The Future of War?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

You did so by implication, you weasel.

or

HELLO!

You implied said treaty didn't mention anti-satelite weapons and claimed that as factual proof I was wrong without presenting said proof, and certainly without knowing the treaty yourself. Give me a ****ing break.

Hard to argue a point if you have never seen information on it.

Never seems to stop you.

It's called arguing an idea, have you never heard of it? One is able to create an arguement simply based on ration, prior to the evidence, just like I did. Let me make it again:

Anti-satellite weapons are or should be included in a discussion about weapons in space because a they are weapons designed to destroy thing in space.

Is that something you find illogical? Or irrational?

So your entire , ENTIRE, "arguement" was :anti-satellite weapons are not space weapons because they are not in space"? That was it??

Well, good job there....

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Get a room.

I wasted a good five minutes of my life flicking through all that. It's like slowing down to look at a car wreck. You don't want to, you just can't help but look.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
I really fail to understand what you are even trying to get at.

You are pretty good at ignoring other viewpoint as well. In fact, I fail to think when you have ever changed your viewpoint about this issue, not that I expect you to, regardless of when given evidence, like, that Human Rights Wacth report, but then of course, that is hardly a reputable organization, right?

When did I siginificantly disagree with evidence presented by HRW?

I don't accept much of their analysis or labeling of what is legitimate and what is not.

Whether a bomb hit place X is a fact of evidence.
Whether something constitutes a war crime in light of a certain law, is analysis. I am just as entitled to have my view on it as HRW, since HRW are nowhere declared an official judging body, nor are they law professionals.

They're a private group of volunteers following a very specific political view, and represent their own opinions.

They've gone sometimes beyond reasonable to re-interpert military conduct laws to be as strict as possible, which is not realistic, and has pretty much always been ignored in major wars, by Israel or others.

My views have often changed and developed in this forum. Obviously, being at the position I am - I give more weight to stuff that I see with my own eyes than something a newspaper columnist wrote.

You on the other hand, lack any direct access to information from the area and rely totally on what you think, read.

I have seen nothing in this thread posted that would make me rethink the notion that Hezbollah emerged from the August War in a better political position than before, certainly amongst the Shia in Southern Lebanon. And nothing is going to change me stance on the whole Israel-Palestinian mess. Core values, such as a belief in the centrality of fundamental rights granted to individuals, NOT to groups, are not going to change, and it is that core belief that informs my view of the ME. Obviously you hold a fundamentally different belief with regards to where rights should be allocated. Fine, whatever.

You know well that this isn't about your notion about Hezbullah emerging victorious.

I was frankly fed up about how you discuss your ideas of Israeli strategies and tactics as freely as if you were at least the prime minister of Israel. I have no idea what you're basing it on, but you are phrasing your self in a condescending and a 'know it all' way.

Something which I try not to do, even though I am justified to do it in 50% of the cases.

As for your opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian mess: I'm not sure how your core values as you explain them, defend the existence of a new nation state (palestine), but that is a totally different argument.

In any case - this core value which affects your judgement, as you admit yourself - is ethical in nature and has nothing to do with any presumptuous expertese in local history or politics. And you rely on your ethics as a holy bible, ignoring everything that doesn't 'fit' your theory.

I on my side won't stop speaking with anyone unless they hold beliefs I find repulsive, like Winston. So, you don't want to argue, thats fine. I will pick up the conversation whenever you decide to pick it back up.

I'm frankly tired.

Your posts are filled with interesting trivia, and some interesting thoughts. But you're very often wrong on the general picture, precisely because of your acknowledged bias. Just like Che, you like to connect the dots, and then get a totally different shape than what was meant.

The worst part however, is that che often acknowledges when he's been inexact and is often easily caught on false info, because frankly most of his source are sh*tty.

You're more difficult, mainly because you go around in logical circles, and you never ever concede a point, eventually arguing that "it doesn't seem logical" to you. which you must admit is not even a real argument.

example: I claim Israel has never opted for a strategy against Hezbullah or Hamas beyond "containment" between 1982-2000. You 'fight back' claiming that you find it ridiculous because:

a) obviously Israel would want to destroy its enemies
b) Hamas and Hezbullah are Israel's enemies

hence - Israel must want and have tried to destroy Hamas and Hezbullah.

This is a self relying argument (hermanotics IIRC).

I can bring you my knowledge and expertise on the subject and you bring ... well, your own pre-dispositions.


Just because no one can 'convince' you you're wrong in an arguement doesn't make you right.

[Eli]

Gepap, you're wrong.

Both against Hizballah during the occupation of South Lebanon and against Hamas in the recent intifada, Israel has never tried to actually destroy these organizations.

There never was a decision of "ok, they are the enemy and now we will fight them until they are beaten". Israel was constantly using passive tactics such as roadblocks and random SF raids, and offensive actions were almost always used as a response.

Just look on the Intifada. When has Israel initiated an offensive against the Pals? Never. Which is a ****ing stupid policy if you have the defeat of your enemy as a primary strategic goal.

At first there were riots, so Israel was trying to contain them. Then they started shooting on soldiers and Israel started using helicopters to bomb police stations, warning all policemen to flee. And so it lasted for 4 years, slowly escalating.

Israel was always reacting, always responding. The Pals have done something they haven't done before? Ok, let's enter Tul Karem with tanks. A month later it's "Ok, we've done Tul Karem, it doesn't scare them anymore, let's go in to Jenin".

Just look on the pattern of Israeli assassinations or land operations. They almost always came a few days after suicide bombings.

If Israel had really made the decision to fight Hamas until they're beaten, it wouldn't have taken four years to finally kill Ahmed Yassin. If Israel had really made this decision, it wouldn't have invaded the West Bank and Gaza step by step, always going a few more kilometers deeper.

That's the mistake Israel made in this campaign. Already in early 2002 it was obvious that there is an enemy here, and yet knowing that the enemy exists and knowing that it can be beaten, Israel didn't engage.

That's what I find laudable about the 2nd Lebanon War. The experts say that there were lots of tactical problems which caused too many people to die and made many objectives unachievable. But strategically, it was the right thing to do.

[GePap]

Excuse me Siro, but...what expertise?

As for this:

example: I claim Israel has never opted for a strategy against Hezbullah or Hamas beyond "containment" between 1982-2000. You 'fight back' claiming that you find it ridiculous because

"containment" is not a term that works in this context. To contain someone is to do allow the other side to wield power where they do wield it without interference, but fighting streneously any attempt of that other group to extend that power or influence. It is not a term that makes sense when speaking about a NGO unless the central government that has sovereignty actually lets this NGO have power somewhere. It also assumes some level of recognition of the other side.

Since Hamas began carrying out attacks agains Israel, Israel has criminalized membership in those violent part of Hamas, arrested members, assassinated members, and criminalized helping them. That is not "containment."

[GePap]

Originally posted by Eli
Gepap, you're wrong.

Both against Hizballah during the occupation of South Lebanon and against Hamas in the recent intifada, Israel has never tried to actually destroy these organizations.

There never was a decision of "ok, they are the enemy and now we will fight them until they are beaten". Israel was constantly using passive tactics such as roadblocks and random SF raids, and offensive actions were almost always used as a response.

Roadblocks are a basic instrument of the occupation post the original intifadah. They existed when nothing was going on.

Just look on the Intifada. When has Israel initiated an offensive against the Pals? Never. Which is a ****ing stupid policy if you have the defeat of your enemy as a primary strategic goal.

Actually, there was the 2002 offensive when Israel reoccupied large sections of the West Bank.

At first there were riots, so Israel was trying to contain them. Then they started shooting on soldiers and Israel started using helicopters to bomb police stations, warning all policemen to flee. And so it lasted for 4 years, slowly escalating.

The first half-dozen people to dies during the second intifadah were all palestinians. The first significant number of Israelis to die were Israeli-Arabs who died in October 2000, shot while they protested. The airstrikes against PLA police stations began later, when PLA security forces became involved.

Israel was always reacting, always responding. The Pals have done something they haven't done before? Ok, let's enter Tul Karem with tanks. A month later it's "Ok, we've done Tul Karem, it doesn't scare them anymore, let's go in to Jenin".

Just look on the pattern of Israeli assassinations or land operations. They almost always came a few days after suicide bombings.

NOt particulalrly true, and even the IDF has stated that it goes after Palestinian militants when it has good info on where they are. I doubt that info only comes up just in time for ***-for tat attacks. As for tanks into the Palestinian areas, that was part of the 2002 offensive that was meant to force the PLA into meeting Israeli demands to crack down on militants and stop PLA security men from fighting Israel.

If Israel had really made the decision to fight Hamas until they're beaten, it wouldn't have taken four years to finally kill Ahmed Yassin. If Israel had really made this decision, it wouldn't have invaded the West Bank and Gaza step by step, always going a few more kilometers deeper.

Yazin was free because of a botched operation in Jordan I believe, you know that. The man wasn't going anywhere, and Israel could always have just arrested him again.

That's the mistake Israel made in this campaign. Already in early 2002 it was obvious that there is an enemy here, and yet knowing that the enemy exists and knowing that it can be beaten, Israel didn't engage.

That's what I find laudable about the 2nd Lebanon War. The experts say that there were lots of tactical problems which caused too many people to die and made many objectives unachievable. But strategically, it was the right thing to do.

Oh yes, "Deterrence,", if not used as a term directly. We haven't been tough enough on them yet, they have not stopped, so we are going to finally teach them a lesson. Finally. Cause we never have before. Yup.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Excuse me Siro, but...what expertise?

As part of my service I'm often familiar with many things relating to our subjects of discourse. Not to say I'm an expert on all things. But I do have a wide range of information sources about many things which you talk about from your ass.

Lets assume for the sake of argument, that simply as an officer, I probably already have a better access to Israeli operational concepts, plans, and different types of information about the enemy side.

"containment" is not a term that works in this context. To contain someone is to do allow the other side to wield power where they do wield it without interference, but fighting streneously any attempt of that other group to extend that power or influence. It is not a term that makes sense when speaking about a NGO unless the central government that has sovereignty actually lets this NGO have power somewhere. It also assumes some level of recognition of the other side.

This is a term that fits the situation perfectly and there's no reason why it can't fit Hamas or Hezbullah. I have no idea why do you think it doesn't fit an NGO... It fits every adversary you deal with.

Israel accepted Hezbullah taking hold of power in Lebanon, and has never went on a mission bent of "clearing" Hezbullah.

Clearing Hezbullah would have required something like Israel did to Fateh in 1982.

Israel has merely concentrated on limiting Hezbullah's effect on the created souther lebanese security strip.


Israel has also never tried to obliterate Hamas. It took what it thought are preventative steps against would be bombers, and punitive steps after successfull terrorist attacks.

It never, however, decided to take on the entire leadership and infrastructure in all Hamas stronglholds, thereby shocking the movement and breaking it up. Israel saw it self in a cycle of "action-retribution" with the movement.

The only serious crackdown on the movement was done by the PA itself in 1996-1997 after Nethayahu threatened Arafat.

The largest Israeli effort was in 2002, and that was only in the WB and even there loopholes were created as people were allowed to flee between cities. So it was a limited scope campaign, never meaning to destroy the entire movement (whose leadership is divided between Ghaza and Syria).

Since Hamas began carrying out attacks agains Israel, Israel has criminalized membership in those violent part of Hamas, arrested members, assassinated members, and criminalized helping them. That is not "containment."

That is exactly containment.

Unless you think that Israel has really arrested and assassinated every Hamas member it laid its hands on.

The truth is - we didn't touch the "political" leaders until 2003, and we never concentrated enough effort on anything more than a single cell.

You have absolutely no idea what is the difference between an orchestrated assault and containment.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Roadblocks are a basic instrument of the occupation post the original intifadah. They existed when nothing was going on.

It isn't exactly to say that they originated from nothing, just to hassle people.
During times of quiet (until 2000) roadblocks were rare, and usually set up only on alerts.

Actually, there was the 2002 offensive when Israel reoccupied large sections of the West Bank.

That was a limited goal campaign.
It was limited only to the west bank, and it under utilized Israeli abilities, for different reasons.

It was however one of the most succesful steps of the conflict, together with assassinating the Hamas leaders.

The first half-dozen people to dies during the second intifadah were all palestinians. The first significant number of Israelis to die were Israeli-Arabs who died in October 2000, shot while they protested. The airstrikes against PLA police stations began later, when PLA security forces became involved.

The first half dozen people died as a result of palestinian initiated riots, which outnumbered Israeli police forces were trying to contain.

About a week or two into the riots, guns were becoming prevalent in the palestinian "processions". After enough evidence was gathered about PA security forces being directly involved in the violence, and even directing it - only then the attacks on police stations began. And justly so, as they were used as command and control posts, orchestrating the violence.

NOt particulalrly true, and even the IDF has stated that it goes after Palestinian militants when it has good info on where they are. I doubt that info only comes up just in time for ***-for tat attacks.

The quoted statement is true for post 2002, even post 2003 era.
Until 2002 IDF has never initiated attacks, always responding.

The info comes up when you begin making plans. You begin making plans after you have a reason to do so...
Until 2002, it was always in response.

As for tanks into the Palestinian areas, that was part of the 2002 offensive that was meant to force the PLA into meeting Israeli demands to crack down on militants and stop PLA security men from fighting Israel.

Correct and not correct.
It was indeed a pressure tool.

It began in mid 2001, as a response to strifing attacks on Jewish neighbourhoods whether in settlements or in Jerusalem. It progressively became deeper.

Yazin was free because of a botched operation in Jordan I believe, you know that. The man wasn't going anywhere, and Israel could always have just arrested him again.

If Israel hadn't been doing containment, Yassin would have died in 1991 / 3 (whenever he was arrested).

The fact that Israel took ages to gather the balls to get rid of him, just proves that Israel has tried to contain the problem with minimum effort.

Oh yes, "Deterrence,", if not used as a term directly. We haven't been tough enough on them yet, they have not stopped, so we are going to finally teach them a lesson. Finally. Cause we never have before. Yup.

You have a poor judgement of what tough means.
But that's ok because so do many Israelis.

Result is that escelating has always worked in Israel's favor. In 2002, in 2004 (killing Hamas leaders), and in 2006 I hope it will help in the long term, as Hezbullah will be more considerate of Israeli responses.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by TheStinger

lasers

And sharks?

sharks carrying lasers!

[Eli]

Originally posted by GePap


Roadblocks are a basic instrument of the occupation post the original intifadah. They existed when nothing was going on.

Reading comprehension. The point is that they were a passive means to catch terrorists trying to enter Israel or arms smugglers inside the WB. The fact that they existed before(on a much smaller scale) shows that they weren't part of some major strategy of fighting Hamas.

Actually, there was the 2002 offensive when Israel reoccupied large sections of the West Bank.

Yeah. After 1.5 years of Intifada, after Sharon's "restraint is power" during the summer of 2001, after ~130 Israelis were murdered in almost daily suicide bombings in March 02, and after 30 Israelis were murdered in a single attack on Passover eve. The masses were screaming for blood and Op Defensive Shield was a pure response to all the suicide bombings of March 02.

Also, as Siro already mentioned, it wasn't wide an inclusive enough to defeat Hamas. If it was, a land operation in Gaza had to take place immediately afterwards.

The first half-dozen people to dies during the second intifadah were all palestinians. The first significant number of Israelis to die were Israeli-Arabs who died in October 2000, shot while they protested. The airstrikes against PLA police stations began later, when PLA security forces became involved.

I'm afraid you didn't understand what I said. That, or you're deliberately quoting some facts hoping that we'll be amazed by your knowledge and not notice that it's pointless. Since I'm a kind person, I'll go for the first option.

Look on the circumstances in which those Pals died. I don't have the exact numbers, but the vast majority of Pal deaths during the early intifada came during demonstrations. That is, IDF soldiers didn't know, weren't prepared, whatever, to deal with violent demonstrations without killing a few people in the process.

The point is that these deaths too were not part of some strategy to engage and destroy Hamas/IJ/whoever.
Only later did the majority of deaths started coming from raids, assassinations, house to house searches in cities etc, and frankly, this is mostly because the Pals don't do demonstrations as much as they did at first.

NOt particulalrly true, and even the IDF has stated that it goes after Palestinian militants when it has good info on where they are. I doubt that info only comes up just in time for ***-for tat attacks.

The IDF stated. What did you think they'll say?

Also, see Siro's response.

As for tanks into the Palestinian areas, that was part of the 2002 offensive that was meant to force the PLA into meeting Israeli demands to crack down on militants and stop PLA security men from fighting Israel.

I wasn't talking about that. Before and after the March 02 operation, Israel was constantly taking over or doing incursions into areas which weren't under it's control.

Look at Gaza. At first Israel occupied some narrow piece in the north of the strip, withdrawing after a few days. Then they went deeper, then an operation in the south. Etc, etc. There was never a concentrated offensive. Just a bunch of slow escalations.

Yazin was free because of a botched operation in Jordan I believe, you know that. The man wasn't going anywhere, and Israel could always have just arrested him again.

He was the leader of Hamas. He should have died in early 2001 when the Taba summit failed. That is, if Israel had a policy against Hamas beyond "let's retaliate whenever they kill someone, and hope they just disappear one day".

Oh yes, "Deterrence,", if not used as a term directly. We haven't been tough enough on them yet, they have not stopped, so we are going to finally teach them a lesson. Finally. Cause we never have before. Yup.

Actually I didn't have deterrence in mind. Although that too is an important benefit here.

Drawing the conflict for more than 4 years, having citizens always live in fear, losing all those years of tourism and investment because foreigners daily see something blow up in Israel or Israel blowing something up, all this never does any good.

A quick, high intensity operation in the long run will be more efficient that a long, slow, messy low intensity conflict. It will also kill less people.

And not only because a low intensity conflict does much more damage to the economy, but also because a regular army is much more capable of fighting such a conflict.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And Israel NEVER struck at those sanctuaries, yup...

Give me a ****ing break.

Im sure they struck at the sanctuaries, mainly using air or limited raids. Which obviously are not very effective at this sort of thing. What August 2006 was supposed to be was an operation on far larger scale than any previous strike on the sanctuaries. However it continued to rely on air power, large scale ground force not being used until near the end, and that, in addition to the intrinsic difficulty, is why it failed to destroy Hezbs military capabilities. Again, if Israel had managed expectations better, there would be less perception that they "lost"

Whether they could have destroyed Hezb in a complete occupation upto Beirut is a question that can never be answered, as such an occupation was done only briefly, and was not sustainable.


Whether a complete occupation could do the same to Hamas is also difficult to answer. The last time Israeli had a complete, sustained, occupation of the territories was before Oslo. IE back to the first intifadah. Ive seen different takes on the end of the first intifadah - the standard line I suppose is that Oslo was done to end it, but some say it was burning itself out, and Rabin chose to accept Oslo because the occupation, while able to contain the disorders, was ruining the moral fabric of the IDF as an instrument for conventional warfare, and that, plus the demographic arguments, convinced him Oslo was worthwhile. Id have to have a very good, unbiased history of the first Intifadah to make a more definitive judgement.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Whether a complete occupation could do the same to Hamas is also difficult to answer. The last time Israeli had a complete, sustained, occupation of the territories was before Oslo. IE back to the first intifadah. Ive seen different takes on the end of the first intifadah - the standard line I suppose is that Oslo was done to end it, but some say it was burning itself out, and Rabin chose to accept Oslo because the occupation, while able to contain the disorders, was ruining the moral fabric of the IDF as an instrument for conventional warfare, and that, plus the demographic arguments, convinced him Oslo was worthwhile. Id have to have a very good, unbiased history of the first Intifadah to make a more definitive judgement.

What are the demographic arguments that Rabin considered?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


What are the demographic arguments that Rabin considered?

the desire to maintain an Israel that is democratic and has a Jewish character, which (per this line of thinking) requires a Jewish majority, since otherwise either the electorate would have to be limited based on group membership (undemocratic) or an arab majority of the electorate would take place (changing the substance of the political culture of the state). As of 1992, when Rabin took office, arabs in the territories (as before and since) could not vote in Israeli elections. This was justified in that the territories were not part of Israel (E Jerusalem was annexed, and the Golan, but arabs in both those places CAN become Israeli citizens and vote, though many have chosen not to) Many in Israel said that with settlement, and simply the progress of time, the seperation between the territories and Israel was becoming eroded, and Israel was headed into not an occupation of land, but simply a conflict of populations, a la Lebanon or Ulster. Since it was considered likely that in the entire land between the Jordan and the sea arabs would eventually form a majority of the population, if Israel was to maintain its current political culture, and remain a democracy, seperation from the territories was necessary. This has been the consistent position of the Israeli Labour party since 1992.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the desire to maintain an Israel that is democratic and has a Jewish character, which (per this line of thinking) requires a Jewish majority, since otherwise either the electorate would have to be limited based on group membership (undemocratic) or an arab majority of the electorate would take place (changing the substance of the political culture of the state). As of 1992, when Rabin took office, arabs in the territories (as before and since) could not vote in Israeli elections. This was justified in that the territories were not part of Israel (E Jerusalem was annexed, and the Golan, but arabs in both those places CAN become Israeli citizens and vote, though many have chosen not to) Many in Israel said that with settlement, and simply the progress of time, the seperation between the territories and Israel was becoming eroded, and Israel was headed into not an occupation of land, but simply a conflict of populations, a la Lebanon or Ulster. Since it was considered likely that in the entire land between the Jordan and the sea arabs would eventually form a majority of the population, if Israel was to maintain its current political culture, and remain a democracy, seperation from the territories was necessary. This has been the consistent position of the Israeli Labour party since 1992.

Even after all that immigration? Does the non arab component of the population have negative natural growth rates like western europe/Japan or something? If that's the problem maybe all that is needed is to raise the standard of living of the arab population in the territories to that of the rest of Israel and the demographic argument should solve itself AFAICT. Presumably the demographics are different because the territories have third world living conditions resulting in third world demographics while Israel proper has first world living conditions promoting first world demographics.

It seems to me that if there is a demographic argument then any israeli policies that stifle economic development in the territories are only going to exasperate the situation from that point of view.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Even after all that immigration? Does the non arab component of the population have negative natural growth rates like western europe/Japan or something? If that's the problem maybe all that is needed is to raise the standard of living of the arab population in the territories to that of the rest of Israel and the demographic argument should solve itself AFAICT. Presumably the demographics are different because the territories have third world living conditions resulting in third world demographics while Israel proper has first world living conditions promoting first world demographics.

It seems to me that if there is a demographic argument then any israeli policies that stifle economic development in the territories are only going to exasperate the situation from that point of view.

1. AFAIK theres some debate about Arab birth rates both in the territories and in Israel. TFRs have declined in the West Bank, but not so much in Gaza, and that may well related to living conditions. OTOH TFR's for Israeli Arabs are much higher than there incomes would imply, IIUC, and that is in part due to a conscious desire to change the demography
2. Nonetheless I strongly agree that Israel should do what it can to increase arab living standards, for this and for other reasons
3. However making a really dramatic change in the living standards of the territories would be a huge job for Israel, a small country with many claims on its limited resources.
4. There is some debate about the whole demographic situation, including Jewish immigration, arab emigration, evolving TFRs, double counts, etc. I was NOT trying to say something definitive about the demographic situation, but to put Rabins acceptance of Oslo in context.
5. In any case I dont think it would be worth trying to hold onto the territories even if TFRs could be reduced to those of Israeli Jews. So you dont get a 60% Arab population in "Greater Israel" - say you get 40% instead, and 3/4 of those want a fully "Arab" state. I cant see that as making for a stable, democratic politics, united against external enemies. Note, that much of the Israeli right would disagree with me on this, but I think the left position is more correct.