Israel Tells the U.S. It Will Retaliate if Attacked by Iraq

The New York Times ^ | 9/21/2002 | Michael R. Gordon

[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

Read Rest of Article

[RetiredArmy]

My comment had nothing to do with what you are talking about. You placed my comment in that context and I did not comment re what you indicate. I merely made an observation. You do know what an independent observation is don't you? That is what I made.

And to answer your question, the US Military should NEVER be put under control of any nation or organization (such as the UN) for any reason. I don't care if a buck sergeant has to be in charge of the division, no one but our people. Other countries doe not know how our people are trained and they do not train their lower ranking people to take charge like we do. That was a big problem for the Reds in the cold war era as only the officers had the authority and training to make decisions.

[bonesmccoy]

thank you for acknowledging the importance of the supremacy of US military officers on any battlefield. Some in this thread began to claim that Israel had a right to request those communications channels and codes from our forces in order to protect Israeli interests.

I support the US assisting in defending Israel's people. I don't even reject the idea of Israel responding to an attack... that's all rubbish by the putzheads in the thread... my point was exactly yours... the US military should be the supreme and commanding presence on any battlefield. Any other nations who are on the field should either be under our command or they should be the enemy.

[RetiredArmy]

Correct. Only U.S. officers and leaders for U.S. troops of any kind. I still get really POed when I think of our people wearing that stupid blue bennie of the damned UN over in Bosnia or wherever they wore the stupid thing. I think that was a total, stupid mistake and blow to our individual nation's rights. Yet another of the completely stupid Klinton blunders of all time in my book.

[meema]

Thank you, Bones, for a such cogent and interesting discussion on this topic. It was so good that I printed it ALL out, and read it out in our screened-in porch so I could also smoke in peace {all week}.
I agree with you, mostly. But I do not think we should start a new invasion of Iraq under these circomstances. If Israel is so concerned about Iraq, let their sons and daughters go do the dirty work. I do NOT believe that Iraq poses a clear and present danger to US. I hope the person who said that GW has/or will give the codes to the IDF is wrong.
And thanks to the rest of you for helping me understand what country you put first in your lives.

[bonesmccoy]

meema,

Thanks for your kind comments. I hope our discussion has been capable of enlightening people to the trends in existance in our nation. Manipulation of public opinion by broadcast media has been occuring for decades. The difference today is that a forum like Free Republic allows people to build consensus on priorities.

It should be clear after Sept. 11, 2001, that America's national priorities need to reflect the interests of America first.

Clinton's election financing fiascos reflect an Alger Hiss like manipulation of US federal policies. I have been considering posting a treatise on this website comparing the events of the FDR terms one and two vs. Clinton terms one and two. It would be interesting to compare the political manipulations by FDR's Alger Hiss which preceeded Pearl Harbor to the Clinton's fundraising scandals and the money laundering occuring in Wall Street.

More importantly, the same racist arguments which circulated following Pearl Harbor, are beginning to appear now. People are making accusations against the patriotism of other Americans based on their ethnicity. It's wrong and must be stopped per the guidelines of the Washington Doctrine.