by von
Look, I understand that you're feeling a little backed into a corner. It's hard not be feel that way. Your generals are describing your foreign policy as "incompetent and crazy." Your Generals! Imagine what your Lt. Cols. are saying! It probably starts with "dum" and ends with "ucks". And it only gets worse when you go down the chain of command. Trust me on this. I've gotten bitched out by my ex-Marine secretary* for failing to format my letters correctly. The lower the rank, the more perceptive the criticism.
But, anyhoo, I digress. I'm here to offer you some advice. And I'm a really good friend.
I understand why you're backing away. Every time someone tells you they're a really good friend, it kinda ends badly. For example: Come to Spain! We love you in Spain. Wonderful weather, good wine, folks strumming guitars, the Alhambra -- what's not to like?
Oh, right. That whole Inquisition thing. Well, at least you'll have refuge in Germany ....
So I get it. Well, a little bit. I'm not going to pretend. I don't really get much, and very few people get me. I can tell you about the Jewish vons, my love of really good bagels, and how some of my best friends are Zionists .... but why should you believe me? And why should it matter? I go by "von" on the internet. That's a f-ckin' preposition. In German.
Don't rely on my sympathies. You should probably trust my self interest instead.
It's in the US's interest to have a strong Israel. That means it's in my interest. I'm not going to apologize for being tribal on this count; we can't stop nationalism, we can only hope that we not become assholes in American flag shirts. So take the following to heart, because I'm one of the few goys who routinely defends Israel without being an Islamophobe and without hopin' that y'all die so that Christ can come back.
Other than Israel, no state in the middle east has the capability or willingness to project power in that region, damn the consequencies. No other state in the region has been a good friend for so long. No other state in the region is so, well, connected to the US. You're like a good drinking buddy: Opinionated, controversial, and ready to fight.
But you have got to stop being absolutely useless. Because when you're useless, it's not much in my interest to defend you. I mean, do you defend countries that ignore you and constantly f-ck things up? Is France on your speed-dial? No? Wonder why ...
I'd love to defend you in this latest debacle. I'd love to keep on waiting for more facts to come in. But I can't. What your leaders did was indefensible and utterly stupid. Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz has a better grasp on strategy. And it comes on the heels of you insulting us. (Leave aside whether these settlements were justified: could you have not made the announcement while our Vice President was visiting?)
You have to fix this. It starts with firing somebody. Probably your Prime Minister. You don't seem to have noticed, but he's a total nudnik. A moron too. I won't insist, because I can't -- and friends don't do that anyway. But I am going to suggest. In a really passive-aggressive way. Because you're smart enough to realize that it's in your best interest.
*Former secretary, in fairness.
Here's my very general take on the Turb-Eric debate: We can't really know for sure what the effects would be of using Israeli forces or accepting other Israeli support in Afghanistan without having done it. Neither Turb nor Eric knows. But I don't see that what Eric is saying is absurd or representative of the kind of thinking that high-level American decision makers wouldn't be very likely to engage in, rightly or wrongly. And you can't have it both ways on the willingness of Israel to support the US. If their knowledge that we wouldn't accept means that their offers prove nothing, then they don't prove either that they are or are not truly willing. It's simply indeterminate. Maybe it's politically overcautious not to accept Israeli help in Afghanistan, but it's not crazy by any means.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | June 03, 2010 at 03:07 PM
What was on these boats? Lumber? Beans? T-shirts?
No, just bullet proof vests, gas masks and night vision goggles. Boy, those taste great!
Because they're belligerent ideologues who know how to hate and kill other folks and generally be royally pissed off, but who have not the first idea about how to govern responsibly.
That would be my guess.
I agree. And I would add because they didn't get their way. They want the blockade over to import weapons.
It's just a comment on the absurdity of what the Israelis are allowing in, and not allowing in.
The salmon is payback for the Israeli flag in Palin's office, IMHO. I guess I should find out of it's Atlantic farmed salmon with artificial food coloring or Wild Alaskan Salmon(tm). One is a human right violation. The other, well, especially if it's Copper River Red Salmon, surely overcomes a lot of the complaints about the food.
The blockade is about send a great big "F*** you" to the Gazans, and to anyone who dares to question the Israelis' right to kick the Gazans around as they wish.
As opposed to Hamas' right to launch rockets into southern Israel as they wish and hide behind women and children after.
Posted by: bc | June 03, 2010 at 03:14 PM
I find them controversial. More foreign fighters is not necessarily a problem: most foreign fighters bring no skills. In any event, given how few foreign fighters there were to begin with, a marginal increase from a small number still leaves you with an insignificant force, yes? Such an insignificant change could easily be swamped by the addition of high-skilled Israelis, even assuming that it happened in the first place.
Turb, in an era of force protection, this is not how the military thinks.
Also, with respect to increasing radicalization that leads to terrorism, no, terrorist attacks would not be swamped by extra Israeli troops in Afghanistan, but rather caused by same.
Finally, I thought you were talking about a few doctors? How would they swamp foreign fighters? With scalpels?
And what precise form would this alienation have taken? Do you really think that non-Talib and Northern Alliance forces would have said "eh, I'm alienated by the presence of Israelis, so I'm going to sit this one out...I don't really want to seize power anyway..."? Seriously, what does alienation mean: what concrete results does alienation produce?
Alienation interferes with the effort to win hearts and minds. This is not concrete, or one issue determinative, but cumulative and spectrum like. This would not have helped. It's bad enough that government forces are painted as US quislings. But if there are actual Israeli soldiers on the ground, it would make the Karzai folks look even worse by association.
Regardless, to repeat the obvious, it was not just an Afghan audience that we were/are concerned with.
It seems like you're expanding the scope of your argument to cover all sorts of non-Afghans while refusing to justify any of your claims about Afghans. This strategy is certainly...novel. Again, I don't find these claims about foreign fighters to be persuasive: Americans have consistently exaggerated the quantity and significance of foreign fighters; data-free claims about the foreign fighter menace just over the horizon are not very persuasive.
If I was imprecise in suggesting that I was only referring to Afghans, then that was an error committed in haste. However, the actual strategic calculus involved is much broader. That is not my novel way of argumeent, that is the world that we live in, and the way that strategic thinking is fleshed out.
If you think policymakers would or should limit their inquiry into the advisability of Israeli troops in Afghanistan into the few limited, proscribed areas that you want to discuss...well, I wouldn't want you anywhere near the decision making process.
Foreign fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan are a real phenomena - even if occasionally exaggerated. Terrorism committed by people inspired by US foreign policy and ties to Israel is a real phenomenon. Anti-US attitudes and sympathy for al-Qaeda based on US foreign policy and ties to Israel are real phenomena.
Putting Israeli soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan would exacerbate the negatives in the aforementioned. With very, very little benefit.
The Arab/Muslim public already believe that we will support Israel no matter what they do. They are convinced of this. We can't convince them any further. They know that Israel kills Palestinians with American weapons
True, but that is not what we are discussing.
This is very binary thinking: things either matter or don't matter. Maybe some things matter to a degree? And I don't think public opinion polls of other countries are the proper baseline: we're talking about a country that we invaded. People whose country is being invaded are going to be predisposed to despise their invaders. No matter what. Starting from that baseline, the question is how much more would they despise us if there were some Israeli soldiers on the ground.
No, not binary at all! It's all to a degree, and the US has decided that having Israeli soldiers fighting along side us would be a net negative. They made that decision with respect to Iraq and Iraq II, and they made it with respect to Afghanistan (whether or not Israel offered with respect to the latter, we sure didn't ask, which means we decided not to).
I was asking about Israeli offers during the Afghanistan war.
No, you specifically asked for evidence to support the claim that Israel would provide troops to Afghanistan if asked by the US.
As evidence, I provided reference to past offers to the US to provide troops, and argued that it militates in favor of the premise that since they offered in the past, they would do so again if asked. This is not 100% conclusive evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless, and pretty good at that.
Alas, I do not see it. Where would I find it?
Google.
Look, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "everyone knows that the US will never ever ever accept Israeli soldiers into their coalition" while at the same time trying to infer that Israel was totally willing to help out because they made offers. Offers made with certain knowledge of their rejection do not allow you to infer anything about the country making the offer. Either it is not crazy to believe that Israel might participate in the coalition OR their offer tells us nothing about their support: these are mutually exclusive possibilities.
But this renders your whole point moot as well. You started out by saying that Israel is not a real ally because it refuses to provide troops to Afghanistan. But if their offer would be refused regardless, it is impossible to gauge the quality of their friendship or alliance by their...willingness to offer troops!
The discussion is pointless. Any offer that Israel has made in the past will be rejected by you because the US wouldn't accept it anyway. And any failure to offer would be evidence that they would not help even if asked.
Gah.
And you still haven't wrestled with this key fact: Israel does not participate in cooperative military missions abroad. Not even to stop genocide. Israel just doesn't use its military to help other states. Given that fact, the baseline really must be that Israel would not offer us help.
Given that Israel has ACTUALLY offered to send troops to join US coalitions multiple times in the past, your baseline makes no sense at all.
If Afghans wouldn't care, then it seems like it would have benefited everyone to have at least Israeli army medical units in place.
In a world where only Afghanistan was a concern, perhaps (although I don't entirely concede the premise that none would care ). But alas, that is not our world.
Do you really think Taliban forces are refraining from claiming Zionist control of the US and/or Zionist forces are in country?
No. However, there are degrees to which the narrative is believable, and not.
And sure, if you'd like to argue that active combat Israeli combat patrols with extensive Afghan interactions would be a disaster but more circumspect Israeli help (say limited to large bases) would have been OK, I'm willing to consider that argument; it strikes me as plausible. But if we have that discussion, you have to admit that Israel could have offered serious help but chose not to.
I think any Israeli involvement would have been more trouble than it was worth in a global sense. Regardless, Israel may have offered help, or not. But the US sure didn't ask for it.
And let's cut the BS about what "friends" do and don't do in terms of offering help. Nations don't act like that. If they need help, they ask. Sh*t, the US cajoled, bribed, threatened and bartered for support in Iraq and Afghanistan. We weren't acting shy, coy or prideful in our reticence - only accepting help from countries that offered it in the first place, with no strings attached, but refusing to ask any other nations.
Ridiculous.
If US leaders thought Israeli troops or doctors would have helped, then they would have asked and all evidence indicates that Israel would have responded.
I'm not the one who is making a positive claim about how Afghans would react. You are. Since you're making a positive claim, the burden of proof is yours to bear. So far, your evidence amounts to "I really really really feel strongly that this must be the case" -- which is fine, but not terribly persuasive to those who don't intuitively share your opinion.
Sigh.
Repeated, again, for the nth time: it is NOT JUST ABOUT AFGHANS.
Even if Afghans would have zero reaction to the presence of Israeli forces - for the sake of argument granting that - the inspiration of foreign fighters and terrorist radicalization and rise in anti-Americanism would not be worth it.
That is my opinion, as well as the opinion of successive US administrations. It could be wrong, but it is nonetheless the opinion.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 03, 2010 at 03:20 PM
No, just bullet proof vests, gas masks and night vision goggles. Boy, those taste great!
Come on bc. It's a boat. There were a small handful of night vision goggles. And a few bullet proof vests. Very small quantities of each. Those were for the people on the boat. They were not the aid being delivered in crates.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 03, 2010 at 03:23 PM
Does the U.S. State Department expressing concerns about the IHH/Hamas ties count as "credible?"
First of all, allow me to congratulate you - a non-blogger! - on your location of a link.
Unfortunately, it doesn't say what you say it says.
You said that the IHH had provided weapons to terrorist organizations. All the link does is say that the State Department is concerned that IHH may have met with some Hamas leaders. Hamas being the government (according to Israel) of Gaza, this does not appear to be "dot connecting" information.
But either way, it says nothing about weapons provision, it provides no conclusions. Just state department "concerns."
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 03, 2010 at 03:26 PM
No, just bullet proof vests, gas masks and night vision goggles. Boy, those taste great!
So says the IDF, which has no dog in this fight, of course. They're about as credible as the Pentagon.
Posted by: Ugh | June 03, 2010 at 03:27 PM
Ugh,
And even then, there are under a dozen vests, fewer nigh vision scopes.
Uh, then why does it describe only IDF incursions never once discussing WHY those incursions happened? Give me a break.
This makes absolutely zero sense.
The report is on conditions in Gaza.
In order to describe the situation, the report details the medical conditions since the siege. It only mentions the siege in the context of its impact on the status of medical care in Gaza.
It would be a complete distraction, and an utter non-sequitur, to go off on a tangent and start talking about the reasons for the siege, and the political backstory, in a report about medical conditions in Gaza.
WHO is not a political organization, and does not engage of conflict analysis. It merely looks at the health conditions/medical care status of a given region.
Your accusation of bias is at best extremely misguided.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 03, 2010 at 03:31 PM
And even then, there are under a dozen vests, fewer nigh vision scopes.
Indeed, I can see good reason for having night vision scopes and gas masks (especially the latter) on a boat capable of carrying more than 600 people. Bullet proof vests less so, but even then I can imagine scenarios where they would be useful. Boats are strange places, especially outside of passenger decks.
Posted by: Ugh | June 03, 2010 at 03:48 PM
The salmon is payback for the Israeli flag in Palin's office, IMHO.
The sad thing is that this could be true.
Posted by: russell | June 03, 2010 at 03:54 PM
I am with Eric vs Turb. Some things are just self-evident.
The legality/enforcement of the blockade vs the items on the embargo list and the reasons for the embargo are two different things.
The blockade can be legal, and the boarding can be legal even if the outcome is tragic, yet the intent and purpose of the blockade can be reprehensible.
Starving/forced dieting seems as stupid and counterproductive as it does cruel to the point of vicious. Russell's point about an arms blockade resonates.
I wonder what the thrust of this discussion would be if Israel had permitted unfettered civilian aid and if the boarding incident had occurred simply enforcing an arms embargo.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | June 03, 2010 at 04:23 PM
What to glean from those items permitted/barred by the blockade:
Barred: Coriander, ginger, nutmeg
Permitted: Aniseed, cinnamon, black pepper
Conclusion: your food must taste more sucky than usual for no good reason and not like the food you are used to having.
Barred: canned fruit, dried fruit
Permitted: fresh fruit, frozen fruit
Conclusion: you must eat your fruit within a few days after purchasing unless we let you have electricity.
Prohibited: fresh meat
Permitted: frozen meat and vegetables
Conclusion: Fresh meat is delicious thus u must not have, plus u must eat frozen meat in a few days anyway, see frozen fruit above. No one likes vegetables, including Israelis, u can have.
Prohibited: seeds and nuts
Permitted: rice, chickpeas and beans
Conclusion: No planting your own food lest you become independent.
Prohibited: Fishing rods, ropes for fishing
Permitted: Frozen fish
Conclusion: If you had the former you might not need the latter. See also fruit and meat above.
Prohibited: Fabric for clothing
Permitted: Clothing
Conclusion: You will wear only what we want you to wear.
Prohibited: Chickens, chicken hatcheries
Permitted: Cartons for transporting chicks
Conclusion: This is similar to our strategy of not allowing elephants or elephant breeding grounds, but we're generous so you can have the means for transporting baby elephants, if you have any (Ha!).
Prohibited: donkeys, horses, goats, cattle
Permitted: animal feed, hay
Conclusion: The former might be turned into fresh meat and thus are barred, u can use the latter to replace the barred seeds and nuts above.
Prohibited: Musical instruments
Permitted: Medicine, medical equipment
Conclusion: We'll allow you to live to enjoy your joyless lives.
Prohibited: Newspapers
Permitted: Chemical fertilizer and pesticide
Conclusion: The former might let you know how miserable you are and the latter is useless, see the prohibition of seeds and nuts.
Prohibited: Wood for construction
Permitted: Wood for doors and windows
Conclusion: This is the Les Nessman portion of the embargo, which we think is funny.
Posted by: Ugh | June 03, 2010 at 04:27 PM
The legality/enforcement of the blockade vs the items on the embargo list and the reasons for the embargo are two different things.
Not so. Causing undue suffering to the civilian population is prohibited under the San Remo Manual.
Paragraph 102 of the Manual prohibits a blockade if “the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade”
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2915343.htm
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | June 03, 2010 at 04:40 PM
"I wonder what the thrust of this discussion would be if Israel had permitted unfettered civilian aid and if the boarding incident had occurred simply enforcing an arms embargo."
Change civilian aid to aid and trade and I wouldn't object to an arms embargo on Gaza, except on grounds of fairness--it should be extended to Israel. In fact, in those circumstances Hamas would presumably try to smuggle in weapons, but there wouldn't be a large peace protest contingent on such ships. The whole point of the peace protestors is about how the blockade hurts civilians. In the circumstance of a weapons embargo on Gaza, I think there would be some sort of organized protest about the double standards of allowing weapons going to Israel. There's already the boycott sanctions and divestment movement and while I can't go all the way with that, I do think it makes sense to protest weapons which go to Israel if they are being used to kill civilians.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | June 03, 2010 at 04:52 PM
First of all, allow me to congratulate you - a non-blogger! - on your location of a link.
Ah, Eric, if only you were consistent;) :
Alas, I do not see it. Where would I find it?
Google.
Posted by: bc | June 03, 2010 at 06:33 PM
Here, for those interested, is the Israeli human rights group Gisha's legal opinion on the blockade of Gaza. They consider it collective punishment. This is a pdf file, btw.
link
Posted by: Donald Johnson | June 03, 2010 at 06:54 PM
bc, would you care to answer the question I raised here in an earlier comment?
Posted by: Turbulence | June 03, 2010 at 07:31 PM
A 64 year old man from San Francisco says he was beaten by the Israelis for not signing some papers and according to the reporter, he shows bruises.
Probably a terrorist.
link
Posted by: Donald Johnson | June 03, 2010 at 08:30 PM
he shows bruises
Obviously self-inflected. Since he's a terrorist and all.
Posted by: Turbulence | June 03, 2010 at 08:34 PM
Oops, wrong link.
link
Posted by: Donald Johnson | June 03, 2010 at 08:34 PM
No, just bullet proof vests, gas masks and night vision goggles. Boy, those taste great!
To add to Eric's and Ugh's comments, none of these are weapons under even the most liberal definition of the word.
Posted by: Phil | June 03, 2010 at 08:50 PM
As a meta-discussion, is there any chance Israel would have tried to pull off an embargo/blockade during the Cold War?
I was just thinking that this whole situation is still fall out from the end of the Soviet Union.
Posted by: jrudkis | June 03, 2010 at 11:25 PM
bc, would you care to answer the question I raised here in an earlier comment?
Terrorism is the use of violence or threats of violence against civilians to coerce political change. Using violence to enforce economic sanctions designed to coerce political change certainly can be terrorism. Which part do you not agree with?
Terrorism (to me) involves in addition to violence or threats of violence against civilians an element of secrecy. I guess it doesn't have to, but usually it is not pre-announced (or is announced but the target is not), thus producing terror. And it's aim is to hurt civilians. Terrorism aims to and even enjoys hurting civilians.
Here, Israel's actions were well-announced in advance and directed specifically at the flotilla. Fair warning was given. The primary objective was not to hurt the civilians. I don't see enforcing a military objective after fair warning to the civilian population as being terrorism in any way. Do you?
none of these are weapons under even the most liberal definition of the word.
And they are certainly not a basic human need.
Posted by: bc | June 04, 2010 at 01:47 AM
And they are certainly not a basic human need.
And they were also not to be delivered to Gaza. So?
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 04, 2010 at 02:01 AM
bc: Terrorism (to me) involves in addition to violence or threats of violence against civilians an element of secrecy. I guess it doesn't have to, but usually it is not pre-announced (or is announced but the target is not), thus producing terror. And it's aim is to hurt civilians. Terrorism aims to and even enjoys hurting civilians.
So while all of the above except for the element of secrecy applies to Israel's blockade of Gaza and to its attack on the flotilla, because the Israelis had no need to do it in secret, they're not terrorists?
State-sponsored terrorism doesn't need to act in secret.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 04, 2010 at 04:10 AM
The Israelis allow chemical fertilizer in??? Like e.g. NH4NO3? And pesticides? That sounds like: No gunpowder but no objection to charcoal, sulphur and salpeter. Either there is a subclause that allows only certain substances of both groups or this is a licence for homemade explosives and poisons.
Posted by: Hartmut | June 04, 2010 at 05:13 AM
And they are certainly not a basic human need.
Body armour and respirators are a pretty basic human need if you're a journalist or aid worker on her way to a war zone. You'll notice they tend to wear them.
Posted by: ajay | June 04, 2010 at 05:17 AM
Apart from that I would assume that on ships beyond a certain size respirators would be mandatory as part of firefighting equipment, although I cannot quote specific regulations there.
Posted by: Hartmut | June 04, 2010 at 08:21 AM
@bc:
Here, Israel's actions were well-announced in advance and directed specifically at the flotilla. Fair warning was given. The primary objective was not to hurt the civilians.
The most relevant response to this is to observe that it willfully misses the point. Turb was addressing the blockade. The above response is laser-focused on the actual process of capturing the aid flotilla. IOW, it's not exactly what I'd be inclined to call a particularly good-faith response. The intervention to enforce the blockade might not be an act of terrorism when completely stripped of context, but that says nothing of whether the blockade itself is terrorism. Stating that e.g. buying a car isn't an act of terrorism would not be a meaningful response to the observation that packing said car full of explosives and crashing it into a polling station is an act of terrorism. The former might not be an act of terror, but that doesn't mean it's not an integral part of a terrorist act.
Posted by: envy | June 05, 2010 at 02:58 PM