title: why zbigniew brzezinski is an asshole, but why his threats are more than the mere idle ejaculations of an embittered marginalized has been academic twit.
not that he is not an embittered marginalized has been academic twit, and a thoroughly disagreeable little man. but, his threats are real, and they have substance. please read about his remarks at atlasshrugs, the link here: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/brezinski-calls-for-obama-to-shoot-down-israeli-jets-a-liberty-in-reverse.html .
i wrote the following and submitted it as a comment to pamela’s article because while everybody realizes what a butt hole brzezinski is in delivering this last very substantial betrayal of israel, not everybody understands that if the united states wants to interfere with the conduct of an israeli air assault upon iran’s nuclear facilities it can with relative ease.
but, you say, the israelis are such marvelous flyers.
yes, they are.
so, that means the united states could not stop an attack, say you.
no, it doesn’t.
these notions are given clear voice in two other comments from atlas readers, and typify the almost mystical faith and admiration extended one’s heroes:
secondly israeli aircraft have far superior electronics installed in them as they buy them from the u.s. gutted and install their own stuff. the u.s. would face the embarrassing situation of having their lunch handed to them by israeli pilots. the u.s. is dangerously close to be judged by g_d and relegated to historical oblivion if they aren't already being judged by god.
trevor macdonald & brian richard allen:
your faith in the flying abilities of both israeli and anzac pilots is admirable, if not just a little misplaced. and, any assertion on your part that american pilots are not up to aerial combat with either group of pilots seems, ... , just mistaken.
but, it is a moot discussion.
american fighter pilots do not have to be better than israeli fighter/fighter bomber pilots, or any kiwi's on loan to israel, in order to interdict, interrupt and halt an israeli air attack on iran. they only have to be better pilots on the attack than israeli pilots are on the defense, when israelis fly awacs and fuel tankers, and i think them up to the job. (were they to accept it, and i am not sure that they would, or that the joint chiefs or heads of service would order the attacks. we shall see.)
actually, the american task is quite simple.
they need look only to the operational limits of the israel strike craft to figure out the rough parameters in which the fuel tankers will have to be in loiter to fuel the strike craft before they launch the attack into iranian air space. (this is no doubt something iranian planners are also aware of, ... , and israeli planners, too, ... , quite acutely, as a matter of fact.)
this means that the fuel tankers have to be escorted and defended the entire way to station, and probably fueled en route as well, which means those fuel tankers have to be escorted and defended as well.
the israelis defending the fuel tankers cannot leave them. period. if they are subject to attack and destroyed, then what are the israelis going to fly home on, when they come back for en route fueling on the way home.
the attack planes, therefore, have to fuel en route to the attack by the tankers on station.
in air fueling is a delicate thing, and it involves flying a tanker like a bat out of hell, and slowing a jet fighter down to such an extent that it is extremely hard to fly. to say that a tanker and a fighter are not extremely vulnerable to attack at this juncture is plain foolhardy.
these kinds of operations require absolute air superiority.
trevor, brian, ... , whether you assessment of the individual flying skills of israeli and anzac pilots as opposed to their clodhopper opponents the american pilots is right or wrong, ..., (i am not saying the israelis would not acquit themselves quite ably, quite the opposite, any direct engagement between the two finest air forces in the world (sorry brian) in aerial combat would involve tremendous attrition, ... , but, in this situation such a consideration is not relevant, and, ultimately ... ) ... , it makes no difference. the americans do not have to engage israeli pilots in head to head aerial combat where the "fight is fair," they have only to engage israeli operational profiles in places where the fight is demonstrably most favorable to the american forces, ... , giving them the tactical and strategic advantage, and the greater chance to inflict damage, and to avoid being hurt in return. and that is at the place where israel planes have to fuel from tankers, where the jets have to slow in order to fuel, and where the israeli jets have to gather and fly at very low speeds and altitudes in order to stay close to the tankers to fuel, and fly slow enough to stay proximate to the fuel tankers to defend against american attack.
the fighters are tied to the umbilicus of the tankers, and cannot stray too far from them, without running out of fuel. the speed of the tankers determines the advance of the entire attack.
it needs to be pointed out, that in these operations more than one fighter plane at a time has to slow in order to "pull into line at the pump," in order to be fueled. these planes to, are amazingly vulnerable to attack at this point. it cannot be otherwise. a plane simply doesn't slow from 800 or 900 miles an hour, or a 1,000 miles an hour down to 175 mph or so, in order to pull up behind a fuel tanker. the descent to the operational altitude of the tanker, the sloughing off of air speed in order to match air speeds with the tanker, and finding the right tanker in the right sky and in being in and maintaining ones proper spacing in the order of the proper line forming up behind the tanker, … , well, it takes skill and attentiveness on the part of the pilot.
all of these tasks, and all of the attention taken away from the pilot’s role as a fighter attack pilot, makes the pilot, … , again, a constant theme here, … , tremendously exposed to attack, the sort of attack one never even sees coming. (have i mentioned awacs here, yet? the israelis would greatly benefit from several awacs planes to better monitor the aerial battlefields. but, here is the problem.-- you cannot have awacs without utter & absolute air superiority. this, the israelis simply cannot achieve. no how, no way. the awacs are very vulnerable to destruction the more proximate they are to the battlefield, and without them, the individual israeli pilots are the more vulnerable to attack. it is a very vicious circle.)
finally, a jet fighter in order to be refueled has to fly itself right into union with a flying gas pump nozzle, weighing several hundred pounds, perhaps, flying on a small set of wings, set in array behind the tanker. it is a delicate thing, and requires a fight pilot fly his jet, and his face, right into the nozzle where it arrests in his plane, literally feet from the pilot's face.
it requires some concentration, and some skills. it does not brook any distraction, and it certainly would not go well were the tanker taking evasive maneuvers to avoid attack.
were i am american commander planning such an attack, and you may very well assume that one is somewhere, i sure as hell would not attack the israeli fighters where they were most formidable, in the open skies in battle array and flying at high speeds with lots of sky to fight in.
i would chose the spot where the israelis were most vulnerable, where they were flying slowly, and where they were flying in very confined air space, and where they were under very considerable constraints to leave such confined air space in order to defend.
because, that is the final truth in this matter.
the israelis cannot defend themselves in fruitless pursuit of american planes. to deviate from the path of attack to defend, in essence means to abandon the mission. 3,000 miles round trip, fighting you way in and fighting your way out, and protecting your gas stations along the way, is one daunting task.
a very difficult task for the israelis. attacking the israeli supply train, along an absolutely unprotected and very exposed flank, however, is a relatively easy task, ... , one which the americans are easily up to, and with almost no need to engage in any sort of combat with israeli strike air craft. the fact is, the israelis cannot afford to press the attack in defense of their operations. fuel. doncha know.
any israeli commander has to consider this problem/question.--
what if one or two or three fuel tankers are destroyed, or have to turn back to israel to avoid attack, on the way to the first refueling point on the flight back home? what in g_d's name do i do then?
to have no answer to this, to have no defense to this possibility (and, there is no answer, and there is no defense) is acknowledge the destruction of a goodly portion of the israeli air force.
and that, trevor and brian, in the name of that tune, in my pitifully poor estimation.
i wish i were wrong. i don't think i am.
john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa
p.s. and, i believe both of you are very mistaken in your estimation of the flying skills and battle elan of the american aircraft israel would face. and, if america were to place aircraft carriers into iraqi and/or saudi waters, there is just no way the fleet airplanes off an aircraft carrier are going to let any fighter craft, potentially hostile, into attack range of that carrier, no matter whose air space has to be entered in order to adequately defend the carrier.
p.s.s. and, i haven't even gotten into the issues of israeli command and control, which would have to be exercised by some awacs plane, or another. such a plane would also have to be defended by high and local cover, and would present considerable issues for israel to defend from american aggression, whether out of iraq, or from carrier base. no way israeli planes are going to enter iran, without a final directive from an in theatre commander to do so. just no way.
need it be said, how vulnerable such a plane would be to attack, and how disruptive to any israeli operation were such plane shot down, or damaged, or chased from the skies?
In Kabul, some members of McChrystal’s staff said they don’t understand why Obama called Afghanistan a “war of necessity” but still hasn’t given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.
Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he’d stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.
“Yes, he’ll be a good soldier, but he will only go so far,” a senior official in Kabul said. “He’ll hold his ground. He’s not going to bend to political pressure.”