows that the american people hate war, he hates war, his wife hates war, his 2 children and his dog hate war, but, what the heck, everyone knows he’s a puppet, so why wouldn’t he do what his puppetmaster tells him to do?
unless, of course, the occupy everywhere movement steps up to the plate
the more than 100 general assemblies in our beloved land
leaderless yet everyone a leader
which assumes that said president will keep playing puppet until such time as a populist movement affords him an opportunity to be himself*?
*granting him the benefit of the doubt
our* beloved land?
to paraphrase mark twain, support one’s country all the time but one’s government only when it’s earned it.
*our, as in leaderless yet everyone a leader = government of, for and by the people?
“Do you want me to be your politician”?? Yeeeeeeeees.
What do you think??
Do you want me to be your politician”?? Yeeeeeeeees.
“Ok. I’m gonna do it. I will be faithfull to you.
I do politics like sh..t, but I’m gonna do it for you…..because I like you, oh, yes…I like you….. I’m a bad political player. Bad as I can be. ..I’m bad political player….”.
The end is the best:))
link to youtube.com
This came out a few hours ago, and contained an interesting gem about 14 inches down.
link to telegraph.co.uk
The gem. So this was the mysterious IAEA official who was always quoted from Vienna?
Interesting. Given how long these accusations against Iran have been leveled, it would follow that:
either (1) Iran already has a nuclear weapon, or (2) It has no intention of having one as it has always claimed, given that it could have done so in such a short time.
If (1) is true, then it is a good thing and the world can take a collective sigh of relief that they now have the nuclear deterrence required to check the non-stop bullying by the zionists.
If, however, (2) is true (which I personally believe is more likely), then our support of Israel is even more grievous as we, once again, rattle our sabres followed by an attack on yet another non-threat country (at least to the US) because of our political realities.
Either of the above two scenarios says that our belligerence should cease immediately and we should apologize to Iran (including for the original sin of overthrowing their democratically elected leader in the 50s) and extend a warm hand of friendship to them.
Yes, when pigs fly.
link to 972mag.com
Larry Derfner and Elliott Jager
you crack me up!!!! rotflmao!
i think finally..richard actually link to something and then i open the link and see you’ve linked to yourself in another comment section! hysterical. i can’t stop laughing. you are a card richard witty. omg.got to stop laughing.
link to 972mag.com
I intended to link to the original, not to my comment.
Suuuuuure. ;)
Yes sir, when Richard wants to prove a point, he knows right where to go for unbiased, disinterested information! Not to mention omniscience.
To Richard Witty. The moment Israel obtained nuclear weapons, a nuclear arms race began in the region. Don’t want others to get nuclear weapons? How about Israel get rid of its own.
How can you even suggest it?
Israel is in an “untouchable cast.”
They can do, whatever they wish, and ain’t ” nobody’s momma” business.
Israel can run around like a little, crazy maniac around the “worldly room”, and his big daddy, USA, is going only to pat his back and say, “good job , sonny, boo.”
They don’t care that all the people in the “worldly room” are getting more and more angry, and tired of it.
They just look blindly at each other. Ooh!
Its been a rather slow one, not destabalizing, as its been what 30 years?
Iran’s prospective bug about nuclear weapons is not primarily about Israel.
Israel will have a path to get rid of its own when it is accepted by all powers within any military range.
Iran’s efforts are new, not necessary.
It takes a special form of paranoia to think producing medical isotopes is a danger to peace.
If Iran had a nuclear weapons program, you’d think the evidence would have been pretty conclusive, no?
Oh BULLSHIT, Witty. Let it stand for the record that Witty endorses nuclear proliferation ONLY when the people who benefit from it are Jewish.
What an insult to the rest of the Americans you live among, Witty.
@Witty
“Iran’s efforts are new, not necessary.”
I disagree.
I think Iran would be wise to acquire some nuclear weapons post-haste. We have already proven to the world that if your country lacks a nuclear deterrent, we will attack your ass and kill your people. North Korea is in no danger of being attacked by us, no matter how much we rattle our sabres.
Pakistan may be an exception, since we have a puppet in government there. If not for that, we probably wouldn’t be so cavalier with our drones.
A new theme.
‘I hope that Iran acquires nuclear weapons’
well, we wouldn’t all have to endure this constant saber rattling from israel anymore. frankly i think it would be a more stable ME unless there was some way we could strip israel of it’s nukes. no nukes at all makes the most sense but since we can’t have that the alternative is for iran to have them too. i’m probably w/the global majority on that. it would shut israel up.
You want Israel to have nukes, you traitor to American interests.
What bug? The only evidence is that Iran is pursuing a civilian program.
Iran’s efforts are civilian and very necessary and none of your business.
A new theme.
“Nuclear weapons are great so long as only Israel has them”
“i’m probably w/the global majority on that. it would shut israel up.”
You need some reality checks to that assumption Annie.
The Iranian nuclear development would mean a regional nuclear arms race, as well as veto power for Iran over ANY intervention in its internal governance (how many thousands were killed last year?) and ANY accountability for its objectives of regional dominance.
Witty, you’re now crossing into Twighlit Zone territory here.
You would ril at any suggestion of of intervention into Isral’s internatl affair under any circumstance, yet you oppose Iranian nukes becasue it woudl stop the world doing a Lybia on Iran?
Are you out of your friggin Ziocaine induces sociopathic mind?
As for arms races, Israel has been in a one man raced for decades. It didn’t becoem the 4th most poweful military by magic – it did so by racing to get there. If there is an arms race, it’s because Iran and the West started it.
And do tell us Witty, how many thousands were killed last year in Iran? This time, cite a reputable source. Don’t tell us you read it somewhere and cannot find a link. Don’t reply with a question as to what anyone else thinks the number might be.
You sauid thousands died in Iran last year, so produce a link. Do it. Dont stonewall, or fillibuster.
@Witty
Ha! Ha! Good one!
Israel started the race the day it acquired (stole) its nuclear arsenal. Too late to complain about the neighbors trying to get their own to offset the regional bully.
And I wouldn’t start throwing those rocks from that glass house called Israel about how many people were killed in Iran, in case someone in Palestine is reading this…
And the absolute topper:
“and ANY accountability for its objectives of regional dominance.”
Ha! Ha! Stop! You are killing me!
Israel is responsible for the nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
You just don’t want Israel to lose its Samson Option Veto, do you, Witty?
I was mistaken about the number of deaths. Per wikipedia, only 36 deaths were verified.
You don’t think that Iran is seeking regional dominance, and using less than perfectly humane means to get there?
You think Iran is an open society, not an odd mix of theocracy and military power?
As opposed to what Witty? Israel’s regional dominance, and the grossly inhumane means is has used to get there? For Christs sake wity, Iran is a country of 80 million people and a long and proud history. Does it not deserve to be recognized as a major regional player?
Was it Iran’s fault that America’s invasion of Iraq handed two thirds of Iraq to Iran on a plate?
I asked you to answer the question, not reply with another tangential question. We’ve etablished that Iran killed 36 people last yeatr, whereas Israel killed well lover 100, yet you’e insisting that Iran is the threat to human rights and the region.
No I don’t think Iran is an open society, but then again, that’s none of your business or mine. Unless you agree that it’s reasonable for foreign troops to invade Israel, Gaaa and the West Bank/Jerusalem to defend human rights of Palestinians, your suggestion this be considered in Iran is shamelss hypocrisy.
Witty, everything you apply as speculation to Iran, applies as OBSERVATION when one looks at Israel.
You are reading falsely into my comments Shingo, for a change.
Iran is A threat to human rights, international stability, even the prospects of a viable peace between Israel and Palestine.
“the” who knows.
I have the same attitude towards Iran’s sovereignty as towards Israel, that it just is, and should be accepted.
And, I have the same attitude towards reforms in Iran as in Israel, that they are called for, and that saber rattling that leads to escalation at all, is not a great thing.
I won’t close my eyes as to Iran’s actions and active role, nor should you.
richard where would you have been when israel was acquiring nukes in 60s and destabilizing middle east realpolitik?
is there any virtue in a balance of power between the two strongest powers in M.E.?
I would have been 12, same as you.
Isn’t it the present that we are talking about?
>> richard where would you have been when israel was acquiring nukes in 60s and destabilizing middle east realpolitik?
Because he’s a hypocrite, it is highly unlikely that RW will condemn Israel’s destabilizing acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.
Instead – and assuming he doesn’t dodge the question by virtue of it involving “academic speculation” due to his tender age at the time – RW will most likely defend Israel’s actions by invoking, among other things:
- self-(self-)determination;
- existential fears;
- “tiny blue dot in a sea of green”;
- “a good in the world”; and maybe even
- the Holocaust.
>> I would have been 12 …
Well, whaddaya know! :-)
Did my edit take? Or was it too long after?
To reiterate,
The current form that “deterrence” has been applied to Israel recently, and threatened recently is in the form of a hostage setting.
The largest recent precedent for that relationship was from Iraq during the first Gulf War, in which Saddam threatened to attack Israel with long-range missiles with dirty nuclear, chemical, or biological materiel. They only shot missiles with explosive warheads, not WMD, thankfully.
But, Israel was NOT a party to the war. The US and a UN authorized force attacked Iraq.
A couple weeks ago, Assad declared that if Nato, or UN, or other international organization intervened in its civil strife (3500 reported killed), that they would similarly attack Israel, and insist that Hezbollah attack Israel, and massively.
Again, even though Israel is not a party to any proposed action.
The presence of Iran closely in each of those urges, is gross, and threatened to be escalated.
Only those that hold Israelis as expendible (PEOPLE), can sanction or ignore that escalation.
The only reasonable discussion is what is the appropriate means to diminish tensions, to diminish the reasoning for the nuclear prospect, and to diminish the proxy military scope.
The consequences of war are potentially gruesome, uncontrollable, untrustable. The consequences of ignoring Iran’s escalation are a known disruption.
Solely military/political. Not regional growth by trust in Iran’s character, its ideals, its values. Not regional growth by a dynamic central economy.
Iran is developing, and is obviously capable of much substantive. Even nuclear power might be a component of that, even as I actively oppose nuclear power as energy driver anywhere.
But Iran’s saber-using (more than rattling) is real.
A new theme.
‘I hope that Iran acquires nuclear weapons’
Hardly a new theme, quite the opposite. It has been argued ad nauseam that it wouldn’t be surprising given Israel’s pressure if they did exactly that. And yes, usually North Korea is mentioned in this context.
But I have no doubt, you feel you have succeeded in eliciting the deeply hidden wish for Israel’s destruction you always suspect.
richard, you made this false allegation before and i called you on it at the time. you couldn’t back it up. so please quit littering the threads with unsupportable lies. thanks
what is false about it? Nasrallah just reiterated the same sentiments last week.
i’m not feeling inspired to do richard’s homework for him again. he made this allegation before and i did a search and low and behold there is no record of assad ‘insisting’ anything of the sort. assad is not the leader of hezbollah.
so if you are really interested in knowing what is false about it try google. that’s how i located the relevant data before. or you could try the search engine here by clicking on my name and entering ‘assad’ ‘hezbollah’ and ‘insist’, maybe that will work.
richard witty is rather famous for making allegations he cannot support. it’s for him and his supporters to provide evidence for these allegations, not for us to continually prove them wrong.
link to jpost.com
‘If NATO attacks Syria, we’ll fire missiles at Tel Aviv’
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND REUTERS
10/04/2011 18:53
Syria’s Assad says Damascus can call on Hezbollah to launch rocket attack on Israel if western countries take “crazy measures,” FARS reports.
I have to side with Richard on this one, with his link above and Nasrallah’s collaboration of such a statement, I don’t see how you can say it as false.
link to ynetnews.com
There is also this about sending in 30k suicide bombers into Israel (who said they didn’t condone terror?)
link to ynetnews.com
Syria threatens that, if attacked, it will retaliate by launching attacks against Israel. The Zio-supremacist response? Launch “pre-emptive self-defense” strikes against Iran. “Common sense” is amazing stuff.
You mean, as in for a change? Very funny funny Am_Israeli.
As hs been pointed out, Nasrallah is not theatening agrression, but retaliation. This statement from Nasrallah come long after Israel has thetaened to bomb Iran. But of couurse, when it comes to Witty, threats made by Israel are legitimate, but threats of retaliatioin are not.
The weekly standard ran the same hedline prior to the Iraq war. Of course, the fact that an attck on Iran woudl eb a massive act of state trerror has gone clearly over your Zioncaine induced head.
Yes, it’s called a defense pact Witty. If Israel is attcked the US has vowed to come to Israel’s defense. Is that an act of terro o the part of the US?
“I have to side with Richard on this one…”
Don’t you think Witty does a good enough job of destroying his own credibility? Of course, if you insist on helping, have at it.
Israel is doing all the occupying, all the killing, all the settlemetn building, al the home demolition, al the ethnic cleansing, and yet it’s al Iran’s fault?
Is Iran forcing Israel to perpetrate these crimes or are they Israeli policy?
No you don’t. You argued that Iranian nukes would allow Iran to veto any foreign intervention into Iran. Would you support foreign intervention in Palestine Israel to protect human rights?
No, as you have argued in the past, this would violate Israel’s soverignty, so clearly, you regard Iran’s sovereignty and Israel’s as unequal.
Sure, you’re too busy closing them to Israel’s, though you really shouldn’t.
The current form that “deterrence” has been applied to Israel recently, and threatened recently is in the form of a hostage setting.
What arew you babbling on about now? Hostage setting?
There wa no threat of Iran using WMD.
But, Israel was NOT a party to the war. The US and a UN authorized force attacked Iraq.
If NATO atatcked Syria, it would be to satisfy Israel, who have been itchign to attck Syria for decades, so Israel would certainly be a party to any proposed action. Of course, ISrael is more than happy of someone else does it for them.
Only if Israel decides to start a war. Sounds like a sound reason not to.
Only those blindly suporting of Israel would deny Israel’s responsibility for any such war. The necons are openly arguing that the way to attack Iran is to start with Syrian, and any attack on Iran would be entirely for Israel’s benefit.
So is Israel’s. Teh difference being that Iran’s saber-using is conditional upon Israel using their sabres first.
I think my argument is more substantive.
Iran has proxy armies on two fronts relative to Israel. I understand their concern relative to the West Bank.
You don’t consider 50,000 warheads pointed at Israeli civilian cities as aggression?
Why don’t you all simply request that Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas accept Israel as Israel at the green line, participate in earnest negotiations, renounce ALL aggression on Israel, and bury the hatchet?
I’ll recommend that Israel willingly negotiate with Iran.
“Why don’t you all simply request that Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas accept Israel as Israel at the green line”
Because there is nothing to suggest that Israel has any intention of every existing as Israel at the green line. Tell them to withdraw to the green line and then we can talk.
“I’ll recommend that Israel willingly negotiate with Iran.”
And I notice that you did not recommend that Israel withdraw to the green line, first. Do you really not see the problem with what you are proposing?
I’m sure you do, bur as you might have noticed, you are alone in that regard. The traffic on your web site is a further indication.
Iran has proxy armies on two fronts relative to Israel. I understand their concern relative to the West Bank.
No, because Israel has far more warheads pointed at them.
Right after you convince Israel to return to the the green line, dismantle settlemnts, participate in earnest negotiations, renounce ALL aggression it’s neighbors and Iran and bury the hatchet.
“I was mistaken about the number of deaths. Per wikipedia, only 36 deaths were verified.”
C’mon guys, lay off Witty. He was this close to right.
And with his statements about Iran’s “odd mix” his bigotry comes right back to the fore. Yes Witty let’s bomb them because we find their country an “odd mix”
Isn’t Witty that guy in the Springfield newspaper: Old man shouts at cloud?
When I see Hillary Clinton I think trouser suits and murder.
“When I see Hillary Clinton I think trouser suits and murder.”
Hey, it’s easier to get back at the US, and the world, than it is to get back at Bill Clinton.
When I see or hear Hillary Clinton I think yes on the 2002 Iraq war resolution vote, to get Iran drum beating and rolling over to the I lobby
a new theme:
“Accusations of owning, or secretely producing , nuclear weapons became the greatest excuse (reason) to start a new war.”
This “excuse” is being played the second time in a row.
Are we going to fall for that??
Again?
“Are we going to fall for that??”
Unemployment is high in America, commercial activity stagnant, and one of the most insidious victories of the neo-conservatives was to make Americans believe war is a profit-generating activity, and arrange our military so it is, for the favored contracters.
Jerome Slater has a new piece on Iran, Israel, and the bomb–
link
Hopefully Phil will post it here, but if not, there’s the link.
As further evidence of the fact the IAEA was DOA and a monumental flop, Netenyahu in incensed the report was not more incendiary. Netanyahu’s complaints suggest there were even crazier and mnore vague allegations that didn’t make it into the report, and he’s angry that “only things that could be proven were written”.
Netenyhau sounds really unhinged.
“..but in reality there are many other things that we see.” Of course, he can’t explain what he sees.
If anything, his outburt suggests the case for the new allegations was even weaker.
I suspect the fact that China and Russia aren’t buying into this farce is clearly getting to him.
link to reuters.com
Boy, this IAEA report has turned into a biblical dud! Even I feel sorry for them (not really)! Seems Russia is looking to expose Israel’s complicity in this:
link to en.trend.az
Russia urges IAEA to name ‘content provider’ for its report
14 November 2011, 14:30 (GMT+04:00)
lol, it never ends
Yes I just noticed the report too CloakAndDagger,
A biblical dud indeed.
Moon of Alabama did predict that this IAEA report coudl really backfire on the IAEA and the West and it’s turning out to be prophetic.
It’s going to be fun to watch Israel squirm. Look for all kinds of accusation against Russia to start flying.
he’s right 9 out of 10 times and always a step ahead of the crowd.
I am interested to see if it is Mossad or the CIA that gets thrown under the bus for this one – or both. This one is not going to be swept under the rug so easily. This could be an opportunity to burn some of those zio-cons in media, given the high profile of this report. Shades of Niger yellowcake…
Russia obvously know who the ‘content provider’ is for the report, so they want to out them before the world’s media to expose who is behind the BS in the annex.
Expect Russia tp be added to the new axis of evil, or perhaps for a bomb to go off in a Russian subway.
*sigh*
link to nytimes.com
Roger Cohen – Contain and Constrain Iran
Cohen just does not want what Obama should do–in the best interests of the USA, which is to tell Israel America will under no circumstances support an Israeli premptive/preventive attack on Iran, and will ASAP cut all aid to Israel if it does attack. Iran has shown no evidence, ever in the modern era, to pro-actively attack anyone (unlike Israel’s repetitive wars). and even if it got a small bomb or two, no evidence it desires suicide in light of Israel’s bomb stock pile, not to mention the USA’s. And Iran knows full well if it had the bomb and somehow a terrorist got it, Iran would be assumed to be responsible and would be attacked by USA.
>> Roger Cohen – Contain and Constrain Iran
In his article, Mr. Cohen neither advocates for “live #AND# let live” nor makes any “better arguments”. Instead, he dehumanizes and proposes destabilization and collective punishment.
I find it telling – but not at all surprising – that RW would post a link to Mr. Cohen’s article without an accompanying condemnation of the author’s maximalist position.
the best part of this is the summery of Leon Panetta’s statements.
What felt “brilliant” about the neoconservative new imperialism, TWOT, was that it contained the potential to create the enemy or new Islamists as a result, or create leagues of new followers. Remember Iraq, Afghanistan?
What I find strange is that Cohen recognizes the “irrationality” of the law that will criminalize contacts between the US and Iran, but advises the same strategy that ultimately led to the War on Iraq.
If you think, and I am sure you do, that abducting and killing Iranian scientists is exactly what should be done, you are ultimately a neoimperialist. What makes Israelis, the US, Russia, China, India, France … rational versus the rest of the world irrational in their use of the atom bomb, other than deterrence?
I’d be pleased about an answer.
Is that supposed to give credibilty to the IAEA report?
Contain and Constrain
exactly what we should be doing w/ israel.
Hey I just clicked “post a comment” and the thng disappeared. This is test.