|
can israel survive without the draft? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
The reason for this is very likely the realization that Israel's military coupled with its manpower no longer allow for such a traditionalist victory (which was thought possible till quiet recently).
This detterent is a very real reason why we can't see Egypt, Syria, Saudia, etc, attacking Israel and is in a sense a force for peace.
|
Haha so you're saying the main reason why Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia don't attack is because of the awe-inspiring, imposing threat that Israel poses ... particularly with its ability to mobilize troops??? Hmmm ok and the only reason why Russia doesn't attack the US is because we keep our military in top-notch shape! Ok, so asides from the capability to attack, why don't you explain the geo-political reasons why one of those nations would attack and how such an attack would be acceptable on the world stage?
| quote: |
Another note is that Israel as a nation of Jews and holocaust survivors feels it part of its ethos that every Jew must learn how to fight and defend for themselves; adding to inseperability of the draft from Israeli society.
|
And so a draft is necessary for Israel's survival because everyone would feel bad if they weren't forced to take part in its defense? Somehow the common sense of that logic escapes me.
| quote: |
oh and Occrider I thought you and your other "liberal" friends were the ones whinning about how not enough manpower was sent to Iraq, how the traditionalist who wanted to send half a million troops had it right and how the new technocratic leadership had it wrong etc... or was that just Opus?:conf: |
Oh yes. You're absolutely right. Because the ability to crush the military effectiveness of an invading armored division equates with the difficulties faced by an occupying army. I forgot that this is the Rumsfeld camp of military doctrine ... every military situation equals the same military doctrine. Obviously you need massive Israeli troops to deal with the Israeli insurgency ... what was I thinking? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Haha so you're saying the main reason why Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia don't attack is because of the awe-inspiring, imposing threat that Israel poses ... |
Yes. Why do you think the main reason they don't attack Israel is because they like the country? :rolleyes: :p ;)
| quote: |
particularly with its ability to mobilize troops??? |
This is not necessarily a particular, but as its ability to mobilize troops is a great part of its "awe-inspiring" ability to defend any Mid East unslaught, then yes.
| quote: |
Hmmm ok and the only reason why Russia doesn't attack the US is because we keep our military in top-notch shape! |
Russia cira USSR, yes. Russia as in Western Democracy today is different (no democracy vs. democracy princinple). More similar is why Iran or North Korea don't attack the USA and South Korea respectively. Are you unaware of the principle of deterrence? It proved very popular just a decade ago for 50+ odd years....
| quote: |
Ok, so asides from the capability to attack, why don't you explain the geo-political reasons why one of those nations would attack and how such an attack would be acceptable on the world stage? |
Not so hard to imagine.
Two assumptions: 1) Israel has a military the size of Switzerland and no mobolization pool.
2) Repeat of 2001 era Palestinian uprising (remember, the time when Europe put 'arm-sanctions' on Israel...)
| quote: |
And so a draft is necessary for Israel's survival because everyone would feel bad if they weren't forced to take part in its defense? Somehow the common sense of that logic escapes me. |
I didn't say everyone, I said most as in the Israel society/ethos. Not everything has to be logical. But basically yes. You as an economist must be quiet aware of the different "free-ride" theories of public goods. If a large percentage of Israeli population was not "forced" to provide this public good (which everyone inturn believes necessary to provide) then it very well might not be provided.
| quote: |
Oh yes. You're absolutely right. Because the ability to crush the military effectiveness of an invading armored division equates with the difficulties faced by an occupying army. I forgot that this is the Rumsfeld camp of military doctrine ... every military situation equals the same military doctrine. Obviously you need massive Israeli troops to deal with the Israeli insurgency ... what was I thinking? |
:) Ok, so it was you. Wasn't sure.
But right, its sorta of counter-intuitive: Low Intesity Conflicts need more troop levels in our modern time than the larger 'traditional' wars of divisions and maneuver.
Then again realize what type of threat Israel is most likely to face in the coming years... |
|
|
| Lepanto |
I have to comment on one thing. Occ, your example of Russian attacking US is a false comparison. During the Cold War Era neither the US nor USSR would attack each other because they were practicing nuclear restraint, not recklesness. Nowdays Russia has no chance of attacking anyone but threatening Ukraine over a power generator.
Please go on |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Yes. Why do you think the main reason they don't attack Israel is because they like the country? :rolleyes: :p ;)
|
Every single country, with the exception of Syria, have normalized relations with Israel. WHY would they attack? What goal would that accomplish? Do you really think that Israel would be AFRAID of an attack from any of those countries should it not possess a full draft? You're implying that these countries would attack Israel if given the opportunity, well what evidence do you have to support that?
| quote: |
This is not necessarily a particular, but as its ability to mobilize troops is a great part of its "awe-inspiring" ability to defend any Mid East unslaught, then yes.
|
So Nasser would rise from the grave and lead a Soviet backed arab coalition army to invade israel the minute it relaxes its army?
| quote: |
Russia cira USSR, yes. Russia as in Western Democracy today is different (no democracy vs. democracy princinple). More similar is why Iran or North Korea don't attack the USA and South Korea respectively. Are you unaware of the principle of deterrence? It proved very popular just a decade ago for 50+ odd years....
|
That's the point. You think the Arab countries have the same geopolitical profiles as they did in the 70's when in fact that's analagous to saying that Russia today is alike to the Soviet Union during the cold war. And an abstract statement like Russia is now a "democracy" (which it really isn't) somehow changes its geopolitical ambitions (whereas Arab monarchies have the same geopolitical ambitions since the 70s) wouldn't hold any weight whatsoever in a serious history paper.
| quote: |
Not so hard to imagine.
Two assumptions: 1) Israel has a military the size of Switzerland and no mobolization pool.
2) Repeat of 2001 era Palestinian uprising (remember, the time when Europe put 'arm-sanctions' on Israel...)
|
This didn't answer my question at all. The first is simply a Red Herring and the second is a Strawman.
| quote: |
I didn't say everyone, I said most as in the Israel society/ethos. Not everything has to be logical. But basically yes. You as an economist must be quiet aware of the different "free-ride" theories of public goods. If a large percentage of Israeli population was not "forced" to provide this public good (which everyone inturn believes necessary to provide) then it very well might not be provided.
|
Well I'm afraid you have presented a thesis that is going to be quite difficult to prove. Somehow you have to explain how there are so many voluntary professional armies among all the western democracies when the public good of an army is theoretically disregarded by the public. This is particularly exacerbated by the fact that, as you imply, Israel has a particular societal obligation and ethos to serve in a function that "everyone believes necessary." So despite the fact that all Israelis feel like they have a moral and societal obligation to defend their country (so much so that it would hurt their "ethos" if they weren't obligated to do so), you fear that Israelis would either be too greedy or chicken to embrace their duty such that Israel would be unable to maintain an effective fighting force like other western democracies?
| quote: |
:) Ok, so it was you. Wasn't sure.
But right, its sorta of counter-intuitive: Low Intesity Conflicts need more troop levels in our modern time than the larger 'traditional' wars of divisions and maneuver.
Then again realize what type of threat Israel is most likely to face in the coming years... |
Huh? So a backyard military skirmish needs more troops than a large scale World War? That's not why you need more troops at all. The reason WHY more troops are needed depends on the role your troops have. If they're going to engage in counter-insurgency operations and security, you're going to need more manpower. If you're going to be smashing the military effectiveness of batallions and divisions, you need less manpower and more technological weaponry. So why exactly would Israel need to be manpower heavy in a defensive war? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Haha so you're saying the main reason why Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia don't attack is because of the awe-inspiring, imposing threat that Israel poses ... particularly with its ability to mobilize troops??? |
Yes, but not "in particularly with its ability to mobolize troops" but "one of the reasons which makes it an awe-inspring, imposing threat, is its ability to mobolize troops".
| quote: |
Hmmm ok and the only reason why Russia doesn't attack the US is because we keep our military in top-notch shape! |
And inversely they keep there's in very poor military shape. Of course US and Russian economies today are my interlinked then Arab-Israeli economies, and they do have McDonalds.
| quote: |
Ok, so asides from the capability to attack, why don't you explain the geo-political reasons why one of those nations would attack and how such an attack would be acceptable on the world stage?
|
You didn't like my previous hypothetical so try this on for size: Syria wants the Golan back.
| quote: |
And so a draft is necessary for Israel's survival because everyone would feel bad if they weren't forced to take part in its defense? Somehow the common sense of that logic escapes me.
|
Yes you mentioned you can understand the logic of it in your last pot too ;)
| quote: |
Oh yes. You're absolutely right. Because the ability to crush the military effectiveness of an invading armored division equates with the difficulties faced by an occupying army. I forgot that this is the Rumsfeld camp of military doctrine ... every military situation equals the same military doctrine. Obviously you need massive Israeli troops to deal with the Israeli insurgency ... what was I thinking? |
:nervous:
! I just realized I'm replying to the wrong post :eek:
Never again will I come here on a morning without coffee:mad:
:sadgreen: |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Every single country, with the exception of Syria, have normalized relations with Israel. WHY would they attack? What goal would that accomplish? Do you really think that Israel would be AFRAID of an attack from any of those countries should it not possess a full draft? You're implying that these countries would attack Israel if given the opportunity, well what evidence do you have to support that? |
Ok. I'll try this again.
Step 1) Validate Occrider as poster - check.
Step 2) Make sure this is Occrider's most recent post - check.
Continue:
Firstly, Lebanon does not have normalized relations with Israel either and they are in defacto war since the 1980s.
But as I mentioned in my last post:
Syria wants the Golan back.
Also any Arab nation that wants to gain Arab street cred or wants to divert the attention of its population from the failure of its leadership or an Arab nation taken over by radical extremist has a case against Israel.
And like I mentioned earlier should the Palestinian conflict get more unsettling the possibility of other Arab armies sending relief troops to the Palestinians would be quiet realistic.
| quote: |
So Nasser would rise from the grave and lead a Soviet backed arab coalition army to invade israel the minute it relaxes its army? |
Look as long as Egypt is dictorial and there is no large amount of trade, economy, and political stability between the two nations Israel would create itself as a very tempting target when it relaxes its army. So you wouldn't have Nasser rising from the grave, but you most likely would have a new arising to power challenging Israel's right to exist.
| quote: |
That's the point. You think the Arab countries have the same geopolitical profiles as they did in the 70's when in fact that's analagous to saying that Russia today is alike to the Soviet Union during the cold war. |
I'm sorry I must of missed some sort of Arab revolution that happened these past 30 years? Right? I coulda swore there was some Arab revolution... :rolleyes:
The truth is the Arab countries (unlike the soviet block) have not changed. What has changed in the Arab world is a move to greater extremism as showcast by the islamo-facist movements.
Look at Arab military sizes. Check out who is building up there forces (Egypt and Saudia primarily). If you are using the argument of why Israel needs a large military, surely why does Egypt or Saudia need one?
| quote: |
And an abstract statement like Russia is now a "democracy" (which it really isn't) somehow changes its geopolitical ambitions (whereas Arab monarchies have the same geopolitical ambitions since the 70s) wouldn't hold any weight whatsoever in a serious history paper. |
Hey as you like. I just pointed to the reality that Russia is considered a western nation with important political and economic ties to the modern world. Israel's neighbors are not. Furthermore they have no free press, free political parties, and limited human rights. Nations who have called out to the West in attempts to receive western legitimacy (i.e. Jordan) are indeed much more stable. However Jordan still faces the very real geo-political threat that we will wake up to the King and his family assasinated and Palestinians claiming the Jordanese government and army as there own.
| quote: |
This didn't answer my question at all. The first is simply a Red Herring and the second is a Strawman.[quote]
Actually its a hypothetical.
[quote]
Well I'm afraid you have presented a thesis that is going to be quite difficult to prove. Somehow you have to explain how there are so many voluntary professional armies among all the western democracies when the public good of an army is theoretically disregarded by the public. |
Yes, but these professional armies are at a prepetual state of peace in the west. Israel's army is in a prepetual state of war. If you want to learn how war effects today's professional armies look at enlistment rates post Iraq war comencement.
| quote: |
This is particularly exacerbated by the fact that, as you imply, Israel has a particular societal obligation and ethos to serve in a function that "everyone believes necessary." So despite the fact that all Israelis feel like they have a moral and societal obligation to defend their country (so much so that it would hurt their "ethos" if they weren't obligated to do so), you fear that Israelis would either be too greedy or chicken to embrace their duty such that Israel would be unable to maintain an effective fighting force like other western democracies? |
Right at military age you are dealing with teenagers out of high school which can present a diverging attitude from society as a whole. Regardless most society agress with this law and believes that without this law you would have a larger "sucker syndrome" - as in; I believe it is important and everyone needs to do it. But if that guy isn't doing it, and that guy isn't doing it, and that friend's sister's cousin isn't doing it, why am I gonna be the sucker and do it?
| quote: |
Huh? So a backyard military skirmish needs more troops than a large scale World War? |
Israel is not capable of fighting any world wars. If you look at it as it is today even the 2.3 million of available manpower is nothing in comparison if you would unify the Arab armies. |
|
|
| Lover Boy |
Without getting drawn into the other arguments in this deabte, there isn't going to be a large scale land war again EVER.
The US and Soviet Union fought in small controlled conflicts post 1945 such as Vietnam, Afghanistan and Korea, with either their own forces taking part or their political allies receiving aid from them. If they had of gone head to head, nukes would have flown (Cuban missile crisis anyone?).
Israel will never be subject to a long war of attrition as they have to many good weapon systems that can wipe out masses of troops and if they do have the bomb, i'm sure if Israel was about to fall they'd take every other agressor out with them. What country wouldn't?
Brush up on your M.A.D doctrine boys :D |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Ok. I'll try this again.
Step 1) Validate Occrider as poster - check.
Step 2) Make sure this is Occrider's most recent post - check.
|
I'm not ignoring you ;). I just have less time to post in general. I promise to respond in full tomorrow :p. |
|
|
| saryn |
| no one screws with israel because of what happened in the seven days war. took egypt, jordon and syria (i think) in seven days and took back territory. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by saryn
no one screws with israel because of what happened in the seven days war. took egypt, jordon and syria (i think) in seven days and took back territory. |
Actually it was the six day war, as in they obliterated the armies of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt in six days.
And they did mess with them afterwords, namely the Yom Kippur War in 1973, which the Arabs considered some sort of a victory because it took Israel two weeks to beat them this round. |
|
|
| saryn |
so six days. either way israel beat them all. what twenty years after it was established as a nation?
and so the arabs came back later. 2 weeks. what was the last real war we fought? and im not talking about this "war" in irag or afganistan. last one was vietnam right? how many years was that? before that korea, ww2..? years for each. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Ok. I'll try this again.
Step 1) Validate Occrider as poster - check.
Step 2) Make sure this is Occrider's most recent post - check.
Continue:
Firstly, Lebanon does not have normalized relations with Israel either and they are in defacto war since the 1980s.
But as I mentioned in my last post:
Syria wants the Golan back.
Also any Arab nation that wants to gain Arab street cred or wants to divert the attention of its population from the failure of its leadership or an Arab nation taken over by radical extremist has a case against Israel.
And like I mentioned earlier should the Palestinian conflict get more unsettling the possibility of other Arab armies sending relief troops to the Palestinians would be quiet realistic. |
C'mon. This is completely unrealistic. You envision a Lebanese attack with what standing army? And they would attack for s and giggles? Because it's the thing to do? C'mon, let's try to avoid cognitive dissonance here. So what Arab nation has priority to wag the dog's tail so to speak and use an attack against Israel to prevent dissatisfaction at home? One that sufficentely threatens the existence of Israel such that a mandatory draft is necessary. I have yet to see a single comprehensive geopolitical case for a country to engage in such ambitions.
| quote: |
Look as long as Egypt is dictorial and there is no large amount of trade, economy, and political stability between the two nations Israel would create itself as a very tempting target when it relaxes its army. So you wouldn't have Nasser rising from the grave, but you most likely would have a new arising to power challenging Israel's right to exist.
|
But there is a large amount of trade, economy, and political stability between Egybpt and Israel that prevents such a scenario from happening. Like it or not, Israel is economically integrated with the entire middle east. But really, what incentive is there to challenge Israel's right to exist???? Why does that make any business sense whatsoever in our current economic state? The principles of free market economies and efficiency exist even in Arab states :rolleyes:.
| quote: |
I'm sorry I must of missed some sort of Arab revolution that happened these past 30 years? Right? I coulda swore there was some Arab revolution... :rolleyes:
The truth is the Arab countries (unlike the soviet block) have not changed. What has changed in the Arab world is a move to greater extremism as showcast by the islamo-facist movements.
Look at Arab military sizes. Check out who is building up there forces (Egypt and Saudia primarily). If you are using the argument of why Israel needs a large military, surely why does Egypt or Saudia need one?
|
Oh because a revolution is the sole necessity for policy change??? You mean Russia has abandoned all its prior policy goals??? That's rather surprising. As a matter of fact Saudi Arabia is the only middle eastern country that reatains a strong semblance of a military. How you equate that as a threat to Israel is somewhat of a mystery since Saudi Arabia has always been a relative non-threat to Isreael in the past 50 years even during the time of the Arab League. It's a strong 38 compared to Israel's 17.
| quote: |
Hey as you like. I just pointed to the reality that Russia is considered a western nation with important political and economic ties to the modern world. Israel's neighbors are not. Furthermore they have no free press, free political parties, and limited human rights. Nations who have called out to the West in attempts to receive western legitimacy (i.e. Jordan) are indeed much more stable. However Jordan still faces the very real geo-political threat that we will wake up to the King and his family assasinated and Palestinians claiming the Jordanese government and army as there own.
|
Are you really serious? Russia has a free press and free political parties??? have you been paying attention to the news AT ALL?? God, I'm not sure what to say that you consider that Jordan faces serious geopolitical threats that constitute a legitimate threat. You must be concerned every time the terror threat level prematurely escalates a shade of color ...
| quote: |
Yes, but these professional armies are at a prepetual state of peace in the west. Israel's army is in a prepetual state of war. If you want to learn how war effects today's professional armies look at enlistment rates post Iraq war comencement.
|
Again, why do you need a mandatory draft? What necessity does that fulfill? I'm sorry but explantions such as pathos are bull answers.
| quote: |
Right at military age you are dealing with teenagers out of high school which can present a diverging attitude from society as a whole. Regardless most society agress with this law and believes that without this law you would have a larger "sucker syndrome" - as in; I believe it is important and everyone needs to do it. But if that guy isn't doing it, and that guy isn't doing it, and that friend's sister's cousin isn't doing it, why am I gonna be the sucker and do it?
|
Umm because it is part of the Israeli "pathos" as you so implied? If there is a genuine mentality to give back to Israeli society as you so implied than this issue is moot. Does Israel inspire additional efforts among its citizens or does it require a madatory draft for effect?
| quote: |
Israel is not capable of fighting any world wars. If you look at it as it is today even the 2.3 million of available manpower is nothing in comparison if you would unify the Arab armies. |
The point is is that it doesn't need to fight a large scale war. It doesn't need a large army to accomplish the goals it's set out to accomplish. |
|
|
|
|
