The government on Sunday rejected a proposal issued by Defense Minister Ehud Barak to add $1.6 billion to next year's defense budget and push back the debate on the Brodet Committee's recommendations on budget reform.
A total of 16 ministers voted to accept the Brodet Committee's report, in accordance with the proposal put forward by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert – which bested Barak's. Only five ministers voted with Barak. Olmert rebuffed claims that any failures during the Second Lebanon War had anything to do with budgetary difficulties.
"We've been through a difficult experience. There were many failings, but most of them aren't related to budgetary reasons. The attempt to depict the situation in that manner is disturbing," he said. Barak presented his demand to increase the military's budget at the cabinet meeting, sparking harshly worded confrontations between defense and treasury officials.
"I'm asking you to pass it. I'm warning you, know that if the budget doesn't pass – it'll be on your heads," said Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi at the meeting, according to numerous participants. Barak reportedly listed five points he vehemently refused to back down from: No cutbacks on training exercises, increasing troop numbers, maintaining the necessary stockpiles and preserving the IDF's strategic capabilities and long reach of its arm.
I suppose Olmert feels relatively secure cutting training exercises and decreasing troop numbers since the US President has promised to increase the military aid to Israel;
Defense aid to Israel is still a top priority for the United States, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the cabinet Sunday, saying that Israel enjoys more financial assistance than other countries in the Middle East.
"We have renewed agreements and a renewed commitment from the Americans that would help preserve our advantage over the Arab countries," the prime minister added, referring to reports that the US is mulling a $20 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states. However, Olmert said that Israel fully understood the US' need to support the moderate states in the region.
According to the prime minister, the agreements he referred to has been reached during his meeting with President George W. Bush in Washington on June 20. An additional 25% increase in the aid package to Israel worth $3 billion per year and $30 billion over the next decade has also been agreed upon. "This would mean a lot to Israel's security, and this is a good opportunity to thank President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice," Olmert stated.
Of course, this is problematic for the Israelis. It continues an ever growing dependency on the United States for its security needs which could be held hostage the minute American interests conflict with Israeli ones. The Six Days War proved Israelis can do just fine on their own.
In addition, it continues the current trend of over relying on technology rather than emphasing training and effective use of current resources. There was no question over last summer’s war with Lebanon that the Israeli army held the technological edge over Hezbollah; but all the toys in the world don’t necessarily replace well-trained, well equipped boots on the ground. And we all know how that conflict played out.
In the end, the US president can promise all he wants, but it is still congress which has the final say whether to deliver or not. But since Olmert’s all gung-ho for outsourcing Israeli security this Jerusalem Post report isn’t the least surprising:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is exploring the idea of allowing Jordanian forces, and not NATO troops, into the West Bank to help the Palestinian Authority fight terrorism, The Jerusalem Post has learned.The longer Olmert is prime minister - the more I am convinced that he is committed (under one guise or another) of giving the entire country away.
What Olmert has in mind, and what has been raised in recent meetings with Jordan's King Abdullah II, is not the Badr Brigade - a group of Palestinian soldiers inside the Jordanian Army - but rather "regular" Jordanian Army troops, Beduin who have experience fighting terrorism
5 comments:
Kate:
but all the toys in the world don’t necessarily replace well-trained, well equipped boots on the ground. And we all know how that conflict played out.
I think the army knows this, and knew it then. However, they did not receive the political permission to put those boots on the ground until it was too late.
Since Barak's term as PM the politicos have been steadily downgrading the IDF's boots capacity – while maintaining technological superiority can replace boots on the ground. Hence, the predicament of having reserve units called up who had not been drilled for a ground war actions (in some cases) for over two years. There has been an over reliance upon technology rather than training and boots – this is not just a fault with Israeli military strategic thinking but has been an issue western armies have been grappling with for some time. - where do we draw the lines between technology & boots? Halutz’s war plan was typical of the over reliance on technology versus boots. Let me play devil’s advocate – what if Halutz had presented a war plan to the cabinet which was based on boots on the ground with air cover/support would Olmert et al voted for the war? I suspect not.
what if Halutz had presented a war plan to the cabinet which was based on boots on the ground with air cover/support would Olmert et al voted for the war? I suspect not.
I suspect that you are right. From the beginning of the Lebanon War, I kept thinking that it looked like the IDF was repeating all of the US' mistakes from Iraq. It's partly, I think, to do with the IDF's heavy use of American equipment; the hardware brings the software with it.
However, in the last 8 to 10 months, there has been a change in the Army. Miluim (reserve duty) is more frequent, and more intense (per my wife's overage coworkers, who keep getting called up every 3 months). Supplies and equipment are being heavily upgraded (emphasis on the front-line regular brigades, but the reserve units are not being ignored, same source), and training is emphasizing boots on the ground, rather than air power.
What good all that will do, if Olmert agrees to sell the house, I just don't know...
I am glad to see the IDF is taking reserve training more seriously. and you are getting my general point of technology versus boots, and yes, it often is a failing of American military….but I can’t let this “repeating all of the US mistakes from Iraq” stand unchallenged.
I thought the American invasion plan was positively brilliant. First there was air cover and then the boots rolled. It was incredible watching how well all the different branches of the US military worked together on a wide scale. The entire country fell in 21 days. Where the Americans are failing is in the occupation and not the invasion. One could make a compelling case that the American’s need for speed contributed to the ultimate failure of the occupation.
In other words, if they had killed a great deal more Iraqis initially the insurgence would never have been able to get a stranglehold on the country. Personally, I think the Americans erred in not establishing the rule of law and order brutally and immediately - as well as securing the borders and planning wide scale sweeping raids for home weapons. For example, if they had started a policy of shooting looters on sight, the lawlessness would have ended a great deal sooner – instead, Iraqis developed a kind of contempt for American tolerance and have exploited it ever since….
Of course, footage of American soldiers shooting looters on sight would have played out endlessly on CNN and Americans have this need to be loved rather than feared, though I do think fear works a little better as a deterrent overall than love, but hey, that’s me.
In other words, if they had killed a great deal more Iraqis initially the insurgence would never have been able to get a stranglehold on the country.
I absolutely agree. Because it's the language the Arab world comprehends.
The same could be said about the Lebanon War II: Israel should have sent in 10 brigades much sooner, and simply killed everyone south of the Litani River. Hezbollah would have understood that message.
And imagine how that would have played on CNN.
Post a Comment