|
Author
|
Topic: Israel Tells the U.S. It Will Retaliate if Attacked by Iraq
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Well I am glad to hear it! I cant beleive that Rumsfeld had the nerve to ask that they not in the first place!
Can you imagine... " oh yes, mr Bush, China is going to Bomb you maybe with Nuclear missles, but dont retalitate let us handle it." Sign.. ? whoever.
We would find such a request absurd and so should Israel!
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Kindgo
Advanced Member
Member # 2
|
posted
September 22, 2002
Israel Tells the U.S. It Will Retaliate if Attacked by Iraq
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/i...nt&position=top
ERUSALEM, Sept. 21 — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has informed the Bush administration that he plans to strike back if Iraq attacks Israel, according to Israeli and Western officials.
Mr. Sharon's statements, made privately to senior American officials in recent weeks, represent a major shift in Israeli thinking since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when 39 Iraqi Scud missiles struck without any Israeli response.
The prime minister's position reflects a widespread belief among Israeli politicians and generals that Arab leaders perceived Israel's restraint in 1991 as weakness. Throughout his military and political career, Mr. Sharon has always held to the view that any attack on Israel must be promptly and powerfully punished.
"I don't think there is a scenario in which Israel will get hit and not strike back," said a senior Western official. "I think the evolving strategy will be commensurate response."
Mr. Sharon's position has significant implications for the Pentagon, which fears an Israeli entry would stir up Arab public opinion and make it harder for the Pentagon to maintain cooperation from the Arab states where Washington hopes to base American forces.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress on Thursday that it would be in Israel's "overwhelming best interests" not to intervene if the United States went to war with Iraq.
The Pentagon is also planning military steps to reduce the Iraqi threat to Israel and obviate the need for an Israeli retaliatory strike. Israeli officials say they have been told by their American counterparts that the United States will mount an intensive campaign to destroy Iraqi missile launchers in western Iraq, an operation that would almost certainly require the use of American commandos in addition to airstrikes.
American officials have also assured the Israelis that they will receive adequate warning of when the American attack will begin, though American officials have not said how much notice they will provide.
The United States has also quietly installed a data link to rush early warning of Iraqi missile launches to Israeli commanders. The warning information would be gathered by American satellites and sent by the United States to Israel's Air Force headquarters, Israeli officials said. From there, the warning data can be distributed to Israel's antimissile batteries, Israel's Home Front Command, which has responsibility for civil defense, as well as Israeli Air Force commanders.
Current and former Israeli officials said the arrangement provided Israel with additional warning time and was one reason why Israel had a better chance of defending against an Iraqi missile attack than during the 1991 war and protecting its civilians.
Still, most Israelis believe that the nation needs to retaliate if it is attacked, as does the Israeli leadership. According to a recent poll by the newspaper Yediot Ahronot, 70 percent of Israelis believe the nation should retaliate if it is subjected to the same sort of Scud attacks it endured during the 1991 Persian Gulf war; those attacks, on 17 days spread out over five weeks, killed two Israelis in direct hits, and four others suffocated in their gas masks.
"There are many more options now for Israel to be defended," said David Ivri, Israel's former ambassador to Washington and a senior defense official during the gulf war.
"The Iraqi side is less effective," he said, and experts think that Iraq has far fewer Scuds than it did the last time. Also, Mr. Ivri said, "we have better early warning combined with the U.S. But there is also much more of a tendency to respond this time. Otherwise, we will lose deterrence. We did not retaliate in 1991. If do not retaliate another time neighboring countries may think we do not have confidence in our ability."
While there is broad political and popular support for retaliation, not all Israelis believe the policy is necessary in every case. Some Israeli officials suggested that it might be difficult to ignore American appeals for restraint if a Scud missile landed in an empty lot or off the coast of Israel. And some Israeli experts argue that there is little the Israeli's could do to hurt Saddam Hussein's government that the Americans would not already be doing.
"When you retaliate you really need to do something that is impressive," said Shai Feldman, who runs the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv. "It is not that easy to do something impressive when a much larger American bombing capability is already in operation."
But the current debate in Israel turns more on arguments about deterrence and the need to demonstrate national resolve than strictly military considerations.
The debate over Israel retaliation is an echo of the gulf war. The concern then was Mr. Hussein's government would try to draw Israel into the conflict in an effort to split the American and Arab military coalition. The Israeli military drew up plans to intervene, including an operation to dispatch Israeli commandoes into western Iraq to destroy Scud launchers. The United States urged Israel to stay out of the war and promised to neutralize the Iraqi Scud threat. The Scud is a surface-to-surface missile, which Iraq used during its war with Iran, and which it employed against Israel and targets in the Persian Gulf during the 1991 war. It was very inaccurate and sometimes broke up in flight. But Iraq tried to use the missiles to terrorize and demoralize its foes. A Scud killed dozens of American soldiers at a barracks near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in 1991.
American and British efforts to stop or disrupt the Iraqi Scud firings, however, were only marginally successful. To encourage Israel to stay out of the fight, the United States sent American-manned Patriot anti-missile batteries to Israel and allowing the Israeli military to pick bombing targets for allied airstrikes.
The 1991 war established a pattern of military cooperation between Israel and the United States, which has been expanded. The establishment of the early warning data link early warning data is one example.
American ammunition, medical supplies and other equipment is also stockpiled in Israel. An agreement allows the Israeli military to draw on the material in a crisis. The American military also has the right to use the stocks under some circumstances.
The possibility of a new American confrontation with Iraq, however, has again raised the question of how Israel should respond. Mr. Sharon has told American officials that he believes that the Israel's decision not to strike back at Iraq undermined its ability to deter an enemy strike and that the Israeli public will demand retaliation if Iraq attacks.
The issue, Mr. Sharon has suggested to the Americans, is not whether to respond but how to calibrate it. There is wide agreement among Israeli officials that the use of chemical and biological weapons by Iraq would prompt a particularly strong Israeli retaliation, though it is less clear what Israel would do if Iraq carried out a small or ineffective attack that did not cause casualties.
To order a retaliation, Mr. Sharon would have to coordinate the decision through his security cabinet, a small group of ministers, including Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who are responsible for important national security decisions. Western officials say that no top Israeli officials have been pressing for restraint.
"There is nobody who says to us, `I am going to be the one to argue for restraint,' " a Western official said. "I think you have to assess from everything that people are saying and writing that if anything hits Israel, even it is does not even do much damage, they will do something."
Still, the issue of retaliation is a complex one. First, it is very possible that United States will be successful in stopping Iraq from striking Israel. Iraq is believed to have a covert Scud missile force that numbers anywhere from a handful to several dozen Scud missiles, a much lower amount than during the gulf war. Washington's efforts to hunt Scuds are likely to be more intensive and better coordinated. In 1991, the United States underestimated the difficulty of detecting and destroying mobile Scud launchers and waited weeks to send commandos into Iraqi territory.
Israel's ability to defend against Scud missiles is much improved. In addition to the early warning arrangement with the United States Israel has deployed its own Arrow antimissile system.
If an Iraqi missile or aircraft should sneak past the American and Israeli forces, an Israeli retaliatory blow would have to be carefully arranged so as not to interfere with the American military campaign. Israel would also have to take precautions not to strike Iraqi civilians. One aim of the American military strategy is to encourage the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to turn against Mr. Hussein.
There is no serious expectation that Israel would use its small but potent arsenal of nuclear weapons. Most Israelis believe that nuclear weapons should only be used if the existence of the state of Israel is in question or never used at all, according to the Yediot Ahronot poll.
In his appearance before Congress, Mr. Rumsfeld argued that Israel would be vulnerable to an Iraqi attack but that the American military would be so effective against the Iraqi forces that the vulnerability would not last long. "There's also no doubt in mind but that it would be in Israel's overwhelming best interest not to get involved," he said.
A senior Israeli official argued differently. "The Americans prefer that we not retaliate but they don't understand that if we are hit we have to retaliate," he said. "This is the dilemma. The questions are: When? How much? If? We will have to see first where this big American military machine is going. But if something happens we will have to solidify our deterrence. We think that everybody has to understand that it is not an easy task to try and challenge Israel from a military point of view."
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
--------------------
God bless,
Kindgo
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success.
Posts: 4320 | From: Sunny Florida | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
