Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 68

Thread: Mavi Marmara Raid

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    ....but as a point of strategy, "THE" blockade does not, IMO, usefully advance the policy. Therefore why do it?
    If I may, I'll leave it at that.
    As I mentioned in a posting on Gaza that I made earlier in the year, I think it was best said by Winnie-the-Pooh:

    "I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit.

    "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  2. #22
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Is what I find strange is that Martin Van Creveld lives there and could tell them exactly what they need to do.

    Link to Zenpundit on how Israel doesn't understand 4GW. Now I am not crazy about the designation of 4GW because it dosen't truly describe what is happening but the main points Van Creveld makes are important, in this case the MORE force you use the more you will loose.
    http://zenpundit.com/

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Gatineau, Québec, Canada
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    While I accept that the state of US-Israeli relations plays into the extent to which the US constrains a possible Israeli strike against Iran, there are many other reasons which potentially limit this option on the Israeli side:

    1) What does Israel think it knows about the Iranian nuclear program? What might it have missed, and how important are those elements? The issue of known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns is particularly important here.

    2) How effective might a strike be against known targets? What would be the anticipated consequences of US non-cooperation (and hence potential unfriendly overflight of US allies--Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey)?

    3) What effects would a strike have on Iranian behaviour: would it deter them from weapons development, or lead them to devote much more resources to it (so as to gain the ability to deter future strikes)?

    4) What would be the other immediate and longer term consequences of a strike?

    This isn't to say that the Israelis won't strike. It is to say, however, that IMHO these issues far outweigh anything that arises specifically from the israeli-Palestinian conflict.
    Interesting set of questions. In my humble opinion, it is quite unequivocal that the ongoing rapprochement between Iran and Turkey (the two neighbours whose relations used to be characterised as a relationship of ''tolerance'', will undoubtedly gain momentum. What I have found to be very noteworthy (as a side note) is that the proponents of a religious rule in both polities have also used this attack to silence the seculars (their argument being that the seculars are not vocal enough to condemn the outrage of Mavi Marmara. Hence, from a socio-political perspective, while the exponents of militant Islam have been quick to exploit the incident, it can have retrograde effects as far as democratisation in the Middle East is concerned.

    Furthermore, the enormity of ythe incident, as far as I have been able to follow from media outlets, can also dethrone the issue of Iran's nuclear problem at the UN. In fact, I am not sure to what extent this news is reliable, but the following news item (from the Israeli media) hints at such a likelihood:
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...898304,00.html

    The portentious question is if ever the motion regains importance, to what extent its adoption will prove less controversial.

    Finally, I find the possibility of an Israeli attack against Iran to be far-fetched. With Turkey being in ruled by the AKP (which has considerably incapacitated the army apparatus, the guarants of secularism), Turkey's reaction would be, from my point of view, hard to digest for Israel in a Middle East that is growing increasingly hostile to its skulduggery in the region

  4. #24
    Council Member Sergeant T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    67

    Default

    in this case the MORE force you use the more you will loose
    The problem is that at some point you actually have to use force or accept whatever behavior the opponent engages in. My first thought upon viewing the IDF video was that if this incident were replicated in the U.S., with the Israelis being police officers, the shooting would have been justified. (Jury nullification notwithstanding.) It would be PR hell for all involved, but justified.

    Without entering into the right/wrong/stupid/justified tug-of-war about the blockade, its worth noting that Israel began it for a reason. (Love Rex's Winnie-the-Pooh reference to describe it.) At the time it seemed worth the effort as an avenue to degrade the political control of a universally acknowledged terrorist organization. That fact is utterly lost in the narrative being placed before the world WRT to this incident. I don't know how you win in a 4G environment when your opponent's population, and for that matter the entire region, is predisposed to believe the worst about you.

    Final thought. Does it sound too conspiracy theorist to point out that this happened right before Netanyahu was supposed to meet with the president? I'm not going Cynthia McKinney here, just wondering if the timing has any relation.

  5. #25
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergeant T View Post
    The problem is that at some point you actually have to use force or accept whatever behavior the opponent engages in. My first thought upon viewing the IDF video was that if this incident were replicated in the U.S., with the Israelis being police officers, the shooting would have been justified. (Jury nullification notwithstanding.) It would be PR hell for all involved, but justified.
    That is really the point. It's not about no force but less force. The whole operation could have been handled better as a law Enforcement operation carried out by Law Enforcement agencies (coast guard/border patrol as USA examples)than military forces. Plus Cops carry TASERS....works pretty good against people with clubs, at least a lot better than paint ball guns!!!

  6. #26
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Is what I find strange is that Martin Van Creveld lives there and could tell them exactly what they need to do.

    Link to Zenpundit on how Israel doesn't understand 4GW. Now I am not crazy about the designation of 4GW because it dosen't truly describe what is happening but the main points Van Creveld makes are important, in this case the MORE force you use the more you will loose.
    http://zenpundit.com/
    I think my contribution may be useful here.

    I have a lot of respect for Martin as a military historian but his problem (like many) is that he does not understand (or articulate well) the dynamic between Policy and Strategy.
    What I have painfully come to realise that very few other Israelis do either! (...and I see nothing coming out of the US which is an improvement).

    a.) Policy is a Political objective - nothing more.
    b.) Strategy is the method by which you seek to set forth that objective. Ends, Ways and Means, all of which have to be effectively linked.
    c.) Strategy has to be set forth using tactics. if it cannot be done tactically the strategy will fail.

    Given we all know this, I can never understand where the confusion creeps in.

    If you apply FORCE in a way that does not support the POLICY, then you undermine the policy - which is why you have ROE, for example. Ghandi understood this and Clausewitz understood it.

    ....so yes, apply the wrong force for the wrong reason is dumb. Nothing to do with 4GW.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Wilf is spot on

    The only thing I would add is that operations must support strategy and tactics support operations.

    I, too, loved Rex's Winnie the Pooh quote and nominate it for the SWJ quote of the day.

    Cheers

    JohnT

  8. #28
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Fishel View Post
    ...I, too, loved Rex's Winnie the Pooh quote and nominate it for the SWJ quote of the day.
    Second the nomination.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  9. #29
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    Second the nomination.
    Third the nomination. Another one that worked its way onto my quotes list.
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  10. #30
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default Hi Wilf

    Wilf I assume you mean me as everyone else, at least up until I posted, was very much on the Israeli side of the debate.
    (even in response to those who wish harm upon my people and that surface only in relationship to this issue)
    I am not single issue but while I read much here I post little as it is either military or legal – and outside my experience – or I am in broad agreement and have no point to argue. The exceptions are on Iranian and Israeli policy where this site tends, on average, be a lot closer the US FP position than I am comfortable with and which I view as propaganda and not reality based.
    I mean no harm to you or your people, by which I assume you mean Israelis, nor do I see them suffering greatly. I wish the same could be said for the Palestinians who are suffering as a result of Israeli policy, strategy and tactics.
    I know you and I are never going to see eye-to-eye on Israel or Iran and have been around the block over these issues many times before. The strange thing is I suspect you see my position as being on the opposite side to yours while I think of myself as occupying the neutral ground between the Arab and Israeli positions and in line with most of the world who are not in either the Zionist (Israel, US, UK etc) or Arab blocks (Iran, Syria, Arab states etc). The first block seem to want, and are achieving by degrees, total control over the land and its resources and the later want to be in that position and a return to pre 1948 Middle East.
    On the specifics of this last case I think the legal points are moot in that International law, such as it is, is of use to the powerful in justifying those of their actions they can bend it to fit but is otherwise ignored, unless someone more powerful wishes to apply it. Debating who used excessive force the boarders, or repellers of boarders, on a ship off the Gaza coast seems a bit like focusing on whether the arsonist bought the book of matches or stole it. While 1.5 million people are locked up in Gaza with no employment, or prospect there of, a sub Saharan GDP and no means of escape or prospect of improvement all of which is contrary to UN resolutions and international law – if you believe in such things – the legality of any actions taken to perpetuate this status quo are moot.
    The bottom line is that Israelis position is morally indefensible re Gaza, the creeping appropriation of the West Bank, and much else beside, and those countries that are apologists – like mine – should hang their heads in shame.

    The report (linked to by Rex in post #13) on AMA compliance nicely illustrates the problems of getting stuff into Gaza, and before Hamas took over.

    The Winnie the Pooh quote is great and seems applicable to most FP positions. There may have been some logic to them once upon a time but now they survive on inertia, propaganda and an inability to admit we may have been wrong.
    Last edited by JJackson; 06-03-2010 at 12:44 PM.

  11. #31
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I think my contribution may be useful here.

    I have a lot of respect for Martin as a military historian but his problem (like many) is that he does not understand (or articulate well) the dynamic between Policy and Strategy.
    What I have painfully come to realise that very few other Israelis do either! (...and I see nothing coming out of the US which is an improvement).

    a.) Policy is a Political objective - nothing more.
    b.) Strategy is the method by which you seek to set forth that objective. Ends, Ways and Means, all of which have to be effectively linked.
    c.) Strategy has to be set forth using tactics. if it cannot be done tactically the strategy will fail.

    Given we all know this, I can never understand where the confusion creeps in.

    If you apply FORCE in a way that does not support the POLICY, then you undermine the policy - which is why you have ROE, for example. Ghandi understood this and Clausewitz understood it.

    ....so yes, apply the wrong force for the wrong reason is dumb. Nothing to do with 4GW.
    I think this is useful....it's all SBW and as I have been saying for some time... here is the code. "They use people as soldiers that don't look like soldiers,they use things as weapons that don't look like weapons and they use places as battlefields that don't look like battlefields." You will see that pattern repeated over and over again because Israel has never developed an effective response against it and until they realize that and realize that they are being attacked as a "system" they may not ever develop one.

  12. #32
    Council Member Sergeant T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    67

    Default American, 19, Among Gaza Flotilla Dead

    The first of many narratives that will emerge.

    "They [Israeli commandos] were trying to land on the boat. So obviously there was this hand-to-hand combat and during that process the people on the boat were basically able to disarm some of the soldiers because they did have guns with them," Burney told Reuters. "So they basically took the guns away from them and took the cartridges out and threw them away."

    Asked if anyone had used the guns against the Israeli commandos, Burney said, "No, not at all."

    "Yes, we took their guns. It would be self defence even if we fired their guns," Bulent Yildirim, chairman of the IHH, said.

    "We told our friends on board we will die, become martyrs, but never let us be shown... as the ones who used guns," he said, adding that people shouted that the weapons should not be used.

    "By this decision, our friends accepted death, and we threw all the guns we took from them into the sea," Yildirim said.
    We didn't do anything, but if we did it would justified.

    "Turkey will never forget such an attack on its ships and its people in international waters. Turkey's ties with Israel will never be the same again," Turkish President Abdullah Gul told a news conference. "Israel made one of the greatest mistakes in its history. It will see in time what a huge mistake it made," he said.

  13. #33
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Just my 2 cents worth...
    Attached Images Attached Images

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Just for my understanding, who can decide who gets blockaded?

    i.e. Can Cuba "Blockade" the USA and then claim that they have the right to search any ship entering US coastal waters?

    Surely there is an international authority who decides if blockades are legal or enforceable?

  15. #35
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Not my intention to comment here, (even in response to those who wish harm upon my people and that surface only in relationship to this issue) .
    Well, I dont count myself as one of "those"... BUT...

    There is more to the argument than supporting the Israeli right to a homeland or supporting the "Arabs"..

    having given a bit of thought to this (not taking sides, but just the general "can't the folks down South find a solution and stop bothering the rest of the world" kinda guy) I have come to the conclusion that a lot of what "those" people feel is simple irritation.

    As an athiest, and since I was a kid, a continent hopper, I have no time for land claims based on any form of religion and who occupied it 2000 years ago. It irritates the hell out of me when such things happen and when other countries are dragged into it.

    The "right" to occupation and "right to homelands"... by either side is simply not my problem.

    If someone wants to live somewhere, it should be based on their ability to support themselves, by themselves.

    On a small level...

    I like a certain river bank, and build a hut there with my wife and kid. I ignore the fact that crocodiles live on the bank. Every 2 weeks we are attacked by crocs... and every week I have to call the cops who have to come and save my butt... at some point the cops (and right they are) are going to get pssed. They are going to go "sure, you have the "Right" to live there... but lets get serious dude... we are all getting irritated by having to work overtime to save your ass because you are to stubborn to move to a bank without crocs..."

    Now, whether my god gave me the river bank, or the crocs god igave it to them, whether I found the hut first or the crocs did... the cops dont care... they calculate up the trouble I am causing, and if they are clever, at some stage will ignore the phone and let me and the crocs fight it out, best man wins.

    Sigh.....

    Just settle it and let FIFA dominate the web for a bit.....

  16. #36
    Council Member Hacksaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lansing, KS
    Posts
    361

    Default Quote of the Day

    While I can get behind the quote of the day nomination...

    My favorite is still...

    "I don't think that means what you think that means" Indigo Montoya
    Hacksaw
    Say hello to my 2 x 4

  17. #37
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default On the British domestic political front ...

    In an article in the Spectator, Flotilla Follies, Daniel Korski states that ...
    Two groups in the Conservative party that have worried most about Con-Lib government are the social conservatives and the neo-conservatives. The latter have been particularly worried about UK relations with Israel. There is a real concern in parts of the Conservatives Party that three factors would come together to sour Anglo-Israeli relations: what the neo-conservatives see as the Foreign Office’s knee-jerk Arabism, the presence of many supposed Arabists in Cameron-Hague’s teams, and the anti-Israel bias exhibited by many leading Liberal Democrats. Whatever the truth of these allegations, they are held with considerable fervour.

    But Nick Clegg’s reaction to the conflict shows that the Lib Dem leader is both holding to the middle-of-the-road line put out by the Foreign Secretary and shedding the anti-Israel sentiment of old. The deputy Prime Minister, who campaigned against the Gaza blockade before joining the coalition government, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme Israel had "every right" to protect its people from terrorist threats. His addition -- to ask if it was “in Israel's long-term security interest to have so many people confined in that way” -- is hardly radical. David Cameron himself called the raid on the Gaza aid flotilla "completely unacceptable" and deplored the loss of life.

  18. #38
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seabee View Post
    Just my 2 cents worth...
    And a priceless 2 cents they are!
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  19. #39
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Seabee

    The traditional IL on naval blockades is:
    1. It is an act of war.
    2. It is declared by one of the warring parties.
    3. It is lawful as long as it can be enforced.
    4. It can be enforced by whatever means are ncessary - traditionally, that was seizing a blockade runner, imprisoning its crew, and seizing its its cargo, or blowing it out of the water.

    Cheers

    JohnT

  20. #40
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacksaw View Post
    While I can get behind the quote of the day nomination...

    My favorite is still...

    "I don't think that means what you think that means" Indigo Montoya
    A bit like this one:

    I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
    (Alan Greenspan)
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 06-04-2010 at 09:41 PM. Reason: Add quote marks
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

Similar Threads

  1. Is it time for psuedo operations in A-Stan?...
    By jcustis in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 11:05 AM
  2. Son Tay Raid MH-53M Pave Low IV Retired
    By SWJED in forum Historians
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-09-2008, 03:44 PM
  3. Troops raid Iranian consulate in Iraq
    By jonSlack in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-28-2007, 11:36 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •