"How to Screw Up A War Story: The New York Times At Work"

Royce wrote:

I think another big factor might be military strategy... Israel is a centrally located ally in a very unfriendly region, and their military force (supplied by us) is a major military buffer should we engage in full scale campaigns in regions in which we currently have no foothold. It seems to fit with our habit of seemingly keeping a military presence in every nook and cranny of the globe, apparently just in case. A very costly habit, mind you.

A small correction: we do have an entirely adequate foothold in Qatar, for example. And the point of having a foothold in Israel is moot, anyway -- as Paleo likes to point out, what good did it do us, if we couldn't use Israel in neither Gulf I nor Gulf II campaign, for fear of TOTALLY antagonizing all of the surrounding neighbors.

Israel is part of the problem, not the solution. A cute, admittedly, but a problem nevertheless.

Israel, that bastion of morality, that defender of freedom who is only forced to do these terrible things by the Hamas villains, is claimed to be using white phosphorus on civilians.

(The use of white phosphorus is not directly a war crime, but it's meant for battlefield smokescreens. Firing it into the most heavily populated city on Earth is just trying to inflict suffering.)

Malor wrote:

Israel, that bastion of morality, that defender of freedom who is only forced to do these terrible things by the Hamas villains, is claimed to be using white phosphorus on civilians.

Israelis handling M825A1 artillery shells.

(The use of white phosphorus is not directly a war crime, but it's meant for battlefield smokescreens. Firing it into the most heavily populated city on Earth is just trying to inflict suffering.)

It's really a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario. I see both the tactical necessity and the third order effects.

Just curious, what are those tactical benefits?

Axon wrote:

Just curious, what are those tactical benefits?

Well, for one, there is no easy way to create vertical concealment without WP. The tactical use of smoke is to conceal your movement toward, away from, or across an opponent's field of fire. If, for instance, you want to cross an open courtyard into a building containing Hamas militants, your success relies heavily on your ability to cross that distance without taking accurate fire.

Most conventional smoke can only provide a ground hugging cloud. That doesn't help you much if your machinegun or sniper nest is in the minaret of a mosque. You could, if you wanted to, drop a 2000 pound JDAM on the mosque to suppress the fire from the minaret, but that has its own, well-documented limitations.

Instead, the next best option seems to be to stack a column of smoke right in front of the minaret by popping WP airbursts about 10-20 meters in front of it. This creates a several stories tall wall of white smoke that doesn't easily dissipate for about 120 or so seconds. Plenty of time to cross that distance.

PissedYeti wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

The Central Elections Committee on Monday banned Arab political parties from running in next month's parliamentary elections

Excellent, they continue to remain a bastion of democracy in the region.

My first reaction to reading that was the same but I am forcing myself to be as objective on this as possible. Unfortunately Israel is making it tough to rationalize or empathize with their decisions as it appears to me that they are consciously timing things to sway the upcoming elections towards the conservative mindset furthering the status quo or worse.

To elaborate on my comment, I'm not trying to paint them with the brush of abject villainy. I'm just noting that democracy isn't really democracy if you're going to tell people for whom they are and are not allowed to vote.

Paleocon wrote:
Axon wrote:

Just curious, what are those tactical benefits?

Most conventional smoke can only provide a ground hugging cloud. That doesn't help you much if your machinegun or sniper nest is in the minaret of a mosque. You could, if you wanted to, drop a 2000 pound JDAM on the mosque to suppress the fire from the minaret, but that has its own, well-documented limitations.

Instead, the next best option seems to be to stack a column of smoke right in front of the minaret by popping WP airbursts about 10-20 meters in front of it. This creates a several stories tall wall of white smoke that doesn't easily dissipate for about 120 or so seconds. Plenty of time to cross that distance.

OR, you stick with Plan A and bomb the minaret just the same. :\

IMAGE(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3189078627_beaf8752a5.jpg?v=0)

Most conventional smoke can only provide a ground hugging cloud. That doesn't help you much if your machinegun or sniper nest is in the minaret of a mosque. You could, if you wanted to, drop a 2000 pound JDAM on the mosque to suppress the fire from the minaret, but that has its own, well-documented limitations.

The defender gets to choose the terrain he fights on. Urban battlespace heavily favors the defender. Modern weapon system advantages are effectively negated by a lethal, three dimensional terrain in which attacks can come from literally anywhere.

In addition to the simple tactical advantage of urban battlespace, modern laws of land warfare proscribe certain actions in an urban battlefield, including engaging anything with a protected status. These are typically religious buildings, infrastructure buildings (water, power, education, medical, etc.), and civilian property. The protected status can be lost if the building winds up sheltering valid military targets. A common tactic in Iraq, for example, was to launch mortars from a mosque courtyard. The mosque would then lose its protected status and could be engaged.

The choice then becomes Hellfire missile or infantry platoon?

Doctrinally, the best way to assault a building is from the top, down. This is not always possible.

You assault the building from the top down because you gain the advantage of the high ground. Should the enemy choose to evacuate the building, it can be assumed he will either go up and out or leave through a tunnel system. It is unlikely (though possible) they may attempt to leave through the ground level. This is unlikely because they will often be running right into the sights of armored fighting vehicles which are unable to close with the building but serve as excellent mobile fighting positions in the urban terrain.

The defender is assumed to have prepared his fighting position to repel attackers. Doors are barred, supplies (ammunition, food, medical supplies) are placed at bunkers positioned thoughout the building, IED's/booby-traps are emplaced at likely points of entry, and reinforcements are likely close at hand.

This is to say nothing of the external defenses of the building which may consist of snipers, machine gun fire, IED's, and rocket launchers, all positioned towards likely avenues of approach.

Your best hope to even get soldiers close to the building to commence a ground assault is to screen their movement.

Long story short... is being burned alive by white phosphorous horrible? Yes. Which is why it is not used as a weapons systems. Does it serve a valid tactical purpose? Yes. Especially in the urban battlespace.

As I said earlier, the defender chooses the terrain. The media effects of little children incinerated by a persistent burning agent are not to be neglected.

EDIT:

OR, you stick with Plan A and bomb the minaret just the same. :\

Sometimes, you've got no other choice.

Thanks Reap for your excellent description of urban fighting tactics.

I'm just a gravel pit commando myself, but I have taken enough courses to know that the more I know about the subject, the more I'm glad I don't have to do it for a living. Hell, I'm convinced that the only folks mentally qualified to do that sort of work are the young, dumb, and full of c*m.

Paleocon wrote:

Thanks Reap for your excellent description of urban fighting tactics.

I'm just a gravel pit commando myself, but I have taken enough courses to know that the more I know about the subject, the more I'm glad I don't have to do it for a living. Hell, I'm convinced that the only folks mentally qualified to do that sort of work are the young, dumb, and full of c*m.

Way to insult so many people for nothing, Paleo. :\

Hell, I'm convinced that the only folks mentally qualified to do that sort of work are the young, dumb, and full of c*m.

I've never been in a proper urban firefight. Done plenty of MOUT training to know that's it lethal business and had plenty of accounts from buddies who've been there back in the early days of the war to confirm that knowledge.

My roommate lost a guy from his platoon (IIRC. Might have been his squad.) during a dismounted patrol in Baghdad back in early '04. They were in a staggered column formation moving down an alley. In less than a moment an Iraqi came out from a sidestreet, closed with them, shanked this dude right in the back of the neck, and ran off.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Thanks Reap for your excellent description of urban fighting tactics.

I'm just a gravel pit commando myself, but I have taken enough courses to know that the more I know about the subject, the more I'm glad I don't have to do it for a living. Hell, I'm convinced that the only folks mentally qualified to do that sort of work are the young, dumb, and full of c*m.

Way to insult so many people for nothing, Paleo. :\r

Trust me. The folks I know that do that sort of thing for a living wouldn't really be insulted.

Paleocon wrote:

Hell, I'm convinced that the only folks mentally qualified to do that sort of work are the young, dumb, and full of c*m.

If this applies to the women soldiers then someone is having a much better time over there than I am over here.

Trust me. The folks I know that do that sort of thing for a living wouldn't really be insulted.

You have to be crazy to do this sort of work.

Reaper81 wrote:

You have to be crazy to do this sort of work.

Given the number of long serving soldiers/private contractors/mercenaries around the world now and down through the ages, it seems like a profession for which some people are more suited than others. The U.S. is somewhat unique in that we bring in huge numbers of young people for 2-4 years terms for combat service overseas knowing that many, if not most of them, will have no long term interest in the profession of arms. We even use huge numbers of part-time soldiers for whom the military is not their primary profession. Seems like an extraordinary approach.

Funkenpants wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

You have to be crazy to do this sort of work.

Given the number of long serving soldiers/private contractors/mercenaries around the world now and down through the ages, it seems like a profession for which some people are more suited than others. The U.S. is somewhat unique in that we bring in huge numbers of young people for 2-4 years terms for combat service overseas knowing that many, if not most of them, will have no long term interest in the profession of arms. We even use huge numbers of part-time soldiers for whom the military is not their primary profession. Seems like an extraordinary approach.

I often wonder what it is about certain extraverted empires like the US, UK, France, and the such that make it so easy to get folks to kill and die in foreign countries in conflicts they barely understand. Whenever I hear paranoid folks talk to me about China's "billion man army", I laugh and remind them that getting a platoon of Chinese to willingly serve on a battlefield more than 1000 miles from the Chinese border would be a an achievement worthy of the building of the Forbidden City.

There is something hard wired in the Western mind which makes it exceedingly easy to get young citizens to die on foreign battlefields.

White phosphorous is a useful tactical device but it's not meant to kill people. Kind of like how daisy cutters were intended for deforestation. It's not our fault if enemy soldiers happen to be hiding in the forest and it's not Israel's fault if Hamas soldiers are standing where they want smoke.

LobsterMobster wrote:

White phosphorous is a useful tactical device but it's not meant to kill people. Kind of like how flechette can be used for deforestation in warzones, and daisy cutters can make landing zones. It's not our fault if enemy soldiers happen to be hiding in the forest and it's not Israel's fault if Hamas soldiers are standing where they want smoke.

Honestly, if you suspect a group of militants of hiding out in a group of mud huts, dropping WP on them is right up there with some of the least effective ways of dealing with the situation. Sure, given enough of it, you might be able to burn down the buildings, but you'll also conceal their movements and you could have done a much more robust job of it by hitting them with GP high explosive on ground burst.

Using WP on people as a weapon is sort of like using a screwdriver to stab someone when you have a spear.

Sorry Paleo, I edited my post to just the daisy cutters. It's a better example.

Got to learn to stop editing my stuff so much.

I was being a bit facetious anyway. My point was that they can try to claim they weren't using it offensively but that it's a dangerous tool and there are hostile forces (and civilians) in the area they intend to use it. I don't know if they actually are claiming that. As for WHY they would use WP instead of more conventional weapons, well... there's a reason you're not supposed to shoot phosphorous at people. It does horrible things.

White phosphorous is a useful tactical device but it's not meant to kill people. Kind of like how daisy cutters were intended for deforestation. It's not our fault if enemy soldiers happen to be hiding in the forest and it's not Israel's fault if Hamas soldiers are standing where they want smoke.

We're discussing the application of a system for tactical purposes. Secondary effects in a combat zone are what they are. IE: people get blown to pieces and burned alive.

Does that mean they are being used expressly for the purpose of killing? No. That's what your weapon systems are designed for. They are much more efficient.

If a forest needs to be cleared because it is concealing enemy combatants and daisy cutters are the only way to clear that forest in an expedient method then daisy cutters are on the table.

Why then, with such a utilitarian approach, do we not simply nuke, gas, willy pete, and poison every hovel we come across? The ultimate result of such a course of action is total failure.

Slight edits.

Again, I was being facetious. I don't advocate burning people alive and claiming you happened to want a dozen very dense smoke screens in very specific and coincidental spots.

I was writing my post as you guys were apparently having your discussion. Not harping on you.

I don't advocate burning people alive and claiming you happened to want a dozen very dense smoke screens in very specific and coincidental spots.

Which could have been planned by Hamas for media effects to incite outrage over barbaric tactics being employed by the IDF.

Or the IDF could have actually used barbaric tactics to pacify a civilian populace.

Now, I'm not saying either of these things happened. I'm just pointing out that situations are usually more complex than good/evil, especially in a tactical environment.

I'm not a big fan of Israeli policy nor of Hamas in general but every time the IDF has rolled tanks somewhere in the last two years, it's become a treasure trove of information for observers seeking to gauge reactions (both tactical and non-) in asymmetric warfare.

Reaper81 wrote:

I'm not a big fan of Israeli policy nor of Hamas in general but every time the IDF has rolled tanks somewhere in the last two years, it's become a treasure trove of information for observers seeking to gauge reactions (both tactical and non-) in asymmetric warfare.

Yup.

My own ambivalence in regards to the State of Israel and American support for it is pretty well documented. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a dog in this hunt.

I do, however, think that the outrage on both sides is more than a little strained. The Israelis' characterization of primative rocket attacks as some sort of existential threat is comically hyperbolic. The Palestinian outrage over the use of WP smoke or doctrinal countermeasures for dealing with the urban terrain force multiplier are also a bit over the top.

On the political end though...

It appears that no one wants to call this what it really ought to be: a war against the Palestinian population. The Israelis are playing the tired PR line that all they want to do is disarm Hamas, but fail to publically admit that there is no other way to do that than to force a regime change of an overwhelmingly democratically elected government. That, effectively puts them at war with a majority of Gazans. They can talk all they want about how the Palestinians will be better off with a different government, but it isn't up to them to choose unless they are willing to change their minds by force of arms (ie: unconditional surrender).

It is obvious to me that neither the Israelis nor their patron state has the political will to affect that political action. The Israelis are not sufficiently committed to a war that will wipe out political Palistinian Gaza. The United States has no stomach for what would effectively be a "final solution". So, in the end, this will not result in a shifting onf the current political equilibrium. If anything, it will simply strengthen the Hamas position, weaken Fatah, and bring us one more step closer to an open civil war.

Paleo - this discussion has a couple major threads at this point... the history of the conflict and the sources of this most recent violence; the US involvement with Israel; the particulars of the urban warfare in the conflict; and the prospects for a long-term peaceful solution.

In response to your recent post on that last point, I actually think both the Israeli and Palestinian sides may be positioning themselves for bargaining after a ceasefire. For instance, you rightly point out that an excessive show of force in comparison to the lack of an "existential threat" posed by rocket-fire is unwarranted. However, as political leverage it could be logical, IF they intend to make concessions after the smoke clears. For instance, removing some settlers from the West Bank (a certain barrier to a long-term peace solution).

From Hamas' point of view, complaints about the humanitarian situation of their civlian population could be logical, IF they intend to position themselves as a legitimate political party integrated into peace discussions. Someone brought up the Northern Ireland/IRA comparison before... what I have read about that conflict is that it was the integration of former terror groups into legitimate peace talks which helped end the conflict. Please correct me if I am totally off-base on that.

I don't see where negotiation gets anyone long term. Everything I've see indicates that Israel is willing to accept a two-state solution only provided 1) Palestinians disarm, 2) many settlements stay in the west bank and 3) the the resulting Palestinian state is criss-crossed by Israeli roads. We know that there is no hope for Palestinians to co-exist with Israelis within Israeli state, so the integration of the west bank and Gaza into Israel proper isn't possible. Without opening a can of worms regarding "right" and "wrong," it seems to me that even the most neutral observer would say that the two sides are not close enough to reach a lasting agreement.

Funkenpants wrote:

I don't see where negotiation gets anyone long term. Everything I've see indicates that Israel is willing to accept a two-state solution only provided 1) Palestinians disarm, 2) many settlements stay in the west bank and 3) the the resulting Palestinian state is criss-crossed by Israeli roads. We know that there is no hope for Palestinians to co-exist with Israelis within Israeli state, so the integration of the west bank and Gaza into Israel proper isn't possible. Without opening a can of worms regarding "right" and "wrong," it seems to me that even the most neutral observer would say that the two sides are not close enough to reach a lasting agreement.

The only thing I'd say is that many years ago it seemed inconceivable to me that Israel would pull out of Gaza completely, and they did do that. So maybe you never know? That's the best I've got.

The Israeli settlements take the lion's share of the good land and water in Palestine. Until they're gone, or they wipe out the Palestinians completely, there will be no peace.

Royce wrote:

Someone brought up the Northern Ireland/IRA comparison before... what I have read about that conflict is that it was the integration of former terror groups into legitimate peace talks which helped end the conflict. Please correct me if I am totally off-base on that.

That is the long and short of it. Its late here so you'll forgive me if I don't elaborate but basically the realisation among many people politically that Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, had to be brought on board. It was totally pointless otherwise.

Still its worth pointing out that the IRA and Sinn Fein had very strong leadership at the time. The Palestinians are not that united nor are they served by strong leaders.

It has now been three weeks since the offensive started; only 16 trucks a day of food are allowed in to feed 1.5 million people.

They'll be dying in there soon, above and beyond the thousand that have been killed by violence.

It's a concentration camp for Palestinians.