Pretty sneaky, Aziz!
Anyway, I’m not sure which country is more likely to launch a catastrophically stupid pre-emptive military strike (assuming we could even agree on a definition for one), but I’d guess that Israel is somewhat more likely to have a catastrophically stupid nuclear accident, seeing as they already have nukes and all.
Do you have a cite for this, or at least a nudge in the right direction? A quick google search didn’t reveal much.
With the little that I know, it was the Western European and US political interests that “created” Israel.
The homeland issue and the right-to-exist issue are both non-issues… They could have claimed part of Siberia as Israel if they wanted. Stealing someone else’s land for the past 60 years can be legitimately considered as an act that the OP is asking about.
Historical roots and religious ties have been ignored and dismissed repeatedly in our modern world over and over and over and over and over again in many cases for many different groups of people, so that argument is a non-issue either.
Therefore, as a subjective answer to a subjective question, the “catastrophically stupid” label can easily be applied to May of 1948.
Except the OP was pretty obviously asking about doing stupid things regarding Israel and Iran’s nuclear programs in the present day. You just latched on to a two word phrase in the OP and used it to launch your own asides about the history of Israel.
We seriously have just about every Israeli thread (or thread about things that are near Israel, or related to Israel, or rhyme with the word Israel) hijacked by people that want to rehash the same argument about the existence of the state itself. Whether you think that founding Israel is a good idea or not, it would be kinda cool if we could limit the argument regarding it in threads that are actually about the founding of Israel.
I don’t mean to discredit IBN Warraq but at least IMHO from an Army perspective, having been though countless (joint even) exercises this means absolutely nothing.
Enemy forces during every training event are always, always represented as far more advanced, numerically superior, better trained, what have you. I recently was able to observe a full spectrum training event (basically a sort of return to war fighting techniques pre-9-11 with currently COIN lessons learned thrown in). The event featured a modern, battle tested, combat brigade that IMHO could EASILY go toe to toe with any force in the world.
Guess what happened? They got their butt’s kicked. But that’s what is supposed to happen. If the exercise, and I think it’s the same for the Navy, always ended with the training unit winning the ‘fight’ the training value would be dismal at best.
If the Marine MG resigned (I assume from his role as opposing forces command and not from the Corp itself) because of this, something I find highly unlikely, his career is most likely over. His role, as the opposing forces commander, is to challenge the training unit. The fact that half the force was reconstituted only helps the training unit gain more from the rotation and in no way reflects anything unfair or underhanded.
Again IBN, if I’ve misrepresented what you read, witnessed or participated in, I apologize. I’ve been through so many training scenarios, many them in a joint environment. I’ve heard countless stories like this but know most of them to be untrue when you’re a part of the white cell or the OC (observer controllers) system.
I recall hearing about the incident; it was used at the time as an example of how badly partisan politics and the neocon “make your own reality” attitude had infiltrated the military. As I recall the story, it was politically unacceptable that Iranians would do well in the exercise; the people standing in for the Iranian were not allowed to succeed because that was not a politically allowable victory.
Heck, on time I got be on OPFOR for a small-scale exercise in how to handle interactions with Afghan civilians. Had a blast. We got to ambush people, do drive-by shootings, plant booby-traps… I once walked up to a sentry with a thunderflash hidden in my sleeve… it was hilarious.
Interesting Der Trihs … really hasn’t been my experience at all with training events/exercises. Commanders do get hot under the collar from time to time but that’s to be expected. If true I think the U.S. Navy needs to get some thicker skin.
The other weird part of that is that we don’t typically use real nations as the ‘enemy’ its usually a fictional nation … so unless the Navy does this VERY differently I still see a lot of red flags here. Hell wouldn’t the state department raise holy hell about this …
Well remember this was during the Bush Administration, where it was standard for military reality to take a back seat to political dogma. Just like Rumsfeld declaring that the relatively small occupation force he wanted would work because his dogma required it to work, regardless of what the generals or history said. It made news because it wasn’t the way the military was supposed to do things.
Republicans seem fond of this sort of thing; I recall the attempt to show that “Star Wars” could work by intercepting missiles that it turned out were remote detonated.
I’ve got to add that I don’t see anything remotely stupid from Iran’s point of view in developing nuclear weapons. They have every reason to believe that the US/UK/others would benefit from invading, if only from the point of view of oil reserves. They have a recent past example of an invasion that received tacit support from the US/UK/others (as Iran did receive a fair degree of support during the Iran - Iraq war). They have numerous examples of recent western intervention in regional affairs. They have obvious, well documented issues with two countries (KSA, Israel) who receive extensive western military support.
Let me put it another way. Exactly what do they stand to lose by continuing with this program?
Gary and Der,
Interesting, if bizarre, read. At the risk of further derailing this thread we might move this somewhere else?
That said … I think the Marine Lt. Gen. was wrong. Not for having those ideas but for playing outside the rules outlined in the scenario. I promise there were numerous conferences before this exercise where left and right limits, the opposing forces methods of communication/operation what have you were spelled out. Controller’s often hold the opposing forces back, it’s about the training value of the event not about how much pain you can inflict on the unit. As GEN Pace, in the article, said, “You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days’ worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"
Forces are reconstituted all the time in training. If they weren’t it would be a HUGE waste of time and taxpayer money.
I need to add that it’s the training unit’s training objectives, that they (the training unit) determine that SHOULD drive the exercise. If one of their training objectives is to conduct offensive operations against defensive position on a beach head and the opposing forces blows them up while their still out to sea, did they get to even practice their training objective? No. If one of their objectives was to test their ability to intercept radio or computer messages and the bad-guys relies on motorcycle riders with hand written messages are they helping the unit? Again no.
Interesting article but, and I think recent history has point this out, pointless. The only thing the Marine general did was distract from the training, a major no-no. I guessing he wasn’t invited to back for another play date.
Concur completely with the Rumsfeld opinion … concur completely.
Wrong.
Millennium Challenge 2002 was touted as being an unscripted, free play exercise.
http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-292925-1060102.php
To be blunt - Van Ripper did a fantastic job of trying to make the exercise a success, by actually looking at realistic tactics an enemy might use. These proved incredibly successful. That is good, because what is the point of a war game if not to learn something? Reset, repeat, and try a different counter…
…or, as happened in this case, throw a tantrum, insist that they Red’s winning isn’t fair, and then reset with the Red force following strict instructions on what they do.
I won’t hijack this any further though, so if you wish to discuss just why Van Ripper was somehow wrong in this please start a new thread.
Gary,
I agree, but I think it says scripted, not unscripted. That IMHO changes things quite a bit.
Not much point in rehashing the decisions made during an exercise that happened in 2002 anyway.
Thank you though, those were interesting reads.
Oh noes, an anti-American agenda! Heaven forbid that the whole world doesn’t prostrate itself at the feet of the Great Superpower!
So when I said “Or does Israel get a pass because it’s, y’know, America’s best buddy?” you meant “Yes, yes it does.” Right.
Once Iran gets the nuke, international pressure will back off and they will be less likely to do something stupid. Israel on the other hand thinks it faces perisistent existential threats.
History suggests this thought process is not an unreasonable one.
True, but it’s a reasonable concern that can easily produce unreasonable behavior.