Billmon:
II. Hirohito Watch
Back to Main
July 28, 2006
WB: Grapes of Wrath +
Comments
The firing of the IDF commander Dan “Bomber” Halutz seems to be quite near.
But the problem is not Halutz, but the institutional role of the IDF.
Haaretz: Prisoners to the generals
And this is precisely the difference between us and the others: While in all other democracies, a certain dependency of policy-makers on generals is apparent, together with attempts to reduce it, in Israel, the case is not only one of dependency but the fact that our policy-makers are held captive by the generals.
The security policy-making process is in fact the domain of the Israel Defense Forces and the defense establishment. In the absence of non-IDF national security planning bodies, the major part of the planning – not only operational and tactical planning but also strategic and political planning – is done within the army.
The result is that military considerations have often become more dominant than political ones. Thus, Israel’s foreign policies have come to be based on an essentially belligerent perception that favors military considerations over diplomatic ones. Violence is seen not only as a legitimate instrument in international affairs, but almost as the only means that can bring positive results.
As a result, the chief of staff in Israel is afforded power that exceeds that of his counterparts in other Western armies. He is the one to decide on the policy recommendations that will be presented to the prime minister and his ministers. This, of course, gives him great political power.
…
The abduction of the soldiers in the north gave rise to a need “to do something.” The prime minister and his government had only army assessments, intelligence the army presented to them, and the ready war plans before them. In fact, they had no other alternative but to approve what the IDF suggested for there is no other body or mechanism that can come up with suggestions for a policy in Lebanon.
…
I find it fitting to close with words written in the 1960s by Yigal Allon, one of Israel’s few politicians who tried to both influence the shaping of the national security policy and to deal with defense issues with other than military means: “The need to defend the country against aggression, the military confrontations on the borders… the military achievements, the mass drills… all of these create an atmosphere that necessarily harbors acute social and moral dangers. The danger of the spreading of chauvinist and vulgar militarism is a real danger in Israel… The culture of arms bears with it the danger of losing social, moral and cultural values, to the point of the blurring of the nation’s image as an enlightened society… This applies to all civilians and the youth, and also military personnel, who may be intoxicated by the very charm of involvement with arms.”
Who’s going to fire Halutz?
Olmert? Hah! Yasser Arafat is as likely to be Prime Minister in six months.
Peretz? Double hah! The man who could make statements like “Nasrallah is going to get it in a way that he will never forget the name of Amir Peretz” is headed to prison, or maybe a mental institution.
Halutz is going to keep going until someone- like IDF Ground Force officers- takes him away. If he and we are lucky, he will still be breathing.
Posted by: Brian J. | Jul 28 2006 6:40 utc | 2
“the problem is not Halutz, but the institutional role of the IDF.”
Well yeah, but SOMEBODY’S got to take the fall. I still think it will be after the cease fire though. I don’t think Olmert’s got the stones to can him while the war is still in progress.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 28 2006 7:03 utc | 3
More political infighting in Israel. The IDF as an institution will be severly damaged after this war.
Mossad and IDF disagree over damage to Hezbollah
The heads of two Israeli intelligence agencies disagree over how much the Israel Defense Forces assault has damaged Hezbollah, although both say the group has been weakened.
The Mossad intelligence agency says Hezbollah will be able to continue fighting at the current level for a long time to come, Mossad head Meir Dagan said.
However, Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin disagrees, seeing Hezbollah as having been severely damaged.
Haaretz opeds:
Someone talking sense:
Let’s declare victory and start talking
It is an illusion to hope that the 700,000 Lebanese refugees will direct their fury at their government, or that the population that still remains in place will evict the Hezbollah members from among it. As far as the population is concerned, responsibility for its catastrophe lies entirely with Israel, and failure to cooperate with whoever fights against Israel would be considered national treason. It was foolish to assume that the Lebanese political elite would dare to confront Hezbollah and use force against it. And anyway, who was even capable of using force? The Lebanese Army, whose bases were bombed as well?
…
And a word about the price of American support. Sometimes it seems as if U.S. President George W. Bush wants Israel both to destroy Lebanon and to sustain painful losses. That way, Israel provides him with an excellent alibi for the war in Iraq: The fight against terror is global, the blood price is the same, the methods of operation and the means are identical, and the time needed for victory is long. The Israeli vassal is serving its master no less than the master is providing for its needs.
A lunatic mass murderer: With a thunderous roar
The trouble is that we are fighting with yesterday’s weapons. Israel should have switched over long ago to another form of deterrence and retaliation. When Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers on our border, using rocket fire as a diversion, Israel should have responded with a very powerful pinpointed strike. Instead, the chief of staff recommended a war best described as half tea, half coffee – bombing and besieging Lebanon in the hope that the world would intervene and create a demilitarized zone between us and Hezbollah. So far, the air raids and massive destruction that were meant to restore our power of deterrence have only done the opposite. No minister in the security cabinet, apart from Shimon Peres, has asked what Israel is planning to do in the last stage of the game.
A recent scenario has Israel agreeing to a cease-fire and a multinational force deployed between the Litani River and the international border. But Israel cannot go about its business and ignore the intolerable ease with which Hezbollah lobs missiles at innocent civilians – something that no Arab country at war with Israel has ever dared to do in all the years of its existence. It is unthinkable to walk away from the battlefield with the depressing sense that out of all the wars Israel has ever fought, only Hezbollah, a mere band of terrorists, was able to bombard the Israeli home front with thousands of missiles and get off scot-free.
Before any international agreement, Israel must sound the last chord, launching a massive air and ground offensive that will end this mortifying war, not with a whimper but with a thunderous roar.
Ze’ev Schiff (hawkish military correspondent for Haaretz): How to end the war
The strategy for ending the war with Hezbollah and its supporters must state that the outcome will be deemed positive only if Hezbollah has been dealt a major blow, feels that it has paid a steep price and is isolated in the Arab world. Only that kind of ending will not cause more serious danger in the future. Secondly, Israel needs an address in Lebanon. The Lebanese government is very weak, and in its weakness, it contributed to strengthening Hezbollah – from allowing arms to be transferred to Hezbollah in convoys from Syria and Iran to granting injured Hezbollah fighters the status of Lebanese army veterans. Although the Lebanese government includes ministers representing the organization that has declared war on Israel, in general, Israel should adopt the approach taken by Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who accepts UN Security Council Resolution 1559.
The UN resolution is an important point of departure. Despite its lacunae, the principle underlying it is a good one: The Lebanese army moves into southern Lebanon and Hezbollah is dismantled as an armed militia. It is unlikely that the second goal can be attained, certainly not in its entirety. Israel?s goal should be to eliminate Hezbollah’s military deployment in south Lebanon, including its fortifications.
Resolution 1559 has one major drawback: It says nothing about a renewed flow of arms to Hezbollah or about how to prevent this, and it does not view the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon as a foreign militia that must be removed. This is a UN resolution, and if it is not implemented, it will be a failure on the part of the UN. As for an international force – its mandate must be clearly spelled out, and it is important that it also contain an Arab unit.
Resolution 1559 also mentions Shaba Farms, which is considered Syrian territory. Siniora wants the territory handed over to Lebanon. That way, he will be able to tell Hezbollah that it must disarm as a militia because its claim that it is fighting to liberate Lebanese territory no longer exists. For Israel, that is a subject for future discussion.
Schiff misses some points:
– there is no way to deliver a “major blow” to Hezbollah (without killing lots of civilians)
– the best way to support Siniora is to stop the bombing and give away the Shebah farms
– “This is a UN resolution, and if it is not implemented, it will be a failure on the part of the UN.” – there is a long, long list of UN resolutions on Israel that are not implemented. All failures of the UN.
Joschka Fischer is smoking too much dope and drinking too much wine: A proxy war
Moderate Arab governments understand full well the issue at stake in this war: It is about regional hegemony in the case of Syria with Lebanon and Palestine and, on a wider level, Iran’s hegemonic claim to the entire Middle East. Yet the war in Lebanon and Gaza could prove to be a miscalculation for the radicals. By firing missiles on Haifa, Israel’s third-largest city, a boundary has been crossed. From now on, the issue is no longer primarily one of territory, restitution or occupation. Instead, the main issue is the strategic threat to Israel’s existence.
The rejectionist front has underestimated Israel’s determination and capacity for deterrence. It has proved there is no way back to the status quo in Lebanon, and it revealed Iran’s hegemonic aspirations to the entire world. The folly of this is readily apparent, because it doesn’t require much imagination to see what the Middle East would look like if an Iranian nuclear umbrella were shielding the radicals.
“Israel must sound the last chord, launching a massive air and ground offensive that will end this mortifying war, not with a whimper but with a thunderous roar.”
This is refined madness. First he spends the entire column wailing about the fact that Israel’s massive use of firepower has failed to accomplish anything useful — and then he urges the IDF to do it again! But it gets even better: He expects this “roar” to re-establish the fact that Israel has “teeth” — even though he himself has made it perfectly clear that would be just a face-saning gesture. I vote to give him the Tom Friedman Award for Pointless Syllogisms.
“This is a UN resolution, and if it is not implemented, it will be a failure on the part of the UN.”
It always cracks me up when I hear Israelis say this.
“it doesn’t require much imagination to see what the Middle East would look like if an Iranian nuclear umbrella were shielding the radicals.”
Yes, because nuclear weapons ALWAYS grant absolute freedom of action to every power that possess them. I think Fischer took one too many police batons to the head during his street fighting days.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 28 2006 14:10 utc | 6
@Billmon – if you think those opeds are over the top, try to read through JPost opinions, but take care not to throw up.
Essential Sciff: We need the UN (but only after we bombed it).
Essential Bolton: The UN is irrelevant (but only after I am confirmed as UN rep).
Essential Public: Whiplash! Why can’t we find a good personal injury lawyer when we need one?
Posted by: BMOC | Jul 28 2006 15:53 utc | 8