Israel: Strategic Asset or Strategic Liability?

**~~GraniteForge~~** · 07 Jan 09,, 07:11

Originally Posted by JohnFlint1985

Just to put this into a perspective - Israel won all the wars and fought hard for this land. So it doesn't have to give up anything at all for some completely ephemeral peace process. Yet they do that and even provide compensation if there is no way around it. So if Palestinians who can only scream and yell and cannot even set up their own house in order having literally two governments, are not happy with this arrangement - so be it. In any case Abbas of Hamas can sign thousand papers and the next day throw it away.

They haven't won all the wars, or always "fought hard." They left Lebanon after a draw, at best, and although they eventually won with massive US help, they got caught with their pants down in 1973.

Originally Posted by Greg

The UK, Japan, Australia and of course Israel are considered among most trustworthy allies - through thick and thin. Israel is therefore an asset. Loss of Israel would be damage the ability of the US to leverage its military superiority in the the greater ME.

The US alone has the historic previlege to count amongst its closest military allies - not only strong vibrant countries but also those that share its values and general outlook.

So, Israel is a "trustworthy ally"? Despite having stolen US military secrets and equipment and sold it to our enemies, and despite having attacked a US naval vessel and murdered US sailors? Isn't that sort of like having a "best friend" who turns your wife into a prostitute and sells drugs from your home while you are on deployment?

Having Israel as such a "close military ally" is a "previlege" [sic] that we can do without.

**~~GraniteForge~~** · 07 Jan 09,, 07:23

Originally Posted by Ironduke

Granite, I have to strongly disagree with you. You've been arguing again and again that if an action causes an "effect" of instilling terror into a civilian population, that it is terrorism. Terrorists have the intent of targeting civilian populations, for ideological reasons, to instill fear and terror into that population as a means of coercing a government.

If any of these are absent, it is quite simply not terrorism.

I understand that you are quoting the prevalant theory, and I have attended a fair amount of conferences and other events where this is the premise, and I have to tell you that this theory is dead wrong. This failure to grasp the fundamentals of the problem is the reason that the US has not effectively fought this war, much less having a chance to win.

Frankly, the only thing that has prevented further serious attacks against the US is the fact that the enemy consists of only tiny groups, very poorly trained and equipped, and only indifferently motivated. On 9/11, they barely managed to pull off a botched execution of a third-rate plan. If they ever actually get their sh1t together and decide to mount a serious attack, its going to be katy-bar-the-door.

**aktarian** · 08 Jan 09,, 13:06

This was true during the 70s in particular with the SA-6, again with the Israeli tactics over Lebanon in 82, which were endlessly studied by the Americans.

Of course US studied israeli tactics, they could hardly study Iranain, eh?

Originally Posted by Stan187

That's a pretty silly statement, considering that Israel was itching to get into the fight when it started receiving Saddam's Scuds, and it was actually the US that had to convince the Israelis to stay out so that the Arabs wouldn't use their presence as an excuse to break the coalition. Syrian opportunism also doesn't deserve as much lauding and respect as you might want to give it, they bandwagoned with the winners.

In other words, had Israel acted as an ally is ecxpected to it would torpedo US efforts in the region. Not much of a use then

Originally Posted by Stan187

As a result of the First Gulf War, Israel became a place where US has put a lot of ME ready reserve facilities, which did come into use afterwards. And half the time the US 6th Fleet is docked, its docked over at an Israeli port.

and when 2003 war started Us didn't fly out of Israel, used it's ports and so on.

**Stan187** · 09 Jan 09,, 17:22

Originally Posted by aktarian

In other words, had Israel acted as an ally is ecxpected to it would torpedo US efforts in the region. Not much of a use then
It did act as an ally, and stayed out of it as per request of the US

and when 2003 war started Us didn't fly out of Israel, used it's ports and so on.

Pretty sure they used the ready reserve equipment from there. As far as fly out of Israel, that was a US strategic choice, are you saying that Israel should purposely ask the US military to go out of its way and fly missions from Israeli territory even when it is not convenient to do so for the USAF?

**~~Greg~~** · 10 Jan 09,, 19:20

So, Israel is a "trustworthy ally"? Despite having stolen US military secrets and equipment and sold it to our enemies, and despite having attacked a US naval vessel and murdered US sailors? Isn't that sort of like having a "best friend" who turns your wife into a prostitute and sells drugs from your home while you are on deployment?

Having Israel as such a "close military ally" is a "previlege" [sic] that we can do without.

The US will steal military secrets as well - from friends and enemies. During WWII, british spies were running a very efficient operation in the US - keeping an eye on American strategic designs, new military tech and influencing the policy to their advantage. The US in turn, continues to spy extensively in Europe on its NATO allies. Its the nature of the game. None of it means that alliance should be dissolved.

The attack by IAF on USN vessel is thought to be a mistake, - a case of friendly fire resulting from extreme negligence of the pilot. If it wasnt and if IAF did so after clearly identifying it as USN, you are going to have to furnish some credible evidence and not just a conspiracy theory.

USAF has inflicted considerable damage on Canadian troopsin Afghanistan (friendly fire) and If I remember right, the involved pilot was disciplined for negligence. It did not however lead Canada to question its strategic alliance with the US.

Nobody is claiming that there is a complete overlap of interests and no conflicts between the US and Israel. However if you are trying to make a case for ditching the long-standing alliance with Israel, which is also the strongest and most capable military power in the ME (and the only bona fide nuclear power in the region), the burden of proof lies on you. To me the alternative to that alliance is a scenario where the US position in that region is diminished. Please note that even the UK and France have very close alliance with Israel.

**drsambansal** · 10 Jan 09,, 21:21

I agree with Greg's opinion completely & whole heartedly.

In the same context let me point out that Pakistan is supposed to be a strategic ally of ours. But what kind of an ally is she who is fomenting more trouble than rooting it out. Admitedly it may be because their militant citizens have so much feelings for their Jihadi fellows. But when it comes to using our help they are up in the line but when it comes to actions they are not that far in the front

Dr Sam Bansal

**~~Greg~~** · 10 Jan 09,, 22:24

Dr Bansal,

Nobody in the US (in their right mind) considers Pakistan a strategic ally of the US (not even remotely in the category that we put countries like Canada, UK, Israel, Aus and Japan).

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Jan 09,, 22:35

Originally Posted by Greg

USAF has inflicted considerable damage on Canadian troopsin Afghanistan (friendly fire) and If I remember right, the involved pilot was disciplined for negligence. It did not however lead Canada to question its strategic alliance with the US.

The Americans punished their pilots. The Israelis gave theirs promotions.

**BadKharma** · 10 Jan 09,, 22:38

Originally Posted by Greg

Dr Bansal,

Nobody in the US (in their right mind) considers Pakistan a strategic ally of the US (not even remotely in the category that we put countries like Canada, UK, Israel, Aus and Japan).

That is very true, Pakistan has never been on the Allie list as far as I know.

**~~Greg~~** · 10 Jan 09,, 23:09

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The Americans punished their pilots. The Israelis gave theirs promotions.

Not a good analogy. The American pilots were striking a target of opportunity and were negligent in identifying it as friend. The IAF pilots were obeying a direct order to strike the vessel - and they executed that order.

The negligence in the USS Liberty case was in the miscommunication with USN. Its possible that the negligence was also on part of the USN.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Jan 09,, 23:22

Originally Posted by Greg

Not a good analogy. The American pilots were striking a target of opportunity and were negligent in identifying it as friend. The IAF pilots were obeying a direct order to strike the vessel - and they executed that order.

The negligence in the USS Liberty case was in the miscommunication with USN. Its possible that the negligence was also on part of the USN.

You're the one who raised the example.

**~~Greg~~** · 10 Jan 09,, 23:29

I did - Just to point out that friendly-fire incidents are not sufficient to doubt strategic relations. You however implied that strike on USS Liberty was celebrated by Israelis (promotion to IAF pilots). That was bad analogy.

I have no intention of making this a tempest in a tea-pot. Have your last word and I will give it a rest.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Jan 09,, 23:35

Originally Posted by Greg

I did - Just to point out that friendly-fire incidents are not sufficient to doubt strategic relations. You however implied that strike on USS Liberty was celebrated by Israelis (promotion to IAF pilots). That was bad analogy.

On the contrary, it is the best analogy. The Americans hold themselves to a high standard and demands the same of their allies. At the very least, their flight status should have been revoked.

We fired the guys who made the decision at Chinese Embassy bombing at Belgrade.

Show me who was punished for making the wrong decision on the Israeli side?

**~~Greg~~** · 11 Jan 09,, 01:19

I changed my mind and will continue the argument after having realized that I really enjoy debating with you..

On the contrary, it is the best analogy

No its not. The point about USAF killing Canadian soldiers was that despite that incident, the strategic alliance between the two countries was not threatened. Even if the USAF had exonerated the USAF pilots, Canada was unlikely to pull out of its alliance with the US - that much is quite reasonable to assume. Your analogy is meaningless in that regard. Lets assume for a second that IDAF was clearly at fault in this friendly-fire incident and that they did not take any disciplinary action. Thats not sufficient grounds to fracture the alliance anyway. Your analogy was not best, not good - in fact it was bad becasue it missed the point.

Additionally, Why should the IAF pilots be punished when they were obeying a direct order? All parties are in agreement that attack was ordered. The question is whether the mistakes were commited by IDF or USN (or both). Is there complete clarity on these issues?

Do all cases of friendly fire result in disciplinary action in the US forces?

**Officer of Engineers** · 11 Jan 09,, 02:18

Originally Posted by Greg

No its not. The point about USAF killing Canadian soldiers was that despite that incident, the strategic alliance between the two countries was not threatened.

Really? I recalled the withdrawl of 3 PPCLI after the tour with no replacement battle group even though 2 were standing by.

Originally Posted by Greg

Even if the USAF had exonerated the USAF pilots, Canada was unlikely to pull out of its alliance with the US - that much is quite reasonable to assume.

And further participation in Iraq and Afghanistan? In case you did not know, the CF was in discussion about sending 2CMBG to Iraq. 3 RCR went to Afghanistan instead. How much public anger would it required to even cancelled that deployment?

Originally Posted by Greg

Your analogy is meaningless in that regard. Lets assume for a second that IDAF was clearly at fault in this friendly-fire incident and that they did not take any disciplinary action. Thats not sufficient grounds to fracture the alliance anyway.

It assumes that the Rules of Engagment have now changed with regards to all Israeli combattants.

Originally Posted by Greg

Your analogy was not best, not good - in fact it was bad becasue it missed the point.

It missed nothing.

Originally Posted by Greg

Additionally, Why should the IAF pilots be punished when they were obeying a direct order? All parties are in agreement that attack was ordered. The question is whether the mistakes were commited by IDF or USN (or both). Is there complete clarity on these issues?

Because it clearly was an illegal order!

Originally Posted by Greg

Do all cases of friendly fire result in disciplinary action in the US forces?

I have not known a case where American pilots at least have not lost their flight status.

View Poll Results: Israel: Strategic Asset or Strategic Liability?

Thread: Israel: Strategic Asset or Strategic Liability?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Granite reply

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq

INDIA’S DRIVE FOR A ‘BLUE WATER’ NAVY : Dr.David Scott

Why Hizbollah Lost the War in Lebanon! By, Gabriel AlAmin

Face-To Face: Pak and Israel

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions