There's an interesting comment in Wretchard's "Knife Thower at Carnival," about (who else?) Kofi Annan, the UN observers, Hezbollah, and Israel. Wretchard takes an interesting approach by investigating the truth claims of the UN through several of its own releases, though Canadian Maj.-Gen. Lewis Mackenzie has also made some extremely interesting revelations elsewhere - according to The Ottawa Citizen, the Canadian observer who has killed had this to say in an email last week:
"...The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."
Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.
"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said."
That isn't "fog of war." That's Hezbollah using the UN as cover, the UN deliberately going along with it by not pulling their observers out, and then Kofi lying about it later when the predictable/ intended result occurs. Hey, why should this incident be any different from all of the others he's been associated with?
This story in Wretchard's comments was also very enlightening - as a fine illustration of what "The Fog of War" really means, and the realities of war:
"There's an interesting paper by an MIT student [JK: PDF format] analyzing an incident in 1994 when two U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopters were shot down by two U.S. Air Force F-15s in the no-fly-zone over northern Iraq.
It's worth reading to see how complex things can be. Goody books. Radar icon symbology. Long-term exceptions which were assumed to have become the rule -- except to those who never heard of the exception. Two things stood out. First, the Army and the Air Force were on different comm systems that were simply interfaced in some way; second, even with the same nominal procedures, it was possible to be on different "mental models". An accumulation of these things led to two Blackhawks being destroyed by the pride of the US Air Force. And this was between two branches of the same military."
In warfare, this sort of thing is more or less inevitable. Ask the US Special Forces who had JDAMs dropped on their heads in Afghanistan. You step into conflict situations expecting it, at least if you have any understanding of the subject at all.
None of this will matter to Kofi Annan, who bears direct and personal responsibility for the Rwandan genocide - and who has proven in key situations that his word is worthless and his respect for the truth zero. Posting this isn't about benefitting him or the UN; he and his institution sank far too low for that, far too long ago. You, on the other hand, may find it interesting.
I agree with your analysis, Joe, and although I would like to see Kofi Annan turn around and censure Hizbollah for exposing UN troops (the vast majority of whom are good people, trying their hardest to do good in a terrible situation) to danger in this way.
But I can't see it happening.
I would take issue with one point of your post though, where I think you perhaps allowed your need to criticise Annan run away with your critical judgement.
Annan was not responsible for the Rwandan genocide.
The responsibility for that lies solely with those who perpetrated this horrific crime - the people who did the killing and the people who ordered that killing.
The UN could have done more to prevent it - and Annan certainly bears some responsibility for the UN's failure. But, equally, to my mind, do most of the major world leaders of the time, who wilfully buried their heads in the sand.
Kofi Annan personally ordered the general on the scene - Canadian Romeo Dallaire - not to act to stop what eas happening around him, then denied his requests for further aid, and proceded to pretend that all was well while several hundred thousand people died.
He did not commit genocide. But he was certainly an accessory to it.
Israel has what it takes to lay any and all of her enemies to waste. It’s just a question of escalation and political will.
Israel could end this current conflict by tonight if they wanted to, but they’d face international condemnation for reducing Lebanon- and Hezbollah- to glowing green shards of glass.
Israel could end this current conflict by tonight if they wanted to, but they’d face international condemnation for reducing Lebanon- and Hezbollah- to glowing green shards of glass.
Do you really, really think this would "end" the current conflict?
This is genocidal fantasy. Little Green Winds of Change, indeed.
check freeSyria on wordpress for take on "Nasralla is getting screwed by Iran" and "Thank you Iran for Nothing"
PEACE To Lebanon
Note,
fares gets around. And he is one of the sane ones. Even though I don't agree with all his points.
He has even commented on my pip squeak blog.
So here is http://freesyria.w*rdpress.com/ a link to his home page
Aside:
Joe you ought to get him to do a piece for you. He deserves wider exposure. He currently resides in Boston.
Another good look into the Syrian scene (which is under covered IMO) is Amarji - A Heretic's Blog
http://amarji.bl*gspot.com/
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008853.php
Moral Equivalence much?