Jump to content

Gaza Strip


Recommended Posts

Also understand, Israel is fighting for its survival, ...

Oh please. Give it a rest.

Israel hasn't been 'fighting for it's survival' since the 1970s.

A couple of terrorists lobbing missiles across the border is not going to lay Israel low, in the same way that flying a couple of planes into a couple of buildings did not lay the US low. It is the response to terrorism that poses the greater threat, not the terrorism itself.

The US' initial response was ok, then they botched it for several years, now they seem to be slowly getting back on track. Israel ... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

good points!

Does anyone know how many Israelis have been killed and injured by Hamas rockets? The U.S. media and pro-Israeli groups never report the Israeli death toll from rocket attacks by Hamas. What I hear/read only indicate that "thousands of rockets" were fired into Isreali territory. I'm guessing the Israelis have probably suffered 1,000+ casualties from Hamas rockets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the Israelis have probably suffered 1,000+ casualties from Hamas rockets?

not quite. Try four (4):

368-20090109-MIDEAST-stats.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

TOTALS:

Rockets - 374

Israeli Civ Fatal Cas - 4

Israeli Mil Fatal Cas - 9 (which itself draws into question the logic and utility of the Israeli approach)

Palestinian Fatal Cas - 650

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yair Iny,

Thanks for taking the time to post! One of the best aspects of this Forum is its wide and diverse membership. We'll just have to excuse the fact that you're in Australia ;)

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.

Interesting. That is one of the side issues that the author of that article (the US Green Beret) mentioned, but hasn't been discussed much. There are a bunch of reasons for this, too, since a soldier who is 38 probably has kids, which means he's going to be less likely to view a 14 year old rock thrower as someone deserving of death. In fact, this is one of the biggest problems I've seen with PTSD of US soldiers coming back from Iraq. The ones with kids seem to have a lot more problems with even seeing death of civilians, not to mention being directly responsible for it.

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.

The US has had similar problems with its use of National Guard and Reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of eroding popular support for the use of military force. However, they do not appear to me to be superior in terms of performance to Active military units. Since the difference is the US Active forces are generally older than active IDF, this probably comes down to the NCO angle again.

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.

That's been my point since my first post. To me it's rather apparent that there isn't much creativity in higher levels of Israeli government or military.

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.

Oh, that would not be good.

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.

The more likely reason is that Hizbollah got what it wanted and is content (for now) to build upon their victory. Unfortunately, I'm sure it's only temporary.

Only problem I see with that view, is that I doubt Israelis can "go crazier" than Hammas, Hezboullah and Iran.

I agree completely. Track record shows that Israel is definitely doesn't have the stomach to behave like the animals they are seeking to rid themselves of. That's because Israel is "civilized". Not perfect, but nobody is.

Wrath of Dagon,

Everyone in Israel knows UN is a Hamas collaborator.

I doubt that very much, since it's about as true as saying all Israelis are anti-Arab.

Steve, you keep talking about a long term solution, but what is that exactly?

Even if I had the answer I couldn't get it implemented, so it really doesn't matter what I think. However, I think the facts are VERY clear that military actions like this current one will give Israel nothing but more problems. It will definitely, and I mean without ANY DOUBT, not unseat Hamas or make them more peacefully minded. Therefore, if the current Israeli government is serious about its goals being to make Gaza more favorably disposed to act in Israel's best interests then the government is staffed by incompetent fools.

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.

And attacking them does the same thing, with the additional downside of costing more money, lives, political capital, and morale high ground.

The only way Israel will ever have peace is to do things which (eventually) make the majority of its neighbors seeing friendship with Israel as more beneficial than having Israel as an enemy. Israel blocking all commerce into and out of Gaza, then bombing it on a daily basis, does exactly the opposite.

The "liberals" have it right in terms of the overall direction. Building and not destroying is the way to success. The problem is that so far Israel has not shown the stomach necessary to win the peace. Hamas and its like know this, which is why every time some progress is made they attack and wait for the "hardliners" in Israel to overreact and undo all the good that had come before. And if the outsiders don't do it, then someone on the inside will (like Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir).

Also understand, Israel is fighting for its survival, not to win a popularity contest.

No, Israel is fighting because it so far has been incapable of making peace. If Israel really is interested in its long term survival then it's got a funny way of showing it since all it does is cyclical self destructive behavior. It had better figure out something different to do because ultimately it will never have peace by conducting what looks to be retribution killings of civilians, and as long as there isn't peace the survival of Israel as a state will forever be in doubt.

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?

They do, but they direct that rage at the particular religious faction doing the bombing and (of course) the West and Israel.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but what does that have to do with anything? This whole calculus of death, disproportionate idea is revolting. Don't get me wrong, I think what Israel is doing is wrong, and even worse, a futile waste of lives, Palestinian and Israeli lives. But if Hammas were to score a "jackpot" and hit say a school with one of their rockets and kill 50 kids, would that then justify everything?

Would israel be ok to now sit back until the rockets fired kill enough people to achieve a "good" proportionality and then be right to attack again?

Bottom line is, Hammas was firing rockets at israel and Israel had to do something about it. That they chose to go on a full-scale military operation knowing it would cause hundreds of civilian deaths, is not a good thing. Exactly how many israelis the rockets killed is irrelevant to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patrocles,

Does anyone know how many Israelis have been killed and injured by Hamas rockets? The U.S. media and pro-Israeli groups never report the Israeli death toll from rocket attacks by Hamas. What I hear/read only indicate that "thousands of rockets" were fired into Isreali territory. I'm guessing the Israelis have probably suffered 1,000+ casualties from Hamas rockets?

I think any Israeli sitting and watching the evening news here in the US would think that the US media was "pro Hamas" if anything.

The figures are widely reported as 13 Israelis dead, 3 civilians and 10 soldiers. And yes, thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel. That's not a lie. The thing is that the rockets are largely causing destruction of property and light wounds only. This was the same thing that happened in summer of 2006 with Hizbollah. The rockets are primarily weapons of terror, not effective weapons of destruction. The terror caused by the rockets is not proportional to the death toll from them. Similarly, the terror and misery cause by the Israeli attacks in Gaza go far beyond the death toll.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yair Iny,

Bottom line is, Hammas was firing rockets at israel and Israel had to do something about it. That they chose to go on a full-scale military operation knowing it would cause hundreds of civilian deaths, is not a good thing. Exactly how many israelis the rockets killed is irrelevant to that.

Agreed. However, death/injury count is useful when assessing proportional response. Proportional response is important because one loses the high ground when things are out of proportion. Otherwise there's no morale difference between what is going on now and if the Israelis dropped a thermonuclear weapon on that school ground. Morality is on a continuum and death is a useful indicator as a gauge of those actions in that context.

Which is why absolutely no good can come from this for Israel.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please. Give it a rest.

Israel hasn't been 'fighting for it's survival' since the 1970s.

A couple of terrorists lobbing missiles across the border is not going to lay Israel low, in the same way that flying a couple of planes into a couple of buildings did not lay the US low. It is the response to terrorism that poses the greater threat, not the terrorism itself.

The US' initial response was ok, then they botched it for several years, now they seem to be slowly getting back on track. Israel ... ?

If by "a couple of terrorists lobbing missiles across the border" you mean the government of Gaza launching thousands of rockets into Israeli cities, then yes, even this will not lay Israel low, only make life horrible without end.

good points!

Does anyone know how many Israelis have been killed and injured by Hamas rockets? The U.S. media and pro-Israeli groups never report the Israeli death toll from rocket attacks by Hamas. What I hear/read only indicate that "thousands of rockets" were fired into Isreali territory. I'm guessing the Israelis have probably suffered 1,000+ casualties from Hamas rockets?

Thousands of rockets from Gaza have fallen on Israel over the years, but the mortality rate is very low (less than 0.04% result in deaths).

From 2001 until May 2008, there have been over 3,050 Qassam rockets fired at Israeli targets,[6] mainly against Sderot and the Western Negev. From 2001 when the missile attacks started until 27 April 2008, 13 Israelis were killed by Qassam rockets. Until today, fifteen Israelis have been killed and over 433 injured, along with significant property damage.

Agreed. However, death/injury count is useful when assessing proportional response. Proportional response is important because one loses the high ground when things are out of proportion. Otherwise there's no morale difference between what is going on now and if the Israelis dropped a thermonuclear weapon on that school ground. Morality is on a continuum and death is a useful indicator as a gauge of those actions in that context.

I disagree. If one sides seeks to guaruntee that civilian casualties result from any response, then a perfectly proportionate response will inevitably become disproportionate in outcome. I am still waiting for soemone to indicate exactly what a constructive proportionate response (i.e. one that has a preventive purpose rather than simple revenge or punishment) would look like in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... if Hammas were to score a "jackpot" and hit say a school with one of their rockets and kill 50 kids, ...

But isn't that rather the point? Hammas have to get really, really lucky and 'hit the jackpot'. And so far, after firing gawd knows how many rockets, they haven't. So even if perchance they do get lucky it'll be a long time before they get lucky again. That's the thing about luck - it's unreliable and unpredicatable.

On the other hand Palestinian cas have nothing to do with luck, and are all too predicatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Man, your posts must the most biased and clueless I have read in long time on these boards. Palestinians for decades are being forced out of their homes with bulldozers and uzis and now are piled in a ghetto called gaza strip. Israel maybe was fighting for its survival in 1948 but the time has changed and they are now the aggressors. And "Nazis" suits them fine since they treat palestinians like inferior species and have a decent record of crimes against humanity. From the sabra and shatila massacres to the bombings of today Israel has shown that it has no interest in palestinians existance and is in the same league with common jihadist terrorists. It is encouraging that many Israelis dont have biased views like yours, condemn the violence of their own state and recognise the right of the palestinians to exist. People like them are the only hope for getting the region out of the mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try to keep the extremist views in check. I think there are some interesting topics being discussed here. Specifically the NCO angle and the futility of military action in the absence of a greater plan. If we can keep the "UN are all terrorists" and "Israelis are all Nazis" out of the discussion then I'll leave it open. If not, I'll snap it shut because we don't need that sort of thing here.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AKD, exactly right. I find this whole notion of proportianal response ridiculous in the extreme. First, a state is responsible for defending all of its citizens from attack, there's no magic number of casualties which suddenly enables a state to defend itself. No nation on earth would suffer daily attacks on its sovereign territory by dozens of rockets. If you have any doubt of this, think what your government's response would be to daily rocket attacks on your hometown. Second, it's not solely a question of casualties, an entire population is terrorized and traumatized on a daily basis, unable to lead normal lives for years now. Third, Israel is using only the amount of force needed to permanently put an end to these attacks, just as they stopped Hezbollah attacks in their "futile" campaign in Lebanon. The fact that some of you think it won't work anyway is entirely irrelevant.

Btw, I found some interesting info on this Patrick Lang expert, obviously this source isn't necessarily objective either, so make up your own mind: http://www.nationalreview.com/rubin/rubin200405180836.asp

Edit: btw, in run-up to Iraq, Lang was a registered foreign agent for a Lebanese businessman by his own account and for the Lebanese government by account of his critics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other night, I was watching on TV, Olympiakos, a greek team , playing Euroleague basketball with a multi million team like Maccabi Tel Aviv in a full and happy stadium while 70km away starving palestinians were being killed in their slum towns. The contrast is jarring and it is ridiculous to say that Israelis are the ones that are prevented to lead a normal life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is the full text of the comments by Hamas representative Fathi Hamad:

"For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly [Palestinians] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life."

[Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas) Feb. 29, 2008]

http://forums.opendemocracy.net/node/47269

Palestinians are suffering because of Hamas, not because of Israel. People on the West Bank are far better off than the people in Gaza.

Other West Bank residents have a more personal stake. Taysir Barakat, owner of Ramallah's Ziryab restaurant, was born in Gaza's Jebaliya refugee camp and recalls many of Gaza's streets from his childhood. He still has five siblings and many other relatives in Gaza.

Barakat spends much of the day on the phone.

"The distance makes it more painful that we are living safe, good lives here while we know what it's like there," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_palestinians_west_bank_view;_ylt=AiCBXESsA8JGiJhI66olgx0LewgF

Now why are they living safe, good lives? Because they're not currently attacking Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Well... Aren't those only possibilities? There is either numbers or quality. If both are superiour then we most likely have a winner right there!

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.
As has been cited to be overlooked refreshment training of reserves. Which one is more important, career NCOs or traning of reserves... I'd take training of reserves :D

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.
Finns were not optimal themselves :D, lacking refresment training, weapons, numbers, ammo for artillery, planes, vehicles etc. It has been stated that Soviet troops infact had more training that Finns had (they atleast had it in fresh memory)...

But i really can't say what this has to do with career NCOs? I can see this NCO question to touch more about how small units performed in combat, how well they were facing demands and hardship. So basically platoons without long term carreer NCOs were fighting with molotovs, shotguns and logs against tanks. Being hammered daily by heavy artillery and fighting against much more numberious enemy. Fighting with querilla tactics. I really can't say how career NCO could have made them perform drastically better.

-44 is same. Finns were atleast capable to halt Soviet offence after brief almost panic-like situation and cause Soviets bloody nose after getting strategical and operational level up-to-date. Units could suffer 75% causalities in counter attacks under rocket and artillery fire, but still after resupply with fresh meat they were both fit and motivated to fight. Would Career NCO have made it better? I can't see it.

Can't say much about war against Germans. I fear i have to draw same conclusion. And both sides seemed to value each of other.

But those two last ones are rather irrelevant as NCOs had years of experience in previous wars.

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.
Yes experience is good, but Germans didnt' have carreer NCOs in platoons stationed? If they had that would be first time for me to hear that. German idea was to trust to subordinates, that was the main idea and power behind Germans which i've heard. As far as i can tell they were drafted/voluntary guys, given year or so NCO training and sent to units to gain experience in war.

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.
If you take NCO and train him into responsibilities of doing what platoon leader wants (or should not be doing), you have then NCO who does just the same thing. He has just served shorter time than carreer NCO, that is basically the only difference how system works.

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.

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.

How many Career NCOs would IDF require to have one per each platoon? How big would costs of personel increase, how much should wartime strenght in men dropped to meet that demand? We are are facing guality or numbers discussion and i'd say IDF gets along better by keeping numbers high. Optimal case would be to have high numbers and career NCOs, but that would cost a LOT.

That could be reached to economical scale and how good quality seeks to places where they get better salary and bad guality to career NCOs with worse salary... But that is not probably a good idea :D

Long post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why Londoners made all that fuss about the blitz and V1's-2's, after all, the population of greater London in 1939-45 was eight million and they only suffered 20,000 dead. Thats only .25%, and if we only focus on inner London then the figure is only .5%, beedin whingers the lot of them!! The whole point about the Gaza rockets is not the death toll but the emotional toll, living in a bunker for hours on end, always waiting for the sirens, not being able to lead a normal life etc etc. Hamas do not leaflet likely targets, you have 30 seconds to try and find cover, as my mother said, V1's killed proportionally very few people, but your heart stopped when their engine cut out. Even 40 years later the very sound of one, on the TV had her in tears. There is no way Israel could just ignore a sizeable proportion of its citizens being terrorised daily, the solution can be debated, but arguments about proportionality do diminish the real impact of what is happening in Southern Israel.

As for reservists, there is another side to their effectiveness, their combat experince and their shared experiences. One of the farmers I worked for was a reservist who had just served a tour in Lebanon, with his friend. The two of them had fought in 67 and 73 side by side and, as their wives used to say, they know exactly what the other is thinking, similarly with other reservists, their combat experience was of incalculable benefit to the IDF. As for the youngsters, if found most of them wise beyond their years, as one 18 year old paratrooper said, Lebanon has made me an old man. Again this was during the eighties so the situation might have changed, perhaps the 2006 performance by the army was partially a result of not having fought a major conflict in 20 years. Yair, interesting point about the reservists and casualties, some of the guys I knew, in their 30-40's, were on their second tour of Lebanon and the impact on their families, and the local community was considerable.

As for Gaza, Hamas were voted in to stop the appalling corruption of Fatah, not willing participants to their juvenile displays of inadequacy, as the head of Shin Bet has suggested, when the dust settles there are some very angry Gazans, angry at Hamas for bringing the wrath of the IDF on them. Final point, when Gorbachev wanted to pull out of Afghanistan he gave the military all it needed to crush the rebels, once and for all. When the massive offensives, with all the latest weapons, failed, the military really had no argument against the pullout. Similarly, maybe the end result will be to show both sides the military option is useless. The enemies of Israel will suffer far more pain than they inflict, especially if they allow the radicals with their dead-end philosophy of perpetual struggle to gain power, and the Israelis get no lasting security from the military response. Then again perhaps I should just remember the Israeli joke about the frog and the scorpion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forums.opendemocracy.net/node/47269

Palestinians are suffering because of Hamas, not because of Israel. People on the West Bank are far better off than the people in Gaza.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_palestinians_west_bank_view;_ylt=AiCBXESsA8JGiJhI66olgx0LewgF

Now why are they living safe, good lives? Because they're not currently attacking Israel.

Very reminiscent of a pre 20th century colonialism. There's always a group of the locals being shown to have "better lives" to discourage resistance. "Resistance makes your lives miserable, collaboration gives you rice/bread/whatever staple food".

Exactly why people from countries with memories of brutal foreign occupation sympatize more with the Gazans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Gaza, Hamas were voted in to stop the appalling corruption of Fatah, not willing participants to their juvenile displays of inadequacy, as the head of Shin Bet has suggested, when the dust settles there are some very angry Gazans, angry at Hamas for bringing the wrath of the IDF on them.

Unlikely. First of all, remember what happened when Hamas rose to power in Gaza? Israel started a very strict blockade of the strip, causing lack of food and medical supplies. Did people of Gaza rise against their leaders, as was probably hoped by Israel? No, because to them Hamas didn't start the blockade. How would Israel win popularity with this operation, then? Not going to happen. Secondly, I don't think that Hamas is going to give away leadership any more peacefully than Fatah did to Hamas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrath of Dagon,

Edit: btw, in run-up to Iraq, Lang was a registered foreign agent for a Lebanese businessman by his own account and for the Lebanese government by account of his critics.

Instead of trying to discredit a source, why not challenge the opinion instead? Generally speaking those who try to discredit and not discuss are broadcasting that either they are arguing from a weak position, aren't good debaters, or really don't know what they are talking about. BTW, that link you posted to is far less than objective. Part of the great movement to shut down debate in favor of dogmatic ignorance.

Now, to turn your question on its head and put it back to you... do you think this sort of military action the Israelis are engaged in is likely to succeed? Define success while you're at it. If you don't think it will succeed, what do you think will?

Palestinians are suffering because of Hamas, not because of Israel. People on the West Bank are far better off than the people in Gaza.

Wrong. Palestinians were suffering because of Hamas and (more recently) a full economic embargo imposed by the Israelis. Now they are suffering because of Hamas, the embargo, and Israeli military actions. People on the West Bank are arguably better off mostly because the lack of israeli military action, not because Fatah is substantially better at governing than Hamas.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondbrooks,

Well... Aren't those only possibilities? There is either numbers or quality. If both are superiour then we most likely have a winner right there!

My point is that if the Soviets had attacked Finland in 1939 with the force it had in 1944, I don't think the Finns would have done very well at all. Probably would have been rolled up quickly. The point is that any failings, and I mean any, in the Finnish forces were more than compensated for by vastly larger ones in the Soviet forces. Therefore, it is not possible to say "the Finns had this deficiency and it didn't bite them in the butt" because the Soviets had so little going for them other than numbers.

Likewise, the Israelis have has the advantage of going against opponents that are generally poorer in all aspects. Except Hizbollah in 2006, and the Israelis definitely lost that engagement. So one has to wonder if their is something within the Israeli fundamentals that needs improvement.

As has been cited to be overlooked refreshment training of reserves. Which one is more important, career NCOs or traning of reserves... I'd take training of reserves

So would I ;) However, there definitely were more problems than just that. Especially at senior levels, which of course is outside of the discussion about NCOs.

But i really can't say what this has to do with career NCOs? I can see this NCO question to touch more about how small units performed in combat, how well they were facing demands and hardship. So basically platoons without long term carreer NCOs were fighting with molotovs, shotguns and logs against tanks. Being hammered daily by heavy artillery and fighting against much more numberious enemy. Fighting with querilla tactics. I really can't say how career NCO could have made them perform drastically better.

Very well might not have. But as has been noted many times in many different ways... the Winter War was a very rare set of circumstances. The main thing that won the war for the Finns (or at least caused them to not lose) was the fact that the Finns believed in what they were doing far more than the Soviets did. Because the Soviets were inept in so many ways, I think that made more of a difference than anything else. Including terrain, weather, tactics, etc.

-44 is same. Finns were atleast capable to halt Soviet offence after brief almost panic-like situation and cause Soviets bloody nose after getting strategical and operational level up-to-date. Units could suffer 75% causalities in counter attacks under rocket and artillery fire, but still after resupply with fresh meat they were both fit and motivated to fight. Would Career NCO have made it better? I can't see it.

My point is that by 1944 the career NCOs basically were in place, simply because they couldn't go home. But again, as I said above, I think superior will to fight kept them going far more than anything else. But their ability to produce battlefield results definitely dropped as the fighting went on in 1944.

But those two last ones are rather irrelevant as NCOs had years of experience in previous wars.

Exactly ;)

Yes experience is good, but Germans didnt' have carreer NCOs in platoons stationed?

Not true at all. And now I get to use some info in my head that I haven't had to use for a while! So brace yourself for my mental exercise :)

Remember, in pre war German society the military was held in extremely high regard. Making it one's profession was one of the best things you could do with your life. It held status. With a system like that, professional NCOs were a given.

The Germans were restricted, initially, because the Treaty of Versailles limited their total Army to 100,000 men. In theory this hampered their ability to have a lot of NCOs. However, one way the Germans got around this was to train their average soldier to be an NCO and their NCOs junior officers. Check out the passage on the second column of this page. When the Treaty was disregarded, they had a ready cadre of NCOs to draw from in order to expand the Army as a whole. Basically, it was an army without a single private!

The traditional German replacement system was to form up replacement units at the home base for the larger parent formation. Experienced soldiers who had recovered from light wounds were often put into these units instead of returning to their original ones. Sometimes veterans came from NCOs on leave who were redirected to training units instead of going back to the front. These replacements and their instructors trained as units and were then transfered to the front to be incorporated intact. Usually no smaller than platoon size, no larger than battalion.

Once at the front they were paired with more seasoned units whenever possible so that whatever deficiencies they came with could be compensated for by others. As the war went on this system was strained and Hitler's obsession with new units caused a lot of the training units to be used to form brand new units. This degraded the ability of the existing units to get the same quality of replacements they had before. But the concept basically remained the same... raise new recruits, mix them in with seasoned NCOs as best they could, train as a unit, then go to the front as cohesive units.

Towards the end of the war the training took place in occupied areas so the training unit could also pull security duty. This was not a good idea as the security duties interfered with training and often facilities were inadequate for training purposes.

This is the opposite of the US Army replacement system of WWII. In that system soldiers were given their basic training plus NCO or officer training. They were then sent to the front as individual replacements. The mortality rate for these replacements was extremely high because they were moving into units as outsiders. Or, in the worst cases, they were formed into nearly pure "green" units that were more ad hoc than planned. The US system of replacement was criticized during the war for this very reason. By the end of the war the units in the field had changed things to be a little bit more like the German system. The current US Army system is very similar to the German system from what I can tell.

German idea was to trust to subordinates, that was the main idea and power behind Germans which i've heard.

NCOs are subordinates ;)

If you take NCO and train him into responsibilities of doing what platoon leader wants (or should not be doing), you have then NCO who does just the same thing. He has just served shorter time than carreer NCO, that is basically the only difference how system works.

The point is that experience matters. In the US Army the turn over rate of 2nd LTs was something like 300%, the highest in the entire army by rank. The number one reason cited? Not listening to their NCOs. The LTs that came over from the US, green, that understood that their experienced NCOs probably knew a lot more than they did tended to survive. Those who did not tended to become casualties very quickly, sometimes at great cost to their unit in question. I remember one example where all but one man in a platoon was killed because the new LT didn't listen to his NCOs.

Now, in wartime after a few years there's going to be very little difference between a prewar career NCO and one who perhaps started out as a private or freshly schooled NCO. The reason is that natural selection on the battlefield sorts things out pretty quickly. The fat, lazy, good for nothing NCOs before the war are either out of action or at least out of the front. The newbie NCOs that didn't learn, and learn quickly, how to do their jobs also washed out by that time. The point is that if you go into a war with experienced NCOs the chances of good short term results goes up, which should theoretically improve long term results as well.

The worst of all situations is an inexperienced force being expected to wage very short wars. It is possible this is one of the problems the IDF had with Lebanon. By the time the forces on the ground started to figure out what was what, they were ordered home.

How many Career NCOs would IDF require to have one per each platoon? How big would costs of personel increase, how much should wartime strenght in men dropped to meet that demand? We are are facing guality or numbers discussion and i'd say IDF gets along better by keeping numbers high. Optimal case would be to have high numbers and career NCOs, but that would cost a LOT.

I can not answer these questions. I can say that the US has a massive military and a massive military budget. I don't know how the active IDF Army forces and budget compare in a proportional sense. But in any case, now this is an argument about practical issues. That's completely different than theoretical ideal state. One should never argue against the merits of an ideal state using practical concerns. Instead, one should acknowledge what the ideal is and then show how to best compromise it to conform to practical considerations. That way rational choices can be made to either accept the compromises or make sacrifices in other areas to lessen the effects of compromise.

I'm not saying that I think the evidence is clear that the IDF needs to have a professional NCO program, rather I'm saying that I'm surprised that they don't.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sergei,

Unlikely. First of all, remember what happened when Hamas rose to power in Gaza? Israel started a very strict blockade of the strip, causing lack of food and medical supplies. Did people of Gaza rise against their leaders, as was probably hoped by Israel? No, because to them Hamas didn't start the blockade. How would Israel win popularity with this operation, then? Not going to happen. Secondly, I don't think that Hamas is going to give away leadership any more peacefully than Fatah did to Hamas.

Agreed. The Germans also thought that bombing the crap out of the English countryside and cities would get the British people to force their government to sue for peace. The Allies thought that this was such a good strategy that they applied it on the Germans and Japanese. Apparently they thought the flaw with the strategy was that Germany wasn't brutal enough, so the increased the carnage. It didn't work there either, well until the US used nukes for the first, and thankfully so far, only time. So the lesson to the Israelis is that if they really want to get Palestinians to change their ways by using force, use nukes.

BTW, people said that the Georgian government would fall soon after the debacle in South Ossetia. It hasn't happened yet, and the display of idiocy and incompetence there is at least equal to Hamas rocketing Israel. In fact, the Georgians didn't want to have Russia attack while that was the whole point of Hamas' actions.

Some of the talking heads I hear have predicted that Hamas will come out stronger than it went in, politically. Based on Hizbollah's example and others, I think that is the most likely result. I know I've heard more than a few Fatah supports saying that they support Hamas. So there goes Israel's one and only alternative to Hamas throwing their support behind them instead of Israel.

To anybody here that thinks that Israel's current offensive action in Gaza will satisfy the stated goals of the Israeli government (stop the rocket attacks, disarm Hamas), please cite historical examples that support such a view. Anything in the last 200 or so years is probably relevant.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hammering Gaza is merely tactical. The strategy that lies behind it goes back to events that were already in motion by '49, the strategic folly of which would make Sun Tzu roll his eyes in disbelief. What exactly was supposed to have happened in the region after the indiginous population was expelled by force and an 'egalitarian' uni-ethnic state instituted? Let us recall this was a radical concept (who would claim that it wasn't radical?). It was imposed on the territory with a zealotry that would've even impressed Stalin, down to the confiscation of great swaths of private (arab) property for the building of socialist collective farms (kibbutzim). Did the founders imagine the original occupants would conveniently die-out like the the American Indian? That the surrounding states would simply absorb the Palestinian diaspora the same way they had absorbed an earleir diaspora centuries ago? Every war in that region since then has been a direct result of the original flawed strategic notion based on conquest, subjugation, and ethnic purity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sergei,

Agreed. The Germans also thought that bombing the crap out of the English countryside and cities would get the British people to force their government to sue for peace. The Allies thought that this was such a good strategy that they applied it on the Germans and Japanese. Apparently they thought the flaw with the strategy was that Germany wasn't brutal enough, so the increased the carnage. It didn't work there either, well until the US used nukes for the first, and thankfully so far, only time. So the lesson to the Israelis is that if they really want to get Palestinians to change their ways by using force, use nukes.

Steve, if you want to make this argument you need to present evidence that the aim of Israel's military ops is to induce terror in the local population, rather than this being an inadvertent byproduct of pursueing other specific goals. Otherwise, this is like saying that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor failed because the local population didn't immediately capitulate and swear lifelong fealty to the Emperor, and that because of that Japan should never have attacked in the first place (i.e. you are right for the wrong reasons).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...