ABOriginally Posted by Abu Buckwheat
Off thread. I am reading your book. Good job!
Tom
As a former CT I am biased because one of my old CT instructors was a survivor who was supposed to be in the collection room before it was obliterated by the torpedo ... we studied this attack in our A-school as a failure of mission self-defense (cryptologically speaking) . I've read everything UNCLAS or DECLAS on this and I agree with the theory put out by a writer in the Naval Institute's Proceedings and the book Assault on the Liberty. The most logical reason for why they attacked was that they Israelis delayed the invasion of the Golan until the Liberty was out of the way. Forget Bamford as his "killing POWs" theory holds no water.
Having worked with the Israelis I know that protecting Israel is job #1. The Liberty was bringing undue attention from the Russian Intel, Israel decided to make an example of it. Maybe they thought it would be acceptable to mistake it for an Egyptian tanker. It worked and the best effect of it was to move collection from AGRs to warships.
Putting Foot to Al Qaeda Ass Since 1993
AB
Off thread. I am reading your book. Good job!
Tom
While this is pure speculation, if we accept complicity in the attack at the highest levels of the Israeli government, then another possible understanding of the Israeli motive was an attempt to bring the US into the affair as an overt partner. Had the Israelis sunk the Liberty off El Arish with unmarked aircraft, they could have foisted it off on the Egyptians and deflected US anger that way, perhaps getting the US to enter the war on Israel's side. The Israelis could have significantly expanded the war if the US also committed forces to the effort, particularlly in the Suez against Egypt. Imagine how things may have turned out against Syria had the entire IDF been available there and not parcelled between the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Shades of Fall, 1956, when Britain and France conducted military operations to ensure the Suez Canal stayed open. (Not to be confused with the earlier 1956 Suez Crisis after Nasser nationalized the waterway).
Following this "conspiracy theory", the MTBs may originally have had orders to pick up the survivors and look like the good guy rescuers of their American allies. Once the aircraft bungled the job and didn't sink the Liberty, the Israelis required other attacks to finish things up; hence the MTB attacks.
One thing really has me puzzled and amazed: the apparent ineptitude of the Israeli attacks. If this came from the top, one would think the IAF would have studied up on aircraft vs. ship attack TTPs, such as those the Japanese used against the Prince of Wales in the Malaya Straits in WWII. The poor showing in these attacks inclines me to believe that this was an attack executed at a lower level on the orders of a field commander with the assets he had available, rather than a high level effort using the best availalble means in the entire IDF.
As others have noted, I doubt we will learn the truth in our lifetimes.
It was a short war, not a lot of time for planning, and probably a snap decision under pressure on the part of the Israeli leadership once presented with evidence of the ship's existence and capabilities. Even if well planned, this does not remove the possibility of incompetence --- if the Lebanon War did not remove the IAF's aura of invincibility, I'm not sure what will. The crew's injuries, testimony, and the repeated attacks certainly point towards intent and enthusiasm if not necessarily capacity.One thing really has me puzzled and amazed: the apparent ineptitude of the Israeli attacks. If this came from the top, one would think the IAF would have studied up on aircraft vs. ship attack TTPs, such as those the Japanese used against the Prince of Wales in the Malaya Straits in WWII. The poor showing in these attacks inclines me to believe that this was an attack executed at a lower level on the orders of a field commander with the assets he had available, rather than a high level effort using the best availalble means in the entire IDF.
Thank you, Assault on the Liberty will be added to my constantly growing reading list. Is this the Proceedings article you reference?: Friendless Fire? By David C. Walsh, Proceedings, June 2003
Absolutely no question that the national interest comes first, last, and only. If anything I can admire and appreciate that. But I’ll contest the assertion made in our nation, that the U.S. and Israel’s national interests are intertwined. It is an argument that no matter how many times repeated, defies logic, no two nations will always have the same interests.
Israel may be getting a dozen Raptors, but I think that means the Saudi’s will be getting a dozen Raptors. And the PRC will be getting a Raptor, or at least significant related technology transfers via Israel. And my hunch is the increased Raptor production will drive down unit cost, which will bring about a successful push to increase U.S. purchases. So we will spend billions more dollars,of which we don’t have, on a plane designed to fight the Chinese (who by the way will be financing our purchase), and is of marginal use in our “war on terrorism”.
We have plenty of billions of doallrs, we * just
don't allocate them at all well.
Raptors, like the Virginia class and M1A2 SEPs may not have much use in the terror tangle but they do have other uses and we really do need to be a full spectrum force. Keeps a lot of folks honest; there's a reason North Korea is playing better with others and Iran is unduly nervous.
Not to mention the fact that technology is a moving train...
* Read Congress...
Meir Amit Ain't talking
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909552.html
"Israeli communications said to prove IAF knew Liberty was U.S. ship
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent ........................
The report stated that the U.S. National Security Agency - to which the intelligence gathering ship belonged - was able to intercept IAF communications according to which, at some stage, the pilots identified the ship as American but were nonetheless instructed to push ahead with the attack.
According to the report, some of the transcripts and intelligence information have disappeared, while the rest can be found in U.S. government archives"
Nobody is yet pointing a finger at Meir Amit, chief spook of Ha-Mossad in those days who maybe called the shot. Under his tenure, Syria had been penetrated via Eli Cohen, he orchestrated the defection and grab of the new Mig-21 via an Iraqi defector and he had penetrated the Egyptian military - quite a resume' and demonstrated ability to make important decisions. One can easily imagine such a decision being made by him or delegated to him to make. What were his assets telling him about America's presence in the region? Why did he step down in 1968 after 5 years with such success? How long had the Liberty been cruising and had we for any reason been in touch with the aggressors against Israel, other than routine diplomatic exchanges? We would like to think not because of course we would never cause any harm to a friend who wasn't clearly seeing the big picture and long range strategic interests of all involved.
Difference is with the subsidy. The Israelis will be getting theirs free from us, while the Saudis will be paying us and subsidizing the Israelis' buy (they pay for theirs and can't use them).Israel may be getting a dozen Raptors, but I think that means the Saudi’s will be getting a dozen Raptors.
I don't think the Israelis would be that brave to sell Raptor tech to the PLAAF --- unless Giuliani wins in '08.
Last edited by tequila; 10-04-2007 at 06:44 PM.
NSA 1981, public release 2003:
Attack on a SIGINT Collector: The U.S.S. Liberty
This is what Kilcullen means what he says:
People are not mobilized individually, by cold consideration of rational facts
They are mobilized in groups, by influencers and opinion leaders, through cultural narratives that include 7 basic elements:
A simple, easily expressed story or explanation for events
A choice of words and story format that resonates with the target group
Symbolic imagery that creates an emotional bond (ideally at the unconscious level)
Elements of Myth (“sacred story”) that tap into deep cultural undercurrents of identity and appeal to universal ideals
......
People believe Israel is David against Goliath. They won't believe that 600 nuclear weapons makes you a Goliath.
Their simple explanation for the Middle East is that Israel only kills terrorists and therefore they they won't believe the facts about the USS Liberty.
That's why I keep saying Abu Ghraib, Blackwater, Haditha etc. matter in COIN. Once the population creates simple explanations, contrary facts won't change their mind.
*off topic somewhat
I was googling some of the names in Jed's post #9 and came across this article:
WITHIN A MONTH! THE BRINGING DOWN OF BOBBY RAY INMAN
How true or accurate is this?
If true, then we have overlooked (and swept under the rug) Israel committing war crimes and acts of war against us, committing treason, and violating human rights with the Palestinians. (Why is a wall built around the Warsaw Ghetto considered evil and Satanic, yet when Israel does the same thing to the Palestinians, it's fine?)The most fascinating, but oddly enough the least reported, aspect of the Inman Affair, is the source of the implacable hostility that Safire and his allies have borne for many years toward Bobby Ray Inman. Inman revealed the source in his famous January 18 press conference, but he failed to bring out the background. The source: In early 1981, Israel suddenly bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor. Puzzled, Inman, then deputy head of the CIA, realized that Israel could only have known where the nuclear reactor was located by having gotten access to U.S. satellite photographs. But Israel's access was supposed to be limited to photographs of direct threats to Israel, which would not include Baghdad. On looking into the matter, furthermore, Inman found that Israel was habitually obtaining unwarranted access to photographs of regions even farther removed, including Libya and Pakistan. In the absence of Reagan's head of the CIA, Bill Casey, Inman ordered Israel's access to U.S. satellite photographs limited to 250 miles of its border. When Casey returned from a South Pacific trip, his favorite journalist and former campaign manager, Bill Safire, urged Casey to reverse the decision, a pressure that coincided with complaints from Israeli Defense Minister General Ariel Sharon, who had rushed to Washington to try to change the new policy.
This is absurd. I'm glad they're not in Iraq. (or at least that we know of) Thanks for posting all this information (even though it makes my blood pressure rise). IMHO, it looks like we have a better ally with the Arabs.
There's a few evangelical Christian friends I know who I need to have a talk with.
I guess it depends on who one talks to...
I cannot recall ever talking to anyone who hasn't said, essentially, that in the Israeli-Palestinian muddle, there's plenty of blame for both sides. I have seen contrary articles in the media as you say -- but then I don't put much stock in reporters...
Similarly, I've met only four people I can recall who defended the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty -- and two of them were Israelis, only one of whom even attempted to paint it as a total accidental attack. Most people at the time were extremely skeptical and most of those with whom I've discussed it since are similarly inclined.
I don't think anyone with any sense at all doubts that Abu Gharaib, Blackwater, Haditha etc. matter in COIN or that once any population creates simple explanations, contrary facts won't change minds. Certainly no one in the Armed Forces doubts that and most work quite hard to prevent such incidents. Blackwater is pretty much roundly despised according to anyone in uniform I've talked to who's seen them in operation. Thus, I think that while you're certainly entitled to say it where ever and as often as you wish, here, you're sort of preaching to the proverbial choir, I doubt you'll get any real disagreement.
Well, the bit about the imagery is confirmed on the CIA's own public website:
Israel's Quest for Satellite Intelligence
....In early June 1981, Israeli Air Force aircraft successfully bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility near Baghdad. Curious about how the Israelis had obtained the necessary targeting information to carry out the dramatic long-range strike, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (DDCI) Bobby Inman asked for a review of imagery and other materials that had been provided to Israeli intelligence officials. As previously noted, policies in effect at the time called for limiting Israeli access to satellite imagery to those photos showing potential direct threats to Israel. Inman quickly found that the Israeli and United States concepts of what constituted such threats differed substantially. During their nearly six months of renewed access to US satellite imagery, the Israelis had obtained "a lot" of information not only about Iraq, but also about Libya, Pakistan, and other countries lying at considerable distances from Israel. The DDCI immediately restricted future distribution of satellite photography. The Israelis were to be allowed to receive imagery only of areas within 250 miles of Israel's borders. They could, however, make specific requests for any other coverage desired, to be approved or denied by the DCI on a case-by-case basis.
Israel's then-Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon, according to Inman, was "furious," and immediately protested the decision directly to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who backed the DDCI. DCI Casey, who had been traveling abroad, disagreed with his deputy's decision, but did not reverse it on his return. Instead, he effectively ignored it. Retired Israeli Maj. Gen. Yehoshua Saguy, who served as the head of Israeli military intelligence from 1979 to 1983, confirmed that "Casey [said] ‘yes' all the time" to Israeli requests for satellite photography of areas lying farther than 250 miles from Israel's borders. An unnamed Israeli official has been quoted as saying that the level of support in furnishing satellite intelligence provided by DCI Casey was considered extremely valuable by the Israelis, and that they referred to it among themselves as "Casey's gift."....
No it was an article written in 1975-1976 (??) it was a detailed analysis of the attack as an Israeli plan to stop brining Russian attention to why they were loitering off Northern Israel... and was followed up by an article from Capt McGonagle who blasted the Israelis. I was a Sea Cadet when i read it ... Yes I was a Navy geek from the start... blame my Old Man, the Master Chief!
Putting Foot to Al Qaeda Ass Since 1993
Maybe people don't defend it, but that is setting the bar pretty low. I think that the fact the deaths of these US servicemen are the only deaths of US servicemen the average working stiff doesn't care about is significant.
There's a difference between "It's bad," and "It makes it almost impossible for us to do our mission." I'm in the latter camp, because, innocent people getting shot always bothers average working stiffs who live in the neighborhood and they rarely warm to outsiders who are more interesting in protecting their friends then getting justice. They define "justice" based on their myths. A couple months in the brig doesn't cut it, no matter how factually harsh that punishment may be.
You are aware that
"Most people don't defend it" effectively means they object to it or at least do not believe the US government spin on it?
I suggest the average working stiff today is barely aware of the deaths of the crew members on the Liberty because it happened 40 years ago. Most of 'em aren't all that wrapped around the axle about Viet Nam -- or Desert Storm -- either. A great many aren't worried about last years casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter...
Who are this batch of "working stiffs?" American? Iraqi? If American, we disagree. If there's any nation more dismissive of bloodshed than (most, not all) Americans, I have yet to find it. If Iraqi, we can generally agree but I'd point out that the mores and criteria for punishment are quite different.There's a difference between "It's bad," and "It makes it almost impossible for us to do our mission." I'm in the latter camp, because, innocent people getting shot always bothers average working stiffs who live in the neighborhood and they rarely warm to outsiders who are more interesting in protecting their friends then getting justice. They define "justice" based on their myths. A couple months in the brig doesn't cut it, no matter how factually harsh that punishment may be.
None of those things, BTW, make it impossible for the kids to do their jobs, slightly more difficult perhaps but if so only very slightly. I can't use the 'us' because I'm not one of them. However, I do have a son who is one and his unit just happened to be pulling exterior security at Abu Gharaib when that mess popped. They became aware of the problem and his unit fed it upstream long before it broke in the media. He and his unit were probably a whole lot more upset about it than you were or are because they were out dodging bullets and IEDs catching people, being reasonably careful not to hurt or degrade them and turning 'em over to the reasonably safe MPs at AG only to find out some of the MPs were acting like idiots. One could say, in fact, they were really hostile toward the MPs and more so at the NCOs and Officers that allowed that to go on.-- but it didn't make their job a bit harder.
The Haditha case is crumbling around NIS deserving ears as we speak. Blackwater is probably another tempest in a teapot but I propose to wait until the FBI investigation is over before I go into judgment mode.
Nothing in the ME is as it seems...
Here we go again with the USS Liberty sailing in waters that just happened to be in the middle of a major shooting war during a time when the Israeli Air Force virtually destroyed the entire Egyptian Air Force still on the ground for the most part. An Israeli Air Force that was on the highest of alerts and looking for threats and every angle in a extremely fast shooting conflict. I happen to agree with with the fog of war explanation of the Israelis and they made good, as far as that can go, with settlements. Let's talk about Omar Bradley bombing our own ground forces not once but twice during Operation Cobra. I don't see a lot of people crying about that too much. The attack on the USS Liberty was only twenty-three years later. Today, it would be like looking back at friendly fire incidents during Grenada or Panama. The attack on the USS Liberty inflicted damage, disability, and even death. So, did our attack helicopters looking right at our men and equipment and still firing on them. What makes this news, as opposed to Operation Cobra, is the fact that the Israelis were involved. It was during the Cold War. We supplied the Isaelis and the Soviet Union supplied everyone else. The USS Liberty was at the wrong time and place on purpose. A calculated risk that was ignored or accepted. Given the underlying canon for the SWC I would go so far as to say it was entirely the fault of United States command and control.
"But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
"Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"
High altitude bombing during WW II was one thing,
a better comparison would be the friendly fire incidents by A-10s in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Proving that low altitude strafing can hit the wrong targets.
Of course, all three of those were incidents where one pilot made a three second mistake on a single pass. Same thing is true of Attack chopper firing, short term, burst or two. The Liberty incident was different.
The Liberty was hit by multiple passes by at least two aircraft and by three Torpedo Boats over a period of almost an hour. That after having been overflown on at least two occasions by Israeli aircraft the day before -- and whose pilots exchanged waves with Liberty's crew...
You believe that the Liberty was solely a victim of US Command and control errors and the Israelis are effectively innocent?
Fascinating.
No, I don't think the Israelis were innocent. And I don't think the Americans were innocent as well. No different than I think Omar Bradley was innocent of carpet bombing our troops not once but twice during the Battle of Normandy based on a tactical decision to fly across our own FEBA rather than fly horizontally on the Germans' FEBA using an Army Air Corps whose only objective use of bombers were strategic in nature. The bottom line is the USS Liberty shouldn't have been where it was. The fact that units of Israelis recognized the ship and other units didn't is no different than any other circumstances surrounding any other friendly fire incident. It is sensationalized because it involves Jews making a mistake. Any time Israel makes a mistake it conjures up all sorts of conspiracy theories and smear campaigns.
Such is that the USS Liberty was deliberately attacked with extreme prejudice, 911 was executed by our own government, and the Holocaust never occurred. The only elephant in the room whereas the USS Liberty is concerned is speculation. Something we try to avoid on the SWC [facetious and emphasis added].Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest...[such as] wages isn't income and only gold is money.
How many Americans were killed and maimed by friendly fire in Vietnam during the same days of the Six Day War?
What is fascinating is that there is enough information readily available to answer the number of casualties and damage of the USS Liberty. Researching friendly fire incidents in Vietnam during the same time period might be a little more difficult to obtain.
Last edited by Culpeper; 10-05-2007 at 05:05 AM.
"But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
"Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"
He does have a point.
As much as I may disagree with Culpeper on certain things, he has a point.
[/quote]
the USS Liberty is concerned is speculation. Something we try to avoid on the SWC [facetious and emphasis added].
[/quote]
Look, I know I am knew, but what attracted me to this site was the lack of speculation where there is no information to speculate on. He has a point. This is one of the few issues where this site has gotten like this.
Also, unless some of the people here have knowledge they aren't telling us we are going on nothing. We know it was a messed up incident that makes no damn sense, but thats about it. We can speculate that something definetly going on in both the Israeli and American governments to warrant such a large cover up. It is reasonable to speculate (it is speculation even though we are pretty sure) that there was a cover due to the amount of disinformation around the issue, but due to the amount of insanity we cannot reasonably judge wheter this was in fact a giant cover up or just a bunch of incompetent beurocrats scrambling during war time to cover thier asses and stirring up so much dust it looks like a sandstorm.
Although, I strongly beleive there was a cover up I keep my speculations out of it. All you need to do is live in a foreign country, Canada (yes, it is a foreign country, regretably), for a few years to see why this stuff can just be insane. You may not hear much about it down here but there are a hell of a lot of people (especially in parts of the forces) who have plenty of arguments claiming the US bombed the Canadian soldiers on purpose. I am very serious about this, you would not believe the stuff I have heard and been subjected to. I've heard this from Liberal Party (its a real party up ther) and NDP [National Democratic Party which has no equivilent party in the US] nutcases, but most of it has come from members of the Forces.
Every incident we've had with other country has people (a lot of them) throughing speculation around. Someone I used to know showed me the articles Japanes papers (legitimate ones) have published about American attacks on Japanese fishermen. Although, this definetely was an attack (quite possibly on purpose) we don't know why. We are speculating on Israeli motives (no matter how many there may be) and then sepculating on speculation on speculation. At the same time nobody is speculating on what WE were doing, and by that I mean every part of the government. Who knows what the CIA was doing. If there is one thing we can learn from History (which I believe is something all of us have studied) is that nothing is that simple.
Sorry if I am being a bit agressive with this, but after dealing with stuff like this in Canada I want to make sure I never end up doing what they were [no insult to most Canadians, but you have to admit that your society (which like the US consists of many], like the US and all of the western world, is getting more and more obsessed with what is politically and socially trendy.]
Sorry about the rant, but I really have an issue with this.
Adam
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks