And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks

[sirs]

And I suppose you are a five-star general.

Never made that claim. Though, I'd be happy to take you on using any military simiulation you'd like. I recommend ASL (Advanced Squad Leader) - there is a virtual version that allows people to play online.

Ami...did you ever play the computer simulation Harpoon?  I was absolutely addicted to that game 15someodd years ago.  Not only entertaining, but highly educational, with its database  Is there anything equivalent to it now adays

[Amianthus]

Ami......how many miles in width was Israel, at its narrowest, when Jordan controlled the West Bank in '47?

About 30km (about 18 miles).

[sirs]

Ami......how many miles in width was Israel, at its narrowest, when Jordan controlled the West Bank in '47?

About 30km (about 18 miles).

Wow, that's kinda what I thought.  Thanks

[Amianthus]

Ami...did you ever play the computer simulation Harpoon?  I was absolutely addicted to that game 15someodd years ago.  Not only entertaining, but highly educational, with its database  Is there anything equivalent to it now adays

I don't play computer simulations. They become highly predictable in a short period of time. I prefer to play against real humans.

This is one I like to play as well (in addition to ASL), though it takes a staff of controllers and typically 60-100 players. National Security Decision Making Game. You'll find me in a bunch of the pictures, including a number of the "Winner's Circle" pictures. This game was designed by the military for executive chain of command training. I guess Pelosi will be going through it in the near future.

Now that the game designer has retired from the Navy, he takes it around to a number of gaming conventions, and including a bunch of the guys who ran it for the military as controllers.

[Michael Tee]

<<And yet, you are making claims about military strategy and tactics that contradict people who have spent their whole lives studying them.

<<I guess you're just obviously much smarter than them.>>

You got THAT right.  I predicted the U.S. defeat in Viet Nam on New Year's Eve, Dec. 31, 1965.  And contrary to every bullshit prediction about what a cakewalk the invasion of Iraq would be, I said right from the start it would be like fucking with a buzz-saw.

As for the asinine argument that the West Bank adds inches to Israel's waist line so it can't be cut in half, it isn't as if I'm hearing that for the first time either.  It was bullshit when it was first raised - - as if an invading army that could cut Israel in half starting from a jumping-off point on the west limit of the West Bank would be stopped by the extra thirty or so miles of West Bank ground it would have to cover.  What was absurd then is doubly absurd in the age of missiles.

Thanks for the invitation to play ASL.  I'm sure you'd trounce me at it.  I've never played a computer game in my life except for a space-invaders knock-off that I found on my first cell phone.  Believe it or not, if I had the time, it's something I'ld love to get into but unfortunately just posting here is taking way more of my time than I can afford.

[The_Professor]

I wanted to add one more comment to the debate over the occupation.  It is often presented by apologists for Israel that surrendering the West Bank means giving up a defensive military advantage.  In other words, that Israel is holding these lands for strategic reasons.  IMHO this is total bullshit.  Israel is holding and settling the West Bank for the oldest and commonest of all reasons for the annexation of territory by a national entity - - expansionism, land-hunger, or in simple terms: greed.  Any idea of a great strategic advantage gained by the addition of a few thousand square kilometers of land, even to a state as small geographically as Israel, is just hogwash in the age of missiles.  Obviously there is some advantage to the land as a buffer, but the settlement of the land by 240,000 Jewish settlers negates the advantage pretty completely.  It's not a buffer if it's full of your own people.  It is, however, Lebensraum.

Actually, holding the Golan Heights is, in many ways, more crucial. As an example, northern Israel's water supply comes from there. An argument for holding the West Bank ss the old "buffer" strategem (as MT also exponded), meaning you simply need that space for "breathing room". It is not clear that with the state of modern technology, this is any longer as important.

[Michael Tee]

<<Most notably that the attacks on Israel would likely continue, hatred for Israel will remain a fixture in much of the Palestinian population, that Israel handing out more land not only be a sign of weakness to terrorists, as Tee accurately references, but weakens them from a military defensive standpoint.  Yet with those realistic assumptions, his idea is that "the Israelis just have to take a chance".  Interesting how he apparently has no problem gambling Israeli lives, that includes the above assumptions.>>

Interesting post from sirs.  Unconsciously revealing probably the biggest weakness in American political and strategic thought, namely an addiction to the magic bullet, the instant fix, the miracle solution.  

In reality, giving up the West Bank would be the first step in a long, slow and often backsliding process whereby the Palestinians regain some basic dignity including national self-determination, and gradually begin a long struggle to build a positive future and put the past behind them.  A process that could take a whole generation, maybe more than one.  With lots of danger and undoubtedly loss of life.

That's not an ideal solution, far from it.  But it's better than the present policy of an indefinitely maintained occupation festering while Arab resistance only grows stronger with each passing year.  

sirs doesn't like messy, dangerous solutions.  He likes to see RESULTS.  Happy endings.  Not in this world, sirs.  You take what you can get, not what you would like to get.

BTW, I wasn't too pleased with that "gambling with Israeli lives" crap.  Some of those lives are my sister-in-law's, my nephews and my great-nephews and great-nieces.  What you don't seem to understand is that the present policies are also a gamble on Israeli lives, with IMHO a much greater potential for bigger damage in the long run.  There are plenty of Israelis who are pissed off at Americans cheering them on safely from the sidelines with absolutely nothing at stake, telling them to take a hard line with the Arabs.  ("Let's you and him fight.")  Like Pat Robertson telling Sharon that his stroke was God's judgment for giving away the holy land of the Jews.  

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, holding the Golan Heights is, in many ways, more crucial. As an exampl,e northern Israel's water supply comes from there. >>

I agree with you there, Professor.

[The_Professor]

I have a Jewish friend who lives in one of those villages in northern Israel. He says they get regularly shelled and you sorta get used to it. He says people do sometimes die, but you really never know whether it will be you so why worry about i.

He has a joke that goes something like if you relocated all the Jews to Antarctica, the Arabs would still chase them there and harass them throughout time.  

[Michael Tee]

<<He has a joke that goes something like if you relocated all the Jews to Antarctica, the Arabs would still chase them there and harass them throughout time.>>

Nice how he seems to have forgotten all about the Germans, the Polacks, the Ukrainians, the Croatians . . .

It's kind of encouraging, actually.  Maybe one day the Palestinians will forget all about the Jews.

[sirs]

I don't play computer simulations. They become highly predictable in a short period of time. I prefer to play against real humans.

Sounds reasonable.  Having not had as intimate experience as you with military strategy, the Harpoon game was perfect fodder for me.  You could control anything from a Carrier Battle group, to a single typhoon class balistic missle submarine.  The trick was trying to find your enemy before they found you.  You learned very quickly how to use air resources, so as not to use your own ship's radar.  You learned to use passaive sonar whenever possible.  You learned to blend electronic warfare aircraft within your strike group.  You learned how to use your sub's convergenze zones to slip away from nearby searching enemies.  You learned so many attributes, of so many platforms, from radar ranges, ordanance distribution, speed of various aircraft, ships, and subs.  It really was very involving.  Do I load my CAP of Tomcats with 6 phoenix missles, or give them longer loiter time, with drop tanks and a copliment of sidewinders, AMRAAM's, and Phoenix? 

My most enjoyable, and challenging scenario I would design, was to put me in charge of a hunter sub group (3 or 4 SeaWolf/LA Class subs), much like the Nazi wolf packs, and try to hunt down a Russian Carrier Battle Group, complete with all their ASW patrols, sonor buoys, and perhaps a sub or 2 of their own.  And making their locations random before each game made my job of finding them, much less positioning for a strike, that much harder.  the other scenarion I enjoyned was running 2 or 3 Arleigh Burke Destroyers, with the objective of locating "Red October" (A russian ballsitic missle sub, for those who don't know what Red October was, in the movies), before it reaches a location to launch on Boston.  As you can see, I still have fond memories of it, even though I haven't played it in eons.  And since it was a game on 3.5 diskette, it's no longer logisitically doable for me to play

This is one I like to play as well (in addition to ASL), though it takes a staff of controllers and typically 60-100 players. National Security Decision Making Game. You'll find me in a bunch of the pictures, including a number of the "Winner's Circle" pictures. This game was designed by the military for executive chain of command training. I guess Pelosi will be going through it in the near future.

Cool, thanks for the info     

[sirs]

<<Most notably that the attacks on Israel would likely continue, hatred for Israel will remain a fixture in much of the Palestinian population, that Israel handing out more land not only be a sign of weakness to terrorists, as Tee accurately references, but weakens them from a military defensive standpoint.  Yet with those realistic assumptions, his idea is that "the Israelis just have to take a chance".  Interesting how he apparently has no problem gambling Israeli lives, that includes the above assumptions.>>

Interesting post from sirs.  Unconsciously revealing probably the biggest weakness in American political and strategic thought, namely an addiction to the magic bullet, the instant fix, the miracle solution. 

Funny, I coulda swore that I referenced in dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it was going to have to come from the inside out.  I'm a big Harry Potter fan, but anyone that thinks that Bush stole......oooops, thinks that an instant fix is going to happen with the Middle East conflicts currently, obviously has a screw loose.  What I'm not in league with is gambling the lives of innocent Israeli civilians, by drawing back borders and/or reintegrating the Palestinian population, and then just hope and pray, knowing that from a reality perspective, more Israeli lives will be lost, as terrorists are embolden the weakening position of Israel.  I suppose that's the part Tee wishes to ignore, since, well, it's not his life he's gambling, nor that of the Palestinians.

sirs doesn't like messy, dangerous solutions.  He likes to see RESULTS.  Happy endings.  Not in this world, sirs.  You take what you can get, not what you would like to get.

Tee's no where in the ball park on this one (not surprising).  I don't like solutions that puts a country at greater risk for loss of life and identity.  What I'll take as the 1st step in dealing with this mess, Muslim community to condemn & crack down on terrorists who target and kill innocent men, women & children, in the name of their religion.  Then we go from there.  And dealing with terrorists and militant Islam is going to get exceedingly messy, dirty, and dangerous, and it's going to take a long time.  A generation or so perhaps.  I've recognized that from the beginning.  It's a large part of the rest of the country that thinks this should all be wrapped up nice and neat by a certain time     

BTW, I wasn't too pleased with that "gambling with Israeli lives" crap.  Some of those lives are my sister-in-law's, my nephews and my great-nephews and great-nieces.  

Then don't advocate such a position.  Problem solved

[Henny]

Actually, holding the Golan Heights is, in many ways, more crucial. As an example, northern Israel's water supply comes from there.

As a side note, Israel's management of water issues is very sophisticated. They employ gray-water systems for toilets (flushing) and are able to recycle something like 75% of wastewater for agriculture. Water used for showering is a mixture of fresh and sea water. Most notably though is the fact that despite all the conflicts in the region, Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon regularly work together to manage water supply issues. Even in the midst of the worst wars, water talks have continued. They are working on a desalination project now with the other three countries.

[Amianthus]

I've never played a computer game in my life except for a space-invaders knock-off that I found on my first cell phone.  Believe it or not, if I had the time, it's something I'ld love to get into but unfortunately just posting here is taking way more of my time than I can afford.

It's not a computer game. I don't like computer games.

[Plane]

Actually, holding the Golan Heights is, in many ways, more crucial. As an example, northern Israel's water supply comes from there.

As a side note, Israel's management of water issues is very sophisticated. They employ gray-water systems for toilets (flushing) and are able to recycle something like 75% of wastewater for agriculture. Water used for showering is a mixture of fresh and sea water. Most notably though is the fact that despite all the conflicts in the region, Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon regularly work together to manage water supply issues. Even in the midst of the worst wars, water talks have continued. They are working on a desalination project now with the other three countries.

 That is very encourageing.

   What keeps the all or nothing people from ruining talks on water?