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.Originally Posted by slapout9
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
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
Second the nomination.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
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
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.
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.(even in response to those who wish harm upon my people and that surface only in relationship to this issue)
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.
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.
American, 19, Among Gaza Flotilla Dead
The first of many narratives that will emerge.
We didn't do anything, but if we did it would justified."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.
"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.
Just my 2 cents worth...
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?
And a priceless 2 cents they are!
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
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
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks