|
If you would pay attention to the news you would know that
Major Hess von Krudener was the Canadian UN observer who died in
bombing.
Read carefully and note that both von Krudener and
MacKenzie are saying the same thing. The Hezbollah are very close, the
Israelis are bombing very close. Tactics by the Israelis dictate that they
have to get very close as well.
Why the hell didn't the UN pull their observers when war
broke out?? Methinks that Anan doth protest too much.
arthur From: Lawrence de Bivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:48 AM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW: Kofi Annan's hasty rush to judgment Hmmm! Interesting
choice of words! “[not] deliberate” but a “tactical necessity.”
The efforts to justify the killing by the Israelis seem tortured at
best and disingenuous at worst. Who is
‘Major Hess von Krudener’. Observer for whom? Cheers, Lawry From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Cordell, Arthur:
ECOM Also I send along this
from an email sent to me by a colleague, To me, this
ties in with an e-mail that Major Hess von Krudener, our observer, sent in an
e-mail, which is apparently posted on CTV's website (I saw this on CNN last
night). He writes of the shellling of the post while it is going on, and says
that he doesn't believe this is deliberte but probably a "tactical necessity."
This suggestss to me that as an experienced military officer and a UN observer
in a variety of assignments he is probably speaking of necessity caused by
a local situation, e.g., clustering of Hezbollah guerrillas very near to, or
perhaps on the grounds of the post above the bunker, or its use (since it is on
the high ground) as an observation post by Hezbollah — something like this.
This is a personal oopinion, but I assume that "tactical necessity" has a very
specific meaning when ujsed by a military officer......... arthur From: Lawrence
de Bivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What MacKenzie omits
from his account are the several warnings from the UN post to Israel military
commanders that Israeli bombs were falling close by the clearly marked UN
post. This reminds me a lot
of the attack by Israel on the USS Liberty. The attack took place over four
hours, against a ship flying the US flag, on a clear
day. Several sources have
told me that the US gov’t concluded that the attack was designed to foil the
US’s ability to monitor Israeli and Egyptian actions leading up to and through
the 1967 war, when, as we now know, Israel attacked Egypt, Syria and
Jordan. Israel asserted that they had been attacked first, and didn’t want
anyone to controvert them. We can only wonder why
Israel attacked the UN observation post. The prominence of the UN markings
and flag on the post and its several warnings to the Israel military suggest
that it could not have been accidental. So why did Israel attack
them? As for Kofi Annan’s
reaction, it would have been surprised if it had not been one of anger, and if
he had not called for an investigation. Perhaps MacKenzie feels that
because it was an Israeli attack that it should be beyond questioning and beyond
anger. Arthur, I must assume
that you concur with MacKenzie’s article. Can you respond to these
questions? Cheers, Lawry From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Cordell, Arthur:
ECOM Comment Kofi Annan's
hasty rush to judgment LEWIS MacKENZIE
27 July
2006 A15 English On hearing the
news that a United Nations observation
post manned by four unarmed peacekeepers at the nexus of the Israeli, Lebanese
and Syrian borders was struck by an Israeli bomb, an uncharacteristically
forceful Kofi Annan bolted out of a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to proclaim his shock
at the “apparently deliberate targeting” by Israel Defence Forces of the post.
The UN Secretary-General went on to say the UN would conduct a full
investigation. A curious statement, considering his comment that the IDF
intentionally targeted the observers. Case closed, n'est-ce pas? Not quite.
The
blast on Tuesday claimed the lives of Major Paeta Derek Hess-von Kruedener, a
Canadian serving with the UN Truce Supervision Organization mission in southern
Lebanon, and three other UN soldiers. On July 18, Major Hess-von Kruedener had
sent a number of his colleagues, including regimental officers such as myself,
an e-mail describing what the situation was like at his location since the
Israeli attacks began against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
“Based on the intensity and
volatility of this current situation and the unpredictability of both sides
(Hezbollah and Israel), and given the operational tempo of the Hezbollah and the
IDF, we are not safe to venture out to conduct our normal patrol activities. We
have now switched to Observation Post Duties and are observing any and all
violations as they occur.” UNTSO was established in 1948 and is
the UN's oldest mission. Canada has participated since its inception, and one of
its current roles has been to monitor the ceasefire in the Golan Heights after
the 1967 Six-Day War. When there had been a semblance of peace, UN monitoring
made considerable sense, so minor violations could be dealt with quickly. But to
leave the observers in place with a war under way stretches the credibility of
the UN's operational judgment close to the breaking point.
The
penultimate paragraph of Major Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail is prophetic, to say
the least: “The closest artillery has landed within two metres of our position
and the closest 1,000-pound aerial bomb has landed 100 metres from our patrol
base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to
tactical necessity.” This is what we call “veiled speech”
in military jargon. It means hiding the truth in lingo that outsiders would not
necessarily understand. What he is saying translates roughly as: “We have
Hezbollah fighters all over our position engaging the IDF and using us as
shields. They will probably stay, hoping that the IDF won't target them for fear
of hitting us.” Surprising? Not really.
I
have served in another mission where one side constantly set up its weapon
systems, including mortars, in and around hospitals, medical clinics, mosques
and, yes, UN positions, knowing full well that, when it engaged its enemies and
received return fire, it would make for compelling TV as the networks covered
the civilian carnage. (When they took up positions around my soldiers, I advised
their leaders that I would authorize my soldiers to kill them within the hour if
they didn't withdraw. Fortunately, as I was not an unarmed observer, I was in a
position to do that.) In many cases, the weapon systems were moved immediately
after firing, and their positions around civilians were abandoned before
innocents paid the price for their despicable techniques. You have to admit this
technique helps to win the PR war, which often is as important as the fighting
one. Certainly, the Secretary-General is
familiar with this technique, having been the UN undersecretary of peacekeeping
in the horrific 1990s, when the UN was floundering in the Balkans, Somalia and
Rwanda. For that reason alone — and despite
his soft-pedalling yesterday that the Israeli Prime Minister “definitely
believes [the bombing was] a mistake” — Mr. Annan should not have been so quick
to pass judgment on an event that quite likely was not as it seemed in the hours
following the tragedy. Retired major-general Lewis
MacKenzie was the first commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in
Sarajevo. |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
