We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Obama… taking a failed strategy and promising to emulate it Michael Totten has a superb article up that compares the approach to counter-insurgency followed by Israel under the dismal Ehud Olmert, and that of the US in Iraq under General David Petraeus.
What Totten points out is that the policies promised by Barack Obama for Iraq (in essence remove the army and drop bombs on anyone who seems to be the Bad Guys) is essential the same as the demonstrably failed approach used by Ehud Olmert in Lebanon. Israel blew the crap out of Lebanon from the air and achieved precisely zero of its war aims.
Read the whole article.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The war in Iraq has changed, and in that sense, amazingly, Obama is promising to cut and run from the last war, not the current one. Apparently, he refuses to be confused by the facts on the ground. That is not to say that he is actually about to deliver what he is promising now.
As to Olmert, he is only as dismal as the reality by which he is constrained. A huge part of that reality is the Israeli public that is not willing to pay the price of decisive victory (remember how the Hizballah got its hold of S. Lebanon in the first place). It is the same public who will overwhelmingly re-elect Olmert were elections to be held tomorrow, the polls cited in Totten’s article notwithstanding.
Oh, come on. He’s much more dismal than that. He’s an Obama without any charisma – an entirely empty suit.
The comparison between Israel’s war in Lebanon and Iraq is correct, but only to some extent. Israel is simply unable to mainatin control over Lebanon, and then Syria too, for any long period of time. It doesn’t have the resources and manpower. It isn’t the USA. The options the US has (maybe) in Iraq are not available to Israel.
Not true. The Israeli public was willing to do what it takes, during the Lebanon 2 war. It was Olmert, and the dismal commanding officers of the IDF that had no idea what to do, and how to pursue a decission.
The Israeli public is wary of long attrition wars (like the one now in Gaza), with no end in sight, but is supporting decisive campaigns.
Same in the US: – the political and military leaders lose support only when the public perceives they have no idea what they are doing.
There are many wild cards in the situation of the US (as the sole representative of the West) versus the jihadists in Iraq & elsewhere. One of the wildest is — what will the jihadists do?
They may choose to wait until Obama is being sworn in as president to launch some attacks on the US. Or they could choose to try to replicate their victory in Spain by attacking before the elctions. Either way, an attack will come, sometime.
Then Pres. Obama will face his first real test — show the jihadists that he is a strong man they need to fear, or that he is (as they suspect) a wimp they can push around. The EU of course will be begging Obama to wimp out. What will he do? Only time will tell.
Totten says as much in his article (i.e. he is not saying Israel should do what the USA is doing in Iraq, but rather the USA should not do what Israel did in Lebanon), but given the totality of your comment, I think you also agree.
Jacob: I disagree about Olmert, but I don’t like him enough to argue:-)
As to Israeli public: you seem to have forgotten Lebanon I, and all the mothers screaming to bring the “kids” back home. So the other Ehud (Barak) did. And isn’t what is happening in Iraq an attrition war? Everyone wants free lunch.
About the war in Iraq: I don’t think Obama knows what he is talking about when he says he will pull out until the end of 2009. I heard him say (wisely) that he will reserve all his options and make final decisions according to the situation at that time.
So, maybe, this pull-out pledge is just empty campaign promises, like most things all candidates say during a campaign, and we can’t know what he’ll really do.
Still, the most likely scenario for a Democrat is the Vietnam scenario (pioneered by the Republicans Kissinger and Nixon): make some face saving and fake arrangement, and then cut and run, disregarding the consequences. After which the other dominoes, Kuwait, Dubay and Qatar also fall into Islamist hands.
The correct thing to do (IMO) would be to stay put in Iraq forever (decades). Stabilize the regime. Stay as long as it takes. Charge Iraq for the favors (out of oil revenue). Promote vigorously regime change in Syria and Iran. Make Europe, Japan and China pay their share of costs, via oil prices if necesssary. It would take a long term, difficult commitment that I don’t think the US public will support.
Fahgeddabowdit, Obama and Billary.
It will Al Gore on the SECOND BALLOT
Obama as VP.
The war in Iraq has changed, and in that sense, amazingly, Obama is promising to cut and run from the last war, not the current one.
…but we’re not fighting the last war, we’re fighting the current one. And it seems like getting to the point where we could fight the current war was kind of dependent on sticking around to fight the last one. In any case, he can’t cut and run from the last war, because we’re not fighting it any more.
Apparently, he refuses to be confused by the facts on the ground.
I’m glad someone does, would you mind explaining to me?
That is not to say that he is actually about to deliver what he is promising now.
So what is he actually going to do?
Obama is going to respond to events — that is what he is going to do.
How is he going to respond — forcefully & intelligently, or whimperingly & obsequiously? That is for the voters to try to figure out.
The next President will be tested. Of that, there is no doubt.
But in Lebanon 2, that wasn’t the problem. It wasn’t the Israeli public or lefty MSM that prevented the Army and Olmert from achieving some reasonable results. There was solid public backing behind this war as long as it lasted. International backing too. It was only the ineptness and stupidity of the military and political leaders that caused the dubious outcome.
As to Lebanon 1 – that’s another story, OT now.
It will Al Gore on the SECOND BALLOT.
Over Hillary’s dead body.
A. Sommer:
You should really be explaining this to him, because his is the fact on the ground he is ignoring. It may have made sense to cut and run when we seemed to be losing, but to talk about it now that we are finally beginning to win?
Are you asking me? how on earth would I know?
Jacob: Lebanon I is part of the story, and is as much on topic as Lebanon II. Olmert, Halutz and…well, forget that idiot. Olmert and Halutz were reluctant to send troops into Lebanon precisely because they saw what happened in Lebanon I, and also what happened in Gaza and led to withdrawal from there as well. (Again, I am referring to the screaming mothers, in case it is not obvious). The public backing (and the international backing) last only for so long. Once the body bags start coming in, that support evaporates very quickly.
You should really be explaining this to him, because his is the fact on the ground he is ignoring.
It would not change anything. His early supporters were largely get-out-now types who were voting against Mrs Clinton on account of her votes on invading and continuing to fund the occupation and reconstruction.
Now, he’s neck-and-neck with Mrs Clinton, and needs all the support he can get… and admitting that the facts on the ground have changed would cost him the support of the get-out-now crowd. He has to maintain that position until he has a large enough lead over Mrs Clinton that he can afford to lose the get-out-now types. He does not have that now.
If he cares, that is. He might really be willing to sacrifice Iraq to gain the White House.
It may have made sense to cut and run when we seemed to be losing, but to talk about it now that we are finally beginning to win?
[shrug]
Jacob:
Bodies need not go cold for the convention to get “hot.”
For more on Al Gore “The Party’s Savior” try this link to Friday’s Newsweek:
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/02/15/al-gore-to-the-rescue.aspx(Link)
thanks to Instapundit
A. Sommer: I see your point.
Alisa,
But they sent them anyway. And also sustained civilian casualties. For no end at all.
The point is – when you start a war you need to have some objectives, some operational plans. The lack of any sensible, logical, conventional plan of action, the failure to have any vision about how the war is proceeding, what threats we will have to face and how we will respond – all these failures were not caused by any public pressure, or reluctance to sustain losses. A well planned and executed military operation reduces losses, rather than increasing them.
Jacob: yes, they sent them anyway, once the reality on the ground forced them to. Everything you say is true, but I see it as the symptom of a larger problem, not as the major problem in itself. If we Israelis knew what we want, and more importantly, what price are we willing to pay for the things we want, everything else (on our end) would have fallen into place. Unfortunately, our “leaders” largely reflect who we are, and Olmert is by far not the worst example of this.
BTW, I assuming that you are the same Jacob I know? (Sometimes your name links to your blog, and sometimes it doesn’t).
The Democrat mantra is “robust deplomacy” – i.e. early 1970’s Paris accords surrender.
Perry is using reason to try and examine the policy positions of Senator Obama.
Sadly the magic words “change”, “hope” and “yes we can” trump reason for many people.
It is not just Chris Matthews (of MSNBC) with his “if you do not cry at an Obama event you are not American” and his “a thrill ran up my leg” – it is tens of millons of people.
For example, they appear to think that the person with the most leftist voting record in the United States Senate will “unite the country”.
Oh well, in a way he will.
Judging by Senator Obama’s plans for massive increases in tax rates and Welfare State spending (increases in Welfare State spending that make even Bush brain look like a fiscal conservative) he will unite the country in starvation.
Of course, the Democrats could simply reply that they will then use their skill at diplomacy to get food aid for the United States from the world government “World Community” that so many of the “great and the good” favour.
No doubt NBC news (and so on) would regard this as a perfectly acceptable reply.
Think I am kidding?
Joe Kennedy already boasts of the oil he is given by Chevez for the poor of the United States.
It is simply an extension.
If a majority of American voters respond to the comming crunch of the “entitlement state” by voting for yet more entitlement programs (i.e. voting for Senator Obama or Senator Clinton) then they will starve.
Even as things stand now trying to reform a way out of the comming bankruptcy of the Welfare State will be very difficult indeed.
And, no, “getting out of Iraq” will not save the Welfare State.
Alisa,
Yes, I’m the same Jacob, there is only one in the blogosphere! -:) (Samizdata requires an e-mail only for commenters, but they don’t publish it).
Our leaders always reflect who we are, by definition. Still, sometimes, by chance, we have better leaders and sometimes worse. Politiclal leaders and military leaders. The last crop was “worse”. Much worse. That goes for Olmert and the military brass.
I don’t buy the mantra “we are all to blame” – which would imply that those charged with doing their job are’nt to blame… The dismal, failed “leaders” should be kicked out. Maybe we’ll manage to find better ones, maybe not, but keeping the failed ones isn’t good practice.
Agreed Jacob:
Go Mr Olmert – if you had any sense of honour you would have resigned long ago.
Oddly this is why I am less anti McCain than Perry is.
John McCain was the main alternative to George Walker Bush in 2000 and Bush proved to be a waste of space (no-child-left-behind, the Medicare extention, the lack of action on subsidies other-than-to-increase-them, and so on).
It would be irritating to think that there were no none terrible choices in 2000.
Paul,
I, too, am less anti McCain than Perry. If you look at the whole of McCain’s rich record, you find more things to applaud than to condemn. He doesn’t seem to be a big spender – his 20odd years of senate voting record prove that.
Well, who is the alternative, Bibi? I doubt he is really any better ( he is better at talking, that’s for sure), and even if he is, I doubt he has a chance. I would certainly give him a chance solely on his economic record, but – again – I doubt most people would. He is not compassionate enough, you see.
I tend to agree on McCain, if only because there is no chance in hell I’ll vote for Obillary.
That’s pure leftist idiotic propaganda. I hope it was sarcasm on you part. I propose to shoot all politicians which are “compasionate” using my money !
Look, I’m not God, and no king maker and no prophet, and nobody is. It doesn’t matter who the alternative is, I don’t know.
What matters is that a proven failure needs to be kicked out. That needs to be established as a firm principle.
The current politicians defend their chairs and positions, a stance I have no sympathy with at all, though I understand it’s politics. I can’t see why non-politicians will think this way.
Did the you see part give me away?:-)
It does matter who the alternative is: if you want to kick out Olmert, you need to vote for someone other than him.
It’s a free country, I need not vote for anyone.
Yes America is not Australia – voting is not compulsory.
However, I hope nonleftists do not sit out the 2008 elections.
The results of sitting out the elections would be very bad.
Alsia asked if I would vote for Bibi (thankfully the full name was not used – otherwise I would be in spelling Hell).
Yes I would.
The former Prime Minister of Israel seemed to have a fairly good grasp of economics (at least by the low standards of a politician) and he might well do better on security.
I’ll second that.
He has a good grasp of economics, by any standard, it’s the ability to implement that is hampered by politics.
Bibi has some flaws too…
Jacob, don’t be silly, I never said that you have to vote. I did say that in a parliamentary system like ours there is no way to kick out an incumbent without voting for an alternative.
There is. You need a vote of no confidence and he’s out. What happens next – either a new government in this parliament, or a new election.
Kicking out an incumbent is not dependent on finding a replacement beforehand. It’s a first, independent, step.
Jacob, I am talking about what an individual like you or me, who are not MK (you are not, are you?) can do. We cannot bring on a vote of no confidence. Besides, a new election brings us back full circle.
But we can at least demand it and write on it. That we cannot bring it on shouldn’t stop us from demanding it. You seem to imply that since you can’t imagine a better leader, it’s no use trying to find one. A very pessimistic approach.
Maybe. I’m willing to give it a try.
The poor performance of Olmert during the war wasn’t factored in in the last election.
Pessimistic? How about realistic?:-)
My whole original point was that Olmert was the least of the last war’s problems. Its major problems were his predecessors (as well as the idiot’s with the mustache predecessors), and the army leadership throughout the years.
As I understand it, there were two major problems with this war. One was that IDF was unprepared for it. The other was the initial decision not to commit ground forces, and an attempt to win the war using air strikes. I think you would agree that the first one has very little to do with Olmert, and I would agree with you when you tell me that the second one certainly does. But here comes Mr Totten above, and tells us two things that should be obvious to the most non-military person who has been observng the situation in the ME for the last few decades: one, to defeat the likes of Hizballah or Hamas, Israel would have to re-occupy S Lebanon/Gaza. Two, Israel does not have the ability to do this, mostly for political reasons (remember, we were there – both places, but folded our collective tails and got out, because the Mothers were screaming “bring the kids back home”). These two things have been obvious to me for a long time, and I am sure they were just as obvious to Olmert. So what would you have done? Now, mind you, I dislike Olmert as much as the next person: he is not likable, because he is too much of a politician – or maybe he is not, and is just more upfront about it. But that does not mean that he is not fit for the job for the reasons I have just laid out. Now, my hunch is that most Israelis are like me: they dislike the guy, but they understand that as things stand now, he is the lesser of all other evils. I could be wrong about that one, though – maybe most Israelis are not like me after all.
Alisa,
I agree with your assesment about the war.
The main problem was in the army.
Olmert’s failures were as follows:
He failed to grasp the existence and extent of the problem in the army. Sharon or Barak – for example – would have understood that better – though both failed to correct the problems.
Olmert failed to grasp his own ignorance, and, as a result, failed to get needed advice from the hordes of retired brass hanging around. He failed to grasp the need for getting advice. That’s a typical flaw of a fool.
He failed to check, get input, ask questions, demand good answers, understand or correct the military, by himself, or with professional advisers.
He failed to lead in any way – hell, take Lincoln: he wasn’t a military man but he LED, he sacked failed brass, nominated winners and got results.
Olmert didn’t add even one iota to the conduct of the war, except some rhetoric (speeches) of dubious use. He might as well have been vacationing in China for all he helped and influenced in the conduct of the war.
His main “good” point that you (and he himself) claim is that he did no harm either. That’s debatable, but it shows you have very low expectations.
He’s a totally empty suit, good at spin only (for those foolish enough to buy it). How we can tolerate such a person as prime minister and be complacent about it is beyond me.
His total uselessness is clear to all, those MP who fail to topple him just prefer to hang on to their chairs for a little while longer, maybe later their chances to succeed in the elections will improve.
Jacob: as always, you don’t address the point I make, and just keep pressing on. Fine. And maybe I am doing the same:-) Anyway, I think that whoever might still be reading this is getting a better picture of the situation, and can make up their own mind.
Was that your main point ?
You think he is fit, not because he did a passable job, but because all others would have been worse ?
And nobody could have possibly done a better job because the Israeli public is averse to casualties (unlike, say, the Americam public which is fine with casualties) ?
I amply argued that the Israeli public didn’t prevent nobody from doing better in this war. The leaders were simply clueless.
By the way, who named that Stalin impersonator (moustache) to his post ? Isn’t a PM supposed to apply some judgement in this matter ? Who is ?
My main point is that he did as well as anyone else would have done under the circumstances.
Yes. The American public is much less averse to casualties, because the American military is based on volunteers.
They would have, when faced with the possibility of re-occupying S Lebanon, which is the only way Hizballah can be defeated.
The Labor party? You do remember that our PMs, unlike American presidents, are constrained by coalition considerations when they appoint their ministers?
If Olmert knew in advance that he wasn’t going in on the ground, and also that there was no sure way of stopping the rockets without it, why did he start the war ?
When you start a war you need to have some laid-out plans, and anticipate a couple of moves ahead, especially as the enemy, and the theater were no surprise, not an unknown quantity.
As I said – clueless. Not only Olmert, the whole of the military brass.
Saying that anybody else would have been as clueless, i.e. – all Israelis are idiots – well, naturally, I don’t think so. (Though – since nobody in government said anything – I wouldn’t object to calling then all by this name).
As to the mustache – Olmert correctly refused to hand him the treasury (handing it to his corrupt crony instead), yet thought that handing him the defense was ok, which again shows Olmert’s cluelessness.
Unless you accept that the goal of getting to be PM trumps all other considerations (like the wellbeing and safety of the state) you cannot justify this move. But Olmert didn’t grasp what he was doing, and that is his justification – openly admitted). Another person would have insisted that Labor name qualified candidates for these key ministries, or else – no deal.
I would like to believe that he denied him the treasury for the correct reasons, but I suspect that even this correct move was done for the wrong reason – crony-ism.
Actually, handing Peretz the Defense turned out to be a strike of genius: the chance that this idiot will ever again be seen in government got as slim as it can. And Peretz did no damage in the war – the army and his predecessors managed to do it without him (in fact, he is no idiot either – I just cannot stand his guts, that’s all). He would have done some real damage in Treasury.
Olmert started the war because he had to react to the kidnapings. Hizballah needed a punch in the face, even if it was not a lethal one, and they got it, with the broken nose at that. And he did stop the rockets: war is diplomacy by other means, but these two different means are not mutually exclusive. All said, he played his hand quite well. And as a bonus we got that pimple called the MOD/IDF finally punctured, and hopefully it is being disinfected as we speak.
I agree, but that’s a pretty low standard to judge by. A person should do some good, or he’s no good. The damage he did is – filling a space that could perhaps have been ocupied by a person who would have had some positive influence.
Here I disagree. Perceptions and appearances matter. Though Nasralla got a bloody nose, we got one too. The perception in the Arab world is that we were beaten, and powerless to defend ourselves, and though we gave as much as we got, and maybe more, we were proven vulnerable, we failed to deflect their attacks. It’s not the same if you stop the rockets by military might, or by diplomacy. The perception is diametrically the oposite.
He didn’t play at all, that’s the point. Whatever happened – Olmert was no player just a stooge.
I supported the war but in hidsight I’m not sure it served our interests, the outcome is , as Damon Runyon would say, 7:5 and probably against us. If you go to war you should do better than this, as we had the option of staying put.
I’m not sure about that, and Olmert’s stay does not help. Anyway, if anything is done – it’s not thanks to Olmert, which, again, is not involved.
I agree with Alisa that the Labour party Peretz would have done real damage at the Treasury.
He is a bit spender – like Clinton and Obama in the United States, or Brown or Cameron in Britain.
However, I do not agree that Peretz and Olmert did no damage in the war.
Did they not have military briefings?
And when the brass came in and said “we can win the war by airpower alone” (or words to that effect – via their plans) did they not say “O.K.”.
Sorry, but that will not do for a country like Israel.
The political leadership must know the first principles of warfare – even if they do not know the details.
And the first principles show that one could not win a war like that without massive intervention on the ground.
Olmert seems to be doing a Lloyd-George.
“I know the number of dead in World War One was terrible – but it was all the Generals fault, and the King would not let me get rid of Haig”.
Actually King George V would not have stood in the way of David Lloyd-George as Prime Minister – any more than he did when D.L.G. was in charge of the Treasuary back in 1911 and demanded X, Y, Z.
“Privately” blaiming the Generals was a good dodge for Lloyd-George – and it is still working with historians to this day.
But at least Britain won the First World War.
Israel did not win against the “party of God” in Lebanon.
So Olmert must resign – if he has a scrap of honour.