Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Do You See What I See?

Look at this picture and tell me, what do you see?



Yes, I know Debbie J. is pretty but don't you see the Tel Aviv skyline from Nofim across the Green Line?



Here:



You and Israel have a problem.  A security problem.

And here's the lady at Itamar, south-east of Shchem (Nablus) and behind here, to the east is the Lower Jordan River Valley and the hills of Jordan:



Did I hear anyone say "strategic depth"?  "Value of territory"?

^

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

What For Stratfor?

In an author's essay (?), George Friedman, the founder and CEO of STRATFOR, and a Hungarianh-born Jew, whose children are yeshiva-educated, introducing his new book, The Next Decade: Where We've Been... And Where We're Going, touches on the Middle East and the atttitude and actions the United States should now adopt (kippah tip: CK) and he writes:

After September 11, 2001, a United States newly obsessed with terrorism became even more disoriented, losing sight of its long-term strategic principles altogether. As an alternative, it created a new but unattainable strategic goal, which was the elimination of the terrorist threat...In response to al Qaeda’s assaults, the United States slammed into the Islamic world—particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. The goal was to demonstrate U.S. capability and reach, but these efforts were once again spoiling attacks. Their purpose was not to defeat an army and occupy a territory but merely to disrupt al Qaeda and create chaos in the Muslim world. But creating chaos is a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy. The United States demonstrated that it is possible to destroy terrorist organizations and mitigate terrorism, but it did not achieve the goal that it had articulated, which was to eliminate the threat altogether...

Recovering from the depletions and distractions of this effort will consume the United States over the next ten years. The first step—returning to a policy of maintaining regional balances of power—must begin in the main area of current U.S. military engagement, a theater stretching from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush. For most of the past half century there have been three native balances of power here: the Arab-Israeli, the Indo-Pakistani, and the Iranian-Iraqi. Owing largely to recent U.S. policy, those balances are unstable or no longer exist. The Israelis are no longer constrained by their neighbors and are now trying to create a new reality on the ground...

Restoring balance to that region, and then to U.S. policy more generally, will require steps during the next decade that will be seen as controversial, to say the least. As I argue in the chapters that follow, the United States must quietly distance itself from Israel. It must strengthen (or at least put an end to weakening) Pakistan. And in the spirit of Roosevelt’s entente with the USSR during World War II, as well as Nixon’s entente with China in the 1970s, the United States will be required to make a distasteful accommodation with Iran, regardless of whether it attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities...

As for obsessed, I would more rightly apply that to the enemies of the United States and its ally, Israel, their economic, cultural and religious orientations (no pun), enemies who come from the darkest denizens of Islam.

As for "distancing", with the missiles being improved, 'distance', whether real or symbolical, doesn't matter. It won't help. Big and Little Satan are a fixture with the Islamic terrorists.

But Friedman does have a strong Jewish side:

Does being Jewish affect the way you view the world, I begin. “Being Jewish keeps things in perspective,” he says, smiling. “We lost two temples... I am keenly aware of Athens and Jerusalem..."

And what does David Goldman there think of Friedman?

This:

...George Friedman has managed to replicate the key features of the intelligence establishment on a private footing. He didn’t invent what I call McStrategy—the splintering of tasks that puts one analyst at the deep fryer, another at sandwich assembly, and a third at the cash register. But the eccentricity of the final product is easily recognizable.


P.S.

The author will be speaking on January 26 at Carnegie Council.

^

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

The JCPA Conference on Israel's Strategic Requirements

I attended the JCPA conference today on the occasion of the publication of a new major study (the Executive Summary is here)*.

As former Intelligence chief Farkash said, there's a sea-change of the paradigms. There is Islamization with a Shia-Sunni rivalry which has nothing to do with the "Arab" character of the Middle East. There is the Hamas-Fatah rivalry hwich must be settled before any Israel-"Palestinian" peace can be achieved. He also attacked the pressure exerted by Condoleeza Rice on Egypt, within the democratization policy, that scared Mubarak when an increase in Hamas members entered the National Assembly (and I murmured to myself: the Gaza elections as well and her pressure on Sharon to yield on the Philadelphi Corridor).

Elliot Abrams criticized the Obama Administration for ignoring the 2004 letter of understanding, the ignoring of the incitement factor, the element of Israel's ability to self-defence and the distancing of international forces from our theater.

The other speakers, too, were excellent.

*and here's the video presentation:



Some pics:

Dan Diker, the moderator


Elliot Abrams on the screen



Minister Moshe Yaalon


And what's a conference without friends. Among the many I met, here's Ruthie Blum (center):

Monday, May 07, 2007

Strategic vs. Evocative

This opinion:-

Israel can't pretend anything away. In a world in which so many openly seek its destruction - while others secretly long for the same thing - Israel is going to have to play flawless political chess. That means giving up the spaces on the board that don't help it checkmate its enemies.


is rampant among seemingly well-wishers of Israel.

I found it in an oped, WHAT TO GIVE UP, by Ralph Peters.

He makes a few good points, like:-

No matter how self-destructive and murderous Palestinian behavior may be in Gaza, how nakedly corrupt Palestinian leaders are, or how hypocritical Arab governments remain, the global left will always make excuses for them, while blaming Israel for every boil on a terrorist's backside.


and

so why should Israel surrender any land to its enemies, if it gets in return nothing but empty promises and more security problems?


His approach is that:-

In this unjust world, Israel will be forced to make very difficult choices. Some of the toughest will have to do with the land it must surrender to thugs who'll turn it into yet another patch of self-made Arab misery. And there's a very real danger that, for internal political reasons, a future Israeli government will make faulty decisions.


His conclusion?

ISRAEL must be severely pragmatic, distinguishing between strategic terrain and evocative terrain - between those stretches of land critical to security and those whose appeal is purely emotional.


Well, actually, that phrase strategic vs. evocative terrain reads well but then he begins to go fanatic:-

Israel's internal enemies are the rogue, extremist settlers who invoke a real-estate-magnate god to occupy West Bank territory that the state doesn't need and can't digest - and whose seizure plays into the hands of Israel's foes and complicates the support of her all-too-few friends.


Actually, without those "territories" Israel is extremely vulnerable in its security field as well as its water resources, those underground acquifiers.

And this remark is really nasty:-

Yet the fateful evolution of the Israeli parliamentary system has made those who return the least benefit to Israel - who drain its resources and give nothing back - into political kingmakers.

Jews who insist that their god cares more about a plot of bedeviled dirt than the reverence in their hearts are behaving like Arab militants (complete with the intolerance). No religious text is a valid deed.


and

Don't get me wrong: Jerusalem belongs to Israel...But when it comes to strategic terrain, forget about Hebron - the West Bank town that's home to less than 1,000 Israeli settlers, and well over 100,000 Palestinians. It's just one of the many settlements that hurt Israel's security instead of helping it.


So, what do we keep (as if anyone really would 'permit' us to do anything we really need?

Israel can never surrender the Golan Heights. We might as well be honest about it. Syria repeatedly - three times - attacked Upper Galilee from the Golan. Three strikes and you're out.


But what about Syria?

Syria's a phony state, anyway, its borders drawn to please France. Israel has administered the Golan longer - and far better - than post-independence Damascus did. Borders change. Get over it.


Ah, their borders can change but Israel's can't? Am I missing something here? Logic? Rational thought?

And he goes on:-

traditional strategists have it wrong. They claim that whoever holds the mountainous "spine" running down through the West Bank controls the land that now comprises Israel. But Israel's survival and victorious wars disprove that "law."


I don't agree. But then he comes back with his strategic treasure:-

What matters is control of the lines of communication - the roads - that enable Israel to shift military forces rapidly, and the control of foreign borders across which weapons can be infiltrated.

Thus, control of the Jordan Valley and its vital north-south highway is essential. The string of hilltop settlements east of Jerusalem that dominate the direct route to Jordan can never be given up.


Oh, those communities are not negotiable and will be agreed to?

But he's really off the wall, or road, here:-

And the recently floated scheme to swap Arab towns in northern Israel for part of the West Bank is madness - it would cost Israel control of a militarily vital highway from the coast into Galilee.


And what's his view "in short"?

...there are vital locations within the West Bank. They're just not the ones obsessing the fanatics who shame their faith. If Israel doesn't do a cold- blooded analysis of what it truly needs to retain, the world will ask too much, its government will make decisions based upon political pressure rather than military necessity - and the result will be a far-worse mess than the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip created.


My thoughts?

Peters isn't thinking strategically and there's more starategy that evocativeness to the regions of Judea and Samaria than he can perceive.