Abbas, for the first time in five days of fierce fighting, ordered his elite presidential guard to strike back. But his forces were crumbling fast under the onslaught by the better-armed and better-disciplined Islamic fighters.
The the presidential guard is "elite" but it crumbled fast when attacked by "better-armed and better-disciplined Islamic fighters."
So just how was the presidential guard "elite"?
For some reason, Western media seem compelled to label Arab troops "elite." Not all of them, of course, but it's an adjective that falls off their keyboards and broadcasts so easily it's become habitual. Remember the "elite Republican Guard" of Saddam's regime that was going to fight ordinary American troops (whom the media never characterize as elite) to a standstill?
Back when I blogged on Blogger, I wrote about this media habit. Unfortunately, all those posts disappeared when Blogger got bought by Google (I had already backed them up on my hard drive, though). I posted in July 2002 an essay, "Why 'Elite Iraqi forces' is an oxymoron:"
Every American unit is elite compared to any Iraqi unit.
Iraqi soldiers may be individually brave or devoted to their cause (I doubt the latter), but large-unit operations are difficult and take practice, practice, practice, which the Iraqi army has not done since the Gulf War and I guarantee has never done in a force-on-force training exercise remotely resembling what the US Army does all the time at the National Training Center in California. This lack of training and capability was fatal in the Gulf War, fighting the US Army, Air Force and Navy/Marines, which are superbly equipped and have been practicing fully integrated, combined-arms, joint-service operations for decades.
I guarantee that iron rigidity, not flexibility, marks Iraqi military operations. In totalitarian states it always does. The senior commanders of the Iraqi military did not rise to high rank because of their military acumen or autonomous creativity. They are there because they are safe for Saddam to have them there.
And that is also exactly the basis on which Mahmud Abbas vetted the members of his "elite" presidential guard: they were politically reliable, not militarily capable. This is pretty much the case across the Arab world and has a lot to do with "Why Arabs Lose Wars" when fighting Western armies in modern times. (They sure didn't lose them when Mohammed's successors conquered North Africa, Spain and large areas of southern and easter Europe.) Anyway, Brian Briggs wrote satirically in 2003,
So nix with the "elite" stuff, ja?Pressure from the international community has forced the United Nations to convene a special committee to review standards for calling organizations "elite." The call for a standard was prompted after the elite Iraqi Republican Guard was seen performing tasks in a not so elite manner.
That all being said, the new puissance of Hamas in Gaza is sure to spill over the the West Bank. Hamas was jihadist when Osama bin Laden was still a beer-swilling, club hopping rake enjoying the rich boy's high life in the corrupt West. Hamas is a client of Iranian mullahs and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Hamas' new resurgence is surely worrying Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, all of which much fear a "Shia crescent" arcing from Iran through Shia-majority Iraq, thence through Syria and Lebanon into Gaza and the West Bank. I am not predicting, but would not be surprised to see Egypt move into Gaza and Jordan into the West Bank to shut out the closure of the crescent's creation. More on this later, I hope.
Update: Consider this perspective, via email, from Rabbi Daniel Jackson, who lives in the Galilee region of Israel and teaches several classes in Jerusalem at Touro College in Israel.I take the Derech Allon to and from Jerusalem weekly during my commute. This is a beautiful road, rarely travelled, that strongly resembles the North American West but instead of Native Americans, it is dotted with Bedouin sheppards, their settlements, their flocks, and their children. It is a seriously controlled zone, ranging from 10 to more than 20 kilometers wide between the eastern high ridge of the West Bank to the Jordan River. The area is patrolled by heavy IDF presense with check points at all critical junctures. Moreover, the road runs generally about 500 to 800 meters above sea level while the Jordan runs from -200 meters at the south side of the Sea of Galilee to about -600 meters at the Dead Sea.
I can assure you that the Jordanians will NOT be able to move into the West Bank without Israel's permission. Moreover, Israel will NOT cede this strip to the PA EVER.
I responded to Daniel, "As for Egypt or Jordan moving against Hamas, you are right, it cannot happen without Israel's (covert) consent. I thought of that as I was typing the post, and should have added it - but it was late here and I was tired and wanted to go to bed. This just proves George C. Marshall's dictum that no one ever makes a good decision after 4 p.m."
There are so many linguistic tics in the news media, that it drives me bonkers. There are never just 'civilians'; it's always 'innocent civilians'. (Just once I'd like to here about an innocent soldier.) It's never just 'violence'; it's always part of a 'cycle of violence'. (From my experience with aggressors, these 'cycles' are generally broken by violence.) It's never just 'fighting', its always 'heavy fighting'. And I had to have a chuckle over an agreement that the US signed with another country that was described as 'unilateral', and the Nigerians which were described as 'African Americans'. Verbal tics. There are more complex ones as well, such as the fact that liberal pundits are generally presented only with the name of the institution that they work for, where as there conservative counterparts always work of "X, a conservative think tank". I'm sure dozens of others will occur to people with a little thought. It is getting so that there are certain words which are never heard except in combination with other words.
One of the things that bothers me about it is that it is just poor and unprofessional writing. Another thing that bothers me about it is that the reflexive usage of phrases like that is a sure sign that not much thought actual went into the writing. The story was written before the evidence was compiled. And that is the last problem with it. They may be perfectly good phrases and adjectives, but dropped unreflectively into the language it becomes a sort of propaganda. News speak is verging on newspeak.
I think the problem with discussing why "Why Arabs Lose Wars" when fighting Western armies in modern times is that armies win battles, but peoples, nations or at a stretch states win wars, and by and large the Arabs are winning, not losing.
They have expelled the Europeans, they have not lost any territory to America, and have lost only a little to Israel, and they won most of that back and the long war is still going, with the Arabs holding the initiative.
The Western peoples are not beating the Arabs at all. At most they are counting coup a little. These useless "victories" may make the "winners" complacent, but they do not make them safer.
Show me the fertile sons and daughters of old Europe taking swathes of land off the Arabs and settling it securely, and then we can talk about winning. Of course, this is a joke, it will never happen.
As for "elite" forces - I agree the term is useless.
I think in this case it's pretty clear that elite means the best within the pool from which they are drawn. That shouldn't be expected to mean that Bolivia's A (or elite team) is going to deaft Brazil's third stringers on the soccer field. Another illustration: some conservatives were once fond of denouncing certain liberals as "east coast elite" or "media elite," by which I do not believe they, the denouncers, were implying they, the elite, were to be held in high regard or were believed to be particularly good at what they sought to practice.
Sometimes, too, elite means priviliged, selected few, lucky ones, the chosen...and isn't necessarily indicative of merit.
I think your arrow is falling short here.
"Hamas' new resurgence is surely worrying Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, all of which much fear a "Shia crescent" arcing from Iran through Shia-majority Iraq, thence through Syria and Lebanon into Gaza and the West Bank. I am not predicting, but would not be surprised to see Egypt move into Gaza and Jordan into the West Bank to shut out the closure of the crescent's creation. More on this later, I hope."
More accurately, it will worry them because Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, a Sunni (not shia) movement that has significant opposition presense in all of the above mentioned countries (except Saudi). Iran's support for Hamas is tactical and political, not religious, they provide much more support to Hizbullah in Lebanon.
They may provide training and arms, but Hamas is an organization with a significant charitable wing and that has recieved funding from a variety of private sources (likely, largely Sunni) across the middle east
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=265
to characterize Hamas as a Syrian or Iranian client is a simplification, it is an alliance of convinience for now. Syria for instance has a strong domestic opposition from the Muslim brotherhood.
Going waaaaaay off topic, Is anyone at WOC still doing weekly round up of the world events?
Its also inaccurate to say that Hamas predates Osama bin Laden, while it is unclear what exactly he did during the anti-soviet war in Afghanistan (he likes to embellish his, by most accounts rather minor role) Hamas was founded in 1988, which technically makes OBL and older figure.
there are also important differences in ideology between them, particualarly since Hamas opperates only against Israel, and is not interested in OBL's global jihad.
Groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad however, are more similar to OBL's philosophy.
The reason Hamas operates against Israel is because of its proximity. If the United States was its neighbor, it would surely be launching terrorist attacks against it.
While some of the main players in Egyptian governments may be put off by a Hamas resurgence, its population most assuredly is not. That said, I can't foresee any action by Hamas that would provoke Egypt, Jordan or SA to move into the West Bank or Gaza.
It's no different with the reporting of gun crime. It makes me nuts! Notice how it's always an "Military style assault rifle", "High powered rifle" or "Large caliber handgun"? The truth is usually none of the above. It's just whatever they can think of to trick it up for the uninformed.
I'm with David Blue. Additionally, elite american troops are usually referred to by their more 'professional' names: Rangers, Seals, etc.
Either way, reporters try to make a story exciting by adding colorful adjectives. When they are unfamiliar with a story, sometimes reporters (or their editors) ad-lib to make a story more exciting, such as with gun descriptions.
I agree, this is a problem, but I think it has more to do with the pressure to sell enticing news rather than pollitical bias.
I think it was elite, as in drawn from the elite of the Fatah kleptocracy—nothing to do with training or capabilities. This cadre would, however, have more to lose than an ordinary foot soldier.
errr... I meant to say, I agree with mark.
Yarhg! Thanks, Mohammed, for setting me straight on the Iranian patronage of Hamas. I did know that Hamas was a child of the Brotherhood. I burbled Hamas and Hezbollah in my mind when writing this post - more evidence that late-night writing should be avoided. Iran's tactical, material and religious spport of Hezbollah is the chief worrier to the Sunni states; even so, this new and so-far-successful power play by Hamas can't be reassuring to them.
I lost the link, but Hamas has already captured the captain of Abbass's 'elite' personal bodyguard.
#11 from alchemist:
"errr... I meant to say, I agree with mark."
Whew, I was worried for a while there!
Actually, mark in post #3 was talking a deal of sense...
While I've changed my mind. Historically, elite troops have mattered, and these guys aren't it, so Donald Sensing has the right of it on his main point. (Though I would still contest the idea of Arabs as military losers, when the maps and their successful genocide in Africa shows they are winners.)
Ack, I find myself defending journalists here...
I believe the usage of elite here is correct. In fact I think they are using it in the correct military historical usage where elite is distinguished by 3 characteristics 1) full time (professionals) 2) well equipped and 3) absolutely loyal to the ruling government. The term is used to differentiate from conscripts, militias, mercenaries, feudal levies and other less reliable troops. The usage you normally find in descriptions of historical battles and the like.
In this instance, it helps us separate the professional Fatah fighters from the more normal militia rabble.
The word would be pointless when used with American or other Western style militaries which are really nothing but elite troops.
This is a different usage from elite as in relatively best amongst, or elite as in comparatively best across the spectrum.
Probably just the journalists following some style sheet entry made long ago, back when journalists were actually educated before they were allowed to write anything.
Okay, now to get the foul taste out of my mouth...
My pet peeve is the stories discussing 'heavy fighting' and 'ferocious street to street gun battles' where '2 or 3 people have died already', or some other ludicrously low number.
Which I think really does matter, because it makes it impossible to tell what's actually going on.
For example, did Hamas really destroy the Fatah forces in Gaza? Or did Fatah just retreat to the West Bank? With 'heavy fighting' covering everything from a few dozen idiots emptying magazines mostly into thin air all the way to the Battle of the Somme, we have no idea.
#15 from Treefrog: "Ack, I find myself defending journalists here..."
Ack, I'm getting whiplash in this thread from people making such good points for their side.
Also, the site won't accept (it blacklists) what I want to say about "elites" building something on top of the base you point to. Maybe "Amazon" was the bad word?
-
#15 from Treefrog: "My pet peeve is the stories discussing 'heavy fighting' and 'ferocious street to street gun battles' where '2 or 3 people have died already', or some other ludicrously low number."
:P Medium to light fighting, with occasional rocket showers, and a cool change coming in the evening?
Weather reporting is so much more precise than war reporting.
-
#15 from Treefrog: "Which I think really does matter, because it makes it impossible to tell what's actually going on."
#15 from Treefrog: "For example, did Hamas really destroy the Fatah forces in Gaza? Or did Fatah just retreat to the West Bank? With 'heavy fighting' covering everything from a few dozen idiots emptying magazines mostly into thin air all the way to the Battle of the Somme, we have no idea."
Maybe the people who sent in the reports also have no idea (lacking the subject knowledge to form a personal opinion) and just told us whatever terrorists told them to say.
We always complain about the writers. It is the editors who are at fault.
I recall the post by Rogio or some other blogger who quoted a foreign journalist whis life had been saved by the troops he was embedded with. The joutnalist was proud of the troops. He also said that the editors would edit out any good things he said.
How many articles are primped up by editors including the extra wording.
Davbid Blue:
I am surpised that there is no video or pictures of the Fatah thugs executed by Hamas at the Fatah headquarters. I am not saying it did not happen. We have to remember that just about everything which comes out of the Palestinans mouths contains only an element of truth and much misdirection.
davod, I think that you, Treefrog and I for starters are agreed that it is hard to know what is going on.
On a side note, when you wrote: "The senior commanders of the Iraqi military did not rise to high rank because of their military acumen or autonomous creativity." How is this any different from shining examples of incompetence such as Pace and Petraeus? A retired Lt Col. friend of mine one told me, in a moment of candor, that it's hard to achieve the rank full Colonel, let alone general, without being a consummate ass-kisser. There may have been a taste of sour grapes in his mouth when he spoke these words. He went on to say that the strength of the US military has always resided in its mid-level officers. I often think about what he said when I hear that the armed services are having trouble retaining junior and mid-level officers. I worry about the future of the US military. Well, I suppose this too shall pass. I doubt if Pace and Petraeus are any worse than the generals who ran the northern Army during the Civil War – until Lincoln finally found Grant…
I'm sorry, but everything I have read about Petraeus makes him seem extremely competent. What do you know that says otherwise, Beowulf?
It's pretty well known that even top-notch militaries promote worthless people to high positions during peacetime. There's no real mechanism from weeding out the effective and the warriors without them being involved in actual fighting. However, my understanding is that Petraeus has been put in charge because he's performed well in his assigned tasks up until now. In fact I understand he was in charge of Mosul and thanks to Michael Yon we know how radically the situation there changed under his watch. If he's so incompetent, what was that, blind luck?
I'm willing to believe some significant percentage of officers in Western militaries above the rank of Colonel are useless, but Petraeus just doesn't seem like one of them.
The word is not being used wrongly, just differently.
"Elite", when applied to an Arab or Iranian force, generally refers to the level of political patronage, funding, and connection the unit has, rather than its actual fighting ability.
Same with, for example, a member of the "literary Elite" or "Hollywood Elite": it doesn't indicate a better trained, more motivated, more capable author, director, or whatever, only one with the right circle of friends.
It may be that to a typical Media member, who is more experienced with the "inner circle connected" meaning of Elite, the typical western military meaning of "exceptional skill" simply isn't assumed.
Ben