Posted on 09/21/2002 3:02:55 PM PDT by ex-Texan
Israel Tells the U.S. It Will Retaliate if Attacked by Iraq
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
JERUSALEM, Sept. 21 — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has informed the Bush administration that he plans to strike back if Iraq attacks Israel, according to Israeli and Western officials.
Mr. Sharon's statements, made privately to senior American officials in recent weeks, represent a major shift in Israeli thinking since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when 39 Iraqi Scud missiles struck without any Israeli response.
Advertisement
The prime minister's position reflects a widespread belief among Israeli politicians and generals that Arab leaders perceived Israel's restraint in 1991 as weakness. Throughout his military and political career, Mr. Sharon has always held that any attack on Israel must be promptly and powerfully punished.
"I don't think there is a scenario in which Israel will get hit and not strike back," a senior Western official said. "I think the evolving strategy will be commensurate response."
Mr. Sharon's position has significant implications for the Pentagon, which fears that an Israeli entry would stir up Arab public opinion and make it harder for the Pentagon to maintain cooperation from the Arab states where Washington hopes to base American forces
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
There's a big difference between being attacked and claiming to be attacked, especialy when the claim is based on an incident where your side played both parts.
Regarding the Chinese PLA, I wasn't discussing transportation of forces. We were discussing simply the general attributes of various military forces. If the PLA walked into any adjacent nation, including Japan, the force would occupy successfully. Certainly Taiwan is at major risk at this point and the presence of front load shipping in Shanghai should show it.
About Arafat, although you may feel that Arafat is so important as to require our CentComm, I disagree. If Arafat is a simple criminal, as you suggest, then our FBI should handle this matter and DOJ should seek to extradite him. If he is tied to such crimes, can you explain why extradition has not occurred under codes for criminal conspiracy?
About Mideast leadership selection, the impact of religious cultural beliefs on the structure of government is obvious. This is as much true in Europe or America as in the MidEast. My point was that the existing regimes in the mideast have no historical legacy greater than 90 years.
I continue to contend that the Israeli's should let the United States solve this crisis. Israel's interests are secondary to the United States interests. For this reason, Israel should stop requesting our military transponder codes. IDF does not equate to the US DOD. They are separate and distinct forces for good reason. IDF needs to let the US handle things at this point. If IDF interjects itself while our units are operating, the US forces should be informed to fire on any units not with us. Because frankly, if our guys are spending time trying to figure out if the other unit is IDF or arab, we're wasting time that can kill our guys. IDF needs to stay out of our theatre (just like the US always stays out of the IDF theatres).
Plus, from a strictly strategic standpoint, why mix forces? IDF is capable of handling itself and the US can certainly outclass any opponents in the Middle East. Divide the strengths and use the strategically in order to advance the end game (creation of a long-term peace around Israel).
Regarding your view of Wahabi Islam, your view is inconsistent with my experience. Most of the muslims I have met do not espouse the views you suggest. I hear more Jews and Christians attempting to characterize Muslims than vice versa. I have not heard any American muslims preaching to kill Jews or Christians. Do you have evidence of such preaching in Mosques in the US?
About military spending, you should clarify that it was the Clinton Administration who structured our national defense planning for the last 10 years. We are only beginning to see the Bush Administration changes taking effect.
I recognize that right. However, when we are acting in such a manner to neutralize the threat, it is not in Israel's interest to move their IDF into juxtaposition with our operations. There are military and political arguments against this suggestion by Israel.
Please see the rest of the thread. Thanks.
I feel that if Israel and the Arab world are going to be this reckless, we should remove ourselves from the situation and allow the two groups to settle it on their own... and WITHOUT dragging our families into the middle of their squabble.
If it were not for the strategic importance of the oil in that region, we would not worry about this regional instability.
The US gov't needs to develop other sources of oil since the Mideast nations are unable to address problems in a more constructive fashion.
We appear to be doing the offensive ops...not IDF. So, IDF should DEFEND and not go offensive and duplicate our planning.
At this point, after years of hearing the whining coming from the mideast, Israel is making the American people shoulder a burden that the Israeli's should have resolved years ago.
So, yes, I am suggesting that Israel follow our lead. If they don't like it, well... then they should have solved the problem before. They didn't and we have to... so the matter is closed.
Israel has lost it's leadership in the mideast.
We have arrived and we will settle it without Israel's interests being primary. Israel's interests will certainly be addressed, but it will be AFTER we secure US interests FIRST.
Got a problem with that?
Suitcase nukes were invented by Communists in Russia and if any found their way to militant islamic extremists, they pose a threat. That is all the more reason for the US to put our national interests ahead of Israel's.
While you make reasonable arguments for the right of a nation to defend herself, you have utterly failed to present any cogent diplomatic reason to permit Israel that opportunity.
This war is about securing energy supplies for the US population first, securing safety for the Mideast populations second.
If Israel goes out and massacres a bunch of arabs, how does that contribute to a longer term stability in the mideast?
End of my two days of posting on this thread... thank you for the opportunity to present this doctrine here.
Washington said to put our interests first... and 200 years later, the man is still correct!
DIRECT QUOTATION FROM FAREWELL ADDRESS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, FIRST PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
Because the more Arabs Israel kills the less there are around to commit terrorist acts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.