No "Hama rules" vs Hamas

This article in Speigel Online is a bit disjointed, as if it is trying to cover all viewpoints at once, but it dredged up something I had forgotten the name of, that is how properly deal with the likes of Hamas.

Some commentators have suggested that "Hama Rules" are "no rules", but I strenuously disagree. The rules are "we'll give you enough rope, then hang, draw, and quarter you". A good synopsis is, as often, to be found at Wikipedia.

To give you the general idea:

According to Amnesty International, the Syrian military bombed the old streets of the city from the air to facilitate the introduction of military forces and tanks through the narrow streets, where homes were crushed by tanks during the first four days of fighting. They also claim that the Syrian military pumped poison gas into buildings where insurgents were said to be hiding.

The army was mobilized, and Hafez again sent Rifaat's special forces and Mukhabarat agents to the city. After encountering fierce resistance, Rifaat's forces ringed the city with artillery and shelled it for three weeks. Afterward, military and internal security personnel were dispatched to comb through the rubble for surviving Brothers and their sympathizers.^[4] Then followed several weeks of torture and mass executions of suspected rebel sympathizers, killing many thousands, known as the Hama Massacre. Estimates of casualties vary from an estimated 7000 to 35,000 people killed, including about 1000 soldiers. ^[5] Journalist Robert Fisk, who was in Hama shortly after the massacre, estimated fatalities as high as 10,000.^[6] The New York Times estimated the death toll as up to 20,000.[2] According to Thomas Friedman^[7] Rifaat later boasted of killing 38,000 people.

A wholesale massacre in Gaza was never on the cards, but I feel that the Israelis made their point, and balanced that with the political angle in deciding to withdraw. Hamas is particularly thuggish and stupid, so I'm sure there will be a Round Two, it's only a question of when, and that's the real test for Israel's politicians.

Israel definitely lost vs. Hezbollah in 2006, but in that case it was a Pyrrhic victory for Hez. Israel made life miserable enough for anywhere that launched a missile, etc. at them that Lebs of all stripes are much happier letting the sleeping IDF dog lie. The IDF for it's part took the time to lick it's wounds and accomplished much the same result in Gaza but without embarrassing itself again.

Laying the temporary smackdown on your enemies is not a defeat unless you said you would eliminate them. The only way the Israelis can "win" this sort of thing is to go house-to-house, top-to-bottom and kill anyone who even looks at them funny. With 90% of the population then dead, a viable two-and-a-half state solution is probably workable. Doesn't seem likely with that sort of condition, but hope springs eternal for our political elites.

Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it is to be noted that Syria has had no significant problems with Islamic wackos since 1982. It worked there because Syria didn't give a rat's ass what Amnesty International, etc. thought of their methods, but they still paid a (tolerable) international political price. If the IDF did this the Americans would lose their nerve and pull the plug on the billions in aid that gets sent to Israel, and then, well, nothing good would come of it.

In and Out Clever; pretty close this time, so we'll see if Israel has really re-learned how to do this sort of thing. Der Speigel can try to be all things to all people, but Israel can't do that and survive. Even those who dislike Israel have to ask themselves if they'd like Hamas running the whole place. Not even a choice if you ask me, but the clowns with the Hamas banners in the West never do ask for some reason...

Give 'em enough rope

Some sort of truce seems imminent in the Gaza situation, for whatever that's worth. Israel has certainly made a mess of anything to do with Hamas they could find, but it's apparent to me that the High-Value Targets are drying up. More importantly for Israel, they have managed to run amok in Gaza for three weeks and take negligible losses.

This will not convince Hamas to give up; only death will do that, but it sends a message that the IDF has come back from the dismal performance it put in against Hezbollah in 2006. The key to this sort of operation is "in and out clever", and the "clever" part at least seems to have happened. The Israeli public has seen what happens when they unilaterally give up control of contentious areas, and they have apparently had enough of being patsies.

Hamas wants this truce to regroup, and normally it would be foolish to give it to them. "Ask me for anything but time" is attributed to Napoleon, and time is indeed the one variable that commanders can't finesse. The following snippet suggests that the Israelis have a tactical reason to allow their mortal enemies to regroup:

The Qassam rockets were fired into Sderot at 9 a.m. -- seven hours after Israel's cease-fire went into effect. The rockets injured one person, and Israeli aircraft destroyed the rocket launcher soon afterward, an Israeli military spokesman said.

An hour or two before the rocket attacks, Palestinian gunmen opened fire on Israeli forces in northern Gaza, the Israeli military said. Troops returned fire.

Hamas was dug in deep, those of their leadership that survived, and letting them come up for air gives them a chance to come up and take a pot at IDF targets. When you have the confidence that you can give better than you take, you can afford the luxury of giving up time and initiative. Even then it's only because you know you can take the latter back whenever you want.

So, the IDF is back in form, and the Israelis know that they can only count on themselves to manage their security. There has been a great deal of anti-Israel/anti-Jew vitriol expressed around the world, so Enemy Situation: no change. Friendly morale is better, and as long as the Americans continue to support Israel there is a secure bulwark against Islamic expansion in the Mid East.

Containment worked passably against Communism during the Cold War, so perhaps it's an option against the currently most menacingly unpleasant ideology. Fight them in Israel and Afghanistan, support the Ethiopians against the Islamist factions in Somalia (I give that six months or less before they take over again), in other words stick with the idea of having a "free fire area" to suck them in and kill them.

This is expensive and not so fun for whoever lives in these areas, but better there than here, right? Well, we'll see what happens in Gaza. There's a good chance that a lot of the citizens of Gaza have had enough of Hamas and would (quietly) welcome the Israelis administering the place for a while. That way the food, fuel, medicine etc. will get in since the IDF will control the borders and not have to cut everything off to keep the weapons out. In any event, I don't see this truce lasting (it's already been broken by Hamas), but this opens the "third phase" of Operation CAST LEAD. It remains to be seen what form it will take.

Better tried by twelve than carried by six.

The most succinct comment I saw in regard to this story was "Ridiculous.", and that it certainly is.

The bare bones:

'Capt. Robert Semrau is accused of shooting, "with intent to kill," an unarmed male civilian during an October battle in which Afghan, Canadian and British soldiers defended the capital of Helmand province, Lashkar Gah, from an insurgent attack.' I personally commend him on shooting "with intent to kill", as that is the only way to do it, but there are others that seem to differ.

There was a three-day battle resulting in over 100 dead bad guys (Taliban, etc.), which is indicative of, hmm, let me think, a war, maybe? In fact it's a Counter-Insurgency fight, the messiest type against an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms. It also takes place in a country that has now seen three straight generations of war, and the locals know to keep out of situations like this.

That last fact is one that you won't see in the papers too much, but EVERYONE in Afghanistan knows to stay away from battles, troops in contact (TICs)and get out of the way of our convoys. There are no spectators for a big fight; if there was an apparently unarmed Fighting Age Male (FAM) he was possibly a suicide bomber, most likely a spotter.

The charges against Capt. Semrau are bullshit and will most likely quietly be dropped or he'll be found Not Guilty at a Court Martial. I don't have any information on this other than the news report, but I've been in his position ('tho I never had to shoot anyone) and I know that the troops can't afford to be wondering if they'll be charged for doing what needs to be done under the circumstances.

If the media or the Army think the locals need this foolishness, here's what the senior ANA officer on the ground (most likely a former Mujaheddin with decades of fighting experience in his homeland) had to say:

'On Thursday, an Afghan army general who was present during the battle said he had not heard of any soldier engaging in "inappropriate conduct" in connection with death of the suspected insurgent.

According to Gen. Sher Muhammad Zazai, so many Taliban militants were killed that it would be hard to say how each of them died.'

There is a bit more background in the North Bay Nugget, of all places, but none of that suggests to me that anybody's going to jail over this. Regardless, I'd be most interested to know how this even became an issue, let alone turned into a news story and charges against a guy sent to do a highly dangerous job in a shit-hole part of a failed country that is no threat to Canada. I have a lot of previous posts about what I think of Afghanistan, but this is a new angle.

Our soldiers are put in bad situations requiring judgement calls, and unless Capt. Semrau tied this guy up and put a bullet in the back of his head, there is no crime or rational basis for charges. Kids will watch you over there, at least as long as it's safe to do so, but if FAMs are looking at you immediately before or after a major battle in an unstable area, they are up to something. If buddy was watching us and talking to people on a cell phone or radio, that only means one thing and that's a belligerent activity.

"Unarmed observer" in this context is not a UN drone put somewhere to report on things that nobody has any intention of doing anything about. They report on troop strengths, movements, timings, tactics, equipment, and even spot for mortars and ambushes. Again, I don't have the facts, but this is to try to give the uninitiated some idea of why someone who is not obviously armed could be considered a legitimate military target. The suicide bomber thing is too obvious as well.

As for a "coverup", whoever thinks that is the cause of the delay between incident and it making the news has no clue about how ponderously administrative things move in the military.

I hope this whole thing disappears as soon as legally possible, but Capt Semrau's tour is now ruined if the fighting, IEDs, and constant low-level stress didn't manage to do it already. Again I speak from experience that frequently in a war zone your most implacable enemy is the military/political bureaucracy, NOT the opposition. I wish Rob the best of luck against his new enemies: the media and the Military Justice System.