Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

bsl RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 5/22/2002 7:36:00 PM

And, you've managed to ignore the situation on the ground; the strategic environment. Britain has never faced an enemy who goals were the destruction of Britain, and who had not just foreign sanctuaries, but the active and passive support of (in that case) all of Europe. Neither does the IRA have a religion to base their war upon. You make a major mistake focussing on martyrdom. The important issue is jihad, which is a different matter. Indeed, if you look, directly, at the sorts of things even Peaceful Yasser is STILL saying, in Arabic, you'll see references to Koranic passages which, for instance, justify temporary peaces in prelude to later destruction of an enemy. The situations are not at all comparable.

Quote Reply

Phoenix Rising RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 5/23/2002 7:17:14 PM

A quick quote from an old favorite book of mine, applicable to situations of low intensity warfare against a more powerful regime: "Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand." I always thought a few Israeli policymakers ought to take a good look at that. It's one of my favorite passages from "The Prince." In English: a single, brutal action followed by conciliation accomplishes more for the cause of peace in the long term than continual repression of any populace necessitated by timidity in taking more drastic measures designed to END it, once and for all. Perhaps this is a strategic impossibility. Obviously, the Israeli cabinet is much closer to the action than I am. Nonetheless, the world seems to always be willing to overlook a single, swift strike. Look how quickly most of the world has stopped caring about 9/11. The Palestinian people are people, too. However, they lose their humanity when they strap a suicide belt to themselves, as do the leaders who pay for their training and provide the belt. Those who would murder women and children indiscriminately for no other sin than existence deserve no more respect than Dahlmer or any other serial killer. --Phoenix Rising

Quote Reply

pws RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 5/24/2002 5:39:22 AM

I previoualy posted as "Disgusted" Phoenix I don't think we are far apart on this point. I agree that Israel has the right to destroy terrorist infrastructure and leadership that they find in the the Gaza and West Bank. Any winning of hearts and minds has to be done before the person straps on a suicide belt. After that they are far game. However, conciliation as suggested by you in the long term(hopefully) reduces the numbers of Palestinians who are willing to strap on a suicide belt. I think we would both agree that Holsinger's solution is more likely to increase the pool of potential recruits rather than decrease it. In relation to the Israeli cabinet dilemma, I guess the big question is how brutual should the swift brutual strike be. Western democracies at their heart always place a high value on human life which may undercut the strategy suggested in "The Prince". I would imagine that Macavellhi(sic) would have bombed or artilleried Jenin rather than get into house to house fighting to reduce civilian casualities. Brutality by a democracy risks destroying the soul of the democracy. I think this is the dilemma that Israel faces.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 5/24/2002 7:50:52 PM

pws, "I guess the big question is how brutual should the swift brutual strike be. Western democracies at their heart always place a high value on human life which may undercut the strategy suggested in "The Prince"...Brutality by a democracy risks destroying the soul of the democracy." 1)For all the actual wisdom in THE PRINCE, it may be well to note that the world in which Machiavelli lived was VERY different from the world in which Israel lives. While more brutal in most respects, the important distinction is that the Italian states shared a common culture and religion. The stakes were, basically, who controlled what. Many died, as side effects, but there were no wars of extermination in Italy during the Renaissance. 2)While it IS true that, on balance, the West tends to place a higher value on human life than the East, in fact, recent history shows that the West is fully capable of killing people on the mass level. The culture which gave us WW1, WW2, to say nothing of the mass slavery business, the Belgian African experience, the invention of biowarfare techniques to remove troublesome indigenes (and, occasionally, troublesome colonials) is in an awkward position when it comes to ethical snit fits. Especially so when, in practice, I believe it's demonstrable that Israel's practices have been LESS violent and resulted in FAR less casualties, civilian or military, than those of various Western countries during the ***same*** period. 3)If the soul destroying argument has nearly the force many who make it seem to believe it has, then we all live as zombies, given what our own countries have done in the world during the last few generations. And, not just during conventional military operations. I believe the list of British police practices with respect to Northern Ireland is as bad, if not worse, than anything Israel has ever done in face of much worse threat. As far as what Israel has in mind, I imagine that, on the one hand, American pressure has been a major factor in restraining the government. And, otoh, with respect to Gaza, I have feeling - just a feeling, with no specific facts to back it up - that they feel that the military challenge is significantly greater than in Judea and Samaria. Thus, they're a bit more cautious about starting, and, I'd think, will be using the time to do a lot of intelligence and planning work. I don't think they want to go in unprepared, or half-ed. And, I'd think they'd want to give their military a chance to absorb the lessons of the last operations, if they can.

Quote Reply

pws to bsl RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 5/26/2002 3:43:10 AM

Thanks for your posts. Good point about the "benign" Germans. Do you think the US government is being consistent in it's treatment of Israel vis a vis it's treatment of Afghanistan/Al Qaeda? I personally think the same right of self defence is being exercised in both cases. I can see your point regarding the distinction between jihad and maytrdom. Given how you view the conflict do you see any room for a "hearts and minds" approach either in Israel/Palestine situation or in the US war on terror? My view in both situations is that use of military force is both situations is a tactic only - not a strategy for dealing with the problems. The wider strategy needs to be political - in Israel a peace settlement (although how do you achieve that - I have no idea. Personally I thought what Barak offered Arafat in the Clinton peace conference was a fair deal for both sides) and in the war on terror long term engagement by the US with the Arab world. Pie in the sky maybe but most people in the ME would probably jump at a Green Card. I think this shows an underlying(unconcious?) desire to be like the West. I think this is the best lever the West has in a clash of civilisations - deep down everyone else want to be like us. We just have to base a strategy around this - although don't know what such a strategy would look like. Probably support of moderate democrats in all Arab countries - even though none of them are in power.

Quote Reply

nakito RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 5/26/2002 3:55:32 PM

"most people in the ME would probably jump at a Green Card. I think this shows an underlying(unconcious?) desire to be like the West. I think this is the best lever the West has in a clash of civilisations - deep down everyone else want to be like us." Um...just a guess but I'd imagine it has more to do with the fact that at the moment we have a succesful economy and peaceful society. Don't get me wrong, but what you wrote sounds a bit "Buchanan-esque" (extreme right ex-Presidential canidate from the US)

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 5/26/2002 9:28:43 PM

pws, 1) Re: " "benign" Germans " My point, I should stress, is not that all the enemy is the same, or that we ought act with unrestrained violence in all situations. It's that any serious argument about the advisability of restraint much take into account the specific circumstances, and not some abstract ideal completely divorced from reality. It often turns out that whatever the actual spectrum of political opinions in an enemy, it's the people giving the orders who must be treated as representative of the whole nation. There is seldom an opportunity to quiz an opposing military about their specific ideas before opening fire. This is not to deny that, on occasion, it may be possible, indeed, desirable, to attempt to split a country between hardened enemies, and those willing to make an acceptable settlement. But, this is a matter of practicality, and may not be possible. Especially not in the middle of major engagements. 2)" US government is being consistent in it's treatment of Israel vis a vis it's treatment of Afghanistan/Al Qaeda?" Not remotely. Indeed, I find the attempted explanations coming out of our State Department to be insulting bad. In this, I believe I represent the majority opinion of both the American people and the present Congress, too. I fancy that I have some notion of the problems facing this Administration in conducting policies which interfere with each other. But, I have a very limited capacity for hypocrisy in this sort of thing and it's being strained nearly to the limit, right now. Especially when all I know about the President suggests to me that, personally, he is much closer to the opinions of most Israelis than practically any European country. To turn these observations around, I think they are evidence of just how serious Mr. Bush genuinely believes the stakes in the present circumstances are, and just how serious he is in speeches about the nature and extent of the threats. Indeed, I strongly believe we ought evaluate the present dance with Russia, and Mr. Putin in these terms. From the American point of view, I strongly suspect we are seeing a strong effort to effect a fundamental realignment in world politics, in no small part aimed at the Islamic world. The side effects with respect to intra-European, and Euro-American politics may be, shall we say, interesting, as well. (More so, given the amount of whining from places like Paris about the need for America to move away from a confrontational stance with respect to Moscow and towards cooperation. As with so many specific complaints, I forsee substantial French angst over our taking their advice.) 3)"do you see any room for a "hearts and minds" approach either in Israel/Palestine situation or in the US war on terror?" In the short run, with respect to the former, none at all. In the longer run, I have strong doubts. My reading of the history and the context of the issues has long been that the real issues are not and never have been the ones usually raised, in the West. They are fundamental issues with regard to Islamic civilization and it's place in the world. I think the region reacts to the very existence of Israel as a basic offense to their religion and culture, right down to their bones. And, as an embarassment demonstrating their weakness. It upsets their very worldview. They have enough trouble reconciling themselves to their weakness visa vie the West, generally, which, in effect, means, in their terms, Christendom. To have the same point made, right in their laps, by the Jews, is more than they can bear. For all the many long efforts by many westerners to differentiate between a clash of states and a religious war, the plain fact is that virtually all the people trying to fight Israel have ALWAYS put things in religious terms, when they speak in their native tongues. Even Nasser and Saddam Hussein peppered their speeches to their people with Koranic references, which are understood in specifically religious terms by the locals. This is not to say that their is no room for mercy. Not at all. But, there's not much room, and the time and place has to be VERY carefully chosen. In practice, the truth is that what we see as mercy or restraint is usually understood by the Arabs as weakness and lack of resolution. We need go no further back than the months since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The Westerners who so self righteously demanded that, insisting that it would be a sign of strength, justice, etc.. have been remarkably quiet in face of the effect it had in actually giving heart to Lebanese groups attacking Israel, and created the situation of attacks across the international border into Israel. THIS is the typical response of the Arabs. That's a fact of life. I don't like the idea, but I'm very much afraid that this is one area where there is much to be said for the policy of kicking an enemy until he apologizes. Being polite and restrained tends to lead to him believing that it's safe to kick you. Call it a contest of wills or a problem in communications. It's a fact of life. 4)I'm tired of protestations that their is "no military solution" to matters. In fact, there is no POLITICAL solution without a military solution. The only times Israel appears even marginally safe seems to be the times when it is perceived in the region to have BOTH overwhelming military power AND the will to use it. I disagree, strongly, about the settlement terms. I simply do not believe that there is any possibility of a reliable peace. Armistice, yes. Perhaps, in time, an armistice might grow into a peace, although, to do so would require a fundamental shift in the mindset not simply of a set of Arab/Moslem leaders, but of their whole societies. But, given the lack of reasonable chance for that, any arrangements must be made with reference to Israel's strategic military problems. Indeed, what's at issue, now, is realization of the opportunity for a future Arab attack in which the local Palestinians have a real chance to interfere sufficiently with Israeli military mobilization to allow outside Arab armies to sweep down to the sea. I simply do not believe any treaty promises will be reliable from the Israeli point of view. There is far to much history to prove that Arab promises are not reliable, while the rest of the world WILL NOT enforce guarantees in a reasonable or timely fashion. There is too much history on THIS point, too.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 5/27/2002 8:40:41 PM

pws, Rereading your note, there's a point I wish especially to address. "...what Barak offered Arafat in the Clinton peace conference was a fair deal for both sides)...." Everything has a context. When the matter at issue involves matters of national survival, the context is more than a side-issue. It lies at the heart of what is possible and what is advisable, under the specific circumstances. There are no magic formulae for national safety. The situation in which any given state finds itself at any given moment depends on multiple factors, including geography, economics, technology, nation cohesion, social organization, and, notably, relations with neighbors. For instance, the general challenge facing the French is radically different, today, than it was during the Cold War, which was different, still, from the general situation for many centuries before that. Briefly, at the present, there is simply no credible, direct outside threat which poses a realistic danger of overruning the French state. That, in turn, has implications for the kind of foreign relations, and military policy, France is free to engage in. Similarly, the geography of Britain, plus Britain's longstanding ability to sustain a large, powerful navy had profound effects on British policy for centuries. The context, iow, conditioned the politics and policies. So it is with Israel. A strategic environment in which there is an ever present threat that some major portion of the Islamic world may start screaming "Kill the Jews" and try to effect this end necessarily implies strategic necessities and limitations which would not be present if Israel was physically situated in the South Pacific, or along the American border. Every last suggestion or initiative which was *serious* about Israeli security - and, frankly, a huge number of them were **not**, whether originating in the Islamic world, or in certain European capital - had to take into account the strategic environment. That is an environment which has produced more than half a century of assorted campaigns of genocide against Israel. (And, let's not be cavalier about the history. Even during the interludes between major engagements, there were literally ***thousands*** of individual incidents including decades of persistent attacks from across the Egyptian and Transjordanian borders. And, the Lebanese border, which is active to this day.) It is not simply mistaken, it is wrong to the point of courting complete destruction to engage in any serious discussion about the possibility of a permanent "settlement" without taking the overall strategic environment into account. Now, this line has been dealt with, to some extent, by arguments incorporating the proposition which you have suggested; i.e. that any settlement must be, essentially, a "political" settlement. To the degree that this argument is made seriously, and not just as a bit of cant, it implies that any settlement must involve a change in the fundamental mindset NOT just of a few specific Arab or Muslim leaders, but of the whole region. Or, if any settlement is to be *real*, to be stable, to be longlasting, it must, perforce, involve EITHER a change in the balance of power so great that the results do not seem revisable, OR the regional actors must change their basic, antiIsraeli mindset so that the norm in their internal and external politics no longer takes the goal of the destruction of Israel as a norm. Now that we've put this is plain terms, do you begin to see how unlikely this line of policy really is? Can you think of an instance in history when a negotiating process led one or more sides to reform their very societies and mindsets (weltanschaung) in a basic way? This sort of things HAS happened, occasionally, in the aftermath of really huge, far reaching military defeats. Germany and Japan after WW2, for instance. Spain, both after the Moorish Conquest, and after the Reconquista. But, apart from that, can you think of historical examples? Yet, this is the sort of change which Israel needs to see, in the other side, if ANY ****practicable**** settlement is to be made which does not put Israel in grave danger of conquest. The geopolitics - the geography, the politics, the cultural elements - are such that ANY new Arab state west of the Jordan River is going to complicate Israel's strategic military dilemma to a point WORSE than it was back before 1967. Much worse. And, given the actual history of the last 50 years, there aren't ANY promises, vows, or guarantees which can be made in or adjunct to a treaty which will have any level of credibility. Or, indeed, of reality. In this, I refer BOTH to the credibility of any Arab promise, written or oral, and to the unreliability of guarantees by outside (i.e. Western) powers

Quote Reply

pws to nakito RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 5/28/2002 12:05:03 AM

Dear God please no - I think he's far too rightwing and xenophobic. I guess my strategy for the war on terrorism is to try am sell those values that give us in the West succesful economies and peaceful societies more strongly. I wrote something and the deleted it cos I was sounding "Buchanan-esque" again. I guess the main point of difference betwen me and Pat is that I think Pat says "we are the greatest - back luck the rest of you" whereas I would say Western society has done some great things for humanity - lets try an sell those value harder to those that don't currently have the benefits of societies based on those value. Difficult to get across what I mean on a message board - probably sounds more paternalistic than I mean to be. My key point is that the war on terror won't be won by force of arms alone. Tactically on occasions the use of military force will be important and proper, but if the war on terror is about the clash of cultures there needs to be dialogue between the cultures. If the war on terror is about an annihalistic clash of cultures then my approach won't work - I freely admit that. However, I have seen no conclusive proof of that yet and to give up on a "hearts and minds" approach too early will make the situation worse not better.

Quote Reply

pws to bsl RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 5/28/2002 12:28:54 AM

Thanks for your posts. They some of the most reasoned and thoughtful arguments I have seen on this issue. Just one issue - how do the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt fit into your argument that: "And, given the actual history of the last 50 years, there aren't ANY promises, vows, or guarantees which can be made in or adjunct to a treaty which will have any level of credibility. Or, indeed, of reality. In this, I refer BOTH to the credibility of any Arab promise, written or oral, and to the unreliability of guarantees by outside (i.e. Western) powers" Egypt seems to have stuck by its word even after Sadat was assassinated, the US has provided monitoring guarantees in Sinai and the agreement wasn't reached after catasphroic military defeat. In fact, from what little detail I know it seems it was Egypt's credible performance in the first week of the 1973 war that gave Sadat the standing to sign the treaty. (I realise's Egypt's Third Army was encircled at end of war but the set piece battles in the first few days and the beating off of the first Israeli counterattacks was IMO the best Arab military performance of Arab-Israeli conflict. What screwed things up for the Egyptians was the need to attack deeper into Sinai to relieve pressure on Syrians where they got massacred. It would have been a different story if Israelis had to attack into their full strength ATGM and SAM belt without first cutting down strength by defeating Egpytian attack)

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 5/28/2002 5:28:11 PM

Let's look, briefly, at the military history you refer to before turning to the political question. The '73 War had two main phases (and I break it down somewhat differently than most historians): first, the Arab attacks, when Israel was in a peacetime stance and NOT militarily mobilized, followed by the period *after* Israel had mobilized it's reserves and moved them to the fronts. I agree, btw, that in significant respects, '73 was the best performance of the conventional Arab military establishments. What constituted this "best" was, a)a good bit of planning and preparation by the Egyptians for crossing the Canal and dealing with the physical barriers Israel had erected behind the waterline, and, b)a fair degree of military success in pressing planned attacks against tiny Israeli units actually at the front. I'm not quite knocking that performance as it WAS, on the whole, somewhat effective. War is very much a matter of what works. Style points are not awarded. Egypt and Syria came close to breaking the Israeli lines. Close. But, no cigar. And, that in context of the biggest intial advantages they ever enjoyed. Once Israel actually mobilized and engaged with comparable forces, they won. Period. It took the Soviets threatening direct intervention, overtly, and nuclear intervention, implicitly, to rescue Egypt from the sight of Ariel Sharon's tanks doing wheelies around the Great Pyramid, let alone the complete destruction of their Third Army. Similarly, the Israelis cut of their offensive which otherwise was headed right for Damascus. All of this, though, DOES tend to illustate the general point of Israel's strategic vulnerability, which I've been making in context of the possibility of settlement. As for the matter of political relations with Eygpt, I have two great caveats to the view that things are hunky dory on that front: one, in strict point of fact, while relations directly with Israel have remained, on the whole, "correct" (I love that phrase), which IS significant, they have never been good. And, much worse for the long term prospects of the "relationship" Mubarak's ***internal*** policies have not been simpy unhelpful; he has nourished antiIsraeli sentiments to the point of quasi-Nazi levels of attacks on Israel, and Jews, generally, in the national educational and information policies. Indeed, as is true in much of the Islamic world, if articles in "official" or government supported publications were translated into German, they'd fit, neatly, in Der Sturmer. Yasser Arafat is not alone in raising his children to view the Jews as subhuman enemies. Second, what stability exists in the peace depends mostly (IMO) on the American element. i.e. Both a level of subsidy which is huge, military aid which forms the basis of the Egyptian military (weapons' sales, training, etc..) AND the peculiar geography which puts a water barrier between Egypt and Israel PLUS an American military presence, on the ground. I strongly doubt that any such conditions can be duplicated with respect to Syria and the Palestinians. The money is not and will not be available in the American aid budget, no matter what this or any other Administration might want. Congress won't go for it. I have trouble imagining an Administration which would arm and train either group as they have the Egyptians, so this restraining influence would not be present. The geography is such that NO conceivable military deployment could serve as anything more than a tripwire, whose backup would not, from the Israeli view, be entirely credible. (A rescue force which showed up AFTER Israel was overrun would be rather like claiming that Britain and America "rescued" the Jews of Europe in WW2.) Worse, no military deployment could suppress guerilla operations. Not even against itself. IOW, it wouldn't help Israel against terror attacks AND it would tend, itself, to be a target. Whatever that led to, it wouldn't be stabilizing, and it wouldn't be the continuation of arrangements predicated on it's presence. And, in any event, I don't consider Eygpt to be completely removed from the rest of the Arab world. Sooner or later, the relationship with America will break down and so will the one with Israel. The very political system, let alone the present government, is not stable. The whole society is unstable.

Quote Reply

FreeTaiwan RE:Holsinger's a moron - re May 17 article 6/10/2003 12:45:06 AM

Is radical Islam such an alien ideology that it is hitherto unobserved in history? I don't think so. Radical religious belief, just like communism, is an intesified expression of nationalism born in incompetent regimes that does not satify the nationalistic aspirations of their people. I am a staunch "fundementalist" in democracy , and that is closely associated with Taiwan's undesirable situation with China. If a people's nationalist aspirations are oppressed, they naturally assume the opposite ideology of their enemy. In Israel's case, the Palestinians turned against the Western Civilization as a whole. While Israel has a right to fend for herself, it is only pragmatic that some concessions must necessarily be made--the Palestinians are not going to stop unlast some part of their lost self-esteem (and bucks in their wallet)restored.

Quote Reply

	News As History - January 7, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us