Doug Feith Honored at AEI; Michael Vick Goes To Jail
America in 2007, ya gotta love it!
Last night Douglas Feith, the Pentagon official who devised the whole system of lying and manipulating the United States into Iraq, was honored with a major speech at the American Enterprise Institute. He was joined by Richard Perle and a host of the other neocon miscreants who joyfully took this country into a war that has, so far, cost us some 3900 young American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Feith, who General Tommy Franks famously called, "the stupidest #%^&#@@ who ever lived" is writing a memoir about how he was right about Iraq all along. He is also, incredibly, a professor at Georgetown University, a school founded and run by the Society of Jesus, one of the most principled orders in Roman Catholicism.
For those who might have forgotten, here is a wonderful piece on this man, Doug Feith. Also, see what Carl Levin thinks about Feith.
Full disclosure, I'm a Washingtonian and have known about Feith for some 25 years. Until this administration and this war came along, I had no idea that he had any interests in life other than promoting West Bank settlements. He was (and is) the most outspoken Likudnik in the Washington Jewish community, basically a very fringy character (viciously anti-Rabin, anti-Oslo, anti-peace). I would not have guessed that he could find the United States on a map, so utterly and completely involved is he with the Israeli far right.
But then he turns up at the Pentagon. The rest is history.
And thousands of dead Americans. Meanwhile, Michael Vick is going to jail for 23 months for killing some dogs. At the very least, Feith should be sentenced to spend the holidays with some of those families who are missing a son or daughter thanks to his war.
Another good piece on who Feith is from James Zogby, Democratic party and Arab-American activist, and champion of two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. He wrote it at the time Feith was appointed by President Bush.
FYI: It's Vick (no "s").
December 11, 2007 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
THANKS!!!
December 11, 2007 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rajiv Chandrasekaran writes, in his "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," that Feith deliberately set up Garner to fail quickly in Iraq, so that Chalabi could ride in as savior.
How on earth did such deluded idiots end up in charge?
December 11, 2007 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps MJ or other "external" bloggers might find it interesting to compare the inadequate, and possibly sabotaged, occupation planning for Iraq, with the successful occupation planning for Germany. I'm not suggesting that the Iraqis were as orderly as the Germans, or in as desperate a situation for civilian survival. I will point out, however, that the WWII planning (without a single computer or PowerPoint presentation) was more detailed than the Iraq planning, and also committed larger forces and apropriate kinds of forces.
Planning for the eventual occupation of Germany was under the direction of Major-General Sir Frederic Morgan, Chief of Staff to the Supreme Allied Commander (COSSAC). His staff planned for several different ways the war might end, ranging from a house-to-house operation culmininating with a gunfight with Hitler [Note 1], to a sudden collapse of the government and military. The latter, RANKIN CASE C, had distinct similarities to the Iraqi situation.
The "small" force in CASE C was to move quickly: a parachute drop of an airborne division on each of the three Berlin airports (at least 60,000 men). Once they controlled the airports, more troops would fly in. Meanwhile, the much larger ground troops would turn toward Berlin for a linkup.
Another aspect of the planning was that Denazification was considered very early, as opposed to Debaathification. Allied counterintelligence constantly updated a "black book" of the true war criminals to be arrested, and, where possible, people who were pro forma party members in administrative and technical jobs needed to make the society work. Counterintelligence teams closely followed the combat elements, making arrests, and also telling the Party members in charge of the waterworks and fire department to get back to work, with different bosses.
It was fully recognized that once the Nazi armies were neutralized, the skills needed for occupation security and restoring the civilian economy were different from those of combat troops. The Constabulary was set up as military police (with combat backup), trained for occupation duty, and coupled with technical specialists for restoring civilian services and the economy in general.
--
Howard
[Note 1] If Britain was invaded, Churchill planned a different end for himself than Hitler. He and his immediate staff had armed themselves and practiced regularly, and, if the Nazis had attacked his headquarters, he expected to go down fighting to the end.
December 11, 2007 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I didn't know anything about that. Thanks.
December 11, 2007 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
if I remember correctly, Marshall made it that members of the Military Government of Germany were chosen from those who had no combat experience.
December 11, 2007 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
ISTR that was generally the case, although there were Military Government people that had experience in both. Someone might have risen to command a battalion, but if he had been a mayor in civilian life, they grabbed him.
Your general observation is very relevant. While I don't agree with Thomas Barnett on everything, in The Pentagon's New Map, he makes the distinction between the Leviathan high-intensity combat force and the System Administrator nation-builders. The former would either be a single First World power, or a highly interoperable multinational force such as NATO.
The latter would be multinational, with enough police and paramilitary force to manage security -- although they could always call for Leviathan. Barnett's theory is that there is a Connected Core of nations, essentially post-industrial, that are, more or less, stable with good economies (compared to the rest). The System Administrator's job is not just to rebuild or build the basic national infrastructure, but to connect the country to the core.
Probably the best example of a Barnett-style operation was in Sierra Leone. Leviathan was in the form of a British naval group and Royal Marine Commando, first doing a noncombatant evacuation operation (NEO) and then, in Operation Barras, taking down the worst of the militias.
The distinction between Leviathan and System Administrator was less clear-cut, since the System Administrator force (ECOMOG) from the Economic Community of West African Nations (ECOWAS) still had to do a fair bit of fighting. Most of the British left, but, when I last checked, there was a small force there to back up ECOMOG.
I might note that connection to the core doesn't always involve fighting. Probably the best success story, as a result of IMF debt relief, is Uganda. They've had (by African or Chicago Machine standards) fairly clean elections, cut inflation from several hundred percent to under 10 percent, significantly reduced new cases of HIV, and is attracting true investment. While they recently had some devastating floods that really hurt their agricultural sector, their economy seems to have survived, but might not have a few years earlier.
The World Food Programme logistics center that provides support to Darfur is in Uganda. Uganda is cooperating more and more with the increasingly autonomous South Sudan; the two of them may have succesfully worked out a peace agreement with the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). Even by African standards, the LRA is especially nasty, and had been supported by North Sudan during the Second Sudanese Civil War. The LRA then swung more into Uganda, but there have been three-way peace talks among Uganda, LRA, and South Sudan.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be sure the Iraq occupation was incompetently carried out, but this comparison to Germany is not help-full. Germany in 1945 was bled white. Out of a nation of about 70 million they experience nearly 5 million combat deaths and the survivors were wounded or fought out. There was simply no man power left to wage an insurrection. Iraq is completely different. Their armies were intact after defeat with few of their soldiers even witnessing combat with the Americans. In addition they were surrounded by nations whose people bitterly resented the US military presence -- in Syria, Jordan, the Gulf states and Iran.
The Iraqis would have never accepted the US occupation without a fight. I happen to believe it is a fight we could have won but we would have had to be willing to kill 2 million people to do it. That we weren't willing to do and the rest is history.
December 11, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not suggesting that had the RANKIN procedures been followed to the letter, Iraq could have been pacified. Indeed, I agree Germany did not have the resources for insurgency, although the Allies took the threats of the "National Redoubt" and the "Werewolf" German plan very seriously. While that resistance turned out to be a fantasy, the forces that were sent to the reputed Redoubt area were sufficient to deal with it.
The point that I make is that an occupation planned for a much more devastated country still involved a much larger force, not purely combat personnel but a force trained and equipped for occupation. It involved serious counterintelligence planning that let denazification operate with some rationality, rather than firing every technocrat who had a party card and did nothing with the party.
As GEN Eric Shinseki presumably had read a bit of US military history, he testified, before the invasion, that he couldn't promise pacification, but estimated a reasonable force would be 300 to 400 thousand, not the 125,000 "leftover" combat troops that were acceptable to Rumsfeld.
If you haven't read it, I strongly suggest Fred Ikle's Every War Must End, the revised edition if possible. Ikle is a scholar who has served at subcabinet levels in several Republican administrations, but presumably is disqualified for the present one because he has learned from history. In this book, he goes through numerous case studies of countries who went to war without a clear idea of what constituted victory or defeat (e.g., the Nazis conquered Western Europe. Was that a victory? [Note 1]). He reviews cases where a country allowed even an optimistic strategy to creep to more than it could handle, such as the Japanese attempt to go far beyond their reasonable perimeter and attack Midway.
While I don't remember if Ikle addressed it at all, there's an excellent monograph from Kenneth Allard, at the Institute for National Security Studies at the National Defense University: Somalia: Lessons Learned. Long before the relatively disastrous OPERATION GOTHIC SERPENT resulted in the "Battle of Mogadishu", the command structure was so complex that it was a question of when, not if, things would go wrong. The responsibility for allowing the mission scope to creep to an impossible level came more from the UN than the US, but the US neither said no, nor would authorize the additional forces requested by the on-scene commanders. I'm not suggesting GOTHIC SERPENT was well planned, although the ad hoc reaction force response from a battalion of the 10th Mountain Division was incredibly competent -- when they were called into a fiasco in progress.
We are not in disagreement that the proposed Iraqi operation was a disaster waiting to happen. Where we seem to disagree is that the case study of using a much stronger, better prepared organization, against a far more devastated enemy, did not serve as a warning to national policymakers.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure. We still didn't "lose".
It's hard to say if we could have "won" if we don't know what's the victory is. BTW, neo-con wanted to remove Saddam and get out of Iraq as soon as possible, in few months. So, they didn't want "victory" Looking back, maybe that was not such a bad idea.
December 11, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a foreign policy devised by Likudniks is a horrible folly for the US. I don't need a lot more than the disastrous costs of the war in Iraq to make that case.
I'm glad you, MJ, and a few others see that. I wish more people did.
December 11, 2007 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I guess while Feith was part of the Bush Administration and at the Pentagon, he was representing an ideology concerning Israel and not so much the United States.
I see Richard Perle was there too, and perhaps the following gangsters:
William/Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer, Norman Podorhetz, Robert/Fredrick Kagen, Elliot Abrams, James Woolsey, Daniel Pipes, John Bolton, Frank Gaffney, etc.
That Feith is teaching at Georgetown shouldn't be a surprise, John Yoo is at Berkeley, teaching law.
December 11, 2007 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me remind you
The cossacks work for and always have worked for the Czar: George W. Bush has the advisors and gets the advice he wants:
December 11, 2007 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do these universities have anything to do with learning or scholarship -- let alone law?
December 12, 2007 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, MJ for not calling Feith pro-Israel.Rabin, Peres (and even Barak)despised him because of his constant attempts to interfere with the US-Israel relationship by blocking attempts to achieve peace.The man is one of those guys for whom the only Israel that matters is the West Bank. How in God's name did he get a security clearance?
December 11, 2007 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get how even in a backwards neocon mind the Iraq war supports Feith's cause. I mean is he pro-Settlement or just pro-Dead Arab? I Find constant parallels with Israel's worsening security situation and our misadventure in Iraq. Nothing he has done can be seen as helping Israel, even if you are Likud. I've heard plenty of far-right nutters claim that God gave them right to the West Bank or somesuch, but never so much that it should be seen as a GOOD thing when people start firing rockets at your children. Feith I guess would disagree, as this gives him the much needed political cover to kill some more Arabs...
Everytime time an Arab dies, Doug's d*&k moves a little...
December 11, 2007 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the truth about crime in America -- do not commit smaller crimes because you will get caught and be punished for them. Forget the dog fighting ring. Treat human beings as dogs and set them on each other. There's a medal of freedom in it for you.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 11, 2007 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
What, the AEI accepting Feith? My, my. You know, I'd somehow noticed before that the right has a few pretend scholarly organizations to keep the revolving door between safety and power going, for those not inclined to turn into corporate lobbyists instead. It's not like I'm worried about the present administration's future after 2008.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 11, 2007 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's horrific that a guy like Feith could get a job at a major campus. Recall, Kissinger couldn't go back to Harvard even though he was a distinguished professor there long before going into the Nixon administration. But those were different times and college students were subject to he draft so the kids at Georgetown, Harvard etc cared enough to essentially ban Kissinger.
No more.
(Although, I doubt Feith could ever land a job at Harvard).
December 11, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although not quite the same thing, Von Rumsfeld is now a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. While there has been quite an uproar amongst students and faculty, the Hoover is actually an separate institution that has attached itself, remoralike, to Stanford.
Regarding Feith, he is just one of the worst examples of what happens when a government rewards ideology over competency.
December 11, 2007 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can it be that our universities are almost as corrupt as our media?
December 12, 2007 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
On behalf of Roman Catholics everywhere, I want to apologize for Georgetown University associating itself with Feith. I guess Avigdor Lieberman wasn't available and Meir Kahane is dead. Of course, Robert Mugabe will probably be looking for job in the next few years...
December 11, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Zogby article, which was written in 2000, is amazing for its prescience, and it's tragic that Zogby's warnings were ignored.
Another good article that touches on Feith's unpatriotic activities while at the OSP is the one at the Washington Monthly, written by Josh Marshall, Laura Rozen and Paul Glastris, entitled Iran-Contra II.
Vick isn't the only one who should be going to jail. AEI has no shame.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 11, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, you obviously suffer from severe learning disabilities.....you keep using the term "Likudnik" in the sense of "fascist", "warmonger" or "bigot" and I have REPEATEDLY pointed out how you don't know what you are talking about. It was the Likud that first recognized the "legitimate rights of the Palestinian people" (something the Labor Party refused to do up to that point), it was the Likud that handed the entire Sinai over to Sadat in return for a scrap of paper called a "peace treaty", it was the Likud that destroyed Yamit (I can just imagine the love-lights in your eyes when the bulldozers rolled and plowed Yamit and Gush Katif under and when the HAMAS people torched the all the synagogues there), it was the Likud that pulled out of Hevron and handed it over to the terrorist gangs that repeatedly attacked the Jews living there, it was the Likud that destroyed Gush Katif. Netanyahu's platform is exactly the same as Olmert's and Barak's - withdrawal, destroying settlments, "strengthening Abbas", and creating a Palestinian state.
In almost every thread where you talk about Israel, you make incorrect statements, like in the last one where you claim "The Left/Labor Party built Israel", and I view it as my job to correct the falsehoods you keep spreading in this group.
The fact is that when you keep throwing out the word "Likudnik" as an epithet meaning "warmonger, fascist, etc", you are blackening the name of the majority of Israelis who reject your extremist positions, and I am including the Left who supports the "2-state solution". When you make yourself an ally of Zogby and those like him, and then put the majority of Israelis in your enemy camp, you are disqualifying yourself as a "sympathetic commentator on Israeli affairs", as you portray yourself when you write in the Jerusalem Post . I note how in the Post, you doctor your statements, leaving out things like your infamous "American Orthodox Jews are disloyal to the US", "Russian immigrants in Israel should be sent back where they come from" comments. Jerusalem Post readers really don't know what they are getting when they read your stuff.
Any Arab country or terrorist group that puts out an English-language press release saying he is for a "2-state solution", even as they continue financing and supporting terrorist groups in addition to purveying vicious antisemtic propaganda, you view as being on your side, and as I said, you view the majority of Jews in Israel AND the US as the enemy, because they oppose ignoring Palestinian corruption and violence as you keep advocating.
The fact that you keep repeating these falsehoods over and over shows that you view this site as merely a platform for propaganda and NOT for clarifying political positions. I would hope that those who read your postings will finally understand this and not give your views any more weight than the little they deserve.
December 11, 2007 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The following can as well be applied to MJ:
The">http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/12/11/the-insufferable-daniel-levy.aspx">The Insufferable Daniel Levy
There is an audience for Daniel Levy's writing:
December 11, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and Republicans ended slavery. Guess what, times change.
This may just be an English language thing, but adding 'nik' to the end of something just alludes to the Slavic languages, not necessarily makes it fascist. Maybe you need to look towards you own internal biases against the Slavs? *zing!*
December 11, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think in the case of "Likudnik" it's an overt echo of "nudnik" or boring and obtuse person.
How's that occupation going?
December 11, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I have some disagreements with the content, once you get beyond the first few observations about MJ, this is a well-written post. It is my hope you look at things other than a binary way. For example, when you say
I would not quite put it that strongly, but I would observe that when the IDF and Israeli political response to violence seems more punitive than effective, that does not reflect well on the US, when viewed as the patron of Israel. Now, I'll say emphatically that the responses to Palestinian violence are more proportional than the action in Lebanon. Still, I don't see enough actions that could help against the violence directed toward Israel. Perhaps these actions are happening, and knee-jerk IDF censorship are blocking knowledge of them not to the enemy, but to those who might be more appreciative.
For example, you speak of Israel taking various hilltops that are not appropriate for agriculture. Let me assume that to be the case, and also that taking those positions do not disrupt reasonable transportation.
If these hilltops are in areas from which rockets are being fired, they should have a fully linked sensor network, which will further reduce the reaction time to rocket firing. With manned observation posts, proper weapons, and appropriate rules of engagement, there is even a chance to engage the rocket crew while they were setting up their weapon.
Recently, I was reading a technical report of how US forces in Iraq, faced with mortar fire from isolated areas, used rapid sensing and counterfire to force those crews out of those areas. The mortarmen then attempted to move into an urban area, but some very carefully aimed near misses convinced the local population to remove the welcome mat.
There is a potential international benefit to a proper sensor network, if Israel shares data proving the threat. Unfortunately, I don't see any creativity in the response.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 11, 2007 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what does "removing the welcome mat" mean to you? No, I'm not going to explain how this was done in Iraq, by people just as not a match for the gangs. Do your own research.
And your source for this statement is what? It may not be reported in the news media, but, as I mentioned, I was reading a technical report from the Army, intended for an Army audience, and being very specific in what it meant.
Perhaps if Israel used more precise techniques, the unavoidable casualties would be reduced. I'm sure, Davai, you are prepared to explain why Israel does not use systems and techniques available to them? No, before you ask, I'm not going to do your research for you and tell you which systems -- although I've mentioned some in past posts.
I wait with interest to see if you will change the subject completely, go with tu quoque, or be a puerus attempting ad hominem,
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 11, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last summer proved that the IDF is not a match for Hezbollah either.
December 11, 2007 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, did I say anything about renovating bomb shelters? No. I spoke of sensors and counterbattery weapons that preferably attack the weapon before it is fired, or at least intercept some of them.
The US was funding a joint development of the Nautilus Laser system (formerly MTHEL) with Israel, and it seemed to be progressing. The IDF stopped their development. Nautilus was more of an area defense system, as opposed to the Oerlikon Skyguard gun system that Israel had been developing on its own. Skyguard is a point defense system, to intercept an incoming weapon coming "down the throat"; it complements Nautilus.
Nautilus, in turn, complements the systems that detect and engage rockets before firing, and also provide the world with specific evidence of which gang is doing what. Israel just might get a more favorable reception if it provided more specifics.
The Qassam, for example, has about the power of a large hand grenade, or a couple of 40mm grenade launcher rounds. Its propellant is "fire-fudge", or potassium nitrate stirred into molten sugar, which used to be a common propellant among model rocketeers.
Bomb shelters? If you equate a Qassam, or a dozen of them, to even a small aircraft bomb, you are vastly overestimating its power.
Even taking the GRAD (the descendant of the Katyusha), you are talking about perhaps 20 KG warheads, with a less energetic explosive that would be in the smallest aircraft bombs of 100 KG or so (I'm assuming the SDB with DIME filler).
There are an assortment of defensive techniques that won't work everywhere, but that competent militaries use when they will work. High chain-link fences can be surprisingly protective for point targets such as schools, or in places where the rocket comes in on a predictably downward trajectory. These things have dumb contact fuzes, and fencing will cause them to predetonate at a safer distance.
If Israel feels it doesn't have the budget for purely defensive facilities, perhaps this is an area to request aid -- perhaps it might be reasonable to shift some offensive weapons budget to defense. There is a good deal of unclassified information on defending against such threats, but it doesn't seem to be getting read by the IDF, much less by posters.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 11, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, if you don't know how it would be done, how much it would cost, how much risk reduction would be possible (unless you continue to insist on perfect protection), and are only concerned with propaganda, you don't have much to contribute to a substantive discussion of defending Israel, do you? Indeed, a discussion of something the Defense Ministry calls a minimal threat, quoting the Director General of that Ministry:
--
Howard
"It is vain for the coward to flee; death follows close behind; it is only by defying it that the brave escape." [Voltaire]
December 11, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, that Qassams are more a psychological than physical threat. Remember that 9-11 was also more a psychological than physical threat. I'm not being sarcastic.
Israel can't evacuatate any areas for practical and political reasons. Israel has to consider tradeoffs and limitation.Some of them you just mentioned. Public opinion. that is not always rational, is another part of calculations. There are very hard decisions to make.Compare losses in 911 to auto-accidents, fires, medical errors, and so on. Rational response terrorism in US would be publically ignore it.
But it's just impossible.
December 11, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel can evacuate areas. It chooses not to, just as it chooses not to implement defensive systems.
I don't really care if Israel does or not. It's Israel's problem, not that of the US. If, however, Israel decides to retaliate by attacking some Palestinian government building, and uses US weapons to do it, it's, as you put it, a propaganda black eye for the US.
I've offered suggestions. Indeed, here's an example of how the US dealt with Iraqi harassing fire. For information, a 60mm mortar is similar in range and damage potential to a Qassam 1. AFAIK, Israel hasn't requested the UTTAMS, much less the newer and more effective RLS.
I haven't gone over detailed terrain maps, so I don't know whether there are any high points on which Israel could put observation posts. Israel produces its own UAVs, and could keep them orbiting over likely fire areas -- to catch a team setting up a rocket, at least some of the time, which tends to get fewer rocket volunteers.
Correct. I don't consider it the US job to bail Israel out of its own political situation, nor do I want the US associated with Israeli retaliation, for our own political reasons. Qassams aren't going to wipe out Israel, so I don't buy into those -- not you, in this case -- who start playing the Holocaust card. Tell me about a real threat, and I might be sympathetic.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 11, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, the bottom line is the following:
When US military warnned "the local population that if they continued to allow the enemy to shoot from their neighborhoods, we would counter with artillery and mortars" , the local population knew it was not empty threat.
Israel would not counter with artillery and mortars in Gaza neighborhoods.
You don't understand, The shooters is in control of Gaza. So, even if they call, and they have no reason to call because Israel is not going to counter with artillery and mortars, what Israeli can do with such information?
December 11, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really think it unlikely that Israel doesn't have clandestine operators in the territories. If that is the case, and there is enough time to get into line of sight -- and that can be a mile or so -- then sniper rifle fire does a lot to discourage rocket teams. One might get a bonus by hitting the rocket with a Raufoss or other round that could detonate it.
For the rocket to have a path to the target, there has to be a line of sight into Israel. First, there might be an unmanned aerial combat vehicle (UCAV) flying above the area -- they can be very hard to see, and could engage with weapons including .50 caliber and Hellfire. Second, it really doesn't take long for a helicopter, especially if a UAV or clandestine spotter has a visual on the target, to cross the border, pop up, and engage the team.
Further, I certainly would not assume Israel will not use artillery, mortars, rockets, bombs, or missiles in Gaza. If I were a Palestinian, I would trust Israeli restraint only if I felt Israel felt restraint was in its interest. I would have a bit more trust in a US guarantee if I were an Iraqi, since I might assume that the US had some political deals going with individual gangs.
So, to answer you, I believe there are any number of ways Israel could take out that team, or even its base, with warning. A completely separate issue is whether Israel would have early warning to get people to duck, or to use countermeasures against the rocket in flight. Rockets, as opposed to mortars, usually have a fairly flat trajectory, so things such as fences can decrease the probability of it doing much damage.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 11, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I criticize the US for things it has unreasonably censored, such as not allowing any independent verification of the details of what they claim are explosively formed projectiles -- which includes 19th through 21st century technology. Why should I give Israel more trust? -- Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, You blame me for changing subjects.
Supposed " fire on UN observers" happened in Lebanon.
First, you don't need to trust Israel. You can read Israeli and Arab newspapers about tactics used by Israel in Gaza.
Second, Israel doesn't control Gaza, so it's not up to Israel to have independent observers,
Third, you forgot what we are talking about.
The issue is not if you trust Israel, the issue is if Palestinians would trust that Israel WILL shoot in population centers. They don't, They are not afraid that Israel will bomb population centers in Gaza.
December 11, 2007 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second, you tell me that Israel doesn't control Gaza, but in your very next post, you tell me about an attack helicopter pilot patrolling Gaza. In any event, any country that didn't put clandestine assets into an area that fires on it has incompetent staff, especially when that area is not a generally recognized country able to control its own communications, foreign relations, and defense.
Third, I repeat: I do not trust Israel not to attack population centers, not after what they did in Lebanon. Any Palestinian who would give Israel such trust is a fool. In such matters, the phrase "nothing personal, only business" applies. Under generally accepted international law, a country has a right of hot pursuit into another jurisdiction, if either raiders return to sanctuary in that country, or fire into it. While Nixon classified B-52 raids on Cambodia for domestic political reasons, as long as Cambodia did not stop infiltration through it, the right of hot pursuit applies.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 11, 2007 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, here is an article explaining Israli approach.
A Time to Kill, And a Time to Heal
In his job as an Israeli pediatrician, Yuval saves the lives of Palestinian children. But the father of three also takes Palestinian lives as an attack helicopter pilot patrolling Gaza.
December 11, 2007 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the puzzle: The "good" settlers are really steamed that the Palestinians didn't want to preserve their Synagogues when they kinda left Gaza; but the same Settlers demanded that their former homes be leveled rather than allow Palestinians to live in them. What did Palestinians really need: homes or Synagogues?
Can't imagine why the Mouthpiece for the Settlers failed to mention that....
December 11, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget about Synagogues, what about greenhouses?
December 11, 2007 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, you dodged the point about the houses. You are like some Pavlovian experiment: When you hear the bell, defend every IDF and settler action. And now you get a cookie.
December 11, 2007 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't defend anything. They left. it was good idea. they left behind working greenhouse. It was destroyed. What's to argue about?
December 11, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what: They left behind a huge pile of rubble where perfectly good houses used to be. And imagine, Arabs living in those home? The act of destroying those homes utterly, completely, and poetically defines the modern Settler ethic for me.
December 13, 2007 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the sake of argument, let's agree.
However, Settlers left perfectly working greenhouses, and Palestinians managed to destroyed them. I guess, that after Settlers screw up Palestinians, Palestinians, to get even, screw up themselfes. The act of destroying those greenhouses utterly, completely, and poetically defines the modern Palestinias ethic for me.
December 13, 2007 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a terrible development in Iraq. American casualties are down. Iraqi casualties are down. There is a chance that Iraq war will not end in total defeat for US. On the balance Iraq war, in spite of huge human toll, might end up as a some kind of ambiguous victory for US as well as for Iraqi people.
I wonder, if this happen, will we see MJ moving to Iran and will we see mass suicide of his followers?
December 11, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the premature declaration of victory. Where have I heard that before...maybe on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln?
The Iraq casualties are down because of the "success" of inter-Iraqi ethnic cleansing the physical division of Iraqi society behind blast walls. They are down because the insurgents are now the cops in Anbar. But there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq as a nation is functioning....the US has just caged everyone up. This is a lull.
P.S. Based on the hysterical tone of the war-mongrering crowdin response to the NIE , the only group who are going to commit mass suicide are Washington Neo-Cons.
December 11, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not declaring victory, but I hope for a success or at least avoiding catastrophe for US andd Iraqi people. You hope for the failure. Let's see whos hopes will be answered.
December 11, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq is a war crime. How is it possible to define success?
December 11, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq is a country, it's not a crime.
Success is one or several countries that are more or less stable, not failing states, that are more friendly to US than Saddam was in 2003.
December 11, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A country utterly broken, 2 million refugees, and hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. And all based on phony WMD claims. Now that is a war crime. Of course, we didn't steal incubators so I guess that makes us okay.
December 11, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You asked me "How is it possible to define success", I gave you my answer. You might be correct about war crime, but I let Howard to argue this point with you if he wants.
December 11, 2007 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This article by Avishai Margalit in the NY Review of Books has been quoted here before but it is certainly one of the more powerful pieces to describe the fundamental evilness of those settlers known as the Hill Top youth.
This is a review of a book by Shulman a scholar and human rights activist in Israel. He describes a confrontation between him and Arab herders who he trying to aid and the settlers. He writes:
"What we are fighting in the South Hebron Hills is pure, rarefied, unadulterated, unreasoning, uncontainable human evil. Nothing but malice drives this campaign to uproot the few thousand cave dwellers with their babies and lambs. They have hurt nobody. They were never a security threat. They led peaceful, if somewhat impoverished lives until the settlers came. Since then, there has been no peace. They are tormented, terrified, incredulous. As am I."
These are the people Feith, Perle, etc believe should be protected with our military, funds and international prestige.
December 11, 2007 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops forgot the link: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20856
December 11, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, very good link. This is exactly what I was trying to say:
December 11, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Idiotic. The more violent the Zionists become, the more "irrational" they need the Palestinians to be. The more the Settlers and the IDF want Palestinian land in the West Bank, the more "evil" the flattened local population must be. The psychology of the aggressor is always the same.....The IDF has murdered 50 Palestinians since Annapolis. Notice the usual reaction: No outrage. We are too busy worrying about whether some Muslim country might--in the fullness of time--challenge Israel's military hegemony. The more Palestinians the IDF murders, the guiltier the Palestianians become....
December 11, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Argue with Syvanen. He recommended this article
December 11, 2007 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This link
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20856
December 11, 2007 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. The link you told Syvanen that was exactly what you wanted to say, but when you were called on that, you said to argue with Syvanen. Sorry, if I don't want to defend a link, I don't agree with it when someone else cites it. You cited it, therefore, you have no reason to expect not to be challenged.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but it doesn't mean that I have to defend it. Remember, Howard, we all have option just not to respond if we want to.
December 11, 2007 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course. I have the option to call hypocrisy when I see it, as well as a lack of moral courage. By your own statement, you didn't have to respond to a post questioning that you supported a statement, but you did, claiming it was Syvanen's fault. I might have had some respect if you had simply not responded, but that's not what you did. You tried to shift the responsibility to someone else.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am getting sick and tired of Dava'i chortling over dead Americans in Iraq.Listen, bub, some of us feel about America the way you feel about Israel.It's our country and our problems,and our dead, and our stupid war. For us, these are not jokes.I understand that you are none too bright but even you should understand how fucking inappropriate you are.
Also, take your weird puppy love infatuation with MJ out of here.Just because he posts his opinions here at TPM does not give you the right to besmirch him with your sick fixation. I don't even know the guy but I feel that he has got to have a nauseous feeling about your weird shit about him.I think you are a pervert.I feel slimy just addressing this to your thoroughly creepy self.IN other words, get the fuck outahere.
December 11, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not chortling over dead Americans in Iraq, you are, every day when you read about dead Americans in Iraq, you are happy, not only you hate Israel more that you love your own country,
you equally hate your own country, Israel, your parents and religion of your parents.
December 11, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I expected, binary thinking would come out. Not being terribly concerned about another country's citizens, when one's own are being killed, does not constitute "hatred" of that country. I don't "hate" Israel, but Israel is much less important to me than other countries that are better allies and lesser liabilities to the US than Israel.
I don't see you complaining about Burmese Buddists. Does that mean you hate them?
You do understand that this is gibberish?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 11, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, on the whole Sean, tell us what you think of Davai.
December 11, 2007 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Sean. But don't worry about Davai. Thousands of people honor me by reading my posts here. Hundreds respond to them. What difference does one "nudnik" make?
As you, or someone else said the other day, some 99% of TPMers seem to agree with the liberal position on both Iraq and Israel/Palestine. Same at Kos and at all the liberal sites. The independent bloggers like Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, etc, also are in agreement.
I don't write to convince my fellow TMPers but to help reinforce them in their views and to learn from them. If I wanted to try to win over the Davais, I'd post at Free Republic or one of the other rightwing sites where the Davais are a majority. I prefer Democrats and I certainly prefer TPM even with one or two fruitcakes!
December 11, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 11, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Bruce,
You wanted to invite this "teacher" to your Synagogue. Now I undersand why he refused. He is not good to "win over" anybody, is is only good at reinforcing people in their views if they agree with him already.
December 11, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you aware that this moron by himself makes up about 25% of the posts to your columns?
December 11, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
maybe he's on piece work.
December 11, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see. Reinforcement of indoctrination is complete. Good job, MJ.
December 11, 2007 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course. I forgot that Josh is giving $2 for each comment for his essays. The moron is providing about $200 a week for MJs retirement fund.
December 11, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only 25%? My God, davai is slipping. Generally, it's way over that...and Howard doesn't help much when he encourages him.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 12, 2007 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is well taken. May I suggest, however, that I will try to hold my direct responses to him to the cases when he puts out total misinformation on military matters (including international law) and no one else corrects it? Now, if I felt he was automatically discredited no matter what he said, that would be a different matter.
With recent versions of Firefox, "suppress low-rated comments" does not appear to work. Believe me, I would be happier if it did work in his case, or if he were banned as a troll. My only defense is that my responses usually -- I'm not perfect -- give the correct information.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 12, 2007 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the ratings system, I think it is incomplete--the model they should adapt is how ratings are done at Slashdot You can select what 'mod' (moderator points) level you'd like to view, and comments under that mod level are filtered out.
This may or may not work as well here, given that Slashdot's traffic is much higher than TPM Cafe's, however, I still think that some form of filtering is the answer to raising the signal-to-noise ratio.
December 12, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
No argument. I don't know if it's a browser, site, or interaction problem, but troll-rating accomplished quite a bit. It simply stopped working for me a while back. I really don't want to change away from Firefox, if that's the problem, but I am at a loss why the "hide low-rated comments" no longer works for me.
As you suggest, at a high-traffic site, a different moderation approach may work. I'd like to see some blog software that incorporated the ability to do customized filtering, as is common in newsgroup or email readers. Unfortunately, truly effective filtering is not user-friendly to keep maintained.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 12, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 12, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Winston Churchill said, “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.”
Then again, he also said, “Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.”
OTOH, “We are masters of the unsaid words, but slaves of those we let slip out.”
Still, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
December 12, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
nudnick, sputnick, what's the difference, they're all way out there!
December 11, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 11, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pain of the auto-immune disease must be tremendous.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 11, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
bad joke
December 11, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those of you who have been taken in by MJ's repeated claims that "90% of American Jews support my position for a '2-State' solution, division of Jerusalem, and placing the onus for the lack of peace up until now on Israel", look at the results of this American Jewish Committee 2007 Annual Survey of Jewish Opinion, quoted from Ha'aretz:
-------------------------------------
The Annapolis conference did not change the opinions of U.S. Jews regarding the prospect of peace. This year, 55% said they did not believe peace is possible, down one percent from 56% last year.
On the question of whether Israel should be willing to compromise on the status of Jerusalem, 58% said no and 36% said yes, showing an increase in opponents since 2006. The majority still believed that "The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel".
----------------------------------
So much for MJ's fantasyland.
Here is the link to the full article:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/933815.html
December 11, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, what?
MJ honestly told you that facts don't matter for him.
I think that people have a right to be brainwashed if they want as long as there is a truth in advertising.
MJ, I have an offer for you. If you start your post with the disclaimer:
I promise not to comment on that post.
Bar, I think you should consider such promise too.
December 11, 2007 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com today;
A new survey of American Jewish opinion, released by the American Jewish Committee, demonstrates several important propositions: (1) right-wing neocons (the Bill Kristol/Commentary/ AIPAC/Marty Peretz faction) who relentlessly claim to speak for Israel and for Jews generally hold views that are shared only by a small minority of American Jews; (2) viewpoints that are routinely demonized as reflective of animus towards Israel or even anti-Semitism are ones that are held by large majorities of American Jews; and (3) most American Jews oppose U.S. military action in the Middle East -- including both in Iraq and against Iran.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
December 12, 2007 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent link--I'd also highly recommend reading the comments, as they reinforce the message of the post, and give further proof that right-wing Zionist chickenhawks are indeed a minority.
Also, one of the commenters posted a nice quote from TPM's own Larry Johnson, pre 9/11:
December 12, 2007 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry Johnson doesn't know what he is talking about. Larry doesn't live in a country which is threated daily with annihilation. Note, also that he stated this before 9/11, right at the time that Barak was offering Arafat almost all his territorial demands plus billions of dollars in undeserved indemnities. This is still not enough for Larry or Arafat. Maybe there are just some people who hate the US, just as there are people that hate Israel.
December 12, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Noticed that as turned out, Larry Johnson was wrong.
By crashing Second Intifada and buiding the fence, Israel almost elimitated terrorism.
December 12, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing new here. Most Jews have always been in the liberal column. FDR regularly got 90% of the Jewish vote. Thus, when the greatest crisis the Jewish people faced in the last 2000 years, the Holocaust hit, FDR knew the Jews were in his pocket and he could safely ignore their pleas, at least until a few "troublmakers" like Peter Bergson (aka Hillel Kook) came around and started screaming.
However, this does not mean American Jewry supports MJ's positions regarding what policies Israel should follow, as indicated in the poll results I posted above.
December 12, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right-wing neocons do not speak for Israel, they don't speak for Jews generally, and they don't claim to speak for them.
They have own views what's good for America, and they speak for themselves as they have every right to do so. Antisemites claim that just because many neocons are Jews, Israel or American Jews collectivly responsible for their views.
December 12, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really not that concerned with opinion polling specific to American Jews. I have much more interest in the opinions of the electorate or legislators, and the effect of Israel on American foreign policy.
Concern over Israel being a net detriment to American foreign policy does not equate to hatred of Israel, nor a desire to see Israel destroyed, nor a belief that the Palestinians have any real ability to destroy Israel regardless of their rhetoric. It does include serious concern about the perception, internationally, of Israel as a US client with essentially a blank check.
You are an Israeli. I am not. Accept that we are most concerned about our own countries. At one time, Israel was a much better ally than it is now. Those changes are not all Israel's fault, since part of the reason is the end of the Cold War, and another is an exceptionally incompetent administration.
There are things Israel could do that, I believe, would be far more beneficial to US interests, without sacrificing Israeli security. Unfortunately, in both countries, there is a great desire for politicians to be seen as Doing Something.
Quite independently of Israel, it has long been my opinion that neither a pure military, nor a pure law enforcement, approach to terrorism makes sense. Rather, I tend to use a public health model. It is possible to reduce the incidence of adverse events (disease or accident), and reduce the damage done by those incidents.
So far, epidemiologists have eradicated, in the sense of completely removing from nature, one disease. The US accepts a significant number of preventable deaths, some from accident, some from lifestyle choices, some from inadequate care, and a host of other factors. No one expects the eradication of heart attacks or automobile accidents.
And so it is with terrorism. It will not disappear. It certainly is possible to reduce its occurrence, and minimize the effects of terrorist incidents. If one chooses to live in West Africa, and neither has genetic protection nor takes preventive drugs, there is a high risk of developing malaria. If one chooses to live in proximity to a terrorist stronghold, there will be harassing attacks, which are distinctly different than devastating attacks. I believe there are steps Israel could be, but apparently is not, taking to reduce the incidence of Qassam fire. They won't eliminate it.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 12, 2007 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point, Howard, on favoring the 'public health' model--this fits with my longstanding analogy of terrorists to rats; while a 'War on Rats' may sound good to some, it has been recognized for some time by both exterminators and public health officials that killing all the rats is simply not possible, so the enlightened approach is to minimize the rat population by reducing/eliminating the places where they breed, and their food sources.
December 12, 2007 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's like crime.
You need to protect yourself.
You need to have police to maitain the order and find criminals that commited crimes.
You need to "reducing/eliminating the places where they breed, and their food sources."
December 12, 2007 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with the "crime" analogy is that it presumes that the US/Israel, etc., are the "policeman" who have the moral and legal authority to act. They may have the power, but hardly the "right" to police many areas, particularly Palestine. I would rather compare it to the Gangs of New York: We may belong to a nicer gang, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Truth and Justice is our banner.
December 13, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
leftAhead said:
I'm game!
and,
Now that we can torture, rendition, hold people incommunicado indefinitely and operate Guantanamo because "We're at War!"
does this also apply to those we catch in the "War on Drugs?"
December 12, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink