There were no real surprises on Capitol Hill when General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker showed up yesterday to present their reports. This was due, in large part, to the success that Petraeus had in laying the groundwork for their much-anticipated visit. He is an unusually open military commander who is not suspicious of journalists or legislators or scholars intruding in his “battlespace.” In fact he does everything possible to facilitate such visits. (I am one of many who is grateful to him for his hospitality.)
That marks a sharp a contrast with the previous senior U.S. commander in Iraq, General George Casey, who tended to view public relations as a second-order concern. Petraeus realizes that no modern commander can have the luxury of ignoring public opinion, either at home or around the world, so he has been careful to “shape” the public opinion climate prior to his Washington appearance.
This does not mean, I hasten to add, that he is engaging in lying or spinning, as charged by some irresponsible critics. He is not peddling propaganda. He realizes that any lie would be exposed quickly and that the best interests of the mission dictate that he get the whole truth out to the public. Thus, he has been as open and accommodating to skeptics of the “surge”—e.g., Anthony Cordesmen and Ken Pollack—as he has been to supporters of the surge, such as Fred Kagan and me. And he has taken steps to improve the access of the news media to the battlefield, knowing that reporters will deliver a more nuanced and accurate picture from the frontlines.
So, when the surge started making progress this summer, the American public didn’t have to rely on what the White House said to figure out what was going on. There were a larger number of independent observers who have traveled the battlefield extensively to provide an unbiased picture of what’s gone right, as well as what’s still going wrong.
Whatever the final outcome, officers in the future would be well advised to study Petraeus’s approach as a textbook example of 21st century “information operations.”
Anyone who wants to judge Israel’s proportional use of violence, should start with these pictures as a baseline of what other countries do:
http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Dresden%201945%201.jpg
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/files/u46/Hiroshima.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Mass_Grave_Bergen_Belsen_May_1945.jpg
Eppure, it WAS a mistake and an injustice.
Sorry, but I don’t see Israel’s creation as a strategic mistake or any other kind of mistake.
Israel is a strategic ally among a sea of hostile nations full of smart people who would and will annihilate the West if and when they can. Any other reading of the history of Islamic peoples is wishful thinking.
France got screwed by Germany over and over because of its geographic proximity to a militaristic state of brilliant, physically impressive, proud and aggressive people. Subsequently, we have needed Germany and France as allies against a brilliant, physically impressive, proud and aggressive people further east.
Anyone too stupid to see the importance of our alliance with Israel is an intellectual midget with no concept of history, facts or anything else but a firm grasp on the ancient crutch of anti-Semitism.
People can learn. I was pleased to see Cohen’s column. As we say in Chinese, Bu pa man, jiu pa zhan (Don’t fear slow progress, just fear no progress).
This is the first I heard that Cohen admitted his own mistake in writing that Israel was, God forbid, a mistake. Thanks for sharing that.
A friend of mine showed me a piece, I don’t remember where it was printed or who wrote it, that commented on the idea that Israel is reacting disproportionally:
“So, one of world’s mightiest armies is at war and deliberately targeting civilians and only 50 civilians have died. Wow.”
But CFB – Grumpy obviously likes to live in his old fantasy world – unless he was just using some sarcasm that I missed.
Even when I blogged a criticism of Cohen, I wondered if he really meant what he said or if he was trying to say that Israel was an accident of history. (i.e. the confluence of a number of events conspired to allow the creation of the modern state of Israel) Still writing it when he did, at a time that the Post whitewashed Walt and Mearsheimer and was also publishing op-eds by members of Hamas, Cohen’s poor wording really stuck out.
Even if Israel’s creation was a mistake, so what? You could say the same about Pakistan, but no one argues that Pakistan has no right to exist or defend itself from indiscriminate missile attack. The creation of and population exchanges in Turkey and Greece weren’t pretty either, but those countries still have the right to existence and peace.
#3,”Anyone too stupid to see the importance of our alliance with Israel is an intellectual midget with no concept of history, facts or anything else but a firm grasp on the ancient crutch of anti-Semitism.”
Agree with me or you get denounced,the way of the Contentionsistas.
Nobody takes columnists’ advice seriously, Mr. Rosner, with the exception of the opinions proferred by the columnists of Commentary.
“but no one argues that Pakistan has no right to exist or defend itself from indiscriminate missile attack”
because pakistan pakistans neighbors don’t hate it or if they do they don’t have the stregnth to do anything about it.
israel, like any country, has no “right to exist” it can only exist as long as it can defend itself. currently that abliity is waning.
more to the point, pakistani people are from pakistan, not europe
also
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×3675733
to say garden variety dems have turned against israel would be an understatement
Euphemism isn’t helpful here.
We’ve had far too much euphemism in the post-modern age.
This isn’t about “punching some lights out.”
This is about killing, and intentionally or simply as an inescapable coincident, the killing of significant chunks of those deemed non-combatants.
Now I’m not thrown by that.
I’m not going to go off on a moral bender because Palestinians are being killed, because they’re being killed because of they refuse peace, refuse prosperity, refuse modernity, and refuse to see Jews as anything other than dhimmis.
Our very language must stop trying to soften what’s occuring.
And what must occcur.
We need to start emulating the bluntness of Sherman, “war is hell,” “war is violence, moderation in war is an imbecility.”
In fact, I’m quite convinced that efforts to narrowly target strikes only leads to World War I conclusions. The German people didn’t feel defeated, didn’t grasp the essence of military defeat, and so 20 years we had another go ’round.
Narrowly striking targets only seems to lead to vast groups of protesters surrounding the area, often merely a car, an apartment.
The Israelis have never really made the Palestinian people embrace defeat.
Until they do, ————————————————- the next fifty years will be not unlike the last fifty, ———————- but the isolation of Israel will proceed apace.
Dan – “We need to start emulating the bluntness of Sherman, “war is hell,” “war is violence, moderation in war is an imbecility.””
I doubt that this would be your opinion if the situation were reversed. Be careful of what you wish.
#14:
If the situation were reversed, then it wouldn’t matter
how moderately or immoderately Israel had behaved.
Hamas would not then emulate the Jews, but would follow
the Hadith quoted in the Hamas Charter:
“Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”
The problem for Israel, then, is not how to edify such enemies
by setting examples of moderation – but how to prevent the situation
from ever being reversed.
Unfortunately, Israel has to climb into the gutter to fight the gutter dwellers.
Everybody needs to bear in mind that muslims are gang raping women from Scandanavia to the suburbs of Sydney, Australia. And a host of locations in between.
Google tournante, {I think that’s how it’s spelled, it means “turning the door, or revolving door” in French}.
Google what”s “Leb style” in Australia.
There’s no clash of civilizations. Because there’s only one civilization involved, the other can’t be termed a civilization.
Over the last few days, millions of people have taken to the streets calling out for the blood of the Jew.
Those protests aren’t “peace protests.” This isn’t a “stop the violence” kind of thing.
Out in the open, millions of newcomers to North America, Europe and the Anglosphere, are taking to the streets calling out for blood, carnage and the annihlation of not just the national incarnation of the Jewish people, but for the annihlation of Jews, whether they be Israeli or no.
And what’s our response?
What’s the response of Israel?
“Targeted strikes……….”
Which of us here thinks that’s going to cut it.
RCAR – please – despite its over the top air – what is incorrect with the statement made by number 3? What’s your beef? Or do you just like to emulate those you chastise with the same behavior you find so distasteful?
16- they don’t have to. anymore than american had to go to iraq. they could leave. you can roll in the mud with a pig but only one of you will enjoy it. if you want to see israels future look at the settlements. or better yet, look at it’s neighbors.