WaPo Reporter: Israel Wants Its Citizens to Die — for the P.R.!
A Washington Post reporter says that Israel is deliberately leaving Hezbollah rockets standing, so that Israel can suffer civilian casualties, for the propaganda benefits it brings. He attributes the allegation to “military analysts” — but also says he believes it.
I bet “military analysts” are also telling him the Mossad was behind 9/11 and the doctoring of the Reuters photographs. They read it in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Allah says that this is dangerously close to a blood libel. He’s a master of understatement, that guy.
In his interview with Hewitt, he attributes the charge, not to Israeli military analysts, but to US analysts.
His transcript on CNN left the clear impression that it was Israeli analysts making these charges.
From his interview with Hewitt….not so much.
Army Lawyer (6853dd) — 8/7/2006 @ 7:55 pm[…] How come nobody ever calls to quote me as an “unidentified Army officer”–come on, I got LOTS of opinions. (h/t Patterico) […]
An Army Lawyer :: Tom Ricks: Back Slidin’ Man :: August :: 2006 (2f634e) — 8/7/2006 @ 8:20 pmI don’t know who Ricks’ anonymous military analyst sources are, but one he has used openly before gives me cause to question his judgment. This is William S. Lind, a U.S. military analyst who is also an avowed monarchist. Not George III, mind you, but Kaiser Wilhelm II. That’s a rather strange view for an American. Here is another piece in Counterpunch; Look at the material at the top, before Lind’s column began. Gives you an idea of whom he’s hanging out with.
Bradley J. Fikes (3a9d62) — 8/7/2006 @ 8:47 pmAnd in another article, Lind called Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah “terror bombing from the air.” It would not surprise me one bit if Lind is one of those unnamed sources.
Ricks was a bit regretful about the controversy on Hewitt’s program. He says he wishes he’d shut up. He also retreated from the certainty that he had it right. Pretty poor show for MSM. The book sounds interesting, like Imperial Hubris was interesting. A well written contrary view. Unlike most of what the left puts out.
Mike K (416363) — 8/7/2006 @ 9:35 pmMaybe, if Ricks ever wants a change Reuters will offer him a job.
Mike K (416363) — 8/8/2006 @ 7:22 amRicks handled himself well during Hewitt’s polite interrogation. But Ricks should take this as a warning to get some new sources who don’t spout such obvious nonsense.
Bradley J. Fikes (3a9d62) — 8/8/2006 @ 7:29 amthe reporter’s statement reminded me of some recent statements by officials in our own administration when three gitmo detainees committed suicide. the camp commandant called it an “act of asymmetric warfare against the u.s.” and the deputy secretary of state for public relations called it “a good p.r. move.”
assistant devil's advocate (6a0abe) — 8/8/2006 @ 9:10 amnow that we have pervasive media, spin is another martial adjunct. it won’t be long before our military academies teach a course on talking to reporters and the public.
” it won’t be long before our military academies teach a course on talking to reporters and the public.”
That’s probably a good idea. I know that in beginning reporting classes they train reporters how to pick apart press releases.
sharon (03e82c) — 8/8/2006 @ 9:59 amWhile I can’t speak for the military acadamies, we do try to advise soldiers and commanders on the ramifications of talking to the media.
Working off the basic presumption that the media are lying sacks of dogshyte that will sell you down the river in a heartbeat, I have told commanders to avoid talking to media if possible but if it’s required, be truthful but also be responsible and avoid giving them anything that could be considered unduly “lurid.”
Army Lawyer (498217) — 8/8/2006 @ 10:20 amWhile not exactly the same, I think that Israel is sacrificing the lives of its soldiers and civilians in order to appear more sympathetic in the eyes of the ‘world community’…
Everytime an Israeli soldier in Lebanon lets a terrorist get away because the soldier wasn’t allowed to shoot because some ‘civilians’ might be killed, or every time the Israelis hold fire until after Hezbollah has launched their rockets, they are giving that terrorist a new lease on life… and that terrorist, as terrorists world-wide are apt to do, will gratefully thank their benefactor by trying to kill as many Israelis as possible.
Israel isn’t keeping its military from taking more aggressive action against Hezbollah because they so highly value the lives of Lebanese ‘civilians’, they are doing so because it keeps them from looking (quite) so bad in the eyes of the Israel-hating world. It’s almost as if the Israelis have decided it is better for some number of Israelis to die in order to deny the anti-Semites of the world another propaganda photo-op. Why else would the Israelis have subjected their troops in the West Bank to ambush , instead of staying back and using artillery and airstrikes a number of years back? Why else would Israel be holding back right now?
And, by the way, we’re doing the same thing in Iraq, where our troops are being killed because of the restrictive ROEs placed on them as a result of Bush’s desire to avoid the bad press that goes with some Iraqi civilians getting killed or the destruction of some religious site (notwithstanding its use by the terrorists). I have no doubt that a good many of the American soldiers who have died in Iraq would still be alive if our troops were allowed to fire before they see the “whites of their eyes”…
steve sturm (d3e296) — 8/8/2006 @ 1:44 pmWar is hell, and the side which voluntarily takes hell out of their arsenal is the side that loses.
If you want to win you must attack the enemy, violently, directly, and with every weapon at your disposal. To do otherwise is to prolong the conflict, to increase human suffering, and to invite defeat.
War is not a popularity contest, it’s a bloody fight for survival itself, and the only way to victory is to kill the enemy before he kills you, and your wife and children. That’s what’s at stake.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 8/9/2006 @ 10:35 am