Someone posted a link to this CNN story for the purpose of some Israeli bashing (or bashing of Israeli bashers, I didnt bother to check which it was). However, what struck me as important about the story is that US Military advisers are telling members of the press some very non-flattering things about Israel designed to make the American public believe that this is a war of choice, not of necessity, almost as if the Pentagon is saying "We refuse to be drawn into another war in the Mid East on top of the one that we can not win in Iraq." It is not beyond the realm of possibility. They refused to wage an air war against Iran when W. wanted one back in early 2005, choosing instead to leak the whole thing to Sy Hersch. They refused to even consider nuking Tehran to teach it not to have nuclear weapons. So, why shouldn't the US Military draw a line in the sand and refuse to send troops it does not have across that line into yet another middle Eastern battle field?
Here is the CNN link
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/06/rs.01.htmlAnd here, before CNN has a chance to scrub their site, is the quote:
KURTZ: And joining us now ... Thomas Ricks, Pentagon reporter for "The Washington Post" and author of the new book "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq."
Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other? THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.
KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?
RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.
KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.
RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."
There is another thread in which people can post whether or not they believe that any of the accusations made by US military sources are true. I am much more interested in the fact that they are telling the Pentagon reporter for the Washington Post these suspicions.
Any comments?