Posted on 06/22/2002 8:16:51 AM PDT by Phil V.
Saturday, June 22, 2002 Tamuz 12, 5762
|
|
| w w w . h a a r e t z d a i l y . c o m |
|
|
|
|
|
Believe it or notThe events began to unfold on the morning of June 5, 2002: Almost nine months after the terror attack on New York's World Trade Towers, the United States launched an attack on the strongholds of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Thus began the war scenario in the simulation game conducted by the School of Government and Policy at Tel Aviv University, headed by Prof. Zeev Maoz. But from that point on, the game branched out into surprising directions that left even the experienced players gaping.
About two weeks ago, the participants met for three days at Kibbutz Nir Etzion. Overlooking an amazing view from Mount Carmel, they conducted a war game. Unwittingly, as pawns in the hands of the simulation management that devised the scenario, the participants expressed the government of Israel's ineffectiveness and paralysis, its predictable moves and lack of imagination and creativity. Israel's decision-makers were caught in the grip of the concept.
The idea - developed by Maoz and Haim Assa, who served as head of the strategic team of the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin - was presented to National Security Council chairman Major General Uzi Dayan over six months ago. The two proposed to Dayan that they hold a war simulation with an emphasis on the policy aspects, so that the lessons would provide food for thought to decision-makers and also perhaps improve their functioning. A management team was set up and comprised of Dayan, Maoz, Assa and Brigadier General (res.) Dr. Shimon Naveh.
Premature enthusiasm
In order for the game to approximate reality closely, Dayan wanted to involve senior officers to represent the General Staff and also to put them in the other side's shoes, and not just use experts from academia and the media. Thus, for example, it was suggested that the coordinator of government activities in the West Bank and Gaza, Major General Amos Gilad, would play the head of the Palestinian team and perhaps assume the role of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. His successor at Military Intelligence, research division head Brigadier General Yossi Kuperwasser, was to be director general of the Arab League. The head of the Plans and Policy Directorate, Major General Giora Eiland, was supposed to have represented the Israel Defense Forces General Staff.
Dayan expected that there would be sensitivity on the political level and, therefore, the only one to hold a position in the virtual government was Minister Dan Meridor, who was happy to accept the offer to be prime minister.
However, the enthusiasm was premature. The Israeli establishment had reservations about the American model from which the initiators took their idea. Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Shaul Mofaz reacted angrily and forbade his officers to take part. The Prime Minister's Office also reacted coldly. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that he was not interested in war games in which the players have anything to do with him or his government.
Those administering the exercise figured that Sharon was suspicious about the meanings or interpretations that would be given to the game. Though it was promised that the simulation would take place under a heavy blanket of secrecy, there could be no guarantees against leaks. The suspicious Sharon might have suspected that they would serve his opponents. And also, either the lessons drawn from the game would limit his actions, or would be held against him if something under his responsibility did not function well.
Nevertheless, the decision was not to give up on the simulation, and its management was transferred from the National Security Council to TAU's School of Government. Instead of officers on active duty, senior reserve officers were invited. Meridor was replaced by Dr. Uzi Arad, who was the policy advisor to former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Former chief of staff Lieutenant General (res.) Dan Shomron was appointed defense minister. Dr. Yehuda Ben-Meir, formerly the deputy foreign minister, was bumped up to foreign minister and Major General (res.) Dr. Yitzhak Ben-Yisrael was appointed chief of staff. The attorney-general was Prof. Ze'ev Segal. The representatives of the right in the government were played by Yisrael Harel, and the representatives of the left by former minister Prof. Yuli Tamir.
On the Palestinian side, former head of Military Intelligence, Major General (res.) Shlomo Gazit, played Arafat. Israel's former ambassador to Jordan, Oded Aran, served as U.S. President George W. Bush and Ha'aretz commentator Ze'ev Schiff played Vice President Richard Cheney. On the Arab team, Middle East specialist Prof. Dan Shiftan took the role of King Abdullah of Jordan and other Middle East specialists represented other Arab states. An international team and a terror team were set up. Participants on the media team were Prof. Gabi Weiman, Dr. Mina Zemach and journalists Yair Stern and Rami Tal.
Collapse of Jordan
Several hours after the American attack on Iraq was launched, an American spy satellite reported movements by Iraqi military forces in the direction of Jordan. As a result, during the next five days, the following events occurred: Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Jordan flew Iraqi flags and displayed pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The Palestinians rioted and the Jordanian army lost control. The kingdom was on the verge of anarchy. A correspondent for the Sky network reported that, according to rumors from Amman, King Abdullah had been killed in an armed attack on his vehicle. At a joint press conference, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned Israel not to exploit the degenerating situation in Jordan in order to invade its territories.
The simulation game came into play on June 10, the fifth day of the American attack on Iraq. Because of the fear of an Iraqi invasion of Jordan, the government of Israel took several steps: It requested consultation with the United States, called up reserves and ordered the Home Front Command to distribute protective kits against atomic, biological and chemical attacks on civilians for fear that ground-to-ground missiles armed with these substances might be launched.
Before that, the White House made a surprising move that, in retrospect, had far-reaching effects on events: At a press conference, the president declared his support for the collapsing Jordanian regime and for sending rapid deployment forces to save it. The PA appealed to Israel's Defense Ministry with a request that protective kits be distributed to the Palestinian civilian population as well. Those in charge of the game decided to leak this to the international media.
From the headquarters it set up, the game management headed by Prof. Maoz used a computer to follow the work of the various teams, which were located in nearby buildings. Each team had a student and a psychologist attached to it. One documented the events in the room; the other evaluated the feelings and the relationships that developed among the team members, and among them and the other teams.
"I'm playing God here," joked Maoz when, from time to time, he sent out instructions to the teams. Once he limited the duration of the reserve call-up to two days. Another time, he restrained the response of the terror organization team when he estimated that an exaggerated number of attacks would overturn the intentions of the game.
Although the battles were raging in Iraq, the simulation game's managers asked that attention be focused on three areas: the Palestinian ferment in Jordan, the PA and the government of Israel. In the latter, an argument broke out over the future of Jordan. The right wing (Harel) argued that a Palestinian takeover of Jordan would be a long-term strategic outlet for lowering pressure for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. At his own initiative, Harel contacted the Palestinian team about this, but was rebuffed. The left wing (Tamir) dismissed this and said scornfully that on this issue, the right represents "a vociferous but very small element."
`Ripe fruit'
The chief of staff suggested deploying IDF troops around the centers of power in Jordan, to protect them from the Palestinians. The right pressured: It won't work. The Americans can deploy forces wherever they want, but if 70 percent of the population is not prepared to come to terms with the regime ...
The chief of staff: "In Lebanon, the Americans were successful."
The right: "If the Americans see that the royal house is not significant, they will leave Jordan. And then a Palestinian regime will arise and we will be facing another hostile state."
The media pressured the government of Israel to react to rumors that Israel would take a positive view of a Palestinian takeover of Jordan.
The prime minister replied: "The rumors do not reflect Israeli policy. Our policy is to restore law and order in Jordan quickly."
The foreign minister reported that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell had told him regarding the situation in Jordan that "we should not think of anything connected to moving people from place to place."
In the government, the following discussion ensued:
The prime minister: "I want to take preemptive action."
The chief of staff: "I suggest that we don't take the IDF into Jordan. But this needs a policy discussion, not a military discussion."
The foreign minister: "Let us suppose that the regime falls and a republic is declared in Jordan."
The defense minister: "This means that a Palestinian state would arise between the Iraqi border and Qalqilyah."
The prime minister: "What are the alternatives for Israel? Can the Plans and Policy Directorate of the IDF produce alternatives?"
The defense minister: "The state of Palestine will be established in Jordan."
The foreign minister: "What do you gain from this?"
The right: "The public opinion surveys are showing full support for the establishment of the state of Palestine in Jordan."
The prime minister, in an interim summation, expresses satisfaction with his policy. Syria is sitting on the sidelines. Lebanon deploys its army in the south. "The righteous have their work done for them by others. The Americans are dealing with Iraq, in Jordan there are upheavals and to this day, not a single Israeli has been killed," notes the prime minister (Arad).
The left mentioned the way then prime minister Yitzhak Shamir acted during the Gulf War, adding: "We are satisfied with the situation and with the government's policy of restraint."
At the same time, the Palestinian team also discussed the situation in Jordan. The collapse of the monarchy and the establishment of a Palestinian state are not in accord with Arafat's interests.
Said Arafat (Gazit): "The Israelis want to get rid of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan. A Palestinian state in Jordan will fall into their hands like ripe fruit. This could serve as an excuse for transfer and will distract attention from our effort to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank."
Chemical missiles in Israel
Warning sirens shake Israel on the seventh day of the American attack on Iraq. The Israeli radar system warns of an attack by 15 missiles launched from Iraq. Twelve of the missiles are intercepted by Arrow missiles and three missiles bearing chemical warheads land in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Yavneh. There are casualties.
The government discusses its response to the firing of the missiles. The chief of staff reports that the Americans are planning to bomb Iraq with atomic weapons and have called upon the inhabitants of Baghdad to evacuate the city. A Channel One reporter bursts into the government meeting room and announces that a smart bomb has hit Saddam's bunker and killed him. Then the government also wakes up to action.
The chief of staff: "What do you think of eliminating Arafat on the background of the general upheaval?"
The defense minister supports the proposal.
The prime minister: "An IDF force has acted in response to the Palestinian provocations and aggression and has eliminated the leaders of the PA and Arafat."
|
|
|
Hmmmm . . .
Their leaders wildly exaggerated what had occurred at Deir Yassin hoping that these exaggerations would spur them to violence. Instead, it backfired and caused even more fleeing.
As for your implied allegations about what occurred there, the Arabs were using Deir Yassin to shell Jewish convoys heading into Jerusalem. The Jewish forces invaded as a defensive move to hold the high ground and stop the attacks on their convoys. The Arabs had staged a fake surrender, and then many men, dressed as women, ambushed the Jewish forces with weapons hidden under their garments. Many Jews were killed as well as many Arabs in the battle. I do think some of the Jewish forces lost their cool and shot the place up, but under the pressure of an ambush by trickery they were likely very frightened and pissed off.
And while it was a real tragedy, the Jewish forces still took the time to evacuate hundreds of villagers and left them at least one escape route before mounting the invasion.
Interestingly enough, the study by Bir Zeit University (Palestinian) indicates that the idea of exaggerating the events at Deir Yassin served both sides. One the one hand the Arabs hoped it would inspire hoards of Arabs to rise up on behalf of the Arab armies, while the Jews thought it would help increase morale and show the Arabs that their forces were strong and that they would be hard to defeat.
I don't.
I'm wondering why the Israeli war game included it.
Assuming that it is true that the Palestinians were shelling from the high ground then it is only a matter of personal perspective which activity is "defensive". Were the Palestinians not "defending" Jerusalem? Were the Israelis not seeking to "take" Jerusalem? Did the Palestinians not successfully "defend" Jerusalem until '67?
On Jan. 9, 1991, on the eve of the Gulf War, then Secretary of State James Baker issued a private warning to Iraq. At a meeting in Geneva, Baker told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that if Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against U.S. forces, "The American people will demand retribution, and we have the means to exact it." That carefully worded, nonspecific threat was meant to raise the possibility that the United States would use nuclear weapons against Iraq if it used chemical weapons against American troops. Baker has since told acquaintances that he doubts whether then President George Bush would have actually used the nuclear option, but that the threat may have been a deterrent.
In the simulation, how did the Palis in Jordan get several hundred thousand Iraqi flags in five days?
What if we are hit by WMD and the attack cannot be traced to a particular offending country? Or, to take another case, what if it can be traced to a particular country, but the connection is sufficiently murky to be publicly deniable? What does Bush do then?
Probably because they see how Saddam upped the ante in terms of what he is willing to do on the US mainland with the destruction of the WTC and the subsequent anthrax threats. The next phase of our ten-year war with Saddam Hussein isn't going to be a nice, tidy confrontation between B-52s and massed troops. It will involve terrorist proxies using weapons of mass destruction against American and European cities, as Dick Cheney recently explained to Tony Blair.
Yes, Yes and yesmajor conflicts between Israeli and various Arab forces, most notably in 1948–49, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982.The first war immediately followed the proclamation of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948. Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon occupied the areas in southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews, then captured the small Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. The Israelis, meanwhile, won control of the main road to Jerusalem through the Yehuda Mountains (Judaean Hills) and successfully beat off Arab attacks. By early 1949 the Israelis managed to occupy all of the Negev up to the former Egypt-Palestine frontier, except for the Gaza Strip. Between February and July 1949, as a result of separate armistice agreements between Israel and the Arab states, a temporary frontier was fixed where the line had been at the beginning of the negotiations.
Would the gloves come off if we were nuked? I doubt it. The correct response would be to take control of the entire Middle East. That's the only way to shutdown the terrorist infrastructure. We don't have enough manpower to do it conventionally. How many ICBMs would it take to essentially destroy the militaries of all the ME countries? At 10 warheads per MX, it wouldn't take too many to destroy all the significant military bases in the Arab countries. Those countries would then be wide open to our conventional forces.
But put to logic, what future can there be between the West and Islam? When the US attacks Iraq, will not Iraq attack Israel? And when Iraq attacks Israel, will not the Palestinians join the fray? Israel will surly respond, drawing in Jordan, Syria and Iran. When Iran supports a war against Israel, the US attack on Iraq will widen to include Iran, and it is hard to imagine that at that point any Islamic country will support the United States with the possible exception of Turkey. Meanwhile, the United States will compel its NATO allies to join in the fun, if only to help grab up enough undamaged oil fields to keep the tanks and planes running, and the home economies working.
Now, the question must be asked, what has changed in the world that a centuries old document should suddenly cause the world to be threatened with WWIII? The answer is that the believers in that document, which requires world domination, have possession of weapons of mass destruction. But this is not the first time we have faced an enemy whose ideology called for world domination and who possessed more than a mere few WMD, but a vast array of same. For over forty years during the cold war we faced the Soviet Union which country possessed enough nuclear missiles to destroy the United States many times over. Yet, even though world domination was their aim, we confined our struggles to small parts of the world and conventional weapons. We did this with a doctrine known sardonically enough as MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. The essence of that doctrine was that America always kept herself in a position that if she were attacked with a WMD, she could assuredly respond and destroy utterly her attacker.
The only differences between now and then are two: (1) first, our government expects us to absorb such an attack and has told us so, even to the extent that it is inevitable, whereas formerly our government did not expect its' citizens to absorb an attack of any kind with a WMD from the Soviet Union, and (2) second, the enemy does not come from a single country but from a religion, which prima fascia makes retaliation seemingly impossible.
As to the first problem, it is up to us to wake up and start screaming to our representatives that we will not absorb an attack with a WMD when such an attack can clearly be averted by closing our borders, checking every shipment of every package that enters our harbors, deporting all non-resident aliens of Islamic origin, and announcing a new form of the MAD doctrine. As to the second problem, even though the enemy is a religion, it is a unique religion because it is a religion with a country and a city as its' capital. In fact, it is a religion that cannot be worshipped as required by its' own mandates without a pilgrimage to the city of Mecca. Therefore, a version of the MAD doctrine can be developed stating that if the United States is attacked with a WMD, then upon thirty days notice, the holy city of Medina will be destroyed with a small nuclear warhead such that no one will be able to inhabit Medina for hundreds of years. Should the United States be attacked a second time with a WMD, the city of Mecca will be destroyed on the same terms. There will be no lose of life due to the notice period, but the religion itself will not be able to be practiced in the manner it heretofore has been practiced for a thousand years.
Many will say that this is a radical idea, but it is no more radical than the idea that the Soviet Union and the United States were going to destroy the entire world over whether Cuba had a few nuclear warheads. It is all a matter of historical perspective. The MAD doctrine as I propose it is far less severe than the MAD doctrine as it was actually practiced in the cold war. Additionally, it would have the added benefit of motivating moderate Muslims to seek out any radicals that might actually try in any event to attack the US with a WMD, and would probably have a calming effect on the radical anti-Western teachings so prevalent in the Islamic schools. In all events, it is certainly preferable to the Bush plan of waiting for the inevitable shoe to drop, walking around with a target on our backs, as if we were some third rate country rather than the United States of America, the most powerful country that ever existed, and one that can destroy an entire city without killing a single person unless that person seeks to die.
A blunt warning like you propose would leave the current situation unchanged. Do you really think it "would probably have a calming effect on the radical anti-Western teachings so prevalent in the Islamic schools"? Not a chance. It would only harden their resistance. We need to destroy the governments over there, not let them continue.
Of course, this will never happen. Our most likely response would be, "thank you sir, may I have another?".
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.