August 10, 2006
The Buck Stops Where?
Who? Me?!
By URI AVNERY
Today, the war entered its fifth week. Hard to believe: our mighty army
has now been fighting for 29 days against a "gang" and "terrorist
organization", as the military commanders like to describe them, and
the battle has still not been decided.
Yesterday, military sources in Israel announced that 400 of the 1200
Hizbullah "terrorists" have been killed. That's to say, a mere 1200
fighters have been standing against the tens of thousands of our
soldiers, who are equipped with the most advanced weapons on earth, and
hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens are still under rocket fire
while our soldiers continue to be killed.
WHO? ME? Now everybody already admits that something basic has gone
wrong in this war. The proof: the War of the Generals, that previously
started only after the conclusion of a war, has now become public while
the war is still going on.
The Chief-of-Staff, Dan Halutz, has found the culprit: Udi Adam, the
chief of the Northern Command. He has practically dismissed him in the
middle of the battle. That is the old ploy of the thief shouting "Stop
thief!" After all, it is obvious that the person mainly to blame for
the failures of the war is Halutz himself, with his foolish belief that
Hizbullah could be defeated by aerial bombardment alone.
But it is not only at the top of the army that mutual accusations are
flying around. The army command accuses the government, which is
retaliating in kind.
On the eve of his downgrading, Udi Adam publicly accused the government
of tying his hands. Meaning: the government is guilty. Ehud Olmert did
not remain silent and declared that the army had not submitted any
plans for widening the campaign. That's to say: if you are incompetent,
don't blame me!
To justify himself, Olmert added a significant sentence: "From the
first day of the war, the government has not refused the army a single
request!" In other words, it is the Chief-of-Staff who makes policy and
conducts the war, while the political leadership just rubber stamps
everything that the army "requests".
But this is a sterile debate, because it ignores the main fact, which
is becoming clearer from day to day: it is altogether impossible to win
this war. That's why nothing is working as planned.
PLAN? WHAT PLAN? Years ago the military commentator of Haolam Hazeh,
the magazine I was editing at the time, got fed up with the boast the
our army excels in improvisation. "The ability to improvise," he wrote,
"Is just another name for our inability to plan."
According to the reports, the Israeli army has been preparing for this
war for more than three years. The last exercise took place a month
before the war started and included the invasion of Lebanon by land
forces. It is clear that the command did not anticipate a campaign that
would last for four weeks and more. What the hell! After all, it was
against a small gang of terrorists. This just confirms the dictum that
even the best war plan does not survive the first day of war.
THE WAR OF THE POOR. It is quite clear that the army command's
wonderful plan did not include the defense of the rear within rocket
range. There was no plan for the solution of the hundred and one
problems emanating from the attack on Hizbullah: from the protection of
the civilian population from thousands of missiles to the necessary
economic arrangements when a third of the country's population is
living under bombardment and is paralyzed.
Now the public is crying out, and soon the ministers and generals will
have to try to find somebody to blame for that, too.
For this war is being fought on the backs of the weak, who cannot
afford to "evacuate themselves" from the rockets' area. The rich and
well-to-do have got out long ago - in Israel as well as in Lebanon. The
poor, the old, the sick and the handicapped remain in the shelters.
They are the main sufferers. But that does not cause them to oppose the
war. On the contrary, they are the most vociferous group in Israel
demanding "to go to the end", "to smash them", "to wipe them out".
That is not new, either: the weakest in society always want to feel
that they belong to the strongest nation. Those who have nothing become
the biggest patriots. And they are also the main victims.
Those who initiated and planned the war cynically flatter the
inhabitants of the North, who are stuck there, calling them "heroes"
and lauding their "wonderful steadfastness".
UNITED CYNICS. Now the end of the killing depends on the UN.
David Ben-Gurion called it contemptuously "UNO-SHMUNO" (UM-SHMUM in
Hebrew). In the 1948 war, he violated its cease-fire resolutions
whenever it suited him (as a soldier I took part in some of these
actions). He and all his successors over the years have violated almost
all the UN decisions concerning us, arguing (not without justification)
that the organization was dominated by an automatic anti-Israeli
majority, consisting of the Soviet bloc and Third World countries.
Since then, the situation has changed. The Soviet bloc has collapsed
and the UN has become an arm of the US State department. Kofi Annan has
become a janitor and the real boss is the US delegate, John Bolton, a
raving neo-con and therefore a great friend of Israel. He wants the war
to go on.
The name of the American game is: to give the Israeli army more days,
and perhaps more weeks, to go on with the war, to pursue the mirage of
victory, while pretending to make great efforts to stop the war. It
seems that Olmert has promised Bush to win after all, if given time.
The new proposals of the Beirut government have lit red lights in
Jerusalem. The Lebanese government proposes to deploy 15 thousand
Lebanese troops along the border, declare a cease-fire and get the
Israeli troops out of Lebanon. That is exactly what the Israeli
government demanded at the start of the war. But now it looks like a
danger. It could stop the war without an Israeli victory.
Thus a paradoxical situation has arisen: the Israeli government is
rejecting a proposal that reflects its original war aims, and instead
demands the deployment of an international force, which it objected to
strenuously at the start of the war. That's what happens when you start
a war without clear and achievable aims. Everything gets mixed up.
GENERALS AND COMMENTATORS. I have a proposal to solve all the problems
caused by this war: to switch the generals and the commentators.
The generals have not excelled in conducting the war. But they and
their comrades, the ex-generals, have proved themselves excellent
commentators. They have crowded everyone else out of the studios,
created a national consensus and silenced all real criticism. (Except
one sort of criticism: Why do we not advance deeper into Lebanon? Why
haven't we reached the Litani? Why don't we go beyond the Litani? Why
don't we eradicate the Lebanese villages from the face of the earth?)
On the other side, the broadcasts prove that the military commentators
know exactly how to wage the war. They have forceful opinions and
plenty of expert advice. They know when to advance and where, which
troops to deploy and what weapons to use.
So why not let them conduct the war?
MACHOSTAN. The battery of generals that appears every evening on all TV
channels in order to give a "briefing" (a.k.a. propaganda) to the
nation, are all male. They bring with them a token woman, a real beauty
who bears the title of "army spokesperson" and serves mostly for
diversification. The commentators on TV are, of course, tough guys, and
so are almost all the other speakers.
The rule of males is underlined by the fact that the Foreign Ministry
is headed by a woman. Since the foundation of Israel, the Ministry of
Defense has been the realm of he-men, who look with disdain upon the
Foreign Office, which is always considered feeble and effete. Now, too,
the Foreign Office is a sickly limb of the "defense establishment".
Tsipi Livni, who once aroused hopes, is a parrot of the army - as
Condoleezza Rice is the parrot of Bush.
War is, of course, a matter for men. That's how it was from the
beginning of the human race, and perhaps even before. A tribe of
baboons, for example, when faced with danger, automatically adopts a
defensive formation: old males, women and children in the center, young
males in a circle around them. There is only one difference between
them and us: their leader is always the wisest and most experienced of
the tribe.
The love of the human male for war - a phenomenon we have had the
opportunity to observe from close up these last few days - is connected
not only with this biological heritage. War assures the total dominance
of the males over society. It also assures the total dominance of the
generals over the state.
If we believed that that would change with a government headed by
civilians, we were obviously wrong. The opposite is true: the civilians
who pose as war-leaders are no better then the generals. A veteran
general might even have learned something from his experience.
I am going now to say something I did not think I would ever utter: It
is quite possible that we would not have slid into this foolish war if
Ariel Sharon were in charge. Fact: he did not attack Hizbullah after
the withdrawal in 2000. One attempt was enough for him. Which proves
again that there is nothing so bad that something worse cannot be
found.
The lust for war also explains the talking choir of the hundreds of
ex-generals, who think and talk in unison in favor of the war. A cynic
would say: what's the big deal, after all it's the army that gave them
their standing in society. They are important only as long as the
conflict between Israel and the Arab world continues. The conflict
guarantees their status. They have no interest whatsoever in its
resolution.
But the phenomenon is more profound. The army is the crucible for
senior officers. It shapes their world outlook, their attitude and
style. Apart from the settlers, the senior officers' corps - in and out
of uniform - is today the only ideological party in Israel and
therefore has a huge influence. It can easily gobble up a thousand
little functionaries like Amir Peretz before breakfast.
This is why there is no real self-criticism. At the beginning of the
fifth week, the slogans are again: Forwards! To the Litani! Further!
Stronger! Deeper!
[Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.]
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08102006.html
.
|
