The Foreigners Gift: The Arabs and Iraq

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by NEO_CON, Jul 23, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hardly an impartial character, is he?
  2. Is any one impartial about Iraq ?

    He is knowledgeable and speaks arabic. He has written many books about the area. He a lebanese Shia American. He has traveled to Iraq and interviewed all the major players. He is also a good friend of Leslie Gelb who opposed the Iraqi war from the outset. A nuanced perspective. His opinion is as informed as anyone's.
  3. Now? Probably very few, if any.

    He is also someone who advocated and promoted the US invasion Iraq before it happened. He is a true blue de facto neo-con. Expecting Professor Fouad Ajami to say anything serious to undermine the Iraq adventure is akin to expecting Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle or Wolfowitz to do so. Indeed, he was one of Paul Wolfowitz's advisors on the jolly jape. He's about as biased as they come on this subject!

    Mind you, I'd like to hear his comments on the Israeli aggression against his own country and people...
  4. I would also like to hear his opinion on Israel's attempt to get rid of Hezbollah.

    He is a American that is his country. Are you trying to say Israel attacked the US.
  5. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Why divert military assets from attacking the Hezbollah scum in the south and send them to destroy Lebanese infrastructure et al.

    But, if you haven't read it already, he recently wrote an interesting piece about how Nasrallah was holding Lebanon hostage, and failed miserable to mention the bombing at all. I would have expected that he would have mentionned it if he agreed with it, wouldn't you? I mean, if Israel is only ridding the "hostage" Lebanon of its kidnapper Hezbollah, you'd have thought he might say thanks or similar.

    See here: Hostage to Hezbollah

    America is his 'adopted' country.

    Militarily? No. But some looneys seem to think Hezbollah has attacked the US militarily.
  6. Merkator

    So it wasn't Hezbollah who ran suicide bombers into the US embassy and the Marine barracks????

  7. Year????

    Relevance to current events????

    How far back in history are we 'allowed' to go to justify current actions?
  8. 1 Hezbollah's reach is not just in the south but extends into the suburbs of Beirut an the Becka valley
    Look at a map and see where these places are at.

    2 Israel needs to Isolate Hezbollah's reinforcements and resupply. It needs to stop those rockets. I am no expert at that ,but my understanding of that is to cut command and control ,destroy the ability to move supplies, by blowing up bridges ,destroying communication facilities and destroy their command centers which are located in civilian buildings. Hezbollah uses civilian neighborhoods to hold supplies and hide firing sites

    3 The destruction of those civilian buildings creates civilian deaths and generates negative news coverage.

    4 Israel needs to change the status quio on its northern border

    5 Israel is in a better position to judge which targets are the best to attack. It knows the area better than the US the EU or the UN.
    Will this work for Israel , I don't know but they need have to try given the situation?

    This is just the military component the political component even Lebanese are not sure about.

    I had not read the article. very good article . He is one of my favorites
  9. Indeed.

    First, the combined airpower of the US and its NATO allies FAILED to disrupt the reinforcement and resupply of the VJ in Kosovo - even though they were dropping bridges to the NORTH of Belgrade! What makes the IDF think it will succeed where the USAF failed?

    Second, other than DEBKA, there is NO indication that Hezbollah is receiving any reinforcement and resupply whatsoever. Indeed, Israeli intelligence is now spinning the story - to justify its border incursions - that they are attacking underground storage facilities close to the border. Israeli intelligence also reported back in 2004 that Hezbollah already had over 13,000 122mm rockets, of which it now reports about 2,000 have been fired. Either Israeli intelligence is accurate and there is no need for resupply - or it's false. So what else is false?

    Third, other than Israeli sources, do you have any evidence that Hezbollah is operating from civilian sites. Its a claim that seems to be ingrained into everybody's psyche without question, and yet????

    Fourth, notwithstanding my 3rd point, it is indeed a standard tactic. For example, the ABiH (that's the Bosnian Muslim Army for those not up to speed) were notorious in using this tactic to encourage the Serbs to return fire. Siting their mortars inside Kosevo hospital is a well known example. In that particular conflict, it was the Serbs who were condemned not the ABiH. Hypocracy in play again I fear.

    And finally, the prerogative is upon the attacking force (the IDF) to ensure that each and every target that they are attacking is - AT THAT VERY MOMENT THAT THEY ATTACK - being used by the enemy (Hezbollah). If there is ANY doubt about it, they should NOT attack. However, it seems the IDF takes the view that ANY target is game and then, if they screw up, they can claim it was a terrible event, but that Hezbollah are clearly to blame because they (the IDF) thought they (Hezbollah) were there!!!

    Indeed. And I hope it will also result in some prosecutions at the Hague or similar.

    Well it's certainly doing that - and for the worse!!!

    Is Israel following sound military logic or ancient scripts?

    Indeed it is. And why Israel and the Intl Community should have elected to work with the Lebanese government to remove Nasrallah rather than seek to destroy it!
  10. This is your assertion not his . I think you must have your own agenda.

  11. Met Professor Fouad Ajami in December 04 twice, attended a workshop with him. His first remark after his introductory speech was that he's proudly a student of Paul Wolfowitz way back when Wolfowitz was at Johns Hopkins. About as biased as they come indeed.
  12. It is indeed my assertion, and please do tell which part you disagree with. Was it that..

    1) Professor Fouad Ajami advocated and promoted the US invasion Iraq before it happened, or
    2) Professor Fouad Ajami is a true blue de facto neo-con, or
    3) Professor Fouad Ajami's politics on the 'enforcing Arab democracy' question are comparable to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle or Wolfowitz, or
    4) Professor Fouad Ajami was one of Paul Wolfowitz's advisors regarding the Itaq invasion, or
    5) Professor Fouad Ajami is about as biased as they come on this subject.

    I suggest a little background reading on the matter. Start here with Iraq and the Arabs' Future in Foreign Affairs January/February 2003. Then move on to The Sentry's Solitude in Foreign Affairs November/December 2001 and The Prospects: Lebanon and its Inheritors in Foreign Affairs Spring 1985. Have a look here too: Keep going through some of his other work, especially that relating to Iraq and intervention - plenty out there - and compare what he's writing to Cheney/Wolfowitz/Pearle doctrine.

    And finally, a wee quote to start you off:
    So, before the Iraq invasion, Cheney is using Ajami's predictions to justify intervention - which as we all know, turned out to be wrong!!!!