Israel's blockade of Gaza

"Despite claims of self-defense, Israel has not defined a definitive purpose for the blockade, the achievement of which would indicate its end. Official Israeli goals have ranged from limiting Hamas's access to weapons, to seeking retribution for the pain caused to Israeli civilians, and to compelling the Palestinian population to overthrow the Hamas government" - N Ekrat

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/when-will-the-economic-blockade-of-gaza-end/265452/#

I guess we have the ceasefire to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. But when the stronger, richer neighbor nation imposes a clearly illegal, definitely immoral, and seemingly endless economic embargo (not even a military embargo), I think Hamas and the 1.7M Palestinian Gazans (some of the poorest people on the planet per capita) have actually shown great RESTRAINT in not responding with violence more often. I am not justifying their actions (though violent resistance against an oppressor is sanctioned under the rules of law), but the choice almost seems rational: fire rockets now and then to try to get revenge and some international attention, or starve to death silently and slowly, while the developed world is preoccupied with other matters. The IDF has even been known to shoot at aid workers and emergency responders during their clashes in Gaza.

Like most cases in history, the oppressing party imposes sanctions in the hope that the people suffer and get so fed up with the gov't that they overthrow it (but we've tried that for decades with Cuba and Iran with no results). Instead, could Israel change the policy to something like: they lift the embargo and allow the Gazans to have some semblance of human life, if Hamas agrees to honor the ceasefire and not stockpile rockets. Then they appoint neutral Arab League or UN monitors to inspect and patrol the streets, and alert the IDF of any suspicious military activity. If they or other surveillance pick up anything fishy from Hamas, the IDF can bomb those suspected sites to the Stone Age. But leave the innocent people alone for F sakes.

Some rough estimates on the 8-day conflict:

Palestinian rockets fired into Israel: 900 (their air defenses intercepted 300)
IDF air strikes in Gaza: 1,500 (and mind you Gaza is just 20 miles long)
Palestinian casualties: 100 (with probably 10X wounded)
Israeli casualties: I had troubling finding info on this, but I think on NPR it was under 20 dead, not sure how many injured

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20391558

--------

As of Wednesday, the number of Palestinian deaths was over 140.  There are some grim photos of children from this latest attack.

As far as Israel hoping the Palestinian people overthrow their govt.:  didn't they just elect Hamas?  And, what government from Gaza would be favorable to Israel?  You think they'd elect Netanyahu?  I think that would be the only satisfactory govt. for Israel.

This whole thing is about a land grab, clearing beachfront property for people born and raised in Long Island.  They have a  right of return to land they never lived on.  Meanwhile, people born and raised there are never allowed to return to Palestine.

--------

Thanks, L. Yeah that sure seems like what is going on. Make life so miserable that they just give up and disappear. But where do they go? Jordan and Lebanon have been housing Palestinian refugees since the 1947 partition. They can't take any more, especially now that there are more Syrian and Iraqi refugees to absorb.

So what choice do the Gazans have but fight to the death, if they're going to starve to death anyway? That's why I find the Israel's blockade so infantile and un-strategic. There are better ways to protect their Gaza border and encourage the Palestinians to reject Hamas. They could have supported Abbas more, improved conditions in the West Bank, free prisoners, etc. to show Gaza "the carrots" that await them if they vote Hamas out. But they treat the Fatah Palestinians like shit too (though clearly much better than Gaza): increased settlement building, roadblocks, demolitions, etc. that even Israeli courts have declared illegal. So Hamas actually look like heroes as the only ones with the guts to stand up to Israeli oppression. And I guess you can see that manifest in the Arab world, with the Turkish and Egyptian leaders expressing support, criticizing Israel, and visiting Gaza during the siege, when before they probably wouldn't have been so bold.

Israel is legitimizing their arch enemy. But the cynical side of me thinks that is the plan all along. Israel doesn't want peace. There is no scenario where they can lose to Palestinians, and no Arab state will go to war vs. Israel in the foreseeable future (much less win). Iran is the only existential threat, and even that is way over-hyped and premature. They can't defeat Iran unless they use their own nukes, which is probably why they want to trick the US into fighting the war for them (they fire the first shot, and then we have to intervene to "assist our ally" and make sure the region doesn't implode).

But getting back to Gaza, it seems like a Gulf of Tonkin situation. They are not even that diligent about preventing rocket smuggling. Probably because they know that the rockets are not a real threat to them (very few strikes result in fatalities, and their Iron Dome defenses seem to be able to shoot down 1/3 of them). But fear over rockets is a great political lightning rod to get the Israelis behind military aggression. They prod and provoke Hamas into launching rockets now and then, so of course the IDF is then justified to bomb them to the Stone Age or even engage in a ground invasion (a way disproportional "defensive" response). They get to flex their muscles and weaken Hamas by destroying infrastructure and assassinating leaders (not to mention send signals to Iran and others), so that is worth a dozen or so Israelis dead from rockets. The US is fine with this too ("Israel has the right to defend itself"), because we dislike Hamas and then our Sec of State gets to go over there and broker a ceasefire, making us look relevant. I don't think the US is serious about the peace process either. We had our chance in the '90s and now it's gone. Obama is not kowtowing to Israel at least, but he's definitely not showing them the necessary tough love either (well, domestic pressures make that virtually impossible). 

---------

Just a disclaimer that these comments refer to the Israeli government and IDF, and are not a reflection on the Israeli/Jewish people as a whole. I realize that I have described their actions as "scheming" and "treacherous", which may play into some negative historical stereotypes about Jews. That is not my intention, but I call their gov'ts actions the way I see them. Actually I have a lot of respect for the risks taken by the peace movement in Israel, as well as the IDF deserters who refused their gov'ts illegal orders to bomb Gaza civilians or bulldoze West Bank homes.

Election comments

First of all, weed in WA and CO!!! http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-marijuana-votes-20121106,0,3992024.story?track=rss

I'll just comment on the election and politics here, not necessarily on the merits of each party's philosophies and policy agendas.

I can't remember the last time I felt so proud of the American people. Personally, I think this is bigger than 2008 considering the current political environment. Voters rejected the GOP's schizophrenic candidate, as well as their policies of exclusion, obstruction, wealth/power inequality, obsolete beliefs, and scapegoating the wrong people for America's problems.

And ironically, the electoral college is now working in the Dem's favor! Romney almost won the popular vote but got wiped out in electoral votes. But now there are "structural" advantages for the Dems in terms of electoral vote distributions, similar to what the GOP enjoyed from Nixon to Bush Sr.

We worried that Cit. Utd. would change politics forever, and I do believe it had a noticeable effect. But Obama's campaign is the most sophisticated and effective grassroots, micro-donation, new media machine we've ever seen (and it's a platform that they can hopefully transfer to future candidates and continue to have an advantage vs. the GOP on). In the end, that beat out the Adelson, Koch, Trump, and Rove led money and misinformation blitz. Outside groups have to pay a higher fee for TV ads than campaigns, so $1 of money raised by Obama2012 equaled about $1.50-2.00 of Super PAC money. So once again, the GOP miscalculated. Everyone (but Nate Silver) predicted that the young people, poor, and minorities (who turned out in record numbers for Obama in 2008) are now disillusioned and unlikely to show up for Obama like that again. Well they did, and even more so for Latinos. 

But still, about as many people voted for Romney as Obama. A lot of white males, older folks, and the wealthy. Maybe the GOP will realize that America is not like "Leave it to Beaver" anymore and those groups are not enough to guarantee a win each time, but I doubt it. They chose Ryan over Rubio or a woman (and he didn't even deliver WI). Well, the Ryan pick was kind of forced by the nomination of Romney - clearly not the GOP's first choice. I guess Christie wanted to wait until Obama was termed out to give it a shot, probably a smart move. 

So did the "core strengths" of the GOP actually cause them to lose here? It gained them money but cost them votes, and fortunately votes still determine our leaders. The Tea Party, ties to big business, and pro-Israel lobby became liabilities. Most Americans do not feel directly threatened by Iran, do not believe that Israel will be attacked any time soon, and care more about domestic issues. Our foreign policy is far from comfortable, but Osama is dead, America is tired of war, and the focus on these narrow issues to placate their big donors and the hawks didn't persuade many voters who weren't already sure votes for Romney.

How about big business? A private equity mega-millionaire who outsourced jobs to China and didn't support the auto bailout may not be the most convincing messenger for the conservative solution to economic growth. Despite the latent displeasure with Obama over the economy, the "supply side" argument didn't gain traction among non-core GOP voters. And it's not really a great strategy to persuade disillusioned independents and liberals to vote for you when you accuse half the country of being lazy bozos with their hands out (the veterans, elderly, marginalized?), and when you accuse a key growth demographic (Latinos) of stealing jobs and undermining our recovery. 

And then there's the Tea Party. They energized the GOP and thumped the Dems in 2010, but became a liability now. The are too regressive, intolerant, exclusive, and hateful - just not very pleasant people you want to associate with. A lot of presidential elections is about getting casual or infrequent voters out for you. These folks have more centrist, timid views - which is of course anathema to the TP. They aren't winning friends and turning off a lot of key voters with stuff like:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/opinion/friedman-hope-and-change-part-two.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Are US generals helping or hurting war efforts?

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/01/164096479/ricks-firing-generals-to-fight-better-wars

Ricks' recent book describes how less effective US generals are compromising our military and making our current ugly wars even harder to win. Bad managers are not confined to the private sector and politics - plenty of generals are incompetent, selfish, and foolish. It's nothing new - see WWI or the Napoleonic Wars.

In WWII, it was standard procedure to dismiss generals from command for even small battlefield failures, even if they had a track record of good performance. Maybe that policy was too harsh, but there were plenty of other officers to replace them. And often the relieved officer got a new command elsewhere after serving a short penance. 16 such generals were relieved during the 5 years of WWII. Since Vietnam, only one field general has been relieved for combat ineffectiveness. Theater commanders have been "fired" instead: Westmoreland, Casey, etc. - but those moves were more symbolic, from civilian leaders aware of the public's frustration with those wars. In addition, the average duration of American wars has increased, and with worse strategic outcomes. Apart from the Gulf War I anomaly, now the US is engaged in decade-long quagmires, versus less-formidable enemies than the Axis. There are several reasons for this that Ricks postulates:

WWII was a "traditional" war with a clear, existential threat to the US and our allies, with well-defined military objectives. For the nuclear-age Cold War, combat mostly became small and unconventional (keeping the lid on civil wars, counter-insurgencies, nation building, etc.) - situations that generals did not study and were not prepared for.

The relationship between civilian leaders, military leaders, and soldiers has changed. During WWII, in general the priority was to win the war with as little loss of American life as possible. Therefore there was little tolerance for inept generals who put troops under undue risk. As the military-industrial complex grew into its own "special interest", the military strayed from this and became more general-centric. Now war was more about career development for officers, rather than winning humbly and efficiently. Egotistical generals have always cared about their own glory since the dawn of organized battle, but it descended to new lows since Vietnam. Therefore, top brass were reluctant to fire battlefield commanders as a black mark on the fired officers' careers, and also their own. Civilian leaders were also hesitant to fire even inept military leaders, as that could be construed as an admission that the war was not going well or it was the wrong war to fight. So we "stay the course" with inept leaders. Again, US lives took the back seat to political concerns.

Relations between the White House and Pentagon have changed too. Lincoln and JFK's "team of rivals" concept was very much at play during WWII. FDR and George Marshall probably didn't like each other very much, but showed enough honesty, respect, and patriotism to listen to conflicting opinions when it was best for the nation. Most war failures result from incorrect information, improper assumptions, and other possibly preventable errors of judgment. FDR and Marshall did their best to make sure those mistakes were avoided. This isn't just nostalgia for the Greatest Generation, and the Allies made plenty of goofs during WWII too. But their "HR" system was more sound - contrast it to the Iraq War and Bush's team of yes-men neocons, total liar "expert advisers" like Chalabi, and sycophant generals. Now we go to war based on hunches and ideologies. It's the opposite of the dispassionate, data-driven, risk-averse decisions we should be making.

The decline started around Vietnam, and possibly coincides with the trend of US presidents being less and less likely to have served in the military. The relationship between LBJ and Westmoreland was a joke. The two kept info from each other, tried to avoid disagreements, and only told the other what they wanted to hear. I am not sure how Obama deals with the military today, but seeing how many of his policies are quite Bush-like (and definitely not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize), I bet he is kowtowing more often than giving tough love - which is his job, his duty, and what the citizens expect of him. Part of this is due to the "cult of the military", where we overly venerate the institution. It's schizophrenic, because on one hand we skimp on veteran's care and don't want a draft, but on the other we have to "support the troops" no matter what, with nearly limitless funding. It's verboten to criticize the military, maybe even at the highest levels of government. Sometime criticism is the highest form of patriotism. Just ask Lincoln and FDR. Look how much of Romney's candidacy is about fellating the military. He wants to grow military spending to 4% GDP AFTER we have wound down two ground wars. Even at the peak of it's power, the British Empire didn't spend that much. Ricks finds this especially shocking from a former CEO who made his fortune cutting costs and giving tough love to struggling companies. We should always support our troops, but we have to stop coddling the generals and the institution if it's not serving the interests of the people.

Also there was the gradual phasing out of the draft. When the 1%'s kids were no longer in harm's way, US soldiers quickly became more expendable. All sorts of waivers were granted for the rich during Vietnam, so really the war was fought by the poor and uneducated. That trend continues today, as the volunteer military tends to attract those without much civilian career prospects. A volunteer army also concentrates war suffering on a minority of the citizenry (the segment of society that is already marginalized), so the rest of us are less inclined to care if the war is going poorly and led by bad generals. Tying into a previous point, the causes we are fighting for after Korea are more murky and controversial. Therefore it's hard to get the whole country behind the war effort and engaged with the daily progress enough to hold under-performing commanders accountable. Most of us can't even name an actual combat general serving in Iraq and Afghanistan now, and have no idea what they're doing. National security secrecy and lack of free press access aren't helping either.

Despite the fact that our current volunteer military is mostly comprised of the lower classes, they are actually some of the most professional and high-performing troops the US has ever had (on average). That is both a blessing and a curse. Like a high-performing department with a bad manager, it masks the incompetence of the manager. Bad generals in Iraq and Afghanistan "get away with" more incompetence because their troops sacrifice and struggle so much to accomplish objectives in spite of their leaders. And since the generals know their troops are quite good, they ask too much out of them. They subject them to more risk and strain instead of thinking harder and devising better strategies. Stop-loss is an obvious example. Lazy command, dereliction of duty, lack of concern for the men under your command.

Some other interesting facts about past wars and dispelling some myths:

- MacArthur may be the only general in human history who was insubordinate to 3 national leaders. And yet he had dreams of the White House. Some believe that we should have let MacArthur "finish off" North Korea when he had the chance (or even fight China), but if he had his way, it would have been a disaster. Just for that, Truman goes down as one of the great C-in-C's of US history. Chinese forces were waiting in ambush at the border to slaughter any Americans who pushed too deep. It would have escalated the war, and Mac wanted authorization to use "about 35" nuclear weapons to destroy China's military capability, and then let the Taiwanese come in for mop-up duty. Of course I don't have to explain what a moronic idea this is, but to humor you: the USSR clearly wouldn't just sit idly by while 2 major Asian communist nations got wiped out. They would have conquered Europe, and we probably couldn't have stopped them because we committed forces to the Pacific. It would have led to WWIII. And I don't think even the Taiwanese would have been comfortable with the task of occupying mainland China. As WWII hero General Bradley said, it was the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong enemy. Unfortunately we repeated the blunder in Vietnam.

- Patton was actually a mediocre to poor battlefield commander, and obviously a very poor leader in terms of "people skills". But what he was really good at was getting a plodding armored fighting force to cover large distances quickly in pursuit of a retreating enemy, or to relieve a besieged position. So the brilliant foresight and talent management skills of Marshall and Ike knew that Patton wouldn't be really "useful" until the end of the war. They coddled him and tolerated many of his issues until they let him loose in , to do what he was best at.

- Ike was a fairly unproven, junior commander going into WWII, but Marshall picked him to be the combined Allies leader because he was diplomatic, patient, and knew how to work well with others (a rare trait for egotistical generals). Marshall and FDR realized that this was a new chapter of warfare, and the Allies would ultimately beat the Nazis, not just the Americans (and let's be honest, the USSR did most of the heavy lifting anyway).

------

A follow-up with Tom Ricks: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201211140900

He had a good point on the sex scandal - for YEARS in Iraq, hundreds or even thousands of people were dying under incompetent generals, but none of them were fired, demoted, or even had to get chewed out by a civilian committee. But a general sends some flirting emails to a floozie socialite (after years of "drought" serving in combat zones in conservative Muslim nations) - HEADLINE NEWS!!!! NATIONAL OUTRAGE!!!! My only criticism of those generals is their HORRIBLE choice in mistresses. At least learn from Charlie Sheen and Tiger.

For the record, Ike had an affair with his female driver during WWII, and he later became president (I think that was Petraeus' ambition too). But that was the pre-Twitter, integrity in journalism era.

I'm not defending the generals' actions, but let's prioritize our criticism.

Is the GOP 'pro-life'?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-why-i-am-pro-life.html?src=me&ref=general

As the author said, the GOP isn't 'pro-life', they just believe that a few cells in the womb = a human. I think it's partially subconscious guilt - they are so 'anti-life' on most other issues that they need to assuage their guilt and feel like 'good Christians' if they fight to save one poor 'victim' - embryos - even though the Bible doesn't say anything about that stuff. But it does say plenty about protecting the Earth, sharing your wealth, being honest, turning the other cheek, practicing peace, showing compassion/tolerance, and such.

Same thing for the GOP 'hatred' of the poor and financially unsuccessful. The rich made their wealth by hook or by crook, and to somehow convince themselves they aren't dirty thieves, they say that the other honest people are inferior, saps, muppets. The rich got rich because of social Darwinism. Well, some of the most evolved and fit creatures in history are pathogens, bloodthirsty predators, and roaches.

"I'm not going to apologize for my success." - Mitt

"I'm not going to apologize for my success (infecting and killing a lot of people)." - Spanish Flu

KQED stories about political switchers

http://blogs.kqed.org/election2012/2012/10/31/political-switchers-raised-a-democrat/
http://blogs.kqed.org/election2012/2012/10/31/political-switchers-republican-since-childhood/

Dear KQED,

I was disappointed by your November 1 story about the Marin County lady who switched to the GOP after 9/11. I know that she is entitled to portray her personal political evolution as she wants, but I think your coverage was softball and misleading. The take-home message seemed to be, "Don't just blindly follow the political views of your family or community; form your own opinions." That is fine, but she seemed to imply that Marin County people need to "wake up", think for themselves, and then of course they would choose to be conservative. I don't think that is an accurate characterization, especially because many Marin County liberals are much better informed (and get their info from much less biased sources) than Mrs. Wolters.

Like many Americans, 9/11 changed Wolters' worldview. But a decade later we know that many Americans (and our government) felt so fearful and vulnerable after 9/11 that they over-reacted and embraced controversial policies that weakened America, made the world more hostile, and could actually compromise our future safety. She recounted extreme cases of ostensibly liberal Bay Areans making insensitive comments after 9/11, and that somehow validated the GOP claim that the left despises America? Wolters admitted that she was politically uninformed prior to 9/11, so maybe if she researched US foreign policy history in the Middle East, she would realize that the US is not the only victim of foreign terrorism.

She then started to listen to "talk radio" (I assume she is referring to right-wing radio?) and Bill O'Reilly. So it's no surprise that she turned conservative if those were her only sources of info, without exposure to counter-arguments. Was she truly persuaded by superior conservative views, or was than the inevitable outcome of her exposure to those media?  

I am sorry that she felt alienated by her political beliefs, and I commend her for becoming politically active, but I disagree with her implicit dismissal of those who see things differently. I don't think that she should complain about political intolerance against her when she is not really empathizing and extending the olive branch either. Contrast her to the other political switcher, Mr. Patrosso. Biased media didn't persuade him to "wake up" and realize his "true beliefs". He was a die-hard Republican for most of his life, but his party left him - straying from its fiscal conservative traditions and embracing religion-fueled intolerance. Unlike Wolters, Patrosso wasn't speaking ill of conservatives as people, and made his decision to switch based on facts and the conduct of GOP leaders.