War in The Middle East

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

And please folks, let's focus on the War in the Middle East and not on what xxxs said, or who gets what aid to Israel. Let's keep the coherence please folks.

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East

What is your point here? You have nothing to state.

I think I misread a previous post of yours.

First, I never stated the insurgency pushed the American troops out of Fallujah. You are once again, in an absence of any argument and substance, inserting things in my argument that I did not make in order to have something to argue with. This is the second time you did that.

I said:

When you say the US captured it only temporarily and that the insurgents were back as soon as they pulled out you are correct up to this point, but even then it nothing to do with the Insurgents and their capabilities.

It was political pressure and policy decisions that caused the calling off of the siege and first operation to clear Fallujah of insurgents. You then stated:

It has everything to do with insurgents and their capabilities.

You are making irrelevant analogies between history and the present. For starters, everything in history is open to interpretation based on the facts, and so is the present. The U.S. government has engaged in subterfuge in the past, and it has done so in the present. If you listen to Al Jazeera they claim the opposite of what you believe. How do we know?

In what way is it irrelevant? You specifically stated that since neither of us were there we could not know what the truth was. How can you say this and then proceed to tell me history is open to interpretation based on facts? Is a fact only a fact when you agree with it or it comes from a source you agree with?
The facts concerning what we are discussing about Fallujah speak for themselves, you can ignore them all you want in your drive to prove to me how much of a failure the US military force has been.
I am not familiar with the claims of Al Jazeera, perhaps you should post some links and sources. They have actually made some claims concerning the current crisis in Lebanon that have turned out to be true, and have done so before Israeli media (IDF casualties, etc).

If they are so superior then why have they not been able to subdue the insurgency? The reality is that, having technological superiority, as well as fire power superiority means absolutely nothing on the battlefield. This is from Shun Tzu in the Art of War. I suggest you read it.

They occupy the country, they successfully carry out counter-insurgency and cointel operations time and time again in places such as Fallujah, Samarra, Tal Afar, Mosul etc and are winning the war of attrition against the insurgency. I believe the PBS Frontline documentary you linked to, that I watched, even stated this.

When Iran and Iraq fought, that was a conventional war, carried out by two states. What the U.S. did was destroy the state and the state army of Iraq and it is left with the non-state entities in fourth generation war. As such I am left befuddled as to why you brought up the example of Iran and Iraq as it is completely irrelevant.

Perhaps my understanding of fourth generation warfare is weak and I am making poor assumptions concerning the insurgency and linking it's effectiveness to skill and previous experience.

You not only underestimate the insurgecy, but you have totally believed the guff you hear from Washington, namely that, these are nothing more than 'opportunists'. Fourth generation war is not small, but in fact, it is very expansive and very predominant in the world setting, and you can find many instances of fourth generation warfare. Another that comes to mind is the Chechens fighting the Russians. The insurgents are for the most imbued with Islamic principles and believe in a God and a cause higher than this earth, higher than any State and higher than any earthly army or utopia. That is why they are ideologically and mentally superior to the Americans and just like in Vietnam, they have home field advantage and a will and determination that Americans do not. There different moods and reason why the different sides are fighting. What America is confronting in Iraq and Afghanistan is more than it bargained for and you do not give enough credit to the insurgency for bogging down the the most superior military.

Military control and freedom of movement over a country is hardly what I would calling being "bogged down".
As for the Chechen example, the two do not really compare, the Iraqi insurgency is not causing the casualties the Chechens are and the Russian and American forces do not really employ the same responses and tactics to defeat their respective enemies.

Insurgencies are insurgencies and non-state entities, whether Iraqi insurgencies, Hezbollah, Hamas or the Tamil Tigers in India makes absolutely no difference. You are drawing arbitrary lines in order to have an argument. By somehow creating a fallacious comparison - that in order to be properly considered an insurgency they must be 'well trained' and be 'armed properly' - you are trying to exclude the Iraqi insurgents as somehow proper and thereby underestimating them. Whether they are armed with Katyusha rockets or Molotov xxxxtails makes no difference. If they are a non-state entity and horizontally organized networks engaged in battles against conventional state armies, they are insurgents by the fact itself. They do not report to any State, any government, or any central power except of course their unearthly God of Islam.

My comparison and the point I was pursuing here was indeed flawed, as stated in my 5th paragraph.

Do you seriously believe the naivity that somehow if the media did not report the news about what is going on, or at least slanted it supposedly in favor of the Americans, that somehow they would be any more successful against insurgence? Such an example in thought processes is not only pontificating, but it is purely conjecture. There is absolutely no reason to believe such a fallacious link, and it was nothing more than an excuse used after the fact to justify Americas loss in Vietnam. It is wholly simplistic and nothing more than an example of catharsis, of trying to blame some third party for what is initially the reality of war, of fourth generation war, that when state armies meet determined non-state armies, the result is that the state always loses. And America, sadly, will walk out of this with more bad than good. It cannot outlast the insurgency on its own territory. Thousands of Americans will die, and billions upon billiions will be spent on this stupid war that was poorly planned from the beginning, and the deficit will further increase and the region will further destabilize and those like you will continue to simplistically blame the media.

Why do you suppose then with more than enough chances to learn, the US military has not evolved to counter this form of warfare? Or perhaps as I stated before, the war of attrition is being won (as it was in Vietnam). I think it comes down to the fact that one side is willing to pay a horrendous price, and repeatedly, and this skews peoples view of it all as well as giving psychological victories to the enemy. What can you do if dozens of insurgents die in the process of simply disabling a tank and wounding the crew if they will celebrate it as a decisive victory and your own media reports it as an unexpected blow?
I do agree though this war is a waste of money and human lives. But we are not discussing this.

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

I think I misread a previous post of yours.

I said:

When you say the US captured it only temporarily and that the insurgents were back as soon as they pulled out you are correct up to this point, but even then it nothing to do with the Insurgents and their capabilities.

It was political pressure and policy decisions that caused the calling off of the siege and first operation to clear Fallujah of insurgents. You then stated:

It has everything to do with insurgents and their capabilities.

The reason I stated that is because you underestimate the insurgecy. Whereas earlier you blame the media for some blunder, now you blame politics. It seems to me at least every mishap, miscalculation and misfortune that occurs is a result of some external condition and not in any way a result of American military incompetence against the insurgency, or the insurgency's fortitude. The reason the American forces left has nothing to do with politics, but everything to do with logistics and battlefield tactics. For example, one reason is because the insurgency has been successful in its bombing and hit and run tactics. A second reason is America's overstretched military that is incapable of being at all places at the same time. American troops, in order to properly quell the insurgency need to be close to five times the number they are in Iraq now to properly occupy all places at the same time, as the British did a long time ago.

In what way is it irrelevant? You specifically stated that since neither of us were there we could not know what the truth was. How can you say this and then proceed to tell me history is open to interpretation based on facts? Is a fact only a fact when you agree with it or it comes from a source you agree with?

That is precisely the case and I will state it again. Because we were not there, we cannot possibly know for sure, thus all 'knowledge' about Fallujah or the current incursions by Israel is taken on faith. There is no reason to believe what the U.S. claims about what happened because they have, like all governments, engaged in subterfuge. I notice you are not disputing this point, but continuing with the false analogy.

You are not only misconstruing what I stated, but you are advancing an incorrect argument about history.

The facts concerning what we are discussing about Fallujah speak for themselves, you can ignore them all you want in your drive to prove to me how much of a failure the US military force has been.

Really? How do they "speak for themselves". What are these 'facts' that 'speak'? If these facts were not first reported by the government, to the media, how would we know anything about these 'facts'? Clearly they are not 'speaking for themselves', but instead are relying on people to transmit them the way they see fit.

I am not familiar with the claims of Al Jazeera, perhaps you should post some links and sources. They have actually made some claims concerning the current crisis in Lebanon that have turned out to be true, and have done so before Israeli media (IDF casualties, etc).

The claims made by Al Jazeera is a general reference. Through America's engagement in Iraq, as well as Fallujah, they claimed many things American media did not claim, such as heavy American casualties, and America encircling Fallujah but not being able to penetrate the city and many of the Iraq army fleeing.

They occupy the country, they successfully carry out counter-insurgency and cointel operations time and time again in places such as Fallujah, Samarra, Tal Afar, Mosul etc and are winning the war of attrition against the insurgency. I believe the PBS Frontline documentary you linked to, that I watched, even stated this.

The only thing the Americans "occupy" is the fortified green zone. Beyond that, it's a jungle and no one can claim occupation unless they have completely subdued the resistance. The war of attrition is exactly what American's cannot win. I will give you an example. Here is a piece by William Lind, the former Marine who has contributed to Fourth Generation War:

The Power of Weakness

The investigations of Marines for possible murders of Iraqi civilians in Haditha last November and, more recently, in Hamdaniyah, seem set to follow the usual course. If anyone is found guilty, it will be privates and sergeants. The press will reassure us that the problem was just a few "bad apples," that higher-ups had no knowledge of what was going on, and that "99.9%" of our troops in Iraq are doing a splendid job of upholding, indeed enforcing, human rights. It’s called the "Abu Ghraib precedent."

The fact that senior Marine and Army leaders don’t seem to know what is going on in cases like this is a sad comment on them. Far from being exceptional incidents caused by a few bad soldiers or Marines, mistreatment of civilians by the forces of an occupying power are a central element of Fourth Generation war. They are one of the main reasons why occupiers tend to lose. Haditha, Hamdaniyah and the uncountable number of incidents where U.S. troops abused Iraqi civilians less severely than by killing them are a direct product of war waged by the strong against the weak.

There are, of course, lesser causes as well, and it is on the lesser causes that we tend to focus. Poor leadership in a unit easily opens the door to misconduct. Overstretched, overtired units snap more easily. Every military service in history has included a certain percentage of criminals, and a larger percentage of bullies. The fact that in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the insurgencies are getting stronger, not weaker, generates increasing frustration among our troops: nothing they do seems to yield any real progress. The enemy’s highly effective use of IEDs leads units that have been hit often and hard to take their frustrations out on the civilian populations, since they cannot find, identify or shoot back at the people who are hitting them.

But all of these factors are secondary to the power of weakness itself. We may find it easier to grasp what the power of weakness is and how it works on us by first imagining its opposite. Imagine that instead of facing rag-tag bands of poorly equipped and trained insurgents, our Marines and soldiers in Iraq were in a very difficult fight with an opponent similar to themselves, but somewhat stronger.

What would fighting the strong do for them? Being David rather than Goliath, they would see themselves as noble. Every victory would be a cause for genuine pride. Defeats would not mean disgrace, but instead would demand greater effort and higher performance. Even after a failure, they could still look at themselves in the mirror with pride. Knowing they faced a stronger enemy, their own cohesion would grow and their demand for self-discipline would increase.

If the enemy’s overmatch were too great, it could lead our units to hopelessness and disintegration. But a fight with an enemy who is stronger but still beatable would buck us up more than tear us down on the all-important moral level.

Now, to see the situation as it is, turn that telescope around. Every firefight we win in Iraq or Afghanistan does little for our pride, because we are so much stronger than the people we are defeating. Every time we get hit successfully by a weaker enemy, we feel like chumps, and cannot look ourselves in the mirror (again, with IED attacks this happens quite often). Whenever we use our superior strength against Iraqi civilians, which is to say every time we drive down an Iraqi street, we diminish ourselves in our own eyes. Eventually, we come to look at ourselves with contempt and see ourselves as monsters. One way to justify being a monster is to behave like one, which makes the problem worse still. The resulting downward spiral, which every army in this kind of war has gotten caught in, leads to indiscipline, demoralization, and disintegration of larger units as fire teams and squads simply go feral.

Again, this process is fundamental to Fourth Generation war. Martin van Crevald has stressed the power of weakness as one key, if not the key, to 4GW, and he is correct. It shows just how far America’s military leadership is from grasping Fourth Generation war that its response in Iraq has been to order all troops to undergo a two to four-hour "refresher course in core values."

They are caught in a hurricane, and all they can do is spit in the wind. The rest of us should get ready for the house to blow down.

Military control and freedom of movement over a country is hardly what I would calling being "bogged down".

Whether you would call that being bogged down or not is of course irrelevant. This isn't about you, or me. This is about the situation there, a situation that the American forces and the Bush administration did not anticipate as this is one of the flaws of central planning. They expected to be greeted as liberators now the area is in civil war, hiding under the euphemism of "sectarian strife". It's already a civil war that has not been officially called a civil war. There a difference between the reality that is, and the reality is preceived, there is a different between what something is, and the words we choose to ascribe to those things.

As for the Chechen example, the two do not really compare, the Iraqi insurgency is not causing the casualties the Chechens are and the Russian and American forces do not really employ the same responses and tactics to defeat their respective enemies.

Actually, the two compare more than you would like to admit. You are once again trying to draw arbitrary distinctions for the purposes of advancing your argument. In reality, my mention of the Chechens, and their example in general, fits perfectly. This isn't about the results in between or who has inflicted more damage on whom. This is about the best example as it gets of fourth generation war, of a state army confronting and being bogged down and defeated by a non-state army. Tactics, responses, etc., do not matter for nothing is uniform and different situations will usher different methods. What remains true are the players and systems.

Why do you suppose then with more than enough chances to learn, the US military has not evolved to counter this form of warfare? Or perhaps as I stated before, the war of attrition is being won (as it was in Vietnam). I think it comes down to the fact that one side is willing to pay a horrendous price, and repeatedly, and this skews peoples view of it all as well as giving psychological victories to the enemy. What can you do if dozens of insurgents die in the process of simply disabling a tank and wounding the crew if they will celebrate it as a decisive victory and your own media reports it as an unexpected blow?
I do agree though this war is a waste of money and human lives. But we are not discussing this.

Skews peoples' views? Are you insinuating that people suffer from some sort of 'false consciousness'? You are forgetting that the psychological aspect of war, is just as much if not more so, part of war than anything else. In fact, it all emanates from the state of mind of the different armies confronting each other. The fact that a suicide bomber can blow himself up and destroy a few enemies is for them victory. There is no line delineating what is or is not okay in war. Fourth generation war has effectively destroyed the old code of war, of "civilized warfare" of general rules of engagement. In fact, the very reason that the enemy is willing to blow itself up and kill anyone and anything for its perceived goal is exactly why America is not and cannot win the war of attrition as you so boldly like to claim.

[HayotzAmrotz]

Re: War in The Middle East

...Mer miatsial uzheri kenac@:

Ais qo togh@ kardaluts heto mianqamitz erq@ ekav mitq@s:

Shun talaat@ pakhav Berlin,
Tehlirian@ hasav ertin
Zargets chaktin, pretz getnin
Gini litz, akhper jan, gini litz
Khmoghats anush, khmoghats anush!

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

And please folks, let's focus on the War in the Middle East and not on what xxxs said, or who gets what aid to Israel. Let's keep the coherence please folks.

Why is that that no other nationalisty is treated the same way? I have read vulgar and violent comments here about Russians, Kurds, Turks, ect. Why is it that we cant discuss J-e-w-s even when they are a fundamental part of the topic at hand. This is utterly absurd. We are talking about the Mideast and we cant talk about J-e-w-s? If thats the case then the administrator here should delete this thread altogether.

The comment by Ariel Sharon that I posted earlier has 'everything' to do with what is happening in the world today. It has 'everything' to do with what is occuring in Lebanon today. These people control Washington DC and they are making us fight their wars. These people had a BIG HAND IN THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE. And they, as a nation, continue being the biggest obstacle for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Why can we talk about Turks, English, Russians, Arabs, Christians, Muslims in general terms, but when we talk about J-e-w-s we have to stop and specifiy exactly the who, what, where, when and why?

Do we say a "certain small segment of Ottoman society" conducted the Armenian Genoicde or do we say "the Ottomans" conducted the Armenian Genocide? Do we say the "a small segment of British, Russian and French politicians" betrayed Armenians or do we say the English, the Russians and the French betrayed Armenians? Do we say "only a handful of Germen officers" conducted war crimes during WW-II or do we say 'Germans' conducted war crimes during WW-II?

The answers to the above are obvious. So why are we expected to say something like "most xxxs are wonderful people its just that there are some amongst them that are not very nice" every time we open our mouths about them?

I suggest this discussion board concern itself with Armenians and Armenians only.

[HayotzAmrotz]

Re: War in The Middle East

Currently, Israel says it only has Hezbollah in its targets. But the Lebanese government has launched a veiled threat it might start fighting if Israel deploys a large ground force in southern Lebanon.

"We will defend our land until the last soldier, we will pay the price for our land," Lebanese Defence Minister Elias Murr told.

Destroying Hizballah is just one of the many of Israel’s reasons, which Israel will not be able to achieve because of the fact that Hizballah represents over 35% of the Lebanese population (all of the Shi’as) so they have to wipe out the Shi’as first, and that’s simply impossible.

I’m sure that in a case of ground invasion the Lebanese army will join Hizballah.

Another reason for this recent Israeli onslaught is the fact that Lebanon was slowly but steadily on the path of economic recovery. In foreseeable future she would have become in a lot of aspects, a stronger country. Prospect of having a strong, a prosperous and let’s not forget also a democratic Arab neighbor is not in Israel’s interests.

I won’t be surprised if the Lebanese government decides to sue Israel for the damages.

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

The powerful Israeli IDF:

...confirmed that it has captured the Lebanese border village of Maroun Al-Ras after several days of fierce fighting against Hezbollah fighters based there. "It can be said that the area of Maroun al-Ras, that had served as a [Hezbollah] vantage point over Avivim, now serves as an [Israeli] vantage point over Bint Jbail," Major-General Benny Gantz, the Israeli ground-force commander, said on Saturday. Six Israeli commandos and an unknown number of Hezbollah members died in the battle for the village which is less than a kilometre inside Lebanese territory. Fighting was still continuing on Sunday morning... http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...C7274FF26A.htm

Take note: This is a heavy armor mechanized infantry division, along with the elite Golani Brigade, supported by artillary and the airforce not being able to clear out Lebanese Hizbollah gaurillas from a single hill top. In my opinion, Hizbollah has already won this war, politically, spiritually and physically, regardless of the tactical outcome.

GO HIZBOLLAH

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Destroying Hizballah is just one of the many of Israel’s reasons, which Israel will not be able to achieve because of the fact that Hizballah represents over 35% of the Lebanese population (all of the Shi’as) so they have to wipe out the Shi’as first, and that’s simply impossible. I’m sure that in a case of ground invasion the Lebanese army will join Hizballah. Another reason for this recent Israeli onslaught is the fact that Lebanon was slowly but steadily on the path of economic recovery. In foreseeable future she would have become in a lot of aspects, a stronger country. Prospect of having a strong, a prosperous and let’s not forget also a democratic Arab neighbor is not in Israel’s interests. I won’t be surprised if the Lebanese government decides to sue Israel for the damages.

Good analysis enker.

Israel is in a very bad situation now because it was not able to destroy Hizbollah on the ground by the cowerdly usage of air power alone and it was not able to turn public sentiments in Lebanon against Hizbollah. Tel Aviv hoped that by punishing the entire country for what the Hizbollah did, the people of Lebanon would say enough is enough and turn against the Hizbollah. Obviously, support for Hizbollah is not only growing bigger in Lebanon, support for Hizbollah its growing bigger internationally. What real choices does Tel Aviv have - Invade Lebanon, enrage the world, lose large numbers of men and materials, flirth with an international crisis, or pull forces back into Israel in shame and defeat?

Incidentaly, a relative just told me that many Shiites are now taking refuge in the Armenian section of Beirut called Bourjhamood.

[Nemesis]

Re: War in The Middle East

VERY interesting note about Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. He was born and raiied in Bourj Hammoud, and he speaks Armenian.

[HayotzAmrotz]

Re: War in The Middle East

Incidentaly, a relative just told me that many Shiites are now taking refuge in the Armenian section of Beirut called Bourjhamood.

By providing refuge and protecting the Shi’a refugees our community is doing the absolute right thing, and I’m very proud of them.

With regards to the attitude of the J-e-w-s towards the Armenian Genocide I can think only of two intellectual J-e-w-s that have shown REAL DECENCY, which is something that is unfortunately completely lacking in their community worldwide when it comes to the Armenian Genocide.

The names of these honorable men are:

YAIR AURON, the author of the following books “The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide”, and “The Banality of Indifference (Zionism and the Armenian Genocide)”.

YOSSI SARID, the former Minister of Education of Israel

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/sarid.html