And I've been really busy this past holiday weekend doing fun stuff, like taking the Technical out for a spin, and helping the Prodigal Son's family move (closer, yay!), and taking advantage of time with the Prodigal Grandson and Daughter-in-Law that is thereby provided.
But I have been catching up on the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" where it seems Israeli commandos boarded the vessel with paintball guns, and found out that "peace activists" know how to use pistols - possibly taken from the commandos - to change the whole equation and cause an escalation of violence.
One thing about keeping violence down. Both sides have to want to do that. It only takes one side to make things go south. Via Bloomberg:
Solid details have yet to emerge - but it strikes me that if the Israelis showed up with paintball guns (and lethal sidearms, yes) and were met with knives and clubs, the question of who responded disproportionately is a bit open at the moment. And that bullets didn't start flying (still an unresolved question) until "peace activists" seized the sidearms of the Israelis, then again, who escalated things? Of course, the hard core "peace activists" behind the event (not the oft-times mush-headed romantics the hard core recruit to be useful idiots) got exactly what they wanted.
Since all that is still being sorted out - I just want to know if President Sarkozy would be as harsh with a government that allowed 15,000 people to die because of government action or inaction.
Given that the deaths in the "Freedom Flotilla" constitute about, um, one thousandth the death toll from the 2003 heatwave.
What? I'm being all Saul Alinsky here? Yeah, what's your point? That's the way we play these days. Just ask Rahm.
It does bring into question the larger question of the effectiveness of sanction regimes like this one, or the ones imposed on Iraq and even North Korea, at least insofar as ones imposed by nations that are not necessarily sufficiently bloody-minded enough to carry them through to the logical conclusion. Interestingly, nations that are bloody-minded enough to do so are usually economic basket cases with little leverage in that regard. Go figure.
These things follow a predictable path - impose the blockade/sanctions. The thugs in power simply divert whatever there is to their own purposes, doubling-down on the impoverishment of their "people" which then of course they then exploit to appeal to the big-hearted mush-headed people who simply can't stand the thought of the poor and down-trodden being made more poor and trodden upon, whereupon they start pressuring... the boycotting/blockading powers, because even though they're mush-headed they recognize that the thugs aren't going to do anything about it, and in fact are dis-incentivized from doing so, so they pull on the levers where there is some leverage to be gained.
That, and the thugs, being of criminal mind and bent, exploit the weakness and foibles of the international community and bribe their way to what they want - all the while letting their people suffer, because sick and starving children are useful propaganda. And the mush-heads go along with it - because living with tyranny and oppression are preferable to the alternative - I suspect up to and including the day when they find themselves tyrannically oppressed.
Meh.
Truth is - thuggery wins most of the time, as long as they can calibrate to just the right level and keep it in their borders. Therefore it *is* a legit question - if we aren't willing to "go to the mattresses" why do it at all?
Tough questions, since some forms of targeted sanctions do work - until the thugs figure out who to bribe.
But I have been catching up on the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" where it seems Israeli commandos boarded the vessel with paintball guns, and found out that "peace activists" know how to use pistols - possibly taken from the commandos - to change the whole equation and cause an escalation of violence.
One thing about keeping violence down. Both sides have to want to do that. It only takes one side to make things go south. Via Bloomberg:
‘Disproportionate’ Force
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Israel had used “disproportionate” force. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she had spoken by phone with Netanyahu and Erdogan called for “a comprehensive investigation.” New York-based Human Rights Watch said the raid raises “grave concerns about possible unlawful and excessive use of force.”
Solid details have yet to emerge - but it strikes me that if the Israelis showed up with paintball guns (and lethal sidearms, yes) and were met with knives and clubs, the question of who responded disproportionately is a bit open at the moment. And that bullets didn't start flying (still an unresolved question) until "peace activists" seized the sidearms of the Israelis, then again, who escalated things? Of course, the hard core "peace activists" behind the event (not the oft-times mush-headed romantics the hard core recruit to be useful idiots) got exactly what they wanted.
Since all that is still being sorted out - I just want to know if President Sarkozy would be as harsh with a government that allowed 15,000 people to die because of government action or inaction.
Given that the deaths in the "Freedom Flotilla" constitute about, um, one thousandth the death toll from the 2003 heatwave.
What? I'm being all Saul Alinsky here? Yeah, what's your point? That's the way we play these days. Just ask Rahm.
It does bring into question the larger question of the effectiveness of sanction regimes like this one, or the ones imposed on Iraq and even North Korea, at least insofar as ones imposed by nations that are not necessarily sufficiently bloody-minded enough to carry them through to the logical conclusion. Interestingly, nations that are bloody-minded enough to do so are usually economic basket cases with little leverage in that regard. Go figure.
These things follow a predictable path - impose the blockade/sanctions. The thugs in power simply divert whatever there is to their own purposes, doubling-down on the impoverishment of their "people" which then of course they then exploit to appeal to the big-hearted mush-headed people who simply can't stand the thought of the poor and down-trodden being made more poor and trodden upon, whereupon they start pressuring... the boycotting/blockading powers, because even though they're mush-headed they recognize that the thugs aren't going to do anything about it, and in fact are dis-incentivized from doing so, so they pull on the levers where there is some leverage to be gained.
That, and the thugs, being of criminal mind and bent, exploit the weakness and foibles of the international community and bribe their way to what they want - all the while letting their people suffer, because sick and starving children are useful propaganda. And the mush-heads go along with it - because living with tyranny and oppression are preferable to the alternative - I suspect up to and including the day when they find themselves tyrannically oppressed.
Meh.
Truth is - thuggery wins most of the time, as long as they can calibrate to just the right level and keep it in their borders. Therefore it *is* a legit question - if we aren't willing to "go to the mattresses" why do it at all?
Tough questions, since some forms of targeted sanctions do work - until the thugs figure out who to bribe.
With Obama at the helm of US policy, Israel has no other dependable ally to help resolve these kinds of crises peacefully. Instead of leading to any promise of a peaceful resolution to the Iranian threat, this situation will force Israel to do what it must .... alone.
Which is yet another objective of the pro-Islamist, pro-Palestinian, anti-Semitic "useful idiots" in Europe and America.
Of course, that leaves the question of what to do to prevent homocidal maniacs from merrily building away, neither interrupted nor deterred, on their armies and weapons stockpiles untill they hit the critical mass of "We can take 'em!" and spark off another big round of bloodshed. I'm not sure what the answer is, unfortunately.
Now, in the case of Israel's not-quite-blockade (they mostly let aid go through, just after it is detoured and checked for weapons heading for people who have sworn the utter destruction of Israel as their foremost goal), the futility of sanctions isn't really an issue. Israel is just concerned with keeping the "I keel you!" dopes from getting more tools. In the respect that the Egyptian border will now become a superhighway of arms flowing to Hamas, Israel lost this battle, but letting the ship through would have been just as bad. There was no victory to be had here for Israel, courtesy of strongly antagonistic world media.
Getting the Egyptian border unsealed was probably beyond the masterminds' of this little PR stunt wildest dreams, but now it needs to be dealt with. My take is to just tell the world to shove it (no sense being all faux-friendly to people who hate you) and fully reabsorb "Palestine". An article from earlier this year lays out the rationale for that view and is rather worth the read on its own merits. Negotiating with and appeasing the murderous monsters isn't working any better than it did for Chamberlain. Israel is trying to take the middle-ground (still read: half-assed) approach to their own existance, and that's just going to get more people on both sides killed. Slowly handing your would-be murderer parts of a gun while claiming it's better than handing him the whole thing at once makes about as much sense. The world media hates Israel, for a variety of reasons, and that's not going to change, so stop pretending it will. Do what needs to be done to ensure your survival and worry about your PR image after you are sure you'll live long enough to care. Retake "Palestine", run everyone through some sort of identification/reintegration process, put all known terrorists on death row, boot everyone who willingly supported the terrorists over the border, fortify said border, and work on integrating the folks who just want a chance at a decent life. Last, if it comes to mind, maybe give a rip about the empty condemnations from around the world long enough to get your side of the story out there so it can be ignored.
At which point the current Administration will quiet literally have to put up or shut up (no guesses as to which wll happen)
As mentioned previously, a no win situation for Israel, and a losing situation for the US who is now rapidly losing one of the few countries in the Middle East willing to work with us.
Look up meh in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
"Meh" is an interjection, often an expression of apathy, indifference, or boredom. However, it can also be used to indicate agreement or disagreement. It can also be an adjective, meaning mediocre or boring. [1]
The word gained popularity as a result of its use on The Simpsons. It was used in a 1994 episode, "Sideshow Bob Roberts," when a librarian reacts to Lisa's surprise that voting records are not classified, and also in "Lisa's Wedding" after Marge weaves "Hi Bart" on a loom to try to pique his interest in weaving to which he responds "meh." In the 2001 episode "Hungry, Hungry Homer", Lisa spells out the word for emphasis, after Homer tries to interest her and Bart into going to a theme park. As early as 1992, however, the word appeared on a fan discussion board about the TV series Melrose Place.[2] The word's first mainstream print usage occurred in Canadian newspaper the Edmonton Sun in 2003: "Ryan Opray got voted off Survivor. Meh."[3]
There has been speculation that its origin is Yiddish because of its similarity to the interjection "feh". American lexicographer Benjamin Zimmer expressed some skepticism about this idea, and wrote in 2006, "Whatever Yiddish origins the interjection might have had, they have been lost in post-Simpsons usage." Lexicographer Grant Barrett wrote about "meh" and "D'oh", "I suspect they're both just transcribed versions of oral speech, which has any number of single-syllable sounds that mean a variety of things."[2]
Then they should have conducted a search and destroy mission using standard weapons and weapons free conditions of engagement. As for the Frogs and the Krauts having a problem with the Israelis candy assed way of handling this mission, who the hell cares. France being nothing more than cheese eating surrender monkeys with a sorta hot first lady, and the Jerries losing just about every war they start, they have no real credibility here.
As to what the rest of the world thinks about their taking care of their own business, (insert your favorite expletive here) them all.
1) The EU in its current form won't last long. Its economy is in shambles, and NATO is a paper tiger made up of forces who are reluctant to engage in combat, and ineffective even when it does, without US leadership.
2) Current US leadership aligns itself with the anti-Israeli forces and won't do anything to stop the emerging Iranian threat. This US leadership has squandered most of whatever deterrent value that the US may have possessed.
Therefore, Turkey is aligning itself with the "strong horse" of Iran and its major ally in the region, Syria.
Elections have consequences. Some of which will be permanent.
@fdcol63, You are writing as if you are a Turkish Leader, for the sake of discussion.
1) In my view, accurate, no comment.
2) You use the term, "Current US leadership...", how many administrations are we talking about? Do you know everything going on? Just who squandered US assets, hint- this was Pre-9/11? For the record, it was also pre-Bill Clinton.
You write, "Therefore, Turkey is aligning itself with the "strong horse" of Iran and its major ally in the region, Syria." You make the comment sound like it's a fresh new events. Wouldn't it have been more accurate to say, "They were coming out of the closet?" This relationship has been going on since the beginning of time.
What strikes me as most disturbing is the way Israel's 'commandos' boarded that vessel. Paintguns? A few of them? No prep? No warning shot? No shock, power, and speed? I have some serious doubts about the leadership here. I think it's likely the politicians desired a low key outcome and their stupidity ensured a high risk and high profile outcome instead. If so, their treatment of their own military is attrocious.
"may you live in interesting times" (chinese curse).
The IDF boarded 5 other ships in the flotilla without any problems, so why should they use any "preventive" measures on this one??
If you saw the videos, those "no more than could be expected to be on such a vessel" weapons were the metal poles and clubs, knives (not table ones) and other heavy metal stuff used for throwing at the person as well as molotov's cocktails.
The videos are on the IDF spokesperson blog.
Mr. C.
Sanctions -usually understood in this context as economic sanctions- on the other hand are coercive measures designed to elicit a change in behavior. The record is not as bad as you say, although certain examples (such as South Africa) fall in line with your interpretation. In this case, I would say the "sanctions" against Iran have been effective, in that the United States has managed to severely limit that country's economic & logistic power. To put it another way, if we hadn't used sanctions, the Persians would be far more powerful than they are today.
Finding the right guy to bribe isn't always the answer, if the economic might of the United States has been oriented to keeping the international financial community away from said corrupt bureaucrats. We can, and have, shut down a tremendous amount of economic activity just by pressuring international economic & credit organizations.
Same thing with the Norks. We've starved them as best we can, and the result is far better than a fat, pampered, and powerful North Korea would have been.
Same thing squared for Iraq. Sure, Hussein dumped all the suffering on the common folks, but the sanctions still weakened that country far more than pious words alone would have. There's no panacea.
The issue with the "Palestine fleet" is that Israelis screwed up at the flag level. They thought they would be facing Code Pink types, or at worst rambunctious SEIU thugs. They figured all they needed were paint guns. They ran into gangsters instead. The kind with motorcycle chains, switchblades, and baseball bats.
This was an intelligence failure, pure and simple. The intel folks (Mossad?) screwed the pooch for sure. And, yeah, USMC Steve, we should strafe thugs with knives & clubs into pink mist because that's such a brilliant PR move. Or haven't you figured out this is a chess game, not a rugby match. Ever hear of tear gas? Flash-bang grenades? The Israelis could have handled this lot relatively easily, if only they knew what they were facing. I repeat: this was an intelligence failure of the first magnitude.
I will also repeat that there was no real need for this "flotilla." This was a stunt designed to embarrass Israel, and inflame public opinion. Going in "weapons hot" as Steve advocates would have made it a thousand times worse.
They came with the gas masks so that would not have worked.
They threw a stunt grenade at the IDF, too.
Again, watch the videos and pictures of all the stuff found at the ship at the IDF Spokesperson Blog.
On another note, since when are knives non-lethal? Even police RUF earns you a controlled pair when you pull a knife or pipe... This whole brouha is completely moot from the non-political perspective.
Point being that the Israeli intel department dry-humped the pooch, in a foul disgusting manner. This was probably the most embarassing intel failure for them after the 1973 war, and perhaps the recent incursion into Lebanon.
Ironside: CS balls? First I've heard that angle! Still, "non-lethal" can muck you up. What if tasers, tear gas, or rubber bullets don't slow them down, and you don't have more effective (but lethal) approaches to hand?
Me, I probably would have used some of the clubs, etc, found in various stashes on the ship to demonstrate just how unhappy I was with these "protestors." Then again, if John were the CO I would probably be up on charges the next day....
Though, in truth, I'm not sure what to make of Casey's last comment.
Now, the intelligence issues I do see have come after the fact, mostly in the form of terrorist ties for a large number of the "peace" activists. I'd be much obliged if someone would fish my last post out of the spam filter, as it includes two links to this developing issue, and here is the latest post via the Jawa Report. The only intelligence failure I'm seeing is expecting (irrationally) Moussad to know in advance the number of terrorist-affiliated people on the way, which I doubt would have substantially altered the response.
I don't think it's irrational to expect Mossad (or someone) to have a good idea who was on those boats. From over here it would seem they assumed -without hard data- how they would be received by the passengers. Your own point about after-action reports of terrorist links begs the question: why didn't Mossad (or someone) catch that before hand, unless they didn't bother do do any real research? Did they even try to investigate those people ahead of time?
John: what I meant was I was really pissed off when I read how they not only assaulted the soldiers, but had stashes of weapons ready for a real fight. Plenty of evidence for pre-meditation. And if I had been one of those soldiers, having seen some of my mates get bloodied up while coming in with paintball guns, and a couple thrown down 20-30 feet to the deck, I would have been strongly tempted to take one of those clubs and beat the crap out of some of those "activists." My last point was that you -being a good ossifer and all- would doubtless have me up on charges right afterward. :)
P.S. I can't believe the blog spellchecker flagged "Mossad!"
The laws of war with respect to blockade are relatively simple, and to my knowledge Israel has followed them quite well.
To be honest, I don't see where where Cuba or Berlin in any way contradict or condemn Israel's behavior here. In Berlin, the Airlift was strictly conducted according to international law and signed treaty. The Americans, British, and French literally had every right to fly supplies into West Berlin using the air corridors specified. Same with Cuba. The United States executed a blockade of Cuba, inspected cargo, and denied passage if necessary. There is no significant difference with respect to the Gaza blockade, except that the Soviets didn't deliberately embark groups of agents provocateurs on their cargo ships to Cuba.
In fact I would go so far to say that Israel has metaphorically bent over backwards to allow everything but munitions through to Gaza. But -just like the Jenin "massacre"- Israel is stuck with a wife-beater.
The Berlin Airlift and Cuban Missile Crisis, these are legal actions and there is a right way and a wrong way to respond to them. When we did the Berlin Airlift, everything was transparent, therefore no problems.
Cuban Missile Crisis was a completely different beast. The cargo ships were in fact Soviet Navy Vessels with Soviet Navy Crews, Soviet Navy Captains, Soviet Military Technicians, a whole bunch of KGB Agents. There is one last wrinkle which changes the whole picture. In their orders, everybody was ordered to wear civilian clothing. During this time-frame, this one action makes all of them spies. Now you begin to see the importance of the Uniform. Hmmmm, let's see, spies caught on the Battlefield.....
I say again: Israeli intel dropped the ball on this one. There were so many danger flags out there that only the lack of serious investigation can explain what happened.
Have you ever gone into a situation, seeing all of the danger flags, in fact can give the co-ordinates for each one. The "Command Decision" is not given because of the intel, but rather in spite of it. The whole field of Intel is not a science, but more of Scientific Wild Ass Guess or "SWAG".
In your quote, printed a quote from Evan Kohlmann, now he quoted a French Counter-Terrorism Magistrate. The Magistrate said, "The Turks are keeping their nose clean...." My question, "Why?" The Turks have too many packs of dogs in the fight and hoping not to get caught.
I don't see this as an Intel Failure, but more as a Command Failure.
One thing to remember, when I look at this whole area of area of the World, I see one Arab Persian Country with many different states. What would happen if a super power country were to come in and 'liberate' Kansas from the US and bring Kansas more under its influence?
I could go further back, to "Scott is lost," or forward to 1973, when Isreal got caught flat-footed.
Agreed that Command mucked up as much as Intel, but I still say they should have had agents sniffing around this.
Gotta disagree with the phrase "Arab Persian Country." Arabs hate Persians, and vice versa. One of the reasons the Saudis still play nice with us is that they're more scared fo the Shiite Persians than they are of the Imperialist Christian Americans.
Arab Persian Country, you don't even want to start on that subject. The Saudis playing nice, that is a farce, Where did they get their oil? I mean other than the ground, I'm talking about the technology, Americans bought land, including mineral rights. The 'Wildcatters' brought in everything to drill for oil and transport it for distilling. After the industry was well established, the good old Saudis *Nationalized* it! Go to 9/11, the Saudis were so involved in it, our Bush / Cheney could not begin to accept it.