Ashkenazi to annul Halutz' reorganization of IDF

Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi is planning to do away with a significant portion of the extensive reorganization programs that the Israel Defense Forces carried out during 2005.

---

Sapir is also critical of logistics, which in some cases "bordered on the irresponsible." This was true not only in matters of ammunition but also with regard to essentials such as water, food and fuel, as well as the evacuation of the injured and the rescue of immobilized vehicles.

In his report, Sapir states that the number of positions in the General Staff has become bloated. Comparing it to 15 years ago, Sapir says that there has been an increase in the number of sections in the General Staff, in brigades and departments, with dozens of officers of various rank being added.

---

Sapir is highly critical of the fact that "the war began at our initiative and we did not take advantage of the benefits granted to the initiator." He says that the war was conducted with a lack of either an overall vision or an authorized operational plan. The General Staff intervened in tactical orders and the orders issued were in part vague and difficult to understand.

Haaretz

the American military could have a place for him, at least for the next 22 months.

I was mostly taken by the highlighted comment where he admits tacitly that it was not necessary to go to war when they did, i.e. the whole "defensive war" schtick was just political cant, also like here in the USA.

No-one in Israel was saying "we have to go to war now or face destruction". That has little to do with whether it was a "defensive" war or not.

Enjoy pummelling your straw man.

. . the war was caused by Israel's decision to retaliate against the cross- border incursion that resulted in the deaths of several IDF along with the simultaneous launching of dozens of rockets into Israeli villages along the border?

Of course it was Israel's choice as to how to respond. I guess they could have done nothing at all. They were not facing several divisions of armor punching into Israel as they were in 1948 and 1967.

Apparently the GOI thought that doing nothing this time would be a bad idea. When a state is attacked they have the right under international law to repel the attack. That's what they did. That's what states do if they want to remain a state in the future.

Apparently you would have been happier if Israel have done nothing. And you now feel that the war is Israel's fault because they had the strategic choice to do nothing but decided to respond. (Please explain if I have that wrong.)

I guess for some Israel can be blamed both for inviting attacks because they had the audacity to establish a Jewish state in the ME (with approval from the UN) - and for retaliating when they are attacked if the attackers retreat to their home territory while firing missiles at them.

In which bizarre world of history do these fanciful double standards exist?

A bunch of straw men were thrown up, attributed them to me, and pummeled to death.

Whether a war is defensive, or not, is somewhat a matter of opinion, but it hinges on certain factors: who provoked it (Hiz'bullah), whether is was necessary (admitted here not so), and whether it was proportionate to the provocation (not in my opinion). A war can start out defensive and lose that character by being disproportionate to the provocation. One then thinks the disproportionate party is exploiting the provocation for his own ends, rather than merely redressing a wrong. That seems the case to me here.

It can be a murky business, because once the war gets started, restraint can be hard to maintain, everybody panics and over-reacts, but I am inclined to consider that wars of choice are rarely of never defensive, except in the most tortured usage of that word. Israel, in this case, at least had more excuse than the USA did in invading Iraq, it was attacked. But on the other hand, it was only one of a long string of tit-for-tat provocations on the N. border.

But it matters little, whether one decides it was defensive or not, it made matters worse rather than better, as intended, and was therefore foolish.

. . discussing.

Sapir stated, "the war began at our initiative and we did not take advantage of the benefits granted to the initiator." I don't see how you can read an admission that it was not necessary from that statement . . or any others in the article. Of course it was necessary. The only thing that was not necessary was the Hisb'allah attack that provoked the war.

The only important question is, necessary for what. As an opponent of Israel you are free to imagine the worst. I'd like to believe you are a bit smarter than some of the Israel bashers here who believe Israel's intent was to kill Lebanese civilians. We both know that Israel knew this was coming and had repeatedly warned the UN to prevent Hisb'allah from arming and establishing bunkers and launch sites for offensive rockets along the border - but was ignored.

Why not believe the obvious - that Israel wanted to make it expensive enough on Hisb'allah that it would be a long while before they could try it again. It remains to be seen how successful they were. But success has to do with competence, planning, organization, logistics, etc. It has nothing to do with intent.

At least Israel has placed a marker - which certainly was the default gain from the exercise had no damage come to Hisb'allah's forces at all. (Although we also know that Hisb'allah was extensively damaged.) The world, the UN and Hisb'allah now know that even small unit attacks across the blue line will likely be met with massive force.

I see Israel the winner for that reason alone - but an added benefit will be that Israel has now realized the seriousness of its enemies to the north and its own lack of seriousness in the IDF. With suitable changes and better leadership I imagine that force will be better coordinated and more lethally applied in the next round. At least I hope that's the case.

The opposite of: "we were compelled to respond by an attack".

I am well aware of the motivations you point out, and have no desire to dispute them. Warning the UN to prevent Hizbullah from arming itself is a complicated way to pound sand. It is intended to shift blame, not to accomplish anything of substance.

You surely cannot be suggesting that Israel was too stupid to realize that Hizbullah a was threat before "initiating" the war; the stated purpose of the war was to destroy that threat.

You are quite correct that reform is required. The question is whether the political integrity and will exists to carry it out. That is the question raised by the OP. If it is carried out, I expect we will see no more of this sort of stupid, ill thought out war.

. . as the party who started the war. The war was started when Hisb'allah attacked Israel across the blue line.

When Sapir stated, "the war began at our initiative and we did not take advantage of the benefits granted to the initiator." - he is discussing the "war" from the viewpoint of the commander of the defending forces. The article is a critique of the performance of those forces. The "war" he is referring to is Israel's counter-attack to quell Hisb'allah's rockets - which from his pov is the "war" he was concerned with.

He is not speaking as the Prime Minister of Israel - who would be more concerned with the overall events that define the larger "war" that occurred between the two nations.

It seems you are conflating the two in an attempt to rewrite history to your pov.

Israel made the choice (took the initiative) to attack Hisb'allah's rocket launchers and C&C very forcefully - rather than minimally or not at all. That is not what started the war, however. It was already started at that point. Hisb'allah started the war - something that both the UN and Nasrallah have stipulated.

Even so, I'm sure you won't accept that since Sapir made a statement that could be taken out of context in a way that satisfies your need to blame Israel for that war. So if you are right, I guess the SG of the UN will soon revise his description of who started the war - based on Sapir's "confession" in this article.

I'll bet that doesn't happen though. If I lose the bet I'll admit to you that I was completely wrong - in this same thread. Will you take that bet and make the same admission to me if it doesn't happen - say within two weeks?

Sapir was the commander of the defending forces? Or he is speaking for Halutz? I thought he was speaking for himself. Halutz has already let his opinions be known.

But we do seem to have gotten far afield from the OP, eh? And we are back wallowing in straw men and your fantasies about my internal states.

FWIW, the inference that if "you are right" then the UNSG will change his statement on who started the war in the next two weeks is a classic non sequitur. I can assure you he doesn't know me from Adam, and he has never showed the least sign of caring a fig about my views.

. . to understand even clear statements and sentences when they are not congruent with your strong ideological beliefs.

And you accuse me of failing to understand clear statements?

Based on the context of the article it obviously means, "Our campaign to stop the Hisb'allah rockets and the extent of that effort was our decision - and was began at our initiative."

You just really want to believe that Israel started the war don't you? And you'll take any possible comment out of context if it supports that belief.

This is simple to resolve however. If your view is correct why isn't Hisb'allah or Iran or some other Israel haters claiming now that Israel - not Hisb'allah - started the war based on Sapir's recent comments? I'm guessing it's because they don't want to appear that stupid.

He said "the war began at our initiative". It's right there. You think he was just speaking carelessly or something like that, and you don't see how I could interpret that in the sense that he meant "the war" just because he said "the war"?

. . killed the IDF on the Israel side of the line were actually IDF in disguise . . and the rockets being fired into Israeli villages were actually fired by IDF units so as to have an excuse to start a war with Hisb'allah? And the UN got it all wrong? And Nisrallah thought it was actually his guys that started it but the insidiously clever Israelis outsmarted them all again?

Or, just what is it you are claiming?

Just to be clear, I'm claiming you are taking Sapir's words out of context in order to give them another meaning than the one he intended.

Let's see how clearly you can explain your position - if you still want to pursue it.

And that he is no fool and he meant what he said. He is a military guy, a General, he doesn't think it's a bad idea to take the initiative, to start things. Most good generals since Alexander the Great have been in favor of that, take the battle to the enemy and all that. He is complaining because the advantages one expects from the initiative in war were not obtained. It was botched. Political and military objectives were not achieved. I don't think he cares about all this pusillanimous weaseling about who started it. I can assure you he doesn't want to be the one on the defensive in a war. Is that what you think he is complaining about?

. . for his statement - other than admitting to actually starting the war which makes no sense based on the undisputed facts.

I think your statement above shows some of the possibilities. There are interesting possibilities as to why he chose those exact words. He is perhaps using the words figuratively to better make his point. As in, the IDF effectively had the initiative and wasted it. Your explanation above fits that scenario pretty well.

But that is not the same as saying that Israel started the war. If you really want to claim that's what he meant then you should be able to come up with some plausible narrative to account for it. That might make for an interesting discussion and I'd give you some leeway to make your case.

Simply saying that he was admitting that Israel started the war is not even an interesting point of discussion IMO - without some reason to believe that's actually what he meant and some explanation for why he'd say such a thing even if he believed it.

PS - I'm out of town until Tuesday so I won't be ignoring you but I'll check for a reply when I return.

I think he meant what he said, but if you cannot wrap your mind around that, it's OK with me. I don't see how elaborating it in ten more ways will accomplish anything. I am long since used to the fact that people in this forum will stone-facedly assert that words don't really mean what they say when some cherished superstition is at stake.

But then I know from previous posts that you believe they are all culpable simply by the fact that Hezbollah exists, their support is assumed.

This statement is outrageous:

"With suitable changes and better leadership I imagine that force will be better coordinated and more lethally applied in the next round. At least I hope that's the case."

I'm surprised no one picked up on this statement.

I actually do care about the civilians. That's why I condemn those who start wars and cause their deaths - Hisb'allah. Unlike some here who justify Hisb'allah's actions. All those who died in this war would not have died if Hisb'allah had not crossed the blue line and killed and kidnapped those IDF.

As far as my statement. Yes, I hope that those who start wars for their petty egotistical and ideological reasons and who cause those civilian deaths - meet their fate as quickly and completely as possible. It's hard to start wars when you are dead.

. . that being anti-Israel is the same as being anti-war. It is an insult to those who actually wish for peace and are searching for solutions.

And yet another repugnant post?

:argh:

. you to say that?

"With suitable changes and better leadership I imagine that force will be better coordinated and more lethally applied in the next round. At least I hope that's the case."

Nowhere in that post do I say anything about civilians. In fact the post exclusively discusses IDF actions against Hisb'allah.

To recognize that would require just a small amount of intellectual honesty on your part. I guess I should not expect that you would pass up a chance to play silly word games about something as serious as the deaths of innocent civilians.

Especially since later down you seem to be saying it did start out as a defensive action?

I am touchy about people putting words in my mouth so that they can refute them. Take what I said, take it all, and construe it in the plain English meaning, or leave it alone. And again, no speculating about my internal states, you all diminish yourselves with such dishonest ad hominem "arguments" as speculating that I am "touchy".

I made a statement about that issue in #8. That is the only statement I have made in this thread on the subject, and it has to be taken as a whole, the context is required. What I said there is that it is reasonable to think that it did start out defensive in nature. I do think Israel has a right to defend itself, when attacked. The question is how? Defending yourself doesn't give you carte blanche, anymore than it gives Hiz'bullah a free hand to do whatever comes to mind to them today, with no criticism, because you managed to kill a few of them. "He started it" doesn't work in third grade, and it doesn't work with me. The question is what did you do? Was it proportionate, was it reasonable, was it effective for the purpose at hand, was it fair to the people you did it to, did you hit the right target?

What I said, originally, is that all the propaganda about how it was a defensive war is political cant, which it is, and that has nothing to do with whether one thinks it really was defensive in nature, which is a much more complicated subject. Although politicians habitually lie, they are more than happy to use reasonable arguments when it serves their purposes. The point is that their words mean nothing, they are intended to distract and mislead, not to inform or educate.

Israeli military and political leaders were all over the media threatening to bomb Lebanon back 30 years and destroy Hiz'bullah before they started the bombing campaign, and by their own words then they destroy any argument that their intent was merely to "defend themselves". They had larger goals in mind, and they used Hiz'bullah's attack as a pretext to pursue them, and they botched it.