The New Republic

Then again, maybe he's right?

The IDF has much more experience of urban warfare against ruthless and cynical arab "insurgent" types than we do-- and compared to our experience at the outset of the Iraq occupation, the IDF had infintely more experience against this type of enemy than our military had.

If it's fair to criticize the US security establishment for failing to learn the lessons of the British and French experience of counterinsurgency, isn't it fair to admit the Israelis' superiority in warfare against Arab terrorist gangs as well? Perhaps we should listen to other militaries and learn from them rather than telling them, in best Chiracquian fashion, to know their place and mind their manners?

- teplukhin2you

March 20, 2009 at 12:51pm

Clearly, the hardest hit industry in this recession has been Public Relations, because idiot gaffes are coming from the most influential people on the globe without regard to his or her nation/culture/supporters' brand.  

- dylanposer

March 20, 2009 at 12:59pm

Tep, yes and no. It's kind of a bizarre way of criticizing the US's human rights record, don't you think?

- rozenson

March 20, 2009 at 1:08pm

Why is it that "learning lessons of the British and French experience" never seems to include learning that imperial powers can be defeated by guerilla armies and political movements fighting for national independence?

- ironyroad

March 20, 2009 at 1:15pm

"can be" irony? That's leaving yourself a lot of running room. Almost anything "can be". But the British were not defeated by the IRA Provos in Ulster. They learned lessons from Malaysia and elsewhere-- maybe the south of Ireland as well-- and applied them to good effect post-1972. Ditto for the US Army in Iraq under Petraeus post-2006. And maybe we can learn something from the IDF as well, if we chill a bit and get over the current wish to turn everything into a morality fable.

- teplukhin2you

March 20, 2009 at 1:27pm

There's something very disturbing about torturing Barak's quote into a slur against the US Army, and in comparing Barak to a dog.

- bl462

March 20, 2009 at 1:38pm

Isn't the French army the most moral in the world? after all they never fire their weapons and at the first sign of trouble they run away.

I don't see how this his biting the hand that feeds him, after all it is not like Obama thinks we have been spotlessly moral in Iraq. And this isn't going after our army, but the policies of Bush at places like Abu Ghraib. At worst, this statement will just annoy Cheney and Bush, and really, who the f cares about them now?

- blackton

March 20, 2009 at 1:50pm

That's true, tep, but they didn't quite defeat the IRA either.  If you pick one slightly anomalous example, you're leaving yourself a lot of room too.  What I was trying to say was that you can't just look at wars of national liberation against colonial authority as technical exercises in counter-insurgency, as there is a whole menu of issues such as legitimacy, identity, history demography, and culture that factor into each case.

- ironyroad

March 20, 2009 at 2:37pm

blackie -- I know you were joking, but tell that to the Algerians!

- rozenson

March 20, 2009 at 2:43pm

faire un oeuf, ironie.

- teplukhin2you

March 20, 2009 at 3:00pm

Blackton:  if you don't think the French will fight, you shold take on the French Foreign Legion.

- whit

March 20, 2009 at 3:09pm

"Isn't the French army the most moral in the world? after all they never fire their weapons and at the first sign of trouble they run away."

The French Army = DASTARDS. Algeria, Tunisia, French Congo, Ivory Coast, Trans Volta Togoland - now part of Togo, Rwanda, Guinea, Upper Volta - now Burkina Fasso, and Central African Republic (CAR).

Algeria is probably well publicised, but the French were worse in Sub-Saharan Africa? Let's take the case of the CAR for example...

www.wagingpeace.info/.../200710CAR_report_English.pdf (PDF document)

No history of the Central African Republic is complete without mentioning France’s continuing influence. The relationship between France and the CAR is the archetype of what commentators have called the “Francafrique”, that is the authoritarian relationship put in place by France as a means of maintaining control over its ex-colonies after their independence. Despite the CAR’s independence, its diplomatic, political, military and economic tutelage has continued through the so-called duty of assistance of France to its ex-colonies.

1- The French presence in the CAR

Colonisation and independence

The territory of the Ubangi-Chari was a pure French creation born in 1890 in order to allow the colonial power to exploit the numerous natural resources of the country. One of the worst episodes of forced slavery followed, with half of the local population dying as a result of dreadful working conditions and torture. In 1928, the population protested the forced labour imposed by the colonial power, leading to the three year long war of Kongo-Wara which was harshly repressed by the French colonial troops. After the Second World War, a pro-independence movement headed by Barthélemy Boganda gained support throughout the country. He became the first president of the newly created Central African Republic in 1958. The following year, Boganda died in an unexplained plane crash, prompting France to put the docile David Dacko in power before granting independence to the country.

France’s political and military control

France has maintained control over Central African politics since the independence of the country in 1960, orchestrating to a varying degree the successive changes in Governments. In the last 50 years, it is the same men who have dominated the political scene, heading a rebellion one day and taking power the next. Supported by the General De Gaulle and Jacques Foccard, Jean Bedel Bokassa, the head of the army, took power in 1966. But towards the end of his fourteen year long dictatorship, Bokassa’s reputation as a tyrant became embarrassing for the French, who ousted him in 1979 and replaced him with David Dacko. Comforted by the absence of international reaction to France’s interference in the Central African Republic, French secret services (Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire and Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage) became increasingly involved in the affairs of the country.

Considered merely as an interim solution by the Elysée, Dacko was replaced by General Kolingba in 1982 by a French supported coup. Kolingba proved himself a close ally of France, protecting their economic and military interests in the CAR. In particular, the 21 French military bases of Bouar and Bangui enabled France to maintain its strategic military control over the region. Already weakened by an economic crisis, Kolingba came under increasing pressure from France to promote a process of democratisation. Reluctantly, Kolingba organised elections in 1993 which he lost to Ange Félix Patassé, one of Bokassa’s ex prime ministers. Secretly supported by Pasqua and Marchiani, Patassé reproduced the nepotism, tribalism, corruption and incompetence of his predecessors. His ethnic favoritism led to deep divisions in the army and a series of army mutinies throughout his 10 years in power.

In 1996 soldiers who hadn’t been paid for months demonstrated, prompting the French to intervene at three different occasions, under the aegis of the Defense Agreement signed between the French and the CAR Governments. These interventions provoked the people of Bangui to demonstrate in May 1996 against the French presence, taking to the streets and destroying the French cultural centre. The crisis was finally resolved with the deployment of a 500-strong mostly Chadian Inter-African Mission to Monitor the Implementation of the Bangui Agreements (Mission de Surveillance des Accords de Bangui, MISAB).

Having secured its continued control of the country through the training of the FACA and the presence of Chadian troops as part of MISAB, France closed its permanent bases of Bouar and Bangui in 1998. In 1999, Patassé won the presidential elections, with help from the French ambassador M. Simon. As mutinies continued, Patassé responded ruthlessly and arbitrarily. Sacked by Patassé as Army Chief of Staff for having failed to protect him against a coup attempt from Kolingba in 2001, Bozizé became a growing threat to Patassé.

On 25 October 2002, an offensive led by Bozizé reached Bangui. Unable to fight back with the FACA alone, Patassé asked for support from Congolese rebel Jean-Pierre Bemba’s Congo Liberation Mouvement (Mouvement de Libération du Congo, MLC), from Chadian mercenaries and from Libyan troops. During the fighting in and around Bangui, the MLC and the Chadian mercenaries committed widespread atrocities including rape which are currently being investigated by the International Criminal Court.

France also sent 350 troops as part of the ‘Boali’ operation aimed at evacuating French expatriates.

Maddened by Patassé’s plans to sell oil to the United States, France didn’t order its troops to intervene when Bozizé succeeded in his second coup in March 2003. Bozizé later won the presidential elections of 2005 and he has continued to rule the country on the basis of that mandate. Under his rule, human rights violations have continued on a systematic basis. In particular, the Presidential Guard, a small unit of elite soldiers trained and commanded by a French officer, the General Demba, intimidate and harass civilian populations with complete impunity. In the last year, the political situation has remained volatile in the CAR. The UFDR attacks of November 2006 and March 2007 have shown the fragility of the current regime. Had the French forces not pushed the rebellion back with their Mirage F1, Bozizé would almost certainly have been overthrown.

France is acutely aware of this and has strengthened its military presence in the northern town of Birao where it now has 250 soldiers and Foreign Legion troops. Located at the border with Chad and Sudan, these forces are strategically placed to intervene in neighbouring conflicts if needed.

- wkwami

March 20, 2009 at 3:41pm

How about addressing the core issue and resolving the problem. Namely, establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

How about taking a f*cking baby step towards that goal. Not by pulling out any settlements in the WB; not by tearing down any settlements; not even by stopping the building of any new settlements...but f*cking SLOWING DOWN the building of new ones. Is that really asking too much concessions from Israel?

"On March 2, 2009, the Israeli advocacy group Peace Now issued a report saying that the Israeli housing ministry plans to build 73,ooo housing units in the West Bank. Peace Now said 15,ooo of these units had already been approved, with another 58,000 awaiting approval. On March 7, 2009, the Guardian reported that a confidential report issued by the EU said Israel continues to annex property in East Jerusalem. It said Israeli housing authorities had submitted plans for 5,500 new housing units (3,000 of which have already been approved) since the Annapolis "peace" conference in November 2007. Readers may recall that the Annapolis conference was supposed to resusitate George W. Bush's moribund so-called Road Map to Peace. Assuming these housing plans are implemented, and only 2.5 Israelis on average inhabit each new unit, the entire program could add as many as 196,ooo Israelis to the 490,000 Israelis already living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem."

That's another 196,000 "facts on the ground" to deal with.

- The Ignorant Populist

March 20, 2009 at 3:48pm

1. um...the French Foreign legion ain't filled with Frenchmen, hence the term Foreign. and 2. It is an old joke, like the line about buying French guns, only used once, minor damage due to being dropped, never been fired.

- blackton

March 20, 2009 at 7:04pm

Hey Clay Risen, fuck yourself. Israel is an independent country. Barak can say whatever he wants. And go with your dog comparison.

United States gives almost as much money to Egypt. In return, Egypt helps Hamas and sent the US a great git on 9/11 - suicide bombers. Yet I haven't seen you complaining. Just the Jews annoy you, eh? Go fuck yourself in the teeth.

What's this, TNR or Jew Watch?

- sleepyavl

March 20, 2009 at 10:51pm

If we're talking about soldiering, insurgency, and peeing on the French, by the way, then some honorable mention is due to the various French resistance groups, both the communist Maquis (after 1941) and the Gaulllist Free French.  There was a lot of ideological shadowboxing and many operational disasters, but some parts of the Resistance -- especially workers and middle management on the railways -- contributed a lot to weakening Nazi authority and efficiency, and in key moments helped D-Day succeed when it hung in the balance.

- ironyroad

March 20, 2009 at 11:02pm

Oh and while we're on the subject -- Verdun.  Has any other nation undergone that and survived?  Ten months.  A hundred thousand bodies (French and German) *still* unaccounted for in 2009, buried in the dirt.  The Germans didn't crack it.

- ironyroad

March 20, 2009 at 11:12pm

"The Israeli Army is the most moral in the world, and I know what I’m talking about because I know what took place in the former Yugoslavia, in Iraq."

I guess everyone can fling "Abu-Ghraib" at America but an Israeli politician is forbidden to even breath that he might find something not quite scrupulously clean about some aberrations in the American miliitary. Who does he think he is?  

As for Yugoslavia:

"The refugees believed they found safe haven. They were wrong. The air strike didn't spare their lives. Over 100 were killed. This is not an account of the tragic bombing of the UN school in Gaza. This is the story of the bombing of Korisa in the former Yugoslavia, the strikes carried out by NATO planes, which took place nearly 10 years ago on May 13th 1999. There are other accounts of this type of catastrophe. On April 12th NATO planes killed, accidentally of course, 12 civilians. April 14th saw the death of 70 refugees. On April 27, 16 civilians were killed. On May 1st, 23 civilians were killed when a bus was bombed. On May 6th, 16 were killed by a cluster bomb. On May 19th, a Belgrade hospital was bombed, 3 dead. May 30th saw 11 die when a bridge was bombed. On the very same day an old age home was hit and 20 residents were killed. The next day 11 more died. About the same time, the Chinese embassy was bombed, and a misdirected missile flew 30 miles off course and hit the Bulgarian Capital of Sofia. "It was a mistake, sorry" was the NATO spokesperson's standard response.

This is what happens during war. It is sad and lamentable. Europeans are not called upon to cast their memory all the way back to the bombing of Dresden; all they need is to look back to events that happened less than a decade ago, ere they start wagging their admonitory finger at Israel. Because Israel has not killed, nor will it kill, even a tenth of the number of innocent deaths incurred by European democracies in just wars."

www.solomonia.com/.../index.shtml

Clay Risen: your comment is simply ugly, schmucky, stupid, ignorant and, I suspect,  seeks to curry favor with some loathsome people.

- noga1

March 21, 2009 at 9:02pm

For what it's worth--and I feel silly for even having to say this--my post isn't intended as a criticism of Israel; I leave it up to others to decide whether Israel's army, or some other army, is the most moral in the world. I just thought it more than strange that Ehud Barak--who, last I checked, is one single human being, not a stand-in for a country, or a religion--would make a not-so-subtle dig against the U.S. at this point in time. If I were trying to curry favor with some "loathsome people," I imagine there are some much better venues than The New Republic's website from which to do so.

- Clay Risen

March 22, 2009 at 9:41pm

"...my post isn't intended as a criticism of Israel... I just thought it more than strange that Ehud Barak--who, last I checked, is one single human being, not a stand-in for a country, or a religion... "

Really?  You think this title  "Barak Bites the Hand that Feeds Him" accurately reflects what you have just explained?

"bite the hand that feeds one, to repay kindness with malice or injury:

When he berates his boss, he is biting the hand that feeds him. "

Does Barak owe his daily bread to America?

Does Barak work for America?

Do Barak's words inflict malice or injury upon America?

Would you like to re-think your post's title, perhaps?

- noga1

March 22, 2009 at 11:45pm

I think you're way, way overthinking this. The hand-biting metaphor doesn't mean I think Israelis are dogs, or that the US is Barak's master. It's just a phrase, man. The US supports Israel (and rightly so! see I support Israel!) at a time when few other countries do; in that situation, it might be politic not to criticize your friends.  

This reminds me of the scene in "Knocked Up" where Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl are deciding on a sex position, and he says, "Do you want to do it doggie style?"Heigl:  "You're not going to fuck me like a dog." Rogen: "It's doggie style. It's just the style. We don't have to go outside or anything."

- Clay Risen

March 23, 2009 at 4:35pm

What a charming and thoughtful example.

I'm not over thinking it. I'm merely pointing out the gap between the sneering style of your presentation and what you claim was your intention.

As a journalist, you are not only about style but substance, too. In this case, your style IS the message.

I thank you most humbly for supporting Israel.

- noga1

March 23, 2009 at 5:19pm