Israeli Police Beat 15 year old American Citizen

[N35t0r]

I don't know, I think it's pretty spot on.

[Fake Boris]

Some points are correct, but it mostly sucks.

[The Mad Monk]

Which parts do you disagree with?

[Sava]

This morning, the not-so-subtly pro-settler, pro-war Times of Israel published an op-ed explaining that genocide is okay when the victims are Gazans. The paper quickly thought better of it, and took down the piece. We saved it here in its entirety, because it's an important window into a terrible mindset.

The piece is not by a geopolitician or a statesman or a soldier, but by a New York-based accountant named Yochanan Gordon who insists "that the US and the UN are completely out of touch" with the realities of war in the Middle East. The op-ed quickly garnered 300 Facebook likes and was tweeted more than 3,000 times before it disappeared from the Times' website:

http://gawker.com/here-is-an-israeli-paper-column-titled-when-genocide-i-1614631309

At least you dickless pigs aren't hiding your true colors.

[rah]

How is this any worse than Hamas's charter?

While I consider both barbaric, it's unfair to point out one without the other.

[Sava]

How is this any worse than Hamas's charter?

I don't know. You'll have to ask someone who thinks it is.

Are you going to keep Serbing me?

[Al B. Sure!]

It amazes me how different the IDF's approach to counterterrorism and counterinsurgency is compared to the US military's. The IDF appears to operate under completely different rules of engagement and with no concern for appearances before either a domestic or international audience, as if public affairs or winning hearts and minds has no meaning to them. Even if Israel were justified in the things they do, it still looks bad.

By comparison, the US military operates under extremely strict rules of engagement. Even going back to the Beirut barracks bombing of 1983 in which Marines required command authorization to even insert a magazine in their rifles, and continuing to more recent operations, US servicemembers operate on very tight leashes to minimize collateral damage and excess force.

The US military has always also attempted to build positive host nation relations. These occur not just in an official capacity through civil affairs but in an ad hoc manner such as when US servicemembers give candy or soccer balls to children. Maybe IDF soldiers in the West Bank or South Lebanon have passed out candy to Palestinian and Lebanese children, but I've never seen evidence of this. I strongly recommend readers to google image search "USMC Iraqi children" and "IDF Palestinian children" and contrast the resulting photographs. It is possible America is just better at propaganda but the difference demonstrates a chasm between the two country's either in approach or in perception of approach; and perceptions are critical in winning hearts and minds.

Which brings me to the crux of my point and the difference. The US military's counterinsurgency doctrine is predicated on winning hearts and minds. An extension of Clausewitz applied to fourth generation warfare, US doctrine recognizes that terrorism/insurgency is an extension of politics and cannot be defeated through direct conventional military action alone; terror is political and a clash of wills and ideas. It is not feasible to kill every single terrorist since doing so, particularly through certain methods, will produce more terrorists; for every dead terrorist, his brother, his son, or cousin will take up arms against the counterterrorist. Direct military action alone to combat terrorism would require the killing of not only every terrorist, but every potential terrorist, an act tantamount to genocide.

Destroying the terrorist/insurgent military capabilities is also a Sisyphean task, considering the cheap global abundance of Soviet small arms and the low cost of producing fairly ingenious devices (Counter-IED classes stress how IED-makers are scarily clever and resourceful). Consider the Qassam rockets used by Hamas which are locally-produced in Gaza, designed to be cheaply and easily produced from common tools and components, and are propelled by a mixture of sugar and potassium nitrate, a common fertilizer. The materials for each rocket cost only $800. It is not possible for any counterterrorist to kill every terrorist and deny them every weapon system in such an environment.

So how can terrorism be defeated? Because you cannot attrite terrorists through killing them, the only way to defeat them is to isolate them from their base of support in the civilian population. You need to win over the people to 1) not support the terrorists (critical) and 2) support your cause instead (ideally). In other words, you need to win the hearts and minds of the people so they stop harboring, aiding, and serving as a near-infinite recruiting base for terrorist organizations.

US doctrine emphasizes this. Dating to the Combined Action Platoons of Vietnam, the US military has always stressed cooperation with host nation authorities and a hearts and minds campaign. We endeavor to accomplish this by having dialogue with local leaders, projects such as the construction of schools, hospitals, and infrastructure, and close mutual cooperation with host nation authorities (such as working with the Iraqi Army/Police and Afghan National Army/Local Police units). Not only do such efforts help to improve our image in the eyes of local nationals, but by working closely with their authorities, we demonstrate their legitimacy and turn the perception of the campaign from one of US vs. Iraq to one of US and Iraq vs. insurgents. Consider T.E. Lawrence's observation: "Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them."

This also means that the US military is acutely aware of the damage that can be done through excess military action. The US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, written by Generals Patraeus and Mattis, stresses: "Often insurgents carry out a terrorist act or guerrilla raid with the primary purpose of enticing counterinsurgents to overreact, or at least to react in a way that insurgents can exploit—for example, opening fire on a crowd or executing a clearing operation that creates more enemies than it takes off the streets. If an assessment of the effects of a course of action determines that more negative than positive effects may result, an alternative should be considered—potentially including not acting."

The manual includes other, Zen-like admonitions that demonstrate the character of US doctrine and its emphasis on civilian perceptions: "Sometimes, the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be; Sometimes, the more force is used, the less effective it is; Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction; Some of the best weapons for counterinsurgents do not shoot"

To win Palestinian hearts and minds seems Sisyphean but it is the only way to ensure peace and, as argued earlier, may be no more challenging that attempting to destroy terrorism through direct military action. My recommendation is that until Israel demonstrates an empathy with and concern for the plight of Palestinians and therefore can isolate Hamas from their base of support, as well as reach out to moderate Palestinians to combat extremism in Gaza and the West Bank, the conflict will always be, both in fact and in the all-important perception, one of Israel vs Palestine. Such a war can only be resolved through extermination or subjugation. Israel may win battles but will never win the conflict, until they win the hearts and minds of the Palestinians.

[N35t0r]

Gah, not agan with this! Nobody cares what the US' methods are, not last page, not the 10 pages before that!

[Al B. Sure!]

Gah, not agan with this! Nobody cares what the US' methods are, not last page, not the 10 pages before that!

America = the good guys

[Sava]

I would only use "Sisphyean" once. But overall, this seems very well thought out.





and yeah, the whole "US doctrine says:" is a bit annoying

This reads more like an essay for a class at west point than anything else.

[Sava]

America = the good guys

You see... you went to all this trouble writing a very nice, detailed, and nuanced essay


.... only to follow up with that

[N35t0r]

America = the good guys

You'll have a hard time convincing me that his is true.

[Al B. Sure!]

I would only use "Sisphyean" once. But overall, this seems very well thought out.





and yeah, the whole "US doctrine says:" is a bit annoying

This reads more like an essay for a class at west point than anything else.

Interesting how you give me props then edit your post when you see his comment like you fell to peer pressure.

You see... you went to all this trouble writing a very nice, detailed, and nuanced essay


.... only to follow up with that

We're not the good guys, Sava? Are you sure about that?

[Sava]

Interesting how you give me props then edit your post when you see his comment like you fell to peer pressure.

?

I DanS pretty much every post I make because I type faster than I think.

We're not the good guys, Sava? Are you sure about that?

There are no good guys. That's my point. You wrote a very excellent analysis... touching on a lot of points that I have struggled to articulate myself... and then you follow it up with an overly simplistic... bumper sticker slogan, I guess.

You should have just dropped the mic after the essay.

If you want to discuss America's role in the world and morality... make that thread.

[Al B. Sure!]

You'll have a hard time convincing me that his is true.

It's prima facie. Who else is? What other nation in history has sent forth its warriors from a culture imbued with high ideals of life and liberty and a global view enriched with idealism? Who else bears the torch of democracy, human rights, free trade, women's rights and minority protections? It is the foundation of our national ethos.

As Woodrow Wilson said in 1919:

Sometimes people call me an idealist. Well, that is the way I know I am an American. America, my fellow citizens — I do not say it in disparagement of any other great people—America is the only idealistic Nation in the world. When I speak practical judgments about business affairs, I can only guess whether I am speaking the voice of America or not, but when I speak the ideal purposes of history I know that I am speaking the voice of America, because I have saturated myself since I was a boy in the records of that spirit, and everywhere in them there is this authentic tone of the love of justice and the service of humanity. If by any mysterious influence of error America should not take the leading part in this new enterprise of concerted power, the world would experience one of those reversals of sentiment, one of those penetrating chills of reaction, which would lead to a universal cynicism, for if America goes back upon mankind, mankind has no other place to turn. It is the hope of nations all over the world that America will do this great thing.

I am speaking of intents, not of means. Our intents are pure. We act, not for the betterment of America, but for the betterment of the world.


Israel does not share our ethos. It cannot. It is not an idealistic nation. And therein may be the difference.