Gaza Strip

[Cambronne]

But it's becoming more and more obvious that what Hamas wants is a greater number of civilian casualities.And from the moment the public opinion realizes that hamas not only it doesn't protect the population but is happier with every civilian casuality(preferable children) the PR victory is doubtful.Now everyone knows that when hamas,fatah or whatever are about to be military defeated they start to promise everything in the world in exchange for peace. And after a break used to rearm and regroup,they start again with self-destroyer bombers and missiles shooting.And do it endlessly.The real challenge for Israel would be when Hamas,on the brink of the abyss,will cease rocketting Israel.Because,even then,the IDF would have to keep up the offensive to deliver the final deadly blow to Hamas.And in that case Hamas would say"look we've stopped rocketing Israel,now why are they keeping attacking us?" This will be e very delicate moment for Israeli army and diplomacy because militarly they would have to keep the pressure,but diplomatically they'll start to feel the pressure from the international community and media.Personally I'm eager to see Israeli strategy and diplomacy when the missiles stop coming from Gaza into Israel.Will they stop,or will they finnaly charge home?

[Battlefront.com]

Wrath of Dragon,

In the UN school incident, it was confirmed by Palestinian residents that Hamas was shooting mortars from near the school, and then also took cover in the crowd.

Personally, I have no doubt this is the case. But Israel lobbing artillery rounds "in the rough area of enemy fire" is not something that's likely to do anything but lead to civilian casualties. It's also exactly what Hamas wants Israel to do. Generally speaking, it is not smart to do exactly what the enemy wants and expects unless you think you can get the upper hand in the end. Obviously Israel thinks that inaccurate and indecisive military responses are effective, but I have no idea why.

The UN in Gaza are basically Hamas collaborators, they never demanded a war crimes investigation while Hamas was intentionally targeting Israeli civilians for years, but once Israel responds they suddenly wake up.

The UN observers in Gaza are not in Israel, therefore they take the side of the civilians they are charged with protecting. It is as simple as that.

As far as lack of NCO's, historically Israel seems to have done pretty well militarily. And US forces with their wise old NCO's had quite a few horrific incidents where dozens of civilians were accidentally killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The truth is this is war, and mistakes will always be made in a war.

This is, of course, very true. It is also harder to have a consistently high standard when things are scaled up. The IDF is extremely small and fighting a very limited war in a very limited area. The last time they did this was Lebanon 2006 and the IDF performed very poorly, from small unit up to senior level.

From reading some of his other comments, this Lang guy seems quite anti-Israel, so I wouldn't take his word as gospel.

No, he seems critical. Don't mistake "critical" with "anti". I've seen enough of that here in the US over the past 7 years and I can tell you exactly what that does... nothing good. Lang has made a specific statement that can be easily proven wrong by anybody here with knowledge of the IDF. So I say until it is proven false it should be considered accurate.

As for careless use of live fire against Palestinians... the charges of this are numerous over the years. Considering the propaganda that is within Israel, I'd be shocked if it were any other way. If you educate your youth that the Palestinians are all dirty dog murderers looking to kill you at the first chance, well...

Cambronne,

But it's becoming more and more obvious that what Hamas wants is a greater number of civilian casualities.And from the moment the public opinion realizes that hamas not only it doesn't protect the population but is happier with every civilian casuality(preferable children) the PR victory is doubtful.

Not so. You have to look at who they are trying to influence. Do you think that the Arab and Muslim press is going to be critical of Hamas in any meaningful way? No. Do you think the Arab and Muslim press is going to show/publish images and points of view that will enflame the average viewer of those images and points of view? Yes. So if Hamas' main goal is to get more recruits to their movement, more overt support from their "brothers" in neighboring countries, then it really doesn't matter if some intellectuals in New York City or London start to change their tune that perhaps Israel isn't the main problem. Does it?

Now everyone knows that when hamas,fatah or whatever are about to be military defeated they start to promise everything in the world in exchange for peace. And after a break used to rearm and regroup,they start again with self-destroyer bombers and missiles shooting.And do it endlessly.

The real challenge for Israel would be when Hamas,on the brink of the abyss,will cease rocketting Israel.

The more likely scenario is as happened in Lebanon... the rockets don't stop before Israel realizes that it can't win and has to retreat in defeat. This then leaves Hamas stronger, from a support standpoint, than it was before even if it is militarily and leadership wise weakened. And if Israel is compelled to stop, for some other reason, the same thing will likely happen.

The alternative, which is Israel actually scoring a meaningful defeat of Hamas, is more possible than it was against Hizbollah. That's because Hamas is a lot less prepared, not as well led, and numerically smaller. So it could be that Hamas actually comes out looking defeated. Personally, I'd be surprised if that happens.

Because,even then,the IDF would have to keep up the offensive to deliver the final deadly blow to Hamas.And in that case Hamas would say"look we've stopped rocketing Israel,now why are they keeping attacking us?" This will be e very delicate moment for Israeli army and diplomacy because militarly they would have to keep the pressure,but diplomatically they'll start to feel the pressure from the international community and media.Personally I'm eager to see Israeli strategy and diplomacy when the missiles stop coming from Gaza into Israel.Will they stop,or will they finnaly charge home?

Indeed, that's a big question. No matter how the rockets stop (if they stop), Israel's every action after is almost as important as their actions are now.

Steve

[akd]

Stikkypixie wrote:

This is the dilemma that Israel faces. When police in the USA are called into an area where there is a hostile person/s they can't use deadly force indiscriminately. And by that I mean using it in any way that could be considered reckless. If a police force, for example, blew up an entire building with people in it so they could get the hostage taker, the officers involved would be imprisoned for various crimes including civil and/or criminal taking of innocent life. At the very least public opinion would be very negative (think of the two big hostage disasters in Russia). This is because the ones in the right (police) are not allowed to use tactics/force that would result in more death/destruction than the ones in the wrong (the bad guys).

The dilemma for the IDF is actually much worse. In the case of a police force dealing with hostage takers, the police officers' primary duty is to the safety of the innocent hostages and any innocent bystanders. It is their duty to transfer risk from the hostages onto themselves.

But the Israeli military's highest duty is to innocent Israelis. They have a secondary duty to the protection of all non-combatants, but here the two duties can often conflict. The question then becomes to what degree the Israeli military transfers risk from Palestinian non-combantants on to themselves, and at what point doing so causes them to be less effective in their duty to Israeli citizens. In my opinion, their duty is to transfer as much risk as possible from Palestinian non-combatants onto themselves, while still allowing the accomplishment of goals that directly protect Israeli citizens.

Unfortunately, the basis for this duty is seriously eroded when Hamas uses civilians as shields, or goes about entionally causes civilian deaths. In this case, the Israeli military is in a truly hopeless dilemma. They can take no action in order to protect Palestinian civilians and in doing so fail at their primary duty by allowing small numbers of Israeli civilians to be killed, or they can take action which inevitably leads to disproportianate loss of Palestinian life because of Hamas' tactics.

Proportionate response in this case is in the end somewhat absurd. Obviously the perfectly "proportionate response" would be an occasionally barrage of unguided weapons on urban areas resulting in small numbers of random civilians being killed. Any military response that prevents the actions that endanger Israeli citizens is inevitably disproportionate in outcome because of Hamas' total disregard for their duty to protect Palestinian civilians. In the end, the IDF must revert to its primary duty. The outcome in international perception then becomes mostly dependent whether the media holds Hamas as accountable for its primary duty to Palestinians as it holds Israel accountable for its secondary duty to Palestinians.

[-Eddie-]

Sorry if this has been posted but some of you might like this/find it interesting. It's footage being streamed live from a Palestinians' window in Gaza. I've seen tracer, flares an explosions so far. I've also heard multiple explosions. Others have seen helicopters and jets flying around.

Live footage of Gaza

Edit: Remove if necessary.

[akd]

p.s. live feed from Gaza:

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=386&ar=NanaTV01&dr=02:30:00%20-%202k%20-

edit: heh, posted simultaneously with Eddie.

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

The dilemma for the IDF is actually much worse.

Indeed and well put. And this is the same dilemma that US and Coalition forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another element is that there is an expectation foreign soldiers are supposed to act with the same standards towards foreign civilians as they would their own. This is contrary to Human nature, where the more distant the relation the more distant the feeling of direct obligation.

Unfortunately, the basis for this duty is seriously eroded when Hamas uses civilians as shields, or goes about entionally causes civilian deaths. In this case, the Israeli military is in a truly hopeless dilemma. They can take no action in order to protect Palestinian civilians and in doing so fail at their primary duty by allowing small numbers of Israeli civilians to be killed, or they can take action which inevitably leads to disproportianate loss of Palestinian life because of Hamas' tactics.

Which is why a military response is not the likely path towards achieving Israel's stated goals of peace and stability with its neighbors. Israel has tried military conflict with its neighbors for its entire existence and their ultimate goal has never come into fruition. All military action has succeeded in doing is keeping a bloody and extremely costly status quo intact. As necessary as military action is, upon occasion, it is clear that it will never give them what they say they want. So either they really don't want peace with their neighbors or they are (so far) incapable of figuring out a way that will get them "victory". Simply tweaking military tactics or strategies does not appear to hold out much hope of radically producing new results compared to past outcomes.

The outcome in international perception then becomes mostly dependent whether the media holds Hamas as accountable for its primary duty to Palestinians as it holds Israel accountable for its secondary duty to Palestinians.

First, international perception is a concept that doesn't exist. It's too complex for that. As I said, regional perception is what Hamas cares about and they are likely to come out very well in that regard. Israel should care more about that perception than what China, the Russia, Europe, or even the US thinks.

Second, generally speaking the side that has the most ability and widest capability is the one expected to set the higher standard. Sure, the IDF isn't conducting a pogrom in the way it could, if it so chose to, but killing 150 civilians for every 1 suffered certainly calls into question Israel's tactics. The old notion of "reprisal killings" is basic in the Human shared experience, so the more lopsided the death count is the less likely Israel will find itself winning the PR war.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

From a PR standpoint, anybody that thinks Israel has any chance of coming out of this in a better position than Hamas is forgetting recent history.

Before 2003 Iraq was ruled by a brutal dictatorship under Saddam. The majority of the population within Iraq wanted Saddam Hussein. The majority of states in the region wanted the regime gone. The majority of states in the world wanted it gone as well. The US, and its allies, swept Saddam out of power very quickly. Over the years tens of thousands of civilians were murdered by various indigenous and (to a much lesser extent) foreign groups. Some had direct state support (including Iraqi), others not.

I ask you, who received the most blame for all the bloodshed? If you answer anything other "US military forces" then I'm wondering what you've been reading for the last 5 years.

So if the US can be blamed for non-state actors who deliberately killed their own fellow citizens, despite overt attempts by the US to stop them, why on Earth would anybody here think that Hamas is going to be held accountable for Israelis killing Palestinians?

Steve

[Sergei]

Another element is that there is an expectation foreign soldiers are supposed to act with the same standards towards foreign civilians as they would their own. This is contrary to Human nature, where the more distant the relation the more distant the feeling of direct obligation.

You only need to look at the British forces in Ireland (whether pre-republic or after that in Ulster) to realize that it doesn't even really have to be 'foreign' civilians for the troops to treat them like dirt. And UK is a first line western democracy...

And if you look at how complicated and out of any rational control the road to peace was in Northern Ireland, it's even more complicated in Middle East (whether talking about Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan). I mean, white English speaking Christians... they're supposed to come along just brilliant, right? You certainly wouldn't expect to see sectarian and nationalist violence between people of the same genetic make following the same religion, RIGHT?!?

[akd]

AKD,

Indeed and well put. And this is the same dilemma that US and Coalition forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another element is that there is an expectation foreign soldiers are supposed to act with the same standards towards foreign civilians as they would their own. This is contrary to Human nature, where the more distant the relation the more distant the feeling of direct obligation.

Not quite the same dilemma. IDF may be faced with situations where inaction could directly endanger the lives of their loved ones and neighbors, perhaps within seconds or minutes of decision. Don't release the Hellfire on the rocket launcher and a rocket heads towards your mother's home in Ashdod, release the Hellfire and the kids in the school next door get shredded.

Which is why a military response is not the likely path towards achieving Israel's stated goals of peace and stability with its neighbors. Israel has tried military conflict with its neighbors for its entire existence and their ultimate goal has never come into fruition. All military action has succeeded in doing is keeping a bloody and extremely costly status quo intact. As necessary as military action is, upon occasion, it is clear that it will never give them what they say they want. So either they really don't want peace with their neighbors or they are (so far) incapable of figuring out a way that will get them "victory". Simply tweaking military tactics or strategies does not appear to hold out much hope of radically producing new results compared to past outcomes.

Of course the consequences of not taking military action in all these circumstances are unknown. Perhaps fewer non-Israeli civilians would have died, but maybe more Israeli citizens would have been killed by emboldened ideological fighters.

And no doubt the Israelis would claim that whenever they try inaction, e.g. the period before the current offensive, it always leads to Israeli citizens getting wounded/killed/kidnapped.

First, international perception is a concept that doesn't exist. It's too complex for that.

Of course, "international perception" would simply be the tilt of the sum total of the many complex national and individuals reactions. I do believe that direction or tilt can be observed in looking at the various reactions over time. (An obvious example is the complete absence of reactions outside of Israel to Hamas rocket fire on civilian targets and the near instant vociferous multi-regional protests against Israeli strikes on civilian targets, or perceived civilian targets.)

As I said, regional perception is what Hamas cares about and they are likely to come out very well in that regard. Israel should care more about that perception than what China, the Russia, Europe, or even the US thinks.

Maybe strategically you are correct, but reactions outside of the region are more important to Israel's short term goals, as they can significantly constrain their options.

Second, generally speaking the side that has the most ability and widest capability is the one expected to set the higher standard. Sure, the IDF isn't conducting a pogrom in the way it could, if it so chose to, but killing 150 civilians for every 1 suffered certainly calls into question Israel's tactics. The old notion of "reprisal killings" is basic in the Human shared experience, so the more lopsided the death count is the less likely Israel will find itself winning the PR war.

Steve

Which takes us right back to the dilemma. Israel loses the PR war the moment they respond, as given Hamas' tactics, there is no option for proportionate response, but they fail in their duty to their citizens by taking no action (even if you could argue that somehow consistently taking no action over a long enough period of time would lead to a guaruntee of future elimination of the threat that is worth innocent Israeli lives in the interim).

Would any parent accept the argument from their government that letting one of their children be killed today without response would help protect the lives of their future grandchildren?

[GSX]

You only need to look at the British forces in Ireland (whether pre-republic or after that in Ulster) to realize that it doesn't even really have to be 'foreign' civilians for the troops to treat them like dirt. And UK is a first line western democracy...

Now that my friend is a fallacy of major proportions that I would have to write a novel to dispel.

If you know anything about the conflict in ireland then you would know that your statement is wrong.

Consider this. The British Forces entered NI initially to protect the catholic population. One documented incident was of a woman giving sandwiches to the troops....... filled with razor blades.

When I was there in the 80s and 90s people would give us bottles of spirits at New Year. God bless you they would say - but we poured them down the sink to avoid being poisoned.

So please dont think that a British member of the armed forces would have automatically treated someone as dirt.

This thread should really be closed as just like discussions about God or creation everyone is stuck in their own mindset and is unlikely to be moved by any argument.

In truth, both Israel and Hamas are wrong, one for supposing they can fire rockets and get away with it and the other for supposing that the Holocaust justifies any and every means of action.

[Sergei]

Now that my friend is a fallacy of major proportions that I would have to write a novel to dispel.

If you know anything about the conflict in ireland then you would know that your statement is wrong.

Consider this. The British Forces entered NI initially to protect the catholic population. One documented incident was of a woman giving sandwiches to the troops....... filled with razor blades.

I was talking in general, hence "Ireland whether pre-republic or after that in Ulster." I don't see how your razor blades disqualify my point.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Steve, you seem to be operating under several misconceptions:

1) Under the Geneva conventions, you're allowed to attack a military target even if there're likely to be civilian casualties. You're never allowed to attack a purely civilian target. It's the enemies resposibilities to keep military targets away from civilians. I believe US ROE is to return fire when fired upon, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. So in the case of UN school, Israel simply counter fired to incoming fire, probably not even aware there were civilians there, which was well within their rights.

2) The UN personnel in Gaza are not observers, but are nominally there to help the Palestinian population. They're known to freely collaborate with Hamas. The UN people now calling for the war crime investigations are not necessarily in Gaza at all, they are part of the UN suppression of human rights infrastructure, who happily ignored years of suicide and rocket attacks on Israelis, but get hysterical every time Israel responds. UN's total bias against Israel is well known and documented, so I won't go into it here.

3) There's no use whatsoever in Israel negotiating with Hamas, as Hamas is fanatically dedicated to the total destruction of Israel. The only way Israel could make "peace" with Hamas would be to surrender and turn over all of its territory to them. It would be the same thing as US negotiating with Al Qaeda. Thus Israel had no choice whatsoever except to respond to attacks militarily.

Edit: This article by Ralph Peters gives a good overview of the Gaza situation and the general situation Israel finds itself in. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-guns-of-gaza-israel-attacks-hamas-reacts.htm

[costard]

The discussion is getting as ugly as the real-world circumstance.

As far as the religious distinction of populaces goes - they all worship the same god. Jew, Catholic, Muslim and Protestant - all worship Jaweh. Which would lead you to believe that the problem lies with the people, not the religion. Try talking about where the money is / is not going - that'll more likely lead you to a solution.

[theFightingSeabee]

Just to toss some logs on the fire...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=73e_1231522761

I saw this on 9/11 or 9/12 and I wanted to do the same thing that Israel is doing now. I understand the anger on both sides.

[Cpl Steiner]

Just to toss some logs on the fire...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=73e_1231522761

I saw this on 9/11 or 9/12 and I wanted to do the same thing that Israel is doing now. I understand the anger on both sides.

I sympathise with your sentiments entirely but with America being Israel's biggest ally and arms supplier, what Israel is doing right now may actually be the catalyst for the next 9/11.

"Those to whom evil is done do evil in return" (Auden).

September 1, 1939 (W. H. Auden)

[theFightingSeabee]

I sympathise with your sentiments entirely but with America being Israel's biggest ally and arms supplier, what Israel is doing right now may actually be the catalyst for the next 9/11.

"Those to whom evil is done do evil in return" (Auden).

September 1, 1939 (W. H. Auden)

Yes, I absolutely agree. I just had at least an hour philosophical conversation with my gf about this. It's too hard to peg one side as good or evil, because there is so much on all sides. On 911 I was just as angry as a palestinian gets when an airstrike kills half of his family. Endless cycle. Ain't war hell?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[panzermartin]

I keep reading this about Hamas trying to kill their own people to achieve "victory" and how Israel is ultimately the victim in the area and I keep scratching my head. It's a common tactic of guerilla armies to blend with the population, mostly in hope that they wont get fired upon. Hamas are democraticaly elected by the palestinians. Do you suggest that the local population of children and women have so far generously sacrificed their lives as Hamas shields with their own will? If not, did Hamas forced them to do so beyond their will and yet they have their full trust and support? Is the claim from the official and high ranked lips of UN "collaborators" , of Israel hitting a building after leading there 100 palestinians and then not letting the red cross help for days, a propaganda lie? Do you have something more to back up the claims that palestinians happily kill their own children except blurry IDF footage on official state channels?

That UN are collaborators of Hamas is news to me btw and gave me a good laugh to be honest. Not a single Israeli has so far suggested this so unless you have some valid info I say that it is total bs. And Hamas internationaly is labeled as a terror group. Technically you cannot blame a terror group for war crimes as you say but you can perfectly blame an independent advanced and civilised state as Israel for targeting civilians with precision weapons. If the Israelis one day allow for a truly autonomous palestine and not a ghetto or a puppet state as they wish right now then maybe the region will see better days and extremists that want the extinction of Jews will step aside. Till then palestinians will live in misery and Israelis will be drinking their espresso next to sucide bombers.

[Secondbrooks]

PSY,

Ouch. News to me and a great source of confusion for me as well. In most Western countries it is generally thought that the quality of NCOs dictates the quality and capabilities of a military force more than any other factor. I know plenty of US officers that would agree with this statement. In fact, most of them (I think) would say that any officer that doesn't agree probably shouldn't be an officer. So if this report is accurate (any in the IDF care to comment?), I'm befuddled. How can the IDF, one of the most actively engaged military forces in the world, pursue any policy that overlooks the need for a solid, career NCO cast?

NCOs are the glue that keeps a formation doing what it is instructed to do, what it is intended to do, and what it ought to do. This is not to say that NCOs are the sole reason for the success or failure of a military force. Not true at all. But without them all the stresses on that military force, which are a normal part of combat (especially combat), tend to be reacted to by base instincts instead of measured response. I say this based on years of historical study of various military forces stretching back more than 100 years.

The easiest way to do this is to give the forces reasonably good Experience (Green, Regular, and Veteran) but stick them with negative Leadership Modifiers. What this means is that the individual soldiers are likely to perform well in individual tasks, like shooting and taking cover, but unlikely to do well when performing as a team. The more stress the unit takes, the less well it will work together. This in turn will cause the unit to do things like remain pinned longer, self-cancel user issued Commands, etc. Therefore, if the unit runs into light resistance it might perform quite well. But hit it with the unexpected and sustain the pressure... the unit will likely behave poorly.

Steve

I dont' get this career NCO thing. There are armies which has performed rather well with out one, IDF generally is held as one of best armies in world, 2006 could be bit darker, but main reason i've seen is that reservist refreshment training was overlooked. Finnish Army back in ww2 where career NCO's might be positioned just in company's supply (if even there), junior resevist officers and reservist NCO's leading combat formations, some bit more capable or experienced NCO raised to rank of sergeant might be positioned as vice-leader of platoon (as a "partner" for Junior officer). And those troops went thru hell back in -39-40. I believe Germans had similar system and they were pretty capable combat force.

Maybe US and maybe British militaries are built so that lack of career NCOs in platoon scale is problematic (low standarts of junior officers?). But i can't see why this is the only way of doing things. And what i've read reservist NCO training in IDF, it's been considered to be one of most hard and demanding NCO training in western world, and those who get it are indeed best of the man material. Lack of long time experience facing lack of quality of personel? Same said about Russia, career NCO's are seen bit of shady characters as they do it for money, not for love of Mother Russia.

True career NCO in their 30s 40s stationed near younger troops might be good thing but i can't see it being main key to unit cohesion.

[Bigduke6]

I'd say that Green Beret report is comparing apples and oranges.

The IDF is a draft force and a fair cross-section of the entire society. Everybody serves. There are no bounties, no sign-up bonuses, and service in the ranks is not a life path choice by a portion of the population, but an obligation by the entire obligation. In simple terms, with the exception of the IDF Air Force and the ground forces officer corps, there are no professional IDF soldiers. They are overwhelmingly draftees and reservists.

Provided the Israeli government manages to convince the draftees and reservists the war is just, at least some what career NCOs do is superfluous in the IDF. Again speaking in general terms, you don't have to motivate the soldiers to train or to fight, they get that motivation not from the service and its traditions enforced by the NCOs, but rather from the belief that they are Israelis defending their country from Israel's enemies. It is worth remembering that Israel is overwhelmingly a Jewish society, and the Jewish faith teaches Jews are the chosen people, and national title to the Holy Land is literally, for most Israelis, an article of faith.

And with faith, in general, you can go much farther with fewer resources, than with NCOs pushing troops who are just doing their job for their unit and their buddies.

As to training, and the need for NCOs to teach the troops, again Israel is not the US, and the average Israeli recruit is quite different from the average US recruit. Since you have a draft, and just pulling numbers out of the air, somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent of the lowest-ranking Israelis, privates and corporals, are bright enough to attend university if they haven't already. Jewish society in general and Israeli society in particular puts a huge priority on education, I think clearly more so than US society in general, and unquestionably so when you think about the lower-income, frequently minority kids that are filling out the ranks in the US force. Israel is a developed country, its educational system is excellent, Israeli youth has access to and happily uses every technical gizmo that comes down the line.

All of which makes these Israeli kids a lot more trainable, than the high school grads, inner city unemployed, and small town exit seekers that fill out most US combat formations.

It is of course a matra of every professional military from Frederick the Great's onward that the professional NCO is the backbone of the army, and that without him you can't have a successful and disciplined fighting force.

Well, the Red Chinese have done it, the Russians have done it, the Israelis have done it, and I don't know much about them but I bet the Swiss have done it too. Heck, it is arguable that the Army the US won its share of WW2 with an army that similarly was low on long-term NCOs, it had expanded too fast and most of the NCOs were just draftees with a shade more experience or education, but otherwise like the troops just a cross-section of society.

A decent fighting force based on a wide cross-cut of the population, provided it is motivated for good reasons or bad, has been created repeatedly.

Certainly, competent NCOs help, and if you listen to them long enough you will be convinced they are irreplacable. But just like the privates and the officers, in a military - any military - no one is irreplacable.

And there is of course the cost factor. A bunch of NCOs costs money and resources and time that might be better spent on weapons or operations or propaganda or intelligence. Certainly, if you are a very rich military not normally in a long-term war like the US then you can afford all those professional NCOs and their schools and day rooms and pensions.

Plus there is the sustainability factor. The British Army after the Boer War learned the lesson that small unit leaders competent at tactics were critical, and by WWI the British NCO corps was by most standards the best in the world. And then that little British Army got fed into the trenches, and two years later all the NCOs were dead, the small unit tactical competence was sort of a lost art, and Kitchner was feeding untrained recruits into the meatgrinder.

If you are the Israeli military, you are working in Israel's framework, not Europe's continental framework, nor the US' expeditionary framework. War has been a constant for Israel's entire existence, the only variable really is intensity. In Israel, by most standards, practically every male member of the country served at some time in his life in a military unit involved in an actual war. By US military standards, the entire Israeli nation, every man, woman, and child, has sometime in his or her life merited combat pay. So when you take Israelis and put them into uniform, arguably, you have less distance to cover before you convert them into proper wartime soldiers.

I think that that Green Beret's sniffing at IDF recruits' use of overkill is at least in part a case of professional soldier with a peacetime mindset, looking at drafted soldiers operating quite logically with a wartime mindset. Why shouldn't Israeli recruits use overkill and light up everything they decide to? What, Israelis are worried about winning the hearts and minds of the Arabs? Why is it bad that Israeli privates and corporals are deciding whom to blast and whom to leave alone? From the Israeli point of view sure that makes the Arabs mad, but rankers willing to take the initiative and imaginative to deal with more than what the people writing their orders expect, has been a key strength of the IDF from day one. Why should the Israelis be so stupid as to torque down on soldier-level iniative, for the sake of winning hearts and minds important to a Green Beret observer but meaningless to the overwhelming majority of the Israeli society?

I think that that Green Beret takes his own training and experience and assumes that the more other militaries resemble what he thinks is "right", the more that military is effective.

This is of course a fallible and dangerous assumption repeatedly proved false, the classic case of course probably being the professional Wehrmacht compaining about how unfair it was to lose battle after battle against the Red Army, as the Red Army overran often in very sophisticated fashion substantial portions of the very German nation every Wehrmacht soldier had sworn to defend.

Israel for good or for bad is a country with a society generally assuming that it is Israel vs. the Arabs. The soldiers in the IDF are products of that society, and to expect them to behave in a war against Arabs like US kids supervised by dense layers of well-compensated NCOs is not to understand Israel itself.

PSY,

Ouch. News to me and a great source of confusion for me as well. In most Western countries it is generally thought that the quality of NCOs dictates the quality and capabilities of a military force more than any other factor. I know plenty of US officers that would agree with this statement. In fact, most of them (I think) would say that any officer that doesn't agree probably shouldn't be an officer. So if this report is accurate (any in the IDF care to comment?), I'm befuddled. How can the IDF, one of the most actively engaged military forces in the world, pursue any policy that overlooks the need for a solid, career NCO cast?

NCOs are the glue that keeps a formation doing what it is instructed to do, what it is intended to do, and what it ought to do. This is not to say that NCOs are the sole reason for the success or failure of a military force. Not true at all. But without them all the stresses on that military force, which are a normal part of combat (especially combat), tend to be reacted to by base instincts instead of measured response. I say this based on years of historical study of various military forces stretching back more than 100 years.

The easiest way to do this is to give the forces reasonably good Experience (Green, Regular, and Veteran) but stick them with negative Leadership Modifiers. What this means is that the individual soldiers are likely to perform well in individual tasks, like shooting and taking cover, but unlikely to do well when performing as a team. The more stress the unit takes, the less well it will work together. This in turn will cause the unit to do things like remain pinned longer, self-cancel user issued Commands, etc. Therefore, if the unit runs into light resistance it might perform quite well. But hit it with the unexpected and sustain the pressure... the unit will likely behave poorly.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

Which takes us right back to the dilemma. Israel loses the PR war the moment they respond, as given Hamas' tactics, there is no option for proportionate response, but they fail in their duty to their citizens by taking no action (even if you could argue that somehow consistently taking no action over a long enough period of time would lead to a guaruntee of future elimination of the threat that is worth innocent Israeli lives in the interim).

That's the big failing of Israel as a nation state. Short term reactions to unfavorable situations dictated by their enemies will ultimately fail to produce the long term results they claim to want. Every time a long term solution appears to start taking hold someone, sometimes Israeli even, derails things.

Would any parent accept the argument from their government that letting one of their children be killed today without response would help protect the lives of their future grandchildren?

But this is a false argument. Short term reactions to the child killed today ensures that more children will die next year, and the year after that, and forever. At some point Israelis have to come to understand that they won't get the peace they want, and therefore give their grandchildren a chance to live without a general state of fear, until they do one of two things:

1. Figure out a way to live peacefully with their neighbors.

2. Kill everybody that thinks of Israelis as the enemy.

I suggest that #1 is the course of action more likely to produce positive results. The tit for tat killings have never worked so they are unlikely to ever work, therefore they aren't a long term solution.

Adam,

Hamas wants Isreal to lob shells at their women and children. Wow, what a claim. Care to back that up please?

It is a standard tactic of insurgent forces. Some go as far as trying to trick the enemy into hitting civilians, other times they simply exploit the hits that weren't directly incited. In some cases one side will kill its own civilians and then frame the other side (the infamous Sarajevo market mortar attack comes to mind).

A military force is under both legal and moral obligations to not allow confusion between itself and the civilians around them. It is quite easy to do, therefore by intentionally not doing it the force is defacto encouraging civilian casualties. The less the insurgent forces try to distinguish themselves from civilians, the more apparent that they are indeed using this tactic.

And what does this tactic achieve? Exactly what is happening now all around the world. Protests of all sorts are against Israel for killing civilians, not the other way around. If Israel were just killing Hamas militants that were firing rockets into Israel, where would the outrage be against Israel? There wouldn't be any, would there?

So yes, it is obvious. Hamas is purposefully engaging in actions which it knows will cause its civilians to be killed in the crossfire. Therefore, they are deliberately encouraging the death of their own population in order to pursue their own agenda. It's as clear as day.

Ali-Baba

Do you suggest that the local population of children and women have so far generously sacrificed their lives as Hamas shields with their own will?

This is taking the "human shield" thing too seriously. When Serbs took NATO personnel and placed them, sometimes chained, to military installations that was a deliberate form of "human shield". What Hamas is doing is the more usual tactic which is to fight in such a way that the enemy can't possibly avoid causing civilian casualties when they respond militarily. There is absolutely no need to get the civilians to volunteer for death with such tactics.

Secondbrooks,

I dont' get this career NCO thing. There are armies which has performed rather well with out one,

Against forces that were generally inferior either in numbers or in quality. Those are the only examples I can think of.

IDF generally is held as one of best armies in world, 2006 could be bit darker,

The 2006 defeat in Lebanon clearly indicated that the IDF had some pretty significant systemic problems. Leadership has been cited as one of them. Until PSY's post I did not know that NCO level leadership was possibly one of the contributing factors.

Finnish Army back in ww2 where career NCO's might be positioned just in company's supply (if even there), junior resevist officers and reservist NCO's leading combat formations, some bit more capable or experienced NCO raised to rank of sergeant might be positioned as vice-leader of platoon (as a "partner" for Junior officer). And those troops went thru hell back in -39-40.

They were facing an enemy that had almost no leadership at all, and sometimes no training and at times no weapons. The fact that the Finnish forces did so well against the Soviets had more to do with the absolute horrendous state of the Soviet military rather than the ability of the Finns to fight with a suboptimal force. Contrast 1939 with 1944 to see what I mean. The Finns had a much more experienced and capable force in 1944, but the Soviets had a VASTLY better force.

I believe Germans had similar system and they were pretty capable combat force.

The Germans coveted their NCOs, so no I don't think they had the same philosophy at all. Reserve units were, in fact, usually built around experienced NCOs and junior officers through deliberate action by higher command. It's one reason why the Germans were so difficult to defeat even though they kept pumping a steady flow of new units into combat.

Maybe US and maybe British militaries are built so that lack of career NCOs in platoon scale is problematic (low standarts of junior officers?).

Not at all. The career NCOs are designed to keep the machine working, the officers are designed to use the machine to its greatest potential. Having one man try to keep 30-40 men working at peak efficiency is simply impossible. Therefore, the NCOs provide a sort of middle management, in a way, within a formation. The officer says "I want this done" and the NCO makes sure it gets done the right way without the officer having to hold everybody's hands. It's a proven concept that works extremely well.

But i can't see why this is the only way of doing things. And what i've read reservist NCO training in IDF, it's been considered to be one of most hard and demanding NCO training in western world, and those who get it are indeed best of the man material. Lack of long time experience facing lack of quality of personel?

I'd trust a 35 year old NCO with 15 years continuous experience over a 21 year old with 2 years time in any day of the week. I'd also put my faith in that 35 year old continuous NCO over a 35 year old with 4 years full time and 9 years part time (one month a year in the IDF IIRC) more often than not. As an employer I think the same way. As someone seeking the advice of a tradesman, for example a carpenter, the same thing applies. I'm not sure why anybody would think that any occupation is something that a "kid" can do just as well as a highly experienced adult.

Same said about Russia, career NCO's are seen bit of shady characters as they do it for money, not for love of Mother Russia.

Ah... but Russia is Russia

True career NCO in their 30s 40s stationed near younger troops might be good thing but i can't see it being main key to unit cohesion.

Look around your place of work. Who keeps the jobs going smoothly? Who keeps relationships working to peak efficiency? Who are the ones who generally know the best solutions to the problems faced? Who are the ones that can say they've tried something before and know it isn't the solution for the specific task in hand? I doubt it's the kids fresh out of High School or University.

Sure, there are a LOT of bad NCOs with years of experience. There are a lot of bad officers too. But I'd rather have a system that encouraged consistent and long term leadership vs. one that didn't. The average results of one are definitely going to be better than the average results of the other.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6,

Provided the Israeli government manages to convince the draftees and reservists the war is just, at least some what career NCOs do is superfluous in the IDF. Again speaking in general terms, you don't have to motivate the soldiers to train or to fight, they get that motivation not from the service and its traditions enforced by the NCOs, but rather from the belief that they are Israelis defending their country from Israel's enemies. It is worth remembering that Israel is overwhelmingly a Jewish society, and the Jewish faith teaches Jews are the chosen people, and national title to the Holy Land is literally, for most Israelis, an article of faith.

I'm glad you pointed that out because I forgot to mention that myself It also gets to some of what Secondbrooks was saying about the Finnish performance in 1939-40. A well motivated conscript population will have a certain common purpose and "everybody is in this together" motivation that often is lacking in other forces. Including those with highly trained professional soldiers.

But...

It is of course a matra of every professional military from Frederick the Great's onward that the professional NCO is the backbone of the army, and that without him you can't have a successful and disciplined fighting force.

Well, the Red Chinese have done it, the Russians have done it,

It depends on how you defined "professional". I've seen comments, some of which were from you IIRC, about the "professionalism" of Russian troops in Georgia. There is of course Chechnya to point to as well as other incidents where Russian troops didn't perform too well at the low unit level. Chinese forces are largely untested, but of course in Korea they were destroyed in massive numbers without tactical and even strategic success.

From my studies of warfare it appears that the forces with poor low level unit leadership (which very much is dependent upon NCOs) will take disproportionally larger losses when fighting a force which has superior low level leadership and/or morale. If the force has the ability to absorb large loses, while the opposing quality force does not, then ultimately the poorer quality force will win. Worse, if the poorer force improve its quality then the equation turns even more favorably against the smaller professional force.

Israel has benefited from the fact that usually it faces a foe which has far poorer training, far poorer leadership, and generally poorer morale (or at least morale that is easily shattered). The IDF also generally goes in with a technological advantage as well. In most of its recent engagements it has also had superiority of numbers. But against Hizbollah it didn't perform very well considering all of its advantages in numbers and material. One can say its losses were too high proportional to the force it faced, though it is debatable. What isn't debatable is that the military force it employed failed to achieve its strategic objectives and suffered more casualties and loss of equipment than it anticipated. How much of this is due to a supposed gap with its NCOs isn't known to me, but I can't see how it would have made the situation worse to have a more Western style NCO establishment (if fingers could be snapped, of course).

Heck, it is arguable that the Army the US won its share of WW2 with an army that similarly was low on long-term NCOs, it had expanded too fast and most of the NCOs were just draftees with a shade more experience or education, but otherwise like the troops just a cross-section of society.

And at the tactical level the US forces were badly beaten for the first few years of warfare. Look at Kasserine Pass, for example. The US forces going into Normandy in 1944 were, overall, led by the survivors of the 1942 and 1943 campaigns. Also, US replacement policy favored units which took light casualties because individual replacements could not be adequately molded into a cohesive fighting unit when they were in the majority. But that gets us into replacement policies and a slightly different topic. One which I consider myself an informed "replacement policy grog"

Steve

[Yair Iny]

Re: Career NCOs in the IDF. As an ex-IDF serviceman, I can confirm that this is absolutely true. In a typical infantry unit, the squaddies will be around 19, after 12-18 months of training, while their squad commander is maybe 6 months older, their platoon commander and company sergeant maybe 12-18 months older, and the company CO, probably 22-23.

One thing that shows this situation well is the difference between the regular (young) army and the reserve army. While not so much a feature of this smaller scale of conflict, the bulk of the IDF is actually reservists, and in any full scale war, the regular army's job is to survive the first onslaught of the attackers, and prepare for a counter attack which is composed mainly of reserve units. This may also help to explain why the IDF has had military success in the past.

When you compare the maturity of the units, there is a marked difference between the two, which affects in many ways how the civilian population is affected by the army. Reserve units will generally be far more discriminate in firing, and far more humane in their treatment of people at say roadblocks, etc. In my opinion, if there wasn't such an (understandable) aversion in israel to the combat deaths of reservists (who by then have families, jobs, etc.), the army would love to be able to use them instead, and I would predict fewer civilian deaths as a result of that. Of course, reservists' deaths put a lot of pressure on the government, which is why, so far, almost no reservists have been used, even though about 30000 were called up.

As to victory conditions, etc., I'd have to say there's no way Israel can win this, and I think the leadership don't really think they can get an actual victory. They basically had to do something in the face of the continued rockets, etc., and that's the only thing they know how to do. There is a concept that is doing the rounds in Israel now, saying that Israel should show the arabs that they can "go crazy too" and thus increase deterrence. Proponents of this viewpoint, cite the fact the Hezboullah have so far stayed out of it, as opposed to 2006 when they initially attacked that patrol exactly in response to a different operation in Gaza. Only problem I see with that view, is that I doubt Israelis can "go crazier" than Hammas, Hezboullah and Iran. Already there is talk of Hezboullah and Hammas extracting revenge, and they will probably do so by hitting some Jewish community centre away from Israel, like in Argentina a few years ago. Iran has already (according to an Haaretz report), promised to resupply Hammas with more, longer range rockets, if they continue to fight. So, in my personal opinion, that's not going to work.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Everyone in Israel knows UN is a Hamas collaborator. Just the fact that there's not a peep out of them when Israeli civilians are targeted until Israel responds is proof enough. The latest example is that idiot UN recently appointed as the Palestinian human rights watchdog or whatever his phony title is. He is an obvious hater of Israel and constantly makes the most outrageous and baseless accusations, including calling Israelis nazis. This is from the UN that elected Libya as head of their Human Rights commission.

"Technically what Hamas does is not war crimes since they're not a state" is the greatest excuse I've ever heard, thanks.

Steve, you keep talking about a long term solution, but what is that exactly? The liberals' favorite answer to everything, negotiation, only works if both parties are interested in a settlement. Negotiating with a sworn, implacable enemy only makes one look weak and foolish.

Also understand, Israel is fighting for its survival, not to win a popularity contest. Have you ever wondered why the Islamic world doesn't fly into blind rage every time Muslim women and children are intentionally blown up by Islamist terrorists in Iraq and Afgahnistan?

[Cpl Steiner]

During this entire three-week conflict I think the Israelis have suffered about 13 dead, most of them soldiers, some of which were killed accidentally by their own side. In contrast, the figure for Palestinian dead is approaching 1000.

Whenever there are reports of the conflict on the news I see one report about Gaza and another about Israeli towns being hit by rockets. I'm actually beginning to feel this is unfair because there should be about 10 reports on the Israeli bombardment of Gaza for each report on Israeli towns attacked by HAMAS.

Like it or not, the only winner in this conflict will be HAMAS because of the way Israel has used disproportionate force. Does anyone seriously believe that Israel will be able to live peacefully alongside the Palestinians after all this carnage? One British MP who has managed to get into Gaza says he's seen Palestinian kids doing the "V for Victory" sign everywhere he's gone. These people are now like the Brits during the German Blitz of WWII - united in the face of adversity. Israel has lost its senses if you ask me.