Keeping with the theme of my last post, I just want to remark on the inexplicable stupidity of Israel's handling of the situation in Gaza. I am somewhat led to believe that Israel is less concerned with actually preventing terrorism as much as they are perpetuating it, because as long as they can paint all Palestinians as terrorists, they can hope to keep international opinion on their side while they continue to expand their borders in violation of UN Resolution 242. Perhaps they are just simply guilty of being foolish. Whatever the case, I think they should take notes from the pages of the book The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World:
In comparison to Western high-tech forces [terrorists and insurgents] are ill-equipped, and adapt readily available civil technology to their own military ends, as with the cell phone used for initiating an improvised explosive device - an event now so common it has the military acronym of IED. The threats they pose are not directly to our states or territories but to the security of our people - in the flesh and in the media - and it is there that the fight takes place. But this fight must be won so as to achieve the ultimate objective of capturing the will of the people; in other words, one can escalate with increasing firepower and high-tech forces to the theoretical point of massive destruction - but beyond bringing great collateral damage, this will play into the hands of the opponent. Israel's attacks on Lebanese civilians infrastructure in the conflict of 2006 gives a good example of these consequences. Apart from raising serious legal and moral issues, it is this way of thinking that leads to the phenomenon of winning every battle and losing the war. - Gen. Rupert Smith
Clearly, no one within the IDF has read General Smith's book.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
United States must start condemning some Israeli actions
We of all people collectively understand the need to defend our homeland against terrorist attacks. Not one person would suggest that Israel has a right to defend itself. However, the ongoing bombing campaign in Gaza is just unacceptable, and is most certainly going to achieve a quite opposite outcome from preventing terrorist attacks.
Civilian casualties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are nothing new, however the frequency and magnitude of the loss of life during these past weeks has been overwhelming. There is really not a more defining moment of this Israeli campaign than what happened early this morning in Gaza, when Israeli tanks shelled a UN-run school, killing 2 young Palestinian boys and wounding 14 others. The boys were 5 and 7 years old. This school had been acting as a shelter, harboring 1,600 civilians seeking refuge from the bombardment. A UN spokesman said that the Israeli army would have known their exact GPS coordinates and that there were people taking shelter there. This might be explained as a horrible accident, except that it is the 3rd UN shelter that IDF forces have hit in the past 22 days. According to UN medical sources, over 1,200 Palestinians, 400 of them children, have died since the bombing began 22 days ago.
This indicates that Israel is not engaging in just counter-terrorism, but terrorism itself. This campaign has not been to simply destroy Hamas targets, but to terrorize the population, hoping that they are so devastated by the innocent loss of life that they will be too terrified to fight against the Israeli state. A senior Israeli official almost said as much when he told CNN that "Hamas' military machine has been substantially destroyed. They have been given a sufficient deterrence that they will think twice before attacking again." In other words, they will remember how many children died the last time they shot rockets at Israel.
This is such an illogical assumption it is astounding. It seems that Israel is making the assumption that terrorists will somehow be deterred by human loss of life. This is what they WANT. Hamas has triggered such an enormous overreaction from Israel, that the only thing the IDF has accomplished is to create more hatred and resent towards the state. Palestinians aren't going to remember that Hamas triggered this, they're going to remember Israeli tanks shelling schools and killing hundreds of children. The children who witnessed the killing of their friends and families by Israeli forces are going to grow up with a deep-seeded hatred of the state of Israel, and in all likelihood they will be much more likely to engage in terrorist attacks.
Why must the United States start condemning these actions? Because remaining silent and sitting idly by while Israel commits these atrocities is putting our de facto seal of approval on the actions, and the whole world sees that. We cannot on one hand claim to be engaged in a war on terror, and then on the other passively support it. To do so is outrageously hypocritical and only further increases the negative perception of our nation in Middle Eastern states where we are trying to implement freedom and democracy. These people want no part of a Western society that approves of the killing of innocent children.
Simply making a statement against the brutal tactics being used by Israel would go very far in saving the reputation of the United States abroad, and may even force Israel to reconsider their method of "combating terrorism." To take that a necessary step further, we could stop supplying the money and weapons that are used in IDF campaigns such as this one, but that is a post for another time.
Civilian casualties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are nothing new, however the frequency and magnitude of the loss of life during these past weeks has been overwhelming. There is really not a more defining moment of this Israeli campaign than what happened early this morning in Gaza, when Israeli tanks shelled a UN-run school, killing 2 young Palestinian boys and wounding 14 others. The boys were 5 and 7 years old. This school had been acting as a shelter, harboring 1,600 civilians seeking refuge from the bombardment. A UN spokesman said that the Israeli army would have known their exact GPS coordinates and that there were people taking shelter there. This might be explained as a horrible accident, except that it is the 3rd UN shelter that IDF forces have hit in the past 22 days. According to UN medical sources, over 1,200 Palestinians, 400 of them children, have died since the bombing began 22 days ago.
This indicates that Israel is not engaging in just counter-terrorism, but terrorism itself. This campaign has not been to simply destroy Hamas targets, but to terrorize the population, hoping that they are so devastated by the innocent loss of life that they will be too terrified to fight against the Israeli state. A senior Israeli official almost said as much when he told CNN that "Hamas' military machine has been substantially destroyed. They have been given a sufficient deterrence that they will think twice before attacking again." In other words, they will remember how many children died the last time they shot rockets at Israel.
This is such an illogical assumption it is astounding. It seems that Israel is making the assumption that terrorists will somehow be deterred by human loss of life. This is what they WANT. Hamas has triggered such an enormous overreaction from Israel, that the only thing the IDF has accomplished is to create more hatred and resent towards the state. Palestinians aren't going to remember that Hamas triggered this, they're going to remember Israeli tanks shelling schools and killing hundreds of children. The children who witnessed the killing of their friends and families by Israeli forces are going to grow up with a deep-seeded hatred of the state of Israel, and in all likelihood they will be much more likely to engage in terrorist attacks.
Why must the United States start condemning these actions? Because remaining silent and sitting idly by while Israel commits these atrocities is putting our de facto seal of approval on the actions, and the whole world sees that. We cannot on one hand claim to be engaged in a war on terror, and then on the other passively support it. To do so is outrageously hypocritical and only further increases the negative perception of our nation in Middle Eastern states where we are trying to implement freedom and democracy. These people want no part of a Western society that approves of the killing of innocent children.
Simply making a statement against the brutal tactics being used by Israel would go very far in saving the reputation of the United States abroad, and may even force Israel to reconsider their method of "combating terrorism." To take that a necessary step further, we could stop supplying the money and weapons that are used in IDF campaigns such as this one, but that is a post for another time.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Reports reveal US involved in "shadow ops" around the world
... and you thought the war on terror was limited to Iraq and Afghanistan. On Monday the NY Times published a report that US Special forces have been conducting secret raids on Al-Qaeda targets since 2004; strikes that have been made without the knowledge of foreign governments in Pakistan, Syria, and elsewhere.
The Times states that "These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States."
According to the Time Online of London, this "secret" war consists of 50,000 US Special forces troops (Green Berets, Navy Seals, Rangers and a shadow unit codenamed "Gray Fox") that are on standby for these covert ops.
Apparently though, this "groundbreaking" discovery is only news to those who haven't been paying attention. In fact Bill Roggio of the Weekly Standard wrote that, contrary to the secretive nature that the Times has portrayed, "anyone who has been remotely following operations against al Qaeda and its allied terror groups has long been able to deduce the U.S. government has granted approval for the military and CIA to attack high value targets outside of the hot zones of Iraq and Afghanistan." Roggio reported that with very little time and effort he was able to track down seven such raids, the most blatant being an assassination of Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden's brother in law, in Madagascar during January 07. In addition, Roggio points to US covert ops that targeted Al-Qaeda cells in Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania.
The NY Times has reported on this in a way that seemingly attempts to paint these actions as an overreaching use of power on the part of the Bush administration, something that has been kept secret, while more conservative sources have said this was no secret at all.
Here's the truth of the matter: this kind of action is not new at all. It should be no surprise to anyone that after the attacks of 9/11, our government committed to hunting down Al-Qaeda anywhere in the world they might hide. Naturally these operations are kept secret, as the diplomatic ramifications of conducting military operations within states we are not at war with would obviously be negative. Clearly we don't fear any response from states like Somalia or Madagascar, as they pose no threat, either militarily or diplomatically, to the US. However it is not in our best interests to have the world know that we are sneaking across borders and blowing things up in the night. But this is exactly the kind of action that many opponents to the Bush administration's strategy of conducting this war have been in favor of. Those who opposed the use of large ground forces like those in Iraq and Afghanistan usually favored special-ops missions that would "surgically" strike at Al-Qaeda targets. It is clear now that those types of missions have been ongoing.
Further reading:
Report Confirms "shadow war" waged by US Special Forces - csmonitor.com
The Times states that "These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States."
According to the Time Online of London, this "secret" war consists of 50,000 US Special forces troops (Green Berets, Navy Seals, Rangers and a shadow unit codenamed "Gray Fox") that are on standby for these covert ops.
Apparently though, this "groundbreaking" discovery is only news to those who haven't been paying attention. In fact Bill Roggio of the Weekly Standard wrote that, contrary to the secretive nature that the Times has portrayed, "anyone who has been remotely following operations against al Qaeda and its allied terror groups has long been able to deduce the U.S. government has granted approval for the military and CIA to attack high value targets outside of the hot zones of Iraq and Afghanistan." Roggio reported that with very little time and effort he was able to track down seven such raids, the most blatant being an assassination of Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden's brother in law, in Madagascar during January 07. In addition, Roggio points to US covert ops that targeted Al-Qaeda cells in Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania.
The NY Times has reported on this in a way that seemingly attempts to paint these actions as an overreaching use of power on the part of the Bush administration, something that has been kept secret, while more conservative sources have said this was no secret at all.
Here's the truth of the matter: this kind of action is not new at all. It should be no surprise to anyone that after the attacks of 9/11, our government committed to hunting down Al-Qaeda anywhere in the world they might hide. Naturally these operations are kept secret, as the diplomatic ramifications of conducting military operations within states we are not at war with would obviously be negative. Clearly we don't fear any response from states like Somalia or Madagascar, as they pose no threat, either militarily or diplomatically, to the US. However it is not in our best interests to have the world know that we are sneaking across borders and blowing things up in the night. But this is exactly the kind of action that many opponents to the Bush administration's strategy of conducting this war have been in favor of. Those who opposed the use of large ground forces like those in Iraq and Afghanistan usually favored special-ops missions that would "surgically" strike at Al-Qaeda targets. It is clear now that those types of missions have been ongoing.
Further reading:
Report Confirms "shadow war" waged by US Special Forces - csmonitor.com
Monday, November 10, 2008
Foreign policy challenges for Obama administration
President Obama has largely been endorsed by the international community as a welcome change to the unpopular Bush administration. However we will soon find out just how cooperative they are when they are called on to back up their support of the new President's policies.
One of the key components to Obama's stated plans for the war on terror is to increase the focus on Afghanistan and increase multi-lateral cooperation in the region by bringing in forces from other countries to assist in the operation. As Howard Lafranchi of the Christian Science Monitor noted, "As part of a renewed dialogue with America’s partners, Obama is expected to make specific demands of allies early on – for example, over the NATO commitment in Afghanistan. The nearly global euphoria over Obama’s election will face a quick test as the new president asks for more troops to bolster an expanded US effort in Afghanistan, some foreign-policy experts say." Wess Mitchell, director of the Washington based Center for European Policy Analysis, said that “...this new administration is going to pretty quickly run into an expectations-reality gap,” referring to the willingness of European states to contribute more forces to Afghanistan.
Europe in general is already displeased with the war, and countries like Germany already have public opposition to the support they are already lending to the operation in Afghanistan. The foreign ministry of Germany has already voiced concerns that Obama will ask for more troop contributions to Afghanistan, and expressed that it would not be persuaded to comply. Eckart von Klaeden, foreign policy spokesperson, said that "[t]he deployment of German soldiers will be decided by the German government and the German parliament, regardless of what requests a future US president may approach us with." And the problem is that the political environment of European countries have figuratively tied their hands in regards to more action in Afghanistan. Karsten Voigt, another German foreign policy expert asserted that "Our partners know that [increased troop deployments to Afghanistan] [are] politically impossible in Germany, especially during an election year."
What Americans must realize now is that while the expectations of the Obama presidency and what it will accomplish abroad are sky high, those expectations must be tempered with the realization that although Europe has embraced an Obama presidency, their level of cooperation may not change in regards to the war on terror. For this reason it may be unrealistic to expect a marked change in multillateralism over the course of the next four years.
Conversely, it may become evident soon that Obama will encounter much of the same opposition that President Bush has in enlisting the help of Europe. Given the re-direction of policy that the Bush administration has already taken, we may not see much change at all. And while it is expected that Obama will attempt to facilitate the needs and concerns of our allies more than the prior administration did, experts like Wess Mitchell expect “more continuity than divergence."
The challenge for Obama will be to overcome the uncooperative policies of Europe, something the Bush administration was unable to do, and bring a renewed sense of multilateralism to the war on terror.
One of the key components to Obama's stated plans for the war on terror is to increase the focus on Afghanistan and increase multi-lateral cooperation in the region by bringing in forces from other countries to assist in the operation. As Howard Lafranchi of the Christian Science Monitor noted, "As part of a renewed dialogue with America’s partners, Obama is expected to make specific demands of allies early on – for example, over the NATO commitment in Afghanistan. The nearly global euphoria over Obama’s election will face a quick test as the new president asks for more troops to bolster an expanded US effort in Afghanistan, some foreign-policy experts say." Wess Mitchell, director of the Washington based Center for European Policy Analysis, said that “...this new administration is going to pretty quickly run into an expectations-reality gap,” referring to the willingness of European states to contribute more forces to Afghanistan.
Europe in general is already displeased with the war, and countries like Germany already have public opposition to the support they are already lending to the operation in Afghanistan. The foreign ministry of Germany has already voiced concerns that Obama will ask for more troop contributions to Afghanistan, and expressed that it would not be persuaded to comply. Eckart von Klaeden, foreign policy spokesperson, said that "[t]he deployment of German soldiers will be decided by the German government and the German parliament, regardless of what requests a future US president may approach us with." And the problem is that the political environment of European countries have figuratively tied their hands in regards to more action in Afghanistan. Karsten Voigt, another German foreign policy expert asserted that "Our partners know that [increased troop deployments to Afghanistan] [are] politically impossible in Germany, especially during an election year."
What Americans must realize now is that while the expectations of the Obama presidency and what it will accomplish abroad are sky high, those expectations must be tempered with the realization that although Europe has embraced an Obama presidency, their level of cooperation may not change in regards to the war on terror. For this reason it may be unrealistic to expect a marked change in multillateralism over the course of the next four years.
Conversely, it may become evident soon that Obama will encounter much of the same opposition that President Bush has in enlisting the help of Europe. Given the re-direction of policy that the Bush administration has already taken, we may not see much change at all. And while it is expected that Obama will attempt to facilitate the needs and concerns of our allies more than the prior administration did, experts like Wess Mitchell expect “more continuity than divergence."
The challenge for Obama will be to overcome the uncooperative policies of Europe, something the Bush administration was unable to do, and bring a renewed sense of multilateralism to the war on terror.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Welcome to TWDR
Hello everyone,
this is a relatively new endeavor to me... this blogging thing. While I have always been a very opinionated person when it comes to world and domestic affairs, I have never sought to publish them to my own website before. It may be a bit too presumptuous of me to think that anyone will care to read my meanderings, however my intent is to create a page that will draw your interest and keep you checking back regularly. Whether that happens or not will remain to be seen, but if nothing else, this will just be one more outlet for me to let my ideas fly, even if they don't necessarily land on anything.
Anyway, the purpose of TWDR is to offer commentary on current events, be they domestic or foreign, that are important to the security of the United States and its citizens. This blog is intended to offer analysis and angles that cut through political spin and propaganda and present views that you won't see on CNN, Fox or NBC. I wish to not only offer my own opinions, but also links to articles and/or books that deal with the subject at hand.
We are in a tumultuous time as a nation. While bad economic times have stolen our attention during a struggle against terror, the state of the world more than ever needs a strong US presence to preserve peace not only here, but abroad as well. With a new President in Barack Obama who will take over for George W. Bush (who has been the victim of unfair character assassination, in this author's opinion) it is important to remain mindful that with change, certain things must remain unchanged; and none more importantly than our commitment to eradicate those who would do us harm. It is my hope that during the next 4 years, President Obama will find the wisdom to do what is necessary to continue that commitment. You can expect sharp criticism at times from this writer, but never confuse criticism with partisan politics, as I do not think that national security is something that involves the letters "DNC" or "GOP." My goal is to provide you with insight into global affairs and events regarding our security, and to let you make up your own mind.
And with that, I'll thank you for reading and I hope you return for the next update of TWDR.
this is a relatively new endeavor to me... this blogging thing. While I have always been a very opinionated person when it comes to world and domestic affairs, I have never sought to publish them to my own website before. It may be a bit too presumptuous of me to think that anyone will care to read my meanderings, however my intent is to create a page that will draw your interest and keep you checking back regularly. Whether that happens or not will remain to be seen, but if nothing else, this will just be one more outlet for me to let my ideas fly, even if they don't necessarily land on anything.
Anyway, the purpose of TWDR is to offer commentary on current events, be they domestic or foreign, that are important to the security of the United States and its citizens. This blog is intended to offer analysis and angles that cut through political spin and propaganda and present views that you won't see on CNN, Fox or NBC. I wish to not only offer my own opinions, but also links to articles and/or books that deal with the subject at hand.
We are in a tumultuous time as a nation. While bad economic times have stolen our attention during a struggle against terror, the state of the world more than ever needs a strong US presence to preserve peace not only here, but abroad as well. With a new President in Barack Obama who will take over for George W. Bush (who has been the victim of unfair character assassination, in this author's opinion) it is important to remain mindful that with change, certain things must remain unchanged; and none more importantly than our commitment to eradicate those who would do us harm. It is my hope that during the next 4 years, President Obama will find the wisdom to do what is necessary to continue that commitment. You can expect sharp criticism at times from this writer, but never confuse criticism with partisan politics, as I do not think that national security is something that involves the letters "DNC" or "GOP." My goal is to provide you with insight into global affairs and events regarding our security, and to let you make up your own mind.
And with that, I'll thank you for reading and I hope you return for the next update of TWDR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
