naraburns nihil supernum
2yr ago
(text post)
31566 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
Insert joke remark about the US having an invasion plan for Canada. Like, sure, it probably existed. Some planners probably wanted to just have reps at moving through the process.
...but if you're Israel, kind of how do you not have a plan on the shelf for invading Gaza? Probably two or three plans with a few different spec'd out scenarios for your goals and other factors. Sure, none are going to exactly match your exact situation, and you'll need a little time to gather the requisite intel in one place (like, e.g., the disposition of other nations in the region) in order to make the necessary adjustments. But I've gotta think you've got an 80% good plan just sitting there, ready to go. Probably updated at least once a year, if not every six months.
I have no position on whether any of these things are good ideas or good plans... just that ISTM that they should have a ready-to-go plan, no less than China almost certainly has one for invading Taiwan whenever the time is right... or Taiwan has one for defending... or South Korea has one for... and so on and so forth. As you trickle out toward less and less likely scenarios, it's less likely to have one that's been updated recently. But Israel with Gaza?
You're missing the point. Obviously, Israel has existing plans on the shelf for invading Gaza. Just as I am sure they have existing plans on the shelf for invading the West Bank. And I am sure they have wargamed both many times.
The point is that step one of the plan is certainly calling up reserves, massing troops, pre-invasion aerial attacks to degrade Hamas capacity to defend itself, etc, etc. It isn't "chase Hamas into Gaza at a time dictated by Hamas, using only the troops that happen to be available at that time ," which was OP's proposal.
Fair enough. "Preparation" vs. "Planning", with a lot in one word. Sagan knows that even the US has been writhing a bit with its own planning bureaucracy to get it out of a mindset of, "First, we're going to take three months to call up troops and materiel, then we're going to take six months to ship it all to somewhere near theater (and magically not have to fight to get it there), then we'll like hang out and bomb 'em for a month before anything kicks off." Perhaps this will be an object lesson that helps a variety of countries get that out of their system in the same way that it seems to have kicked up their concern with sUAS into overdrive (even above what happened in Nagorno-Karabakh and the ongoing in Ukraine). If you don't have legit ass-kicking plans that can be put into significant motion on a short fuse, you might pay a significant price.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It is my understanding that a successful invasion requires a great deal of preparation.
Insert joke remark about the US having an invasion plan for Canada. Like, sure, it probably existed. Some planners probably wanted to just have reps at moving through the process.
...but if you're Israel, kind of how do you not have a plan on the shelf for invading Gaza? Probably two or three plans with a few different spec'd out scenarios for your goals and other factors. Sure, none are going to exactly match your exact situation, and you'll need a little time to gather the requisite intel in one place (like, e.g., the disposition of other nations in the region) in order to make the necessary adjustments. But I've gotta think you've got an 80% good plan just sitting there, ready to go. Probably updated at least once a year, if not every six months.
I have no position on whether any of these things are good ideas or good plans... just that ISTM that they should have a ready-to-go plan, no less than China almost certainly has one for invading Taiwan whenever the time is right... or Taiwan has one for defending... or South Korea has one for... and so on and so forth. As you trickle out toward less and less likely scenarios, it's less likely to have one that's been updated recently. But Israel with Gaza?
There's a difference between having a plan and being ready to execute a plan with zero preparations or forewarning.
More options
Context Copy link
You're missing the point. Obviously, Israel has existing plans on the shelf for invading Gaza. Just as I am sure they have existing plans on the shelf for invading the West Bank. And I am sure they have wargamed both many times.
The point is that step one of the plan is certainly calling up reserves, massing troops, pre-invasion aerial attacks to degrade Hamas capacity to defend itself, etc, etc. It isn't "chase Hamas into Gaza at a time dictated by Hamas, using only the troops that happen to be available at that time ," which was OP's proposal.
Fair enough. "Preparation" vs. "Planning", with a lot in one word. Sagan knows that even the US has been writhing a bit with its own planning bureaucracy to get it out of a mindset of, "First, we're going to take three months to call up troops and materiel, then we're going to take six months to ship it all to somewhere near theater (and magically not have to fight to get it there), then we'll like hang out and bomb 'em for a month before anything kicks off." Perhaps this will be an object lesson that helps a variety of countries get that out of their system in the same way that it seems to have kicked up their concern with sUAS into overdrive (even above what happened in Nagorno-Karabakh and the ongoing in Ukraine). If you don't have legit ass-kicking plans that can be put into significant motion on a short fuse, you might pay a significant price.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link