DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22867--------------------------------------------------
Re: War
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 17, 2023, 5:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-fighting-two-fronts-may-210422134.html
[quote]Fighting on two fronts may be too much for the IDF
Israeli military chiefs are concerned about springing a trap in
which they commit ground forces to a Gaza invasion but then face
an assault from Hezbollah in the north, forcing them to fight a
war on two fronts.
The Israel Defence Forces [IDF] insists it can win such a war
despite concerns it would suffer very heavy casualties at the
Israel-Lebanon border and inside Gaza.
But avoiding a multi-front war in the first place is a “critical
strategic goal” of both the Israeli army and the United States,
according to Israeli media reports.[/quote]
Hence we want the multi-front war to happen.
[quote]This all creates a burning question for Israel: how many
troops should it commit to a Gaza offensive, and how many should
be held back to defend the northern region?[/quote]
This is why.
[quote]The Jerusalem Post also reported that Israeli officials
believe “Hezbollah is waiting for the moment that most IDF
ground forces are committed to Gaza to open a full front with
the IDF in the north,” citing unnamed sources.[/quote]
This is the correct tactic.
[quote]Israel’s first line of defence appears to be relying on
the United States deterring Iran and its lead proxy Hezbollah
from joining the fray: Washington has already sent two aircraft
carriers to the region.
...
If deterrence failed and the United States had to enter the war
with Israel, a priority target would be Hezbollah’s missile
launch sites in southern Lebanon.[/quote]
But why does the US "have to" enter the war? Israel isn't a NATO
member!
[quote]Even with US support, managing a Gaza invasion and
defence of the north simultaneously would be an immense task,
and one that the IDF has not faced before.
Behind closed doors, its leadership is probably hoping that it
never has to.[/quote]
Now imagine the same scenario without US support. This is what
we should be aiming at.
HTML https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-face-fighting-second-front-133446747.html
[quote]All eyes are on Gaza because, "as the ground offensive
looms", analysts fear the move could be the "red line" that
prompts Hezbollah to "fully enter the conflict" and open the war
on another front.
The ramifications of this could be profound. "Will there be
world war three?" asked Niall Ferguson in The Sunday Times. If
Israel "finds it cannot contend with a three-front war", with
the West Bank joining Gaza and Lebanon, and then turns to the US
for military help against Iran, we will have "reached one of
history's hinges", he said, and "the future of the world will
turn on it."[/quote]
The realistic (the US joining in on the Palestinian side is
unfortunately too unrealistic to consider) best-case scenario is
as follows:
1) Israel, confident in US backup, invades Gaza.
2) Hezbollah invades Israel.
3) The West Bank invades Israel.
4) Iranian troops invade Israel from Syria.
5) Israel calls for US backup.
6) US stays out.
How do we maximize the probability of 6)? I suggest that if,
between 1) and 2), a NATO country is attacked (which requires a
US military response), the US will have an excuse (NATO
obligations take priority) to avoid involvement in the Israel
war.
So, anyone want to attack a NATO country? How about an invasion
of Poland from Belarus, for example?
Of course if the US could be persuaded to stay out purely on
ideological grounds, that would also suffice.
#Post#: 22879--------------------------------------------------
Re: War
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 18, 2023, 12:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yellen (who also looks like what we would expect) is already
onto our strategy and trying to counter it:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zdN7JFV8-o
Previous Yellen coverage:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/jews-have-nothing-in-common-with-us!/msg7534/#msg7534
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/jews-have-nothing-in-common-with-us!/msg13435/#msg13435
#Post#: 22882--------------------------------------------------
Re: War
By: OctoberWar Date: October 18, 2023, 12:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"How do we maximize the probability of 6)? I suggest that if,
between 1) and 2), a NATO country is attacked (which requires a
US military response), the US will have an excuse (NATO
obligations take priority) to avoid involvement in the Israel
war."
If Israel nuked Iran are we sure that Russia and China would
launch against Israel? If Israel were threatened with nukes
would the U.S. go nuclear against Russia and China? I bring this
up because:
[quote]October War: Israel Hinted to the US at Using Nuclear
Weapons
The October 1973 war, a defining moment in the Arab Israeli
conflict, continues to be a subject of intense scrutiny for both
Arab and foreign researchers.
Decades since its outbreak, new information and previously
classified documents have come to light, adding complexity and
controversy to the narrative of this historic conflict.
Two distinct narratives have emerged, each presenting a vastly
different perspective on the War.
The first narrative portrays it as a decisive military victory
for the Arab armies, backed by regional support and underscored
by the significance of oil as a diplomatic weapon.
The perspective emphasized the role of Arab military forces in
challenging the Israeli tanks and fighter jets.
On the other hand, the Israeli narrative praises Tel Aviv's
response to the surprise attack on what they call "Yom Kippur."
It highlights Israel's reaction as it faced the unexpected
assaults by Egyptian and Syrian forces in the Sinai Peninsula
and the Golan Heights.
However, amid these conflicting narratives, questions persist
about the proper sequence of events during this pivotal war.
As the 50th anniversary approaches and Egypt and Syria have yet
to release their classified documents, there is an increasing
urgency to revisit and reassess the war records, particularly
regarding communications between the US and world leaders.
- Failure or Overconfidence?
The Israeli surprise from the sudden Arab attack on October 6,
1973, sent shockwaves through various military fronts, creating
significant confusion.
It was to such an extent that US Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger found himself seeking answers about whether Washington
had received any prior warnings about the impending war that
were disregarded.
A classified document numbered 63, summarizing meetings at the
US State Department on October 23, 1973, sheds light on the
situation.
It reveals that Kissinger personally reviewed all pre-war
intelligence, outlining a strategy rooted in the unique
US-Israeli relationship.
The Director of Intelligence at the US State Department, Ray
Cline, attributed the failure of intelligence to predict and
prevent the war to their reliance on Israeli assessments.
Signs indicating imminent military action by Egypt and Syria had
accumulated as early as September 1973.
Back then, King Hussein of Jordan warned Israeli Prime Minister
Golda Meir that the Syrian army was in position and ready for
action.
- Hours before the Battle
As the clock approached the afternoon of October 6, 1973, the US
National Security Council (NSC) held an emergency session to
discuss the evolving situation in the Middle East.
A memo from NSC member William Quandt reveals the chaos of that
meeting and the heated debates about the seriousness of the
Egyptian-Syrian attack and the Soviet evacuation of families
from Cairo and Damascus.
The document also highlights an intelligence consensus that Arab
states were not prepared to wage war against Israel as long as
the military balance remained uneven.
However, the military balance would soon shift dramatically with
the outbreak of the conflict.
- Soviet Message
The Soviet Union sent a message to Nixon and Kissinger on that
fateful day. The message conveyed that Soviet Premier Leonid
Brezhnev, like the US, was surprised by Egypt and Syria's
decision to go to war.
Brezhnev considered this a significant miscalculation and
expressed concerns about a catastrophic military or political
event for the allies, Egypt and Syria.
- Initial Assessment
Considering the time difference, while it was afternoon
Washington time, the National Security Council was meeting
regarding developments in the Middle East.
"As Israelis observed Yom Kippur, the Egyptians and Syrians
launched their attacks. Just after 2:00 PM (Cairo time), 100,000
Egyptian troops and 1,000 tanks engulfed Israeli forces on the
east bank of the Suez Canal while 35,000 Syrian troops and 800
tanks broke through Israeli positions on the Golan Heights,"
according to the meeting memo.
In the meeting, attendees discussed several options for dealing
with risks arising from the cutbacks in Arab oil production and
the consequences of a heavy defeat for the Arabs.
Kissinger's advisers proposed reducing Soviet influence,
provided that it could not result from a "major Arab defeat"
because that could endanger US interests in the region, destroy
the possibility of a settlement, and weaken "moderate" Arab
regimes.
The advantages of finding ways to "minimize" Arab "loss of face"
required serious consideration.
- Kissinger and Eban
Another US memorandum documents a conversation between Kissinger
and Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban at 9:07 AM, during which
the US official indirectly assured that Washington would not
immediately go to the Security Council.
Later, Eban spoke with Kissinger's executive assistant, Lawrence
Eagleburger, and registered his appreciation that Kissinger
would defer UN action so that Israel had "time to recoup its
position."
During this time, it was clear to the US that the Soviets were
interested in a cease-fire, and so was President Hafez al-Assad,
if the fighting stopped, he would have control of the Golan
Heights.
Sadat, however, was not ready to halt until he had a stronger
position on the Sinai.
- China exchanges
By 9 PM in Washington, Kissinger conversed with Chinese
Ambassador Huang Zhen. He told the Chinese diplomat that
Washington's "strategic objective is to prevent the Soviets from
getting a dominant position in the Middle East."
Kissinger wanted to demonstrate to the Arab states that "whoever
gets help from the Soviet Union cannot achieve his objective."
The Chinese were sympathetic to the Arab cause, so Kissinger had
to be able to ensure progress on Arab grievances.
Perhaps this prompted Kissinger to attempt to reassure the
Chinese ambassador, stating that it would be possible for
Washington to offer security guarantees for "new borders after
the settlement."
- The Second Day
Despite half a century since the war, the first page of a
document between Kissinger and Israeli Ambassador Simcha Dinitz
is primarily illegible, except for a few scraps on US supply of
Sidewinder (air-to-air) missiles and bomb racks.
However, it provides interesting details on the early moments of
the war, such as Israeli cabinet debates on whether to preempt
or not.
Apparently, advice that Kissinger had given in the
past--"whatever happens, don't be the one that strikes
first"--played no small part in Meir's thinking.
- A miserably tough day
During the first day of the fighting, Arab forces made
significant gains. Given the tremendous strategic value of the
Golan Heights, so close to Israeli population centers, the
Israelis started to throw in units there first.
To keep officials abreast of developments, the State
Department's Middle East Task Force, lodged at the Department's
basement Operations Center, regularly issued "sitreps" on
military and political consequences.
At the end of the second day of the fighting, it showed a grim
situation: "major losses on both sides," a "miserably tough day"
for the Israelis.
- Pivotal Moment
The ninth and tenth of October 1973 can be considered a pivotal
battle moment.
The Egyptian and Syrian armies surprised everyone with a
resounding defeat of Israeli tanks, which had attempted to
regain control of the situation in Sinai and the Golan Heights.
Early Tuesday morning, Kissinger received a call from Dinitz
that Israeli forces were in a more "difficult" position. A
counter-offensive launched the previous day had failed with
significant losses.
Dinitz acknowledged that the Israelis had lost over 400 tanks to
the Egyptians and 100 to the Syrians.
He explained that Egyptian armor and surface-to-air missiles
were taking their toll in the air and ground battle, and the
Israeli cabinet had decided that it had to "get all equipment
and planes by air that we can."
Kissinger, who had assumed that Tel Aviv could recapture
territory without significant aid infusions, was perplexed by
the bad news--"Explain to me, how could 400 tanks be lost to the
Egyptians?"
Dinitz and Kissinger met privately, without a notetaker, to
discuss Meir's request for a secret meeting with Nixon to plea
for military aid, a proposal that Kissinger quickly dismissed
because it would strengthen Moscow's influence in the Arab
world.
- Nuclear blackmail
In a remarkable turn, the document also reveals that to
underline the situation's urgency, "Dinitz may have introduced
an element of nuclear blackmail into the private discussion."
Meir had rejected military advice for nuclear weapons use. She
had ordered at least the arming and alerting of Jericho missiles
to influence Washington.
According to the document, "Kissinger has never gone on record
on this issue, and no US documentation on the US Israeli nuclear
posture during the war has been declassified."
Later, Kissinger was responsive to the pleas for more
assistance.
In an evening meeting on the same day, Kissinger informed Dinitz
that Nixon had approved the list of "consumable" items sought by
the Israelis (except for laser bombs) that would be shipped.
"Moreover, aircraft and tanks would be replaced if the need
became acute."
To ensure that the US role had low visibility, Israeli cargo
plans would have the El Al markings painted out.
Moreover, the discussion of arrangements to charter US
commercial aircraft for shipping war material began on
Washington's side.
During that meeting, Dinitz had better news to report progress
on the Golan Heights and the massive destruction of Syrian
tanks.
- Oil Threat
A report prepared jointly by the US State Department and the
National Security Council states that while Arab and Israeli
ground forces were "sparring and regrouping," Syrian and Israeli
air forces were engaged in battle, and the Israeli Air Force
bombed the international airport at Damascus.
Meanwhile, Greek, Israeli, and US intelligence picked up signs
that the Soviets were airlifting supplies to their Arab clients.
"The Israelis speculate the main cargo is missiles."
The Soviets had made their airlift decision early in the war,
believing that extensive support could enhance Moscow's prestige
in the Arab world.
The decision had significant implications for the course of the
war; not only did the airlift encourage the Egyptians and
Syrians to continue fighting, but it came to be seen in
Washington as a "challenge" to US power.
The report also mentions that the US press had already observed
an Israeli Boeing 707 picking up missiles and bombs in Virginia.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia's Minister of Petroleum, Sheikh Ahmed
Zaki Yamani, suggested that "the US military supply of Israel
would have a cost cutback in oil production."[/quote]
HTML https://english.aawsat.com/features/4586521-october-war-israel-hinted-us-using-nuclear-weapons
#Post#: 22883--------------------------------------------------
Re: War
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 18, 2023, 3:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Our enemies think Russia will not oppose Israel:
HTML https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2023/10/17/interview-is-russia-run-by-incompetents-or-traitors-an-expert-analyst-weighs-in/
[quote]The truth is that we are in a long, protracted war with
no solution in sight. Someone like Strelkov would be right to
point that out and predict it when he did. There are no clever
plans and there won’t be any resounding Russian victory any time
soon. But that doesn’t mean that measures aren’t being taken now
to prepare for a long war. Strelkov’s claims that Moscow will
surrender are more a fear than a reality. From what we can tell,
the elites’ backs are against the wall. Western sanctions and
rhetoric has painted a target on all their backs. So,
increasingly, they are realizing that they have no choice but to
resist in some way.
...
You know, many well-meaning Russian patriots have this idea in
their head that if Russia wanted to, Russia could easily win the
war. They think that Russia is holding back either because of
moral considerations or because of traitors in power. They seem
to still think that Russia is the USSR, with huge war factories
and massive shell arsenals. But those warehouses are long gone.
They were sold off years ago. Those factories are rusted-out
hulks. We are restoring some of our war potential in
manufacturing, this is true, but it will take time. In other
words, we are fighting with the means that we have now. The
people demanding that Russia ought to stop holding back don’t
know what they are talking about. We are at our limit
now.[/quote]
This is why I keep saying it is a good idea for other countries
to get their land back from Russia now.
[quote]Since we are on the topic of the Middle-East, what is
Russia’s official and unofficial position on the
Israel-Palestine/Gaza situation?
Well, Russia’s position hasn’t changed much. Putin moved the
pro-Israel agenda forward a bit by stating that West Jerusalem
is Israeli and East Jerusalem is Palestinian. Of course, in
reality, this is not a reality. Both belong to Israel and their
proxies. And then there is the embassy situation.
Russia isn’t really pro-Palestine. Other countries give more aid
and support for Palestine when compared to Russia. Furthermore,
some elites in Russia consider Israel their second home. And
many others wish that they were part of that club, but they
cannot qualify for Israeli passports, sadly. We would never see
the Kremlin siding against Israel because of these factors.
...
Have you noticed Ukraine’s full-throated support for Israel?
Yes, and there may be several reasons for this. Maybe they want
weapons from Israel. Maybe they know that the West expects them
to support Israel. They are a beggar-country now. Also, their
elite is all Israeli, not Ukrainian.
Ukraine has lost all autonomy. If they have any autonomy left,
they will sell that off too. Without Western aid, Ukraine cannot
continue functioning. The entire economy and war effort is being
carried by the West. Hopefully, the Israel situation will
distract some of the West’s attention and resources.[/quote]
We should aim for the opposite: for US-backed escalation against
Russia to the extent that the US is too busy to also support
Israel.
[quote]Shoigu and others have said that the MoD plan is to
weaken the Ukrainians by attrition over many years. They
probably hope that the West will get tired of bearing the costs
and be dissuaded from continuing the war by Russia’s static
defensive lines. But this means many more years of war and many
more casualties on both sides. People need to stop believing in
clever plans.
This is what victory will look like if it comes.
So the plan really is to just keep the butchery going for a few
more years?
Yes, it seems so. What else can they do?[/quote]
Exactly. But then what can Russia do if additional fronts of war
are opened against it? This is why now is the best time to
strike. Doing so will weaken both Russia and Israel
simultaneously!
#Post#: 22977--------------------------------------------------
Re: War
By: rp Date: October 22, 2023, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Whitepill (positivity/hope) or bluepill (optimism/cope)?:
HTML https://x.com/umyaznemo/status/1715952953884864677?s=20
[quote]
Rania
@umyaznemo
This is the beginning of the end for #Israel. Both
@netanyahu
&
@POTUS
are so weak, short-sighted, & pompous that they actually will
be the end of Israel, killing thousands of Americans & Israelis
in the meantime. #Gaza #iran #Hezbollah[/quote]
Of course the military guy has to add his False Leftist
commentary about the Israelis "not liking" what they are doing
in the West Bank, and hence being "demoralized", which is
absurd. But there is some truth to this: the Israelis are simply
too cowardly to face off against a stronger opponent and hence
may be unprepared.
#Post#: 22978--------------------------------------------------
Re: War
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 22, 2023, 6:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Whitepill (positivity/hope) or bluepill (optimism/cope)?:"
Please do not use rightist vocabulary. "Pills" and in particular
"copes" are designed to be unfalsifiable and thus effective for
as long as the consumer decides to take them. On the other hand,
how this war (or any war) turns out will be seen eventually,
revealing once and for all which predictions were correct and
which incorrect. Therefore predictions about the outcomes of
wars are not "pills".
"the Israelis are simply too cowardly to face off against a
stronger opponent and hence may be unprepared."
They still have the Samson Option.
Nevertheless, if this video can get watched by Israelis and turn
them against Netanyahu, or by Americans and decrease the chance
of the US getting involved (hopefully it can persuade Biden to
not even bomb Hezbollah), then it would be useful propaganda.
But if this video gets watched mainly by
Palestinians/Lebanese/Iranians who then start underestimating
Israel, it would be counterproductive propaganda.
#Post#: 22982--------------------------------------------------
Re: War
By: rp Date: October 22, 2023, 6:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Please do not use rightist vocabulary. "Pills" and in
particular "copes" are designed to be unfalsifiable and thus
effective for as long as the consumer decides to take them. On
the other hand, how this war (or any war) turns out will be seen
eventually, revealing once and for all which predictions were
correct and which incorrect. Therefore predictions about the
outcomes of wars are not "pills"."
Ok. Noted.
"They still have the Samson Option."
I was counting on Pakistan nuking Israel in retaliation.
Pakistan has time and again reaffirmed their support for nuking
Israel if Israel were to nuke Iran. But I will admit the lack of
long range ICBMs in Pakistan's arsenal presents some logistical
hurdles as the warhead/missile would have to be transported to
Turkey with a secure convoy, which risks being intercepted by a
U.S. drone strike. The only non-Western countries with
nuclear-capable long-range ICBMs capable of targeting Israel are
China and India, neither of which are anti-Zionist. What do you
think?
#Post#: 22983--------------------------------------------------
Re: War
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 22, 2023, 7:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"What do you think?"
I never understood why Pakistan has no:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine#Active_classes
I hope that it actually has some in secret, but I doubt it.
#Post#: 22985--------------------------------------------------
Re: War
By: rp Date: October 22, 2023, 9:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is another option: Turkey invades Israel. If Israel
attacks/nukes Turkey in retaliation, the U.S. will be forced to
declare war on Israel per Article 5.
#Post#: 22991--------------------------------------------------
Re: War
By: rp Date: October 23, 2023, 5:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Turkey is a good candidate:
HTML https://twitter.com/Sprinter99800/status/1715482253503898022
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page