Colonel Richard Kemp on Cast Lead
The former commander of British forces in Afghanistan spoke at a conference in Jerusalem last month.
You can read the entire speech here.
Besides making the case that “the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other Army in the history of warfare,” Kemp made a keen observation:
Do these Islamist fighting groups ignore the international laws of armed conflict? They do not. It would be a grave mistake to conclude that they do. Instead, they study it carefully and they understand it well.
They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy’s main weaknesses.
Their very modus operandi is built on the, correct, assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules.
It is not simply that these insurgents do not adhere to the laws of war. It is that they employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. Their entire operational doctrine is founded on this basis.
Kemp also (correctly, in my view) indirectly criticized Israel’s exclusion of journalists from Gaza during last winter’s war:
There are risks in all this, big risks which are self evident and do not need to be spelt out. But we must be brave enough to take those risks.
The benefits are great. The insurgents – Hamas in particular – put a human face on war with spectacular success. We must do the same. We must let the field soldiers speak with sand on their boots and with a sweat and dirt-covered human face.
Comments
| 7 July 2009, 9:18 pm |
I heard him on Sky soon after Cast Lead and he was a breath of fresh air. Someone who understands war. I always liked the Patton quote when he addressed military academies. It equated to “If you are going to have a war then you objective is to kill the enemy. Kill them big so they won’t come back and kill you”.
It also evokes in me the claim that Israel had been planning Cast Lead for months – ergo “They were already planning to slaughter Palestinians – the swine”. Which is a reframe of all potential military responses have to be planned as contingency. There is obviously a retaliation plan if Hezbollah attack or Iran needs correctional advice.
If an Israeli breathes then their opponents and UN will accuse of them of stealing air from the Palestinians.
| 7 July 2009, 9:22 pm |
CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan – U.S. Marines trapped Taliban fighters in a residential compound and persuaded the insurgents to allow women and children to leave. The troops then moved in — only to discover that the militants had slipped out, dressed in women’s burqa robes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
| 7 July 2009, 9:25 pm |
The issue is whether war was the correct move at all rather than whether the war was prosecuted cleanly. In my opinion an asymetric conflict should not lead to a war on this scale. Kemp is correct that the war was cleanly prosecuted, he fails to address the issue as to whether war was appropriate in the first place.
| 7 July 2009, 9:33 pm |
he fails to address the issue as to whether war was appropriate in the first place.
That’s not his job.
| 7 July 2009, 9:37 pm |
True, he is retired from the army and now runs a private security operation in London.
| 7 July 2009, 9:46 pm |
Stuart -the war was the last resort. Israel had tried numerous other tactics over an extended period of time, all of which failed to prevent the daily rocket and mortar attacks upon Israeli children, women and pensioners. Indeed one might well say that operation Cast Lead was merely another stage in a war which had being going on for years -and it wasn’t started by Israel.
| 7 July 2009, 9:56 pm |
“whether war was appropriate in the first place.”
Which wars, would you say, have been appropriate?
Was the Iran/Iraq War appropriate?
Was the Falklands War appropriate?
Vietnam? Six Day war? Spanish Civil War? Or indeed any of the thousands upon thousands of other wars that litter our history like so many bomb craters on the fields of the Somme?
Or is it Just Certain Wars, prosecuted by certain countries, that you deem worthy of analysis, scrutiny and the wringing of oh so morally clean hands?
| 7 July 2009, 10:05 pm |
My view is that Cast Lead should have been a Police action like Northern Ireland rather than a full scale war. With the exception of the Spanish Civil War all th others mentioned were between countries. Surely you can see the difference, Anaximander?
| 7 July 2009, 10:20 pm |
Stuart is essentially correct.
| 7 July 2009, 10:20 pm |
With the exception of the Spanish Civil War all the others mentioned were between countries
Wasn’t Catalonia fighting to become another country?
| 7 July 2009, 10:23 pm |
apart from anything else, could you name an insurgent group from any conflict in human history that has adhered to the rules of war?
Take the story that Mesquito repeated above. If it was a group of British tommies doing it in WW2 they´d be still be showing the movie about the escape every Christmas.
| 7 July 2009, 10:28 pm |
I think it would be pretty hard to execute a police action in a region that is no longer under the control of your state. It was an invasion/war because Israel had unilaterally withdrawn previously. If they attempted to police Gaza there would be uproar about re-’colonisation’/occupation.
| 7 July 2009, 10:32 pm |
“My view is that Cast Lead should have been a Police action like Northern Ireland rather than a full scale war.” Had Israel’s incursion into Gaza been a full-scale war, Gaza would look rather different than it does. Characterizing it as full-scale obscures the significant care and restraint taken by the IDF. One illustration of that care can be found in PCHR’s casualty report: of over 1400 casualties claimed by PCHR, approximately 115 are listed in their report as women.
“With the exception of the Spanish Civil War all th others mentioned were between countries.” This distinction places Israel in an impossible position: if Gaza is not a country, then presumably Israel has real control over it. Clearly it does not, and the Gaza conflict was intended to reduce the aggression emanating from Gaza, rather than to re-establish absolute dominance over this not-a-country.
Were Gaza to be regarded, at least in terms of its behavior toward a neighbor, as a “country”, then its responsibility for its own actions might be more clearly seen, and Israel’s actions better understood, by those predisposed to condemn Israel.
As (rhetorical) matters stand, Gaza-not-a-country can do as it will without responsibility, and Israel-a-country can neither re-occupy Gaza nor respond to violence without being found “responsible” and condemned for whatever it chooses to do. Israel’s only option, within the range of this kind of rhetoric, is to do nothing at all.
| 7 July 2009, 10:37 pm |
Stuart, NI was split almost 50-50 between Unionists and Republicans. Who are the Unionists in Gaza?
| 7 July 2009, 10:46 pm |
“Surely you can see the difference”
Indeed I can and that’s the problem, I can see the difference very clearly, the difference in attitudes to War depends on which side of the Ideological and Theological divide one claims to support.
The Russian leaders no doubt thought that the Nazi’s War against Poland and the West was a good Idea re their quest to bring down the bourgeois capitalists of the West, well they did until the Nazi’s turned on Russia.
The American leaders no doubt thought that Vietnam was a good Idea, re their quest to halt the march of communism, well they did until it all turned to shit.
The Palestinian leaders no doubt thought that years of firing rockets and threatening Israel with destruction was a good idea re their dream of making the middle east Jew free, well they did until they experienced the inevitable reaction of the Israeli leaders.
War is either always totally wrong, always counter productive and always morally wrong or it is not.
You can’t be a little bit of a war monger, well you can if you are left wing I suppose.
War is wrong, in my view.
But it is also a feature of our genetic programing, a fight or flight defense mechanism which has taken millions of years of evolution to perfect, dare I say it, It is what we, the Humans “DO”.
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” Albert Einstein.
“As long as there are Men there will be Wars” Call of Duty 4
| 7 July 2009, 10:55 pm |
But it is also a feature of our genetic programing, a fight or flight defense mechanism which has taken millions of years of evolution to perfect, dare I say it, It is what we, the Humans “DO”.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327152.900-editorial-time-to-declare-war-on-war-itself.html
| 7 July 2009, 10:57 pm |
Actually, that’s just the editorial, the full article is here:
| 7 July 2009, 11:02 pm |
Anaximander –
War isn’t particularly genetically programmed into us I would say. The reason people have to have a couple of months or more of basic training is essentially to condition them out of what are the normal genetic responses, so they become efficient killing machines. It’s no mistake that basic training is all about acting on orders automatically, sleep deprivation and creating conditions of extreme physical exhaustion.
There may always have been conflicts involving occasional violence. But organised war is something that followed on the creation of organised states and it is clear that war is primarily a feature of dictatorships.
I can think of hardly any examples of a democracy going to war with another democracy. However I can think of lots of examples of tyrants going to war with democracies or other tyrants or democracies defending themselves against tyrants.
The solution to war is to remove the tyrants. General peace will follow – that is what the facts suggest, as we have seen in Western Europe, and elsewhere. Latin Americans have also stopped going to war with each other since they became more democratic.
| 7 July 2009, 11:09 pm |
Very interesting article Short Order Cook, I will investigate this Hypothesis further, sounds interesting, if indeed their data hold up to scrutiny I will gladly revaluate my stance on the Human genetic preponderance for violence.
Thank you.
“Why not a war on war?” Agree 1 hundred, billion, trillion%
| 7 July 2009, 11:14 pm |
Thanks Field, food for thought.
| 7 July 2009, 11:26 pm |
Field -it’s not the guys and girls doing the basic training who declare the wars -it’s the old chaps in suits who will never be anywhere near the mud and dust.
| 7 July 2009, 11:30 pm |
Stuart, NI was split almost 50-50 between Unionists and Republicans. Who are the Unionists in Gaza?
No, it was much closer to 70-30
| 7 July 2009, 11:34 pm |
“well you can if you are left wing I suppose.”
That was a cheap shot, I apologize.
| 7 July 2009, 11:39 pm |
I can think of hardly any examples of a democracy going to war with another democracy.
Yup, pretty much the essence of the premise underpinning Neoconservativism – of the Bush doctrine. GW Bush I understand, is rather a history buff and as part of that has followed the work of Prof RJ Rummel quite closely.
It’s worth spending time on Rummel’s site.
I think his essential thesis, is correct.
| 8 July 2009, 12:07 am |
Has it been proved that democracy ends Jihad? I’m not sure it has.
Sure, non-Islamic democracies don’t make war on their democratic neighbors.
Democracy has failed in south Lebanon to be sure so this example doesn’t prove much, but there is only peace between Israel and Lebanon to the extent that the Israelis are brutal enough to hurt and threaten Hezbollah.
It has yet to be proven that a democratic Jordan, Egypt, Syria or even Iran would refrain from terror attacks on Israel, or even from outright war.
It has yet to be proven that a democratic Saudi Arabia would refrain from funding terror.
Nor has it been proven that a democratic Pakistan would refrain from attacking Afghanistan or Kashmir or that it wouldn’t supply terrorist with weapons.
We can HOPE that Islam doesn’t inspire democratically empowered populations to tacitly allow and support terror.
We can HOPE that Islam doesn’t inspire democratically empowered populations to hurt the world.
| 8 July 2009, 12:19 am |
“all quiet on the western front”
Where are the “we are all Hezbollah now” brigade? Must be at an anti-Israel meeting.
It must be that because they can’t be at a “lets support the people of Iran in their struggle to free themselves from the Islamist Theocratic Lunatic suppression enslaving the Muslims of an ancient and honorable Land” That would simply be too much to expect, I suppose.
| 8 July 2009, 12:24 am |
Interesting speech by Colonel Kemp. I agree with what he says about the IDF and Operation Cast Lead. Concerning Gaza, I suspect most nations, including the US and the UK, would have moved much sooner and much more brutality to end the rocket fire from Gaza than Israel did.
Field and Nick (ex-South Africa) : The idea that democracies do not wage war on fellow democracies is nonsense. The bloodiest war in the history of the United States, the American Civil War, was that of two democracies, the Union and the Confederacy. More than 600,000 lives were lost in the Civil War, roughly equal to all the Americans killed in all other American Wars from the Revolution to 9/11 and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe this idea that democracies do not wage war on each other has not been discredited is because 1). There have not really been many democracies or republics, historically speaking and 2). In the World Wars, the major democracies were allies. As democracies flourish, no doubt there will be plenty of opportunity for them to fight one another. It is the Human way.
Concerning Folly: Robert McNamara, former US Sec. of Defense and foremost architect of the disasterious US war in Vietnam has died at age 93. Link to the New York Times Obituary at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/us/07mcnamara.html
| 8 July 2009, 12:31 am |
To continue my comment, it is just possible that democratic Islamic nations will start another world war.
In an world where weapons are ever worse, we will get to see just how much damage a hostile religion can cause. Even if it’s just independant terror organizations at work, this century may turn out to be bloodier than even the 20th century.
If the attitude of pure malice that Muslims have toward Israel is extended to the rest of the world – if the thirst for limitless violence in unending vendetta is turned on us – the potential suffering caused is beyond measure.
| 8 July 2009, 12:39 am |
Josh Scholar –
Well Indonesia seems to be moving in the right direction. Iraq, though precarious, now has a lot of true democratic features.
I see no fundamental reason why one couldn’t have a democracy that is informed by traditional Islamic values. So Islam has a privileged position within the state, conservative dress codes and legal codes are maintained etc. I guess that’s where one could say Indonesia is heading.
But full blooded Islam, with unequal citizenship, Jihad and full Shariah is clearly incompatible with democracy, just as full on Papal Supremacy was incompatible with democracy.
| 8 July 2009, 12:45 am |
OT: Today, on the 4th anniversary of the 7/7 terror bombings, London dedicated a memorial of 52 steel pillars, one for each victim of the bombings. Link to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/07/world/main5139389.shtml?tag=cbsnewsTwoColLowerPromoArea
| 8 July 2009, 1:06 am |
Field -it’s not the guys and girls doing the basic training who declare the wars -it’s the old chaps in suits who will never be anywhere near the mud and dust.
Israelinurse, whilst I always very much respect and usually agree with everything you have to say, surely in Israel’s case the “old chaps in suits” are almost always former very successful military leaders with extensive field experience.
Even Olmert and Livni had much more military experience than any other Western political leaders. I still remember Rabin’s comments about knowing what it was to look into the eyes of parents whose sons’ deaths he had to break to them.
Amir Peretz stood out like a sore thumb for his lack of military experience, most comically in being photographed clapping his eyes to a pair of binoculars with the lens caps still one.
| 8 July 2009, 1:52 am |
If I may go back to the original point raised by Colonel Kemp, that the terrorists deliberately operate outside the law because they exploit the fact that the army opposite them will abide by the law.
I think that this observation is correct, and leads to very important conclusions:
If the terrorists use the Geneva Conventions to their advantage against the regular army, any Human Rights group that then criticizes the regular army on these grounds is undermining the Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Conventions do not aim at giving advantage in battle to those who reject them.
Orgnaizations like Amnesty International will better keep this in mind. They claim to uphold international law, and they actually undermine it by siding with those who reject it.
| 8 July 2009, 2:27 am |
“….he fails to address the issue as to whether war was appropriate in the first place.”
Come on Stuart, firing rockets at civilians is an act of war.
| 8 July 2009, 2:31 am |
“I see no fundamental reason why one couldn’t have a democracy that is informed by traditional Islamic values. So Islam has a privileged position within the state, conservative dress codes and legal codes are maintained etc. I guess that’s where one could say Indonesia is heading.” field
Of course you see no reason, field.
That’s because you don’t what democracy is.
Forcing people to wear uniforms of any type is not what democracies are about.
| 8 July 2009, 2:33 am |
David All, was the Confederacy a democracy? A slave-owning democracy? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
| 8 July 2009, 2:51 am |
‘They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy’s main weaknesses’
Honest (briefly unbiased) question – any evidence of this connection that is EXISTENTIAL to the overall mission in Afghanistan. If one wants to slip the dogs of war full on and with blitzkrieg mercy, I should expect that the need to break fully with a civilising norm of warfare to be strong.
| 8 July 2009, 3:46 am |
I agree that Hamas/Hezbollah operate outside the laws of armed conflict but I am more concerned when Israel does not. Those organizations do not deserve a place at the table of nations but Isreal does so I hold them to a higher standard. So that is why I more disconcerted about Israeli use of WP in built areas for example. Isreal’s use force was justified given the provocations but I’m not sure if it was effective and I do have reservations about the conduct of the IDF on Cast Lead.
| 8 July 2009, 4:05 am |
It’s worth reading Rummel’s Q And A On The Fact That Democracies Do Not Make War On Each Other.
And by way of a precis Summary and Conclusions – Chapter 1.
| 8 July 2009, 4:25 am |
gray, i am more concerned about generational wars that last forever and destroy societies for generation after generation.
Let the civilized people win by any means necessary, let peace come to the world once more so that future generations can live real lives free from fear and tragedy.
| 8 July 2009, 4:50 am |
Kemp articulates what seems obvious to me quite well.
Related – great, if somewhat pessimistic piece here by Michael J Totten, I think the tone of the article pretty much nails it.
| 8 July 2009, 4:54 am |
“the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other Army in the history of warfare”
LOL
| 8 July 2009, 5:20 am |
Yo, Benj… Apart from your oh-so-clever use of “LoL”, maybe you could give us chapter and verse on your critique of Col. Kemps firsthand experience in combat?
| 8 July 2009, 6:19 am |
I’m sure Benji’s thought process is that all his friends agree that the Jews invaded Gaza in order to collect baby blood for matzah.
| 8 July 2009, 6:56 am |
It didn’t take the Hong Kong bong to start sneering at Israelis again.
Mods?
| 8 July 2009, 7:03 am |
Kemp is correct that the war was cleanly prosecuted, he fails to address the issue as to whether war was appropriate in the first place.
I have another mantra “Those who start a war have no right to determine how their victim defends itself or what force it should use to stop the attack and make sure it can never start again”.
Israel’s response was understated and finished too early – by the UN insisting on a ceasefire. All very well but it should then have issued international arrest warrants for the Hamas leadership in leading its people into war that served no purpose, for war crimes in targetting civilians with thousands of missiles and for using its citizens as human shields. You think I’m joking?
| 8 July 2009, 7:06 am |
Poor Benji. Once lord of all he surveyed, now reduced to hit and run tactics. LOL.
| 8 July 2009, 7:06 am |
Judy; I took Field’s comment to be a general one about war -not specifically relating to Israel. Of course you are entirely correct in what you say -I don’t think it applies to much of the rest of the world though and that’s the point I was making.
| 8 July 2009, 7:24 am |
So that is why I more disconcerted about Israeli use of WP in built areas for example. Isreal’s use force was justified given the provocations but I’m not sure if it was effective and I do have reservations about the conduct of the IDF on Cast Lead.
It wasn’t effective because it was understated. Hamas went to their bunkers and sent the women and children out to get killed so that they could draw the sympathy. Do people forget that Israel phoned residents and dropped leaflets to tell the civilians which areas to leave because it was going to get bombed. (Benji, who else does that?)
WP use is 100% legit to light up an area and create a smokescreen. They say that WP hitting the skin will burn the victim alive. As far as I am aware there are no deaths from WP in Gaza. I saw an appeal fund use a picture of a child supposedly burned by WP. The child’s face had all the hallmarks of someone scalded by hot water as all the marks were arond the mouth area. The unfortunate child simply wasn’t a WP victim IMHO.
What was the “provocation”? only 6,000 rockets and missiles at Israeli civilians with loss of life. Israel’s problem was being TOO soft. Note how they have just about stopped now that Netanyahu has ordered IDF to respond to every single rocket attack.
What Hamas understands is force. What the Palestinians understands is overwhelming force.
Israel should have used overwhelming force in Gaza but it IS the moral dimension to IDF that determined indiscriminate massive bombing would surely bring Gaza to its kness but also kill many thousands of Gazans. Hence, Israel had to be strategic and selectively targetting. Didn’t they do something incredible by taking out 500 Hamas facilities in an hour?
| 8 July 2009, 7:50 am |
I refuse to have social intercourse with “Hanoi Paris Hilton”. But c’mon, it was a good joke. Not sneering at Isrealis – laughing at the Brit’s dry humour. Look, he’s all pink and plump, a well fed chortler. The old boy’s had a glass or two, I say.
| 8 July 2009, 8:54 am |
Not sneering at Isrealis
Israelis you twat!
| 8 July 2009, 9:10 am |
WOLF! WOLF! THERE’S A WOLF IN HERE!!
| 8 July 2009, 9:19 am |
Nick, even darker is this apostate’s view of that interview http://isaacschrodinger.typepad.com/isaacschrodinger/2009/07/no-love-for-jews.html
| 8 July 2009, 9:24 am |
Stuart:
“My view is that Cast Lead should have been a Police action like Northern Ireland rather than a full scale war. With the exception of the Spanish Civil War all th others mentioned were between countries.”
Is the war in Afghanistan against a country or an organisation, the Taliban. Is the war in Iraq against a country or against an organisation, Al-Qaeda?
Surely you can see the similarity, Stuart?
| 8 July 2009, 11:03 am |
“My view is that Cast Lead should have been a Police action like Northern Ireland rather than a full scale war.”
Is this an issue of terminology or is Stuart arguing that the Israeli police should have entered Gaza instead of the Israeli army? How many Israeli policemen should have died so Stuart could be happy?
| 8 July 2009, 11:04 am |
Stuart, please provide an example of a country that allows neighboring countries to shoot rockets into its towns and just soaks its up.
There’s an implicit sentiment that: “well if it were the Greeks or Turks or Mexicans or French then that’s one thing. But Jews are supposed to run and hide underground like Anne Frank”
| 8 July 2009, 11:22 am |
Indonesia is the “new liberal lefty uncle tom”. We are broke like we were in 1945 but we are broken also in moral terms.The UN. has protected tyrants and consistently failed weak innocents like Kuwait, Papua, The Darfur, Israel circa 1948, et.al. since 1945. There is only one thing worst than dying alone on the cold Afghan antiplano and that is being a young job seeker in the cold multicultural hell of Camden Lock, listening to Harriet Harman!
| 8 July 2009, 11:41 am |
There is only one thing worst than dying alone on the cold Afghan antiplano and that is being a young job seeker in the cold multicultural hell of Camden Lock, listening to Harriet Harman!
Yes, Camden is quite multicultural with all those goths, punks, crusties, hippies, yuppies, cabbies and what not. Very colourful! Not sure about the strange food though, and they allow the shops to open on Sundays! It’s not very British is it?
| 8 July 2009, 11:58 am |
>>Kemp also (correctly, in my view) indirectly criticized Israel’s exclusion of journalists from Gaza during last winter’s war:
The argument is deeply flawed since it rests on the assumption that the generous airtime given by media outlets to Hamas/Palestinian suffering would be matched by equivalent coverage of Israeli/British casualties.
That won’t happen since so much of the broadcast news media is instinctively unsympathetic to western interests in places like Israel & Afghanistan. What coverage we might get would in any case be simply turned on its head & used to push yet another ‘It’s all a disaster-what are we doing here throwing lives away-bring the troops home’ meme.
I think we’ve had quite enough of that already.
| 8 July 2009, 12:26 pm |
The free access of the media compromised Israeli operations in 2006. The Americans learnt their lesson in Vietnam, and have not since, to the best of their ability, repeated the error.
| 8 July 2009, 12:59 pm |
The free access of the media compromised Israeli operations in 2006. The Americans learnt their lesson in Vietnam, and have not since, to the best of their ability, repeated the error.
The Americans have journalists embedded with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t think this has compromised operations to any great extent.
| 8 July 2009, 1:40 pm |
“..Their very modus operandi is built on the, correct, assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules…”
Absolutely spot on and well done that man for putting so clearly what many people have been arguing for so long – that whereas we deal with Hamas and Hezbollox scum according to (allegedly) civilised rules of war they feel free to fight in any underhand and inhumane ways they can and then have the utter nerve to wail their victimhood when we repay them in the same coin.
Any who doubt this should look in al-Grauniad’s archives for their ignominious obituary for Nizar Rayyan, Hamas supporter of suicide murder, who was blown to the hell he so richly deserved on 1st January 2009, surrounded by his wives and whichever children he had not sent on suicide missions to murder Israeli civilians, because he had forbidden them from leaving.
These are the sort of scum who are demanding that Israel and we treat them “fairly.”
And after various lunacies in al-Grauniad previously that the IDF deliberately targets journalists, it’s not so surprising, is it, that they were kept out of Gaza?
| 8 July 2009, 4:02 pm |
Israel also had (Israeli) journalists embedded during the Gaza operation.
Re. Nizar Rayyan, he was indeed a loathsome figure. He was also representative of a trend, namely the growth of Salafism in Hamas, particularly in Gaza. Ahmed Jaabari, commander of the Qassam Brigades, is a Salafi, as are many of his commanders, and as was Rayyan. The growth of this trend in Hamas and particularly in its military wing is very significant, and I am glad to see that the Israeli media have started picking up on it a bit. The foreign press corps, here, of course, havent noticed it as they’re mostly too busy trying desperately to prove to their readers that Khaled Mashal supports the ‘two state solution’.
| 8 July 2009, 4:50 pm |
Joe Camel, 2:33 AM: “Was the Confederacy a democracy? A slave-owning democracy? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?”
Not according to way democracy or as it was usually then called, popular government, was at that time defined. I know it sounds strange today, but it seemed perfectly acceptable at the time. Point out that while blacks, whether slave or free, had no voting rights in the govts of the slave states, most of the free states did not allow black to vote either. Only in the New England states of Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island did the handful of blacks living there in those states have the same voting rights as whites did. In New York, blacks were allowed to vote if they met property qualifications, a restriction that kept most blacks from voting and which had been abolished for white voters, thirty years earlier.
On the general subject of whether democracies would fight each other. Ask yourselves honestly: Given the amount of ethnic, religious or nationalistic hatred involved, and the popular support such hatred has had, would it make any difference if both India and Pakistan were democracies? Would they hate each other any less and fought any fewer wars than they have? How about Greece and Turkey? or Israel and the Arab nations? From all indications, I do not think it would have.
PS: The Irish Republic and Northern Ireland are both democracies, that has not made any difference in the latest round (1969-2007) of the Irish Troubles. If they did not formaly go to war against each other, it was not because they were democratic, it was because in Cold War Western Europe, countries were extremely unlikely to go to war against each other for fear what the Russians would do once their backs were turned.
| 8 July 2009, 5:10 pm |
“The reason people have to have a couple of months or more of basic training is essentially to condition them out of what are the normal genetic responses, so they become efficient killing machines. ”
No, field, that is not the point of basic training. The point of basic training is to get people organized, to form so thay they can operate in organizations, to do thier killing. You seem to think that humans are nt naturally efficient kiling machines. On the contrary, humans kill very efficiently and they show a propensity to this from a very early age. If you doubt this, go spend some time on a schoolyard.
“But organised war is something that followed on the creation of organised states and it is clear that war is primarily a feature of dictatorships. ”
This depends on your definition of what constitutes “organized”. Gangs and clans are not states by any real defintion and they carry on wars that last for generations.
“I can think of hardly any examples of a democracy going to war with another democracy.”
I can think of one big example without even thinking very hard – the Five Nations (Iroquois) were the premier mlitary machine in eastern North America for several centuries, and by any measure that society was a fully democratic republic. This is hardly some obscure example either; Iroquois patronage and protection were crucial to the survival of English > British colonies in North America.
“However I can think of lots of examples of tyrants going to war with democracies or other tyrants or democracies defending themselves against tyrants. ”
Here is your problem in a nutshell: you seem to think there is some sharp dichotomy between democracies and tyrannies. The fact is that the more democratic a republic becomes, the easier it becomes for someone to stir up the mob and become a tyrant. War is a perfect example of this – the minute you give noncombatants the vote, the easier it is to get approval for wars – see the Iroquois above, where women not only had the vote but had significant institutional power. They themselves risked almost nothing in a war, so they were quite willing over and over to send their men off on wars in all directions for the plunder they would bring back.
“The solution to war is to remove the tyrants.”
The solution to war is to eradicate humans.
| 8 July 2009, 5:11 pm |
Joe Camel, 2:33 AM: “Was the Confederacy a democracy? A slave-owning democracy? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?”
Was ancient Athens a democracy, Joe?
| 8 July 2009, 5:46 pm |
Paul Frenkel, is the lunacy described at the following link another indication of the influence of Salafism on Hamas?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1246443716574
(I know that they are a thoroughly joyless lot, but I think we may have found their Achilles heel. Round ‘em up and laugh ‘em into submission).
| 8 July 2009, 5:54 pm |
Jim, good points about both the Iroquois and Ancient Athens. Did not know that the Iroquois women had the right to vote. Did they have right to their husband’s property if he died? Can really see some motivation in voting for war in that case.
The Roman Republic may not have been as democratic as Athens, but it is still a leading example of popular govt. And it was the most successful expandsionistic power of the ancient world.
Jim, good point also about the point of military training is get the recruits to lose their individuality and learn how to fight and kill together as a team, not individuals.
| 8 July 2009, 6:42 pm |
“Did they have right to their husband’s property if he died? ”
Husbands didn’t have property. Property belonged to the family, and women controlled it, just as in Sparta. In fact in that society the family was the woman’s family; men married into their wivesd families, as I recall. This is similar to some kingdoms in ancient Ireland, where a man became king by virtue of marrying the queen of that kingdom. Men couldn’t be in charge of property because they could called away at any time. Men were too expendable to be counted on for continuity.
BTW, this is the root reason that it is nonsense to say that if women ran the world there would be no war. There would be endless war, unless women went into combat just as much as men.
Even in Anglo-Saxon society, men as individuals did not have property; property belonged to families, and men controlled it. This is why women didn’t “inherit”.
“….point of military training is get the recruits to lose their individuality ”
You don’t lose your individuality, or at least that is not the point. What happens is that your loyalties get re-oriented. This happens during the inital training, but it is acknowledged that it happens on a deep level only in actual comabt. In fact this is fianlly being acknowledged int eh US Army as part of the “re-integration” procees, when trops deploy. They come out and tell guys that they are going to have to go home and fall back in love with their wives, because during the deployment their wives have not been their primary relationships. Can’t be. This is a pretty big pill for some guys to swallow, and for me it helps explains some of the energy behind homophobia in the military (not that there is any more than out in civilian society), as scar tissue around a sensitive subject.
The other thing that happens is that you enter a psychological contract in which you delegate some of your authority to make judgements to a leader. This facilitates decision-making in the group, obviously, and removes the need for a huge mass of co-ordinating communication which would be impossible under most conditions, and certainly under fire. This is the same dynamic as you find in a hunting pack.
| 8 July 2009, 6:45 pm |
“The Americans have journalists embedded with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t think this has compromised operations to any great extent.”
Gene, embedded isn’t free access. It’s carefully monitored access.
| 8 July 2009, 7:30 pm |
Was ancient Athens a democracy, Joe?
By the standards of its own time, of course, very much so. But if anyone tried to re-create a state with the same institutions today, notably a disenfranchised underclass — well, the last such experiment was apartheid South Africa, wasn’t it?
| 8 July 2009, 9:28 pm |
Re the Khaled Abu Toameh story – yes, I would suggest that such symptoms as the creation of a morality police in Gaza have obvious Saudi connotations and are clear evidence of the growth of Salafi-style thinking in the movement. The fact that Salafis are concentrated in and leading the al-Qassam brigades, however, is the point of real political significance. If you have the guns, you get to make your voice heard, on all issues, including political ones. These are the trends that foreign journalist and diplomats should be watching, but the sad thing is that what they tend to do is speak to people like Ahmed Yussuf in Gaza. The result is that you get opinions such as those of the ambassador of a major European country who recently told me the following: “Hamas arent Islamists, they are Palestinian nationalists with some Islamic elements.” The lunacy and stupidity of this statement doesnt stop it from being the bon ton among the camel corps.
| 8 July 2009, 9:43 pm |
Jim says of my comments:
“No, field, that is not the point of basic training. The point of basic training is to get people organized, to form so thay they can operate in organizations, to do thier killing. You seem to think that humans are nt naturally efficient kiling machines. On the contrary, humans kill very efficiently and they show a propensity to this from a very early age. If you doubt this, go spend some time on a schoolyard.”
Obedience in stressful situations is at the very heart of a war machine. The new soldier is being made to obey commands and thus disobey his emotions – whether they be empathy, pity, disgust, the urge to flight, the urge to surrender or change sides.
I don’t know what schoolyard you went to but I don’t remember the playground being littered with the dead and wounded. In fact what I remember most was not all out war but cliques, tribes and lots of co-operative effort. Very few people wanted to fight and those that did fight usually did so ineffectively. Of course things have changed more recently – fights between teenagers certainly have become more murderous – but that just shows it has been a cultural change, not a genetic one.
“This depends on your definition of what constitutes “organized”. Gangs and clans are not states by any real defintion and they carry on wars that last for generations.”
I was referring to what the archeological record shows. Warfare developed as a consequence of the neolithic revolution which led to a huge population explosion and the creation of states with agricultural surpluses which could maintain large armies, even standing armies. Of course there was aggression and there were violent clashes before but they were probably not much more sophisticated than the sort of “battles” you get between bands of chimps whose paths cross.
“I can think of one big example without even thinking very hard – the Five Nations (Iroquois) were the premier military machine in eastern North America for several centuries, and by any measure that society was a fully democratic republic. This is hardly some obscure example either; Iroquois patronage and protection were crucial to the survival of English > British colonies in North America.”
I think it was clear in context that I was referring to democratic states with a free media, rule of law, regular elections etc. It is not uncommon for tribes to “elect” their leaders, but I doubt they meet many other democratic norms. However, I shall read up on the Iriquois.
“Here is your problem in a nutshell: you seem to think there is some sharp dichotomy between democracies and tyrannies. The fact is that the more democratic a republic becomes, the easier it becomes for someone to stir up the mob and become a tyrant. War is a perfect example of this – the minute you give noncombatants the vote, the easier it is to get approval for wars – see the Iroquois above, where women not only had the vote but had significant institutional power. They themselves risked almost nothing in a war, so they were quite willing over and over to send their men off on wars in all directions for the plunder they would bring back.”
The facts are against you. Let’s leave the Iroquois out of this.
In terms of the last 100 years, and in terms of states recognised in international law here is a list of tyrannies, monarchies or dictatorships warring with each other or democracies that I can think of:-
Imperial Russia, Soviet Union, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Japan under Imperial rule, Mao’s China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Paraguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Argentina, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Kampuchea, Honduras, Greece, Egypt, Indonesia, Libya, Morocco.
Democracies versus democracies:-
Well I can’t think of one unless you are going to include the Cod War between the UK and Iceland.
I suppose one can note that the democracies with empires did engage in armed conflict to suppress the peoples of those Empires. But in a sense that makes my point as well – that is a case where democracies were wearing two faces: democracies at home and tyrannies abroad.
“The solution to war is to eradicate humans.”
France and Germany engaged in three major wars between 1870 and 1939, just short of 70 years. There had been numberless wars between French and German states for hundreds of years before that.
In the last 65 years peace has reigned between the two countries and they have even united in a strong and peaceful union. It is simply not credible to think that if these two countries maintain their democratic constitutions they will ever go to war again.
There will be conflicts but conflicts can be contained, as they usually are in life.
| 8 July 2009, 10:41 pm |
“It is not uncommon for tribes to “elect” their leaders, but I doubt they meet many other democratic norms.”
“Democratic norms’” vary depending on who defines them. If I define freedom of speech as a democratci norm, where does that leave most european polities?
Tribes – it is at least a litlte ….um, problematic to characterize the Five Nations as a tribe as opposed to European states. Let’s just leave it at that.
“However, I shall read up on the Iriquois.”
Good. You will find that the last ttwo of your conditions:
“I think it was clear in context that I was referring to democratic states with a free media, rule of law, regular elections etc. ”
Applied to them. Aspects of their Constituion foreshadowed ours, although theirs wasn’t written, which is no hindrance, is it?
“The facts are against you. Let’s leave the Iroquois out of this.
In terms of the last 100 years, ”
That’s narrowing the field way down form the sweeping claims you made earlier. Well, that’s progress.
“In the last 65 years peace has reigned between the two countries and they have even united in a strong and peaceful union. ”
Not a good example to support your argument. For 45 of those years the US and the Soviet Union policed that peace, in effect. So far they have gone 18 years without butchering each other, which is a long time for Europeans. Best of luck to them both.
“Obedience in stressful situations is at the very heart of a war machine. The new soldier is being made to obey commands and thus disobey his emotions – whether they be empathy, pity, disgust, the urge to flight, the urge to surrender or change sides. ”
Do you get your understanding of war from comic books?
Obedience in stressful situations is the very heart of all sorts of stessful situations, some of which have nothing to do with war. The standard of discipline on a merchant vessel is at least as strict as in any military unit.
“The new soldier is being made to obey commands and thus disobey his emotions ”
Non sequitur. What basis to have for asserting that the orders don’t accord with the soldier’s emotions? You have none because you can have no real idea of what his emotions are, can you?
“….whether they be empathy, pity, disgust, the urge to flight, the urge to surrender or change sides. ”
Empathy with whom? His fellows or the enemy that is trying to kill him? Are you really serious? Do you mean to say that a soldier’s emotions are going to be based on equal love and concern for all people without distinction? Study after study shows that the over-riding concern of most soldiers is a horror at letting down their buddies, and that this can even lead to atrocities committed against explict orders. That’s the “disgust” that the soldier feels.
“I was referring to what the archeological record shows.”
That’s a methodical error right there. As the saying goes “Not all possums are born dead by the side of the road.” Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Bottom line – warfare didn’t start with the Neolithic.
“Warfare developed as a consequence of the neolithic revolution which led to a huge population explosion and the creation of states with agricultural surpluses which could maintain large armies, even standing armies. ”
You don’t need a standing army to mount devasting wars – the Cheyenne and Lakota managed very well as hunter-gatherers, and the Comanche even better. They very nearly prevented to formation of the state of Texas. The Tlingit conducted slave raids as far south as the mouth of the Columbia and were feared all up and down the coast.
In New Guinea people mange to fight continually with very small forces.
“I don’t know what schoolyard you went to but I don’t remember the playground being littered with the dead and wounded. ”
Columbine? Paducah, Pearlsboro…..?
“”In fact what I remember most was not all out war but cliques, tribes and lots of co-operative effort.”
Ah. you think there is some kind of opposition between conflcit and cooperative effort. in fact they are two sides of the same effort. People cooperate in groups for the purpose of conflict with other groups.
“Of course things have changed more recently – fights between teenagers certainly have become more murderous – but that just shows it has been a cultural change, not a genetic one. ”
The change has been the availability of deadlier weapons. The contention that it is a change of motive is undemonstrated, at least here. It is moot to debate whether the motive is cultural or genetic, since it is the genetic nature of humans to generate culture, and the cultures we generate are limited by our biology.
“By the standards of its own time, of course, very much so. ”
Joe, the point was that the standards of that time are every bit as valid to defining democracy as the standards of this time are. In the case of democracy, the standards of that time are probably more valid that ours are since “democracy” is an Athenian invention and the word an Athenian coinage.
| 8 July 2009, 11:55 pm |
Jim, atomism, too, was an Athenian invention but it doesn’t mean that Leucippus and Epicurus could have walked into Rutherford’s laboratory and solved his equations for him.
| 9 July 2009, 12:16 am |
Not that much time to respond. Confine myself to these points:-
1. I was never denying that violence and conflict have been part of human society since the year dot. The issue is whether that has always been conducted with the ferocity and consistency that warfare demands. The historical and archeological record suggests no – particularly not when the human population was much lower and competition for resources much less.
2. The Native Americans of what is now the USA were in a very strange position following the beginning of European colonisation. However, one notes how helpful and co-operative they tended to be towards the original settlers.
The Native Americans’ way of life was completely disrupted by the arrival of Europeans. As you no doubt know, the horse was a European introduction. Once it was mastered by NAtive Americans, violent raiding became a much more common phenomenon.
| 9 July 2009, 6:14 am |
Generally, I sign on as Anat, but I am not the person using the name above.
| 9 July 2009, 4:48 pm |
“The issue is whether that has always been conducted with the ferocity and consistency that warfare demands. The historical and archeological record suggests no – particularly not when the human population was much lower and competition for resources much less.”
Got it. I agree there. Industrial-scale warfare pretty much requires an industrial state to wage it, though a few well-organized horsemen can come pretty close to the same effect. The Mongols flattened Baghdad about as effectively as the Brits flattened Dresden. But the Mongols were anomalous; that’s one reason that they were so successful in the first place.
“However, one notes how helpful and co-operative they tended to be towards the original settlers. ”
When they weren’t being unhelpful. The Wampanoag under Massasoit welcomed the English at Plymouth, and the under his son Metacom tried to exterminate them when they had become too numerous. Nick Griffin would understand perfectly. Something similar happened in Virginia.
And it’s not evry useful to lump Native americans inot one group and Europeans into anojter. For instance, one way the the Objibwe and the Huron were “helpful” to the French was in wiping out English settlements. and this was total war – male captives were tortured as public entertainment rather than being held for ransom as in Europe, civilians were slaughtered so the winners could settle the land, except for the children and those women who were kidnapped to become slaves or perhaps eventually members of society they found themsleve in. In fact a prpensity to tiorture and a preference for total war as a default setting are a major contribution of Native Americans to general American culture, right down to the present day.
“Jim, atomism, too, was an Athenian invention but it doesn’t mean that Leucippus and Epicurus could have walked into Rutherford’s laboratory and solved his equations for him.”
Yes, but poor analogy. Your point si that the concept of democracy has developed. Well yes, but that development is very recent and may really just be semantic decay. As recently two hundred years ago demoocracy was still a synonym for mob-rule, at least in America, and seen as probably the shortest path to tyranny.
“What have you given us, sir?”
“A republic, if you can keep it!”
That’s what Franklin had to say on the subject.
| 9 July 2009, 7:19 pm |
Jim –
Yes, they reacted violently and with alarm once they realised that the Europeans were there to take their land and treat them like second class citizens.
Reading up on the Iriquois, I noted that at their height the Iriqouis are stated to have numbered 12,000. Yep, 12,000. I think only the Vatican has a smaller number of citizens than that – kind of puts your comments in context I think.
| 9 July 2009, 11:49 pm |
“Yes, they reacted violently and with alarm once they realised that the Europeans were there to take their land and treat them like second class citizens. ”
Oh my. That sounds exactly like BNP. The parallels are quite obvious – at that time the English were a starving band of immigrants, present only at the pleasure of the local government, barely able to stay alive and hovering in their own little ghettos. The modern term for what Metacom was trying to do is ethnic cleansing. You may (completely ahistorically) imagine that the Englsih were some mighty colonizing force, sweeping all before them, but that simply doesn’t square with the facts of the situation in the seventeenth century in North America. The modern term for that is White Supremacy.
“Reading up on the Iriquois, I noted that at their height the Iriqouis are stated to have numbered 12,000. Yep, 12,000. I think only the Vatican has a smaller number of citizens than that – kind of puts your comments in context I think.”
Actually that puts your comments in context. Estimates of Native American population figures are notoriously shaky. They are basically baseless, and beyond that tendentious; they appear intended to show that since there were so few of these people, the land was basically empty, so the whites were basically right in coming in and taking. And that’s the line you are repeating here.
BTW, what was the population of London during the same period – 1150-1700? Equally easy to dismiss as inconsequentially small?
My God, a British officer who isn’t pandering to fashion. Whatever next!