View Full Version : Operation Pillar of Cloud
BrokenSwitch
11-15-2012, 18:32
Operation Amud Anan ("Pillar of Cloud" in English) is underway, now that Israel has had it up to here with Hamas. :lifter
Timeline of events so far:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/southern-israel-under-fire-air-force-strikes-terrorist-targets-in-gaza/
It sounds like the air force is softening all the targets, while the infantry is marshaled.
This was written by a friend of mine who lives in Be'er Sheva:
http://unitedwithisrael.org/beersheva-under-rocket-fire/
Background information:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/15/jonathan-schanzer-why-israel-attacked-gaza/
I'm in Jerusalem, where I've been staying since January.
More stuff
IDF pummels Gaza, orders call-up, after rockets encroach on Tel Aviv
http://www.timesofisrael.com/southern-israel-under-fire-air-force-strikes-terrorist-targets-in-gaza/
"Rockets hit Gush Dan area for first time since 1991 Gulf War; Israel suffers first three fatalities after rocket hits residential building in Kiryat Malachi............."
From the BBC
Egypt PM Hisham Qandil decries Gaza 'disaster'
"Egypt's prime minister has condemned Israeli attacks on Gaza as a "disaster" during a short visit to the territory.
Hisham Qandil, who went to a hospital and talked to Hamas political leaders during his three-hour visit, said Israel's "aggression" must stop.
The Israeli military struck at more than 130 targets overnight and militants fired 11 rockets from Gaza........................"
And in America they wonder what's on TV tonight.
Hamas missile launch pad next to mosque
http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2012/11/15/photo-hamas-missile-launch-pad-near-mosque-playground-civilian-factories-gas-station-also-half-a-block-from-fajr-5-site/
"PHOTO: Hamas missile launch pad next to mosque, playground. Civilian factories, gas station also half a block from Fajr-5 firing site...................."
So Russia and Turkey call Israel's response "disproportionate" (*yawn*). I wonder if their sense of proportion would be better satisfied if Israel randomly rained thousands of rockets onto Palestinian civilians for a few years. Just saying.....
I wonder how many rockets Hamas got from our friends in Syria.
...or from our friends in Egypt?
...or president Imajimmyhat in Iran?
...or from the 'protestors' in Libya?
If these damn Jews would just surrender, and march into the sea, all of this violence against Jews would stop.
Silly Jews.
BrokenSwitch
11-16-2012, 06:35
Be'er Sheva is being at least partially evacuated, and foreign students near Ashdod are being moved somewhere north.
mark46th
11-16-2012, 09:06
I find it interesting that Mahmoud Abbas decided to return to the Gaza when it was attacked. Our president decided to go to Las Vegas while our embassy in Benghazi was under attack...
Embassy schmembassy...
...he had campaigning to do.
Embassy schmembassy...
...he had campaigning to do.
Yes and it worked....:mad::mad::mad:
Israeli air strikes hit Hamas HQ
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20374282
"............There was another series of strikes in and around the city after 05:00, with several targeting Hamas's cabinet buildings, which correspondents say were likely to have been empty.
Another of the targets was the house of a Hamas leader in Jabaliya, north of Gaza City................"
When I read that I got a chuckle. Remembered when Clinton bombed the Sudan and got the night janitor.
Iron Dome intercepts 2 Fajr-5 missiles aimed at Tel Aviv
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=292277
"The Iron Dome intercepted two Iranian-made Fajr-5 missiles aimed at Tel Aviv on Saturday. The missiles marked the third attack on the heavily populated central city in as many days, after Palestinian terrorists from Gaza fired four missiles toward the financial capital on Thursday and Friday, prompting red alert air raid sirens to sound in the city................"
From deeper in the story....
"In total, Palestinians fired 740 rockets toward the Jewish state since the beginning of Operation Pillar of Defense on Wednesday, but only around 30 landed in built-up areas. Iron Dome intercepted 230 projectiles in total, maintaining a 90% intercept rate. Only 27 of the rockets, about 4 percent, ultimately landed in urban areas.........."
740 is a bunch of explosive rockets. Wonder how many of the countries bad mouthing Israel's reaction would act if somebody fired 740 rockets into their country?
CloseDanger
11-17-2012, 14:21
On the demo at CovertContact. (http://covertcontact.com/fulldemo/index_gaza.html)
Sophisticated Hamas Underground Missile Launchers
Interesting video clip
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162190#.UKjF6RipaUd
Shows you a little of what Israel is up against.
mark46th
11-18-2012, 09:24
I would think that the Israeli's have the same ballistic tracking capabilities as the U.S. I hope a return shot was enroute shortly thereafter as it appeared to be a stationary launcher...
I think they watched a bunch of them being built - and when things heated up they just started going down their target list.
BrokenSwitch
11-18-2012, 12:56
Iron Dome intercepts 2 Fajr-5 missiles aimed at Tel Aviv
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=292277
From deeper in the story....
"In total, Palestinians fired 740 rockets toward the Jewish state since the beginning of Operation Pillar of Defense on Wednesday, but only around 30 landed in built-up areas. Iron Dome intercepted 230 projectiles in total, maintaining a 90% intercept rate. Only 27 of the rockets, about 4 percent, ultimately landed in urban areas.........."
Iron Dome tracks the trajectory of the rockets, and only intercepts the ones flying toward populated areas. In a war where the enemy's rockets are $100/unit and the defense is $10K per unit (or more), it makes more sense. It also makes the system harder to jam when multiple rockets are launched. Thus, the 88-90% success rate despite being significantly lower than the total fired. It doesn't make the sirens any less scary, however.
Friday evening, a rocket set off the sirens here in Jerusalem, though it exploded south of the city in an open area.
Badger52
11-19-2012, 06:36
740 is a bunch of explosive rockets. Wonder how many of the countries bad mouthing Israel's reaction would act if somebody fired 740 rockets into their country?
The BBC has been slipping up recently. No – I don’t mean to refer to unpleasant recollections of Savilegate and McAlpinegate. Let us just leave them conveniently on the Corporation’s CV. Instead I am wondering why it took the BBC so long to get into its full propaganda mode in its reporting of the war between Israel and Hamas.
...
By contrast, Hamas deliberately targets innocent women and children in Israel. That is the sole purpose of their rocket attacks. Let me spell it out: what terrorists do is propagate terror.
Article, and the comments run the gamut. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100190323/finally-the-bbcs-pro-palestinian-propaganda-machine-has-swung-into-action/)
Blackrambo
11-19-2012, 23:26
I personally don't care for Israel. They should defend themselves and if they get destroyed so be it. Would you SF guys fight side by side with Isaelites to defend their homeland the way you do in our current war? Or should I say it like this, how far will these conflicts have to escalate before U.S. forces intervened if we do?
charlietwo
11-20-2012, 00:13
I personally don't care for Israel. They should defend themselves and if they get destroyed so be it. Would you SF guys fight side by side with Isaelites to defend their homeland the way you do in our current war? Or should I say it like this, how far will these conflicts have to escalate before U.S. forces intervened if we do?
Whether US military personnel will fight alongside Israelis is solely dependent on the current administration and the DoD. There may very well be covert support, but any overt, on-the-ground personnel support of Israel if things get really bad seems highly unlikely under the Obama administration.
If Israel is destroyed, that would be a good thing in your mind? Would any evidence sway your opinion into the "I don't want to see Israel destroyed" category? Or is that set in stone?
Be sure to consider what sort of power vacuum would be created if Israel WERE destroyed. Also, consider the second and third order effects of that situation. IMHO, it would lead to bad things at home and abroad and I don't desire seeing any of those dominoes falling.
You root for Israel's enemies at your own peril, but you are afforded that freedom.
I personally don't care for Israel.
Please elaborate. Is your problem with Israel or Jews?
TacOfficer
11-20-2012, 11:37
Indiscriminately lobbing hundreds of unguided rockets at a civilian population without regard in my opinion does not have the keeping of a legitimate government It doesn't bode well for the people that live within Gaza when they support terrorist regimes.
My sympathies for them evaporated when they voted Hamas and Hezbollah into power.
mark46th
11-20-2012, 14:44
In 1973 I was in SE Asia. My team was alerted to go to Israel at the start of the Yom Kippur war. I would have gone gladly and served proudly with the IDF...
Blackrambo
11-20-2012, 16:37
Please elaborate. Is your problem with Israel or Jews?
I think they have too much influence over our politics and I can't fathom why. I don't understand why they are so important to our society. I dont hate Jewish people, I just dont understand why we protect them.
BrokenSwitch
11-20-2012, 17:13
More updates - the blogger lives in or near Jerusalem and he reports on the rocket launches and sirens across the country. Here are his feeds:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Muqata
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Muqata
Blog: http://muqata.blogspot.co.il/
From my end... lots of helicopters flying south in the last 48 hours, especially CH-53s. They're a beautiful sight, flying at rooftop level. :munchin
Between Muqata and my friends elsewhere in Israel, I'm hearing that there's rioting and rock attacks (read: rocks, molotov cocktails, etc) in Shechem and Hevron and along some of the main roads in the Yehuda/Shomron region ("West Bank" in the diplomatic vernacular). Despite Hamas sympathies, I don't see this turning into any kind of campaign against the PA; I hope it does not turn into a second front for Israel.
The Reaper
11-20-2012, 17:55
I personally don't care for Israel. They should defend themselves and if they get destroyed so be it. Would you SF guys fight side by side with Isaelites to defend their homeland the way you do in our current war? Or should I say it like this, how far will these conflicts have to escalate before U.S. forces intervened if we do?
First, tell me what are the Palestinians shooting at?
Then what are the Israelis firing on?
That should answer the question for anyone with the intelligence to read.
TR
Slightly off topic but a response to blackrambo:
The idea that Israel has out sized influence over America politics is an idea that is rarely rationally considered by those that advance it. Most people who advance the idea ignore the history of American/Israeli relations and so they advance a theory that can not explain the known facts .
In brief, America supplied very little in the way of arms and ammunition up until just before the Yom Kippur war. Before the Yom Kippur war, the US was very sparse in its military aid and such aid that was given mostly came from Democratic politicians. After the Yom Kippur war, military aid shot into stratospheric heights from which it never came down. And this support started under the most anti-Semitic President the US has ever had and has continued with every President regardless of party.
Why the sudden change? Jews suddenly take over America? Americans suddenly felt more positively about Israel in the past? No evidence for this position. Americans suddenly more worrying about Israel future. No evidence for this either.
In my opinion the answer is more prosaic. American military aid closely tracks the best estimates of Israel developing the bomb. The Yom Kippur war is the first war in which we have circumstantial evidence that Israel may have thought about turning Arab cities into glass. Since then, I think that America has made the decision to insure that Israel feels very secure in its conventional arms and so does not get tempted to resort to its unconventional arms.
In other words, I think American Jews have very little to do with America's policy towards Israel and the fear of lots of sand being turned into glass has a lot to do with America's policy towards Israel. As Aerial Sharon was reputed to have said, "The Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."
craigepo
11-20-2012, 18:18
I think they have too much influence over our politics and I can't fathom why. I don't understand why they are so important to our society. I dont hate Jewish people, I just dont understand why we protect them.
1. How do you pick your friends?
2. How do you pick who you protect?
Badger52
11-20-2012, 18:36
Americans suddenly more worrying about Israel future. No evidence for this either.Are you discounting any American altruism following the YK war? That is, there was really no interest in seeing a small country of free people remain so, though they be surrounded by despots who wish to wipe them off the face of the Earth? Is it altruistic if the goal is to avoid a nuclear exchange, or just another American impure motive?
Are you discounting any American altruism following the YK war? That is, there was really no interest in seeing a small country of free people remain so, though they be surrounded by despots who wish to wipe them off the face of the Earth? Is it altruistic if the goal is to avoid a nuclear exchange, or just another American impure motive?
Badger,
There have always been people in America that supported Israel. There have always been people who have been less than supportive of Israel. What changed all of the sudden during the Yom Kippur war? And why did America not support Israel during previous wars? I may be misreading you, but you come across as someone who believes that America's support for Israel was there right from the very beginning. This was not the case.
I think if you read enough American history you will find that American politicians can be very cynical when it comes to dealing with even their closest allies. Margret Thacher found this out the hard way when she had her little problem in South America.
That said, I don't know for sure why things changed any more than the next guy. All I know is that there is a reasons why America might have chosen to suddenly change policy towards arming Israel. Whether it was "the" reason is something I am not going to get to dogmatic about. However, I did develop (and support) that argument that it was the bomb a little more fully here http://etherealland.com/cheiftainofseir/2006/04/11/on-the-fear-of-matches/.
I may be misreading you, but you come across as someone who believes that America's support for Israel was there right from the very beginning. This was not the case.
Please explain why "this was not the case" and please source that.
I think if you read enough American history you will find that American politicians can be very cynical when it comes to dealing with even their closest allies. Margret Thacher found this out the hard way when she had her little problem in South America.
Please explain why/how Margret Thacher found out "that American politicians can be very cynical when it comes to dealing with even their closest allies" and please source that as well.
Thank you.
I think they have too much influence over our politics and I can't fathom why. I don't understand why they are so important to our society. I dont hate Jewish people, I just dont understand why we protect them.
What is your evidence that "they" have "too much influence over our politics?" (Who are "they," what is the nature of their influence, how do they get it?)
When you have a moment, I am hoping that you'll explain how your line of thinking makes the transition from taking issue with U.S. policy towards Israel to talking about how you don't hate Jews and how they've somehow not made important contributions to Western Civilization in general and our society in particular.
FWIW, while I'm not a big believer in the lessons of history, I do think that the military history of the Western world provides plenty of examples of what has happened when factors like racial and ethnic identity, religious belief, and nationalism have figured prominently in the causes of war.
Please explain why "this was not the case" and please source that.
Please explain why/how Margret Thacher found out "that American politicians can be very cynical when it comes to dealing with even their closest allies" and please source that as well.
Thank you.
Most of the documentation of my arguments about Israel is found in the link I provided in my last post (see http://etherealland.com/cheiftainofseir/2006/04/11/on-the-fear-of-matches/). But I can understand if that essay to long for you given the time constraints we all face. So here is one sources I used http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/phantom.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/phantom.html) And here is another source http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_tripartite_1949.php
I should perhaps clarify that by support I mean the sales of arms. America gave verbal support to Israel right from the very beginning. But it seems to me that if you support the creation of the state of Israel but refuse to sell it arms when it is attacked (as Truman did) then your actions speak louder than your words.
As for Margret Thacher, my source was her memoirs. But since I don't have them handy, I hope you will forgive me using this wall street journal article instead. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454.html) The article references all the main pints that I remember from Margret Thacher memoirs but it puts a different slant on them.
The thing that I remember from Mrs. Thacher's memoirs is how hurt she was that Regan would not take a more public stance in support of the UK. But she was very grateful that he over ruled Alexander Haig and did not totally leave the UK on its own (which is how she felt until the meeting at which Haig was overruled). However, she felt that Haig continued to work against UK interests even after other elements of the US government started supplying support (the article describes this as Haig being granted a lot of lee way to do what he wanted to do).
Given that Regan was one of the more idealistic Presidents that we have had, I personally suspect that a different President would have gone down the route that Haig wanted Regan to go down. At any rate, it is hard for me to think of a nicer word than cynical to describe the policy that Haig and his allies wanted to pursue.
I hope this answers your questions satisfactorily. If you want more, I can provided more. But it will take more time for me to dig it all back up.
Badger52
11-20-2012, 21:18
I may be misreading you, but you come across as someone who believes that America's support for Israel was there right from the very beginning.You did, and not necessarily if you're judging that 'support' is evidenced by arms sales. Regimes, including American ones change. I was asking for some nexus to the conclusion you arrived at, setup by the process of elimination you laid out.
I hope this answers your questions satisfactorily. If you want more, I can provided more. But it will take more time for me to dig it all back up.
Re: Israel; skeptical but digesting.
Re: Thacher; GTG. I guess for me it was a perspective thing. As part of the "help" provided the Brits I felt very much appreciated. As for the EWAUS, I never read about any conflict between us and our cousins. Although at the time most of our real assistance was covert or behind the scenes. So I guess for Maggy, it was a perspective thing too.
BTW, isn't Margret Thachers perceptions a little bit off the Pillar of Cloud topic?
It was interesting times back during the Falklands War.
The US is located in the Americas, England is not. The US had/has a large Latino population, England did/does not.
There were many, many "las Malvinas" signs and Argie flags all over the US at the time. A very large segment of the Latino population was solidly behind Argentina. Our team was with a Bn of the 7th down at Ft Huachuca during that period and you could see it when you went off post.
I would say that played a part in the US's public support.
BrokenSwitch
11-21-2012, 06:30
Bus bombing in Tel Aviv today at 12:02PM local time. 21 injured; none killed.
Another bomb was found and destroyed in-place next to the Mahane Yehuda marketplace in Jerusalem.
BrokenSwitch
11-21-2012, 13:09
Apparently a ceasefire is in effect as of 9PM local time.... yet schools in Ashkelon and the Eshkol regions are closed tomorrow.... because no one trusts the Arabs. :eek:
UPDATE: 9:02 PM Air Raid Sirens in Merhavim Region
UPDATE: JPost (http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=292959) reports 12 rockets fired into Israel after the ceasefire was announced. No injuries; Israeli government might be paralyzed, thanks to Obamallama. I suppose we'll see in the morning.
UPDATE: 12:44AM local time -- 20 rockets have been fired into Israel since the "ceasefire" began. An 11 y/o was injured by one of these rockets. Netanyahu's public affairs office is catching hell.
We cease, they fire.
Re: Thacher; GTG. I guess for me it was a perspective thing. As part of the "help" provided the Brits I felt very much appreciated. As for the EWAUS, I never read about any conflict between us and our cousins. Although at the time most of our real assistance was covert or behind the scenes. So I guess for Maggy, it was a perspective thing too.
BTW, isn't Margret Thachers perceptions a little bit off the Pillar of Cloud topic?
Everything I was talking about was off topic of Israel's current operation against Hamas. I unwisely got excited enough by someone who was of the opinion that the "Jews" have to much influence on the American political process to proffer my opinion that American has a hardheaded interest in Israel's security that go beyond ethnic kinship of a small portion of the voting public.
I only dragged in Margaret Thatcher in response to someone who seemed to be arguing that American's political establishment makes decisions on idealistic grounds. My argument was that hard headed political calculus complicated the American response to our historical ally under one of our most idealistic Presidents. The point I was trying to make is that is should not seem so strange that there might be more than good feelings behind America's policy towards Israel.
But to clarify, Margaret Thatcher had nothing but praise for how the Department of Defense responded when the chips were down. She loved Weinberger almost as much as she dislike Haig. There was a reason why Weinberger was given a Knighthood.
Her main problem was that Reagan sat on the fence for a month instead of calling her up and saying "What can I do to help?" This fueled her domestic opponents who were convince that the UK could do nothing and America was going to sell the UK up the river like Eisenhower did.
Reagan had reasons for doing what he did and now is not the place to talk about them. Bottom line is that he and US military came through when it really counted and I am sorry if people took me to imply otherwise.
ZonieDiver
11-22-2012, 11:34
Not to pick nits...
but - it's Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
Nit-picking completed. Back to the feast.
Not to pick nits...
but - it's Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
Nit-picking completed. Back to the feast.
Yep, just like any other Thanksgiving family get together .... Now we just need that "Drunk Uncle" to make it complete. :D
BrokenSwitch
11-22-2012, 12:46
Video showing rocket barrage over Be'er Sheva (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M-BQtp4Www)
Where is their Allah now? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZbBCBt2s8o)
Not to pick nits...
but - it's Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
Nit-picking completed. Back to the feast.
They told me that on the Internet no one could tell if you were a dog, but it keeps coming out. That is what I get for writing to fast. Thanks for the correction.
They told me that on the Internet no one could tell if you were a dog, but it keeps coming out. That is what I get for writing to fast. Thanks for the correction.
Sometimes I write too fast, too. ;)
Richard :munchin
Dozer523
11-23-2012, 08:00
. . . . I don't understand why they are so important to our society. . . . . I just dont understand why we protect them.
Righteousness. If we did not stand by them we would be less than who we should be.
I don't understand why they are so important to our society.
They are important to our Western cultural ideals - to our sense of conscience and humanity towards the treatment of people in general.
That said, I don't know for sure why things changed any more than the next guy. All I know is that there is a reasons why America might have chosen to suddenly change policy towards arming Israel. Whether it was "the" reason is something I am not going to get to dogmatic about. However, I did develop (and support) that argument that it was the bomb a little more fully here...
Conveniently leaves out huge chunks of our complex ME/ANS foreign policy development as a component of our global foreign polcy commitments in the 70s-90s and fails to explain why a similar policy towards mineral rich and nuclear capable SA was never developed.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Conveniently leaves out huge chunks of our complex ME/ANS foreign policy development as a component of our global foreign polcy commitments in the 70s-90s and fails to explain why a similar policy towards mineral rich and nuclear capable SA was never developed.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin[/QUOTE]
South Africa never had a conventional threat that was equivalent to what Israel still faces to this day. As I recall, South Africa pursued nuclear capability primarily to deter direct Soviet involvement of the type that Cuba provided.
On their own, SA's neighbors never had a chance of over running South Africa. And even if they did have the conventional arms to accomplish that feat, the geography of SA is such that it would take weeks before SA felt that it had to make the call of using them or loosing them.
By contrast, Israel could theoretically have to make the choice in a matter of hours if a fast moving tank thrust was not stopped at the border. So I would argue that the reason American never felt as concerned about SA's unconventional weapons had a lot to do with likelihood that they would ever be used.
As for you other points, I doubt you want to discuss them at any length as much as I would find it enjoyable. I will just note that...
A: Anyone who thinks they have a simple all encompassing answer in this complex world is a fool. Insofar as I come across as someone who thinks he has a simple all encompassing answer, I come across as a fool.
B: I am aware of the standards answers for why US policy changed so dramatically in the 70s. I am just not convinced that they are very credible explanations on their own especially as they tend to leave out events now known to have taken place (Israel arming a bomb during Yom Kippur and Nixon knowing about it for example).
C: I would think that it would be obvious that any nation acquiring nuclear weapons in unstable and strategic region would cause a change in US strategic calculus. At the same time, it is obvious that the America response would be different if Israel was a one party police state. It just frustrates me that changes in US calculations caused by Israel's becoming a nuclear power have received so little attention. And this is why I tend to come across as a fool with one simple answer.
Maybe what a person knows isn't the truth.
The Cold War’s Arab Spring
http://berlinski.com/node/176
"Stolen Kremlin records show how the Soviets, including Gorbachev, created many of today’s Middle East conflicts.
TABLET, June 20, 2012
The dominant narrative of modern Middle East history emphasizes the depredations visited upon the region by European colonization and accepts as a truism that the former colonial powers prioritized the protection of their material interests—in oil, above all—above the dignity and self-determination of the region’s inhabitants. Thus did botched decolonization result in endless instability....................."
We always knew the the USSR was involved - the question was "How much?"
I wonder how much is true, how much is twisted - and how much is pimping a new book.
Badger52
11-23-2012, 15:04
I wonder how much is true, how much is twisted - and how much is pimping a new book.QP Pete, thanks. I'll try to give this a critical read or three when I get the chance. Зима здесь долгая и холодная.
Must be a giant; the Kindle version is a freebie right now at Amazon.
They showered the region with an Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and KGB-fabricated documents alleging that Israel and the United States were dedicated to converting the Islamic world into a Jewish colony.I'd like to know if any of the area specialists here are aware of this being a driver/motive behind the violence seen in the region to the present day, versus the (apparently) explicit deals made. What's the sense as to whether this disinformation effort exists or existed, as a fan to the region's fires? I am conceding that they sought out, trained & embraced surrogates - totally consistent Soviet behavior. Only the source geography is different.
Ivan was always a little smoother & their motives took longer to discern (as opposed to situations where they used their ball-peen hammer Bulgaria, to whom everything looked like a nail.) I do recall reading some years back some archives that indicated their institutional paranoia took awhile to fall because they really didn't realize that NATO was geared up for a defensive war - just as they were. Unfortunately for us some of their awareness was gained in some of their best (and our most embarassing) espionage efforts.[/segue']
Badger52
11-27-2012, 19:12
I wonder how much is true, how much is twisted - and how much is pimping a new book.A re-look at your original question having slogged through it a first time.
First thing I noticed was the lack of anything representing a technical (or even modestly interesting) description of how the author's "moderate" modifications to a computer (not a purloined password) allowed him to have unprecedented external access from within the archives. Had to laugh, it was almost a deus ex machina literary ploy. But, ok, whatever. You completely subverted the security in the bowels of an archive - even operating from within it - of one of the most paranoid societies on the planet.
(Credibility of the source strike-1.)
To read or not to read tip: One may want to skip to Ch. 18 "The Pyrrhic Victory" - which is basically his statement as to how things came to be post DESERT STORM, and his insistence that all he's laid out before supports that. Then decide whether to go back.
I'm not convinced he does, strictly on meeting & politburo notes alone. He has words but I don't think possesses (or at least displays) sufficient knowledge of motive. I'm not saying here the Soviets weren't/aren't some pretty manipulative creatures - to the contrary. I just don't think he gets there. And, of course, his primary sources for the western side are openly-published autobiographical memoirs of the principals (G.H.W. Bush, James Baker, et al.). Even the real candid ones will come away in print, from the other side of the same meeting, with a different flavor - and are usually painted differently too.
One of the themes that plays underlying his thesis is para 10 of President Bush's NSD 54 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd_54.htm), which promised much more punitive measures and regime change as an explicit goal if Hussein had, among other things, hurt Kuwaiti oil fields. And like most I vividly remember a US consensus at the time of "C'mon! Go all the way, finish him now! What are you stopping for?"
In sum, some of the meeting records are interesting and it seems consistent with general Soviet conduct in addressing other actual or potential spheres of influence. Not really earth-shattering; alot of stuff happened just because of the way it happened.
In baseball it's a walk, but uncertain whether because he had a good eye, or was the pitcher just off his game for the moment.