Clean Out the
Stables and Prepare for War
Moshe Sharon
|
O you who believe! What (excuse) have you
that when it is said to you: “Go forth in Allah’s way, you should
incline heavily to earth; are you contented with this world’s life
instead of the hereafter? But the provision of this world’s life
compared with the hereafter is but little.”
Koran Sura 9 Verse 3
Go forth light and heavy, and strive hard in
Allah’s way with your property and your persons; this is better
for you, if you know.
Koran Sura 9 Verse 41 |
From a New Middle East to the Second
Lebanon War
The
second Lebanon War (the “Three Weeks of Mourning War”) of the summer
of 2006 is not yet over. As I write, just one round of the war has
concluded in an interlude. It was merely an introduction to the
preface to the prologue. Our enemies are preparing for another war and
for yet another after that one and that is the long term prognosis.
For over a decade and a half, the nation’s determination, its strength
and its faith in the justice of its path have been eroded by the crazy
idea of “peace” and the “new Middle East”. Orientalists swept under
the carpet the truths crying out to them from every document that they
studied, from every Arab newspaper that they read. They all knew that
the “occupation” was only a pretext whose objective is to separate
Israel from every strategic asset still in its possession and to turn
it into a hostage in the hands of the Hamas’ Qasams and the
Hizbullah’s Katyushas.
It is
clear to the overwhelming majority of Israeli society who posess a
will to live, that the brief time remaining must be utilized in order
to prepare immediately and effectively for the next war: To prepare
the front and the rear and to rearrange the national priorities – to
elevate security from fifth place to first; because, the war will
surely come – and faster than people think.
The UN Resolution – A Worthless Piece
of Paper
Hizbullah is the immediate enemy. It has no intention to disarm and
there is no one who can force it to do so. For many years, it was the
Shiites in Lebanon who were the most wretched, backward and destitute
among the ethnic groups in their country; now they have become the
masters who do whatever they please in Lebanon and are supported by
two countries which are arming it to the teeth. It is also now clear
that Hizbullah will not emerge weakened from this round of war. This
interval will enable it to learn the lessons of this battle and its
Iranian and Syrian patrons have already begun supplying it with
anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank missiles and more accurate long-and
medium-range missiles.
A War That Accomplished Nothing
The
Hizbullah army will not abandon even one position in the south. You
will yet see how they will upgrade their positions and dig bunkers
before the IDF eyes and cameras and with the knowledge of the Israeli
Government. Absolutely nothing has been achieved in this war other
than a ludicrous UN document and an interlude during which the enemy
will have the opportunity to better entrench 700 meters from the
border. If the organization lost some soldiers (not many more than the
IDF losses), that does not weaken it even a little, as it will be able
to recruit thousands of readily available Shiites seeking martyrdom.
The pool of Shiites in Lebanon is great, and several hundred Shiites
are already undergoing guerilla warfare training in Iran.
There Is No Peace
It is
time to rid ourselves of the delusions that guided Israeli policy over
the last generation. There is no peace. There is no new Middle East.
On the contrary, the old, medieval Middle East still lives; a Middle
East inundated by fanatical Islam, zealous, combative, messianic,
apocalyptic, led in the spirit of clerics filled with hatred for
anything not Moslem, by political minions, whose declared aim is the
restoration of the Caliphates and world domination.
This
Islamic zealotry envelops large populations and speaks to the masses
in a language that they enjoy hearing. There is no point in engaging
in armchair psychological analysis of the reasons for this. There are
facts that speak for themselves. It is Islam that has placed shedding
blood, especially Jewish blood, as a supreme value and terrorism as a
mode of operation. “Slaughter the Jews” is their oldest slogan.
Terrorism appeared as a very effective tool among the first Moslems
and it has accompanied their history with various degrees of
intensity. Sometimes it is the terrorism of a small group or the
initiative of individuals and sometimes it is organized terrorism, but
it always rests on education and indoctrination.
The
Shiite Hasision from the 11th to the 13th
centuries gave their name to the European languages in the term
“assassin” in order to describe one who murders from an ambush; a
hired killer. The modern day Moslem assassins, like the medieval
Hasision, undergo an extended process of indoctrination and
rejoice in being martyrs and reaching paradise quickly. In medieval
times, it was only the suicide martyrs themselves who underwent
indoctrination; today the entire public undergoes indoctrination. It
is accomplished by every possible means: By preachers in the mosques,
electronic and print media, teachers, authors and artists,
playwrights, actors and singers as well as in school books. The thrust
of the Moslem propaganda is directed against the Jews. The martyrdom
is first and foremost a jihad weapon against them.
Israel’s Destruction is Islamic Peace
That
is why all spokesmen for this deep-rooted Islam say that there is not
nor will there be peace in the Middle East as long as an independent
Jewish state in which Jews have rights equal to the rights of the
Moslems exists. There is not nor will there be peace in the Middle
East until the demolition of the Jewish state, destruction of most of
its Jewish residents and transformation of Palestine into an integral
part of the Moslem world – Pax Islamica – Islamic peace.
The
concept of peace in the vision of the prophets of Israel, about which
the various “now” groups in Israel, including the country’s leaders,
have fantasized for three generations and more, does not exist in the
Islamic perception. Peace exists only in a World of Islam ruled by
Moslems. (Civil wars in Islam are internal matters, misunderstandings
that happen in every good family.) Everything located outside of the
World of Islam is characterized as “House of War”, meaning the area
against which Islam is obligated to wage war until its annexation to
the world of Islam. Every territory that ever was Moslem is sacred,
waqf, to Islam and no one has the right to relinquish it. And even
if it is conquered by enemies of Islam it does not lose its Islamic
status and it is incumbent upon the Moslems – an obligation that will
never cease – to restore it to Islamic rule. The State of Israel
exists on Islamic waqf land. It is an unnatural situation,
which cannot and must not persist.
End of the Era of Peace
We
have arrived at the end of the era of bogus “peace”. All that remains
is the era of war in the past, present and future and it is that alone
for which preparations must be made. The Jewish population does not go
to war gladly; it prefers even a flicker of calm over war; it prefers
to go to bed with “A Star is Born” and fall asleep to the cooing of
the dove of peace. That is why it is surprised to awaken to the sound
of exploding missiles.
In
positioning war as the only existing alternative in this part of the
world, the public justifiably asks, how long? And the answer is: Until
the Moslems lose all hope to liquidate the Jewish state, which means
forever. The Arabs and Islam in general can never come to terms with
the fact that a billion and a half Moslems, who control huge
resources, cannot eliminate six million Jews crowded into a
50-kilometer wide death trap. This reality offends the Moslems’ honor,
angers them and continually ignites in them feelings of revenge. This
is the true reality with which we must live and anyone unwilling to
deal with it does not belong in the Middle East – the old, cruel
Middle East.
To the Classics of War
Therefore, we must return to the classics of war. Not a “small, smart
army”, like the one suggested by he who brought the party of God down
on our heads, but a big, strong army. We need all the power: A large
regular army, emergency warehouses filled to capacity and beyond, a
reserve force trained and skilled to the utmost capability. An end to
all the various exemptions, an end to draft-dodging for reasons of
conscience or any other reason. Every healthy lad to the army, to the
combat alignment! A fundamental change of values, a reordering of
national priorities: Everything for an offensive force, not a
defensive one; a well-trained military force standing ready to attack
with maximum power with maximum force. No longer the Israel Defense
Force but the Israel Offense Force: A Jewish jihad in our time
of need. That need is already standing on our doorstep.
The War’s Objective: Syria Must Be
Destroyed
Ceterum censeo Syrianem esse delendam
Hizbullah and Lebanon should not have been the objectives in the last
war, and Hizbullah will not be the target in the next war but rather
it will be Syria; therefore Syria must be destroyed, to paraphrase the
statement with which Cato the Elder ended each speech that he
delivered in the Roman Senate: “I believe that Carthage must be
destroyed.”
We
were not far from a stinging defeat in the last war; the enemy does
not require any more in order to portray its achievements as a
victory. As I am writing this, I heard the Syrian president announce
our defeat. And it could be that he is correct as he is still alive
and has the ability to speak.
It is
not against Lebanon that we should have fought this war, but rather
against Syria, Hizbullah’s patron: The link between Iran and
Hizbullah. Syria should have been totally destroyed. No
infrastructure, economic or otherwise should exist today – the
airports, the fuel storage facilities, the dams on the Euphrates, the
army headquarters, the missile systems and the presidential palaces
all should have become heaps of ruins and the Israeli army should have
been on the outskirts of Damascus. That was the result of the war that
the entire enlightened world anticipated. Instead, it was astounded to
see the lack of decisiveness, the vacillation over “a limited action”
and “a little here a little there” while Hizbullah fire blanketed the
country, reaching its center. This fire would have ended on its own
and all of the war’s objective would have been achieved the moment
that Syria was reduced to rubble. That could have been accomplished if
Israel had bold leadership, which understands precisely the
significance of the comprehensive battle for survival against which
Israel is standing. Iran, too, would certainly have begun thinking
differently.
Strategic Depth
And
another classic of war – strategic depth. This is a commodity that
Israel requires above all else with its back to the sea. Before 1967,
Israel lacked strategic depth and it literally fought from within its
capital city. The Six Day War provided it with limited strategic
depth, and the Oslo fools came along and relinquished it to our worst
enemies, Arafat’s gangs, whose declared aim is the destruction of
Israel. However, the army retains control of the killing fields of the
Jordan Valley and under the auspices of the Jewish settlements can
take action in the mountain region. The withdrawal fools relinquished
first rate strategic territories in Gaza and exposed the country to
missile terrorism, and other withdrawal fools seek to cede the last
remaining strategic depth in Judea and Samaria. If that, God forbid,
were to happen, Israel would become a narrow coastal country, like the
post-1187 Crusader state, which will eternally tempt its enemies to
destroy it. Woe unto it at that time if the Palestinian holy warriors
become even one fourth of the Hizbullah. The residents of the north
fled to the center of the country. Where will the residents of the Tel
Aviv bubble flee when not Katyushas, but merely primitive Qasams and
mortars are fired upon it from Samaria? Into the sea like the Arabs’
great dream.
A
substitute for the strategic depth that we lost in Lebanon has not and
will not be found. The result of that loss is the destruction of the
Galilee and the helpless stance in the face of the barrage of
missiles. When the IDF fled Lebanon in 2000 under orders from the
blind Israeli government, the adherents of flight said that there
would be no more fatalities in Lebanon. The price, they said, was
steep: 25 dead per year. In the present war, we are mourning our dead
– we are paying exorbitant interest in dead, wounded, disabled and
destruction for each of those six years.
The Palestinians
Regarding the Palestinians: Here we must sharply and decisively do
away with that nonsense called the Palestinian state. Not because of
“messianic” vision as the opponents of Jewish settlement in the
mountains say, but rather because a Palestinian state, a member of the
Arab League which would control the coastal plain from the mountains,
is a surefire recipe for destruction. And therefore, in the framework
of reordering the national priorities, the settlement in the mountains
should be established as a fundamental component in the new order,
right after rehabilitation of the military force. This is also an
excellent way to combat terrorism. For every casualty of terrorism,
Israel will announce the establishment of a new settlement. There is
no doubt that the enemy will quickly understand the implication. Had
we acted this way in the past, there would be dense Jewish population
in the mountains providing support for the army (just as it did in
Gush Katif before it was destroyed) and the assorted terrorists would
have to think hard whether it is worthwhile to kill Jews. The Jewish
state needs every centimeter in the east in order to defend the
residents of the bubble and the heart of the nation. This is an
existential need, not ambitions of occupation, as there is no
occupation here. A nation cannot “occupy” its own country.
Therefore, the nonsense of building a “security fence” should be
halted and the billions saved should be earmarked first for the army
and for investment in other vital needs. A nation that knows only
offense does not hide behind a joke of a cement and barbed wire fence.
Even the Great Wall of China did not halt invaders.
Is
there leadership in the State of Israel capable of looking at this
truth without fear; a far-sighted leadership, a leadership that will
develop Israeli might to an extent that its enemies will be forced to
postpone the jihad against it indefinitely?
Is
there leadership that will begin to bequeath the state fundamental
values based on truth and not on empty fantasies that have humiliated
it and placed its very existence in danger?
Perhaps such leadership can be found after the stables are cleaned.
back to top
A
Change of Direction?!
Aharon Levran
The
program to establish and shape the permanent boundaries of the country
stands at the heart of the present policy. The extreme folly of the
“realignment” comes in its wake and despite the resounding and
stinging failure of the “disengagement”.
Contrary to the arguments supporting the “disengagement”, the security
situation did not improve. On the contrary; terrorism intensified and
it is manifest in the Qasams raining down on Sderot, the Negev
settlements, which have even reached Ashqelon. The prognosis is that
this threat and others will only exacerbate. Israel’s reaction,
despite the severe impact on our lives, is extremely feeble and stands
in outrageous, diametric opposition to the (hollow) declarations that
the Palestinians will pay a heavy price indeed if they continue
engaging in terrorism and violence after the (lamentable) withdrawal
from Gaza. Terrorism emerged victorious and was awarded the Gaza Strip
as a prize. The Palestinians are conscious of this as evidenced by the
Hamas’ rise to power and the flourishing of the jihad.
It has
also become clear that the “demographic necessity” for the withdrawal
from Gaza was also exaggerated, what is more, is that the remedy for
the problem lies not in withdrawal from territories of our homeland
but rather in the resettlement of the Palestinians in the
Rafah-El-Arish expanse (as well as in Jordan whose territory is
expansive). With the increasing aggressiveness from Gaza, the
Palestinians have proven that it is not territory that they are
lacking.
Rampant negligence and its manifestation in the festival of the
“realignment” whose rationales are pathetic: That it is the
“life-saver of Zionism”; that the demarcation of permanent boundaries
is “Israel’s primary problem”; that we have “tired of waging war and
winning”. However, the realization of the “realignment” will render
our security and strategic situation many times more severe in every
sense (concessions only encourage terrorism and the threat of rocket
attacks and constitute a reward for terrorism), not to mention that it
will again be a withdrawal without purpose and for all intents and
purposes the capitulation of Zionism. Even the Left is attacking the
“realignment”, but for the wrong reason: its unilateralism. However,
the tragedy on the Left is that it is fixated on the existence of a
partner and disregards the fact that there is no value to a
Palestinian commitment as they have never fulfilled the letter and the
spirit of any agreement and it is not worth the paper on which it is
written.
An
answer to why Olmert and his followers support the folly of
realignment is apparently due to Alterman’s immortal words: “I will
not rob them of their power nor will I afflict them with cowardice, I
will do only this: I will smite his brain and he will forget that
justice is on his side.”
* It
should be emphasized that the article was written in June before the
attack on the Kerem Shalom outpost on June 25, 2006 and the Abduction
of Private Shalit.
The Essence of the Addendum**
Ostensibly, Hizbullah’s belligerent provocation that was carried out
in the Palestinian context (a Gordian Knot, easing the pressure and
the like) and the resolute reaction to it could indicate a change of
direction in the Israeli strategy, however it is unclear. Despite its
2000 withdrawal from Lebanon, terrorism continues to pursue Israel.
Furthermore, in Lebanon, Israel was attacked across a recognized
border, which makes a mockery of Olmert’s aspiration to demarcate
permanent borders. In Olmert’s unfortunate statement about the
connection between the results of the war and the “realignment” one
can conclude that this program is fixed in his mind despite the bitter
reality that proves him wrong.
There
is an almost total consensus regarding the necessity of a clear
victory over Hizbullah (“us or them”), however the Left, which
ridiculed the proper calls to “let the IDF win” in the Palestinian
context, do not admit their egregious error, and these calls are
perhaps enjoying a renaissance as in this case they are especially
appropriate. In addition, the prattle in the course of the war
concerning a political solution, including concessions regarding the
Shabaa Farms and the need to speak with Syria (which means one thing –
relinquishing the Golan Heights) indicate that the “strategic depths”
that has epitomized Israel has undergone no substantial change.
**
This addendum was written at the conclusion of the third week of the
war in the north.
back to top
Israel's War with Hizbullah
David Bukay
This
article presents several important conclusions regarding the current
situation and its implications:
-
Israel is fighting in precisely those areas from which it completely
withdrew to the international border. It is precisely there that it
is fighting for its life. Despite this very clear conclusion, the
Left will learn nothing. It will never understand that it is not
about the 1967 occupation, nor that of 1947 or that of 1917. The
occupation is the most irrelevant matter in relations with the
Palestinians, but rather it serves as another pathetic excuse on
the path to destroying Israel.
-
The
Geneva rules of combat have nothing at all to do with terrorism, and
therefore one may and one must combat terrorism until its total
destruction. That is what led to success against nihilistic
terrorism (in Europe); ideological terrorism (in South America);
nationalist terrorism (in Turkey); and fanatical Islamic terrorism
(in the Arab countries).
-
As
far as terrorism and guerilla warfare are concerned, appeasement is
a disaster and restraint is nothing but trouble for the country and
its citizens. Israel’s restraint became paralysis and its
forbearance led to destruction and exacted a high price in terms of
casualties.
-
Despite all of the experts’ and commentators’ mockery of the slogan
“Let the IDF win” in the Palestinian context, it turned out that
that is precisely what the IDF must do and seeks to do in Lebanon.
To win, deter and create a balance of power.
-
The
slogans “negotiations are the solution” and “it is specifically with
enemies that one must engage in dialogue” are nonsense, and totally
lacking insight, as there must be some common ground in any
negotiation as well as common attainable objectives.
-
Israel is actually fighting against Iran, against the Iranian
military doctrine, Iranian means of combat and even command and
control. Hizbullah members are not the great heroes, as they are
portrayed in the media. They hide in caves and attack with anti-tank
missiles. This is not courageous warfare. Anywhere that a
confrontation takes place between a soldier and a guerilla, there is
no doubt that the Israeli will win.
Perhaps this time Israel will learn to plan and act with a long-term
strategy, with political acumen. We must not restore the status-quo
ante; we must not do half the job only to again have to deal with this
problem in a few years:
-
Southern Lebanon must revert to its status in the 1949 ceasefire
agreements. It must decide what it wants: Neutral and peace-loving
or isolated and in ruins;
-
Hizbullah must be weakened militarily and neutralized, without
missiles or other weapons of destruction. Its combat, like that of
the Palestinians, is cowardly: Rocket and missile terrorism
implemented from within the civilian population. Everything is
legitimate – hospitals, schools, kindergartens – in order to get
civilian protection. According to international law, that is a war
crime. The harsh reactions of world opinion against Israel is not
only hypocrisy, it is anti-Semitism. The question that Israel should
pose as a challenge is: how would you and your country react to a
situation in which there is intentional fire from a populated area
against your population?
-
Iran
must be kept out of the Lebanon game, unless you want a Shiite-Khomeinist
state in Lebanon and a prelude to a Shiite victory in Iraq and the
entrenchment of Hamas among the Palestinians. The result: A
fanatical Shiite axis of Iran-Iraq-Lebanon-Palestine, which would
threaten Israel, the moderate Arab countries, Western interests in
the Middle East and will open the historic struggle between the
Shi’a and Sunna.
-
Syria must influence the political arrangement – until Lebanon
ceases to be the “sick woman of the Middle East”, a “stateless
state”, which allows the other players to manage its affairs.
-
Establishing a “modus operandi” policy vis-à-vis the rules of
the game and a clear and binding operative definition of Israel’s
“red lines” and “causus belli” is a necessity. Appeasement
and restraint do not do away with aggression but only raise its
price.
back to top
An Antithesis on the
Fate of Iraq’s
Chemical and Biological Weapons
Dany Shoham
Since
the occupation of Iraq in 2003, appreciable efforts have been aimed at
uncovering the chemical and biological arsenal which it earlier
produced, or at the very least, parts of that stash. As for the
original manufacturing of those weapons by Iraq – on an industrial
scale, using all means – there were no doubts, whatsoever. Nor could
it be doubted that most of the arsenal remained intact following the
consumption of chemical weapons employed throughout the Iraq-Iran War,
as well as the partial destruction of that arsenal during the First
Gulf War, resulting from bombardments conducted by the allies. The
issues still regarded as open to uncertainty, however, were:
-
What
was the fate of the arsenal possessed by Iraq at the end of the
First Gulf War?
-
Did
Iraq continue to produce chemical and biological weapons throughout
the 1990s, and what was the fate of those weapons?
These
two open issues suffice – even irrespectively of the level of the de
facto fitness of that arsenal and the degree of likelihood it was
intended to be used by Iraq – to readily arouse heavy floundering
about by the relevant authorities, and sharp controversies among them,
concerning the operational moves derived from both the need to defend
against them, as well as the need to eliminate them.
These
issues have been particularly pronounced in the USA, Britain and
Israel, and, secondarily, in states such as Germany, France, Russia
and the Arab countries, and ultimately constituted a justified reason,
conceptually at the least – yet certainly not a sole reason – for the
2003 invasion of Iraq. Naturally, the disputes increased since Iraq
did not use chemical or biological weapons at all, and because it
became evident that no evidence was found (ostensibly) indicating the
existence of such weapons in Iraq on the eve of the attack. So earnest
was the case, that various teams were formed in order to uncover the
truth, and in Washington the administration was blamed for improperly
relying on intelligence assessments, in themselves being inadequate in
quality and breadth. The implications of this whole affair have been
far-reaching, in many senses, and they still prevail.
In
contrast with the conclusion reached in retrospect in the US,
postulating that Iraq destroyed its chemical-biological arsenal – in
part under the UN supervision, and, complementarily, in a unilateral,
undisclosed manner – the present study suggests that Iraq held under
her possession a chemical-biological arsenal until at least 2001; and,
from this year onwards, up to the onset of the war (if not during and
subsequent to the war, as well) conducted one or more of the following
three modes (whether in a certain point of time, or continuingly), in
descending order of likelihood:
This
analysis relies on the following arguments:
-
No
adequate evidential basis can be furnished to support unilateral
destruction throughout the 1990s;
-
The
antagonism and conduct of Iraq towards the UN inspection teams would
be entirely different, should Iraq not in fact possess the arsenal
in question;
-
At
any rate, distinct insoluble gaps remain within the reports and
explanations provided by Iraq, as to the fate of the huge arsenal
earlier produced and accumulated by it;
-
A
wealth of various types of information indicates that large portions
– if not the entirety – of the Iraqi arsenal were transferred to
Syria.
The
validity of that information considerably strengthened particularly
during 2004-2005 and until recently, carrying profound implications
with respect to lessons to be learned from the past, the consequent
non-conventional capabilities of Syria in the present, and the
resulting postures of Syria, in case of a future confrontation.
Connected to this, one should assume and hope that reconstructive,
thorough rethinking will take place within the US administration, with
respect to the full sequence of events from 2002 to the present.
back to top
Why Arabs are Routed in Wars
Norwell B. De Atkine
In
general, it can be said that Arab armies in the modern era suffer from
inefficiency. In the 1960s, the regular Egyptian army functioned
miserably in Yemen in a confrontation with irregular Yemenite forces.
Syria successfully gained control of Lebanon in the 1970s due only to
its decisive numerical superiority and massive superiority in
firepower. In the 1980s, the Iraqis exhibited weakness against an
Iranian army that was in tatters due to the unrest accompanying the
revolution and were unsuccessful in gaining victory in 30 years of war
against the Kurds. Arab armies have functioned pitifully in almost all
military confrontations with Israel. What is the reason for these
failed performances? There are numerous factors contributing to the
answer to that question – economic, ideological and technical –
perhaps the most significant factor relates to culture and to the
social characteristics preventing the Arabs from establishing an
effective military force.
The Role of Culture
John
Keegan, a well-known military historian, claims that culture is a
decisive factor in determining the nature of the war. An examination
of the Arab wars over the last 100 years leads to the conclusion that
the Arabs are more successful in uprisings, or political combat, which
Lawrence of Arabia called “victory in wars without battles”. The
Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal in 1973, involved primarily a
sophisticated ruse. One may conclude that these fixed characteristics
are an outgrowth of a culture that breeds deviousness, dishonesty and
hypocrisy in interpersonal relations. These characteristics include
over-centralization, repression of personal initiative, inflexibility,
disinformation and repression of manifestations of leadership among
the cadre of junior officers.
Information is Strength
In
every society, information is a means to make a living or to gain
power, however the Arabs hoard information and stockpile it in an
exaggerated manner. American instructors have been surprised again and
again that the information that they provided to key people remained
with them and was not disseminated. In military terms the implication
is that there is almost no all-purpose training and therefore, in a
tank crew, each of the occupants, driver, gunner and loader, may be
skilled at his role but is incapable of filling in for one of his
crewmates in case one of them is wounded. When one does not understand
the responsibility of his crewmate, there are deficiencies in the
joint function of the crew. In the higher ranks, technical skills are
superficial.
Failures in Education
Training tends to be routine, unchallenging and unimaginative. As the
Arab educational system is based on the routine of rote and learning
by heart, the officers have an uncommon ability to learn by rote and
remember enormous amounts of information.
Reliance on rote learning has its price, which manifests itself in a
diminished ability to employ logic or analyze on the basis of general
principles. They repress thinking that deviates from accepted patterns
and if such thinking is expressed publicly it can have negative career
implications. Instructors and students alike are not challenged.
Officers against Soldiers
Junior
Arab officers are well-trained in the technical aspects of their
weapons and they have tactical skills, but lack leadership skills. The
primary weak point of the Arab training alignment is leadership
ability. The problem stems from two sources: The first – a social
stratification system bordering on a closed caste system and the
second – lack of a program to train NCOs (non-commissioned officers).
Decision-Making and Responsibility
Decisions are dictated from above without communication with the
relevant parties. The result is a highly centralized system, with no
delegation of authority. Orders and information flow from above down
and they may not be questioned, interpreted, corrected or altered in
any way. The Arab officer lacks the authority to make a decision.
Frustration grows because of the understandable reluctance of the Arab
officer to admit that he has no authority. The political nature of the
Arab armies grants significant weight to political considerations,
which frequently take precedence over military considerations.
Officers with initiative and a tendency to make independent decisions
constitute a threat to the regime. Rarely is responsibility ever taken
for policies, actions, situations or training programs. Arab officers
place the blame for the failure of an operation or training exercise
on the equipment or on some external element.
Joint Military Operations
The
absence of cooperation is the most conspicuous factor in the failure
of all of the Arab armies in joint military operations. The
coordination necessary for joint operations, with air support,
artillery and supply, is simply nonexistent. The higher the rank the
greater the quality gap. This problem stems from three factors. The
first, the Arab lack of trust of anyone not a member of his family
influences the failure of offensive operations. A second factor is the
complicated mosaic of ethnic groups and factions that create difficult
problems in training forces, as the rulers in the Middle East tend to
use tribal and ethnic allegiances in order to maintain their rule. The
same is true in the military system. It is unthinkable to appoint a
powerful person to the position of Chief of the Joint Services, for
fear of a revolt.
The
rulers relate to the joint command, joint exercises, joint armies and
joint services with extreme caution, as all of the Arab armies are a
double-edged sword. One edge points towards the external enemy and the
second points in the direction of the capital.
Security and Paranoia
Arab
regimes classify everything that has anything with even a trace of the
military. Although it creates difficulty for the enemy to understand
the battle plan, it exacerbates the division and compartmentalization
of the military forces.
Summary
It
appears that no change will take place in this situation until a
change takes place in the Arab political culture in general. Until an
extremely fundamental change takes place in Arab politics, the Arab
armies – despite the personal courage and the ability of the
individual soldier and officer – will be unable to acquire the
assortment of characteristics necessary for modern armies to succeed
on the battlefield. These characteristics, based on inculcating
respect, trust and openness among the soldiers at all ranks, are the
marching songs of the modern war, which the Arab armies, even if they
mimic the appropriate steps, do not want to hear.
back to top
Nationalism and Politics
in Lebanon
Without
a Change in Regime and Leadership,
Lebanon’s Future is Not Assured
Mordechai Nisan
The
1943 National Covenant consecrated the connection between religion and
state in Lebanon by tying office-holding to confessional attachment:
the President would be a Christian Maronite, the Prime Minister a
Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker of the Parliament a Shiite Muslim. Other
positions and offices would according to section 95 of the Lebanese
constitution be distributed to all the religious communities in a
pre-defined fashion. Parliamentary seats are divided equally between
Christians and Muslims, each side granted 64 members, and the cabinet
is composed of representatives from all religious communities.
It is
conventional to consider the intertwining of religion and politics as
the primary cause of governmental paralysis, with the lack of a
national consensus on major public issues. As a result, the army has
been unable to assume its national responsibilities in securing the
country from foreign enemies and domestic unrest. The absence of
effective governmental and military performance created a vacuum that
the PLO and later Hizbullah filled.
We
nonetheless contend that at the heart of internal political crisis and
instability are political and not religious factors. Lebanese
nationalism as such transcends sectarian division, marginalizing
religious identity while elevating the role of politics and its
intriguing and complex manifestations at the center of the national
arena. In this regard we note the following points: there is a history
of Muslim-Christian cooperation, that conflict within communities has
often been more severe than between communities, that patriotism is
not the sole preserve of the Maronite Christians, that even the war
that erupted in 1975 was not in its essence a Civil War but primarily
between the Lebanese and Syrian and Palestinian foreigners, that the
electoral system and its accompanying political mechanics foster
inter-communal cooperation, and finally that the notion of a Maronite
president is in fact the optimal choice of the various Lebanese
communities. Lebanese nationalism as an inclusive framework for
coexistence among all native Lebanese groups is far more resilient
than generally believed.
The
aftermath of the Hariri assassination on February 14, 2005 catalyzed
changes that included the (so-called) March 14th Cedars
Revolution with one million Lebanese demonstrating for freedom and
independence in Beirut. Even though the Syrian army withdrew from the
country and a new government was formed, virtually the same
personalities continued to rule, with the addition of Hizbullah
ministers in government. No towering patriotic national leader emerged
to consummate the revolutionary momentum.
Abu-Arz,
the nom de guerre of Etienne Sakr who founded the Guardians of
the Cedars Party in 1975, gave voice to the popular Lebanese sentiment
repulsed by the acrimony, mendacity, and egoism still polluting
national politics. In proposing a secular republic and vilifying
Arabism and fanatical Islam, he rejected the notion that ethnic
politics was the root problem. Lebanon under strong and devoted
leadership may yet prove that its special destiny and revolution
manquée can be fulfilled under the leadership of a great
personality.
back to top
Executive Summary,
The Lebanese Bride,
The Main Character, The Vanished One and
The Third Party
Eli Shai
Dr.
Yossi Beilin, a prominent speaker of the Israeli left, was also a
popular guest and commentator on recent TV news broadcasts regarding
the last war in Lebanon.
One
major question that failed to be asked in those programs, was his own
direct and personal responsibility for the present tragic state of
affairs in Southern Lebanon. Beilin was one of the main campaigners
for the evacuation of Lebanon six years ago. This evacuation started a
chain of events, beginning with the second intifada,
encouraging in its turn, the Hitnatkut (“disengagement”) plan,
and in due time inspiring the escalation of Hizbullah’s terror
activity. As a most talented public relations person and part of the
lobby to retreat from Lebanon, Beilin published his own guidebook of
the evacuation, which was presented in 1998, as a great political
manifest for peace.
Rereading the book from the current gloomy perspective, shows a
constant manipulation of the reader, who is led to believe that a mere
one-sided retreat of the Israeli forces is almost sure to cause a
general improvement in the tense situation along the Northern border.
The
book, which recommended a total quick retreat of the IDF, shows a
severe negligence in evaluating the dangers of Hizbullah, who was so
keen to fill the military vacuum created by the evacuation of the
Israeli forces. The book spreads the mere illusion of a “third force”
which, in the future will take command over the southern territories
of Lebanon.
The
long awaited appearance of this mysterious third party never
manifested itself, as neither the Lebanese army nor any international
or UN forces were able, or even ready and willing, to take over the
evacuated area. In the circumstances that developed following the
Israeli evacuation, it was totally clear that the only meaningful
force to rapidly fill this disturbing vacuum was that of Hizbullah.
Therefore the situation after the evacuation worsened considerably as
the disarmament of the terrorist organization is almost an impossible
goal for any external party. Beilin’s guidebook proved itself as a
sure recipe for failure once the Israeli retreat was seen as a victory
for Hizbullah. However the very mistaken concept presented in this
guidebook is not much different from the present policy of the Israeli
government, which tends to repeat the same grave mistake in an
infinite series of one-sided (or almost one-sided) future regressions,
both in the areas of the Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria.
back to top
|