Question Everything

Bill Arkin asks some pretty damn good and pointed questions today over at The Washington Post.

There has been a lot of talk that Israel is "bogged down," fighting an air-war "on the cheap" and that the Israelis overreacted. I'm inclined to agree with the second assumption--at least until the last few days, that Halutz probably did lead Olmert to believe that the war could be done via an air campaign and done cheaply, at that.

More after the jump.

But Arkin questions the validity of these assumptions, which I share, in ways that are thought provoking, if a tad uncomfortable.

But first, one thing I want to make clear is that I'm not for anyone or any side. The reason I'm following the war in Lebanon is that I want to know how it affects American interests, how it will affect the 130k+ soldiers we have on the ground in Iraq and the 20k+ we have in Afghanistan. I'm not anti-Muslim or anti-Jewish. I dislike fantatics of all stripes, especially religious ones, I can't stand bullies, and have a deep seated, incorrigible affection for the underdog, whoever he or she may be. (Yeah, I know, very American of me.)

Of course, my reading of how this affects our interests differs greatly from a neocon. Indeed, I simply don't see how our interests are in total alignment with Israel's (and vice versa) and I find it tragic that our foreign policy establishment has lost the ability to calculate thusly, but I digress. As Arkin writes:

Is any of this an accurate portrayal of what is happening on the ground? And what exactly are these commentators suggesting as an alternative? They agree that Israel has the right to self-defense, which means it is justified in attacking Hezbollah. Yet they argue that Israel should have relied less on high technology and conducted a massive ground invasion instead. Are they saying that ground operations would have been more humane, that fewer than 600 civilians would have died in the more brutal fighting that they crave?

His first question is a damn good one and why most of the posting I've done (and will continue to do) in the Lebanon threads has been about operational and tactical military moves on the ground. I'm more interested in what happens on the ground between the combatants. At the same time, the other questions in this paragraph led to a certain bit of discomfort, if I'm to be honest. So, I'll keep thinking about it.

But Arkin really knocks the ball right out of the park (or into the goal, if you prefer) with this question:

We readily accept that this is a different kind of conflict and Israel is not fighting a conventional foe. Shouldn't we also then apply different standards to measuring success?

We should; however, I don't know nearly enough to make those judgements on my own. So, I'll keep reading Arkin and Lang and others until I get a decent fix on events Until then, not only is Arkin right about requiring new standards, we should require standards period:

I'm not excusing Israel's war, nor its effort or strategy, but I do think we deserve better military analysis of where Israel stands, with better understanding of the conflicts of interest and analysis that cloud the judgments of the commentators.

We deserve a lot better all around. I doubt we'll get it any time soon. As I've said before, the louder and more outrageous your pronuncements the more likelier you are to be heard.

Sean Paul Kelley August 1, 2006 - 5:17pm

Sean Paul Kelley's diary | printer friendly version |

Bill's weird. Israel defined

Bill's weird.

Israel defined what success would be - breaking Hezbollah. If they can do it, they won. If not, they lost. Unfortunately, their victory condition is as close to impossible as I can imagine. Therefore they are losing, and they will continue to lose, even if they have some tactical successes (though frankly, they are doing even worse than I expected - they're actually having tactical losses I did not expect).

This was my judgement day one, and nothing has happened yet to make me think I was wrong. They chose an unachievable victory condition. Therefore they will lose.

Hezbollah is not a conventional foe, but the aren't aliens from mars either - they are using a combination of light infantry and guerilla tactics and they are doing it very well. An elite army could clear those defensive positions out, but they would take higher casualties doing it than Olmert seems willing to tolerate.

If Israel is smart, they will do whatever they can to win a "victory" on the ground (as in, a battle/take a town), which they can do, then withdraw from Lebanon and declare victory.

Then they should negotiate, which done right could get them most of what they want, anyway.

But that would take guts and smarts, and so far Olmert has shown neither.

Ian Welsh August 1, 2006 - 6:36pm

For every mention of "smash" Hizbullah...

...I rather suspect that one can find a cautionary statement from the Israeli government saying that that won't be possible.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

JustPlainDave August 2, 2006 - 9:47am

Here's some useful boilerplate for military PR today:

Certain sections of the Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that are based on management’s expectations, estimates, projections and assumptions. Words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “believes,” “scheduled,” “estimates” and variations of these words and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, which include but are not limited to projections of revenues, earnings, segment performance, cash flows, contract awards, aircraft production, deliveries and backlog stability. Forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks and uncertainties, which are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual future results and trends may differ materially from what is forecast in forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation...

link

Escher Sketch August 2, 2006 - 12:51pm

Arkin's been writing some pretty strange opinions in the

Washington Post lately.

Decisive results would have been fewer Hizbullah rockets landing in Israel. More Hizbullah casualties and far fewer civilian deaths.

Relying on air power to accomplish Israel’s goals has lead to no cessation in Hizbullah rockets, few combatant casualties, with noncombatant deaths far outnumbering the former.

New standards aren’t needed. The Geneva Conventions were quite clear about restricting targets to having military value. Bombings such as Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki must not be allowed to happen in the 21st century. Israel's conduct in this war has been disproportionate to the capture of one corporal and the deaths they have caused have not been military casualties, but they have contrary to the Geneva Conventions killed many civilians.

canuck August 1, 2006 - 6:43pm

Question Everything

Israel was waiting for the opportunity, is my take, and they have long regretted the previous prisoner exchange -- and now both Hamas and Hezbollah somehow felt that by kidnapping some Israelis they could force another massive release of prisoners from Israel. Israel had to draw the line on getting two or three Israelis back in exchange for the release of hundreds of prisoners to Hamas and Hezbollah. And then there were the persistent rockets being fired into Israel.
Beyond that and looking at the bigger, global picture, the "nation state" as a political form exists and is still needed but in the greater scheme of things is already secondary to the new phenomenon of the emerging "network state." Both the US and the Israelis believe they can use industrial, nation-state warfare, which depends on a front line and a visible enemy, to defeat the Islamic insurgent networks. It cannot be done. Instead of the US and Israeli military running these operations, they should be run under something more akin, in the US, to Tom Clancy's Op-Center, linking the CIA and the NSA in a kind of globally networked, high tech situation room where very small elite fighting forces are deployed to get in, strike and get out. Of course it depends on human and electronic intelligence working at a high level, something the Israelis have continued to do well, we are told, but an area in which the US has handicapped itself due to various attacks on the CIA over the years. The Mossad, similarly in Israel, should be calling the shots.
Modern warfare is network warfare with no front lines, which is driving Cheney, Rummy and traditional military people right up the wall. It's similar to the colonial Minutemen hammering away at the ranks of British soldiers from whatever cover the could find and the British declaring that the only reason the Americas were doing so well is because they did not understand nor comply with the rules of engagement. The British were in lethal denial and the US and Israel are presently going down the same road. Nation-state, industrial warfare is now hopelessly obsolete and, consequently, we see that precisely the wrong people are in charge here in the US. That may be true in Israel as well.
Frankly, I expected more from the Israelis and I suspect that there are a number in the Mossad who are pulling their hair out because the powers that be simply refuse to listen to them.
Yes, the Israelis overreacted because they had waited too long to take action and then they took the wrong action, industrial warfare when network warfare was needed.
And from the view of things over future decades, economic networks will win the day. Only when the poor, disinfranchised Muslims who have been impoverished by their leaders have an economic future will they be lured away from the Islamists who are promising them a better life in paradise. Until then, the "great Satan" Americans and Israelis will be the scapegoats distracting them from reflection upon who are the folks that are actually screwing them over.

Channing
Ventura CA USA

Powder Monkey August 1, 2006 - 11:25pm

Why do they need to keep a

Why do they need to keep a hundred Lebanese prisoners? What purpose is it serving? What would you do to get a hundred POW's back from an enemy who had occupied your country for 18 years?

As for Hamas - perhaps they're tired of Palestinians, including women and children being kidnapped by Israelis. (That's what you call it when you seize people and never give them a trial.)

Ian Welsh August 2, 2006 - 9:53am

Who are the Mid-East prisoners?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5211930.stm
Who are the Mid-East prisoners?

Israel's military operation against Hezbollah began as a reply to the capture of two Israeli soldiers by the Lebanese militia on 12 July.

The campaign quickly grew into an all-out assault against Hezbollah, but the prisoner issue remains an emotive one among Israelis, Lebanese and Palestinians.

BBC News examines the prisoner issue at the heart of the current Middle East crisis.

ISRAELI SOLDIERS

The latest crisis in the Middle East flared on 25 June, when Corporal Gilad Shalit, 19, was seized by Palestinian militants who attacked an army position at Kerem Shalom, near the eastern edge of the Gaza Strip.

He was the first Israeli soldier captured by Palestinians since 1994. Hamas, which dominates the Palestinian Authority government, said it would consider releasing Cpl Shalit as part of a prisoner exchange. His whereabouts remain unknown.

Reservists Ehud Goldwasser, 31, from the northern coastal town of Nahariya, and Eldad Regev, 26, from the town of Kiryat Motzkin, were captured by Hezbollah on 12 July, prompting immediate Israeli military action. Little more has been heard about the pair since their capture.

LEBANESE PRISONERS

Justifying its seizure of the two Israelis, Hezbollah said it mounted the raid in an effort to secure the release of Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails.

Although Israel holds thousands of what it calls security prisoners, most of those are Palestinian (see below). Following a major prisoner swap in early 2004, in which more than 400 prisoners were released to Hezbollah in exchange for a reservist colonel and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers, Israel now admits to holding just three Lebanese.

Chief among those is Samir Qantar, serving several life sentences for murder after attacking a civilian apartment block in Nahariya in 1979. A policeman, another man and his four-year-old daughter were killed. A baby girl was accidentally smothered by her mother as she hid in a cupboard.

Protesters holding a picture of Samir Qantar (left)
While in prison, Samir Qantar has grown in popularity
Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has frequently called for Qantar's release, threatening to derail the 2004 deal when he was excluded from the list of prisoners. His name has once again been raised during the current crisis. Israel has refused to discuss releasing Qantar, often linking his status to its search for information about Ron Arad, an Israeli airman missing since being shot down over Lebanon in 1986.

Israel also holds an Israel man of Lebanese descent, Nissim Nasser, arrested in 2002 and convicted of spying for Hezbollah. The third Lebanese prisoner is a fighter called Yehia Skaff, Hezbollah MP Nawar al-Sahili told the BBC. Mr al-Sahili said that Israel also holds a fourth man, a fisherman called Ali Faratan.

Israel is also thought to be holding 25 Lebanese citizens of Palestinian origin, many for conventional criminal offences. Their release is not understood to be at the heart of the dispute with Hezbollah.

PALESTINIAN PRISONERS

Since the first Palestinian uprising began in 1987 the vast majority of security prisoners held in Israel have always been Palestinians. According to official figures supplied to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem, 9,153 Palestinians are currently held by civilian and military authorities.

Marwan Barghouti, Palestinian leader jailed by Israel
Jailed Palestinian leaders often wield considerable influence
Of those, B'Tselem says 8,085 are held in civilian jails, 2,384 of them without charge. Some 645 are held under "administrative detention", without charge and often without knowledge of the suspicions against them. Among those in civil jails are 74 women and 265 under-18s.

Although Israel's army is gradually transferring authority for jails over to civil authority, it still holds 1,078 prisoners, including 105 in administrative detention and 28 youths aged under 18, B'Tselem says.

Figures collated by Palestinians vary slightly from the Israeli tallies, but only slightly: the PLO's negotiations department says approximately 9,400 Palestinians are currently in all Israeli jails, with approximately 800 of those in administrative detention.

Those small differences are as close as the two sides come to agreement on the issue of prisoners. While Palestinian officials call their detainees "political prisoners", Israel says that some 70% of those behind bars have "blood on their hands".

Palestinian officials also criticise the conditions inside Israeli prisons, describing them as "far below minimum standards"; Israel's prison authority says its security prisoners receive the "highest level" of treatment.

The thousands of Palestinian prisoners play an important role in political life. Senior figures from the various Palestinian factions, such as Fatah's Marwan Barghouti, wield considerable influence from their cells on rank and file members on the street. The release of what Palestinians term "political prisoners" is a key demand of ordinary Palestinians and of their leaders.

In these times you have to be an optimist to open your eyes when you awake in the morning. ~ Carl Sandburg

Tina August 3, 2006 - 1:08am

On Questioning Everything

First of all, excellent, thoughtful comment from Powder Monkey. Thanks.

I'll note that a war run from CIA "Op Centers" is going to be down-and-dirty by the war's inherent nature, and if pursued over the long term it has consequences for nations practicing it. Be sure you're prepared to accept or find a proven route around those consequences before advocating it.

In the short-term, understand that this form of warfare also comes with a higher than normal quota of setbacks, cock-ups, et. al. that will be rather public. Again, if a nation isn't prepared to stand behind its covert ops in public whenever necessary and up the ante when this happens, don't start down this road in the first place.

In the end, it all goes back to the same required foundation that we find in the speeches of Archidamus (Sparta) and Pericles (Athens) before the Peloponesian War. The core question is this, and until it is answered and agreed to the most serious trouble is forthcoming.

"What is to be our war?"

PowderMonkey offers the beginnings of one possible response - right or wrong, he deserves applause for that fact alone.

---
Joe Katzman
Winds of Change.NET
http://www.windsofchange.net/
"Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory"

Joe Katzman August 2, 2006 - 2:42pm

However it doesn't

address the under lying tensions such as - the fate of the palestinians, and Israeli cherry picking UN resolutions. They may win the war but never the peace.

In these times you have to be an optimist to open your eyes when you awake in the morning. ~ Carl Sandburg

Tina August 2, 2006 - 3:08pm

I had my fill

of media apologists for and enablers of state-sponsored violence with the Iraqi fiasco.

The fiasco that went from 'Mission accomplished' to 'Stay the course' to 'Terrible' in just over three years.

So yeah, question everything. Especially the apologists and enablers tucking into their filet mignon in DC steakhouses while the bombs rain down on Beirut and hundreds of thousands flee southern Lebanon.

In fact, I'd personally recommend interrogating them for years in Gitmo.

stunster August 3, 2006 - 2:14am

What about those who apologize for

hezbollah? Are they any better cheering on the bombing of civillian Israelis?

In these times you have to be an optimist to open your eyes when you awake in the morning. ~ Carl Sandburg

Tina August 3, 2006 - 10:01am

We should immediately cut military support to both sides then.

- EOM

Escher Sketch August 3, 2006 - 12:31pm

Here's what I said

So yeah, question everything.

stunster August 3, 2006 - 1:09pm

this is also what you said

I, of course, never treated, or advocated the treating of, Al Manar's
reporting as gospel. But I have detected in some of the thinly veiled hostility and irritation at my reproducing some of Al Manar's and other Arabic stations' reporting a trace of the highly chauvinistic and prejudiced attitudes towards such reporting typical of the US right wing and the US military (e.g. towards Al-Jazeera).

Of course you have not shown any thinly veiled hostility and irrritation towards non arab media.[/sarcasm] Are you saying we are mouth pieces of the US rightwing and military because we question arab media? I think you need to take a chill pill and recognize that EVERYTHING is questioned here.

In these times you have to be an optimist to open your eyes when you awake in the morning. ~ Carl Sandburg

Tina August 3, 2006 - 1:21pm

Chill pills, and who needs them

Of course you have not shown any thinly veiled hostility and irrritation towards non arab media.[/sarcasm]

Um, Candy, I never claimed not to be irritated by, and hostile towards, a great deal of Western media reporting. Any intelligent and informed person should be!

Are you saying we are mouth pieces of the US rightwing and military because we question arab media?

Er, no. Here's what I said:

But I have detected in some of the thinly veiled hostility and irritation at my reproducing some of Al Manar's and other Arabic stations' reporting a trace of the highly chauvinistic and prejudiced attitudes towards such reporting typical of the US right wing and the US military (e.g. towards Al-Jazeera).

In some... a trace... I stand by that characterization.

Doesn't mean everyone at agonist.org of course. Doesn't say that, or imply it. Nor did I accuse anyone on this forum of simply being a mouthpiece of the US rightwing and military. I don't how you can get that out of anything I've posted here, but to say it's stretch doesn't do it justice. A wild invention, more like.

I think you need to take a chill pill and recognize that EVERYTHING is questioned here.

Look, there's half a dozen or so individuals I could point to whom you should have been giving chill pills to. It's rather amusing to have obviously irritated people, such as yourself, telling one to 'chill out'.

In any case, I've already said, twice now in this thread, 'yes, question everything'. And now you tell me that I need to, and I quote: "recognize that EVERYTHING is questioned here."

I mean, wtf? I've said it twice, I'm agreeing with you that everything needs to be questioned, and then you screech at me to 'recognize' that everything needs to be questioned!?!

Then you tell me to take a chill pill?

LOL

stunster August 3, 2006 - 2:22pm

yes,

I still stand by saying take a chill pill. This is a discussion board and people are going to get irritated with each other and nothing will change that. How we each deal with decides if a discussion can continue. If you want to avoid confusion in the future I wouldn't post:

But I have detected in some of the thinly veiled hostility and irritation at my reproducing some of Al Manar's and other Arabic stations' reporting a trace of the highly chauvinistic and prejudiced attitudes towards such reporting typical of the US right wing and the US military (e.g. towards Al-Jazeera).

without clarifying who you mean. You are still comparing/implying those who feel some arab stations are prejuduced with being a chavinistic and prejudiced rightwinger. That is insulting and bull. If we question Arab sources it is because we have been burned in the past by believing in something they published. They have not had a great reputation. Some are improving but only time will give them a reputation of a reliable source of news.

In these times you have to be an optimist to open your eyes when you awake in the morning. ~ Carl Sandburg

Tina August 3, 2006 - 2:48pm

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Create new account

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

Question Everything

Comment viewing options

Premium Advertising

Our Friends

Agonist Page on FaceBook

Agonist Facebook Activity