UNIFIL Problem Solved – Moon of Alabama

August 19, 2006

UNIFIL Problem Solved

Tactics is the art of organizing an army. They consist of a bunch of concepts and moves to defend or conquer some territory. But when I visited the Germany army officer courses, they somehow skipped this variant:

Major-General Moshe Kaplinsky, Israel’s deputy chief of staff, said his country intended to keep unmanned "outposts" in southern Lebanon.
Stand by Hizbullah says Lebanese army

Thinking about it,
unmanned outposts are a great idea. Unless Ferengis are around, those should be quiet peaceful places.

Here is a bit more on Kaplinskys new concept:

Deputy Chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky supported Halutz’s sentiments in an interview with Army Radio, saying that the IDF would maintain several outposts in Lebanon even after the IDF withdraws from the area.

Still, Kaplinsky emphasized that the presence would be maintained "without physical forces in the field."
Halutz: IDF will stay until LAF arrives

The French have immediately recognized the particular advantage of this tactic and have now promissed to maintain at least three divisions strength of unmanned outposts to support UNIFIL in South Lebanon. I am sure Mrs. Merkel will be happy to add a lot of German presence without physical force.

So why are the Israelis complaining?

Posted by b on August 19, 2006 at 17:18 UTC | Permalink

Comments

The problem with countries like Israel under the present government is that no matter what happens, they will still complain. and to be honest the govt in this country ain’t no better: Bush’s regime spends billions on regime change projects covering countries as diverse as Burma/Myanmar, Cuba, North Korea and, of course, Islamic Republic and Syria.
Before the US decides to invade the above two Middle Eastern nations (Islamic Republic and Syria both border Iraq, and Islamic Republic also borders Afghanistan) and waste another billion tax, they should concentrate on eliminating the poverty in the US itself.
Sure, we hear of horror stories like rape victims being hanged by judges who don’t have a law or any other degree for that matter in a country such as Islamic Republic, but I don’t think that that is the government’s policy there: Dr. Ahmadinejad wants to change a lot of that, as did he predecessor Mr. Khatami but they can only control the cities much like Mr. Karzai in Afghanistan next door. The problem with federal govt is that some bad governers have control (same here in the USA) and huge nations like Islamic Republic or Afghanistan are too big for one small govt in Tehran or Kabul to 100% control. Try Pakistan’s tribal areas and you’ll see more things the central govt there also don’t like. Ahmadinejad, Karzai, Musharraf, etc. are all educated people who all want to stamp out a lot of shite in their peasant societies that is done in the name of Islam; they all are themselves Islamic and want to take the barbarianism out of it; they all want to modernise. They all don’t want to be Bush’s servants either (esp. Islamic Republic). Bush’s attitudes actually helps the extremist peasants of Afghanistan, Islamic Republic, Pakistan and indeed Iraq to get more powerful: they or we don’t need that and that’s why the US should change and support the government of Ahmadinejad before the country formerly known as Persia (5000 years old) breaks up into fanatical Republics of Baluchistan and Arabistan with the peaceful Persian Republic in the middle as jittery as Iraq.

Posted by: Jocklate Balls | Aug 19 2006 19:33 utc | 1

The above is true. More fanatical regimes and states are possible. One need only look at the fanatic al Qaeda based Sunni terrorists in Iraq to know that Saddam (albeit no angel) was preferable.
True, in 1979 when the last Pahlavi Shah was toppled, Ayatollah Khomeini’s government changed his country’s name from the Pahlavi “Iran” to “Islamic Republic”. Pahlavi in turn changed the name from “Persia” to “Iran”. The fact that the country remains called Iran in the West and indeed by many in the country itself shows most of the Persian peoples’ desire to differentiate between church and state. The internet domain name .ir can be Iran or Islamic Republic. Indeed, most references to the country now is “Islamic Republic of Iran”, a sort of compromise. Even “Islamic Republic” was a compromise to people other than fundamentalist Muslims (their preferred post-1978 name of the country was “Islamistan”). Pakistan had already called a city after Islam, so the Islamists in Iran tried to go one step further and call a country after it. Someone however said that would be blasphemous and/or would cause war with Sunnis (war with Sunnis (or at least an atheist Sunni!) happened anyway: thanks to Saddam) and the idea was dropped.
Ahmadinejad: seen as a fanatic in the West, this is in reality an oversimplification. Ahmadinejad rules a massive country that has extreme wealth and extreme poverty, extreme heat and extreme cold. There are 20 ethnic groups, the majority Persians being the most secular and liberal and the minority Baluchis, Arabs and Sunnis being the most radical. Ahmadinejad is Persian himself, and nearly was killed in the Baluchi province of Iran a while back (and not by an anti-Islamic regime person but by someone who considered Ahmadinejad’s Republic not to be Islamic enough!!). He has to speak out against Israel to keep the Arabs and Baluchis at bay and also banned attempts to put stricter dress codes on women; he even said women should attend soccer matches and spoke out against police brutality. As for enforcement of Islamic dress, he stated that Islamic dress should be cheaper than Western dress. He obviously is like a company professional trying to keep all his clients and workers happy. And Persia aka Iran aka Islamic Republic aka Islamistan aka Parthia is a diverse and vaste land. Ahmadinejad should invite Bush over to run it for a month and see how he’d do. Well, Iraq gives us our answer there!

Posted by: Simon | Aug 19 2006 19:51 utc | 2

wow – two commentators agreeing to each other form one and the same IP address: 194.165.172.72 – dialup072.ts523.cwt.esat.net.
Delivering unconsistent thoughts totally off topic. Impessive (not to me) propaganda.

Posted by: b | Aug 19 2006 20:29 utc | 3

Rereading the psyops propaganda above and analysing the language I am quite sure the source is US based/supported. I also revise my upper comment – this is not impressive to anyone but the originating wanker.

Posted by: b | Aug 19 2006 20:39 utc | 4

dnsstuff reports the IP as coming from Ireland.
as for the unmanned outposts, perhaps there is another explanation. Several years ago Sheila Widnall was the Secretary of the Air Force. She flew a B-52 bomber with the very first female bomber pilot (Kelly Flinn) in what was dubbed an unmanned flight.

Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 19 2006 23:50 utc | 5

I don’t think the French will be virtual at all. But Chirac is pissed at the (half-assed) RoE imposed by UN peacekeeping HQ.
I watched the “20 heures” broadcast on France 2 Saturday night and it was very instructive. It seems they are sending real live soldiers in Lebanon (not targets painted in blue and white). Of course they made a show with the 50-man platoon landing, with a destroyer in the background, at Naqouba (seen internationally) and described by the anchor as part of UNIFIL+. BUT, the trucks were green with an hastily (and recently painted) “UN” on the sides and only half the troops landing were wearing blue helmets. The rest were wearing green berets and khaki.
The anhor also made a point about “Operation Balliste”, a landing an extra “224 engineers with Bailey bridges under Fench command” at Beirut Harbor and the shipment of a “250-strong complement of the 13e régiment de Génie” at their mediterranean base at Toulon, “with over 100 trucks, bulldozers and armed vehicles”. The vehicles were painted green (not UN white) and marked “KFOR”. That force will land in Lebanon on Thursday.
For one thing, I don’t think any French Army truck will be repainted and I don’t think any member of the 13e will wear blue helmets. So they might fulfill their 3,000 troops contingent with a force of 2,800 soldiers under French command (including a rapid deployment force of 1,400 in 4 warships in the coastal area) and their (so-far) classified rules of engagement and “only” 200 sacrifical lambs under the “shoot me please” UN RoE.

Posted by: ClaudeB | Aug 20 2006 0:02 utc | 6

The fact that the country remains called Iran in the West and indeed by many in the country itself shows most of the Persian peoples’ desire to differentiate between church and state. The internet domain name .ir can be Iran or Islamic Republic. Indeed, most references to the country now is “Islamic Republic of Iran”, a sort of compromise. Even “Islamic Republic” was a compromise to people other than fundamentalist Muslims (their preferred post-1978 name of the country was “Islamistan”).

In fact the full name of the Iranian state is Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Īrān — Islamic Republic of Iran (source Wikipedia).
ClaudeB, paragraph 12 of Resolution 1701 appears to change UNIFIL’s “shoot me now” rules of engagement (although it doesn’t invoke Chapter VII):

Acting in support of a request from the Government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence

Posted by: Gag Halfrunt | Aug 20 2006 1:27 utc | 7

Sigh. Any grunt, from any army in the world, who strolls sunny southern Lebanon knows Hezbullah owns it. Hezbullah is dug in tight, dug into the hills and towns, dug into the hearts and minds of a grateful and admiring populace.
Disarm Hezbullah? Rules of Engagement? Bloody hell — the only rule the grunts will follow is, Don’t bug Hezbullah, so they don’t bug you.
This won’t do for Israel, because Israel cannot continue growing into the American-sponsored hegemon of the Middle East, trampling on the residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while there is a superbly organized, trained, and well funded militia dug in right across their border. Having foreign grunts wandering around the place, giving and receiving courtesies from Hezbullah, is worse by far. You may look forward to pictures of Hezbullah versus UNIFIL soccer games, as peace breaks out like peach fuzz on a young IDF troop’s baby face.
Oh my, who’s idea was this!?!
Hezbullah is a show stopper in Israel’s drive for dominance of the region. What little water still flows in the lower reaches of the Litani River is vital to Israel’s continued growth. And Israel can’t have it.
Lebanon is an economic competitor, for tourism, trade and industry. Wars are fought over such competition, as this recent one partly was. With the sympathy and assistance of outside nations, Lebanon will rapidly regain the excellent economic prospects it enjoyed before Israel smashed everything.
In 33 days, Israel integrated Hezbullah more closely into Lebanese government and society. And brought outsiders in to put a Notary Public’s seal on the accomplishment.
They are, and shall be, unable to live with what they have done.

Posted by: Antifa | Aug 20 2006 1:39 utc | 8

Yeah, I’m in Ireland but from Czech Repuplic and before lived in Slovakia!! Whatever, we’re all against Bush and Blair. The British empire was the hammer of the Scots, Irish, Czech, Slovak and German people. Also, Persian, Arabian and African people. I ain’t no Stalinist but our nation was better off when socialist. Otherwise, I would not be here in Wexford Irish Republic.

Posted by: Simon | Aug 20 2006 1:58 utc | 9

People call me “wanker”. Well, if the US call a Slovakian Czech with Hungarian and German relations who lived in Ireland, UK and Spain a wanker, it tells a lot of what sort of a shite country America has become. I know better and do not support al Qaeda terror: but with this attitude, that’s what people with that attitude deserve. Unfortunately, it is – as in Stalinist 1988 Czechoslovakia – not those who say such reckless racist anti-ethnic shite who die: it is the innocents and no one else. Cop on America or else you’ll die.
Sincerely,
Everyone Else.

Posted by: Simon | Aug 20 2006 2:12 utc | 10

PS: I don’t care who I impress or not! I speak my mind and if the US don’t like Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Germany, Hunary or anywhere else (Iran!!) to hell with that!! They support Israel and they seem to do nothing wrong even though they do everything wrong. This egroup is meant to be liberal. If so, I’d hate to see the hardline ones .. 100% Nazi if this is 50%!!

Posted by: Simon | Aug 20 2006 2:16 utc | 11

Calm down, buddy boy, Simon. New posters are ALWAYS given a rough welcome here.
We want new blood here, but we’re under the misconception that the best way to attract it is by drawing it from unsuspecting passersby. Believe me, I’ve been given just the same treatment as you.
I, for one, found your posts to be interesting and informative, even if I did not agree with all that you said.
I do agree that Iran is much more complex than is commonly portrayed. I tend to disagree with your assumption that progress is always good. And I also question the motivation of any rulers, particularly as I find myself constitutionally rooting for the poor and dispossessed.
But, all in all, I was happy to read your posts. Pull up a stool to the bar and pour yourself a long cool pilsner on me.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 20 2006 2:56 utc | 12

yes, i will fall in line behind malooga here. w/a hat tip
to b for the heads up.
simon, we are a tight knit group tho we do attact new people and drop ins quite frequently. nonetheless, i don’t think asking for honesty is asking too much. frankly, to open a thread here as a newcomer, post a reply in agreement w/yourself, was probably not the wisest choice. you got outed for it. balsy of you. now, lets move on shall we.
btw, we are an international site.
i agreed w/much of your commentary. the other thought provoking.

Posted by: annie | Aug 20 2006 4:13 utc | 13

ps. these days of the hired bloggers of aipac and the rightwing fascist we can never be too sure. someone could slide in under the radar and try to inject radical thought as a way of luring the unsuspecting or trappings for the nsa crowd. we have every reason to question pro Ahmadinejad speak. earn your weight.

Posted by: annie | Aug 20 2006 4:19 utc | 14

Simon, that was a bit of a rough introduction to the group. Please don’t go away. Your point about Ahmadinejad having limited power is one that needs to be said from time to time.
Now for an Off Topic question —
Your statement, “I ain’t no Stalinist but our nation was better off when socialist” — can you explain more specifically? How better? And how worse? I used to know two Czech engineers in Canada. Both felt that their talents were wasted in Czechoslovakia. They disliked the controlling bureaucracy and poor food, and were happy to leave. On the other hand, my retired grandfather liked it well enough, especially considering the alternatives.
Do you think that the Prague Spring and “socialism with a human face” would have been preferable to the current social situation?
Why are the Czechs so hostile to Cuba currently? US influence?

Posted by: Owl | Aug 20 2006 4:27 utc | 15

You may look forward to pictures of Hezbullah versus UNIFIL soccer games, as peace breaks out like peach fuzz on a young IDF troop’s baby face
Oh I like that

Posted by: Billy Bob | Aug 20 2006 7:34 utc | 16

Back on to the topic I suppose. As far as it looks from this loather of zionist war-mongering placing unmanned outposts in the region between the litani River and the Lebanese border is just another attempt by Israel to move towards it’s proposed state which looks like this map here.
That map presented by the Zionist Organisation in early 1919 shows they have a way to go. In fact it is so horrifying given that it chews a huge chunk of Syria up to just short of Damascus and even swallows up the West Bank and the East Bank of The Jordan river all the way into Israel’s friend and ally King Abdullah of Jordan’s hegemon that the first step has always been to repeat David Ben Gurion’s claim of ‘just’ wanting the land as fat East as the Jordan River and as far North as the Litani River.
Since they have the first part of that which is the land as far as the Jordan River (small matter of a million or two soon to be no longer extant Palestinians to deal with but that’s always been everyone else’s dilemma the zionists know exactly what needs to be done), the next step is getting the land to the North.
I have no doubt that this is what was being attempted by the IDF for the last 5 weeks.
Stories of missing soldiers are exactly that, stories. The zionist assholes had been planning this little scam ever since they persuaded George the sucker that all the Palestinian people and most of the Lebanese shia were terrorists just like OBL and the gang. Conspiracy theorists who want to deny Arabs the ability to blow up the WTC would do well to put Israel with a few neo-con traitors such as Perle et al in the frame rather than BushCo who have demonstrated time and time again they couldn’t run a brothel on a troopship.
Anyway whatever kicked it off the assholes have been maneuvering for another way into Southern Lebanon ever since Hizbolla chased their sorry asses out in 2002.
Now that attempt has failed there will be another tiresomely Machiavellian plot to separate the Shia from their ancestral lands and these ‘unmanned outposts’ will be a part of that.
The Israeli attack on Bodai yesterday which appears to be a failed attempt to assassinate Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek was a deliberate attempt to keep the pot boiling. Fortunately the ‘commandos’ got their asses so badly kicked that the Lebanese defense forces didn’t consider any other retaliation. These provocations will continue at least until UNIFIL get up to strength and that will be the real reason that no european nations want to supply troops.
Israel is going to be doing all the shit stirring and shooting but if UNIFIL does anything about it the nation who sent the soldiers can expect that the APAIC gang will seek to have them subjected to US trade sanctions and possibly even fund the opposition party in their own country. No one needs that sort of aggravation.
Had to laugh the Israeli government was saying that Indonesian and Malaysian troops would be ‘unacceptable’ in UNIFIL the other day, presumably because they are followers of Islam. Apart from the shit storm that would go down if the rules said ‘jews need not apply’ for the gig, objecting to the javanese imperialists disguised as an army was a tactical error.
For a start as far as the Indonesian army is concerned getting a job like that would be a definite wooden spoon since the pickings amongst the civilian population of Lebanon would be pretty slim at the moment. This means that whoever got sent wouldn’t be likely to set the world on fire with their military prowess. In addition since the Indonesian army is expected to live off the land (pay goes missing so a bloke has to help himself to civilians’ chickens, goats and veges not to mention women) it wouldn’t be long at all before Hizbolla was far too busy sorting out the parasites to worry about the IDF.
Still the Malaysian armed forces are another matter and on the occasions I’ve seen them exercising with the Australians, definitely not to be messed with. They would also be fairly popular with the locals. They were one of the few outfits who took the time to get to know the aboriginal people whose land they were using for a training ground. Normally the whitefella infantry ignore them at best or diss them in their own country.
Anyway back on topic, I have refrained from posting on this because some sort of superstition had me thinking that if we didn’t acknowledge the possibility that Israel would deliberately fuck the ceasefire, then it may not happen, now it has started to we may as well call the fuckers out for it. Watch the news very very closely since they will be trying hard to blame the Lebanese and I think they may have their work cut out for themselves. People are beginning to see through this victim bullshit that zionism has abused like a neurotic divorcee, and they won’t buy it if the facts are put before them quickly enough.
Israel is incredibly sensitive to public opinion because they couldn’t win a chook raffle without outside assistance.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 20 2006 7:42 utc | 17

People are beginning to see through this victim bullshit that zionism has abused like a neurotic divorcee,
lol, good one debs. thanks for the palestineremebered link. i have a friend who’s palestinian mother lives in jordan. they are seeking witnesses for oral histories in jordan and i have passed on the link. in your rueters link i also noted
Israel seized Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister Naser al-Shaer, a top official of the Hamas militant group, at his home in the occupied West Bank on Saturday.
what constitutes an outpost? if it is unmanned is it a bunch of empty buildings? i know this sounds stupid but i am having a hard time grasping the concept. do they just seize the land for the outpost, put a fence around it and expect people to leave it there til they return?

Posted by: annie | Aug 20 2006 13:12 utc | 18

israel seizes Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister Naser al-Shaer and it ends up in one of the last paragraphs of a four page story. makes my blood boil.

Posted by: annie | Aug 20 2006 13:18 utc | 19

@annie – an “unmanned outpost” is piece of some Lebanese farmers former land with a stick in it and a sign on the stick that says “outpost”. As it is unmanned on would think it would be endangered to be retaken by the farmer, but the sign in is Hebrew and no Arab will dare to touch it.

Posted by: b | Aug 20 2006 13:35 utc | 20

no Arab will dare to touch it.
why? retribution?

Posted by: annie | Aug 20 2006 14:20 utc | 21

The zionist assholes had been planning this little scam ever since they persuaded George the sucker that all the Palestinian people and most of the Lebanese shia were terrorists just like OBL and the gang.

Sure. Because DID, like all good anti-zionist professionals, knows that without AIPAC and “dual loyalty” traitors like Perle, George Bush would have pursued a middle east policy compounded of deep knowledge and fundamental good humanistic intentions.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 20 2006 16:20 utc | 22

that was me at #22

Posted by: citizen k | Aug 20 2006 16:27 utc | 23

Unbemannten Kommandostellen gibt uns den Sieg!
(Unmanned outposts will lead us to victory!)
Towards the end of WWII there were some truly strange messages sent out from Berlin, as Goebbels and all sought to convey that everything was as it should be, and that the foreign soldiers being seen everywhere were just passing through.
Kaplinsky replaced General Adam in mid-attack on whatever it was the Israelis thought they were attacking, but judging by the above he’s probably got just as bad a grip on reality as his predecessor.
How does one keep an unmanned “outpost”? One almost suspects a wrong translation.
It’s interesting, though. Hitler in his bunker in 1945, with unmanned outposts stretching from the Atlantic to the Ural mountains, from the Arctic to the Sahara – all the world trembling. What will he do next? 🙂

Posted by: SteinL | Aug 20 2006 17:42 utc | 24

Unmanned outposts will have all manner of electronic equipment in a windowless cinderblock building surrounded by barbed wire and motion detectors. There will probably be cameras, but more likely, three or more outposts could triangulate the exact locations of all underground bunkers by ELF vibration.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 20 2006 19:00 utc | 25

@Malooga – and why would the Lebanese accept this?
Totally unrealistic, actually absurd.

Posted by: SteinL | Aug 20 2006 20:18 utc | 26

I didn’t say they would accept this. I was replying to those above who didn’t get what was meant by the concept.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 20 2006 20:29 utc | 27

@Owl #15: Your statement, “I ain’t no Stalinist but our nation was better off when socialist” — can you explain more specifically? How better? And how worse? I used to know two Czech engineers in Canada. Both felt that their talents were wasted in Czechoslovakia. They disliked the controlling bureaucracy and poor food, and were happy to leave. On the other hand, my retired grandfather liked it well enough, especially considering the alternatives.
Answering not as a Czech but as someone from the region (Hungary):
First one should make distinctions. For talented engineers who speak languages, going away was certainly a change for the better. But for other millions who lived there, the collapse of the old economy, and social services (however bureaucratic and mediocre they have been), and structures of society, change represented no opportunity, only — collapse. In most of the new EU members, the process wasn’t as brutal as in Russia, but still. This comparison is not a positive statement about the ancien regime but a negative one about the new wild capitalism.
Do you think that the Prague Spring and “socialism with a human face” would have been preferable to the current social situation?
My answer would be “definitely”, though who knows in what direction it would have evolved on its own.
Why are the Czechs so hostile to Cuba currently? US influence?
Again distinctions: you mean politicians, not the people. From afar but not THAT far, I suspect US influence can well play a role, but it is also homegrown. Overall, the Czech Republic is special in the region in that it lacks a large post-reformed-communist party: the two main parties and all previous parties in government originate among the dissidents, while the heir of the Party is an unreformed medium-size (10-15%) opposition party, which until now was awoided by all others like plague. Above this domestic politics standoff is the personal ideology of some leaders. The current asshole of a President, Klaus, styles himself as kind of a Thatcherite, and he and his followers make ideological foreign policy here (though note that he has no scruples about being pro-Putin).

Posted by: DoDo | Aug 21 2006 10:25 utc | 28

@ DID What’s a “chook raffle”?
Thanks also to Malooga for illuminating the concept of “unmanned outposts”:
I had a more gonad-deprived interpretation, though not exactly on the lines
of Dan of Steel’s example.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Aug 21 2006 12:23 utc | 29

Back to Main