SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (17151)11/22/2003 8:39:57 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793738
 
Hitchens the contrarian. I agree with him. But there is still a lot of the "Johnny we hardly knew ya," out there.

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

Where's the Aura?
Forty years later, the JFK cult has faded. It's about time.

BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Saturday, November 22, 2003 12:01 a.m. WSJ.com

A short while ago, I chanced to be in Dallas making a documentary film. One of the shots involved a camera angle from a big commercial tower overlooking Dealey Plaza and the former "book depository," and it was later necessary for us to take the road through the celebrated underpass. The crew I worked with was younger than I am (you may as well make that much younger) and consisted of a Chinese-Australian, an English girl brought up in Africa, a Jewish guy from Brooklyn and other elements of a cross-section. As we passed the "Grassy Knoll," and looked up at the window, and saw the cross incised in the tarmac, I was interested by their lack of much interest. The event of Nov. 22, 1963, isn't half as real to them as the moment, say, when the planes commandeered by suicide-murderers flew into the New York skyline. Nor, as I realized, is it half as real or poignant to me as the site of Ford's Theatre in Washington. Time has a way of assigning value.
I may still be in a minority in this, and don't care if I am, but I am glad to find that the Kennedy drama and the Kennedy cult is falling away into nothingness. The effort of keeping it up is too much trouble. It has been a long time since anyone rang me, or wrote to me, with hectic new information about the real scoop on the assassination. It has been a very long time since I heard anyone argue with conviction (let alone with evidence) that if the president had been spared that day we would not be referring to the Vietnam calamity as "Kennedy's War."

The last thought is also, paradoxically, the kernel of the illusion that still keeps the JFK cult green. In a recent ill-phrased speech, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts referred with contempt to the combat in Iraq as something cooked up "in Texas." He thereby gave vent to a facile liberal prejudice that still sees the Galahad of Camelot as having been somehow slain by Dallas itself, or by Texas at any rate. And what do we think of, or what are we supposed to think of, when the word "Texas" is invoked? Why, cowboys and gunplay and irresponsible capitalist dynasties.

For those reasons (if not for those reasons alone) Sen. Kennedy might have done better to keep a guard on his tongue. The biographers and archivists have done most of the relevant job of reporting and disclosing, and what they have reported and disclosed is a president frantically "high" on pills of all kinds (that's when he was not alarmingly "low" for the same reason), a president quick on the draw and willing to solicit Mafia hit men for his foreign policy, a president willing to risk nuclear war to save his own face; a president who bugged his own Oval Office, a president who used the executive mansion as a bordello, and a president whose name we might never have learned if not for the fanatical determination of his father to purchase him a political career. If a tithe of these things were really true of George W. Bush, Howard Dean might claim he was on to something. As it is, "the mantle of JFK" is a garment that no serious Democrat can apparently afford to discard. The last time it was plucked from the wardrobe of central casting, it made Bill Clinton look--at least to the credulous--like a potential statesman. Which turned out to be about right.

Had Napoleon Bonaparte been fatally hit by a musket ball as he entered Moscow, it was once pointed out, he would have been remembered by history as one of the greatest generals who ever lived. It would be cruel and unfeeling to say that Kennedy's luck and "charisma" did not desert him even in death, and in any case I prefer to blame this callous opinion on those who actually hold it--namely his hagiographers and mythologists. Who now seriously believes that Kennedy intended to undo his own rash commitment in South Vietnam? Can we not at least agree that his zeal for the assassination of President Diem--whom he had installed at some price in blood--was a somewhat contradictory indicator of any intention to disengage?
That would make a point, as it were, for the "left." But what of the pugnacious anticommunism that Kennedy also maintained when he thought it suited him? Having tried assassination and "deniable" invasion in Cuba, and having helped provoke a missile crisis on which he gambled all of us, he meekly acceded to the removal of American missiles from Turkey and to a pledge that Fidel Castro's regime would be considered permanent. He and his brother did not completely hold to the terms of the latter agreement, it is true, but as a result the United States became indelibly associated with mob tactics in the Caribbean, and Castro became in effect the president for life. In this sense, we may say that the legacy of JFK is with us still.

Another inheritance from that period, the Berlin Wall--which he did not oppose until well after it had been built (having again risked war on the proposition but not felt able to follow up on his punchy short-term rhetoric)--did not disappear from our lives until a quarter century later. His was the worst hard-cop/soft-cop routine ever to be attempted, and it suffered from the worst disadvantages of both styles. On the civil rights front at home, by contrast, even the most flattering historians have a hard time explaining how the Kennedy brothers preferred the millimetrical, snail's-pace, grudging-and-trudging strategy. But at least this serves to demonstrate that they knew there was such a thing as prudence, or caution.

Every smart liberal of today knows just how to deplore "spin" and "image building" and media strategy in general. Quite right too, but does anyone ever pause to ask when this manner of politics became regnant? Which Kennedy fan wants to disown the idea that the smoothest guy wins? Yet this awkward thought is gone into the memory hole, along with the fictitious "missile gap" that the boy wonder employed to attack Eisenhower and Nixon from the right. As I said at the beginning, I am glad that this spell is fading at last. But I wish its departure would be less mourned. The Kennedy interlude was a flight from responsibility, and ought to be openly criticized and exorcised rather than be left to die the death that sentimentality brings upon itself.

Mr. Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair, is a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School University in New York and the author, most recently, of "A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq" (Plume, 2003).

opinionjournal.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (17151)11/22/2003 10:42:17 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793738
 
U.S. Seeks Advice From Israel on Iraq
As the occupation grows bloodier, officials draw on an ally's experience with insurgents.
By Esther Schrader and Josh Meyer
Times Staff Writers

November 22, 2003

WASHINGTON — Facing a bloody insurgency by guerrillas who label it an "occupier," the U.S. military has quietly turned to an ally experienced with occupation and uprisings: Israel.

In the last six months, U.S. Army commanders, Pentagon officials and military trainers have sought advice from Israeli intelligence and security officials on everything from how to set up roadblocks to the best way to bomb suspected guerrilla hide-outs in an urban area.

"Those who have to deal with like problems tend to share information as best they can," Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, said Friday at a defense writers breakfast here.

The contacts between the two governments on military tactics and strategies in Iraq are mostly classified, and officials are reluctant to give the impression that the U.S. is brainstorming with Israel on the best way to occupy Iraq. Cambone said there is no formal dialogue between the two allies on Iraq, but they are working together.

Indeed, the U.S. is loath to draw any comparison between what it says is its liberation of Iraq and what the international community has condemned as Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

But Israeli and American officials confirm that with extremists carrying out suicide bombings and firing rocket-propelled grenades and missiles on U.S. forces in Iraq, the Pentagon is increasingly seeking advice from the Israeli military on how to defeat the sort of insurgency that Israel has long experience confronting.

The Israelis "certainly have a wealth of experience from a military standpoint in dealing with domestic terror, urban terror, military operations in urban terrain, and there is a great deal of intelligence and knowledge sharing going on right now, all of which makes sense," a senior U.S. Army official said on condition of anonymity. "We are certainly tapping into their knowledge base to find out what you do in these kinds of situations."

Many of the tactics recently adopted by the U.S. in Iraq — increased use of airpower, aerial surveillance by unmanned aircraft of suspected sites, increased use of pinpoint search and seizure operations, the leveling of buildings used by suspected insurgents — bear striking similarities to those regularly employed by Israel.

Two Israeli officials — one from the Jerusalem police force and a second from the Israel Defense Forces — confirmed on condition of anonymity that U.S. officials had visited Israel to gain insight into police and military tactics. They also said Israeli officials have visited Washington to discuss the issues.

U.S. officials were particularly interested in the "balancing act" that Israeli officials say they have tried to pursue between fighting armed groups and trying to spare civilians during decades of patrolling the occupied territories.

"There are routine channels that have been there for years, and those channels have been energized," an Israeli official said of the communications. "The American military has been very interested in our lessons … in how do you do surgical strikes in an urban zone, how do you hit the bad guy with minimum collateral damage."

Some U.S. officials acknowledge that they blanch at the idea of the Pentagon adopting tactics from Israel, a nation regularly criticized for security tactics it employs to battle armed groups it has never managed to quell. And even Israeli officials acknowledge that they are somewhat reluctant to give advice.

"After all," one Israeli official said, "we've made plenty of mistakes ourselves."

Indeed, criticism of the Israeli army's tactics against Palestinians has been mounting within Israel. The current chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon, along with a group of retired heads of the Shin Bet internal security service and even some active-duty soldiers say the methods have been unduly harsh and threaten to destroy Israeli and Palestinian society if no solution is found to the conflict.

But such concerns have not slowed the flow of information between Washington and Jerusalem.

When Iraqi insurgents began firing from vehicles on U.S. troops at checkpoints, U.S. officials were prompted to reinforce their ties to the Israeli military and glean tips on how to prevent such attacks, Israeli officials said.

Now, in frequent meetings with their American counterparts, Israeli army officials share ideas on how to protect soldiers from attacks and booby traps, Israeli officials said.

U.S. military officials also have reviewed a common Israeli tactic of conducting house-by-house searches for armed fighters by knocking down interior walls with a portable battering ram. The tactic eliminates the need to pass through doors and windows — one of the most dangerous aspects of urban combat, because of possible booby traps.

In the last week, U.S. soldiers began leveling houses and buildings used by suspected guerrillas, a tactic long employed by the Israeli military in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where they use bulldozers to knock down the homes of militants or their families.

"The Americans learned a lot from the Israelis' use of them [bulldozers] in urban combat," a former Israeli official said. "Israelis learned that if you have fighting in an urban area, you just take down the house."

This spring, U.S. soldiers, anticipating that they could be fighting on the streets of Iraqi cities, traveled to Israel to train in a mock Arab town that the Israeli army uses to simulate the urban battlefields of the West Bank and Gaza, U.S. and Israeli officials said.

That training was an extension of the growing use of Israeli military ranges by the U.S. over the last decade. During that time, said Lenny Ben-David, a former Israeli deputy chief of mission at the embassy in Washington, Israeli military ranges have been increasingly used by American helicopter pilots for training, because they could not fly at night in places like Germany.

"There are bases in Israel that for the last couple of years would be turned over to a foreign army for a few days, a week or so. The Israelis would be hosts. The U.S. is one of them," said Ben-David, now a private security consultant. "They could use equipment, they could use facilities, use the ranges. You'd get a mix of pilots and they would sit and talk tactics."

After years of working closely together at all levels, the Israeli and U.S. militaries in some respects think increasingly alike, said Shoshana Bryen, director of special projects at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a nonprofit group in Washington interested in links between U.S. and Israeli defense tactics and policy.

"Part of what's going on here is the culmination of years of picking each other's brains," Bryen said. "There is no sudden alliance, but what you end up with over the long term is a lot of guys from both countries who think and look at things the same way. After 9/11 they discovered they had more things to talk about."

For generations the Israeli military has enjoyed close relations with the Pentagon, which prides itself on its ability to learn from, not just preach to, the armed forces of its allies. At any time, dozens of Israeli officers are studying at Pentagon-run war colleges and training centers.

American special forces regularly train with their Israeli counterparts, both in the U.S. and in Israel. After the Israelis used unmanned drones in battlefield situations in Lebanon in 1982, the Pentagon studied the tactic. Some of the sensor technology that the United States military uses to protect the perimeters of its bases was pioneered by Israel.

Much of the information shared with the U.S. involves the defensive tactics and training that Israel has constantly updated for its troops and police in the occupied territories, where they are familiar not only with the most current tactics and code of ethics but the international laws that apply as well, the two Israeli officials said.

This month, for example, Lt. Col. Amos Guiora, the commandant of the Israeli army's School of Military Law, was in Washington to demonstrate some new software developed by the Israelis to train commanders how to conduct themselves in the occupied territories. During his visit, he showed the software to a group of American officials, he said.

"I'll say only this," he said. "They saw it, and they were impressed."

Israel's defense minister typically visits the Pentagon three to four times a year. The current defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, met Nov. 10 with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Officials privy to the meeting said the subject of Iraq came up, but declined to elaborate.

The two nations also compare notes on battle operations and equipment, particularly if something goes wrong.

"After some incidents, if there is a failure in the system — an F-16 goes down — there is discussion, cooperation among the armies that use these and the United States," Ben-David said.

"It used to be that generals and admirals would come by in almost state-like visits," said Ben-David, who in his consulting works with Israeli and U.S. officials. "But the relationship is such that you now get line-type soldiers coming here to meet with their counterparts."

latimes.com